acculturation
Terms
undefined, object
copy deck
- redfield et al 1936
- acculturation is the cultural change which takes place as a result of constant ist hand contact between 2 culturally distinct groups
- fogler 1994
- criticised bipolar models for contraining the examination of the complex patter of changes which take place during acculturation
- bourhis et al 1997
- suggested that viatlity of the group effected the ap - with high vitality and little perception of discrim leading to inte and low vitality and ig networks leading to assim
- anwar 1998
- muslims face raising their kids incountry with conflicting values of equal and indi vs collectivist
- ghuman 2000
- south asians in oz ap dep on what they are talking about in terms of relig, values and gender equal and least accul by girls and manual workers - could be to do with the present political situation
- prontkanski et al 2000
- the ap of immi groups dep on perceived simi and permeability of the maj group - prob with antecendent studies is not many and purely corr. mayb post hoc justi for actions as opposed to AP
- Neto 2002
- ap dep on ig interactions and perception of OG
- florack et al 2003
- the ap of the og can be effected by the perceived threat by the immi
- kosic et al 2004
- ap dep on the reference group - the 1st group encountered
- zagefka et al 2007
- did turk maj and belg and found that perceived pref for cm directl effected ap and contact and eco compo was mediated by neg affect towards ap
- zagefka et al 2008
- found that ap affected nega affect (by longitudinal) and that cm/c is effected by knowledge straight or mediated by sympathy - suggest that the most imp is percept of cm not pref for cm bcos cm not effect nega on own or interact with c.
- berry et al
- process leading to as is experience - stressors - as with mediating factors such as demo variables, ap pref, role of the maj, lang etc - for dif groups have dif outcomes e.g. refugees and indig have higher as and sojourners will depend on the push pull factors in the choice to move country
- berry 1982
- some of the most imp protective factors involved in as are things such as ownership, edu, occu, media use, lang/lit and getting involved
- berry et al 1987
- accul stress is the lowering of health (psy, soma and soc) as a result of going thru accult
- searle and ward 1990
- can define outcomes of accul either within a stress coping framework or a social learning framework - by psy (emo and aff) or soc (beh)
- dona and berry 1994
- south americn refugees (unike what investigated b4) show pref for inte and inte linked to less psy and soma stress
- phalet and hagendomm 1996
- can see values as fundamental defining feature of culture - looked at young turks in belgium and found that those who retained their collectivist values had less gen emo distress
- ward 1996
- there are many ways to define accul success - e.g. mental physi health, work or school perf, s-e or satisfaction
- rivera-sinclaire 1997
- cubans in us seem to show lowest anx if bicult
- ward and chang 1997
- may not be a bad outcome from lack of contact but lack of cultural fit of values and cult normas- e.g. american sojourners in singapore showed higher dep is were higher on extraversion
- Hutnik 1982
- a bi-dimensional model - ID with IG and ID with OG
- Kim and Berry 1989
- depending on time spent, mobility and choice of being there accull groups can have dif AP and consequences of accull - 5 groups are sojourners, immigrants, refugees, ethnic groups and indigenous people
- clement and noels 1992
- dnt hold bicult ID simultaneously but will swap between depending on the situation
- moise and bourhis 1996
- suggested that replace contact with wish to adopt host culture
- berry 1997
- set out model where answer to q of the value of contact with host comm and maintaining own cult id - suggest also that accul has mant stressors such as lang change cult fit and dicrim and that nega outcomes if stressors outweigh protective factors and coping reources
- laroche et al 1998
- suugest an example of bi di model where acquisition of host cult and retention of heritage are seperate- also found the c/cm were interdep but empirically distinct constructs
- nyugen et al 1999
- an example of unidimensional model, with linear process of assimilation suggest that these types of models assume imply that accult will eventually end up as loss of previous cult id
- zagefka et al 2002
- suugested a way in which to measure accult with seven point scale unfortunately can have variation in your ap dep on situation