Critical History of the Acculturation Psychology of Assimilation, Separation, Integration, and Marginalization

TLDR

Intercultural adaptation has been studied since Plato, and contemporary enculturation theories propose that ethnic minorities may align with the dominant culture, their own minority culture, both, or neither. Logical analysis shows that assimilation equates to negative chauvinism and marginality, that incompatible acculturative attitudes can correlate positively, and that bicultural integration and marginalisation are confounded constructs. Between 1918 and 1984, 68 theories displayed inconsistent terminology, poor citations, conflicting predictions of acculturative stress, and a lack of logic, revealing that acculturation can involve up to 16 types rather than four, and that there is no robust evidence that biculturalism is most adaptive.

Abstract

The psychology of intercultural adaptation was first discussed by Plato. Many modern enculturation theories claim that ethnic minorities (including aboriginal natives, immigrants, refugees, and sojourners) can favor either the dominant culture, or their own minority culture, or both, or neither. Between 1918 and 1984, 68 such theories showed varied and inconsistent terminology, poor citation of earlier research, conflicting and poorly tested predictions of acculturative stress, and lack of logic, for example, 2 cultures in contact logically allow 16 types of acculturation, not just 4. Logic explains why assimilation = negative chauvinism = marginality, why measures of incompatible acculturative attitudes can be positively correlated, and why bicultural integration and marginalisation are confounded constructs. There is no robust evidence that biculturalism is most adaptive.