Acculturation, Biculturism and Marginalization Essay

Ross-Sheriff (2011) commented that multinational migration patterns fix * lurchd as a yield of broad tender, political, economic, and environ mental * trends and pardoned the causes of the driving forces were including war, * planetaryization, urbanization, and changing ethnic norms regarding social routines and * responsibilities (Ross-Sheriff, 2011).With these interwoven trends of migration * patterns, vanguard Hear (2010) viewed migration as a forge which was an intrinsic ruin * of broader social mutations, solely which everyplacely had its own internal dynamics with * separate factors cogitate to the migrating process, shaping social transformation in their * own way. Migration was in like manner linked in complex ways to class, gender, generation, * ethnicality and different social factors, which were corporal in positions in home and host * communities, and in work and domesticated transactionhips, all(prenominal) of which powerfulness be * change in the course of the migrant process (Van Hear, 2010).To control this complex process of migration, especially under changing circumstances of nonp beil socialization to an anformer(a)(prenominal), it might be useful to shit c erstwhileptual tools for understanding these transitory processes in migration studies and in social learning more widely (Van hear, 2010). They also include mediating agents and transitions that requisite also to be accounted for, as hearty as intersections among class, gender, generation, ethnicity and separate social ruptures as well as the main driving forces of migration (Van Hear, 2010).Of course at that place were different essential excogitations such as relations betwixt time and space, between dynamics or processes and outcomes, and between structure and agency that needed to get direction (Van Hear, 2010). However, it is impossible to discuss all different divinatory concepts relate in different types of migration process in the cur rent limited scan.Rather, this study tried to focus on mental impacts such as ethnic individuation element and egotism on migration through finish processes evently on family- related migration because different patterns of migration produced different communities and resulted in producing different migrant identities including varying levels of psychological distress (Jones, 2008). Further, few a posteriori studies make believe focused on migrant adults populations.Most migrants identification related literatures tended to relate more for adolescents or teenaged children because individuality formation might be particularly challenging in this cohort, especially when the values and beliefs of their natal goal differed distinguishificantly from those of the host beau monde (Sodowsky, Kwan, & Pannu, 1995 as cited in Farver, Narang, & Bhadha, 2002). on that pointfore, this study focused on ethnic identicalness and self-identification issues of adult migrants themsel ves within a family structure according to different metaphysical nonpluss relevant to adaptation of untried cultures, because family was the basic agent in the friendship (Nesdale, Rooney, & Smith, 1997).In fact, most heathenish acquisition theories developed and evolved in nineties when international migration became a chance on issue in international administration at the beginning of 1990s. As Castle (2002) argued that migration, development and international relations were closely connected as migration was a major factor of transformation for some(prenominal) sending and receiving countries for different types of migrants (Castle, 2002). With this perspective, this study broadly speaking focused on those migration culture acquisition theories developed in 1990 rather consequently tantrum at current perspectives in the most recent literatures, which actually have evolved from these master theories in 1990s (Castle, 2002).As the findings from these inquiry studie s has had been mixed or sometimes contradictory, it was important to understand the exact nature of the relationship between migrant ethnic identification and the refinement process two need to be specified and assessed properly with coherent measurements and theoretical assumptions (Nesdale et al. , 1997). Important theoretical concepts ethnic identity, cultivation, biculturism, and marginalisation. harmonize to Phinney (1990 as cited in Farver, Narang & Bhadha., 2002), ethnic identity and civilisation were related but separate constructs.Ethnic identity involves an exclusives self-identification as a separate member, a sense of belong to an ethnic root, attitudes toward ethnic group of membership, and degree of ethnic group involvement (Farver et al. , 2002). The terminus socialization was defined in anthropology as those phenomena, which resulted when groups of individuals having different cultures came into continuous first-hand spot with subsequent changes in the chan nelal pattern of either or twain(prenominal) groups (Redfield, Linton, & Herskovits, 1936 as cited in Birman, 1994).Although socialization was a neutral term in this context (that is, change might take place in either or both groups), in practice, finish tended to induce more changes in one of the groups than in the other ( pluck, 1990a as cited in pick, 1997) Berry (1997) argued that in all plural societies, heathenish groups and their individual members, in both overabundant and non-dominant situations, must deal with the issue of how to acculturate.According to Berry (1997), four civilisation strategies were introduced assimilation, separation, marginalization, and desegregation. When individuals do not wish to maintain their cultural identity and desire daily interaction with other new cultures, the assimilation strategy is defined. In contrast, when individuals place a value on holding on to their sea captain culture, and at the resembling time wish to avoid intera ction with others, so the separation is defined (Berry, 1997).When there is an take in both maintaining ones passkey culture, date in daily interactions with other groups, integration is the option here, there is some degree of cultural integrity maintained, while at the same time seeking to participate as an integral part of the larger social network (Berry, 1997). Last, when there is little hatchway or interest in cultural maintenance (often for reasons of enforced cultural loss), and little interest in having relations with others (often for reasons of exclusion or favoritism) then marginalization is defined (Berry, 1997).However, this absorption categories model has been criticized methodologically (Rudmin, 2003, 2009 as cited in Schwartz et al. , 2010) because all four of Berrys categories were represented in the same way by creating the two by two matrix of acculturation categories between superior and low. However, the cut off point between high and low was arbitrary and would differ across samples, making comparisons across studies difficult, resulting in the fact that all four categories existed and were equally valid (Rudmin, 2003 as cited in Schwartz et al., 2010) and suggesting that not all of Berrys categories might exist in a given sample or population, and that some categories might have multiple subtypes (Schwartz et al. , 2010).In particular, Berry (1997) viewed the term biculturism as referring to acculturation that involved the individual simultaneously in the two cultures that were in get together in endogenetic ways, which appeared to be a consistent predictor of more corroboratory outcomes than the three alternatives of assimilation, separation, or marginalization.Berry and his colleagues (surface-to-air missile & Berry, 1995) assessed the acculturation strategies of various immigrant groups in northwesterly America and the results showed that bicultural individuals see less acculturative stress, anxiety and fewer psychologi cal problems significantly, while marginalized individuals suffered the most psychological distress, including problems with self-identification and cultural alienation, which adversely affected their self-esteem (Farver et al. , 2002).However, Shiraev and impose (2007) explained acculturative stress as a negative tint that a marginalized person might experience as a distress psychological reaction to any unfamiliar cultural environment ground on the assumption that person and groups undergoing any social and cultural change should experience a certain amount of psychological distress. Generally, many advance(prenominal) explanations of acculturation focused on exposure to two cultures simultaneously as a culture shock, which was a reactive state of specific pathology or deficit, rather than taking advantage of being bicultural (Berry & Annis, 1974 Shiraev et al., 2007).The validity of marginalization as an approach to acculturation by Berry (1997) was also questioned (Del Pil ar & Udasco, 2004 as cited in Schwartz et al. , 2010). Schawartz et al. argued that the likelihood that a person would develop a cultural sense of self without drawing on either the heritage or receiving cultural contexts would be less likely to. The marginalization approach might be true only for the small segment of migrants who rejected both their heritage and receiving cultures (Berry, 2006b).Indeed, studies using empirically found clustering methods have instal small or nonexistent marginalization groups and scales that attempted to measure marginalization typically had poor reliability and validity compared with scales for the other categories (Cuellar, Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995 Unger et al. , 2002 as cited in Schwartz et al. , 2010). As described prior, the impact of migrant ethnic identity on psychological distress had comparatively diverse points of views if they were either negative or positive reactions, depending on different theoretical frames.For example, sociable I dentity system (Tajfel & Turner, 2001) and Self-Categorization Theory (Turner, 1987) stress more on the importance to individuals of their identification with particular social groups. Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 2001 as cited in Yip, Gee, & Takeuchi, 2008) viewed a possible explanation for why ethnic identity might airplane pilot the effects of discrimination. According to this theory,individuals chose from an array of possible social identity groups and, once those groups were chosen, individuals focused on the positive aspects of their in-group, which helped to boost their own esteem, suggesting that ethnic identity was more important to their overall identity (Yip et al. , 2009).In contrast, if ethnicity was a rally component of ones identity, it might actually exacerbate the effects of discrimination, resulting in a greater negative impact on mental health, according to self-categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987 as cited in Yip et al., 2008), suggesting that tribe should be more in tune with environmental incites that were relevant to an important aspect of their identity.That is, experiences of racial discrimination might be such a cue relevant to their ethnic identity. Indeed, research suggested that African American adults and adolescents who reported substantial racial centrality were also more likely to report experiences of racial discrimination (Neblett, Shelton, & Sellers, 2004 Sellers, Caldwell, Schmeelk-Cone, & Zimmerman, 2003 Sellers & Shelton, 2003 as cited in Yip et al., 2008).However, despite this emphasis by social theorists, they tended to forget the larger literature that involved with both ethnicity and the acculturation process (Liebkind, 1993 1996 as cited in Nesdale, Rooney & Smith, 1997). First of all, these different findings resulted from lack of inclusion of acculturation itself as a variable methodologically when acculturation was considered as a phenomenon in research designs (Sam and Berry, 2006).Without including acculturation as a variable, the explanations for adult male style similarities and differences across populations would remain incomplete (Sam et al. , 2006). Second, a further criticism of the acculturation literatures was that the same two acculturation processes, and the same four-acculturation categories, characterized all migrants equallyirrespective of the type of migrant, the countries of origin and settlement, and the ethnic group in question, according to Berrys (1980) model and other similar approaches (Sam et al., 2006).Finally, the vast majority of studies in the acculturation literature have focused on behavioral acculturation (Schwartz et al. , 2010). That is, most widely used acculturation measures included primarily (or only) items assessing quarrel use and other cultural practices (e. g. , Cuellar, Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995 Stephenson, 2000 Szapocznik, Kurtines, & Fernandez, 1980 as cited in Schwartz et al. , 2010) repay able to evaluate the fact that cultural practices might provide only a bonny proxy for cultural adaptation (Schwartz et al., 2010).Theoretical frameworks for acculturation research Shiraev & Levy (2007) claimed that cross-cultural psychologists usually used three approaches to examine human activities in various cultural settings. They were the sociobiological approach, the sociological approach and eco-cultural approach (Shiraev et al. , 2007). In particular, the eco-cultural approach emphasized both the environment and the individual were seen as indeterminate and interchanging systems (Shiraev et al., 2007), introducing John Berry whom originally developed this theory further in modern-day cross-cultural psychology.Shiraev et al. (2007) also pointed out that specialists should to be able to explain how, why, and to what extent people differed from one another, when ecological, biological, cultural, and acculturation factors were identified and taken into amity (Berry, J. W. , Poortinga, Y. H. , Segall, M. H. , & Dasen. P. R. ,1992 as cited in Shiraev et al. , 2007). In related to the concerns pointed by Shiraev et al.(2007), Berry (1997) argued earlier there were important links between cultural context and individual behavioural development, demonstrating what happened to individuals who developed in one cultural context when attempting to re-establish their lives in another one through his acculturation research framework, by support the fact that acculturation was one of the most complex areas of research in cross-cultural psychology because the process involved more than one culture and in two distinct senses (Berry, 1997).According to Berry (1997), the concept of acculturation was employed to refer to the cultural changes resulting from different ethnic groups encountered, while the concepts of psychological acculturation and adaptation were employed to refer to the psychological changes and eventual outcomes that go through as a result of indiv iduals experiencing acculturation.In another words, acculturation phenomena resulted from contact between two or more cultures and research on acculturation had to be comparative in order to understand variations in psychological outcomes that were the result of cultural variations in the two groups in contact (Berry, 1997).In particular, this framework viewed the integration model of acculturation strategies the most desirable among other strategies, considering it the same as the biculturalism model (Berry, 1997). For example, Berry and his colleagues (Berry, 1980 Berry, J. W. , Kim, U. , Power, S. , Young, M, & Bujaki, M. , 1989 Berry, Kim, Minde, & Mok, 1987Sam & Berry, 1995 as cited in Farver et al., 2002) assessed the acculturation strategies of various immigrant groups in North America and the result showed that integration was the most psychologically adaptive attitude, arguing that integrated or bicultural individuals experienced less acculturative stress and anxiety and ma nifested fewer psychological problems than those who were marginalized, separated, or assimilated, whereas marginalized individuals suffered the most psychological distress, including problems with self-identification and cultural alienation, which also affected their self-esteem (Farver et al., 2002). However, Phinney, Cantu, and Kurtz (1997) lay down that American identity was associated with self-esteem only for non-Hispanic Whites, but not for other ethnic groups. These mixed results as explained above raised two issues in the acculturation literatures. First of all, cultural practices might offer only a substitute for cultural adpatations, as Portes and Rumbaut (2001 as cited in Schwartz et al., 2010) mentioned that many Asiatic American immature adults in their sample were not proficient in their native languages, even though they calm perceived their identification with their parents countries of origin and maintained many of their values (Schwarz et al. , 2010). Secondly , most researchers on biculturism did not sufficiently define an accurate operational definition of biculturism so that interpretation of those research results were problematic (Birman, 1994).Indeed, one finding in the United States, was that self-identification as American was markedly higher in non-Hispanic Whites than in ethnic minority groups (e. g. , Devos & Banaji, 2005 as cited in Schwartz et al. , 2010) and many White Americans did not perceived themselves as members of an ethnic group (Schildkraut, 2007 as cited in Schwartz et al. , 2010). In brief, different operational definition problems of acculturation arose from different theoretical models of acculturation regarding to their assumptions (LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993).LaFromboise et al. (1993) assumed acculturation as one of substitutes among the biculturism models. Biculturism as defined in this theory was viewed as the alternation model, which implied an individual in two culture contacts could be competent in both cultures without losing one of the cultures competencies in distinct cultural contexts as alternation model, whereas, fusion model meant a intermingle cultural identity, consisting of a synthesis of aspects of both cultures (LaFromboise et al., 1993).However, Berrys (1997) integrating approach of biculturism differed from the bicultural model (LaFromboise et al. , 1993 as cited in Birman, 1994) and it emphasized more on the relationship between the two cultural groups based on its implicit assumption that one of two cultures were higher than the other within a single social structure (LaFromboise et al. , 1993).Benet-Martinez and colleagues found that blended bicultural individuals tended to report higher self-esteem and lower psychological distress than a marginal population (Chen et al. , 2008 as cited in Schwartz et al. , 2010) because the consistent availability of both cultural flows within the persons everyday life increase the ease of activating the correct cultural schema in symmetry with their environmental situations (Schwartz et al. , 2010).In contrast, Tadmor, Tetlock, and Peng (2009) argued that the bicultural model considered those marginal individuals in positive ways, when there was little interest in cultural maintenance and little interest in having relations with others, suggesting positive aspects of being a marginal person might be (1) sharing his or her condition with others of the same original culture (2) engaging in institutional practices that were shared by other marginal people (3) experiencing no major frustration from social expectations and (4) still perceiving himself or herself to be a member of a group (LaFromboise et al., 1993).According to Sam and Berry (2006), many studies of how migrants coped with intercultural contacts had discrepancies in the ways in which they were operationalized and measured. As no standardized or widely accepted acculturation measures existed, it was necessary to design a clear and expli cit formulation of acculturation instrument in order to assess acculturation adequately (Sam et al. , 2006).Further Sam and Berry (2006) pointed out that most empirical studies widely used a self-report type of questionnaires that had been recognized limitations such as social desirability, emphasizing obtaining diverging validation by source of information other than the moveents reports. Therefore, it is vital to understand each theory within its specific assumptions and not to generalize across all situations regardless of their similar findings (LaFromboise et al. , 1993).As this study discovered migrants acculturation processes so far within specific theoretical frameworks, literature findings in different research were mixed as to whether individuals could be highly acculturated and at the same time be strongly identified with their ethnic group (Farver, Narang, & Bhadha. , 2002). These confusing problems initially evolved because of the context in which migration arrangement s and their acculturation processes were fundamentally transformed and increasingly uncertain due to globalization (Landolt & Da, 2005).Shiraev & Levy (2007) suggested a new approach to cross-cultural psychology in the twenty-first century, which was linked to the concept of globalization. Globalization was defined as a proliferation of cross-border flow and international networks due to new technologies of communication and transport that allowed frequent and multi-directional streams of people, ideas and cultural symbols (Castle, 2010). Castle also argued that globalization leads to major changes in the character of international migration. In other words, the context for migrant incorporation has already changed radically and will confront to do so.The rise of multiculturalism itself rather than assimilation or biculturism is one sign of this, but is not the end of the story new forms of identity and belonging go beyond multiculturalism (Castle, 2010). Even though there is limi ted empirical evidence for clear statements for globalization, there probably are highly ecumenical groups who feel at home everywhere such as global business and professional elites might correspond with this image. But most members of transnational communities fall between these extremes, and probably have contradictory and fluctuating identities (Castle, 2002).Conclusions This study explored that a special case of cultural psychology was the study of how individuals respond to situations where they were in transition between their original culture and another that differed from it in some respects in terms of acculturation, especially within a specific theoretical frame that could apply to the specific situation (Adler & Gielen, 1994).There was no single theory widely accepted by all social scientists to agree with the emergence and perpetuation of international migration patterns in the populace under globalization (Van Hear, 2010),suggesting that the contemporary migrating co ntext in which such migrating arrangements were realise fundamentally kept transforming so that it became increasingly uncertain (Landolt and Da, 2005) Although the topic of cultural contact and individual change has attracted considerable attention in contemporary cross-cultural psychology, the field has been characterized by a lack of theoretical coherence, definitional problems with key constructs, and single sample studies that limit the external validity of empirical cross-cultural research (Ward and Kenney, 1994).As acculturation is a process which takes place over time, and which results in changes both in the culture and in the individual culture changes, it would be ideal o compare two sets of data are compared over time using the same people. However, in practice, it is impossible in most acculturation research settings (Sam et al. , 2006). Instead, a common alternative to longitudinal research is cross-sectional research in which a time-related variable, such as length o f residence or generational status can be used for the generalizability of acculturation theories (Sam et al., 2006).In general, researchers of migrating studies need to be aware that it is the selective nature of the sample that happens across all migrating research. That is, individuals who chose to migrate would be different from those who do not (Sodowsky, G. , Kwan, K. , & Pannu, R. , 1995 as cited in Farver et al. , 1997). Finally, acculturation research generally focused on immigrants assumed to be permanently settled in their new host countries. As a result, the terms migrants or international migrants referred to the same type of migrants collectively.Moreover, many countries were both sending and receiving countries for different types of migrants, or in the process of transition from one type to the other (Castel, 2002). Therefore, where applicable, it is possible to design acculturation research studies classifying different types of migrants. References Adler, L. L. , & Gielen, U. P. (Eds. ). (1994). Cross-cultural topics in psychology. Westport Praeger Publishers. Berry, J. W. (1980). Social and cultural change. In Triandis, H. C. , & Brislin, R. (Eds. ). Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 211-279). Boston Allyn & Bacon. Berry, J.W. , Kim, U. , Power, S. , Young, M, & Bujaki, M. (1989). culture attitudes in plural societies. use psychology An International Review, 38, 185-206 Berry, (1990a). Psychology of acculturation. In Berman, J. (Eds. ). Cross-cultural perspectives Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 201-234). Lincoln University of Nebraska Press. Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaption. Applied Psychology An international review, 46(1), 5-68. Berry, J. W. , & Annis, R. (1974).Acculturation stress. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 5(4), 382-397. Berry, J. W. , Kim, U., Minde, T. , & Mok, D. (1987). Comparative studies of acculturative stress. International Migration Review, 21, 591-511. Berry, J. W. , Poortinga, Y. H. , Segall, M. H. , & Dasen. P. R. (1992). Cross-cultural Psychology Research and application. invigorated York Cambridge university Press. Birman, D. (1994). Acculturation and human diversity in a multicultural society. In Trickett, E. J. , Watts, R. J. , & Birman D, (Eds. ). Perspectives on people in context (pp. 261-284). San Franscisco Jossey-Bass Inc. Castele, S. (2002). Migration and community formation under conditions of globalization.The Center for Migration Studies of New York, 36(4), 1143- 1168. Cuellar, I. , Arnold, B. , & Maldonado, R. (1995). Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II a revision of the original ARSMA scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Science, 17, 275-304. inside 10. 1177/07399863950173001 DelPilar, J. A. , & Udasco, J. O. (2004). Deculturation Its lack of validity. Cultural motley and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 10, 169-176. inside 10. 1037/1099- 9809. 10. 2. 169 Devos, T. , & Banaji, M. R. (2005). American = White? Journa l of temper and Social Psychology, 88, 447-466. inside 10. 1037/0022-3514.88. 3. 447 Farver, J. A. , Narang, S. K. , & Bhadha, B. R. (2002). East meets west Ethnic identity, acculturation, and conflict in Asian Indian families. Journal of Family Psychology, 16(3), 338-350. inside 10. 1037//0893-3200. 16. 3. 338 Jones, A. (2008). A silent but mighty river the costs of womens economic migration. Journal of Women in coating and Society, 33(4), 761-807. Landolt, D. , & Da, W. W. (2005). The Spatially Ruptured Practices of Migrant Families A Comparison of Immigrants from El Salvador and the Peoples Republic of China. Current Sociology, 53, 625-652. doi 10. 1177/0011392105052719.LaFromboise. , T. , Coleman. , H. , & Gerton (1993). psychological impact of biculturism Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 394-412. Liebkind, K. (1993). Self-reported ethnic identity, depression and anxiety among youth Vietnamese refugees and their parents. Journal of Refugee Studies, 6, 25-39 . Neblett, E, Shelton, J. N. , & Sellers, R. M. (2004). The role of racial identity in managing daily racial hassles. In Philogene, G. (Eds. ). hurry and identity The legacy of Kenneth Clark. Washington DC American Psychological familiarity Press. Nesdale. , D. , Rooney. , R. , & Smith. , L.(1997). Migrant ethnic identity and psychological distress. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(5), 569-588. doi 10. 1177/0022022197285004 Phinney, J. S. (1990). When we talk about American ethic groups, what do we mean? American Psychologist, 51, 918-917. Phinney, J. S. , & Ong, A. D. (2007). Conceptualization and measurement of ethnic identity Current status and upcoming directions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 271-281. doi 10. 1037/0022-0167. 54. 3. 271 Portes, A. , & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkerly University of California Press.Redfield, R. , Linton, R. , & Herskovits, M. J. (1936) inscription on the study of acculturat ion. American Anthropologist, 38, 149-152. Ross-Sheriff, F. (2011). Global migration and gender. Journal of Women and Social Works, 26(3), 233-238a. doi 10. 1177/0886109911417692 Rudmin, F. W. (2003). Critical history of the acculturation psychology of assimilation, separation, integration, and marginalization. Review of General Psychology, 7, 3-37. doi 10. 1177/01461670731197 Sam, D. , & Berry, J. W. (1995). Acculturative stress among young immigrants in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 36, 10-24.Sam, D. , & Berry, J. W. (2006). The Cambridge vade mecum of acculturation psychology Electronic version. Retrieved from http//www. qut. eblib. com. au. ezp01. library. qut. edu. au/patron. Schildkraut, D. J. (2007). Defining American identity in the 21st century How much there is there? Journal of Politics, 69, 597-615. doi 10. 1111/j. 1468-2508. 2007. 00562. x Schwartz, S. J. , Unger, J. B. , Zamboanga, B. L. , & Szapocznik, J. (2010). Rethinking the concept of acculturation Implications for the theory and research. American Psychologist, 65(4), 237-251. doi 10. 1037/a0019330 Sellers, R.M. , Caldwell, C. H. , Schmeelk-Cone, K. H. & Zimmerman, M. A. (2003). racial identity, racial discrimination, perceived stress, and psychological distress among African American young adults. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44(3), 302-317. Seller, R. M. , & Shelton, R. M. (2000). The role of racial identity in perceived racial discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(5), 1079-1092. Shiraev, E. , & Levy, D. (2007). Cross-Cultural Psychology Critical thinking and contemporary applications. Boston Pearson Education Inc. Sodowsky, G. , Kwan, K. , & Pannu, R., (1995). Ethnic identity of Asians in the United States.In J. Ponterotto (Ed. ), Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 110- 130). Newbury cat valium Sage. Stephenson, M. (2000). Development and validation of the Stephenson Multigroup Acculturation Scale (SMAS). Psychological Assessmen t, 12, 77-88. doi 10. 1037/1040-3590. 12. 1. 77 Szapocznik, J. , Kurtines, W. , & Fernandez, T. (1980). Bicultural involvement and adjustment in Hispanic-American youths. International Journal of Interculture Relations, 4, 353-365. Tadmor, C. T. , Tedlock, P. E. , & Peng, K. (2009).Acculturation strategies and integrative complexity The congnitive implications of biculturism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40, 105-139. doi 10. 1177/0022022108326279 Tajfel, H. , & Turner, J. C. (2001). An Integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Hogg, M. , & Abrams, D. (Eds. ). The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 94-109). New York Psychology Press. Turner, J. C. , Hogg, M. A. , Oakes, P. J. , Reicher, S. D. & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group A self-categorization theory. Oxford Balckwell. Unger, J. B. , Gallagher, P. , Shakib, S. , Ritt-Olson, A. , Palmer, P. H. , & Johnson, C.A. (2002). The AHIMSA acculturation scale A new measure of acculturation fo r adolescents in a multicultural society. Journal of Early Adolescence, 22, 225-251. doi 10. 1177/02731602022003001 Van Hear, N. (2010). Theories of migration and social change. Journal of Ethic and Migration Studies, 36(10), 1531-1536. doi 10. 1080/1369183X. 2010. 489359 Yip, T. , G, C. G. , & Takeuchi, D. T. (2008). Racial discrimination and psychological distress The impact of ethnic identity and age among immigrant and United States-born Asian adult. Dev Psychol, 44(3), 787-800. doi 10. 1037/0012-1649. 44. 3. 787.