What Comes First, Acculturation or Adjustment? A Longitudinal Investigation of Integration Versus Mental Resources Hypotheses.

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Marina M Doucerain, Catherine E Amiot, Tomas Jurcik, Andrew G Ryder
{"title":"What Comes First, Acculturation or Adjustment? A Longitudinal Investigation of Integration Versus Mental Resources Hypotheses.","authors":"Marina M Doucerain, Catherine E Amiot, Tomas Jurcik, Andrew G Ryder","doi":"10.1177/01461672231210460","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A focal point in the acculturation literature is the so-called \"integration hypothesis,\" whereby integration (high mainstream cultural engagement and heritage cultural maintenance) is associated with higher psychosocial adjustment, compared to other strategies. Yet, the vast majority of this literature is cross-sectional, raising questions about how best to understand associations between integration and adjustment. Does greater integration lead to greater psychosocial adjustment, as proposed by the integration hypothesis? Or is it the other way around, with more adjustment leading to greater integration, consistent with what we name the \"mental resources hypothesis?\" This study tests these 2 competing hypotheses in a 4-wave longitudinal study of 278 international students in their first weeks and months in Canada. The results replicate well-documented cross-sectional acculturation-adjustment associations. They also show that baseline adjustment is prospectively associated with later integration and mainstream acculturation, but not vice versa, supporting the mental resources hypothesis but not the integration hypothesis.</p>","PeriodicalId":19834,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin","volume":" ","pages":"1187-1204"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12130598/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672231210460","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A focal point in the acculturation literature is the so-called "integration hypothesis," whereby integration (high mainstream cultural engagement and heritage cultural maintenance) is associated with higher psychosocial adjustment, compared to other strategies. Yet, the vast majority of this literature is cross-sectional, raising questions about how best to understand associations between integration and adjustment. Does greater integration lead to greater psychosocial adjustment, as proposed by the integration hypothesis? Or is it the other way around, with more adjustment leading to greater integration, consistent with what we name the "mental resources hypothesis?" This study tests these 2 competing hypotheses in a 4-wave longitudinal study of 278 international students in their first weeks and months in Canada. The results replicate well-documented cross-sectional acculturation-adjustment associations. They also show that baseline adjustment is prospectively associated with later integration and mainstream acculturation, but not vice versa, supporting the mental resources hypothesis but not the integration hypothesis.

什么先发生,适应还是适应?整合与心理资源假说的纵向调查。
文化适应文献中的一个焦点是所谓的“整合假说”,即与其他策略相比,整合(高度的主流文化参与和传统文化维护)与更高的社会心理适应相关。然而,绝大多数文献是横断面的,提出了关于如何最好地理解整合和调整之间联系的问题。是否如整合假说所提出的那样,更大的整合会导致更大的心理社会适应?还是相反,更多的调整导致更大的整合,符合我们所说的“心理资源假说”?本研究对278名国际学生在加拿大的头几个星期和几个月进行了四波纵向研究,验证了这两个相互矛盾的假设。结果重复了充分记录的横截面文化适应关系。他们还表明,基线调整与后来的融合和主流文化适应有关,反之则不然,这支持了心理资源假说,但不支持融合假说。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
5.00%
发文量
116
期刊介绍: The Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin is the official journal for the Society of Personality and Social Psychology. The journal is an international outlet for original empirical papers in all areas of personality and social psychology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信