Social markers of acculturation: A new research framework on intercultural adaptation

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.08.006Get rights and content

Abstract

The research examines the social construction of acculturation and naturalization from the perspectives of both native and immigrant citizens in Singapore. More specifically, what and by how much must immigrants do in order to be considered a full participating member in the adopted society? The convergence and divergence of viewpoints will illuminate the perceptual gaps between native and immigrant communities. In addition, the composite score of the markers will provide a measurement of social inclusiveness; it reflects the depth of psychological barriers imposed by the individual in preserving the distinct boundaries of citizenship. Multivariate analyzes showed that the two groups reacted differently to the challenges and benefits from immigration. Surprisingly, naturalized citizens were more sensitive to the impact of perceived immigrant threats and contribution even though they imposed fewer barriers to the new arrivals in becoming a part of the mainstream society. The definition of socio-economic confidence and how it may moderate acculturation attitude will also be discussed.

Introduction

Acculturation refers to changes in attitudes and behaviors arising from first hand contact with members from another ethno-cultural community (Redfield, Linto, & Herskovits, 1936). Immigrants face two distinct but related questions pertinent to intercultural transition and adaptation (Berry, 2010): First, how important is it to preserve the identity and characteristics of the original culture? Second, how important is it to engage members of the recipient society? The combination of answers to the two questions yields four acculturation orientations (Integration, Assimilation, Separation, and Marginalization), each representing a different facet and process to intercultural contact.

Integration is characterized by a concurrent commitment to both the heritage identity and the dominant culture practiced in the recipient society. Separation attitude reflects the strong desire to maintaining an individual's heritage of origin but having little or no intention to embrace the culture practiced in the country of settlement. Immigrants who adopt an assimilation attitude prefer to engage recipient culture only. Lastly, immigrants who adopt a marginalization attitude display little or no interest in maintaining their native identity, nor a desire to engage members from the dominant group.

The four types of acculturation orientation predicted different socio-psychological and behavioral outcomes, although integration is generally known to be associated with the best adaptation, such as lower acculturative distress (Scottham & Dias, 2010), higher self-esteem (Berry and Sabatier, 2010, Nigbur et al., 2008, Wang et al., 2010), more pro-social behaviors (Schwartz, Zamboanga, & Jarvis, 2007), positive workplace well-being (Peeters & Oerlemans, 2009), improved life satisfaction (Pfafferott & Brown, 2006), and reduced likelihood of substance abuse and aggressive behaviors among adolescent migrants (Fosados et al., 2007, Sullivan et al., 2007).

This dual dimensional perspective is widely seen as the de facto framework in intercultural contact and it also provides a conceptual lens for acculturation research from the viewpoint of the host society or dominant group (Berry, 2010, Berry et al., 1977). The host acculturation framework is charted by two questions on cultural contact and ethnic retention: Should immigrants acquire the culture practiced in the host society? Should immigrants maintain their heritage culture? The intersection of the two dimensions produces the taxonomy of host expectations indicating multiculturalism, melting pot, segregation and exclusion. These are mirror attitudes to immigrants’ perspectives on integration, assimilation, separation, and marginalization, respectively.

Recipient nationals who embrace multiculturalism believe immigrants should maintain their cultural identity even as they immerse themselves in the culture of the adopted country; those who embrace melting pot attitude think that immigrants should relinquish their original culture and participate wholeheartedly in the recipient community; those who prefer segregation believe it is in the interest of the larger community for immigrants keep to their own and not become a part of the mainstream society; and those want exclusion think that there should be fewer immigrants.

Acculturation attitudes between the migrant communities and recipient nationals do not always converge (van Osch and Breugelmans, 2012, van Oudenhoven et al., 1998, Zagefka and Brown, 2002); most immigrant communities favor integration but for some host societies assimilation is the preferred strategy (Arends-Toth and van de Vijver, 2003, van Oudenhoven et al., 1998, Zick et al., 2001). The concordance model of acculturation (Piontkowski, Rohmann, & Florack, 2002) posits that differences in acculturation orientations between dominant and non-dominant groups are linked to perceptions of intergroup threats and attitudes. Increase divergence in acculturation orientation is correlated with greater intergroup animosity (Rohmann, Florack, & Piontkowski, 2006) and it reflects cognitive biases against the outgroup, like negative stereotypes, perceived resource scarcity and zero-sum competition (van Osch & Breugelmans, 2012). In situations where immigrants and host nationals share the same acculturation orientation (e.g., integration–integration), the intergroup relationship is said to be consensual (Bourhis, Moise, Perreault, & Senecal, 1997). When the two acculturating groups hold different engagement perspectives (e.g., assimilation–separation), the relationship is conflictual and is said to be a source of tension and distress for immigrant adolescents (Santisteban & Mitrani, 2002). Members of non-dominant group who deviates from the dominant acculturation attitude expressed lower life satisfaction and a poor quality of social engagement with the hosts (Pfafferott & Brown, 2006).

While Berry's models offer a robust framework for acculturation research, there is a recent call among researchers to think beyond this approach (Schwartz et al., 2010, Ward, 2008). This framework assumes that cultural retention and host engagement are orthogonal and each exerts comparable influence on intercultural relations. In practice, the socio-political context and other culture-specific values often determine the social representation of acculturation where some attributes are known to have a stronger influence on the outcome of intercultural contact (Schwartz et al., 2010). One example is the controversy surrounding the use of head scarf in France. The veil is considered an important religious symbol among the French Muslim women, but the public display of it is seen as an offense. The cultural hallmark of one group becomes a contested behavior for another.

Clearly, some unique cultural features matter more than the others. But neither Berry's taxonomy nor the concordance model of acculturation would differentiate these characteristics in terms of relative importance. There is thus a need to appraise if both dominant and non-dominant culture groups share the same thematic view on the meaning of acculturation. More critically, even as acculturation ideologies such as integration are promulgated as ‘the preferred approach’ by many, it is not realistic to find an accommodative stance in every situation. The onus will fall on the immigrants to embrace key national characteristics, be that language, customs, or jurisprudence, at the expense of their original culture. In essence, selective ‘assimilation’ in some aspects of intercultural contact and change. This point is also echoed by Navas et al. (2005) in which they recommended using a multi-domain approach for acculturation research; depending on public or private space, the appropriate acculturation strategies can be aligned to host expectations to suit the different context/domain.

The current research proposes a framework that examines the social construction of acculturation. In a nutshell, what and by how much must immigrants do in order to become a naturalized citizen of a country? Instead of looking at individual's orientation to heritage maintenance and intergroup contact, the proposed framework focuses on how acculturation is conceptualized and operationalized. Singapore, the place where this research was conducted, is historically a plural society. The question of acculturation is no longer if integration is preferred but what should be the shared attributes. More importantly how much should future immigrants do to become part of the mainstream?

This methodology offers an overarching framework to study the convergence of attitudes and/or identify the gaps in intercultural relations. In areas where the two groups converge are shared consensus and a space where a common ingroup identity can be forged. In areas where the two groups are at odds reveal the different perspectives to acculturation. These are the potential flash points, or the “what” characteristics.

More critically, this framework posits that the total number of items checked reflects the degree of social inclusiveness. More markers endorsed imply a more narrow definition of acculturation as it requires new immigrants to meet a more robust criterion in order to become a full member in the recipient society. On the other hand, fewer markers endorsed point to a more open and inclusive benchmark. Not unexpectedly, native-born citizens, as opposed to naturalized immigrants, would impose a higher yardstick to qualify as a member of the ingroup. The total number of markers endorsed is the dependent variable in the current study, or “how many” characteristics.

How do we validate the theoretical efficacy of this framework? A model on intergroup acculturation is presented in Fig. 1, drawing from the body of research on threat theories (Stephan, Renfro, Esses, Stephan & Martin, 2005), multicultural hypothesis (Berry, 2004, Berry et al., 1977), and the Unified Instrumental Model of Group Conflict (Esses & Jackson, 2009). Prejudice is jointly influenced by personal ideologies and situational variables, and is subjected to the presence of other moderating factors. At the individual-level, the competition for economic resources (i.e., economic threats) and the erosion of socio-cultural status (i.e., symbolic threats) in the presence of a salient outgroup influence negative sentiments against the latter. The impact is accentuated by innate dispositions associated with social dominance and the zero-sum belief in resource allocation, and reinforced by situational or contextual factors such as socio-political instability and unemployment. Recently Leong (2008, p. 126) recommends that a positive, ‘enrichment’ dimension be added to the framework to complement perceived threats since intercultural contact can be fulfilling as much as it is intimating. Specifically it recognizes the contributions of immigrants to the host society and that both positive (i.e., contributions) and negative (i.e., economic and symbolic threats) elements are theorized as spontaneous reactions to acculturation (see Fig. 1).

The outcome of acculturation is varied. According to Esses and Jackson (2009), the dominant group may engage in strategies to enhance the competitiveness of the ingroup or reduce the competitiveness of the outgroup, including exclusion and denial of access to resources for the outgroup. In this case, the total number of markers endorsed is an indicator of acculturation exclusion as it prevents the outgroup from becoming a full participating member in the host community. Perceptions of threats are assumed to have an adverse impact on attitudes with increased number of markers endorsed. On the other hand, perceived contribution from immigrants is postulated to have a positive influence on intercultural contact, i.e., fewer markers endorsed.

Proponents of the multicultural hypothesis (e.g., Berry, 2004, Berry et al., 1977) assert that confidence in one's economic and socio-cultural background will lead to mutual sharing and respect and this consequently mitigates the challenges associated with cross-cultural contact. Individuals are more open to engaging other ethno-cultural communities if they feel reassured that their status will not compromised. The sense of economic and socio-cultural security are therefore the moderators of acculturation, the link between perceived threats and exclusion (i.e., number of markers endorsed) will be weaker among those who feel secure. On the other hand, the positive impact of perceived immigrant's contribution on exclusionary attitude is likely to be accentuated among those who are confident of themselves.

What are the psychological attributes that exemplify socio-economic confidence? This paper proposes three qualities that form the bedrock of the multicultural hypothesis: national pride, economic outlook, and the strength of family bonding. Sense of national pride and economic wellbeing are two common features that measure socio-economic security in the acculturation literature, although the empirical result in support for the former is mixed. Berry found a positive impact for national pride on multicultural support, whilst Verkuyten (2005) reported an inverse relation to multicultural support among the majority host members but positively correlated to multiculturalism for minority groups. Family as an institution provides a critical pillar of social support in Asian cultures like Singapore (e.g., Vaux, 1985). Individuals with strong family bonding tend to cope better in crises (Bin Osman, Cheung, & Suppien, 2001); for instance, it enables at-risk, elderly members to adapt to aging-related challenges even in the absence of formal state support (Chan, 2005). The three components measure different facets of socio-economic resilience as each provides a psychological buffer against acculturation difficulties encountered in intercultural contact.

Immigration is both a historical and contemporary feature of Singapore's demographic contour. The former British colony has always maintained an open door policy to both immigrants and sojourners since it is founding in 1819. The influx of foreigners ensures that the country has a predictable supply of labor to meet its economic imperatives and at the same time energizes its cultural dynamism. In the 10 years between 2000 and 2010, the population of Singapore has increased from 4.03 million to 5.08 million (Singapore Population Census, see www.singstat.gov.sg), or a staggering 25% leap. With barely 710 km2 of land and one of the world's highest population density (7422 km−2), the debate on immigration is all but an emotive one.

The terms ‘immigrant’ and ‘immigration’ in the local discourse are deeply centered in the notion of citizenship. While there are other categories of residents living in the city-state (e.g., permanent residents and transient labor), only citizens are entitled to receiving comprehensive social security and in exercising political rights. Permanent residents enjoy the right to abode but the amount of benefits and privileges are substantially reduced. Sojourners and transient labor, regardless of their contributions, are not featured in the social policy radar at all. Beyond public welfare, Singapore citizenship also comes with an obligation that is not commonly imposed in other developed economies – there is a mandatory 2-year military conscription for all male citizens at the age of 18, followed by 10 years of reservist duties (www.mindef.gov.sg). This constitutional requirement sets the city-state apart from other developed countries. Adult immigrants who became Singapore citizens are excused from this obligation although their children are generally liable for enlistment.

Singapore's population policy is also among the few democracies in the world that forbids multiple citizenships. The Republic categorically prohibits all unskilled transient labor from sinking their roots here (www.mom.gov.sg) and it adopts a steadfast position to turn away all refugees to the city-state. The immigration system in Singapore is highly opaque – the criteria for citizenship are not publicly spelt out and there are no official data on the ethnic and economic background of the new arrivals (Teo, March 7, 2013; Deputy Prime Minister's speech on population at the Committee of Supply). In order to have a comparable framework for policy analysis, the study will focus on citizens only, comparing the native-born Singaporeans with naturalized immigrant citizens.

Recently, Singaporeans have expressed unease over the rapid influx of migrants and some did not want them to be a part of the larger society (e.g., The Straits Times, 2008a, The Straits Times, 2008b). The animosity reflects a deep sense of insecurity, relative deprivation and a belief in zero-sum competition. These sentiments were echoed in the opinion polls: 73.2% of Singaporeans agreed that ‘job opportunities will be reduced for native born Singaporeans if the Singapore continues to bring in immigrants’, and 55.8% agreed that the ‘government attracted immigrants to Singapore at the expense of local-born citizens’. The tension is also played out in the political sphere. The People's Action Party, the ruling political party in Singapore that supports immigration, received the lowest number of parliamentary seats in the 2011 General Elections as a result of the electoral mood swing against immigration (Channel News Asia, August 13, 2011).

In summary, this study shall explore using the social markers of acculturation as the outcome of intercultural contact. The markers are the yardsticks to becoming a part of Singapore's mainstream society while at the same time, it measures the degree of social inclusion. Increased number of markers endorsed reflects a more stringent benchmark in defining naturalization, and hence, a more exclusionary attitude. In line with the model in Fig. 1 and the conceptual propositions derived from the multicultural hypothesis, increased threats will be associated with an exclusionary attitude (i.e., more markers endorsed), but perceived contributions will have the opposite effect (i.e., fewer markers). The link between threats, contributions, and the number of social markers endorsed will be moderated by the degree of socio-economic confidence, defined as the sense of national pride, economic optimism, and the quality of family bonding. Native-born and naturalized immigrants are expected to differ in their response pattern. The former are the custodians in the recipient country whose economic livelihood and cultural identity are affected by intercultural contact in an involuntary manner. The immigrant sample on the other hand, consists of people who relocated voluntarily and are thus likely to experience an improvement in the quality of life from the transition. It is therefore assumed that the impact of threats and contributions will be felt more strongly among the native group (e.g., Birth Citizenship × Threats) and that the moderating effects of socio-economic security will also be more pronounced in this category of respondents (e.g., Birth Citizenship × Threats × National Pride).

Section snippets

Respondents

The sample consists of 2001 Singapore citizens who were at least 21 years old. There were 1001 and 1000 native- and foreign-born, naturalized citizens, respectively. The data were collected using a quota sampling method controlling for age, gender and ethnicity. The survey was conducted using door-to-door interviews in different residential estates. For standardized sampling, only Singapore citizens aged 21 and ago were invited for participation. Age and household income were measured in

Descriptive and comparative statistics

The data on the social markers were analyzed at two levels: First, the overall percentage of endorsement for each item was tabulated, and then segmented by birth citizenship, i.e., native-born versus naturalized immigrants (see Table 1). For items where intergroup differences are marginal, these are the areas where both groups agree as either important or unimportant in the acculturation process (i.e., consensual). For items where there are considerable disagreements, these are the potential

Discussion

The study proposes a new approach to intercultural research using critical markers of acculturation as a measurement of adaptation and inclusion. The markers are used as yardsticks of acculturation for new immigrants coming to Singapore. The sample comprises both native- and foreign-born naturalized citizens, all of whom completed a 27-item acculturation checklist and other socio-psychological inventories measuring perceived threat, contributions, national pride, economic optimism, and the

References (47)

  • C. Ward

    Thinking outside the Berry boxes: New perspectives on identity, acculturation and intercultural relations

    International Journal of Intercultural Relations

    (2008)
  • J. Arends-Toth et al.

    Multiculturalism and acculturation: Views of Dutch and Turkish-Dutch

    European Journal of Social Psychology

    (2003)
  • J.W. Berry

    Fundamental psychological processes in intercultural relations

  • J.W. Berry

    Immigration and integration: The Canadian experience

  • J.W. Berry et al.

    Multiculturalism and ethnic attitudes in Canada

    (1977)
  • M. Bin Osman et al.

    Resilience in families at risk: Giving a healthy start to their children

    Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work and Development

    (2001)
  • A. Bizman et al.

    Intergroup and interpersonal threats as determinants of prejudice: The moderating role of ingroup identification

    Basic and Applied Social Psychology

    (2001)
  • R. Bourhis et al.

    Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach

    International Journal of Psychology

    (1997)
  • C.B. Brettell et al.

    Immigrant suburban settlement and the “Threat” to middle class status and identity: The case of farmers branch, Texas

    International Migration

    (2011)
  • S.R. Briggs et al.

    The role of factor analysis in the evaluation of personality scales

    Journal of Personality

    (1986)
  • A. Chan

    Aging in Southeast and East Asia: Issues and policy directions

    Journal of Cross-cultural Gerontology

    (2005)
  • Channel News Asia

    Singapore will lose vitality and drive without immigrants, says Lee Kuan Yew

    (August 13, 2011)
  • J. Cohen et al.

    Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences

    (2003)
  • Cited by (32)

    • Acculturation spillovers between work and nonwork settings

      2023, Journal of International Management
    • Torn between two worlds: COVID, it's your fault

      2022, International Journal of Intercultural Relations
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text