Berry’s Acculturation Framework

According to Berry (1997) immigrants are faced with two fundamental questions, one referring to maintaining the home culture, “Is it of value to maintain my cultural heritage?”

and one referring to relations with other ethno-cultural groups, “Is it of value to maintain relations with other groups?” (Berry, 1997; Wiley et al., 2008). Acculturation is defined as:-

“Cultural change that is initiated by the conjunction of two or more autonomous cultural systems ... it may be the consequences of direct cultural transmission; it may be derived from non-culture causes, such as ecological or demographic modifications induced by an impinging culture; it may be delayed, as with internal adjustments following the acceptance of alien traits or patterns, or it may be a reactive adaptation of traditional modes of life. Its dynamics can be seen as the selective adaptation of value systems, the processes of integration and differentiation, the generation of developmental sequences, and the operation of role determinants and personality factors.” (Social Science Research Council, 1954 cited in Peñaloza, 1989, p.111).

Berry (1980, 1989) proposed an acculturation framework widely used in consumer behaviour research (Maldonado and Tansuhaj, 2002; Lerman Maldonado and Luna, 2009; Jimenez et al., 2013). His framework reflects the degrees of cultural identification with the heritage culture (home) and the identification with the dominant culture (host).

Four acculturation strategies are generated; integration, assimilation, separation, and marginalisation. The strategy underlies the preference and orientation of identification with an attachment to the dominant culture (Laroche et al., 2007) and the extent to which the cultural identity and characteristics of the home culture are maintained (Kim, Laroche and Tomiuk, 2001).

The assimilation strategy is defined as when individuals do not wish to maintain their cultural identity and seek daily interaction with other cultures. In contrast, separation is when individuals place value in holding on to their heritage culture and avoid interaction with other cultures. When there is an interest in both maintaining one’s heritage culture whilst having daily interactions with other cultural groups, this is defined as integration (Berry, 1997). Finally, marginalisation is when there is little possibility or interest in

cultural maintenance of the home, and little interest in having relation with the host.

(Figure 3).

Figure 3. Acculturation Strategies by Berry (1997, p.10)

Immigrant groups may hold varying attitudes towards these four acculturation strategies and their actual behaviours may vary correspondingly. Attitudes towards these four alternatives have been measured in numerous studies (Berry et al., 1989). Much of the research on immigration within psychology has an emphasis on acculturation. Berry and his associates conducted numerous empirical studies to assess the acculturation strategies of various immigrant groups in North America (Berry et al., 1989). In a study of adolescents with an immigrant background in Portugal to understand preferences in acculturation strategies the results obtained showed that integration was the preferred mode of acculturation, followed either by assimilation or separation, while marginalisation was the least preferred mode of acculturation (Neto, 2001). Studies have suggested that in plural societies, and even in relatively mono-cultural societies, integration is the most adaptive form for immigrants, and marginalisation is the least adaptive (Berry, 1997).

Similarly, immigrants and ethnic minorities living in plural societies that follow integration policies are suggested to have better psychological adaptation.

Migration scholars recognise that many cultural groups maintain their ties to their countries of origin at the same time that they become integrated into the host country.

yes

Issue 1 Is it considered to be of value to maintain one’s identity and characteristics?:

MAINTENANCE OF HERITAGE CULTURE AND IDENTITY

Integration Assimilation

Separation Marginalization no yes

no Issue 2:

Is it considered to be of value to maintain

relationships with larger society?

RELATIONSHIPS SOUGHT

AMONG GROUPS

This indicates that generations assimilate over time, thus implying the cultural change toward the host culture. However, some researchers have argued that cultural values are passed on to the next generation (Triandis, 1995), implying that the heritage culture is stable and does not change. Although acculturation research indicated that immigrants adapt to the host culture (“over-assimilation” Wallendorf and Reilly, 1983), other researchers argue that the heritage culture will renew its importance (Mehta and Belk, 1991; Douglas and Craig, 1997; de Mooij, 2000).

In line with the assumption that cultural values are passed on, thus not changing towards the host, Peñaloza (1994) and Oswald (1999) showed how acculturation does not lead to assimilation, thus following a linear path of adapting to the host culture influencing the consumer behaviour. In line with this research Askegaard et al. (2005) contributed to the post-assimilationist acculturation with a sample in a non-North American consumer context. Many argue, that the children of immigrants are unlikely to engage with the same intensity and frequency in their ancestral homes nor will they be as influenced by home country values and practices. Levitt (2009) argues that the culture of the home cannot be completely disregarded and at the same time cannot be maintained at the same level (Levitt, 2009). Research has shown that acculturation moderates the effect of culture on consumer behaviour (Deshpande et al., 1986; Ueltschy and Krampf, 1997;

Roslow and Nicholls, 1996; Ganesh, 1997; Webster, 1994; Wallendorf and Reilly, 1983;

Kara and Kara; 1996).

A number of contextual factors are relevant for understanding acculturation. Firstly, there are the general orientations that a society and its citizens have towards immigration and immigrants, e.g. conflicts between a group of the mainstream and immigrants (Luedicke, 2011); discrimination and even racism of immigrants (Crul, Schneider, Lelie, 2013), unacceptance bias on religious beliefs, “Islamisation”. Some societies are accepting of cultural pluralism resulting from immigration taking steps to support the continuation of cultural diversity as a shared communal resource. This position represents a positive multicultural ideology (Berry and Kalin, 1995) and corresponds to an expectation that the integration strategy will be the appropriate way in which cultural communities should engage each other. Other societies seek to eliminate diversity through policies and programs of assimilation, and still other societies attempt to achieve the separation or marginalisation of their diverse populations.

Secondly, the important issue to understand for the process of acculturation is both the historical and attitudinal situation faced by immigrants in the host country (Luedicke, 2011), and the course of development of immigrants. There is no set classification or age

at which strategies are used (Ho, 1995), and therefore is outside the scope of this study.

Over the period of acculturation, individuals explore various strategies and select one that is more satisfying than the others. Not all cultural groups and individuals undergo acculturation in the same way; there are large variations in how cultural groups seek to engage in the process. These have been termed as acculturation strategies (Berry, 1980).

These issues require commentary as preferences for one acculturation strategy over others is known to vary, depending on context and time period (e.g. length of residence).

Firstly, there is usually an overall coherent preference for one particular strategy (Berry et al., 1989). However, there can also be variation according to one’s location. In more private spheres or domains (such as the home, the extended family, the ethnic community) more cultural maintenance may be sought than in more public spheres (such as the workplace. or in politics), and there may be less intergroup contact sought in private spheres than in the more public ones. Secondly, the broader national context may affect acculturation strategies, such that in explicitly multicultural societies individuals may seek to match such a policy with a personal preference for integration. In assimilationist societies, acculturation may be easiest by adopting an assimilation strategy for oneself (Krishnan & Berry, 1992). That is, individuals may well be constrained in their choice of strategy, even to the point where there is a very limited role for personal preference. Thirdly, there is evidence that during the course of development, and over the period of major acculturation, individuals explore various strategies, eventually settling on one that is more useful and satisfying than the others (Berry and Kim, 1988).

Acculturation refers to the phenomena that result when different cultures meet and interact (Luedicke, 2011) and substantial consumer research (Berry, 1980; 1997;

Maldonado and Tansuhaj, 2002; Lerman, Maldonado, and Luna, 2009; Jimenez, Hadjimarcou, Barua, and Michie, 2013) identifies and applies four modes of acculturation associated with adjustment to and adoption of the host culture by immigrant consumers.

Two fundamental considerations underpin such phenomena: the extent to which an immigrant consumer (or group) feels a sense of identification with the heritage culture and the need to relate to the host culture (Berry, 1980). Berry’s framework has been applied by other researchers in a consumer context. Peñaloza’s (1994) study with Mexican Americans added profound knowledge to consumer acculturation. Peñaloza’s framework is similar to Berry’s framework with separation (i.e. maintenance of the home culture), integration (i.e. a hybrid combination of the home and host culture), assimilation into the host culture and marginalisation (i.e. resistance of both cultures).

Korzenny and Korzenny (2005) also differentiate four strategies. Their approach involves language dominance. The ethnic dominant group (defined as Hispanic dominant group), is equal to Berry’s separation strategy. The composition of this ethnic dominant group depends on the ethnic language. The ethnic language determines the learning process of new products and services. The bi-cultural or acculturation strategy (i.e. equal to Berry’s integration strategy and Peñaloza’s hybrid culture) constitutes the second group.

Individuals in this outcome “navigate between the Hispanic and Anglo cultures”

(Korzenny and Korzenny, p.141). Bi-cultural individuals’ preference relates to the acquisition of the home and host cultural values, in which their decisions are based on situation (i.e. private and public life) and reference groups (i.e. peers). The third strategy outlined by Korzenny and Korzenny (2005) is defined as assimilation. Assimilated individuals do not identify themselves with the ethnic identity. The final strategy is assumed to be culturally unique (i.e. Berry’s marginalisation strategy) and individuals are assumed to develop a unique identity. This group does not identify themselves with the ethnic identity or the host identity.

Maldonado and Tansuhaj (2002) also applied Berry’s framework. Their study concluded in three acculturation strategies; separation, integration and assimilation. The marginalisation strategy was not considered. The authors of the study argue that a marketplace’s success is not a dominant subject in marginalisation, because they resist both cultures and associated products or services (Peñaloza, 1994). Madonado and Tansuhaj (2002) state in their segmentation study the application difficulties of reaching marginalised individuals for surveys. These research frameworks are all derived from Berry (1980) and have the same underlying concept with variation in acculturation outcomes.

From a US context, the perception of acculturation amongst marketers barely deviated from assimilation (Peñaloza, 1993), where generation-by-generation, assumption was made that eventual incorporation into the chosen host culture would occur. O’Guinn, Imperia and MacAdams (1987) defined acculturation as “the process by which those new to a society adopt the attitudes, values and behaviours of the dominant host culture”

(p.78). Immigrants were seen as relinquishing identification with the home culture and

“progressing” towards identification with the host society and adopting their cultural traits, values, attitudes and behaviours (Olmedo, 1979). In short, acculturation was equated to assimilation. The acculturation strategy of assimilation has also dominated marketing (Peñaloza, 1994). In a directional sense, this may appear to concur with Arends-Tóth and van de Vijver (2004), although these authors pointed to generation-by-generation integration and cultural preservation being upheld, with their study of Mexican

immigrants locating to the United States. The study reflected the complexity of the acculturation process in their consumer behaviour exhibiting characteristics that went way beyond the anticipated assimilation (Peñaloza, 1994). Research has shown that acculturation does not follow a linear process starting from the heritage culture and moving towards the host culture, but rather it is a more cyclical process (Jun et al., 1994).

Criticism of the simplicity of these assumptions to assimilation is long established, with recognition given to the ongoing changes in patterns of immigration into the United States, and with this, variation in the related processes of acculturation (Jun et al., 1994), particularly given differences in language and culture relative to that of the United States as the host. Ethnic groups are heterogeneous in their composition, with recognisable differences in consumer behaviour that is driven more potentially by demography (Burton, 2002), with acculturation attainment in the consumer sense being measurable by age, educational achievement, income, duration of residence and social class (Jun et al., 1994). Consumer acculturation showed that the culture change of ethnic groups is not linear (Peñaloza, 1994), and is not demonstrated in the host culture. Within a European context Askegaard et al. (2005) has examined a minority group in Denmark to confirm the theory of non-linearity. The study of Askegaard et al. provides valuable knowledge and confirms the post-assimilationist position. This phenomenon of cultural change over time from the perspective of non-Western immigrant consumers, negotiating between the home and the host culture (Oswald, 1999; Thompson and Tambyah, 1999; Askegaard et al., 2005), could be examined within subcultural groups.

Inglehart and Baker (2000) found that a shift from traditional values to secular-rational values associated with the transition from agrarian society to industrial society. Further evidence revealed that, although economic development leads to a shift, traditional religious values remain strong. Many non-Western immigrants in Western countries came from agrarian societies, in which religion was important. Religion is a central part of life that is often developed at an early age and therefore plays a significant role in establishing consumption prescriptions and proscriptions for many individuals (Sheikh and Thomas 1994; Berkman et al. 1997). Secondly, religion represents the most basic element of the individual’s cognitive world. There is insufficient research to provide an understanding of this phenomenon. The importance of understanding acculturation and therefore the preferred value in marketing is stated by Aaker and Fournier (1995, p.52):

“if there is a ‘most useful’ segmentation variable, it would be benefits sought from a product, because the selection of benefits can determine a total business strategy”. It is important to generate solutions for daily practices for which products may be relevant.

However, research has also shown that some value priorities, e.g. religion, towards the heritage culture are preferred and influence consumption.

Immigrants exposed to two cultures, the home and the host (e.g. subculture segments within countries) need recognition and a separate approach and marketing strategy. To have an enduring marketing strategy based on an adapted market, segmentation acculturation helps the understanding of immigrants’ consumer behaviour with the possible cultural change over time. The change of culture over time as argued in cross-cultural consumer behaviour and marketing (Douglas and Craig, 1997; de Mooij, 2000) is fundamental to understand the influence on Immigrants’ consumer acculturation. For marketing knowledge and marketing management, a consumer-oriented strategy coordinated with target customer attitudes and values has a greater prospect of success (Cleveland et al., 2011).

There is still little research being carried out into how acculturation influences different ethnic groups’ consumer behaviour, especially among the non-Western immigrants in Western countries. It will be useful to study the extent to which acculturation influences ethnic consumers due to immigration and thus exposure to the host culture. Individuals may be at different levels of acculturation in occasions, and social activity, depending upon the situation (O'Guinn et al. 1986; Stayman and Deshpande, 1989). Individuals may experience changes more than once, and therefore the acculturation process should be viewed as a fluid, never-ending process (Berry, Trimble, and Olmedo, 1986).

In psychology, acculturation research has become an important area (Arends-Tóth and Van de Vijver, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2011). A range of studies has considered acculturation.

For example acculturation strategies (Berry, 1980), the role of cultural awareness (Keefe and Padilla, 1987) and acculturation on the group and on the individual level (Berry, 1997). Scholars have researched generational differences among Asian families (Kwak and Berry, 2001) and acculturation strategies and attitudes (Navas et al., 2005). Further studies included unidimensional and bidimensional models of acculturation (Arends-Tóth and Van de Vijver, 2006) and separation in life domains (Arends-Tóth and Van de Vijver, 2004) and the importance of language orientation (Yagmur and Van de Vijver, 2012).

Acculturation has the underlying interest of varieties of adaptation (Berry, 1997).

Peñaloza (1994) sees the acculturation process as a movement, translation and adaptation similar to Berry’s framework. Other scholars applied this acculturation framework to study consumer acculturation. Consumer acculturation is described as "the general process of movement and adaptation, to the consumer cultural environment in one country by persons from another country" (Peñaloza, 1994, p.33). The difference

between acculturation and consumer acculturation is the consumers’ adaptation of the attitudes and behaviours of the host culture (O'Guinn et aI., 1986), therefore has an implications for ethnic consumers’ behaviour.

It is expected that non-Western immigrants in a host society do not acculturate from the home culture to the host culture (Oswald, 1999). Acculturation research places consumers into groups, i.e. acculturation modes. Some researchers question whether this is appropriate categorisation for immigrants (Askegaard et al., 2005). Defining and targeting different market segments is recognised as being highly challenging, with segments being shaped around consumer geography, personal demographics and lifestyle indicators (Solomon, 2002; Kotler, 2003). It is important to recognise the heterogeneous nature of the consumer to develop market segmentation strategies (Bock and Uncles, 2002). It is acknowledged that consumers are not homogeneous (Oswald, 1999), and thus traditional approaches around mass marketing and segmentation based on established demographic measures is becoming obsolete (Addis and Podesta, 2005).

This complexity is found particularly within ethnic minority groups where marketers have recognised the need to target such consumers through initiatives that do not rely on the simplest of labels, but encompass a full range of characteristics (Holland and Gentry, 1999), including values and common interests (Firat and Dholakia, 2006). In this context, the following section discusses the review of consumer acculturation theory.