2.1. Ecocultural Approach
In our attempts to understand migration, it is important to know ‘where people are coming from’. This requirement can be met by first noting that all human behaviour develops and takes place in specific contexts, and then by examining these background contexts. Much research has taken an ecological perspective on human development in their cultural contexts, such as ecological systems theory of Bronfenbrenner [
2], the developmental niche approach of Super and Harkness [
3] and the psychocultural model of Whiting [
4]. More recently the role of features of the habitat of a population in their collective societal development have been proposed by Van de Vliert [
5,
6] who argues that that culture is niche construction by populations, and by Welzel [
7] who has advanced the cool water hypothesis to account for variations in societal development and shared values.
Bringing these ecological and cultural perspectives together, Berry [
8,
9] proposed an ecocultural framework (
Figure 1) for understanding the origins, development and expression of human behaviour in context. This framework examines the roots of human cultural and psychological diversity by looking at two fundamental sources of influence (ecological and sociopolitical factors) and two features of human populations (cultural and biological adaptations to these factors). These group characteristics are transmitted to individuals by various “transmission variables” such as genetics, enculturation and acculturation. On the right are the behavioural consequences of these inputs and transmissions from them to individuals.
The ecological background (upper left of
Figure 1) provides the physical contexts in which populations attempt to live; these populations adapt culturally and genetically to these features of their habitat over generations and share them with subsequent generations. The sociopolitical level (lower left) includes intercultural contacts and experiences that set the process of acculturation in motion. As a result of such contact. individuals have to adapt to more than one cultural context in which individual psychological phenomena can be viewed as attempts to deal simultaneously with two (sometimes inconsistent, sometimes conflicting) cultural contexts. These two inputs are conceptually and empirically related: contact takes place in ecological settings that are attractive to the colonisers or migrants [
10], and acculturation outcomes from internal migration has been shown to be related to ecological factors in the society [
11].
As a cultural institution, the family is an adaptation to both ecological and sociopolitical contexts. Large variations in family structures, practices, and values are known to vary as adaptations to these ecological and sociopolitical contexts [
12,
13,
14,
15]. The family thus occupies a central place in the ecocultural approach, serving to link these background contexts to family structures and to individual behavioral development through the processes of enculturation and acculturation. The work of Kagitcibasi [
16,
17] is particularly relevant to understanding the role of these contexts in the adaptations of families and children to the original ecocultural and the new acculturation features of their lives.
In summary, the ecocultural framework considers the expression of human diversity (both cultural and psychological) to be a set of collective and individual adaptations to contexts. This framework assists us in the search for key features of both the long-term adaptation of cultures and families to their original habitats, and also to the newer contexts that are experienced following migration.
2.2. Acculturation and Adaptation
The study of the process of acculturation is central to describing and understanding how migrant families and individuals try to settle into and adapt to their new society. An early definition of
acculturation by Redfield et al. [
18] was a process of cultural change that follows cultural contact. Later, the concept of
psychological acculturation was introduced by Graves [
19] who noted that individuals as well as cultures also change psychologically following contact. Although original definition considered that first-hand contact was necessary for acculturation to happen, recently Ferguson et al. [
20] have shown that acculturation can take place at a distance (termed
remote acculturation) by way of media, without any direct contact between individuals.
All the cultural and psychological features that are brought by migrants to the acculturation arena, and those that are already present in the society of settlement, play a role in the eventual adaptation of families and individuals. There are usually differences between these two cultural populations in their values, beliefs and acculturation strategies, and between generations within the migrant families [
21,
22]. There are also differences between spouses within families, where there are often differing views about how to live in the new society [
23]. All these differences may create challenges and conflicts within families.
Following the intercultural contacts that after migration, cultural communities, families and individuals go through the process of acculturation, eventually achieving various forms of adaptation [
24]. The core meaning of the concept of acculturation refers to the process of cultural and psychological change in all groups and individuals that takes place as a result of contact between cultural groups and their individual members (as originally defined by Redfield, Linton, and Herskovits [
18]). Such contact occurs for many reasons, such as colonization of Indigenous Peoples [
25], ecological challenges [
26], and political and social conflicts [
27]. It continues after initial contact among diverse groups who are settled in culturally plural societies, where ethnocultural and indigenous communities maintain and change features of their heritage cultures over generations. It is important to note that acculturation takes place in all groups and all individuals that are in contact.
A framework to show the main features of this acculturation process and adaptation outcomes that flow from intercultural contacts is presented in
Figure 2. (This is the sociopolitical input that was shown on the lower level of
Figure 1).
The framework in
Figure 2 links cultural (on the left) and psychological domains (on the right) of acculturation. It provides a map of those phenomena that need to be conceptualized and measured during acculturation research. To start, we need to understand the original features of the two or more cultural groups prior to their major contact. It is also important to understand the nature of their contact relationships, and the resulting cultural changes in the groups that emerge during the process of acculturation.
The concept of
psychological acculturation is shown in the middle of
Figure 2 and refers to changes in individuals both in migrant families, and in the larger society, who are participants in a culture-contact situation. These changes can be a set of rather easily accomplished
behavioral shifts (e.g., in ways of speaking, dressing, and eating), or more challenging (e.g., in values, and personality). When these changes are problematic, they produce the experience of
acculturative stress, which is often manifested by uncertainty, anxiety, and depression.
The main reason for keeping the cultural and psychological levels distinct in
Figure 2 is that not every individual or family enters into, participates in, or changes in the same way. There are vast differences in how people acculturate even among people who live in the same group or family. This variation in how people acculturate has led to the creation of the concept of
acculturation strategies (see below). This concept refers to the different ways in which individuals and groups seek to engage the process of acculturation, usually resulting in different degrees of adaptation.
The concept of adaptation (on the right) refers to the longer term outcomes of the process of acculturation. Eventually acculturation results in some form of mutual accommodation between groups and among individuals. There are three kinds of adaptations to acculturation: they can be primarily internal and psychological (e.g., a sense of well-being or self-esteem, sometimes referred to as feeling well), sociocultural (e.g., competence in the activities of daily intercultural living; doing well), and intercultural (e.g., low levels of prejudice and a positive multicultural ideology; relating well).
Examining the processes of acculturation and adaptation of groups, families and individuals requires the examination of all these concepts (acculturation, acculturation strategies and adaptation) in order to understand the
what,
how, and
how well of families and youth following their migration [
10,
24].
2.3. Acculturation Strategies
As noted above, not every group, family or individual seeks to engage the acculturation process in the same way. People live with and between two or more cultural groups, and may be oriented positively or negatively to them [
28]. These
acculturation orientations to the two cultures intersect to create four
acculturation strategies. Both these concepts are used to refer to the various ways that people acculturate.
Figure 3 shows these various ways for members of non-dominant groups on the left, and for the larges society on the right.
The figure shows two acculturation orientations: a relative preference toward maintaining one’s heritage culture and identity (along the top); and a relative preference for having contact with and participating in the larger society along with other ethnocultural groups (down the side). Four acculturation strategies have been derived by crossing these two acculturation orientations. Note that there is a fundamental distinction between acculturations orientations and acculturation strategies: orientations are toward two or more cultural groups; the four strategies derive from the intersection of these two orientations.
Groups in contact (whether non-dominant or dominant) usually have some notion about how they are attempting to engage the process of acculturation. Among ethnocultural groups (on the left), there are often goals that are articulated that may seek (or not) to maintain their heritage cultures, and to have contact with others outside their group. In the larger society (on the right), colonial or settlement policies and practices may seek to eliminate or perpetuate the cultures of migrants; or conversely they may or may not seek to have contact with migrants.
At the individual and family level, the goals of immigrants may vary within their family, for example on the basis of their educational or occupational background, and personal values. These variations in goals and motivations have led to them being considered to be acculturation strategies. They are more than just preferences or attitudes; they also have motivational qualities that promote the attainment of their goals.
Four acculturation strategies held by members of ethnocultural groups and individuals are named in the circle on the left of the figure; those held by members of the larger society are in the circle on the right. Orientations to these two issues intersect to define four acculturation strategies. When members of ethnocultural groups do not wish to maintain their cultural identity and seek daily interaction with, and participate with other cultures in the larger society, the assimilation strategy is defined. When such individuals place a high value on holding on to their original culture, and at the same time wish to avoid interaction with others, then the separation alternative is defined. The integration strategy is defined when there is an interest in both maintaining one’s original culture, while being in daily interactions with and participating along with other groups in the larger society. And when there is little possibility or interest in cultural maintenance, and little interest in or opportunity for having relations with others, then marginalization is defined.
The original definition of the process of acculturation [
18] clearly established that all groups and individuals in contact would experience acculturation and change. The four terms used above described the acculturation strategies of non-dominant peoples. Different terms are needed to describe the strategies of the dominant larger society; these other terms are presented in the circle on the right side of
Figure 3. Because they concern the ways that the larger society expects everyone to acculturate, they have been referred to as
acculturation expectations. If the dominant group expects assimilation, this is termed the
melting pot. When separation is enforced by the dominant group it is called
segregation. Marginalization, when imposed by the dominant group, is called
exclusion. Finally, for integration, when cultural diversity and equitable participation of all groups are widely accepted features of the society as a whole, it is called
multiculturalism. The terms used for these expectations can be used to examine the attitudes and practices of members of the larger society and to identify the policies advocated by the larger society for dealing with migrants and ethnocultural groups.
A very important question is whether the acculturation strategies or expectations pursued have any relationship to the three forms of adaptation mentioned above. Research has shown that indeed those seeking the integration/multiculturalism way of acculturating achieve the best adaptations, while those who are marginalized/excluded have the poorest outcomes. Assimilation and separation strategies are typically associated with intermediate levels of adaptation. This relationships has been termed the
integration hypothesis [
29] and findings in support of it have been termed the
integration principle [
30].
2.4. Acculturation and Cultural Transmission
The ecocultural framework (
Figure 1) presented various routes by which features of cultures are transmitted to the developing individual. In this section, we emphasise two forms of cultural transmission:
enculturation and
acculturation. These concepts are shown in
Figure 4; they illustrate the ways in which a group can perpetuate its cultural and behavioral features among subsequent generations.
On the left of
Figure 4, transmission by way of enculturation (within the original culture) may take place by three routes. First, enculturation from parents to their offspring is termed
vertical transmission, since it involves the transmission by descent of cultural and behavioural characteristics down from the parental generation to the next within the family. The other forms of enculturation are
horizontal transmission (from peers, such as in the contacts in the classroom or among gang members) and
oblique transmission (from others of the parental generation in society, such as in clubs, schools and religious organisations).
Transmission by way of acculturation is shown on the right of
Figure 4. Again, there are three forms of transmission, but they now arrive from another cultural group with which the group and individual are in contact. Parents are changed by their own experiences of acculturation (horizontally from the outside culture, at the top), leading to changes in vertical transmission from parents down to their children. Institutions (especially schools) in the new society can also change the developing individual by oblique transmission, without parental mediation. And of great importance is horizontal transmission from peers (in schools or clubs) who are members of the new larger society.
The ways in which features of both the original and new cultures become incorporated into families and their individual members can be observed and interpreted by the use of this cultural transmission framework. Features can be tracked, and the links can be identified. For example, there have been studies of the transmission of family relationship values (such as family obligations and adolescent autonomy) held by parents and their children, and by peers and other members of the larger society, to show the routes and extent of value transmission to the children. The similarities and correlations in behaviours, such as attitudes, values, identities, can be linked across all these groups. For example, are the values of a particular child related to those of their parents, their peers or with the shared values in the general population (called the
zeitgeist)? Or in the case of migrant youth, are their values related to their heritage culture or to the values in the new society? One study [
31] showed that these values can be traced to all these sources, including parents peers and other adults in both the original culture and in the acculturation arena.