How Ethnic Identity Mediates Acculturation Stress Depending Essay Example

culture of the host society (Sodowsky, Kwan, & Pannu, 1995; as cited in Farver, Narang, & Bhadha, 2002). Therefore, this study examines the issues of ethnic identity and self-identification in adult migrants within a family structure based on different theoretical models relevant to adapting to new cultures, as the family is the foundation of society (Nesdale, Rooney, & Smith, 1997). Cultural acquisition theories developed and evolved in the 1990s when international migration became a key issue in international politics (Castle, 2002). Migration, development, and international relations are closely connected, as migration is a transformative factor for both sending and receiving countries for various types of migrants (Castle, 2002). Thus, this study primarily focuses on migration culture acquisition theories developed in the 1990s rather than examining current perspectives found in more recent literature, which have evolved from the original theories (Castle, 2002).

The research studies on the relationship between migrant ethnic identification and the acculturation process have produced mixed or contradictory findings. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify and evaluate these concepts with accurate measurements and theoretical assumptions (Nesdale et al. , 1997). The key theoretical concepts include ethnic identity, acculturation, biculturism, and marginalisation. Phinney (1990; as cited in Farver, Narang & Bhadha) provides important insights into these concepts.

According to Farver et al. (2002), ethnic identity and acculturation were distinct but interconnected concepts. Ethnic identity refers to an individual's self-identification as a member of a specific group, their sense of belonging to that ethnic group, attitudes towards the group, and level of involvement in the group. On the other hand, acculturation was defined by Redfield, Linton, ;amp; Herskovits (1936; as cited in Birman, 1994) as the changes

that occur when different cultures come into continuous contact with each other.

In practice, acculturation tends to have a greater impact on one of the groups involved than on the other (Berry, 1990a; as cited in Berry, 1997). While it is a neutral term implying that change can happen in either or both groups, it often leads to more significant transformations for one group. Berry (1997) argued that all cultural groups and their members must determine how they will undergo acculturation within plural societies.

Berry (1997) introduced four strategies for acculturation: assimilation, separation, marginalization,and integration.

When individuals choose not to maintain their cultural identity and actively seek out interactions with other new cultures, this is known as the assimilation strategy (Berry, 1997). On the other hand, if individuals place importance on preserving their original culture and avoid interaction with others, this is known as separation (Berry, 1997). Integration is an option for those who are interested in maintaining their original culture while also actively engaging with other groups in daily interactions, thus participating in a larger social network (Berry, 1997). In cases where there is little interest or possibility of cultural maintenance and little interest in relationships with others due to exclusion or discrimination, the term marginalization is used (Berry, 1997). However, it is important to note that the acculturation categories model has faced criticism in terms of its methodology (Rudmin, 2003, 2009; as cited in Schwartz et al.).

According to Schwartz et al. (2010), all four of Berry's categories of acculturation were represented in the same manner in their study, using a two by two matrix. However, the specific cut off point between high and low acculturation was

arbitrary and varied across samples, making it difficult to compare studies. Rudmin (2003; as cited in Schwartz et al. 2010) also supported the idea that all four categories were valid and existed equally, suggesting that they might not all be present in a given sample or population, and that some categories might have multiple subtypes (Schwartz et al., 2010). Specifically, Berry (1997) defined "biculturism" as a form of acculturation where the individual is simultaneously involved in both cultures in integrative ways. This aspect appeared to consistently predict more positive outcomes compared to assimilation, separation, or marginalization.

Berry and his colleagues (Sam & Berry, 1995) found that bicultural individuals suffer less from acculturative stress, anxiety, and psychological problems compared to marginalized individuals, who experience higher levels of psychological distress including issues with self-identification and cultural alienation, impacting their self-esteem (Farver et al., 2002). However, Shiraev and Levy (2007) defined acculturative stress as a negative reaction marginalized individuals might feel in an unfamiliar cultural environment, suggesting that some level of psychological distress is expected during social and cultural change. Early definitions of acculturation focused on simultaneous exposure to two cultures leading to culture shock, seen as a pathological state instead of embracing being bicultural (Berry & Annis, 1974; Shiraev et al. 2007). The validity of marginalization as an acculturation approach was also questioned by Berry (1997) (Del Pilar & Udasco, 2004; as cited in Schwartz et al.).

According to Schawartz et al (2010), it is less likely for a person to develop a cultural sense of self without drawing from their heritage or the cultural contexts they are exposed to. Berry (2006b) suggests that the marginalization approach applies only

to a small group of migrants who reject both their heritage and the receiving cultures.

Numerous studies have shown that marginalized groups are often small or non-existent. Scales used to measure marginalization have generally been found to be unreliable and invalid compared to scales for other categories (Cuellar, Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995; Unger et al., 2002, as cited in Schwartz et al., 2010). Different theoretical frameworks present different perspectives on the impact of migrant ethnic identity on psychological distress: negative reactions versus positive reactions. It is important to note that acculturation phenomena arise from interactions between two or more cultures. Comparative research on acculturation is necessary in order to understand variations in psychological outcomes resulting from cultural differences among these groups (Berry, 1997). According to Berry's framework, the integration model of acculturation strategies is considered the most desirable and is synonymous with the biculturalism model (Berry, 1997). In a study conducted by Berry and colleagues that examined the acculturation strategies of various immigrant groups in North America, it was found that integration was associated with better psychological well-being. Farver et al. also found that individuals who were integrated or bicultural experienced lower levels of stress and anxiety related to acculturation, as well as fewer psychological problems. Conversely, individuals who were marginalized faced significant psychological distress.
The challenges encompassed struggles with self-identification, a sense of cultural alienation, and detrimental effects on their self-confidence.

A study conducted by Phinney, Cantu, and Kurtz (1997) revealed that self-esteem for non-Hispanic Whites was linked to their American identity but not for other ethnic groups. These contradictory findings raised two concerns in the acculturation literature. The first concern is that cultural practices might only

serve as a substitute for cultural adaptations. For instance, according to Portes and Rumbaut (2001), as cited in Schwartz et al. (2010), many Asian American young adults identified with their parents' countries of origin and maintained their values; however, they did not possess fluency in their native languages.

Many studies on biculturism in 2010 lacked a clear operational definition, causing interpretation challenges for research findings (Birman, 1994). In the United States, a study revealed that non-Hispanic Whites were more inclined to identify themselves as American compared to ethnic minority groups.

According to Devos & Banaji (2005; as cited in Schwartz et al., 2010), a significant number of White Americans do not see themselves as belonging to an ethnic group (Schildkraut, 2007; as cited in Schwartz et al., 2010). The challenges in defining acculturation differently stem from the various theoretical models of acculturation and their underlying assumptions (LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993). In their study, LaFromboise et al. (1993) categorized acculturation as one of the alternatives within biculturism models.

Biculturism, as defined in this theory, can be seen in two different models. The alternation model suggests that an individual in contact with two cultures can be competent in both cultures without losing the competencies of either culture. On the other hand, the fusion model refers to a blended cultural identity that combines aspects of both cultures.

However, Berry's integrating approach to biculturism differs from the bicultural model described by LaFromboise et al. (1993) and focuses more on the relationship between the two cultural groups. It assumes that one of the cultures is superior to the other within a single social structure (LaFromboise et al., 1993; as cited in Birman, 1994).

According

to a study by Benet-Martinez and colleagues in 1993, individuals who identified as "blended" bicultural reported higher self-esteem and lower psychological distress compared to a marginal population (Chen et al., 2008 as cited in Schwartz et al., 2010). This was attributed to the regular exposure to both cultural influences in their daily lives, which facilitated the activation of appropriate cultural schemas based on their environmental circumstances (Schwartz et al., 2010).

In contrast, Tadmor, Tetlock, and Peng (2009) suggest that the bicultural model views marginal individuals in a positive light. These individuals may have little interest in cultural maintenance or establishing relationships with others. However, there are positive aspects to being a marginal person. These include: (1) sharing their condition with others from the same original culture, (2) engaging in institutional practices that are shared by other marginal people, (3) experiencing no significant frustration from social expectations, and (4) still perceiving themselves as members of a group (LaFromboise et al. 1993). Sam and Berry (2006) note that studies on how migrants cope with intercultural contacts show discrepancies in how they are measured and operationalized. Because there is no standardized or widely accepted acculturation measure, it is necessary to create a clear and explicit formulation of an acculturation instrument for proper assessment (Sam et al.).

According to a study by Sam and Berry (2006), many empirical studies rely on self-report questionnaires to gather data. However, these questionnaires have limitations, such as social desirability bias. To obtain a more thorough validation, it is important to gather information from sources other than the respondents' reports. Therefore, it is crucial to consider the specific assumptions of each theory and not generalize the

findings across all situations. This was emphasized by LaFromboise et al. (1993).

The literature findings on migrants' acculturation processes within specific theoretical frameworks have been mixed. Some studies have found that individuals can be highly acculturated while still strongly identifying with their ethnic group (Farver, Narang, ;amp; Bhadha., 2002). These conflicting results stem from the changing and uncertain context of migration arrangements and acculturation processes due to globalization (Landolt ;amp; Da, 2005). In response, Shiraev ; Levy (2007) proposed a new approach to cross-cultural psychology in the twenty-first century, which takes into account the concept of globalization.

Globalization, according to Castle (2010), is the result of advancements in communication and transportation technologies that have facilitated the widespread movement of people, ideas, and cultural symbols across borders. This has resulted in significant transformations in international migration and the integration of migrants. Castle contends that the rise of multiculturalism is indicative of these changes, but it is not the only outcome. New forms of identity and belonging that extend beyond multiculturalism have emerged. While there is limited empirical evidence on the impacts of globalization, it is possible that cosmopolitan groups such as global business and professional elites feel a sense of belonging everywhere.

Most members of transnational communities typically have contradictory and fluctuating identities (Castle, 2002). This study focused on how individuals respond to situations where they transition between their original culture and another culture that differs from it in terms of acculturation (Adler ; Gielen, 1994). There is no widely accepted single theory among social scientists regarding the emergence and perpetuation of international migration patterns in the globalized world (Van Hear, 2010). This suggests that the contemporary context of

migration is constantly changing, leading to increased uncertainty in migration arrangements (Landolt and Da, 2005). While the topic of cultural contact and individual change has garnered attention in cross-cultural psychology, there is a lack of theoretical coherence and definitional problems with key constructs in the field. Additionally, many studies are limited by utilizing a single sample, which restricts the external validity of empirical cross-cultural research (Ward and Kenney, 1994).

Since acculturation is a gradual process that leads to changes in both culture and individuals, it would be best to compare two data sets over time using the same individuals. Unfortunately, this is not usually feasible in acculturation research settings (Sam et al., 2006). Instead, a popular alternative is cross-sectional research, where a time-related variable like length of residence or generational status can be used to apply acculturation theories more broadly (Sam et al.).

, 2006). It is important for researchers in migrating studies to recognize that the selective nature of the sample occurs in all migrating research.