Next Article in Journal
Disclosure Style and Its Determinants in Integrated Reports
Next Article in Special Issue
The Benefit of Failure: On the Development of Ostrava’s Culture
Previous Article in Journal
The Non-Linear Effect of Financial Support on Energy Efficiency: Evidence from China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Event and Sustainable Culture-Led Regeneration: Lessons from the 2008 European Capital of Culture, Liverpool
Open AccessArticle

Research on Tibetan Folk’s Contemporary Tibetan Cultural Adaptive Differences and Its Influencing Factors—Taking ShigatseCity, Tibet, China as an Example

by Yang Yongchun 1,2,*, Sun Yan 1 and Wang Weiwei 3,4
1
College of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
2
Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of West China’s Environmental System, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
3
Key Laboratory of Desert and Desertification, Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources, Lanzhou 730000, China
4
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing100049, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2019, 11(7), 1956; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11071956
Received: 10 February 2019 / Revised: 18 March 2019 / Accepted: 26 March 2019 / Published: 2 April 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Cultural Management)

Abstract

Using qualitative research methods and mathematical statistical analysis, taking Shigatse city in Tibet as a case study area, and based on the affective, behavioral, and cognitive (ABC) model and cultural distance theory, we explore the Tibetan people’s cultural adaptive types, differences, and its influencing factors. The results show that there are seven Tibetans’ cultural adaptive kinds: Integration, assimilation, isolation, marginalization, tending to Tibetan modern culture, adaptation to Tibetan traditional culture, and unclassified cultural adaptive style. The Tibetans’ cultural adaptive tendency mainly integrates between modern and traditional parts in the contemporary Tibetan local cultures. Meanwhile, the Tibetan folk still has a large proportion of modifying to traditional culture. Moreover, the Tibetans’ cultural adjusted differences in the affective and cognitive dimensions are smaller than the acculturate features in the behavioral side. However, the cultural adjusted distinctions in the affective and cognitive aspects compared to that in the behavioral field are more complex. Moreover, there are direct and mediating effects that impact the Tibetan folks’ cultural adaptability. Studying Tibetan people’s cultural adaptation may be conducive to understanding the evolution of Tibetan locality’s meaning and the mutual game between the two different parts in local culture as well as comprehending the Tibetan folks’ real cultural appeal. The conclusions have important practical significance of the harmony, stability, unity, progress, and information in China ethnic areas’ economy, society, and culture.
Keywords: ABC model; cultural distance theory; qualitative research methods; integration; Shigatse city ABC model; cultural distance theory; qualitative research methods; integration; Shigatse city

1. Introduction

In the context of the parallel development of modernization and post-modernization, contemporary local cultural changes are promoted by urbanization, industrialization, science, and technology, as well as diversification [1,2], combining with power, capital, markets, institutions, technologies, information, networks, and new cultures, which stimulates local cultural transformation [3,4]. As such, the integration between endogenous and exogenous forces boost contemporary local culture to show locality and cultural modernity in terms of time, space, and cultural subjects [5,6]. Meanwhile, the adaptation of meaning, rituals, norms, etc., [7,8,9] reflects local people’s cultural transition in affective categories, behavioral styles, and cognitive characteristics [10,11,12,13]. Hence, local cultural shift and creation have represented a specific political, economic, social, and ecological background, and personal psychological changes and responses [14].
The particularity and modernity of contemporary Tibetan culture has stemmed from the complexity and diversity of Tibetan cultural elements, as well as the role of foreign cultures on the local Tibetan culture by influence, exchange, and integration. Since the reform and opening up, Tibetan modernization has mainly relied on the exogenous overall support to help Tibetan social transformation, which is the large number of “top-down” resources supplied by the central government, national fiscal system, and counterpart assistant from developed provinces (or prefecture-level cities and municipalities directly under the central government in China). It reflects not only in the establishment of a modern civilized order, prompting the obvious change of the Tibetan people’s behavior, lifestyle, and value system, but also the religious policy of the Communist Party of China (CCP) and Tibetans’ freedom of religion belief protected by law and the government [4]. This fact motivates the profound influence of Tibetan Buddhism on the Tibetan people’s cultural values. In addition, due to the role of globalization, information, networking, the special geographical location, and the particular climate in Tibet [15,16], the Tibetan culture is influenced by “bottom-up” power consisting of Chinese non-Tibetan culture, South Asian culture, and Western culture [17,18,19], which further induces the modernization of Tibetan traditional culture and adaptive differences of Tibetans to varied and distinct cultures.
Under the background of contemporary social development, however, there is restriction of Tibetan local culture. Meanwhile, there coexists a phenomenon of cultural diversification and advancement. The interactions between traditional and modern culture cause Tibetan’s differentiated adaptation such as dependence, individuality, independence, compromise, tradition, openness, persistence, etc. [20,21]. At the same time, in the process of contemporary Tibetan local cultural transformation, Tibetan traditional culture faces the crisis of fragmentation, islanding, characteristic dissolution, and even cultural faults. In doing so, cultural adaptive research is a benefit to the social unity, stability, harmony, and development in Tibetan ethnic agglomeration areas [22], and it is avail to build local cultural brands and to construct national emotional ties, which contributes to the exchange between the traditional and modern parts of Tibetan local culture. Meanwhile, it is urgent to explore the ideas, methods, and paths of the Tibetan people’s response to the native and local cultural diversity, heterogeneity, as well as sustainable development. In view of that, this paper underlines the Tibetans’ cultural adaptive types, differences, and its influencing factors.
However, most Tibetans’ cultural adaptive studies have focused on the conceptualization [23]. Although some scholars explored Tibetans’ local cultural adjustment from a cultural and ethnic perspective and proposed series of policy suggestions in minor regions’ development [24], these previous studies mostly tend to qualitative descriptions and lack quantitative empirical research. Some studies show that theoretical models consisting of affection, behavior, and cognition [13,25] can better explain local folks’ cultural adaptive differences to some extents [26], yet the research of cultural adaptive types, difference, and its influencing factors based on Tibetan people’s affective, behavioral, and cognitive aspects still needs further investigation. Theoretically, Berry’s research indicates that integration, separation, assimilation, and marginalization are the cultural adaptive strategies [27,28,29,30,31]. Cultural distance proposed by Hofstede [32,33,34] had theoretical and methodological significance to quantify the Tibetans’ cultural adaptive differences combined with affection, behavior, and cognition between different components of local culture, which are the important enlightenments of that research idea [35]. Nevertheless, the core point in this paper is whether there are other cultural adaptive kinds and other defining cultural distance’s measures. Therefore, based on the affective, behavioral, and cognitive (ABC) model and cultural distance theory, this article uses qualitative research data, applying coefficient of variation weighting method, multiple linear regression analysis, and structural equation modeling to empirically study the Tibetan folks’ adaptation between traditional and modern cultural parts, while the research ideas and methods are shown in Figure 1. In order to address such issues, this paper will give an introduction first. Through a literature review, it then illustrates materials and models; after that the results will be deeply analyzed. The last part focuses on discussions, while the sixth is conclusions, implications, and limitations.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Contemporary Local Cultural Adaptive Differences

Contemporary local cultures are the historical comprehensive products and local imaginations associated with local geographical environment, mode of production, historical relics, traditional graphics, colors, literatures, arts, and folk customs, which have the features of temporal continuity or common tradition linking with its members to a common future as well as the changing cultural identity [36,37]. Local cultures have the regional, peculiar, and irreducible differences [38]. Moreover, local cultures are often a collection of social sharing and logical relevance based on practices when two independent cultures are closely related to each other. The soft and hard characteristics of specific places are usually referred to as living conditions, social sharing knowledge, geographical conditions, residential time, social acceptance, daily interaction, discrimination experience, ethnic self-identity, national personality, as well as the form and practice of social institutions [32,33,39]. These above indicators represent the dialectical unity of the local people’s affective, behavioral, and cognitive activities in terms of cultural adaptive differences [40]. In addition, the local culture is the symbol of the wisdom and civilization of a particular place [41], which is used to answer the philosophical thinking of the series: What happened to the local people? What is the people’s cultural adaptation? Where do the local cultural adaptive differences come from and how do they represent adaptive differences between the different components of local cultures? Based on the effectiveness of discursiveness, politics, societies, and economies, local cultural adjustment is a dynamic process in which individuals or groups have made constant changes related to attitudes, behaviors, and identities, depending on one or two independent culture(s) mutually contact and cooperation [28,42,43]. Furthermore, it causes the psychological comfortable degrees’ adjustment for the original cultural changes [29,44,45,46].
There are cultural differences between the superficial layer and the profound layer in the cultural adaptation. The superficial cultural differences focus on the visible differences in the local culture, while the profound cultural distinctions mainly refer to the different values. The external cultural differences are adjusted through general cultural adaptations linked with age, gender, food, housing condition, and climate, while deep cultural differences require self-transcendence in values, such as beliefs and values, in communication and work [47]. Cultural similarities and dissimilarities make barriers for communication with heterogeneous cultures [48]. Therefore, in the process of transformation of contemporary local culture, on the one hand, there are “acculturative stress” that lead to the destructive tensions of misunderstandings of motives, misattribution of causes, problematic tensions, uncertainties, mulls, distresses, hostilities, confusions, and anxieties, which dramatically show the “self” and the arbitrarily changing local cultural cognition [8,49,50,51,52,53].Meanwhile, the adaptive process conforms to the “U” or “W” curve, which means that the general cultural adaptive process varies from the initial sense of joy, cultural shock, adjustment, recovery, psychological isolation to adaptive improvement [46]. Contemporary local cultural adaptation is related to how local people express themselves. This importance has risen to the narratological process of self-adaptation to changing local cultures, usually using three dimensions: Affection, behavior, and cognition to study the differences in the adaptability of individuals or groups to different local cultures [5,25]. Meanwhile, the process of people’s adaptability to local culture constructs a space for local imagination, belongingness to the place, as well as a sense of historical and cultural situation in the ‘suturing into the story’ [8]. Thus, local meaning, change, identity, and construction are important foundations of cultural adaptation [54,55].

2.2. Measurement of the Contemporary Local Cultural Adaptive Differences

In the context of contemporary society, cultural adaptation is a response to local cultural transformation. The essence of cultural adaptation is to seek the true relationships among the link with people and environment, the individuals’ self-internality, as well as the interpersonal interactions [56]. Cultural adjustment among distinct parts of local culture is a social and psychological adaptive process [27,47]. Normally, the contacts in different components of local culture include special skills of learning new culture, management pressures, handling things in unfamiliar environments, changing cultural identity, and enhancing relations among independent cultural groups [26]. Meanwhile, education, project, work, training, mutual visit, rest, celebration, employment, ceremony, media, political participation, religion, language, psychological stress, daily practice, social interaction, and the overall environment are the key elements of measuring folk’s cultural adaptation [27,39,42,47,57,58]. Cultural adaptive differences are mainly reflected in cultural behavior, interest standard, belief, race, uncertainty, consciousness, cognition, preference, competition, risk, locality, cultural conflicts, etc. [59]. Cultural adaptation is a process from mutual contact, communication to assimilation, penetration, cooperation, trust, mutual learning, commitment, and changing attitudes between different cultures [60]. This fact represents people’s cultural adaptive dissimilarities of identity, values, as well as attitudes between new and old local culture [10]. The ability to fit the satisfaction, behavior, and negotiation of different parts of local culture are the important parameters for the cultural adaptive construction [57]. In addition, the adaptability of contemporary local culture is influenced by ambiguity tolerance, willingness to communication, the ethnocentricity influence adjustment, differences in personal motivation, and effects of previous experience [39]. Therefore, affection, behavior, and cognition become the common dimensions of cultural adaptive difference research [13]. Stress and coping theory, cultural learning theory, and social identification theory are often used to explain the local people’s active and passive responses to cultural adjusted distinctions in the affective, behavioral, and cognitive dimensions [61,62]. Among them, the affective dimension represents mental health, which signifies that people have a sense of happiness in different parts of local culture. The behavioral dimension indicates the rationality of social and cultural functions, which refers to the acceptance of unalike parts about contemporary local culture, the adjustment of lifestyle, the exchanges between different cultures as well as the trust, and adaptability in social interaction. The cognitive dimension expresses the identity between dissimilar cultures, which denotes that differing sides of local culture are arranged in terms of knowledge and interest, the degree of acceptance and judgment of local culture, respect for religious beliefs, contrasting cultural practices, as well as the patience with lifestyle [63,64].
Contemporary Tibetan local culture consists of two parts: Traditional culture and modern culture. Cultural adaptive differences are caused by people’s continuous contacts with different cultural characteristics, which leads to primitive cultural change [65]. In this context, there are two basic issues with cultural adaptive strategies: “Is it considered to be of value to maintain traditional local cultural identity and characteristics?”, and “is it considered to be worthwhile to keep modern cultural relationships under the background of contemporary society?”, and the alternative answers are “Yes” or “No” [30]. These perspectives address two basic issues facing all cultural people: (1) The retention of traditional values and practices as well as (2) the acquisition of modern cultural values and practices [28]. The exchanges between traditional culture and modern culture prompt local people to have two effects on each culture: One is positive support for some kind culture, and the other is a negative abandonment of some style culture. In doing so, four cultural adaptive strategies could be envisaged: (1) Assimilation refers to the rejection of traditional culture and recognition of modern culture; (2) separation denotes the refusal of modern culture and only admission of traditional culture; (3) integration means to the acknowledgement of traditional culture and modern culture; (4) marginalization is the resistance of both cultures [37,66].Therefore, assimilation, separation, integration, and marginalization compose the cultural adaptive analytical framework in the field of ideology [36]. Meanwhile, the above four cultural adaptive strategies may be shown in the three dimensions of affection, behavior, and cognition.
From the perspective of cultural distance, it is of great significance to the common identity, status difference, trust, subjective perception, and learning creation of cultural adaptation [50,62,67]. Furthermore, cultural distance reflects the differences of dissimilar kinds of cultural values among independent groups or individuals [35] and bypasses complexity to assess cultural adaptive differences [68]. As such, cultural adaptive differences could be evaluated on a distinct cultural scale [69]. In general, it uses six dimensions of Hofstede’s power distance, collectivism versus individualism, femininity versus masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, long-term versus short-term orientation, and indulgence to calculate cultural distance and represent cultural adaptive differences of independent countries [32,70]. It provides a good reference for the definition of cultural distance between different components of local culture, however, these indicators have limitations in exploring cultural adaptive differences between different components of local culture about some concrete area in one specific country [35,51]. Meanwhile, some studies have shown that the influence of cultural distance on affections, behaviors, and cognitions was attributed to groups or the agglomeration effect, but it did not mean that the cultural distance among different individuals in the same group is all very low [71]. Thus, based on the cultural distance method in the three aspects of affection, behavior, and cognition, it is necessary to comprehensively study people’s contemporary local cultural adaptive differences.

2.3. Study on the Contemporary Local Cultural Adaptive Differences in Tibet

Tibetan local cultural adaptive differences are a complex construction process in a pluralistic society, including Tibetan folk’s sense of belonging, attitude, achievement, practice, identification, and adaptation to the traditional and modern cultural components of local culture [61]. There are two major cultural identity issues in a new Tibetan social and cultural environment: (1) Whether to preserve the original cultural characteristics and ethnic identity of the Tibetans; and (2) whether to agree with modern culture. Moreover, the preservation of traditional culture and the recognition of modern culture are two independent dimensions with each other. In other words, a high recognition of one culture does not mean that the identity of another culture is low. According to the affirmative or negative answers of the Tibetan people to the above two mentioned questions, there are also four modes of cultural adaptation: (1) Integration is expected to adopt a modern lifestyle, but not to abandon traditional values and identity; (2) assimilation means Tibetans abandon national traditional culture and fully integrate into modern culture;(3) separation indicates that people retain the identity of a minor culture and restrict the close relationship between themselves and modern culture as well as enclose oneself in a unique ethnic culture; (4) marginalization shows that folks neither recognize modern culture nor fully identify their own culture, and their attitudes are at the edge of the two cultures [72]. From the above four aspects of cultural adaptive models, the conservation of ethnic cultural identity and modern cultural cognition remain an interactive effect in a diverse contemporary Tibetan society [73]. Due to the complexity of the local cultural adaptive system, there may be culturally adaptive types in transition. For example, some people only tend to be aware of Tibetan traditional culture, while some folks adapt to be conscious of modern culture, and someone may accept both traditional culture and modern culture. In fact, the abovementioned three adaptive types are intermediate values compared to the extreme cultural adaptive strategies corresponding to integration, assimilation, separation, and marginalization. In addition, there is also the fact that the degree of cultural adaptation is weak and the boundary between the two distinct cultures is not obvious, which makes it impossible to judge the Tibetans’ cultural adaptive types.
Hence, Tibetans’ cultural adjustment aims to develop what is useful or healthy and discard what is meaningless and disadvantages between “self” and “other” cultures in the process of modernization, which requires people to inject affections, put them into behaviors, and perform dialectical cognitions. Based on the affective, behavioral, and cognitive (ABC) model [13] as well as cultural distance (CD) theory [34,44,50], Tibetan people’s cultural adaptation is divided into two parts for analysis in order to build Tibetans’ local cultural adaptive strategies and differences: One is the Tibetan traditional cultural adaptation and the other is the modern cultural adjustment; meanwhile, the corresponding variables of these two parts are designed from the three dimensions of affection, behavior, and cognition. On the one hand, variables involved in the Tibetan traditional cultural adaptation are mainly psychological impact adaptation, foods required for daily work and life, clothing, living environment, language, social interaction, restrictions on traditional culture, taboos, and religious beliefs [28]. These indicators effectively include Tibetan individuals’ surface cultures and deep spiritual cultures, which are in line with the Tibetan cultural development. Therefore, these indexes can measure Tibetan people’s traditional cultural adaptation [74]. On the other hand, the elements related to modern culture mainly consist of cultural openness, language, living environment, modern festivals, national statutory festivals, acceptance and interest of modern culture, in-depth social interaction, as well as intermarriage [22] to reflect the Tibetan folks’ non-Tibetan cultural adaptation; moreover, using the above variables to measure Tibetans’ modern cultural adaptation is feasible [23].
In the context of modern development, Tibetans’ cultural adaptation is influenced by the degree of observing Tibetan traditional culture. Theoretically, a greater degree of compliance with traditional culture leads to more substantial cultural adaptive differences. In addition, cultural adaptations are also affected by modern social culture [12,14]. In other words, a wider power of modern social culture indicates smaller adaptive distinction in theory. Appling modern technology associated with using internet and improving educational level [4] can expand the horizons of people to see the world. In this sense, using technology can reduce the Tibetan cultural adaptive differences. Shigatse city and other cities in Tibet are deeply aided by People’s Republic of China (PRC), Chinese developed provinces or cities, as well as state-owned enterprises. Meanwhile, local governments have always been concerned about people’s livelihood, promoted exchanges between different cultures, and respected the freedom of religion belief. Thus, state guidelines, counterpart aiding policies, and the action of local governments play an important role in Tibetans’ cultural adaptation [56]. Usually, religious beliefs restrict Tibetans’ behavior, which influences cultural adaptive differences [65]. Continuous advancement of globalization process affects every corner of the world, so Tibetan local culture is shaped by globalized effects. Because social stability is foundation of a regional development and openness is lubricant for its prosperity, consequently stable and open development also has significance in the Tibetans’ cultural adaptive distinctions [15]. In summary, our purpose is to explore the direct and intermediate effects [75] that impact Tibetans’ cultural adaptive differences in seven aspects, including observance of traditional culture, influence of modern culture, application of technology, policies, religious beliefs, globalization, as well as social stable and open development.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Case Study Area

Figure 2 shows Shigatse city’s geographical location. The main reasons for selection of the case study area are as follows. First, Shigatse is in the confluence area of YarlungZangbo, Nianchu, and Debra River, and it belongs to the valley city [76]. Since ancient times, it has been concentrated in population as well as having developed agriculture and industry. Meanwhile, Shigatse city’s 660 years of history has profound cultural heritages, which is always the place where Panchen (Banchan) locates and makes Tibetan Buddhism deep-rooted in the region [17]. In addition, Shigatse is bordered by India, Nepal, and other countries, the boundary line is long, and Tibetan local culture is deeply influenced by border cultures such as those of Nepal and India [18]. Fourth, since the reform and opening up in China, CCP had held six symposiums on Tibet work and determined the state’s financial supporting policies, special preferential policies, and counterpart assistant construction policies [16], which effectively promoted modern development of various undertakings in Shigatse city. In this context, agricultural culture, animal husbandry culture, Tibetan Buddhism culture, border culture, folk culture, Han nationality’s traditional culture, modern culture, and post-modern culture have multiple coexisting characteristics. Meanwhile, Tibetans’ living environment, mode of production, lifestyle, language environment, and social interactive circle undergo profound changes in affective, behavioral, and cognitive aspects of Tibetan people, which also produces different cultural adaptive types [77]. Consequently, Shigatse city becomes the best case-study area for empirically researching Tibetans’ contemporary local cultural adaptive differences and its mechanisms.

3.2. Survey Design

Tibetan people’s cultural adaptive types, differences, and its influencing factors in affective, behavioral, and cognitive dimensions was assessed. Using in-depth interviews and questionnaire surveys [47], we obtained data and related materials for the Tibetans’ cultural adaptive research. In addition, we gained the necessary information on the history, culture, society, and economy of the city from the relevant departments of the government. This survey involves the participants’ basic demographic characteristics, and the content related to the Tibetan local cultural adaptation and its influencing factors. The basic personal situation includes gender, age, level of education, occupation, and time spent living or working in Shigatse City. Cultural adaptation-related content included 18 questions in the local traditional cultural part and 9 issues in the modern local cultural part. There are 10 variables that affect cultural adaptive differences. A five-point Likert scale that was “very adjusted, adjusted, generally adjusted, un-adjusted and very un-adjusted” was used for elements involving Tibetans’ adaptation to Tibetan traditional local cultural. “Very adaptable” means that the Tibetan people adhere to the Tibetan traditional culture. “Very un-adaptable” denotes that the Tibetans have completely turned to the modern culture, while the rest of the options refer to different intermediate or mixed states. A five-point Likert scale that was “very un-adaptable, un-adaptable, generally adaptable, adaptable and very adaptable” was used for variables involving Tibetans’ adaptation to Tibetan modern local culture. “Very un-adaptable” indicates the Tibetan people have fully adjusted to the Tibetan traditional culture, and “very adaptable” indicates that the Tibetan people have completely turned to modern culture. Besides, the influencing indexes are assigned according to the five-point Likert scale of “yes, basically yes, generally yes, basically not, not”; “yes” shows that it fully agrees that some factors affect cultural adaptive differences, and “no” expresses that it does not completely identify that some indictors influence cultural adaptive differences, while the other options are intermediate states.
The adaptability of Tibetan people to Tibetan traditional culture and their adaptation to Tibetan modern culture are designed from three dimensions of affection, behavior, and cognition. In that model, the affective dimension represents Tibetan people’s feelings of wellbeing and satisfaction for Tibetan traditional and modern culture. This is an ‘ability’ to ‘fit in’ when Tibetan traditional cultures change, modern cultures are immersed in the traditional part, and the tradition and modernization produce interactive effects, while the theory of stress and resolution can explain Tibetans’ psychological endurance in dealing with different components of local cultures. The behavioral dimension characterizes Tibetan people’s adaptability to social culture, such as the actual expression of language, clothing, food, customs, symbols, festivals, religious beliefs, etc., in daily life and work professions. Behavioral culture is one of psychological mappings, which can be explained by social learning theory. Cognitive dimension indicates the viewpoints of the Tibetan people to the traditional culture as well as the attitudes and understandings of the modern culture arising from foreign cultural stimuli, which can be explained by the social identity theory [13,26,61]. Contemporary Tibetan local cultural adaptable differences’ indicators are demographic characteristics, language, clothing, food, customs, symbols, festivals, communication, and religion [27,38,74]. In addition, Tibetan traditional culture adaptive variables focus on psychological pressure generated by foreign cultural impact, traditional cultural limitations, and taboos; modern mainstream cultural adaptive variables to reflect the Tibetan people’s adaptability to non-Tibetan culture mainly involve the cultural openness, resident environment, the degree of modern cultural acceptance and interest, and the approval level of intermarriage between Tibetans and non-Tibetans.
Therefore, based on the ABC model [13] and the CD theory [34,44,50], the cultural adaptation of the Tibetan people is divided into two parts for analysis; one is the adaptability of Tibetan traditional culture, and the other is the adaptability of Tibetan modern culture. The corresponding variables of these two parts are designed from three dimensions of affection, behavior, and cognition [43]. The adaptation of the Tibetan people’s Tibetan traditional culture and modern culture in the affective, behavioral, and cognitive aspects can be represented by cultural distance [7].
When we choose specific indicators, the specific meaning of the Tibetan people’s adaptation to Tibetan traditional culture in affective, behavioral, and cognitive aspects is shown in Appendix A (Table A1). The affective dimension represents the level of psychological stress caused by foreign culture on the impact of Tibetan traditional culture (FIT). The behavioral dimension denotes the level of likeness of Tibetan food and its inheritance (LTF), the level of Tibetan dressing degree and its inheritance (TDI), the level of resident agglomeration with Tibetans (RAT), the level of decoration and inheritance of the Tibetan style of the home (DTH), the frequency or extent of Tibetan language use in daily life (FTL), the frequency or extent of Tibetan language use in social communication (FTS), the level of the number, love, and trust of Tibetan friends (NTF), the level of compliance with Tibetan traditional customs (LTC),the level of compliance with traditional Tibetan marriage etiquette (LTM), the level of compliance with Tibetan traditional funeral (LTF), the level of compliance with traditional Tibetan festivals (TTF), the level of Tibetan culture’s restraint on behavior (TRB), and the level of dietary taboo (LDT). Cognitive dimension denotes the level of religious piety or display (RPD), the level of familiarity with the origin and development of Tibetan Buddhism (FTB), the level of familiarity with Zongshan and Tashilhunpo Monastery (ZTM), as well as the level of familiarity, observance, and recognition of Tibetan traditional culture (RTC).
The concrete implication of the Tibetan people’s adaptation to modern culture in the three dimensions of affection, behavior, and cognition is shown in Appendix A (Table A2). The affective aspect is the level of modern cultural openness (MCO). The behavioral dimension means the frequency or extent of Chinese language use in work (FCL), the level of recognition about living in a same residential area with non-Tibetans (RNT), the level of familiarity with modern festivals (FMF), the level of familiarity and compliance with national statutory holidays (NSH),as well as the level of familiarity with modern culture (FMC). The cognitive aspect signifies the level of cognition of deep interaction with non-Tibet (DIN), the level of cognition and love for modern culture (CMC), and the level of recognition of intermarriage with non-Tibet (IMN).
Under the background of contemporary social development, it emphasizes that the Tibetans’ cultural adaptable differences are affected by the interaction between internal pressures and external forces. These factors mainly include Tibetan traditional cultural observance, modern cultural influence, using technology, policies, globalization, religious beliefs, and stable and open development in society [35,57]. Meanwhile, the policies include three aspects: National policy, counterpart assistance policy, and the role of local government. Based on the influencing factors of the above 7 dimensions, we choose 10 associated variables to analyze the dynamic mechanism of the Tibetans’ cultural adaptable differences, which are shown in Appendix A (Table A3). These 10 indicators can be described as follows. The degree of the taboo, etiquette, and custom compliance required by Tibetan traditional culture (CT) is in the dimension about the traditional cultural observance. The aspect of modern cultural influence is associated with the degree of impact and freshness of modern culture in the dimensions of affection, behavior, and cognition (IM). The extent of using internet (UI) and the level of the improvement about education and facilities (IE) are on the side of using technology. Policies consist of the level of national policies’ impact (NP), the degree of influence on counterpart assistance to Tibet (AC), and the extent of local government role (LG). The degree of globalization role (GL) denotes the globalization. The extent of influence of Tibetan Buddhism (TB) corresponds to the religious beliefs aspect. In the dimension of stable and open development, the index is the level of social stability, openness, and development (SO).

3.3. Data Collection

From May to July 2017, we conducted interviews and research in the fully equipped modern Shigatse city. During the survey, two Tibetan friends helped us with the research work. We had an in-depth conversation with some Tibetan elders. Among them, two Tibetan leaders working in government sectors vividly described their different-aged family members associated with psychological state, behavior, and cognitive characteristics in dealing with modern culture and traditional culture, which helped us to deeply understand the differences in lifestyles and attitudes between Tibetans who faced traditional and modern cultures.
In order to ensure the quality of the sample, to maintain that the sample is isomorphic to the population during statistical analysis, and to avoid sample bias to effectively reflect the population characteristics and assure equal probability of each family in Shigatse city, we conduct household-to-household surveys of the subjects and use the technique of sampling without replacement in the simple random sampling method. Considering the Tibetans’ distribution differences in urban streets, mobility, age, occupation, etc., the respondents of the Tibetan household were chosen. Further, the social characteristics of Tibetans and the habits of Tibetans are considered. Due to the large number of relatives of the Tibetan people, and the fact that Tibetan society belongs to the patriarchal society, the status and prestige of the “parents” in a large family is extremely high, and the cultural values basically follow the views of the “parents” at home. Therefore, we excluded some research objects that may cause repetitiveness in the survey. For example, a family with clan relations in a community randomly selected one of them to conduct research to ensure that each Tibetan in the sample is independent to each other, meaning that there is no particular relevance and exclusion. That can reduce sampling errors, improve sampling precision, and maintain consistency in our sampling procedures. The existing Tibetan population of Shigatse city is 43,588 with an average 3.08 members per household; we exclude some similar samples, so the number of independent urban Tibetan families living in the urban area of Shigatse is 5652 [78]. We successfully distributed a total of 65 questionnaires, including 59 valid questionnaires; the questionnaires were distributed according to the standard ratio of 1:87, and the questionnaires effective rate was 90.77% during the investigation. Furthermore, studies have shown that scientific small-sample data can also explain the scientific problems to be studied [75,79]. Thus, the sample data is representative and can explain the Tibetan people’s cultural adaptive differences.
There are 59 valid samples shown in Table 1; males and females accounted for 54.237% and 45.763%. Age is divided into three stages of 19–30 years old, 30–45 years old, and 45–60 years old, and the corresponding proportions are 42.373%, 35.593%, and 22.034%. Occupation is “Staff of state organs, organizations, and institution”, “Staff of state-owned enterprises, private enterprises, and independent operators”, and “Alien service people”, while the related proportions are 47.458%, 25.424%, and 27.119%. The educational levels are “undergraduate and above”, “junior college”, “secondary technical specialized school, or senior high school”, and “Junior middle school and below”, and the associated proportions are 30.508%, 23.729%, 20.339%, and 25.424%, respectively. The living time of the Tibetan residents surveyed has five categories: 40 years, 30–40 years, 20–30 years, 10–20 years, and less than 10 years, and the corresponding distributions are 20.339%,20.339%, 18.644%, 10.169%, and 30.508%, respectively.

3.4. Statistical Modeling

When we calculate the cultural adaptable score, we first assign weights using the coefficient of variation weighting method [80] to the variables corresponding to traditional culture and modern culture. Then, the cultural distance between the traditional and modern part of local culture is calculated [71]. Finally, multiple linear regression analysis and structural equation modeling are used to analyze the influencing factors that caused cultural adaptive differences.

3.4.1. Coefficient of Variation Weighting Model

Calculating the weight of cultural adaptive variables corresponding to Tibetan traditional culture and modern culture is divided into three steps. First, a culturally adaptive variable matrix is established based on the five-point Likert scale. Then, we work out the coefficient of variation about the relevant variables. Finally, the corresponding weighting is quantified. The formulas mentioned above are as follows [53]:
X = [ x i j ] m n   ( I = 1 , 2 , , m ;   j = 1 , 2 , , n )
ω i = D / x i ¯
D = 1 n j = 1 n ( x i x i ¯ ) 2
W i = ω i / i = 1 m ω i
where x i j is ith question’s acculturate value to jth surveyed Tibetan individual, ω i is ith item’s coefficient of variation, D is the mean-square deviation, x i ¯ is the average about the ith surveyed question corresponding to all participants, and W i is the ith variable’s weight.

3.4.2. Cultural Adaptive Score and Related Types Model

Cultural score calculation for studying cultural adaptive differences has theoretical and empirical validity [53]. Therefore, in order to analyze the categories of cultural adaptation, the cultural adaptable score is firstly calculated.
S i j = x i j W i
Based on affective, behavioral, and cognitive theories and cultural adaptive strategies, establish a two-dimensional plane rectangular coordinate system, the horizontal axis represents the Tibetan traditional cultural adaptive score, and the vertical axis denotes the Tibetan modern cultural adaptive score. Meanwhile, scatter plots are made in the three dimensions of affection, behavior, and cognition to analyze Tibetans’ cultural adaptation, respectively. When the cultural adaptive score in the area of 3 (A,B,C)T-Score 5 and 3 (A,B,C)NT-Score 5 is classified as integration; when the score in the interval of 1 (A,B,C)T-Score 2 and 3 (A,B,C)NT-Score 5 is associated with assimilation; and the value in the region of 1 (A,B,C)T-Score 2 and 1 (A,B,C)NT-Score 2 belongs to marginalization; and the section of 4 (A,B,C)T-Score 5 and 1 (A,B,C)NT-Score 2 is referred to separation.
Where S i j refers to the cultural adaptive score of the ith participants jth variable, and S i j satisfies S i j [ 1 5 ] ; (A,B,C)T-Score represent Tibetans’ traditional cultural adaptable score in the affective, behavioral, and cognitive dimensions, respectively; (A,B,C)NT-Score respectively indicates the Tibetan folks’ modern cultural adaptive scores in the affective, behavioral, and cognitive dimensions, separately.

3.4.3. Cultural Distance Model

Cultural distance is applied in the cultural adaptive differences which has theoretical and empirical feasibility [34], with the subtractive value between traditional and modern cultural score corresponding in affective, behavioral, and cognitive dimensions, respectively, and then calculate the cultural distance [68]. The corresponding calculation formulas are as follows:
Δ S A = S A N T S A T
Δ S B = S B N T S B T
Δ S C = S C N T S C T
C D i A = ( S i N T A S i T A ) 2 / V A
C D i B = ( S i N T B S i T B ) 2 / V B
C D i C = ( S i N T C S i T C ) 2 / V C
C D i = C D i A + C D i B + C D i C 3
where the S i N T A , S i N T B , and S i N T C respectively stand for the index for the ith sample’s cultural adaptive score at the Affection(A), behavior(B), and Cognition(C) dimension for the non-Tibetan culture; S i T A , S i T B , and S i T C indicate the ith participant’s cultural adaptable score in the dimension of A, B, and C, respectively. Δ S A , Δ S B , and Δ S C refer to the cultural adaptive difference in the A, B, and C aspects. V A , V B , and V C are the variance about the Tibetan participants’ modern cultural adjustment score in the A, B, and C dimensions, separately. C D i is the cultural adaptive distance.

3.4.4. Linear Regression Model

Before performing linear regression analysis, all raw data is first standardized to ensure that the constant terms in the one or multiple linear regression models based on the least-squares method are 0 [57]. On this basis, the direct effects of cultural adaptable differences are analyzed. In the specific calculation process, combining the Pearson correlation coefficient of the influencing factor variables, some variables are extracted according to the value being significant at the 0.01, 0.05, and 0.1 level. The extracted variables are then subjected to multiple regression analysis to further determine the direct effects’ elastic coefficient. The specific model is:
C D i = β i x i + ε i
where β i refers to the regression coefficient, ε i represents the error term, and x i are the variables associated with the influencing factors.

3.4.5. Structural Equation Model

The structural equation model is used to analyze the relation between attributes and dependent variables [81]. Based on the Pearson correlation coefficient and the number of variables, five structural equation models are constructed to analyze the mediating effects that affect Tibetans’ cultural adaptive differences. Relevant models are as follows:
X = Λ X ξ + δ
Y = Λ Y η + ε
η = B η + Γ ξ + ζ
where x and y refer to the vector quality of exogenous and endogenous indicators, respectively, Λ X and Λ Y are factor-loading matrix, B represents the relationship between endogenous latent variables, Γ denotes the effect of endogenous latent variables on exogenous latent variables, and δ , ε , and ζ refer to the residual item.
We useExcel2007 to calculate the weight of the variables, the cultural adaptive score, and the cultural adaptable distance, and apply PASW Statistics 18 computes the reliability and validity of the data, the influencing variables’ factor-loading, as well as the Pearson correlation coefficient of the influencing factors; a cultural distance box-plot is drawn by Origin9.1. Stata15is used to make linear regression analysis, which aims to find direct effects in influencing factors. Modeling structural equations through Amos17 is used to analyze the intermediary effects among influencing factors.

4. Results

4.1. Questionnaire Reliability

Reliability analysis is an important test step to examine the reliability and consistency of the questionnaire data. The results shown in Table 2 indicate that the Cronbach’s Alpha of the traditional Tibetan culture is 0.790, while the behavioral and cognitive dimensions’ Cronbach’s Alphas are 0.688 and 0.686. The Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.726, yet the reliabilities in the behavioral and cognitive dimensions are 0.696 and 0.764. However, the affective dimension corresponding to the Tibetan traditional and modern culture has only one index, so the reliability does not calculate. The Cronbach’s Alpha of all indicators of Tibetan local culture is 0.801, and the Cronbach’s Alpha of all indexes corresponding to the influencing factors is 0.005. So the selected indicators that characterize cultural adaptive differences and influencing factors meet the reliability requirements [81].
Questionnaire validity is used to consider the statistical analysis results and the authenticity of the intended purpose of the questionnaire design. The testing results are shown in Table 3: The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) of Tibetan traditional culture is 0.737; the KMO in behavioral and cognitive dimensions are 0.700 and 0.691, respectively; the KMO of Tibetan modern cultural data is 0.709; the KMO of behavioral and cognitive dimensions are 0.642 and 0.695. Since the affective dimension of Tibetan tradition and modern cultural part has only one indicator, its validity could not be calculated. All indicators’ KMO of Tibetan local culture is 0.495, and the validity of influencing factors is 0.558. A previous study has shown that further studies can be performed with a KMO greater than 0.3 [81].
Before constructing the structural equation model, it is necessary to calculate the factor loadings’ value and the Pearson correlation coefficients about the variables affecting the cultural adaptive differences and the testing results expressed in Table 4. The values of factor loadings are greater than 0.5, so the structural equation model can be constructed by using the relevant influencing variables. Meanwhile, according to the principle that the sample size is equal to or greater than 10 times the number of variables [82], so five structural equation models are constructed. Model 1 is composed of CT, IM, NP, SO, and CD. Model 2 is based on IE, UI, SO, and CD. Model 3 consists of CT, UI, GL, TB, and CD. Model 4 is constituted of IM, UI, LG, AC, and CD. Model 5 is constructed by IE, TB, IM, AC, and CD. In doing so, we test result shown in Table 5 that the Model 1, Model 3, and Model 4 can be used to study the mediating effects of Tibetan’s cultural adaptive differences [81].

4.2. Tibetans’Cultural Adaptive Types in the Affective, Behavioral, and Cognitive Dimensions

In general, there are four cultural adaptive types of integration, assimilation, separation, and marginalization, which are represented in Table 6 and the Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5. Further, there are some special types of cultural adaptation: Tending to Tibetan traditional culture (3 < (A,C)T-Score 5 and 2 < (A,C)NT-Score 3), tending to modern culture (2 < (A,C)T-Score 3 and 3<(A,C)NT-Score 5), as well as unclassified cultural adjusted categories (2 < (A,C)T-Score < 3 and 2 < (A,C)NT-Score < 3) in the affective and cognitive dimensions.
In the affective dimension, the Tibetans’ cultural adaptable types are divided into seven categories: Integration, assimilation, separation, marginalization, tending to modern culture, tending to Tibetan traditional culture, and unclassified cultural adjusted categories, while the corresponding proportions are 33.898%, 3.390%, 27.119%, 6.780%, 1.695%, 8.475%, and 18.644%, respectively. In the behavioral dimension, there are three types in terms of integration, tending to modern culture, and tending to Tibetan traditional culture, and the related distributions are 69.492%, 8.475%, and 22.034%. In the cognitive dimension: Cultural adaptive classes are integration, assimilation, tending to modern culture, tending to Tibetan traditional culture, and unclassified cultural adjusted categories, with the relevant ratios of 32.203%, 8.475%, 22.034%, 25.424%, and 11.864%.

4.3. Tibetans’Cultural Adaptive Differences between the Traditional and Modern Cultural Parts of Contemporary Tibetan Local Culture

The results according to the cultural distance’s results by using box-plot analysis are signified in Figure 6 and Table 7. The cultural distance reflects the Tibetan people’s cultural adaptable differences. The greater the cultural distance is, the greater Tibetans cultural adaptive difference between the traditional culture and modern culture is. The affective and cognitive dimensions’ cultural distance are smaller than its range in the behavioral dimension, and there are some outliers in the affective and cognitive dimension, which indicates the cultural adaptable differences between Tibetan traditional and modern parts in the affective and cognitive dimensions are smaller than that distinctions compared to its related features in the behavioral dimension. However, the cultural adaptive differences in the affective and cognitive dimensions are more complicated than the relevant differences in the behavioral dimension. Additionally, there are abnormal values in total cultural distance, associated with two outliers are 9.114 and 8.870, and the two abnormal points were eliminated for the Tibetans’ cultural adaptive differences’ influencing factors analysis.

4.4. Analysis of the Direct Effects on the Contemporary Tibetan Local Cultural Adaptive Differences in Tibet

The Tibetan folks’ cultural adaptation differences are explained by the traditional cultural observance, modern cultural influence, using technology, policies, globalization, religious beliefs, as well as the stable and open development in society, which is denoted in Table A3. Through correlation analysis, it is found that the variables directly related to the cultural distance are CT, IM, and IE. The corresponding correlation coefficients are 0.289, −0.374, and 0.269, respectively. On this basis, taking CT, IM, and IE as independent variables, and CD as a dependent variable, multiple linear regression modeling is performed. The results are shown in Table 8: CT and IM have a direct effect on the Tibetans’ cultural adaptive differences. The corresponding regression coefficients are 0.332 and −0.353, which is significant at the0.01 level. Therefore, CT widens the Tibetans’ cultural adaptive differences, while IM narrows the Tibetans’ cultural adaptable differences. However, the p value of the regression coefficient about IE is 0.393, which does not have significant confidence level. In light of this, IE has no direct effect on the Tibetans’ cultural adaptive differences.

4.5. Analysis of the Intermediary Effect on the Contemporary Tibetan Local Cultural Adaptive Differences in Tibet

Structural equation Model 1 is indicated in Table 9 and Figure 7. The results re-demonstrate that CT and IM have a direct effect on Tibetans’ cultural adaptive differences. It further means that the abovementioned linear regression results have robustness. Moreover, “NP combined with SO” and “SO associated with IM” influence the cultural adaptive distinctions, and the related elastic coefficients are −0.333 and −0.513, respectively. It indicates that “NP joined with SO” and “SO linked with IM” have mediating effects on Tibetans’ cultural adaptive differences. As a result, the two relevant unions can reduce the Tibetan people’s cultural adaptable differences. Structural equation Model 3 expressed in Table 9 and Figure 8, which denotes that there is no intermediary effect. However, UI can increase Tibetans’ cultural adaptive differences, which conflicts with the above mentioned result by multiple linear regression modeling. Consequently, UI influencing the Tibetans’ cultural adaptive differences is unstable. Structural equation Model 4 is shown in Table 9 and Figure 9. There is an intermediary path about “UI associated with IM”, and the related elastic coefficient is −0.480. As such, “UI combined with IM” can reduce its differences.

5. Discussions

5.1. Tibetans’Cultural Adaptive Differences Discussions

Before 1950, temples, sectarian governments, and manors controlled Tibet’s social, political, economic, and cultural order. The ruling class used religious power to establish a moral order and legal system to achieve the governing of serf ideology [83]. Moreover, the natural environment of cold temperatures and lack of oxygen had laid the Tibetan people’s supreme respect for the god. As a result, the Tibetans’ had profound religious sentiment and spiritual sustenance for Tibetan Buddhism, and at the same time, the Tibetan people formed the behavioral characteristics and cognitive styles based on naturalism and transcendent symbolism [11]. Since the 1950’s democratic reform in Tibet, Tibetan people have overthrown the local serf system, establishing the development path of socialism with Chinese and Tibetan characteristics, which effectively promoted economic development, social progress, and cultural transformation [84]. Especially since the reform and opening up, Tibet’s development, stability, and opening up have enabled foreign culture, modern culture, and post-modern culture to infiltrate all aspects of Tibetan people’s work and life, and promoted the slow evolution of Tibetan traditional local culture, leading to the gradual emergence of new local cultures. In this context, the Tibetan people have a new sense of place and reinvented the topophilia [85], which is newborn to the local culture, and constructed a new cultural path-dependence and cultural adaptable persistence chains [86]; this was a comprehensive process of reshaping local cultural characteristics and strengthening contemporary local identity.
Therefore, there is a coexistence of the fixed and variability of contemporary Tibetan local culture, which makes Tibetan traditional and modern culture blending, intertwining, retaining, and changing [70]. The transformation of Tibetan local culture is a transcendence of traditional culture and a dialectical negation of old culture [23], which is characterized by non-synchronization, contingency, and folding. Cultural adaptable differences are the results about the joint action of affection, behavior, and cognition. Affections represent the degree of psychological wellbeing. Behaviors denote the interactive process between traditional and modern culture. Cognitions mean attitudes and values. Cultural adaptation is a spiraling process of pressure–adjustment–growth [25]. There is integration, assimilation, separation, and marginalization of Tibetan people’s cultural adaptive categories, and there are also other cultural adaptable types regarding adapting to Tibetan traditional culture, tending to modern culture, and unclassified cultural adaptive types. These can be attributed to the fact that the Tibetan people’s understanding of the Tibetan modern culture and Tibetan traditional culture depends on the heterogeneity of the relationship and the heterogeneity of the population. The cultural adaptive categories have the meaning of relativity and multiplicity, and the beliefs, attitudes, and practices of the Tibetan people are related to the three cultural adaptive differences’ dimensions of emotions, behavior, and cognition [87]. These comprehensive links constitute a cultural adaptive strategy for Tibetans in three dimensions.
Tibetan people share the norms and meanings of contemporary Tibetan local culture based on affection, behavior, and cognition [88]. As a kind of construction, cultural distance reflects the overall adaptability of different individuals and groups to the characteristics and values of different cultures [33,70,71]. Culturally adaptable differences are the dynamic evolution process between the “self” and “other” cultural boundaries. Cultural adaptation is defined as part of the people’s self-concept, which is derived from the self-understanding of other cultures, making another culture that has self-related characteristics, ideological positions, common behaviors, experiences, and history internalized, as well as mainly indicated affective, behavioral, and cognitive aspects in the cultural adaptive process [40,41]. Moreover, the Tibetan people’s cultural adaptation in all affective, behavioral, and cognitive dimensions have boundaries, which reflects the degree of complexity and the size of its differences. Meanwhile, there is internal homogeneity and unity in each dimension, and that is not natural, but a unitarily constructive form [8].
Based on gravity theory and stress theory of cultural distances, it is shown that the positive and negative effect on beliefs and values may be easily generated in the affective and cognitive dimensions [89]. That has positive cultural spillovers, learning effects of cultural adaptation, while it has also negative cultural ambiguities, conflicts, splits, and rebounds in the aspects of cultural adjustment [9,42,53]. The positive and negative externalities increase the complexity of Tibetans’ cultural adaptive differences in the affective and cognitive dimensions, because the cultural adaptation of affective and cognitive dimensions is the result of a cross space mappings. In the process of the cultural adaptation, Tibetan folks need to be understood and integrate different aspects of information. The size and direction of psychological space mapping displacement, the flexibility of information recognition, and the ability to process information all increase the complexity of Tibetan people’s cultural adaptation in the affective and cognitive dimensions [63]. The complexity of actual behavioral culturally adaptive differences may be weakened by the affective and cognitive cultural adaptation of dimensions. However, it can expand the cultural adaptable differences in the behavioral dimension. The specific practice makes the cultural adaptive differences in the behavioral aspect complementary, and it has a synergetic effect [35]. Since the Tibetan people’s cultural adaptability in the affective and cognitive dimensions may be unshaped, there are certain difficulties in the cultural adaptable differences of the behavioral dimension to fully respond to the cultural adaptive differences of the affective and cognitive dimensions, and culturally adaptive differences’ responses to the effect may have unanticipated amplification in the behavioral dimension. Further, the Tibetan people’s cultural adaptive strategies in the affective and cognitive dimensions are more complex than the cultural adaptable strategies in the behavioral dimension. Yet, the cultural adaptable difference in the behavioral dimension is greater than the cultural adaptive differences in the affective and cognitive dimensions.

5.2. The Influencing Factors that Caused Cultural Adaptive Differences Discussions

Tibetan people’s cultural adaptive differences are explained by the seven dimensions of traditional cultural observance, modern cultural influence, using technology, policies, globalization, religious beliefs, and stable and open development in society. There is possible closed relatedness between the influencing factors of these seven dimensions reflected in the cultural adaptive differences and social cultural adaptation, psychological adaptation, interpersonal relationship adaptation, cultural values, social capital, Tibetan Buddhism, socio-economic development, modern network technology, as well as policy implementation [38,53,86]. The results of our empirical research show that “CT” and “IM” have direct effects on the Tibetans’ cultural adaptable differences; “NP associated with SO”, “SO combined with IM”, and “UI linked with IM” have mediating effects on the Tibetan people’s cultural adaptive differences. This is because the cultural adaptive activities of the Tibetan people are divided into two parts: (1) things that continue to pursue traditional cultural parts and (2) businesses that engage in modern cultural parts [63]. Therefore, the factors corresponding to the dimension of traditional cultural observance and modern cultural influence have become the direct factors affecting the Tibetans’ cultural adaptive differences, while others acted as intermediary effects influence the Tibetans’ cultural adaptable distinctions.
All of CT associated with Traditional cultural observance increase Tibetans’ cultural adaptable differences, because Tibetans classifies themselves according to common values, norms, cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors. They are more likely to contact people with similar cultural backgrounds [7], which promotes Tibetan people’s harmony-seeking and avoidance of uncertainty [90], in order to improve the positive effects of social connections [44,67]. Meanwhile, Tibetan people’s adaptability to traditional local culture has path dependence and convergence and emphasizes the importance of Tibetan traditional culture. In other words, the traditional cultural part in the Tibetan local culture may be resistant to foreign culture, which is a response to the negative bias about the Tibetans’ cultural attitudes to the foreign culture [45]. Thus, the protection of traditional local cultural characteristics’ appeal has, to an extent, expanded the Tibetan people’s adaptive differences between the traditional and modern culture. On one hand, the traditional cultural compliance dimension has the characteristics of independence and directness in the cultural adaptation difference, which reflects the historical and rooted features of Tibetan traditional culture, and further represents the Tibetans’ adherence to traditional culture. On the other hand, Tibetans can accept foreign modern culture, but this acceptance does not mean that foreign cultures are “going native” and abandoning their traditional values and Tibetan Buddhist beliefs [63]. It has further strengthened Tibetans’ respect, acceptance, understanding, and protection of traditional culture in the process of dialectical cognition of the traditional culture, which, in turn, increases the cultural adaptive differences.
The dimension of modern cultural influence corresponding to IM can reduce the Tibetans’ cultural adaptive differences. The existing research results have shown that there is a negative power exponential relationship between cultural values’ differences and social distances [91]. The better the Tibetan people adapt to the modern part of contemporary local culture, the more they can avoid the uncertainty in the process of cultural adaptation [7]. Normally, the relationships between the cultural environment and the folks’ communal goals, perceptions, and satisfaction have a moderating effect, and there is a significant positive correlation between the common goals and satisfaction [92]. The more satisfied the Tibetan people are with the experience of the social and cultural environment formed by the modern part of the local culture, the more comprehensive the state’s transfer at the Tibetan people’s personal internal scale and the interpersonal cultural empathy supported by the behavioral planning theory [91]. That narrows the Tibetan people’s cultural adaptive differences between the traditional and modern parts in the local culture.
“NP linked with SO” has a mediating effect that reduces the Tibetans’ cultural adaptable differences. Since the reform and opening up 40 years ago, the PRC and the CCP have held six symposiums on Tibet work, and the implementation of the policies have mainly focused on Tibet’s economic development, social stability, large-scale infrastructure construction, improvement of public service facilities, and national security strategy. Moreover, cultural construction has mainly concentrated on the education assistance, technological advancement, talent personnel training, and protection of Tibetan traditional cultural characteristics [93], which further promoted the Tibetan people to be emancipated in their minds and overcome their concept of closure, and induced the formation of a multi-channel, multi-level, and all-round opening pattern in the entire Tibet autonomous region [94]. Thus, only by combining NP with SO can we reduce the Tibetan people’s cultural adaptive differences between local traditional culture and modern culture.
The simultaneous impact of “SO associated with IM” can reduce the Tibetans’ cultural adaptable differences, because the stability of Tibetan society is a key factor in local development and the Tibetan people’s good livelihood [24]. Additionally, Tibetan traditional culture has the characteristics of time, tenacity, nationality, and sociality [95]. The contemporary society’s Tibetan culture serves the construction and development of Tibetan social undertakings and reflects the Tibetan people’s values, moral standards, ideology, and behavioral norms. Abandoning the traditional cultural component of Tibetan local culture is not conducive to social development and public progress, which can improve the quality of Tibetan local culture as a whole [96]. Therefore, linking SO with IM has a mediating effect on the Tibetans’ cultural adaptable differences. The abovementioned two factors’ combination may improve the modern cultural adaptation to Tibetan people, and thus reduces the adaptive difference between the modern and traditional parts in the Tibetan local culture.
The intermediary effect of “UI combined with IM” may reduce the Tibetans’ cultural adaptive differences. Social cognitive models emphasize the importance of technology, expectations, values, attitudes, and perceptions [57]. Using Internet, television, and other media has a significant correlation to the transformation of Tibetan people’s traditional cultural concepts. However, the level of use of the network is less than the interpersonal effect about spreading information to bring about traditional Tibetan cultural transformation [97]. Therefore, combining UI with IM indirectly narrows the Tibetans’ cultural adaptive differences through an intermediary effect.

6. Conclusions, Implications and Limitations

6.1. Conclusions

The game between traditional and modern culture is first reflected in the cultural adaptation of Tibetan people in terms of affection, behavior, and cognition. Research shows that there are seven cultural adaptive strategies: Integration, assimilation, separation, marginalization, tending to modern culture, tending to Tibetan traditional culture, and unclassified cultural adaptive types. To sum up, the Tibetans’ cultural adaptive strategies tend toward integration of modern and traditional culture in the affective, behavioral, and cognitive dimensions, whose characteristics are especially represented in the behavioral dimension. Meanwhile, the traditional culture assimilated by modern culture accounts for a small proportion, yet the Tibetan people still have a large distribution of traditional cultural adaptation. The unclassified cultural adaptive types in the affective and cognitive dimensions increase the complexity and dynamics of cultural adaptation strategies. In addition, the Tibetan people’s tendency towards modern culture has a certain proportion in the affective, behavioral, and cognitive dimensions, but this adaptation to modern culture is still based on traditional culture.
There is a correlation between the cultural adaptive difference of the affective dimension and the cultural adaptable differences of the behavioral and cognitive dimensions, but there is no significant confidence level. However, there is a significant correlation between cultural adaptation differences in behavioral dimensions and cultural adaptation differences in cognitive dimensions. This is mainly because the cultural adaptation in the affective dimension is more complex than the cultural adaptability of the cognitive and behavioral dimensions, and the cultural adaptation of the cognitive dimension is more complex than the cultural dimension of the behavioral dimension. In sum, the differences between the Tibetan people in the affective and cognitive dimensions of the Tibetan culture and the cultural adaptation of the modern dimension are smaller than the behavioral dimension of the cultural adaptation, but the affective and cognitive cultural adaptable differences are more complex than the behavioral dimension culturally adaptable differences.
The factors affecting the cultural adaptability of Tibetan people have a direct and intermediary effect. All of CT and IM have direct effects on Tibetans’ cultural adaptive differences. CT expands the Tibetans’ cultural adaptive differences, while IM reduces the Tibetan cultural adaptive distinctions. In addition, six factors of “NP united with SO”, “SO incorporated with IM”, and “UI allied with IM” have mediating effects on the Tibetans’ cultural adaptive differences. The intermediary effect of above two mentioned mixes can reduces the Tibetan people’s cultural adaptive differences between the traditional culture and the modern culture in local Tibetan cultures.

6.2. Implications

The contemporary Tibetan local culture is divided into two parts: Tibetan traditional culture and Tibetan modern culture, which is a theoretically innovative way to overcome the misunderstanding of modern mainstream cultural superiority. This paper put Tibetan traditional culture and modern culture into an equal perspective to explore the Tibetans’ cultural adaptive differences, aiming to pay attention to the “internalization” of culture [98]. Meanwhile, it reflects the deep respect for the Tibetan local culture. Based on Hofstede’s definition of cultural distance, the computational model of cultural distance is redefined by combining with Tibetans’ cultural adaptive differences in affective, behavioral, and cognitive dimensions. This study also applied qualitative data to the quantitative model, which can effectively explain the subjects. Besides, based on the multiple linear regression analysis and structural equation modeling to study the effects of cultural adaptive differences, the two models can mutually verify the robustness of direct effects, which has methodological significance.
In the face of the current situation in which the economy of Tibet is lagging behind the Chinese mainland, this research investigates whether the cultural adaptive differences of Tibetans helps to grasp the cultural psychology of the Tibetan people from a deep level and helps to guide the ethnic areas to establish good relations with Chinese mainland. Simultaneously, based on the dimensions of affection, behavior, and cognition, the Tibetan people are treated to adapt to the differences between the traditional and modern parts of the Tibetan local culture. It helps local governments to grasp the Tibetans’ true demands from the national psychology [28], actual behavior, and cognitive characteristics, which plays an important role in the harmony, stability, unity, and development of Tibetan society. When the government of the PRC implements major project investment and economic assistance to the Tibetan region, the related serials engineering must combine national policies with social stability and development. Moreover, the stable and open society must be linked with the modern factors as well as scientific and technological levels. In addition, Tibetan culture is an important part of Chinese culture; in the context of contemporary social and economic development, studying the Tibetans’ cultural adaptive differences and its influencing factors is conducive to reconstructing the Tibetan local cultural significance. It also promotes Tibetans and non-Tibetans to observe and protect the Tibetan traditional cultural characteristics. Further, it may help Tibetans adapt to the changing economic and cultural environment in the contemporary society.

6.3. Limitations

The limitations of this research are mainly reflected in the following four aspects. First, the impact of demographic characteristics associated with age, gender, occupation, the level of education, and the residential time in Shigatse on Tibetans’ cultural adaptive differences between traditional culture and modern culture is not discussed. Second, it is not separately discussed how the seven influencing factors (traditional cultural observance, modern cultural influence, using technology, policies, globalization, religious beliefs, as well as stable and open development) affect the Tibetans’ cultural adaptive strategies (integration, assimilation, separation, marginalization, tending to Tibetan traditional culture, adapting to Tibetan modern culture, and unclassified cultural adaptive types). In addition, the factors about globalization and religious beliefs do not have direct or intermediary effects to influence the Tibetans’ cultural adaptive differences. However, the existing research results have shown that religious beliefs affect things in social contexts, and emotional responses contribute to cultural adaptive differences [53]. Third, based on the ABC model and CD theory, CD is measured. The number of variables is inconsistent in the behavioral and cognitive dimensions, which may, to a certain extent, produce errors in cultural adaptive differences of behavioral and cognitive dimensions. Fourth, in this paper, the cultural adaptive difference CD is processed according to the distance calculation method in Euclidean geometry, so the cultural distance has some similar properties of Euclidean distance: Symmetry, stability, linearity, causality, and discordance, which is based on the assumption that the Tibetans’ cultural adaptation is a simple and homogeneous system. But the practical reality is that the cultural adaptive system is a complex and heterogeneous system, and cultural distance changes with space, time, embeddedness, causal effect, or lack of fit [35]. Furthermore, cultural distance has the nature of friction and resistance [7]. It means the surface “roughness” in different cultural environments and the “texture” inherent in culture may affect the attenuation or amplification of cultural distance [7]. As a result, cultural distance has an unexplained part in measuring the Tibetan people’s cultural adaptable differences, which requires further innovative research methods to explore complex cultural adaptive systems. These four shortcomings are the future exploration directions in terms of Tibetans’ cultural adaptive differences.

Author Contributions

Y.Y. conceived the presented idea, made a survey in Shigatse city, proposed the related scientific problems, verified the analytical methods, and revised the manuscript; S.Y investigated the related topics in Shigatse city and wrote the original draft preparation; W.W. collected the raw data and discussed the data-processing method.

Funding

This research is funded by the National Natural Science foundation of China, grant number 41571155.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our deepest appreciation to Xing Huang, Kunbo Shi who provided some important suggestions on the manuscript. We also sincerely thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments that have led to the present improved version of the original manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Variable selection of Tibetans’ traditional cultural adaptability.
Table A1. Variable selection of Tibetans’ traditional cultural adaptability.
DimensionsVariables’ DescriptionShorthandWeightingMethod
AffectionThe level of psychological stress caused by foreign culture on the impact of Tibetan traditional cultureFIT [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
BehaviorThe level of likeness of Tibetan food and its inheritanceLTF [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
The level of Tibetan dressing degree and its inheritanceTDI [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
The level of resident agglomeration with TibetansRAT [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
The level of decoration and inheritance of the Tibetan style of the homeDTH [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
The frequency or extent of Tibetan language use in daily lifeFTL [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
The frequency or extent of Tibetan language use in social communicationFTS [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
The level of the number, love, and trust Tibetan friendsNTF [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
The level of complying with Tibetan traditional customsLTC [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
The level of complying with traditional Tibetan marriage etiquetteLTM [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
The level of complying with Tibetan traditional funeralLTF [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
The level of complying with traditional Tibetan festivalsTTF [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
The level of Tibetan culture’s restraint on behaviorTRB [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
The level of dietary tabooLDT [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
CognitionThe level of religious piety or displayRPD [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
The level of familiarity with the origin and development of Tibetan BuddhismFTB [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
The level of familiarity with Zongshan and Tashilhunpo MonasteryZTM [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
The level of familiarity, observance, and recognition of Tibetan traditional cultureRTC [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
Table A2. Variable selection of Tibetan people’s modern cultural adaptability.
Table A2. Variable selection of Tibetan people’s modern cultural adaptability.
DimensionsVariables’ DescriptionShorthandWeightingMethod
AffectionThe level of modern cultural opennessMCO [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
BehaviorThe frequency or extent of Chinese language use in workFCL [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
The level of recognition about living in a same residential area with non-TibetansRNT [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
The level of familiarity with modern festivalsFMF [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
The level of familiarity and compliance with national statutory holidaysNSH [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
The level of familiarity with modern cultureFMC [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
CognitionThe level of cognition of deep interaction with non-TibetDIN [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
The level of cognition and love for modern cultureCMC [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
The level of recognition of intermarriage with non-TibetIMN [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
Table A3. The selection of factors affecting Tibetans’ cultural adaptable differences.
Table A3. The selection of factors affecting Tibetans’ cultural adaptable differences.
DimensionsVariables’ DescriptionShorthandWeightingMethod
Traditional cultural observanceThe degree of the taboo, etiquette, custom compliance required by Tibetan traditional cultureCT [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
Modern cultural influenceThe degree of impact and freshness of modern culture in the dimensions of affection, behavior, and cognitionIM [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
Using technologyThe extent of using internetUI [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
The level of the improvement about education and facilitiesIE [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
PoliciesThe level of national policies’ impactNP [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
The degree of influence on counterpart assistance to TibetAC [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
The extent of local government roleLG [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
GlobalizationThe degree of globalization roleGL [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
religious beliefsThe extent of influence of Tibetan BuddhismTB [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]
Stable and open developmentThe level of social stability, openness, and developmentSO [ 5 4 3 2 1 ]

References

  1. Ronald, I.; Baker, W.E. Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2000, 65, 19–51. [Google Scholar]
  2. Zhang, J. Discuss the cultural transition. Acad. Forum. 2010, 33, 158–163. [Google Scholar]
  3. Averitt, R.T. The cultural contradictions of capitalism. J. Econ Issues. 1976, 19, 243–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Liao, Y.L.; Wang, F.Z. The resource allocation of the villages in Tibet under modernization transformation from the perspective of organizational communication. J. Tibet Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2017, 2, 157–163. [Google Scholar]
  5. Zhang, Z.H.; Zhan, P. Study on “locality” mechanism and cultivation countermeasure of local cultural industry. J. Tech. Econ. Manag. 2017, 10, 120–124. [Google Scholar]
  6. Wu, Y. Temporal-Spatial Reconfiguration and Cultural Changes of the Relocation Minority Immigrants in Perspective of Urbanization: A Case Study Yunqiao Community; Yunnan University: Kunming, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  7. Moufakkir, O. The role of cultural distance in mediating the host gaze. Tour. Stud. 2011, 11, 73–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Robins, K. Questions of Cultural Identity; Hall, S., Gay, P.D., Eds.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1996; pp. 18–53. [Google Scholar]
  9. Nahavandi, A.; Malekzadeh, A.R. Acculturation in mergers and acquisitions. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1988, 30, 10–12. [Google Scholar]
  10. Stahl, G.K.; Voigt, A. Do cultural differences matter in mergers and acquisitions? A tentative model and examination. Organ. Sci. 2008, 19, 160–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sun, M. Cultural transformation of the realization of China’s social modernization. J. Chin. People Police Force Acad. 2009, 25, 48–50. [Google Scholar]
  12. Li, R.J. A Study on the Modernization of Ethnic Cultures and the National Identity In contemporary Xinjiang; Minzu University of China: Beijing, China, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  13. Nemtsov, K.M. Towards a New ABC Model: Understanding Adaptation of International Studies in China Relation to Social Exclusion, Intra-Cultural Friendship, and Perceived Cultural Distance; Shanghai International Studies University: Shanghai, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  14. Buttel, F.H. Ecological modernization as social theory. Geoforum 2000, 31, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  15. Zhao, S.H. The Idea and Way of Integrating Modern Information Technology and Tibet National Culture. HeiLongjiangShizhi 2009, 18, 26–27. [Google Scholar]
  16. Yang, D. The Influence About Globalization on the Inheritance and Development of Tibetan Traditional Culture; Tibet University: L Hasa, Taiwan, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  17. Jiang, M.H. Cultural psychology in the globalizational context: A review of Ma Yuan, Yang Zhen, and Alai’s Tibetan novels. Jiang Huai Tribune. 2003, 5, 128–132. [Google Scholar]
  18. Lang, W.W.; Zhao, S.B. Tibet population characteristics and structure optimizations study. Tibet. Stud. 2016, 6, 75–81. [Google Scholar]
  19. Yan, Y.L. New planned economy or “new bird cage economy”. Econ. Her. 2017, 8, 65–69. [Google Scholar]
  20. Zeng, Y. On the modernization of Tibet’s society and ruling Tibet by law. J. Tibet Univ. 2015, 30, 34–39. [Google Scholar]
  21. Yang, J.P.; Ding, L.H. Research on the integration of rural tourism, national festivals, and traditional Tibetan sports culture in Tibet. J. Southwest Univ. Natl. (Hum. Soc. Sci.) 2016, 37, 46–50. [Google Scholar]
  22. Yang, Y. Culture integration between Man and Han nationalities, social harmony and progress. Cult. Geogr. 2014, 20, 60–61. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kavanagh, M.H.; Ashkanasy, N.M. The impact of leadership and change management strategy on organizational culture and individual acceptance of change during a merger. Br. J. Manag. 2006, 17, S81–S103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Du, H.J. The Research About Cultural Acculturation between Han and Tibetan Nationality of Hehuang Area in Qinghai Province; Qinghai University: Xining, China, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  25. Winkelman, M. Cultural shock and adaptation. J. Couns. Dev. 2014, 73, 121–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ward, C.; Bochner, S.; Furnham, A. The Psychology of Culture Shock; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  27. Berry, J.W.; Trimble, J.E.; Olmedo, E.L. Assessment of acculturation. In Cambridge Handbook of Acculturation Psychology; Sage Publications, Inc.: London, UK, 1986; pp. 290–349. [Google Scholar]
  28. Berry, J.W.; Kim, U.; Power, S.; Young, M.; Bujaki, M. Acculturation attitudes in plural societies. Appl. Psychol. 1989, 38, 185–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Berry, J.W. Psychology of acculturation. Cross Cult. Perspect. 1990, 37, 201–234. [Google Scholar]
  30. Berry, J.W. Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Appl. Psychol. 1997, 46, 5–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Huynh, Q.L.; Benet-Martínez, V.; Nguyen, A.M.D. Measuring Variations in Bicultural Identity across U.S. Ethnic and Generational Groups: Development and Validation of the Bicultural Identity Integration Scale. Psychological Assessment 2018, 12, 1581–1596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Hofstede, G.; Mintu, A.T. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 1992, 2, 362–363. [Google Scholar]
  33. Hofstede, G. Cultural constraints in management theories. Executive 1993, 7, 81–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Drogendijk, R.; Slangen, A. Hofstede, Schwartz, or managerial perceptions? The effects of different cultural distance measures on establishment mode choices by multinational enterprises. Int. Bus. Rev. 2006, 15, 361–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  35. Shenkar, O. Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more rigorous conceptualization and measurement of cultural differences. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2001, 32, 519–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kim, Y.Y. Ideology, identity, and intercultural communication: An analysis of differing academic conceptions of cultural identity. J. Int. Commun. Res. 2007, 36, 237–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Robinson, L. Cultural identity and acculturation preferences among South Asian adolescents in Britain: An exploratory study. Child. Soc. 2009, 23, 442–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wedeen, L. Conceptualizing culture: Possibilities for political science. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 2002, 96, 713–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Black, J.S.; Stephens, G.K. The influence of the spouse on American expatriate adjustment and intent to stay in Pacific Rim overseas assignments. J. Manag. 1989, 15, 529–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Miville, M.L.; Koonce, D.; Darlington, P.; Whitlock, B. Exploring the relationships between racial/cultural identity and ego identity among African Americans and Mexican Americans. J. Multicult. Couns. Dev. 2000, 28, 208–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Usborne, E.; Taylor, D.M. The role of cultural identity clarity for self-concept clarity, self-esteem, and subjective well-being. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2010, 36, 883–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Larsson, R.; Lubatkin, M. Achieving acculturation in mergers and acquisitions: An international case survey. Hum. Relat. 2001, 54, 1573–1607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bhugra, D. Migration, distress and cultural identity. Br. Med. Bull. 2004, 69, 129–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  44. Tajfel, H. Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1982, 33, 1–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hogg, M.A.; Terry, D.J. Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2000, 25, 121–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Sun, K.; Yin, H.; Zhu, Y.S. A empirical study on cross-cultural adaptation of Southeast Asia students in Yunnan: A survey on international students at Yunnan Agricultural University. J. Yunnan Agric. Univ. (Soc. Sci.) 2018, 12, 119–126. [Google Scholar]
  47. Vianen, A.E.M.V.; Pater, I.E.D.; Kristof-Brown, A.L.; Johnson, E.C. Fitting in: Surface- and deep-level cultural differences and expatriates’ adjustment. Acad. Manag. J. 2004, 47, 697–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Yan, C.J. Attach importance to “cross-cultural communication”. Qunzhong. 2004, 3, 58–59. [Google Scholar]
  49. Björkman, I.; Stahl, G.K.; Vaara, E. Cultural differences and capability transfer in cross-border acquisitions: The mediating roles of capability complementarity, absorptive capacity, and social integration. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2007, 38, 658–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Håkanson, L.; Ambos, B. The antecedents of psychic distance. J. Int. Manag. 2010, 16, 195–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  51. Dikova, D.; Sahib, P.R. Is cultural distance a bane or a boon for cross-border acquisition performance? J. World Bus. 2013, 48, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Xu, H.W. “Fei Xiaotong’s difficult problem”: Realistic tension and theoretical response to the modernization and cultural transition of ethnic minorities. J. Hubei Univ. Natl. (Philos. Soc. Sci.) 2018, 36, 116–121. [Google Scholar]
  53. Krieg, A.; Xu, Y. From self-construal to threat appraisal: Understanding cultural differences in social anxiety between Asian Americans and European Americans. Cult. Divers. Ethn. Minor. Psychol. 2018, 24, 477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Harvey, D. Between Space and Time: Reflections on the Geographical Imagination. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 1990, 80, 418–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Liang, Z.X.; Bao, J.G. The impacts of cultural transformation on place becoming: A case study of Shenzhen overseas Chinese town. Sci. Geogr. Sin. 2015, 35, 544–550. [Google Scholar]
  56. Li, X.Y.; Yang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Liu, H. Impacts and effects of government regulation of farmers’ responses to drought: A case study of North China plain. J. Geogr. Sci. 2017, 27, 1481–1498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Searle, W.; Ward, C. The prediction of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during cross-cultural transitions. Int. J. Int. Relat. 1990, 14, 449–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Cox, J.B. The role of communication, technology, and cultural identity in repatriation adjustment. Int. J. Int. Relat. 2004, 28, 201–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Rudmin, F.W. Critical history of the acculturation psychology of assimilation, separation, integration, and marginalization. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2003, 7, 3–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Zhou, J.L.; Zhang, S.J. Analysis of cultural conflict and cultural integration in urban ethnic scattered areas: A case study of Chengdu. J. Southwest Univ. Natl. (Hum. Soc. Sci.) 2015, 36, 49–54. [Google Scholar]
  61. Dear, M.; Burridge, A. Cultural integration and hybridization at the United States-Mexico borderlands. Cahiers De Géographie De Québec. 2005, 138, 301–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bresman, H.; Birkinshaw, J.; Nobel, R. Knowledge transfer in international acquisitions. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2010, 41, 5–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Tucker, M.F.; Bonial, R.; Lahti, K. The definition, measurement and prediction of intercultural adjustment and job performance among corporate expatriates. Int. J. Int. Relat. 2004, 28, 28,221–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Saad, C.S.; Damian, R.I.; Benet-martínez, V.; Moons, W.G.; Robins, R.W. Multiculturalism and creativity: Effects of cultural context, bicultural identity, and ideational fluency. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 2013, 4, 369–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Bhui, K.; Khatib, Y.; Viner, R.; Klineberg, E.; Clark, C.; Head, J.; Stansfeld, S. Cultural identity, clothing and common mental disorder: A prospective school-based study of white British and Bangladeshi adolescents. J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health. 2008, 62, 435–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Giulietti, C. Cultural Integration of Immigrants in Europe; Algan, Y., Bisin, A., Manning, A., Verdier, T., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012; p. 368. [Google Scholar]
  67. Yildiz, H.E. Not all differences are the same: Dual roles of status and cultural distance in sociocultural integration in cross-border M&As. J. Int. Manag. 2014, 20, 25–37. [Google Scholar]
  68. Sousa, C.M.P.; Bradley, F. Cultural Distance and Psychic Distance: Two Peas in a Pod? J. Int. Mark. 2006, 14, 49–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Morosini, P.; Shane, S.; Singh, H. National cultural distance and cross-border acquisition performance. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 1998, 29, 137–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Redmond, M.V. Cultural distance as a mediating factor between stress and intercultural communication competence. Int. J. Int. Relat. 2000, 24, 151–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Yamin, M.; Golesorkhi, S. Cultural distance and the pattern of equity ownership structure in international joint ventures. Int. Bus. Rev. 2010, 19, 457–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Zhang, Y.J.; Ma, H.L. A research on the Tibetan undergraduates’ acculturation attitude model. Youth Stud. 2012, 6, 43–52. [Google Scholar]
  73. Ting-toomey, S.; Yeejung, K.K.; Shapiro, R.B.; Garcia, W.; Wright, T.J.; Oetzel, J.G. Ethnic/cultural identity salience and conflict styles in four US ethnic groups. Int. J. Int. Relat. 2000, 24, 47–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Jørn, B.; Lars, A. Religion and cultural integration: Vietnamese Catholics and Buddhists in Denmark. Nord. J. Migr. Res. 2011, 1, 176–184. [Google Scholar]
  75. Zhang, J.M.; Zhu, Q.B.; Wang, Y.P. Social capital on consumer knowledges-sharing in virtual brand communities: The mediating effect of pan-family consciousness. Sustainability. 2019, 11, 339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Yang, Y.C. The development and environment problems of valley-city in the western China. J. Mt. Sci. 2004, 22, 40–47. [Google Scholar]
  77. Sang, C.R. Survey and consideration on three rivers source eco-immigrant culture adaptability issue. New Heights (Bimonthly) 2011, 30, 15–20. [Google Scholar]
  78. Shigatse Bureau of Statistics. Shigatse Statistical Yearbook; Shigatse Statistical Bureau Press in Tibet: Shigatse, China, 2016; pp. 10–200. [Google Scholar]
  79. Zhou, L.H.; Wang, Y.; Yang, G.J. Study on the timely adjustment of the grazing prohibition policy: Ban or lift? Empirical research from local government managers. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Yuan, T. Eco-City Construction: An Analysis of the Development and Transformation of Zhangye; Lanzhou University: Lanzhou, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  81. Wang, M.M.; Yang, Y.C.; Jin, S.T.; Gu, L.; Zhang, H. Social and cultural factors that influence residential location choice of urban senior citizens in China: The case of Chengdu city. Habit. Int. 2016, 53, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Wu, M.L. Structural Equation Model: Advancement of Amos Practice; Chongqing University Press: Chongqing, China, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  83. Wanner, C. Public religions after socialism: Redefining norms of difference. Relig. State Soc. 2018, 46, 88–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Cao, W.D.; Li, Y.Y.; Cheng, J.Q.; Millington, S. Locational patterns of urban industry in Shanghai and implications for sustainability. J. Geogr. Sci. 2017, 27, 857–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Ehrkamp, P. Place: A Short Introductionby Tim Cresswell. Professional Geographer. 2010, 4, 492–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Tubadji, A.; Nijkamp, P. Cultural Corridors: An Analysis of Persistence in Impacts on Local Development—A Neo-Weberian Perspective on South-East Europe; Taylor & Francis: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  87. DiMaggio, P.; Sotoudeh, R.; Goldberg, A.; Shepherd, H. Culture out of attitudes: Relationality, population heterogeneity and attitudes toward science and religion in the U.S. Poetics 2018, 68, 31–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Tihanyi, L.; Griffith, D.A.; Russell, C.J. The effect of cultural distance on entry mode choice, international diversification, and MNE performance: A meta-analysis. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2005, 36, 270–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Sun, S.W.; He, X.J.; Wang, C. Cultural distance and corporate value created via overseas M&A. Financ. Trade Econ. 2018, 39, 130–146. [Google Scholar]
  90. Ishii, K.; Eisen, C. Cultural similarities and differences in social discounting: The mediating role of harmony-seeking. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Ward, A.; Mandrusiak, A.; Levett-Jones, T. Cultural empathy in physiotherapy students: A pre-test post-test study utilising virtual simulation. Physiotherapy 2018, 104, 453–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Soto, C.; Deemer, E.D. Communal goals, campus racial climate perceptions, and cultural differences in perceived academic satisfaction. Career Dev. Q. 2018, 66, 35–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Qu, X.L.; Liu, H.H. The life changes of the Tibetan people in the four decades of reform and opening. J. HIT (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2018, 20, 55–60. [Google Scholar]
  94. Wei, S.H. On the evolution of CPC’s policies of developing Tibet since the reform and opening-up: Based on the six Tibetan work conference held by the central authorities. Guizhou Ethn. Stud. 2018, 39, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  95. Dong, H.E.D. On Tibetan traditional culture from the perspective of modernization. J. South-Cent. Univ. Natl. (Hum. Soc. Sci.) 2003, 2, 67–70. [Google Scholar]
  96. Xing, Q.C. Discuss the modernization of Tibetan culture. Tibet. Arts Stud. 1992, 1, 7–11. [Google Scholar]
  97. Qian, L. A Study on the Relevance between Mass Media and the Modern Concepts of the Audience in Tibet; Xizang Minzu University: Xianyang, China, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  98. Guan, K. Modernization and cultural transformation of ethnic minorities. J. South-Cent. Univ. Natl. (Hum. Soc. Sci.) 2002, 6, 45–48. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. The ideas of the Tibetans’ cultural adaptive differences research.
Figure 1. The ideas of the Tibetans’ cultural adaptive differences research.
Sustainability 11 01956 g001
Figure 2. Case study area.
Figure 2. Case study area.
Sustainability 11 01956 g002
Figure 3. Cultural adaptive types in affective dimension (Note: AT-Score and ANT-Score refer to the traditional and non-Tibetan cultural adaptive scores).
Figure 3. Cultural adaptive types in affective dimension (Note: AT-Score and ANT-Score refer to the traditional and non-Tibetan cultural adaptive scores).
Sustainability 11 01956 g003
Figure 4. Cultural adaptive types in behavior dimension (Note: BT-Score and BNT-Score referred to the traditional and non-Tibetan cultural adaptive scores).
Figure 4. Cultural adaptive types in behavior dimension (Note: BT-Score and BNT-Score referred to the traditional and non-Tibetan cultural adaptive scores).
Sustainability 11 01956 g004
Figure 5. Cultural adaptive types in cognitive dimension (Note: CT-Score and CNT-Score referred to the traditional and non-Tibetan cultural adaptive scores).
Figure 5. Cultural adaptive types in cognitive dimension (Note: CT-Score and CNT-Score referred to the traditional and non-Tibetan cultural adaptive scores).
Sustainability 11 01956 g005
Figure 6. Cultural distance box plot analysis (Note: CD-Affection, CD-Behavior, CD-Cognition, and CD represent the Tibetan people’s affective, behavioral, cognitive, and total cultural adaptable scores, respectively).
Figure 6. Cultural distance box plot analysis (Note: CD-Affection, CD-Behavior, CD-Cognition, and CD represent the Tibetan people’s affective, behavioral, cognitive, and total cultural adaptable scores, respectively).
Sustainability 11 01956 g006
Figure 7. Path of structural equation Model 1 (Note: Numbers in figure represent standardized data).
Figure 7. Path of structural equation Model 1 (Note: Numbers in figure represent standardized data).
Sustainability 11 01956 g007
Figure 8. Path of structural equation Model 3 (Note: Numbers in figure represent standardized data).
Figure 8. Path of structural equation Model 3 (Note: Numbers in figure represent standardized data).
Sustainability 11 01956 g008
Figure 9. Path of structural equation Model 4 (Note: Numbers in figure represent standardized data).
Figure 9. Path of structural equation Model 4 (Note: Numbers in figure represent standardized data).
Sustainability 11 01956 g009
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of samples (N=59).
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of samples (N=59).
Distribution (%)
Gender
male54.237
female45.763
Age
19–3042.373
30–4535.593
45–6022.034
Career
Staff of state organs, organizations, and institution47.458
Staff of state-owned enterprises, private enterprises, and independent operators25.424
Alien service people27.119
Level of Education
Undergraduate and above30.508
Junior college23.729
Secondary technical specialized school, or senior high school20.339
Junior middle school and below25.424
Length of Residence (Year)
>4020.339
30–4020.339
20–3018.644
10–2010.169
<2030.508
Table 2. Reliability analysis of cultural adaptive differences’ variables and its influencing factors.
Table 2. Reliability analysis of cultural adaptive differences’ variables and its influencing factors.
Cronbach’s AlphaStandardized Cronbach’s Alpha
Tibetan traditional cultural indicators’ test0.7900.805
Affection------
Behavior0.6880.719
Cognition0.6860.688
Tibetan modern cultural indicators’ test0.7260.738
Affection------
Behavior0.6960.701
Cognition0.7640.767
Overall indicators’ test about Tibetan local culture0.8010.810
The influencing factors’ test0.0050.005
Note: “---” means that there is only one variable, so it could not be tested in reliability via PASW Statistics18.
Table 3. Validity analysis of cultural adaptive differences’ variables and its influencing factors.
Table 3. Validity analysis of cultural adaptive differences’ variables and its influencing factors.
Kaiser–Meyer–OlkinMeasure of Sampling AdequacyStandardized Cronbach’s Alpha
Bartlett’s Test of NPhericitydfSig.
Tibetan traditional cultural indicators’ test0.737329.6841530.000
Affection------------
Behavior0.700185.124780.000
Cognition0.69138.20060.000
Tibetan modern cultural indicators’ test0.709144.894360.000
Affection------------
Behavior0.64258.233100.000
Cognition0.69543.25430.000
Overall indicators’ test about Tibetan local culture0.495693.7503510.000
The influencing factors’ test0.55884.080550.007
Note: “---” means that there is only one variable, which could not be tested in validity via PASW Statistics18.
Table 4. The statistics about factor loadings and Pearson correlation coefficients.
Table 4. The statistics about factor loadings and Pearson correlation coefficients.
Factor LoadingsCTIMUIIENPACLGGLTBOCCD
CT0.8001
IM0.5550.1051
UI0.647−0.149−0.2531
IE0.605−0.042−0.424 **0.440**1
NP0.851−0.0040.0260.107−0.0751
AC0.5940.0000.1480.0270.0310.0701
LG0.609−0.055−0.1050.0260.0100.0120.0471
GL0.5990.1440.0790.0020.001−0.057−0.163−0.1811
TB0.7310.2180.257−0.019−0.1280.002−0.1820.073−0.0151
OC0.624−0.061−0.321*0.317*0.415**−0.289*−0.091−0.0870.1120.0551
CD0.7060.289*−0.374**0.2490.267*−0.085−0.023−0.032−0.0450.0190.2431
Notes: *, ** indicate the factors are significant at 0.05, 0.01, respectively.
Table 5. Five structural equation models’ comprehensive list of fit indexes.
Table 5. Five structural equation models’ comprehensive list of fit indexes.
IndexesShorthandFitted ValuesAcceptance Criteria
M1M2M3M4M5
Absolute fit indices χ 2 0.2780.0000.0330.0768.964p>0.05
χ 2 /df0.093---0.0110.0382.988<2
GFI0.9981.0001.0000.9990.936 0.90
AGFI0.990---0.9990.9960.680 0.90
RMSEA0.0000.1460.0000.0000.188<0.05
RMR0.0240.0000.0120.0140.211The smaller, the better
Incremental fit indicesNFI0.9881.0000.9980.9930.579 0.90
CFI1.0001.0001.0001.0000.471 0.90
Parsimonious fit indicesAIC24.27820.00024.03326.07632.964The smaller, the better
CAIC60.79450.43160.55065.63669.480The smaller, the better
CN5757575757CN is 10 times VN
VN54555
Note: “---” means that there is only one variable, so it could not be tested in reliability via PASW Statistics18.
Table 6. Cultural adaptive types and the related distributions.
Table 6. Cultural adaptive types and the related distributions.
Cultural Adaptive TypesAffectionBehaviorCognition
NumberDistribution (%)NumberDistribution (%)NumberDistribution (%)
Integration2033.8984169.4921932.203
Assimilation23.390------58.475
Separation1627.119------------
Marginalization46.780------------
Tending to modern culture11.69558.4751322.034
Tending to Tibetan traditional culture58.4751322.0341525.424
Unclassified cultural adjusted categories1118.644------711.864
Total591005910059100
Note: “---” refers to the absence of corresponding cultural adaptive types.
Table 7. Box-plot statistics characteristics about cultural distance.
Table 7. Box-plot statistics characteristics about cultural distance.
CD-AffectionCD-BehaviorCD-CognitionCD
minimum 00.00200.182
lower quartileQ100.8340.1561
MedianQ20.6263.7360.9372
Upper quartileQ32.5046.8822.6443
Maximum 5.63415.3876.3486.021
Mean 1.1744.6411.5072.491
Inter quartile range∆Q2.5046.0482.4872
Mild outlier 10.017 15.9359.114
Extreme outlier 8.5928.870
Table 8. The direct effect on the Tibetans’ cultural adaptive differences.
Table 8. The direct effect on the Tibetans’ cultural adaptive differences.
VariablesCoef.Std. Err.tp>|t|Test of the Linear Regression Model’s Rationality
OT0.332**0.1192.8000.007Number of obs =57F(3, 53) = 6.300
IM−0.353**0.131−2.700.009Prob > F = 0.001R-squared = 0.263
IE0.1310.1301.0100.318Adj R-squared = 0.221
_cons4.05 × 10 −90.117−0.0001.000Root MSE =0.882
Notes: ** indicates the value is significant at 0.01 level.
Table 9. Path analysis for the intermediary effect of Tibetans’ cultural adaptive differences.
Table 9. Path analysis for the intermediary effect of Tibetans’ cultural adaptive differences.
PathUSTDS.E.C.R.PSTD
Model 1CD<--- CT0.630**0.2172.9040.0040.333**
CD<--- IM−0.451**0.151−2.9970.003−0.362**
CD<--- NP−0.0610.211−0.2890.772−0.035
CD<--- SO0.1560.1451.0760.2820.135
e4<--> e3−0.333*0.157−2.1280.033−0.283*
e2<--> e4−0.513*0.225−2.2820.022−0.308*
e2<--> e10.0860.1300.6600.5100.084
Model 3CD<--- CT0.6770.2372.8500.0040.361
CD<--- UI0.306*0.1242.4700.0140.302*
CD<--- GL−0.1210.150−0.8080.419−0.099
CD<--- TB−0.0630.142−0.4480.654−0.056
e1<--> e90.2410.1491.6220.1050.217
e1<--> e80.1530.1351.1340.2570.148
e7<--> e1−0.1820.163−1.1150.265−0.145
Model 4CD<--- IM−0.427**0.159−2.6850.007−0.344**
CD<--- UI0.1650.1281.2910.1970.163
CD<--- LG−0.1330.219−0.6050.545−0.074
CD<--- AC0.0490.2220.2210.8250.027
e2<--> e110.1650.1401.1810.2380.155
e2<--> e10−0.1060.140−0.7590.448−0.099
e7<--> e2−0.480*0.257−1.8730.061−0.254*
e11<--> e100.0340.0990.3430.7310.046
Note: “USTD”, “STD” separately represents the un-standardized and standardized regression coefficients; *, ** indicate the values are significant at 0.05, 0.01 level, respectively.
Back to TopTop