Acculturation is the process of learning and adopting the behaviours of another culture.  There are several groups that do this – immigrants, refugees, exchange students, people working for international companies.  But not everyone does it to the same extent.  Psychologists have found that the way that one acculturates can have an effect on their mental and physical health.  

Berry proposed a model that was based on two key factors. First, one’s feelings about the need to preserve their own culture; Second, one’s relationship with the new culture. He proposed four strategies for acculturation. Assimilation is when one “abandons” one’s own culture and completely adopts the values and behaviours of the new culture. Integration is when one is comfortable in both cultures.  Separation is when one maintains their own culture and does not adopt the values/behaviours of the new culture.  And finally, marginalization is when one does not identify with their own culture and yet is not accepted or does not identify with the new culture.  

Wang et al (2010) wanted to see how one’s relationship with both their own culture and the US culture would affect their mental health.  The sample was made up of Cuban university students; all had at least one parent born in Cuba. The students took a Likert-scale survey that measured their attitudes towards both cultures, the way they identified themselves (American, Cuban-American, Cuban) and their levels of depression, anxiety, and self-esteem. They found that those who were comfortable in both cultures – that is, were truly bicultural – had better mental health.

The study is important because it does not just look at one’s relationship with either the host culture and their home culture, but the relationship with both of the cultures.  It seems to support Berry’s model that integration is the most “positive” strategy.  However, the sample was taken from an introductory psychology class, so there is a sampling bias that may influence the outcome.  First, the sample has a certain level of education and may feel that they have more opportunities in the new culture.  In addition, the university was in Miami which has a large Cuban community.  The results may have been different if a student was only one of a few Cubans in a community.  Finally, it may be assumed that they are members of a certain socioeconomic class and therefore have a positive relationship with their new country.  All of this could have affected the results, meaning that their positive mental health may be the result of many more factors than simply their identification with both cultures.

Another study looked at refugees coming from North Korea. In this case, we have a factor that Berry’s model does not discuss – why we people have to acculturate.  In the case of people in international companies or even many immigrants, there is a choice to move to another country with the hope of better economic opportunity. However, refugees are escaping war and oppression – and this means that they may suffer from trauma that plays a role in their acculturation process. A study by Kraeh et al (2016) looked at the mental health of North Korean refugees who had moved to Seoul. Over 400 refugees were given surveys and they were also given a medical check-up. The surveys looked at both their level of acculturation and their mental health.  The study showed that those who had acculturated into the South Korean culture had better mental and physical health.  However, they also found that those who were more recently arrived had reduced physical health because of the stress of South Korean society.  However, they had positive mental health as they were no longer living in North Korea.  The researchers argued that over time, the improved mental health led to better physical health as they acculturated and learned coping strategies for their new environment.  

The study had a relatively large sample size and used a highly standardized approach.  The surveys looked at depression and anxiety but did not measure levels of PTSD – or ask for narrative stories of the individual’s experience, so although we assume that the refugees in this study have suffered from trauma, that is not actually part of the research.  In addition, it is a rather unique situation in which Koreans from the North move to the South.  Although there are clearly political and economic differences, the cultural differences may not be as great as moving to a Western culture.   Therefore, the transferability of the findings is limited.  Finally, knowing how difficult it is to leave North Korea, one has to wonder what possible traits led to their ability to flee and how this may then affect their ability to acculturate as well as their mental health.

The study of acculturation has a problem with construct validity. First, the four strategies that Berry identifies are difficult to measure. It assumes that people fall neatly into one of the four boxes.  Secondly, when looking at mental health – especially when doing cross-cultural diagnosis – this is problematic. It assumes that mental health is expressed and discussed in the same way across cultures.  Finally, when measuring one’s level of “acculturative stress”, it is questionable to what extent this can be quantified.

Acculturation research is complex.  It is a holistic approach to understanding human health and wellness, so it is difficult to know the extent to which the many variables involved play a role.  In refugees, we cannot discount the fact that they may have experienced trauma.  In addition, many refugees and asylum seekers can never go back to their country.  This is very different from international workers who plan to return “home” and do not see an advantage to acculturation. There are also limitations of Berry’s model of acculturation. The model is in one direction – immigrants need to fit into the mainstream culture.  This has been criticized by some as being hierarchical and not recognizing that culture changes over time. It also labels people as having “a strategy” whereas strategies may be context-dependent. A university student may feel very comfortable in their own culture when celebrating traditional rituals or discussing family but may be unable to relate to their own culture when discussing political ideas.  La Fromboise’s Alternation model argues that people’s relationship with culture changes based on time and situation. Overall, the argument is that the model is helpful, but it is overly simplistic.