When Integration Does Not Necessarily Imply Integration
- 1 March 2003
- journal article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
- Vol. 34 (2), 231-239
- https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022102250250
Abstract
This study compared three conceptualizations of acculturation orientations (i.e., contact, adoption, and identification) in two samples of ethnic minority members (N= 290) in Belgium. In line with the hypotheses, these conceptualizations yielded substantially different distributions of participants across four acculturation orientations (i.e., integration, assimilation, separation, and marginalization): Integration was the most popular orientation according to the contact conceptualization, but separation was the most popular one according to the adoption and identification conceptualization.Keywords
This publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit:
- Psychometric critique of acculturation psychology: The case of Iranian migrants in NorwayScandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2001
- Is acculturation unidimensional or bidimensional? A head-to-head comparison in the prediction of personality, self-identity, and adjustment.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2000
- Predicting acculturation attitudes of dominant and non-dominant groupsInternational Journal of Intercultural Relations, 1999
- Acculturation and Cognitive Performance of Migrant Children in The NetherlandsInternational Journal of Psychology, 1999
- Towards an Interactive Acculturation Model: A Social Psychological ApproachInternational Journal of Psychology, 1997
- Patterns of ethnic minority identification and modes of social adaptationEthnic and Racial Studies, 1986
- The Role of Ethnic Identification in Distinguishing Between Attitudes Towards Assimilation and Integration of a Minority Racial GroupHuman Relations, 1970
- MEMORANDUM FOR THE STUDY OF ACCULTURATIONAmerican Anthropologist, 1936