International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 658669

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

Variations in the assessment of acculturation attitudes: Their

relationships with psychological wellbeing
John W. Berry a, , Colette Sabatier b
a
Queens University, 154 Albert St., Kingston, Ont, Canada K7L 3N6
b
Universit Victor Segalen, Bordeaux, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The concept of acculturation attitudes refers to the various ways that acculturating indi-
Accepted 24 January 2011 viduals prefer to live with the two cultures that they are in contact with. In the original
acculturation attitudes framework, Berry proposed a two-dimensional structure. The two
Keywords: dimensions were: to what extent do acculturating individuals prefer to maintain their her-
Acculturation
itage culture and identity; and to what extent do people wish to have contact with others
Adaptation
outside their own group, and participate in the larger society. When these two dimensions
Assessment
Immigrants
are crossed, four ways of acculturating can be distinguished: assimilation, integration, sep-
Youth aration, marginalisation. The rst goal of this paper is to use other ways of operationalising
these two dimensions to discover the resultant variations in the classication of individuals
into the four ways of acculturating. The second goal is to see whether these variations in
classifying ways of acculturation lead to different relationships with immigrants psycho-
logical wellbeing. We examine both questions using data from immigrant youth in Montreal
and Paris, and conclude that different operationalisations of these two dimensions do yield
some important variations in classication. There are also variations across these ways of
assessing acculturation attitudes in their relationships with the psychological wellbeing
of immigrant youth. Moreover, these variations are amplied when taking into account
the society into which immigrant youth have settled. The general conclusions are that it
does matter how and where acculturation attitudes are assessed, and that these variations
impact the degree of psychological adaptation of immigrant youth.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Acculturation is a process of change that results from contact between groups and individuals of different cultures
(Redeld, Linton & Herskovits, 1936). The concept of acculturation attitudes refers to the various ways that acculturating
individuals prefer to live with the two cultures with which they are in contact (Berry, Kim, Power, Young & Bujaki, 1989).
For many years, it was assumed that non-dominant people (such as immigrants) would change by giving up their heritage
cultures, and becoming part of the society of settlement by way of assimilation (e.g. Gordon, 1964). Gordon also considered
other outcomes, such as marginalisation and cultural pluralism. Subsequent observation and research have provided evi-

This project is supported by a grant to the authors from SSHRC (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Canada) and to the second author
by INSERM (Institut national de la sante et de la recherche me dicale, France).
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: berryj@kos.net (J.W. Berry).

0147-1767/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.02.002
 J.W. Berry, C. Sabatier / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 658669 659

dence that there are indeed such variations in the way people change following contact; the assimilation way of becoming
involved in the new society is not inevitable, nor the most common (Sam & Berry, 2006).
Berry (1970, 1974, 1980) developed a framework within which to study these preferences for different ways to acculturate.
Berry proposed a two-dimensional structure of acculturation attitudes, based on two separate issues: (i) the degree to
which individuals wish to maintain (or change) their heritage cultural and identity, and (ii) the degree to which individuals
wish to have contact with and participate with others in the larger society. When individuals express a preference for not
maintaining their heritage culture and to participate in the larger society, the assimilation orientation to acculturation is
dened. In contrast, when there is a desire to maintain heritage culture and not to participate in the larger society, the
separation orientation is dened. When there is both a wish to maintain ones heritage culture, and also to participate in the
larger society, the integration orientation is dened. When there is both little desire to maintain ones heritage culture nor
to have relations with the larger society, then marginalisation is dened.
Other orientations have been studied, including ways that occupy intermediate places in the two dimensional accultura-
tion space. For example, Mishra, Sinha and Berry (1996) in a study of Adivasi peoples in India conceptualised an orientation
situated between integration and assimilation called coexistence. This orientation represents more a willingness to live with
both cultures, rather than a positive valuing of them. Findings revealed that coexistence and integration are positively cor-
related, and that they were equally preferred. The nding of this fth orientation shows that there are other possibilities
or places in the acculturation space that may be conceptualised and assessed. Another acculturation orientation has also
been examined (Sabatier & Berry, 1996, 2008b; also explored in this paper). This is the degree to which adolescents are
oriented not just to their own heritage cultures and to the national cultures they have settled in, but to some global culture
or pan-human culture in which these two specic cultures are not the focus of their changing lives.
Since this original formulation, this two dimensional conceptualisation has gradually become accepted, and the inde-
pendence of the two dimensions has been conrmed empirically (e.g., Flannery Reise, & Yu, 2001; Oetting & Beauvais, 1990;
Ryder, Alden, & Paulhus, 2000; Zak, 1976).
There are three approaches to the assessment of acculturation attitudes. The rst is to develop four scales, one for each
of the four ways of acculturating (Berry et al., 1989; Bourhis, Moise, Perreault, & Senecal, 1997; Unger et al., 2002). This
approach provides an independent score for each of the four attitudes. Although these attitudes are usually correlated
(Rudmin & Ahmadzadh, 2001), they are measured on independent scales (Berry, 2009; Berry & Sam, 2003).
A second way of assessing these four ways of acculturating is to create vignettes with short descriptions of the four ways
of acculturating, and to ask respondents for their preference on a scale (Pruegger, 1993; Van Oudenhoven, 2006). In this
case, individuals receive four independent scores. In these rst two approaches, there is no categorising of respondents;
individuals have four scores based upon their relative preferences for the four ways of acculturating.
A third approach assesses individuals preferences on the two underlying dimensions (e.g., Don & Berry, 1994; Sabatier
& Berry, 1996, 2008b; Ward & Kennedy, 1994). In this third approach, scores on the two dimensions are split at some point;
those high or low on the two dimensions are classied into one of the four resulting acculturation categories. Sometimes the
median of each scale is used as a basis for the split, but sometimes it is the mean or the scalar midpoint of the scale that is used.
In the present study, we use this third approach, and employ the scalar midpoint as the basis for classication. One problem
when making classications of individuals using dimensional data is that there is a loss of information, especially when
individuals near the midpoints of the two dimensions are placed into contrasting categories. For example, an individual
who is low in the integration space has responses that are only slightly different from an individual who is low in the
marginalisation space. Moreover, there are usually large individual differences in where individuals will be located in the
space (quadrants) within the crossed two dimensions. Despite these difculties, the use of this third approach may be seen
as a way of validating ndings obtained with the other two approaches. If multiple methods show similar results, then
cross-validation can be achieved.
Liebkind (2001) noted that the original conceptualisation (Berry, 1980) has come to be operationalised in different
ways by different researchers, using different psychological domains. The rst dimension in the original conceptu-
alisation referred to a persons preference for maintaining (or not) ones heritage cultures. These newer variations
have retained this rst dimension but have varied the phrasing of the second issue. Instead of using the origi-
nal second issue that is concerned with the domain of contact and participation with the larger society (which is
mainly a concern with social relationships between immigrants and national groups), some researchers have used
other aspects of how to deal with the larger society. First is the domain of identication with the larger society
(e.g., Hutnik, 1986, 1991); others have used adoption of the national culture (e.g., Don & Berry, 1994; Nguyen and
Benet-Martinez (2011); Sayegh & Lasry, 1993) or adapting to the larger society (e.g. Arends-Tth & van de Vijver,
2006). Usually only one way of operationalising this second dimension is used in a particular study, while in some
other studies there is a comparison of the different operationalisations (Arends-Tth & van de Vijver, 2007; Playford
& Safdar, 2007; Snauwaert, Soenens, Vanbeselaere, & Boen, 2003). In these studies, when the analyses of accul-
turation attitudes is carried out with other ways of presenting the second dimension, typical ndings are that
when cultural adoption (of the national culture), or cultural identity (with the national society), or adaptation to
the national society are used as dimensions (instead of contact), then different classications of individuals accul-
turation attitudes result. In some cases the second dimension has been based on a combination of issues (e.g.,
Sabatier & Berry, 1996); such a combination of issues is also used in this paper. The domain of the rst dimen-
sion has not previously been changed; it has remained one that examines preferences to retention (or not) for
660 J.W. Berry, C. Sabatier / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 658669

a persons heritage culture. In the present paper, we also vary the focus of this rst dimension. In addition to
heritage culture maintenance, we explore two other issues: preferences for heritage culture contact, and for heritage culture
identity.
Finding variations in classication should be no surprise, since survey research has shown for years that when you ask
a different question you get a different answer (Brislin, 1986; Lonner & Berry, 1986; Schwartz, 1999). As noted above, the
original approach to understanding these four ways of acculturating was to develop four scales that capture the meaning of
the four strategies, using issues of importance to acculturating individuals. Items in these four scales were double barreled
in order to make explicit particular aspects of the two cultures in contact (e.g., I prefer to have friends from [own cultural
group] rather than friends from [national society]). This formulation contravenes the longstanding dictum to avoid complex
or double barreled items (Rudmin & Ahmadzadh, 2001). However, a justication is that acculturation is an inherently
complex, ambiguous and confusing process that takes place at the intersection of two cultures (Berry, 2009; Berry & Sam,
2003). Hence such a way of formulating items matches the reality of the phenomenon and has a high degree of external or
ecological validity (Campbell, 1957), while sacricing some degree of internal validity.
The original goal of assessing acculturation attitudes (Berry, 1970, 1974) was to demonstrate that there were variations
in the ways individuals seek to acculturate. With an understanding of the relative degree of preference, comparisons could
be made of individuals scores on each of the four ways of acculturating. Moreover, the relationships of each score with
other variables could be examined; these include possible antecedents (such as perceived discrimination, and social group
participation), as well as possible consequences (such as psychological and sociocultural adaptation and wellbeing).
In a rst study to make a comparison across different phrasings of the second issue (Snauwaert et al., 2003), the analyses
of acculturation attitudes was carried out using two different operationalisations. They employed the scalar midpoint of the
scale to make a fourfold classication. Their nding is that when either contact with (the national society), cultural adoption
(of the national culture) or cultural identity (with the national society) are used as ways of operationalising the second
dimension (instead of contact and participation), then different classications of individuals acculturation strategies result.
For example, those classied as integration varied from 82% (when using contact) to 37% (when using adoption) to 10% (when
using identity). And for separation, the percentages were 10, 56 and 80 (respectively). These variations are rather large.
A second study (Playford & Safdar, 2007) also compared these three different operationalisations of the second dimension
(contact, adoption and identication). They sampled newly arrived international students in Canada, using splits at both the
median and the scalar midpoint. This procedure resulted in variations in classications of individuals into the four ways of
acculturating. For example, integration was the most common classication (except in one case) across operationalisations
and methods of split. However, integration varies from a high of 70% (for identication, using the scalar split) to a low of
25% (for adoption, using the median split).
Playford and Safdar (2007) further explored the relationships between these acculturation attitudes and two forms of
adaptation. Using a path analysis, the best t (standardised betas) was a model predicting sociocultural adaptation by contact
with ( = .20) and adoption of ( = .47) national culture. In a second model, Playford and Safdar (2007) found that contact
predicts psychological well-being ( = .12) and sociocultural adaptation ( = .35). Adoption of culture predicts psychological
well-being ( = 12); and ethnic maintenance predicts psychological well-being ( = .27).
A third study has compared the various ways of assessing acculturation attitudes (Arends-Tth & van de Vijver, 2007).
They examined three types of scales: one statement, two statements and four statements. In the one statement method,
the items assess where on a single bi-polar dimension a person prefers to acculturate, ranging from maintaining their own
culture to adapting to the national culture. The two-statement method measures where a person prefers to acculturate on two
dimensions (cultural maintenance and adaptation to the national culture). The four-statement method measures the degree
of preference on the four attitudes. In a rst study, they sampled rst and second generation TurkishDutch adults, comparing
the one statement and two-statement methods. The one statement method yielded two factors, one for acculturation in the
private domain, and the other for acculturation in the public domain. However, the two domains were positively correlated
(r = .37). Both Turkish and Dutch cultures were equally favoured in the public domain, but Turkish culture was favoured over
Dutch culture in the private domain. The two-statement method had six items concerned with Turkish cultural maintenance
and six items concerned with adaptation to Dutch culture. The maintenance items were unifactorial, but the adaptation items
yielded two factors: adaptation in the public domain, and adaptation in the private domain. There was a positive correlation
(r = .62) between maintenance and adaptation in the public domain, but no signicant relationship in the private domain.
The authors concluded that the TurkishDutch make a distinction between the public and private domains. The rst study
also used the two-statement method in the maintenance and adaptation domains. Of interest to this present study is that
they classied participants on their responses to the two scales using four methods: median, mean, scalar midpoint and
proximity. While there was perfect agreement in the rank orders of the four preferences using these different cut point
methods, the percentages in each varied substantially. Results of this study indicate that there is substantial variation across
different ways of classication and between public and private domains. For the public domain, integration is the most
frequent category with a variation from a high of 92% with the scalar midpoint, to a low of 29% with median split. However,
for the private domain, either assimilation or separation is preferred; the percentage for integration varies from 33% to 14%
with median split. Correlations between adaptation and maintenance vary from .62 in the public domain and .18 for the
private one.
A second study with rst and second generation TurkishDutch youth employed three measurement approaches: one,
two and four statements. The results of the one and two-statement methods largely conrmed those from study one: they
 J.W. Berry, C. Sabatier / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 658669 661

found that variations in acculturation attitudes depend on the method used. In the four-statement method, they found
two factors for the integration and the separation items: in both cases, there was a distinction between public and private
attitudes. For the assimilation and marginalisation items, there was a unifactorial solution. The comparison across the three
methods showed the following pattern. In the single statement method, both Turkish and Dutch cultures were equally
favoured in the public domain, but Turkish culture was favoured over Dutch culture in the private domain. In the two-
statement method they found that in general maintenance was more valued than adaptation. However, the difference is
greater in the private domain than in the public domain. In the four-statement method integration was the most preferred
way of acculturating, followed by separation in both the public and the private domains. The difference between integration
and separation was larger in the public domain than in the private domain. Their overall conclusions were: The mean score
of the one-statement measurement method in the private domain was closer to the maintenance end of the continuum.
Similarly, the two-statement measurement method shows that in the private domain, Turkish culture is more valued than is
Dutch culture. The four-statement measurement method yields a slightly different picture because integration is preferred
to separation. However, the preference for integration is weaker, and the preference for separation is stronger than in the
public domain(p. 1479). The implication of these two studies is that variations across methods need to be considered when
selecting instruments to assess acculturation attitudes. In other words, variations in methods yield variations in what is
found.
The present paper employs only the two dimensional approach, using data from the study of immigrant youth in Montreal
and Paris (Berry & Sabatier, 2010; Sabatier & Berry, 1996, 2008a). Based on the research reviewed, we accept that variations
in operationalising the second dimension will lead to variations in how participants are categorised in the four-acculturation
attitude quadrants. Further, we expect that there will be variations when the issues addressed in the rst dimension are
also varied. However, there are two further questions addresses in this study: Do such variations in acculturation attitudes
differentially predict the psychological adaptation of youth?; and Does the national context of immigrant settlement
(Canada vs. France) makes any difference to these relationships?.

2. Procedure

2.1. Participants

The participants are 706 adolescents (53% of girls) born in the country of settlement, and having immigrant parents (i.e.,
second generation). The sample was drawn from a variety of ethnic groups living in the Montreal area of Canada1 (N = 319),
and living in the Paris area of France (N = 387). Adolescents were recruited on an individual basis through several means,
mainly through school lists but also neighbourhood knowledge. The mean age is 15.5 years (sd = 1.8; min 11; max 19). They
lled out several questionnaires in one session lasting one hour and half (for details see Sabatier & Berry, 2008a).
The two societies in which these participants have settled differ in two main respects. The rst difference is that, in
general, Canada promotes multiculturalism as national policy, while France promotes assimilation (Noels & Berry, 2006;
Sabatier & Berry, 1994; Sabatier & Boutry, 2006). A second difference follows from this rst main difference: in Paris, there
is a denite national society, which is strongly articulated by government and ensconced in public institutions. However in
Montreal, there is not one national culture; indeed in the whole of Canada, there is no one ofcial or mainstream culture.
More specically, Montreal is a bilingual as well as a multicultural city. Despite these characteristics, language laws in the
province of Quebec oblige these adolescents to attend French-language schools. However, many learn English in the general
community, as well as their heritage language in their families and cultural community. For these reasons, we offered the
questionnaire in both French and English versions. We also identied the national alternative in each item as Quebec society
(with Canada in brackets after it); if asked, we explained that this referred to people living in Quebec with a Canadian origin.

2.2. Measures

The rst measure was of acculturation attitudes; in addition we asked two questions on cultural identity (one for ethnic
identity, one for national identity), and some questions on ethnic behaviours (friends, music, media, language). A second
main measure is of psychological wellbeing using the Rosenberg self-esteem scale (Rosenberg, 1965).
In order to examine the variations in operationalising the two dimensions of the acculturation model (orientations
towards own culture and towards national culture), we selected items from the original acculturation attitudes question-
naire. From these items, we constructed three types of scales. The rst are acculturation attitudes; the second are acculturation
orientations; and the third are acculturation specic and global indeces.

2.2.1. Acculturation attitudes

A 45-items questionnaire on acculturation attitudes was developed after a two-phase pilot study. In the rst phase,
ten adolescents and ten parents participated in a qualitative interview in order to tap the domains that are relevant to

1
In Montreal ethnic groups are Greeks, Haitians, Italians and Vietnamese. In Paris, they are Algerians, Antilleans, Moroccans, Portuguese and Vietnamese.
662 J.W. Berry, C. Sabatier / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 658669

acculturating youth. The second phase tested a rst draft of the questionnaire. Among the 45 items, 21 are oriented towards
their own culture and 21 towards the national culture. Three items examined attitudes towards a third orientation following
the claim of some adolescents that we should consider the possibility of orientations towards other groups. Responses were
provided on a 5-point scale. After factor analysis by country and by ethnic group with the whole sample, 23 items were
retained, 15 for ethnic acculturation attitude (lowest loading .48, explained variance on a single factor 35%; = .86) and 8 for
national acculturation attitude (lowest loading .56 explained variance on a single factor 38%; = .77). Tucker Phi coefcients
for a two-factor solution reach the .90 criterion. The two-acculturation attitude scores are the means on the two dimensions.
These scores appear in all the tables as Ethnic Acculturation Attitudes and National Acculturation Attitudes (it is interesting to
note that all the initial third orientation items disappeared).

2.2.2. Acculturation orientations

In addition to these two acculturation attitudes, we assessed two other variables: (cultural identities and ethnic behaviours).
Cultural identities were assessed by one question each for ethnic and national identity on a 5-point scale. Ethnic behaviours
assess the commitment of adolescents to behaviours related to their heritage culture. These behaviours are proportion
of ethnic friends, ethnic media use, and competence in ethnic language. They were assessed on a 5-point scale ( = .84).
Using factor analyses of acculturation attitudes, ethnic behaviours and cultural identities in each country, we created a
combined variable, which we termed acculturation orientation on the two dimensions of ethnic and national acculturation.
Ethnic acculturation orientation scores are the combined factor score of ethnic acculturation attitudes, ethnic identity and
behaviours; the national acculturation orientation scores are made up of national acculturation attitudes and national identity.
These scores appear in the Tables 36 as Acculturation Orientations

2.2.3. Acculturation specic and global indexes

We also created six specic and two global acculturation indexes. Each index is based on two items for each dimension,
except for identity which has only one question
The rst (ethnic) dimension was operationalised in three domains:

(i) Own culture maintenance (as in the original operationalisation). The two items are: I think that it is important that
[heritage culture] be maintained across generations and I appreciate eating typically [ethnic] meals.
(ii) Own group contact. The two items are I think that [ethnic] parents should make an effort for their children to develop
ties with [own group] people outside the house and I like to attend [own cultural group] parties.
(iii) Ethnic identity. One question: To what extent do you identify with your heritage group?

The second (national) dimension was operationalised in three domains:

(i) National culture contact (again as in the original operationalisation). The two items are: I think that parents should make
an effort for their children to develop relationships with [national society] and I like to attend to [national society]
parties.
(ii) National culture adoption. The two items are: I want to adopt the way of life of [national society] and I appreciate eating
[national society] style meals; and
(iii) National identity: one question: To what extent do you identify with [the national society]?

We constructed the global index for the two acculturation dimensions (ethnic and national) with the four selected
questions for acculturation attitudes and the question on identity. The ethnic global index ( = .69) had explained variance
of 45%and a lowest loading of .52. The national global index ( = .67) had explained variance of 42%, and a lowest loading
.33. Distributions of all the variables appear in Table 1.

3. Results

We crossed the scores on these acculturation measures (by country) using the scalar mid-point (3) of the scales as the
dividing point. Table 1 shows the total number of participants (N = 706), the means and the medians, and the minimum and
maximum scores for each of these scales. Using the scalar mid-point with scales that have only a few items, a large number
of participants fall exactly on this mid-point. As shown in Table 1, the proportion that falls exactly on 3 ranges between 4.11%
and 35.26% across the various scales; to discard these would result in a major loss of information. Moreover, the majority
of respondents fell in the upper category (3.55.0), indicating a substantial preference for engagement with both cultural
communities. For these two reasons, we decided to allocate the participants who are exactly at 3 to the lower (disagreement)
category.
Table 2 shows these distributions broken into the two samples: Montreal (N = 319) and Paris (N = 387). Means on the 10
scales were signicantly different in ve cases: three national indicators are higher in Paris (adoption, contact and global
index), while two own culture indicators are higher in Montreal (identity and orientation). These differences are consistent
with the general promotion of cultural maintenance in Canada, and the limiting of ethnic expression in France.
 J.W. Berry, C. Sabatier / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 658669 663

Table 1
Total sample (N = 706): means, medians and frequencies on acculturation dimensions.

M Md sd Min Max Frequencies

12.5 3 3.55

N % N % N %

Own culture maintenance 4.52 5 .67 1 5 18 2.5 29 4.1 659 93.3

National culture adoption 3.23 3 .97 1 5 208 29.5 151 21.4 347 49.2
Own group contact 4.00 4 .91 1 5 74 10.5 77 10.9 555 78.6
National group contact 3.57 3.50 .97 1 5 139 19.7 116 16.4 451 63.9

12 3 45

Ethnic identity 3.94 4 1.00 1 5 50 7.1 202 28.6 454 64.3

National identity 3.33 3 1.11 1 5 151 21.4 256 36.3 299 42.4
Ethnic acculturation attitudes 4.06 4.13 .63 1.47 5
National acculturation attitudes 3.44 3.50 .73 1.13 5
Ethnic acculturation global index 4.20 4.40 .66 1.80 5
National acculturation global index 3.38 3.40 .77 1.00 5

When we allocate those respondents with a score of 3 to the disagreement category on the various scales, the distributions
(%) of respondents in the two samples and the total sample are presented in Table 3. In the rst column is the original
operationalisation of the rst issue (own culture maintenance) crossed with the second issue in three national domains:
contact (which is the original domain of the second issue); adoption; and identity. In the second and third columns, there
are two different ways of operationalising the heritage culture issue (column 2, own contact; and column 3, own culture
identity) crossed with the same three national domains as in the rst column (national contact, adoption and identity). In
columns 46, the three general acculturation scales are presented: acculturation attitudes score; acculturation orientations;
and global acculturation indexes.
These different ways of operationalising the two dimensions lead to differences in ways of classifying individuals accul-
turation strategies. The original operationalisation is shown in the rst group of three columns in Table 3. When own culture
maintenance is crossed with national culture contact, for the total sample, there are 2.8% for assimilation, 61.0% for inte-
gration, 3.80% for marginalisation and 32.3% for separation. When the second issue is operationalised as national culture
adoption (e.g., second column), preference for assimilation is 2.8%, integration 46.3% marginalisation 3.80% and separation
47.0%. And when the second dimension is operationalised as national identity, the percentages change to 3.30, 39.10, 3.40
and 54.20, respectively. How the second dimension is operationalised does make a difference in the classication of accul-
turating individuals, even when retaining the original meaning of the rst dimension (own culture maintenance). However,
the differences are most substantial for integration (reducing from 61% to 39%), and for separation (increasing from 32.5 to
54%) across these three domains. This suggests that when involvement with the national culture becomes psychologically
deeper (going from just contact with, to adoption of, and to identication with the national culture), acculturating youth
in both societies are less willing to orient themselves to the national society.
A second approach was taken by changing the operationalisation of the rst dimension. When own group contact (in the
second group of three columns), and when own group identity (in third group of 3 columns) are crossed with these same
three national orientations, the percentages again vary.
A third approach was to use three general acculturation scales (in the last three columns, acculturation attitudes, ori-
entations and global index). Again there are variations in the percentage distributions across the four way of acculturating.
However, in all cases, the integration way of acculturating remains the most frequent preference, followed by separation,
with assimilation and marginalisation much less frequent. It is apparent that despite these variations in operationalising
how youth acculturate, integration remains the most favoured strategy.
Also in Table 3 (bottom row) are the variations between Montreal and Paris. Of the 12 comparisons, only four are sig-
nicant. By inspection these differences appear to be due to assimilation being higher in Paris for three aspects (for own
group contact and national culture adoption, own group identity and national identity, and acculturation attitudes) while
separation appears to be lower in Paris (for own group contact with national culture adoption), and integration to be lower in
Paris for own group identity and national identity, and acculturation attitudes). Once again these differences are consistent
with the general promotion of cultural maintenance in Canada, and the limiting of ethnic expression in France.
The second main question addressed in this paper is whether these variations in classifying ways of acculturating have any
impact on the level of psychological adaptation of immigrant youth. In previous research (reviewed by Berry, 1997 and Berry,
Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006) it is common to nd that those pursuing integration have the highest self-esteem, and those
who are marginalised have the lowest; those assimilating or separating have intermediate levels. This pattern was generally
replicated using the present data set (Berry & Sabatier, 2010), but there was an attenuated set of relationships in France.
Here, we are concerned to discover whether the various ways of assessing acculturation preferences that are examined in
this paper make any difference for the psychological adaptation of immigrant youth. Tables 46 show the general result
for Rosenberg self-esteem scores, rst for the countries combined (Table 4) and then when separated (Tables 5 and 6). In
Table 4, of the twelve ways of assessing acculturation attitudes, Integration has numerically the highest score in all of the
 664
J.W. Berry, C. Sabatier / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 658669
Table 2
Means, medians and distribution on acculturation dimensions: total sample, Montreal and Paris.

All (N = 706) Montreal (N = 319) Paris (N = 387) F p Eta square

M Md sd Min Max M Md sd Min Max M Md sd Min Max

Own culture maintenance 4.52 5 .67 1 5 4.52 5 .66 2.5 5 4.51 5 .69 1 5 .03 .855 .000
National culture adoption 3.23 3 .97 1 5 3.13 3 .96 1 5 3.31 3.50 .98 1 5 5.92 .015 .008
Own group contact 4.00 4 .91 1 5 4.05 4 .92 1 5 3.95 4 .91 1.5 5 2.04 .153 .003
National group contact 3.57 3.50 .97 1 5 3.48 3.50 .94 1 5 3.64 3.50 .98 1 5 4.57 .033 .006
Ethnic identity 3.94 4 1.00 1 5 4.03 4 1.05 1 5 3.87 4 .95 1 5 4.06 .044 .006
National identity 3.33 3 1.11 1 5 3.34 3 1.16 1 5 3.32 3 1.08 1 5 .08 .782 .000
Ethnic acculturation attitudes 4.06 4.13 .63 1.47 5 4.12 4.20 .64 2.2 5 4.01 4 .62 1.47 5 5.55 .019 .008
National acculturation attitudes 3.44 3.50 .73 1.13 5 3.39 3.38 .71 1.25 5 3.48 3.50 .75 1.13 5 2.65 .104 .004
Ethnic acculturation global index 4.20 4.40 .66 1.80 5 4.24 4.4 .70 1.8 5 4.16 4.2 .63 1.8 5 2.21 .137 .003
National acculturation global index 3.38 3.40 .77 1.00 5 3.31 3.4 .77 1 4.8 3.44 3.4 .77 1 5 4.97 .026 .007
 J.W. Berry, C. Sabatier / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 658669
Table 3
Percentage of participants in each strategy according to the classication procedure by country of settlement.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Own culture maintenance and national Own group contact and national Own group identity and national Accult attitudes Accult orientations Accult global index

Culture Culture Identity Culture Culture Identity Culture Culture Identity

contact adoption contact adoption contact adoption

Montreal
Assimilation 2.80 2.80 2.50 11.30 9.70 7.50 19.70 18.50 10.00 4.40 22.30 5.60
Integration 59.20 44.20 37.00 50.80 37.30 32.00 42.30 28.50 29.50 64.60 26.60 55.50
Marginalisation 3.80 3.80 4.10 7.20 8.80 11.00 12.90 14.10 22.60 1.60 25.10 2.20
Separation 34.20 49.20 56.40 30.70 44.20 49.50 25.10 38.90 37.90 29.50 26.00 36.70
Paris
Assimilation 2.80 2.80 3.90 11.10 12.40 10.90 24.50 23.00 19.90 4.10 31.50 2.80
Integration 62.50 48.10 40.80 54.30 38.50 33.90 40.80 27.90 24.80 69.30 21.20 66.70
Marginalisation 3.90 3.90 2.80 12.70 11.40 12.90 13.70 15.20 18.30 2.10 19.10 2.30
Separation 30.70 45.20 52.50 22.00 37.70 42.40 20.90 33.90 37.00 24.50 28.20 28.20
All
Assimilation 2.80 2.80 3.30 11.20 11.20 9.30 22.40 21.00 15.40 4.20 27.30 4.10
Integration 61.00 46.30 39.10 52.70 38.00 33.00 41.50 28.20 26.90 67.10 23.70 61.60
Marginalisation 3.80 3.80 3.40 10.20 10.20 12.00 13.30 14.70 20.30 1.80 21.80 2.30
Separation 32.30 47.00 54.20 25.90 40.70 45.60 22.80 36.10 37.40 26.80 27.20 32.00

Country comparison
X2 .94 1.16 2.95 4.14 10.68 4.77 3.30 3.09 14.20 2.41 10.83 10.87
p .81 .76 .40 .24 .01 .18 .35 .38 .003 .50 .01 .01

665
666 J.W. Berry, C. Sabatier / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 658669

Table 4
Means level of Rosenberg self-esteem according to the various ways of classication in total sample (N = 706).

Assimilation Integration Marginalisation Separation F p

M sd M sd M sd M sd

Own culture maintenance with

National group contact 3.06 .40 3.22b .47 2.96ab .45 3.05a .49 7.57 <.001
National culture adoption 3.04 .41 3.17 .49 2.98 .45 3.15 .49 1.60 .180
National identity 3.02 .42 3.19 .50 3.00 .44 3.14 .48 2.02 .110
Own group contact with
National group contact 3.16ab .43 3.22b .48 3.09ab .44 3.02a .50 7.27 <.000
National culture adoption 3.13 .44 3.17 .49 3.13 .42 3.14 .50 .29 .830
National identity 3.12 .46 3.19 .50 3.13 .41 3.13 .49 .76 .510
Own group identity with
National group contact 3.10a .45 3.27b .47 2.99a .51 3.07a .47 11.47 <.001
National culture adoption 3.04a .47 3.25b .48 3.09a .50 3.16ab .48 6.02 <.001
National identity 3.01a .50 3.27b .47 3.10a .46 3.15ab .48 7.57 <.001
Acculturation attitudes 3.02 .38 3.17 .48 2.99 .48 3.13 .51 1.56 .190
Acculturation orientation 3.08ab .46 3.31c .47 3.02a .45 3.19bc .50 11.98 <.001
Acculturation global index 3.11 .39 3.18 .49 2.91 .49 3.11 .48 2.64 <.040

Note. Means with superscript (ac) in the same line are homogeneous subsamples according to Tukeys post hoc test (p < .05).

Table 5
Means level of Rosenberg self-esteem according to the various ways of classication in Montreal.

Assimilation Integration Marginalisation Separation F p

M sd M sd M sd M sd

Own culture maintenance with

National group contact 3.12 .46 3.36 .44 3.06 .49 3.09 .48 9.40 <.001
National culture adoption 3.16 .38 3.28 .46 3.03 .54 3.25 .48 1.21 .300
National identity 3.15 .40 3.38 .48 3.05 .52 3.19 .45 5.18 <.001
Own group contact with
National group contact 3.28bc .42 3.37c .44 3.02a .50 3.10ab .48 9.14 <.001
National culture adoption 3.24 ab .44 3.40 b .48 3.14 a .48 3.19 ab .45 5.07 <.001
National identity 3.19 .44 3.30 .46 3.17 .50 3.24 .48 .90 .440
Own group identity with
National group contact 3.27bc .43 3.39c .44 3.13ab .51 3.07a .47 9.75 <.001
National culture adoption 3.14a .42 3.37b .46 3.31ab .50 3.20ab .48 3.68 <.010
National identity 3.17a .53 3.43b .44 3.24ab .44 3.14a .47 7.59 <.001
Acculturation attitudes 3.11 .39 3.29 .45 3.02 .60 3.21 .52 1.38 .240
Acculturation orientation 3.23ab .42 3.47c .43 3.05a .47 3.25b .48 12.27 <.001
Acculturation global index 3.13ab .46 3.33b .45 3.13ab .63 3.09ab .48 5.98 <.001

Note. Means with superscript (ac) in the same line are homogeneous subsamples according to Tukeys post hoc test (p < .05).

Table 6
Means level of Rosenberg self-esteem according to the various ways of classication in Paris.

Assimilation Integration Marginalisation Separation F p

M sd M sd M sd M sd

Own culture maintenance with

National group contact 3.01 .35 3.10 .47 2.89 .41 3.02 .50 1.59 .190
National culture adoption 2.94 .43 3.08 .48 2.94 .37 3.06 .48 .64 .580
National identity 2.94 .43 3.04 .46 2.94 .34 3.09 .49 .99 .390
Own group contact with
National group contact 3.07 .41 3.10 .48 3.12 .41 2.93 .52 2.98 .030
National culture adoption 3.06 .47 3.02 .46 3.13 .35 3.07 .52 .66 .570
National identity 3.09a .45 3.07ab .49 3.11a .37 3.04b .50 .34 .790
Own group identity with
National group contact 2.99ab .44 3.16b .47 2.89a .50 3.07ab .47 5.55 .000
National culture adoption 2.97ab .48 3.15b .47 2.92a .43 3.11b .48 4.69 .000
National identity 2.94a .48 3.10ab .43 2.96a .44 3.15b .50 4.61 .000
Acculturation attitudes 2.94 .37 3.08 .48 2.98 .44 3.04 .48 .61 .610
Acculturation orientation 2.99 .47 3.14 .46 2.98 .43 3.14 .51 3.12 .020
Acculturation global index 2.93 .40 3.07 .47 3.10 .71 3.07 .50 .37 .770

Note. Means with superscript (ac) in the same line are homogeneous subsamples according to Tukeys post hoc test (p < .05).
 J.W. Berry, C. Sabatier / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 658669 667

twelve ways, and signicantly so in six cases. When the two countries are separated in the analysis, in Table 5 (for Montreal),
the F statistic is signicant in nine of twelve cases, and integration has numerically the highest score on self-esteem in all of
the twelve ways of acculturating; it is signicantly so in seven cases. In Table 6 (for Paris), ve of the twelve F statistics are
signicant, and integration has numerically the highest score in ve cases, and is signicantly so in four cases.
The third question addressed in this paper is whether the national contexts of immigrant settlement (Canada vs. France)
makes any difference to either the classications or to the level of psychological adaptation. Given the differences in the
way these two countries deal with acculturation (Noels & Berry, 2006; Sabatier & Berry, 1994; Sabatier & Boutry, 2006),
we examined the possible role of these different ways of acculturating in Canada and France. As noted above, in general,
Canada promotes multiculturalism as national policy, while France promotes assimilation. Analyses reveal some variation
between youth in Montreal and Paris for the level of endorsement of each way of acculturating (see Table 3). The general
differences are for youth in Paris to accept assimilation more, and separation less than youth in Montreal. These differences
are consistent with the general promotion of cultural maintenance in Canada, and the suppression of ethnic expression in
France.

4. Discussion

With respect to our rst main issue, it is indeed the case that asking a different question does yield a different answer.
We have found that, generally, different operationalisations of the two-acculturation dimensions do make a difference in
the distributions across the four ways of acculturating. Research on the phrasing of questions in the domain of surveying
has a long history showing that subtle variations in questions have consequences for the responses obtained (Brislin, 1986;
Schwartz, 1999). In cross-cultural psychology, this has been a major concern, because of language variations required for use
in different cultural groups. Many articles and texts (e.g., Berry, 1969; Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997) have sought solutions
to issues of comparability and equivalence (i.e., the meaning and interpretation of test items across cultures). For example,
in the study of immigrant youth (Berry et al., 2006), acculturation attitudes and self-esteem were examined for equivalence
in the 13 societies where data were collected, using factor analyses. In most cases the factor structures provided evidence
for their equivalence. The equivalence for the measures of acculturation and for Rosenberg self-esteem is also acceptable in
the present study (e.g., Sabatier & Berry, 2008a).
However, the extent of variation appears to be far less than that previously reported in other studies (Playford & Safdar,
2007; Snauwaert et al., 2003). In the present study, overall the different ways of classication are distinct but coherent,
(73% of the 706 adolescents are classied 7 times or more out of 12 in the same categories; and Kappa coefcients are good.
Hence, we need to be very careful about making broad claims that ignore subtle differences in the operationalisations of
the two basic dimensions. Furthermore, when changing how the rst issue is operationalised, and when crossed with some
other combinations of the second dimension, further variations are evident. Future researchers should identify the specic
ways in which they operationalise the two dimensions. Is it preferring to have contact with others in the larger society (as
in the original version), adoption of the national culture, adaptation to the national society, or identication with the larger
society? Before any general statements can be made about which way of acculturation is preferred, and which is not, these
specic operationalisations should be clearly distinguished in each study.
Beyond this general observation that variations in asking the questions lead to variations in classications, one issue
that needs to be addressed is whether a particular operationalisation of the dimensions is associated with specic ways
of acculturation. Inspection of Table 3 (rst column) shows that when the rst (original) issue is own culture maintenance,
the preference for integration is higher (and preference for separation is lower) when crossed with national contact than
when crossed with national culture adoption or with national culture identity. This suggests that the deeper the psychological
phenomena (adoption of, or identication with, the national society) the more youth prefer to remain linked to their heritage
culture, and the less they want to engage the national society. There may be more psychological investment required in
changing these more deep-rooted features of ones identity.
When the rst issue is operationalised as own group contact, preference for integration is higher (and preference for
separation is lower) when crossed with national culture contact than with national culture adoption or identity. Again, we may
venture the conclusion that preferences for involvement with the national society (by way of integration) are more positive
when the second issue is one of contact with the national society than for the two other kinds of linkages with the larger
society (adoption of or identication with the national culture). That is, the same variations appear to be present in both
countries when the rst issue is varied (using own group contact and own group identity, rather than own group culture).
For example, for integration, preferences are highest for contact, intermediate for adoption and lowest for identity. And
for separation, preferences are lowest for contact, intermediate for adoption, and highest for identity. There are no obvious
variations for assimilation or marginalisation. It appears that this more internal way of becoming linked to the national
society (identication with it) is somehow more difcult or less salient than the more external or behavioural ways (such
as daily social contacts with, or changing behaviours to act more like, the members of the larger society).
These differences require further examination in order to discern which specic features of the questions are associated
with other variables. For example, Berry and Sabatier (2010) found that perceived discrimination was lowest in Canada for
those seeking to integrate; this is consistent for immigrant youth reported in an international study (Berry et al., 2006).
However, in France (Berry & Sabatier, 2010) perceived discrimination was highest for those seeking to integrate (as well
668 J.W. Berry, C. Sabatier / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 658669

as to separate). We earlier concluded that it is more difcult to express ones ethnicity in France, and if it is expressed, it
attracts more discrimination.
An earlier conclusion (e.g. Berry, 1997, 2005) has been that the integration way of acculturating is usually associated
with better psychological adaptation. This was argued to be the case because by engaging in the two cultures, individuals
have dual competencies, and dual networks for social support during the challenges of acculturation. This conclusion has
been evaluated by a meta-analysis (Benet-Martnez, 2010) of ndings across numerous studies. This meta-analysis sampled
83 studies and 23,197 participants. The analysis conrmed the integrationadaptation relationship, but the strength of the
relationship depended on the measurement method used; the range was from .21 to .54 to .70 across different methods of
assessing acculturation strategies.
In the present study, this relationship has been conrmed for the one form of adaptation examined (Rosenberg self-
esteem). In the total sample, and in the Montreal sample, we found a pattern that generally corresponds to the previous
conclusion, where those seeking to integrate have better psychological adaptation. However, in France, where we have seen
that ethnicity is difcult to express, there was no replication of this pattern for Rosenberg self-esteem. In the report by Berry
and Sabatier (2010), however, other forms of self-esteem (social and school self-esteem) did show this pattern.
It is thus apparent that while it is important to specify which operationalisation of acculturation attitudes is used, it is
also important to specify which aspect of adaptation, and in which society immigrant youth have settled.
A remaining question is whether one way of assessing acculturation attitudes has any advantage over others. In this study,
we examined the preferences on the two underlying dimensions (orientations to ones heritage culture, and to the national
society) using various domains (culture maintenance/adoption; contact; and identication). In other studies, we have noted
the use of other (bi-polar and four-statement) methods. In the absence of any criterion, there is no way of assessing whether
one method is inherently more valid than another. However, there is the criterion of whether one method provides more
insight into the ways that individuals adapt, and the degree to which they succeed in their new intercultural lives. As noted
above, a recent meta-analysis by Benet-Martnez (2010) throws some light on this question. While conrming that the bi-
cultural way (integration in our terms) is positively related to various forms of adaptation, she found that the use of scales
assessing the two underlying dimensions had a stronger relationship with adaptation than the bi-polar or four-statement
methods.

References

Arends-Tth, & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2006). The assessment of acculturation. In D. Sam, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology
(pp. 142160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arends-Tth, & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2007). Acculturation attitudes: A comparison of measurement methods. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7,
14621488.
Benet-Martnez, V. (2010). Multiculturalism: Cultural, social, and personality processes. In K. Deaux, & M. Snyder (Eds.), Handbook of personality and social
psychology. Oxford University Press.
Berry, J. W. (1969). On cross-cultural comparability. International Journal of Psychology, 4, 119128.
Berry, J. W. (1970). Marginality, stress and ethnic identication in an acculturated aboriginal community. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 239252.
Berry, J. W. (1974). Psychological aspects of cultural pluralism: Unity and identity reconsidered. Topics in Culture Learning, 2, 1722.
Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, Models and Some New Findings (pp. 925). Boulder:
Westview.
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation and adaptation. Applied Psychology, An International Review, 46(1), 568.
Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 697712.
Berry, J. W. (2009). A critique of critical acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33, 361371.
Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Power, S., Young, M., & Bujaki, M. (1989). Acculturation attitudes in plural societies. Applied Psychology, An International Review, 38,
185206.
Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth in cultural transition: Acculturation, identity and adaptation across national contexts.
Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Berry, J. W., & Sabatier, C. (2010). Acculturation, discrimination, and adaptation among second generation immigrant youth in Montreal and Paris. Interna-
tional Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(3), 191207.
Berry, J. W., & Sam, D. L. (2003). Accuracy in scientic discourse. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 44, 6568.
Bourhis, R., Moise, C., Perreault, S., & Senecal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal
of Psychology, 32, 369386.
Brislin, R. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp.
137164). London: Sage.
Campbell, D. T. (1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychological Bulletin, 54, 297312.
Don, G., & Berry, J. W. (1994). Acculturation attitudes and acculturative stress of Central American refugees. International Journal of Psychology, 29, 5770.
Flannery, W., Reise, S., & Yu, J. (2001). An empirical comparison of acculturation models. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 10351045.
Gordon, M. M. (1964). Assimilation in American life. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hutnik, N. (1986). Patterns of ethnic minority identication and models of social adaptation. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 9, 150167.
Hutnik, N. (1991). Ethnic minority identity: A social psychological perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Liebkind, K. (2001). Acculturation. In R. Brown, & S. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 386406). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Lonner, W. J., & Berry, J. W. (1986). Surveying and sampling. In W. J. Lonner, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 85110). London:
Sage.
Mishra, R. C., Sinha, D., & Berry, J. W. (1996). Ecology, acculturation and psychological adaptation: A study of Adivasi in Bihar. New Delhi: Sage.
Noels, K., & Berry, J. W. (2006). Acculturation in Canada. In D. Sam, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 274293).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nguyen, A.-M. D., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2011). Biculturalism and adjustment: A meta analysis. Manuscript under review.
Oetting, E., & Beauvais, F. (1990). Orthogonal cultural identication theory: The cultural identication of minority adolescents. International Journal of
Addictions, 25, 655685.
 J.W. Berry, C. Sabatier / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 658669 669

Playford, K., & Safdar, S. (2007). A comparison of various conceptualisations of acculturation and the prediction of adaptation of international students. In
A. Chybicka, & M. Kazmierczak (Eds.), Appreciating diversity. Cracow: Impuls.
Pruegger, V. (1993). Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal work values, PhD thesis, Queens University.
Redeld, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. J. (1936). Memorandum for the study of acculturation. American Anthropologist, 38, 149152.
Rosenberg, G. M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rudmin, F., & Ahmadzadh, V. (2001). Psychometric critique of acculturation psychology: The case of Iranian immigrants. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,
42, 4156.
Ryder, A., Alden, L., & Paulhus, D. (2000). Is acculturation unidimensional or bidimensional? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 4965.
Sabatier, C., & Berry, J. W. (1994). Immigration et acculturation. In R. Y. Bourhis, & J.-P. Leyens (Eds.), Strotypes, discrimination et relations intergroups
[Stereotypes, discrimination and intergroup relationships] (pp. 261291). Bruxelles: Mardaga.
Sabatier, C., & Berry, J. W. (1996). Parents and adolescents acculturation attitudes. Paper presented at XIV conference of the International Society for Study
of Behavioural Development, Quebec.
Sabatier, C., & Berry, J. W. (2008). The role of family acculturation, parental style and perceived discrimination in the adaptation of second generation
immigrant youth in France and Canada. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5(2), 159185.
Sabatier, C., & Berry, J. W. (1996). The development of scales to asses the acculturation attitudes of immigrant parents and second generation adolescents.
In Paper presented at IACCP conference Bremen.
Sabatier, C., & Boutry, V. (2006). Acculturation in Francophone European societies. In D. Sam, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of acculturation
psychology (pp. 349367). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sam, D. L., & Berry, J. W. (Eds.). (2006). Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sayegh, L., & Lasry, J.-C. (1993). Immigrants adaptation to Canada: Assimilation, acculturation and orthogonal cultural identication. Canadian Psychology,
24, 98109.
Schwartz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54, 93105.
Snauwaert, B., Soenens, B., Vanbeselaere, N., & Boen, F. (2003). When integration does not necessarily imply integration: Different conceptualisations of
acculturation orientations lead to different classications. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 231239.
Unger, J., Gallaher, P., Shakib, S., Ritt-Olson, A., Palmer, P., & Johnson. (2002). The AHIMSA acculturation scale: A new measure of acculturation for adolescents
in a multicultural society. Journal of Early Adolescence, 22, 225251.
Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2006). Immigrants. In D. Sam, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 163180). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1994). Acculturation strategies, psychological adjustment and socio-cultural competence during cross-cultural transitions. Inter-
national Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 329343.
Zak, I. (1976). Structure of ethnic identity in Arab Israeli students. Psychological Reports, 38, 239246.