Describe one study investigating acculturation.

Refer to the paper 1 section A markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.

The command term “describe” requires candidates to give a detailed account of one study investigating acculturation.

Candidate responses should include information related to the aim, procedure, findings, and conclusion(s) of the study. Information relevant to a description includes, but is not limited to:

• the aim of the study is linked to acculturation
• a description of the research method used
• a description of the design and identification of the IV and DV of an experiment
• use of terminology to classify an observation (e.g. covert, participant, naturalistic) or an interview (structured, semi-structured, focus group)
• use of correlational design
• identification of the sample that was used; however, precise sample sizes are not required
• controls used by the researcher
• materials used in the study
• the conclusions drawn from the findings with regard to acculturation. Candidates do not need to state the statistical results.

Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:

• Lueck and Wilson’s (2010) study on predicting acculturative stress in Asian immigrants and Asian Americans
• Wang et al.’s (2010) study on dimensions on acculturation and positive psychological functioning in Cuban American university students
• Shah et al.’s (2015) study on obesity in South Asian workers in the United Arab Emirates
• Miranda and Matheny’s (2000) study on socio-psychological predictors of acculturative stress among Latino adults
• Berry et al.’s (1987) study on acculturative stress.
• Torres et al. (2012) on the correlation of integration and disorientation in Latino-Americans.

If a candidate addresses acculturation but does not describe a relevant study, award up to a maximum of [4].

If a candidate describes more than one study, credit should be given only to the first study.

HL:

The stronger responses provided a clear, accurate and detailed description of a relevant study investigating acculturation where candidates successfully and explicitly showed how the findings of the selected piece of research illustrated the process of acculturation. These responses tended to focus on the following studies: Lueck and Wilson's (2010) study of variables predicting acculturative stress in Asian Americans, Wang et al.'s (2010) survey of Cuban American University students or Miranda and Matheny's (2000) study of Latino cultures and protective factors against acculturative stress. The majority of response did not reach the requirements of the top markbands for this question. Again, for a question requiring candidates to describe a study, there was a high percentage of imbalanced responses consisting of redundant detail describing Berry's (1974) acculturation strategies followed by an underdeveloped study description and superficial evidence of how the findings demonstrated acculturation.

In many cases it was evident that candidates were unable to show accurate understanding of the concept of acculturation. There were many examples of responses simply addressing aspects of culture (e.g. cultural dimensions) accompanied by inappropriate examples of research or confusing acculturation and enculturation. A significant proportion of responses were awarded no marks however as they simply addressed irrelevant social psychology studies such as Asch's conformity experiment, Bandura's social cognitive experiment or Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment.

SL:

This question also asked candidates to describe a study and it was clear that many candidates struggled with the concept of acculturation. A large percentage of candidates offered studies of enculturation or cultural differences instead and therefore failed to attract marks. There were a significant proportion who described Asch, Tajfel, Bandura and Zimbardo which were not creditworthy. Several candidates spent time describing Berry's (1974) four different acculturation strategies: assimilation, integration, separation, and marginalization, but the question was asking them to describe a study.

Candidates who scored well tended to choose Lueck and Wilson's (2010) study of variables that predict acculturative stress in Asian Americans, Wang et al.'s (2010) survey of Cuban American university candidates or Miranda and Matheny's (2000) study of Latino cultures and protective factors against acculturative stress. The best answers were able to give detailed accounts of the aim, sample, research method, controls, materials and a conclusion that was explicitly linked to the question.