全屏显示专题章节

The classical definition of acculturation was presented by Redfield，Linton，and Herskovits：“acculturation comprehends those phenomena which result when groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact with subsequent changes in the original culture patterns of either or both groups．”Although acculturation is a neutral term in principle（that is，changemay take place in either or both groups），in practice acculturation tends to induce more change in one of the groups（termed the acculturating group in this article）than in the other．

A later discussion（Social Science Research Council，1954）emphasized that assimilation is not the only kind of acculturation；it can also be reactive（triggering resistance to change in both groups），creative（stimulating new cultural forms，not found in either of the cultures in contact），and delayed（initiating changes that appearmore fully years later）．

A distinction has been made by Graves，between acculturation as a collective or group-level phenomenon，and psychological acculturation．In the former，acculturation is a change in the culture of the group；in the latter，acculturation is a change in the psychology of the individual．This distinction between levels is important for two reasons：first，in order to examine the systematic relationships between these two sets of variables；and second，because not all individuals participate to the same extent in the general acculturation being experienced by their group．While the general changesmay be profound in the group，individuals are known to vary greatly in the degree to which they participate in these community changes．

The concept of acculturation has becomewidely used in cross-cultural psychology and has also been the subject of criticism because of the gradual erosion of the originalmeaning of the concept（as outlined earlier）so that it became synonymous with assimilation．A parallel conceptualization has been developed，mainly among French-language scholars：inter-culturation．The concept is defined as“the set of processes by which individuals and groups interact when they identify themselves as culturally distinct”．There are evident similarities between the acculturafion and inter-culturation approaches，and it is often difficult in practice to distinguish the research done，or the conclusions drawn from the two approaches．One distinguishing feature，however，is the interest in the formation of new cultures in the inter-culturation，more than in the acculturation，approach．

Given these rather broad similarities，this article will employ the term acculturation to refer to the general processes and outcomes（both cultural and psychological）of intercultural contact．

In itsmost general sense，adaptation refers to changes that take place in individuals or groups in response to environmental demands．These adaptations can occur immediately，or they can be extended over the longer term．Short-term changes during acculturation are sometimes negative and often disruptive in character．However，formost acculturating individuals，after a period of time，some long-term positive adaptation to the new cultural context usually takes place．Depending on a variety of factors，these adaptations can takemany different forms．

Sometimes there is increased“fit”between the acculturating individual and the new context（e．g．when the assimilation or integration strategies are pursued，and when attitudes in the dominant society are accepting of the acculturating individual and group）．Sometimes，however，a“fit”is not achieved（as in separation/segregation and marginalisation）and the groups settle into a pattern of conflict，with resultant acculturative stress or psycho-pathology．

In the recent literature on psychological adaptation to acculturation，a distinction has been drawn between psychological and sociocultural adaptation．The first refers to a set of internal psychological outcomes including a clear sense of personal and cultural identity，good mental health，and the achievementof personal satisfaction in the new cultural context；the second is a set of external psychological outcomes that link individuals to their new context，including their ability to deal with daily problems，particularly in the areas of family life，work and school．Although these two forms of adaptation are usually related empirically．There are two reasons for keeping them conceptually distinct．One is that factors predicting these two types of adaptation are often different；the other is that psychological adaptation may best be analysed within the context of the stress and psychopathology approaches，while socio-cultural adaptation ismore closely linked to the social skills framework．A third adaptive outcome has recently been introduced：economic adaptation．This refers to the degree to which work is obtained，is satisfying and is effective in the new culture．

3．Psychological Acculturation Phenomena

There are five main phenomena included in the process of psychological acculturation beginning with group acculturation and individual acculturation experience and ending with some long-term adaptation．This process is highly variable for two main reasons．First is the operation of moderating factors．For policy reasons it is useful to distinguish between those moderating factors that existed prior to major acculturation taking place（and hence which cannot bemuch changed by public policies in the society of settlement），and those thatmay arise during the process of acculturation（and which are controllable，to some extent）．These moderating factors attach both to groups and to individuals and can be seen as both risk factors and protective factors，depending on their degree or level．Second，variability in psychological acculturation exists because of the three differing views about the degree of difficulty that is thought to exist during acculturation，which were outlined earlier（“behavioral shifts”，“acculturative stress”，and“psychopathology”）．The five main features of psychological acculturation have received many different names in both the genera and acculturation literatures．However，there is broad agreement that the process of dealingwith life events begins with some causal agent that places a load or demand on the organism．In the acculturation literature，these demands stem from the experience of having to deal with two cultures in contact，and having to participate to various extents in both of them；these intercultural contact experiences are the common starting point for all of the three conceptual approaches．In some cases these experiences represent challenges that can enhance one’s life opportunities．In other cases they may seriously undermine one’s life chances．

Second，individuals consider the meaning of these experiences，evaluating and appraising them as a source of difficulty（i．e．as stressors），or as benign，sometimes even as opportunities．The outcome of this appraisal is variable across the three approaches：when acculturation experiences are judged to pose no problem for the individual，changes are likely to the rather easy and behavioral shifts will follow smoothly．This process encompasses three sub-processes：culture shedding；culture learning：and culture conflict（Berry，1992）．The first two involve the accidental or deliberate loss of behaviors．And their replacement by behaviors that allow the individual a better‘fit’with the society of settlement．Most often this process has been termed adjustment（Ward＆Kennedy，1993a）．Because the adaptive changes all take place in the acculturating individualwith few changes occurring amongmembers of the larger society．These adjustments are typically made with minimal difficulty，in keeping with the appraisal of the acculturation experiences as non-problematic．However，some degree of conflict may occur which is usually resolved by the acculturating person yielding to the behavioral norms of the dominant groups；in this case assimilation is themost likely outcome．

When greater levels of conflict are experienced，and the experiences are judged to be problematic，but controllable and surmountable，then the acculturative stress paradigm is the appropriate conceptualisation．In this case，individuals understand that they are facing problems resulting from intercultural contact that cannot be dealt with easily or quickly by simply adjusting or assimilating to them．Drawing on the broader stress and adaptation paradigms，this approach advocates the study of the process of how individuals dealwith acculturative problems on first encountering them，and over time．In this sense，acculturative stress is a stress reaction in response to life events that are rooted in the experience of acculturation．When acculturation experiences overwhelm the individual，creating problems that cannot be controlled or surmounted，then the psychopathology paradigm is the appropriate one．In this case，there is little success in dealing with acculturation，sometimes resulting in withdrawal（separation），but sometimes involving culture shedding without culture learning（resulting in marginalisation）．

Third，as we have noted，individuals engage in strategies that attempt to deal with the experiences that are appraised as problematic．These basic coping strategies can be understood in relation to the four acculturation strategies outlined earlier．Within the general stress and adaptation approach，other strategies have been proposed，and are linked to the notion of coping．Lazarus and Folkman（1984）have identified two major functions：problem-focused coping（attempting to change or solve the problem）；and emotion-focused coping（attempting to regulate the emotions associated with the problem）．More recently，Endler and Parker （1990）have identified a third：avoidance-oriented coping．

These analyses of copingmay ormay not be valid cross-culturally；Aldwin（1994）and Lazarus（1991）suggest that cross-cultural variations are likely tobe present in these distinctions，and in which ones are preferred．One key distinction，made by Diaz-Guerrero （1979），is between active and passive coping．The former seeks to alter the situation，and hence may be similar to problem-focused coping．It may have only limited success if the problem lies in the dominant society，especially if there is little interest in the dominant group in accommodating the needs of acculturating individuals．Passive coping reflects patience and self-modification，and resembles the assimilation acculturation strategy．These strategies are likely to be successful only if the dominant society has positive attitudes towards，and iswilling to accept，members of the acculturating groups．If attitudes are hostile，the passive coping strategymay well lead to unacceptable levels of exclusion or domination．

The fourth aspect of psychological acculturation is a complex set of immediate effects，including physiological and emotional reactions，coming closest to the notion of stress，as a “reaction to conditions of living”．In terms of the three conceptual approaches（shifts，stress，psychopathology），when behavioral shifts have taken place，without difficulty，stress is likely to be minimal and personal consequences are generally positive．When acculturative problems （stressors）do arise，but have been successfully coped with，stresswill be similarly low and the immediate effects positive；but when stressors are not completely surmounted．Stress will be higher and effectsmore negative．And when acculturative problems have been overwhelming，and have not been successfully dealtwith，immediate effects will be substantially negative and stress levels debilitating including personal crises，and commonly anxiety and depression．

The last of the five main features of psychological acculturation is the long-term adaptation thatmay be achieved．As we saw earlier，adaptation refers to the relatively stable changes that take place in an individual or group in response to environmental demands．Moreover，adaptation may or may not improve the“fit”between individuals and their environments．It is thus not a term that necessarily implies that individuals or groups change to become more like their environments（i．e．adjustment），but may involve resistance and attempts to change their environments or moving away from them altogether．In this usage，adaptation is an outcome thatmay ormay not be positive in valence（i．e．meaning only well-adapted）．This bi-polar sense of the concept of adaptation is used in this framework；long-term adaptation to acculturation is highly variable ranging from well adapted to poorly adapted，varying from a situation where individuals can manage their new lives very well，to one where they are unable to carry on in the new society．Adaptation is also multifaceted．The initial distinction between psychological and sociocultural adaptation has been proposed and validated by Ward and colleagues．

Research in the domains of immigration，acculturation，and adaptation，as sampled and outlined in this article，has provided some rather consistent and potentially applicable findings．This consistency is remarkable，as acculturation is one of themost complex areas of research in cross-cultural psychology．It is complex，in part，because the process involves more than one culture，in two distinct senses：acculturation phenomena result from contact between two or more cultures：and research on acculturation has to be comparative（like all cross-cultural psychology）in order to understand variations in psychological outcomes that are the result of cultural variations in the two groups in contact．This complexity hasmade the reviewing of the field both difficult and selective．The framing of the field was an attempt to provide a structure that could identify themain features of acculturation phenomena（the“skeleton”），and into which illustrative studies could be inserted（bits of“flesh”）．The questions naturally arise：to what extent are these findings generalisable to other cultures；and what research still needs to be accomplished in order to apply them？

The empirical studies available do seem to point to some consistent findings．First，psychological acculturation is influenced by numerous group-level factors in the society of origin and in the society of settlement．What led the acculturating group to begin the process （whether voluntary，whether on their own lands or elsewhere）appears to be an important source of variation in outcome．However，other factors have also been identified as contributing：national immigration and acculturation policies，ideologies and attitudes in the dominant society，and social support．These population level variables seem to be important in many studies，across many societies．However，their relative contributions will be likely to vary according to the specific acculturative context being considered．That is，theymay be examples of a set of universal factors，ones thatoperate everywhere，butwhose specific influencewill vary in relation to features of the particular cultures in contact．

What is still needed are systematic comparative studies that will take these population-level factors into account in a research design．For example，a single acculturating group（e．g．Chinese）who experience acculturation asmembers of refugee，immigrant，sojourner and ethno-cultural groups，could be studied in societies with assimilationist，integrationist and segregationist policies；and within these settings，variations in ethnic attitudes and social support could be incorporated．Until now，we have had to rely mostly upon sporadic studies of single acculturating groups，in single societies of settlement，with no control over other possibly important factors contributing to psychological acculturation．

Second，psychological acculturation is influenced by numerous individual-level factors．In particular，the integrationist or bi-cultural acculturation strategy appears to be a consistent predictor ofmore positive outcomes than the three alternatives of assimilation，separation，or especiallymarginalisation．The availability and success of such a dual adaptation strategy，of course，depends on the willingness of the dominant society to allow it，and the wish of co-ethnics to pursue it．Thus，there is an apparent interaction between population-level and individual-level factors in contributing to psychological adaptations．But even in societies that tend towards assimilation policies，there was evidence that immigrants and ethnocultural group members generally prefer integration，and when they do，they tend to make more positive adaptations．Whether such a finding is valid for all groups acculturating to all dominant societies is an important question for researchers，policy makers，and those involved in counseling acculturating individuals．Once again，systematic comparative studies are essential to answer this question．

Third，how are the personal outcomes of the acculturation process to be interpreted？Are they amatter of acquiring essential social skills（making some rather easy behavioral shifts），of coping with stressors in order to avoid acculturative stress，or of succumbing to problems so serious that psychopathology will result？In this review，there is evidence that all three conceptualisations are valid，but that theymay constitute a sequence or hierarchy of outcomes：if sufficient behavioral shifts（involving new culture learning and former culture shedding）are demanded，but do not occur，stressors may appear in the daily intercultural encounters that require appraisal and coping in order to prevent acculturative stress；and if these difficulties prove to be insurmountable，then psychopathologies may result．Because of the differing theoretical approaches taken by different researchers in their studies，such a conclusion has not been possible to draw from any one study．What is required are large-scale，longitudinal studies，carried out comparatively，in which all three conceptualisations are combined．In the meantime，it is possible to say on the basis of this review thatmost acculturating individuals make rather positive adaptations（i．e．there is not widespread psychopathology in evidence），but that the acculturative transition is not always an easy one（i．e．changing one’s culture presents challenges that are not easy to overcome）．Immigration and acculturation are a risk，but risk is not destiny．

[2]心理学术语，指设身处地地从他人的参照标准去体会其内心感受，领悟其思想、观念、态度和情感，从而达到对他人境况的准确理解。

[3]中华人民共和国国家统计局．2010年第六次全国人口普查接受普查登记的港澳台居民和外籍人员主要数据［EB/OL］：中国国家统计局网站，2011-04-29。

[6]把中国看作世界的中心、其他地方都是世界的边圉的一种世界观。