'Biculturism and Marginalization Essay\r'

'* Ross-Sheriff (2011) commented that immaterial migration patterns vex * inter turnd as a consequence of immense accessible, political, economic, and environmental * trends and formulateed the causes of the driving forces were including war, * globalization, urbanization, and changing hea becauseish norms regarding cordial positions and * responsibilities (Ross-Sheriff, 2011).\r\nWith these composite plant trends of migration * patterns, Van Hear (2010) viewed migration as a process which was an integral federal agency * of broader favorable trans g everyplacening bodys, that when which to a fault had its own internal dynamics with * some anformer(a)(prenominal) factors tinctd to the migrating process, shaping societal transformation in their * own expression. Migration was withal linked in complex ship canal to class, gender, generation, * well-disposedity and other amicable factors, which were embodied in positions in home and host * communities, and in m elt and domestic races, every of which capability be * alter in the course of the migratory process (Van Hear, 2010).\r\nTo figure this complex process of migration, especially under changing circumstances of one conclusion to a nonher, it magnate be useful to build conceptual tools for gaining these transient processes in migration studies and in social science ofttimes widely (Van hear, 2010). They also include mediating agents and transitions that want also to be accounted for, as well as intersections among class, gender, generation, socialality and other social ruptures as well as the principal(prenominal) driving forces of migration (Van Hear, 2010).\r\nOf course in that location were other master(prenominal) concepts such as relations among clock and space, betwixt dynamics or processes and appearcomes, and between social system and agency that needed to get attention (Van Hear, 2010). However, it is unrealistic to discuss all different divinatory conce pts refer in different fictitious characters of migration process in the underway limited development.\r\nRather, this study tried to focus on mental impacts such as heathenish identicalness and self-esteem on migration through civilisation processes curiously on family- related migration because different patterns of migration produced different communities and resulted in producing different migrant identities including varying levels of mental trauma (Jones, 2008). Further, few empirical studies have concentrate on migrant adults populations.\r\nMost migrants naming related literatures tended to relate more for adolescents or younker children because identicalness formation might be particularly challenging in this cohort, especially when the values and beliefs of their natal destination differed significantly from those of the host friendship (Sodowsky, Kwan, & angstrom unit; Pannu, 1995; as cited in Farver, Narang, & angstrom unit; Bhadha, 2002).\r\nTherefore , this study focused on ethnic individualism and self-identification issues of adult migrants’ themselves inside a family body structure check to different supposititious models relevant to variant of reinvigorated cultures, because family was the basic instrument in the society (Nesdale, Rooney, & angstrom unit; Smith, 1997). In fact, just active heathen eruditeness theories authentic and evolved in 1990s.\r\nwhen planetary migration became a depict issue in international politics at the beginning of 1990s. As Castle (2002) argued that migration, development and international relations were closely connected as migration was a major(ip) factor of transformation for some(prenominal) move and receiving countries for different cases of migrants (Castle, 2002). With this perspective, this study generally focused on those migration culture acquisition theories developed in 1990 instead then looking at current perspectives in the al intimately recent literatures, w hich rattling have evolved from these legitimate theories in 1990s (Castle, 2002).\r\nAs the findings from these look for studies has had been combine or some seasons contradictory, it was serious to understand the lead temper of the relationship between migrant ethnic identification and the cultivation process ii need to be specified and assessed properly with coherent cardments and theoretical assumptions (Nesdale et al. , 1997). Important theoretical concepts: ethnic individuality, absorption, biculturism, and fringyisation. check to Phinney (1990; as cited in Farver, Narang & deoxyadenosine monophosphateere; Bhadha., 2002), ethnic identity element and enculturation were related merely separate constructs.\r\nEthnic identity involves an individual’s self-identification as a chemical group member, a sense of belong to an ethnic group, attitudes toward ethnic group of membership, and degree of ethnic group troth (Farver et al. , 2002). The bourn cult ure was specify in anthropology as those phenomena, which resulted when groups of individuals having different cultures came into continuous first-hand contact with subsequent changes in the genuine pattern of for each one or both groups (Redfield, Linton, & Herskovits, 1936; as cited in Birman, 1994).\r\nAlthough acculturation was a neutral term in this linguistic context (that is, change might take place in either or both groups), in practice, socialisation tended to attract more changes in one of the groups than in the other ( pick, 1990a; as cited in cull, 1997) berry (1997) argued that in all plural societies, pagan groups and their individual members, in both dominant and non-dominant situations, must deal with the issue of how to acculturate.\r\n tally to berry (1997), four refinement strategies were introduced: enculturation, separation, marginalization, and integrating. When individuals do non wish to maintain their ethnical identity and desire occasiona l interaction with other new cultures, the assimilation strategy is defined. In contrast, when individuals place a value on holding on to their tooth rootal culture, and at the aforesaid(prenominal) time wish to avoid interaction with others, then the separation is defined (berry, 1997).\r\nWhen there is an sake in both maintaining one’s original culture, while in daily interactions with other groups, integration is the option; here, there is some degree of heathenish integrity maintained, while at the same time seeking to participate as an integral part of the larger social network ( pluck, 1997). Last, when there is diminutive possibility or engagement in heathen maintenance (often for reasons of enforced cultural loss), and little enkindle in having relations with others (often for reasons of exclusion or distinction) then marginalization is defined ( pick, 1997).\r\nHowever, this socializing categories model has been criticized methodologically (Rudmin, 2003, 2009; as cited in Schwartz et al. , 2010) because all four of berry’s categories were represented in the same way by creating the two by two ground substance of acculturation categories between high and low. However, the cut score point between high and low was controlling and would differ crossways samples, making comparisons across studies difficult, resulting in the fact that all four categories existed and were equally reasoned (Rudmin, 2003; as cited in Schwartz et al., 2010) and suggesting that not all of Berry’s categories might exist in a given sample or population, and that some categories might have multiple subtypes (Schwartz et al. , 2010).\r\nIn particular, Berry (1997) viewed the term â€Å"biculturism” as referring to acculturation that involved the individual concurrently in the two cultures that were in contact in integrative ways, which appeared to be a self-consistent forecaster of more positive outcomes than the three alter inhering s of assimilation, separation, or marginalization.\r\nBerry and his colleagues (Sam & Berry, 1995) assessed the acculturation strategies of various immigrant groups in northeastern America and the results showed that bicultural individuals insured less acculturative stress, misgiving and less psychological problems significantly, while marginalized individuals suffered the most psychological distress, including problems with self-identification and cultural alienation, which adversely affected their self-esteem (Farver et al. , 2002).\r\nHowever, Shiraev and impose (2007) explained acculturative stress as a b neglectball olfactory propertying that a marginalized psyche might experience as a distressing psychological chemical reaction to any unfamiliar cultural environment ground on the assumption that person and groups undergoing any social and cultural change should experience a sure amount of psychological distress. commandly, many early definitions of acculturation focused on exposure to two cultures simultaneously as a culture shock, which was a activated state of specific pathology or deficit, rather than taking advantage of being bicultural (Berry & Annis, 1974; Shiraev et al., 2007).\r\nThe boldness of marginalization as an appeal to acculturation by Berry (1997) was also questioned (Del Pilar & Udasco, 2004; as cited in Schwartz et al. , 2010). Schawartz et al. argued that the likelihood that a person would develop a cultural sense of self without drawing on either the heritage or receiving cultural contexts would be less likely to. The marginalization approach might be true only for the dwarfish atom of migrants who rejected both their heritage and receiving cultures (Berry, 2006b).\r\nIndeed, studies using through empirical observation based clustering methods have found small or nonexistent marginalization groups and scales that attempted to measure marginalization typically had poor reliability and validity compared wit h scales for the other categories (Cuellar, Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995; Unger et al. , 2002; as cited in Schwartz et al. , 2010). As described antecedent, the impact of migrant ethnic identity on psychological distress had comparatively several(a) points of views if they were either negative or positive reactions, depending on different theoretical frames.\r\nFor example, brotherly Identity system (Tajfel & Turner, 2001) and Self-Categorization Theory (Turner, 1987) emphasized more on the importance to individuals of their identification with particular social groups. tender Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 2001; as cited in bark, Gee, & Takeuchi, 2008) viewed a possible explanation for why ethnic identity might buffer the set up of discrimination.\r\nAccording to this theory,individuals chose from an array of possible social identity groups and, once those groups were chosen, individuals focused on the positive aspects of their in-group, which helped to asce nt their own esteem, suggesting that ethnic identity was more important to their overall identity (Yip et al. , 2009).\r\nIn contrast, if ethnicity was a commutation component of one’s identity, it might actually exacerbate the effects of discrimination, resulting in a great negative impact on mental health, according to self-categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987; as cited in Yip et al., 2008), suggesting that people should be more in cable with environmental cues that were relevant to an important aspect of their identity.\r\nThat is, experiences of racial discrimination might be such a cue relevant to their ethnic identity. Indeed, interrogation suggested that African American adults and adolescents who reported strong racial centrality were also more likely to report experiences of racial discrimination (Neblett, Shelton, & Sellers, 2004; Sellers, Caldwell, Schmeelk-Cone, & Zimmerman, 2003; Sellers & Shelton, 2003; as ci ted in Yip et al., 2008).\r\nHowever, despite this emphasis by social theorists, they tended to forget the larger literature that involved with both ethnicity and the acculturation process (Liebkind, 1993; 1996; as cited in Nesdale, Rooney & Smith, 1997). number one of all, these different findings resulted from lack of inclusion of acculturation itself as a variable methodologically when acculturation was considered as a phenomenon in research fleshs (Sam and Berry, 2006).\r\nWithout including acculturation as a variable, the explanations for human behavior similarities and differences across populations would remain incomplete (Sam et al. , 2006). Second, a further disapproval of the acculturation literatures was that the same two acculturation processes, and the same four-acculturation categories, characterized all migrants equallyâ€regardless of the type of migrant, the countries of origin and settlement, and the ethnic group in question, according to Berry’s (1 980) model and other similar approaches (Sam et al., 2006).\r\nFinally, the considerable majority of studies in the acculturation literature have focused on behavioral acculturation (Schwartz et al. , 2010). That is, most widely used acculturation measures included in the beginning (or only) items assessing language use and other cultural practices (e. g. , Cuellar, Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995; Stephenson, 2000; Szapocznik, Kurtines, & Fernandez, 1980; as cited in Schwartz et al. , 2010) out-of-pocket to pass judgment the fact that cultural practices might provide only a fair proxy for cultural adaptation (Schwartz et al., 2010).\r\nTheoretical frameworks for acculturation research Shiraev & impose (2007) claimed that cross-cultural psychologists usually used three approaches to see human activities in various cultural settings. They were the sociobiological approach, the sociological approach and eco-cultural approach (Shiraev et al. , 2007). In particular, the ec o-cultural approach emphasized both the environment and the individual were seen as open and interchanging systems (Shiraev et al., 2007), introducing John Berry whom originally developed this theory further in contemporary cross-cultural psychology.\r\nShiraev et al. (2007) also pointed out that specialists should to be able to explain how, why, and to what extent people differed from one other, when ecological, biological, cultural, and acculturation factors were determine and taken into consideration (Berry, J. W. , Poortinga, Y. H. , Segall, M. H. , & Dasen. P. R. ,1992; as cited in Shiraev et al. , 2007). In related to the concerns pointed by Shiraev et al.\r\n(2007), Berry (1997) argued earlier there were important links between cultural context and individual behavioural development, demonstrating what happened to individuals who developed in one cultural context when attempting to re-establish their lives in another one through his acculturation research framework, b y confirming the fact that acculturation was one of the most complex areas of research in cross-cultural psychology because the process involved more than one culture and in two distinct senses (Berry, 1997).\r\nAccording to Berry (1997), the concept of acculturation was employed to refer to the cultural changes resulting from different ethnic groups encountered, while the concepts of psychological acculturation and adaptation were employed to refer to the psychological changes and eventual(prenominal) outcomes that occur as a result of individuals experiencing acculturation.\r\nIn another words, acculturation phenomena resulted from contact between two or more cultures and research on acculturation had to be comparative in order to understand variations in psychological outcomes that were the result of cultural variations in the two groups in contact (Berry, 1997).\r\nIn particular, this framework viewed the integration model of acculturation strategies the most worthy among other strategies, considering it the same as the biculturalism model (Berry, 1997). For example, Berry and his colleagues (Berry, 1980; Berry, J. W. , Kim, U. , Power, S. , Young, M, & Bujaki, M. , 1989; Berry, Kim, Minde, & Mok, 1987; Sam & Berry, 1995 as cited in Farver et al., 2002)\r\nAssessed the acculturation strategies of various immigrant groups in compass north America and the result showed that integration was the most psychologically adaptive attitude, arguing that integrated or bicultural individuals go through less acculturative stress and anxiety and manifested fewer psychological problems than those who were marginalized, separated, or assimilated, whereas marginalized individuals suffered the most psychological distress, including problems with self-identification and cultural alienation, which also affected their self-esteem (Farver et al., 2002).\r\nHowever, Phinney, Cantu, and Kurtz (1997) found that American identity was associated with self-esteem only for non- Latino Whites, but not for other ethnic groups. These mixed results as explained preceding(prenominal) raised two issues in the acculturation literatures.\r\nFirst of all, cultural practices might offer only a substitute for cultural adpatations, as Portes and Rumbaut (2001 as cited in Schwartz et al., 2010) mentioned that many Asian American new adults in their sample were not proficient in their native languages, even though they still comprehend their identification with their parents’ countries of origin and maintained many of their values (Schwarz et al. , 2010). Secondly, most researchers on biculturism did not sufficiently define an undefiled operational definition of biculturism so that interpretation of those research results were problematic (Birman, 1994).\r\nIndeed, one finding in the get together States, was that self-identification as American was markedly high(prenominal) in non-Hispanic Whites than in ethnic minority groups (e. g. , Devos & Banaji, 2005; as cited in Schwartz et al. , 2010) and many White Americans did not comprehend themselves as members of an ethnic group (Schildkraut, 2007; as cited in Schwartz et al. , 2010). In brief, different operational definition problems of acculturation arose from different theoretical models of acculturation regarding to their assumptions (LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993).\r\nLaFromboise et al. (1993) off-key acculturation as one of substitutes among the biculturism models. Biculturism as defined in this theory was viewed as the alternation model, which implied an individual in two culture contacts could be competent in both cultures without losing one of the cultures’ competencies in distinct cultural contexts as alternation model, whereas, fusion model meant a unify cultural identity, consisting of a synthesis of aspects of both cultures (LaFromboise et al., 1993).\r\nHowever, Berry’s (1997) integrating approach of biculturism differed from the bic ultural model (LaFromboise et al. , 1993; as cited in Birman, 1994) and it emphasized more on the relationship between the two cultural groups based on its implicit assumption that one of two cultures were higher than the other within a single social structure (LaFromboise et al. , 1993).\r\nBenet-Martinez and colleagues found that â€Å"blended” bicultural individuals tended to report higher self-esteem and lower psychological distress than a marginal population (Chen et al. , 2008 as cited in Schwartz et al. , 2010) because the consistent availability of both cultural flows within the person’s everyday life incr backup mand the ease of activating the correct cultural schema in accordance with their environmental situations (Schwartz et al. , 2010).\r\nIn contrast, Tadmor, Tetlock, and Peng (2009) argued that the bicultural model considered those marginal individuals in positive ways, when there was little invade in cultural maintenance and little interest in having relations with others, suggesting positive aspects of being a marginal person might be (1) communion his or her condition with others of the same original culture; (2) engaging in institutional practices that were shared by other marginal people; (3) experiencing no major frustration from social expectations; and (4) still perceiving himself or herself to be a member of a group (LaFromboise et al., 1993).\r\nAccording to Sam and Berry (2006), many studies of how migrants coped with intercultural contacts had discrepancies in the ways in which they were operationalized and measured. As no standardized or widely accepted acculturation measures existed, it was necessary to design a clear and explicit formulation of acculturation instrument in order to assess acculturation adequately (Sam et al. , 2006).\r\nFurther Sam and Berry (2006) pointed out that most empirical studies widely used a self-report type of questionnaires that had been recognized limitations such as social desirabilit y, emphasizing obtaining divergent validation by tooth root of information other than the respondents’ reports. Therefore, it is vital to understand each theory within its specific assumptions and not to vulgarize across all situations regardless of their similar findings (LaFromboise et al. , 1993).\r\nAs this study discovered migrants’ acculturation processes so farther within specific theoretical frameworks, literature findings in different research were mixed as to whether individuals could be highly acculturated and at the same time be strongly identified with their ethnic group (Farver, Narang, & Bhadha. , 2002). These confusing problems initially evolved because of the context in which migration arrangements and their acculturation processes were fundamentally transformed and increasingly enigmatical cod to globalization (Landolt & Da, 2005).\r\nShiraev & Levy (2007) suggested a new approach to cross-cultural psychology in the twenty-first centu ry, which was linked to the concept of globalization. Globalization was defined as a proliferation of cross-border flow and transnational networks due to new technologies of communication and transport that allowed frequent and multi-directional streams of people, ideas and cultural symbols (Castle, 2010). Castle also argued that globalization leads to major changes in the character of international migration. In other words, the context for migrant incorporation has already changed radically and go forth continue to do so.\r\nThe rise of multiculturalism itself rather than assimilation or biculturism is one sign of this, but is not the end of the story: new forms of identity and belonging go beyond multiculturalism (Castle, 2010). Even though there is limited empirical evidence for clear statements for globalization, there probably are highly cosmopolitan groups who feel at home everywhere such as global business and professional elites might hold in with this image. But most mem bers of transnational communities fall between these extremes, and probably have contradictory and fluctuating identities (Castle, 2002).\r\nConclusions This study explored that a special case of cultural psychology was the study of how individuals respond to situations where they were in transition between their original culture and another that differed from it in some respects in terms of acculturation, especially within a specific theoretical frame that could put one across to the specific situation (Adler & Gielen, 1994).\r\nThere was no single theory widely accepted by all social scientists to agree with the emergence and extension of international migration patterns in the world under globalization (Van Hear, 2010),suggesting that the contemporary migrating context in which such migrating arrangements were cognise fundamentally kept transforming so that it became increasingly uncertain (Landolt and Da, 2005).\r\nAlthough the topic of cultural contact and individualâ₠¬â„¢ change has attracted considerable attention in contemporary cross-cultural psychology, the field has been characterized by a lack of theoretical coherence, definitional problems with key constructs, and single sample studies that limit the external validity of empirical cross-cultural research (Ward and Kenney, 1994).\r\nAs acculturation is a process which takes place over time, and which results in changes both in the culture and in the individual culture changes, it would be ideal o compare two sets of data are compared over time using the same people. However, in practice, it is impossible in most acculturation research settings (Sam et al. , 2006). Instead, a common alternative to longitudinal research is cross-section(a) research in which a time-related variable, such as length of residence or generational emplacement can be used for the generalizability of acculturation theories (Sam et al., 2006).\r\nIn general, researchers of migrating studies need to be aware that it is the selective nature of the sample that happens across all migrating research. That is, individuals who chose to migrate would be different from those who do not (Sodowsky, G. , Kwan, K. , & Pannu, R. , 1995; as cited in Farver et al. , 1997). Finally, acculturation research generally focused on immigrants assumed to be permanently colonised in their new host countries. As a result, the terms â€Å"migrants” or â€Å"international migrants” referred to the same type of migrants collectively.\r\nMoreover, many countries were both sending and receiving countries for different types of migrants, or in the process of transition from one type to the other (Castel, 2002). Therefore, where applicable, it is viable to design acculturation research studies classifying different types of migrants. References Adler, L. L. , & Gielen, U. P. (Eds. ). (1994). Cross-cultural topics in psychology. Westport: Praeger Publishers. Berry, J. W. (1980). Social and cultural chan ge. In Triandis, H. C. , & Brislin, R. (Eds. ).\r\nHandbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 211-279). capital of Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon. Berry, J.W. , Kim, U. , Power, S. , Young, M, & Bujaki, M. (1989). socialising attitudes in plural societies. Applied psychological science: An multinational Review, 38, 185-206 Berry, (1990a). Psychology of acculturation. In Berman, J. (Eds. ). Cross-cultural perspectives: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 201-234). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaption. Applied Psychology: An international review, 46(1), 5-68. Berry, J. W. , & Annis, R. (1974).\r\nA cculturation stress. journal of cross-cultural Psychology, 5(4), 382-397. Berry, J. W. , Kim, U., Minde, T. , & Mok, D. (1987). Comparative studies of acculturative stress. International Migration Review, 21, 591-511. Berry, J. W. , Poortinga, Y. H. , Segall, M. H. , & Dasen. P. R. (1992). Cross-cultur al Psychology: Research and application. late York: Cambridge university Press. Birman, D. (1994). enculturation and human diversity in a multicultural society. In Trickett, E. J. , Watts, R. J. , & Birman D, (Eds. ). Perspectives on people in context (pp. 261-284). San Franscisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Castele, S. (2002). Migration and community formation under conditions of globalization.\r\nThe spunk for Migration Studies of New York, 36(4), 1143- 1168. Cuellar, I. , Arnold, B. , & Maldonado, R. (1995). Acculturation Rating photographic plate for Mexican Americans-II: a revision of the original ARSMA scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Science, 17, 275-304. inside: 10. 1177/07399863950173001 DelPilar, J. A. , & Udasco, J. O. (2004). Deculturation: Its lack of validity. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 10, 169-176. inside: 10. 1037/1099- 9809. 10. 2. 169 Devos, T. , & Banaji, M. R. (2005). American = White? Journal of genius and Social Psycholog y, 88, 447-466. doi: 10. 1037/0022-3514.\r\n88. 3. 447 Farver, J. A. , Narang, S. K. , & Bhadha, B. R. (2002). East meets wolfram: Ethnic identity, acculturation, and conflict in Asian Indian families. Journal of Family Psychology, 16(3), 338-350. doi: 10. 1037//0893-3200. 16. 3. 338 Jones, A. (2008). A silent but mighty river: the costs of women’s economic migration. Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 33(4), 761-807. Landolt, D. , & Da, W. W. (2005). The Spatially Ruptured Practices of migrator Families: A Comparison of Immigrants from El Salvador and the People’s Republic of China. Current Sociology, 53, 625-652. doi: 10. 1177/0011392105052719.\r\nLaFromboise. , T. , Coleman. , H. , & Gerton (1993). mental impact of biculturism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 394-412. Liebkind, K. (1993). Self-reported ethnic identity, falling off and anxiety among youth Vietnamese refugees and their parents. Journal of Refugee Studies, 6, 2 5-39. Neblett, E, Shelton, J. N. , & Sellers, R. M. (2004). The role of racial identity in managing daily racial hassles. In Philogene, G. (Eds. ). Race and identity: The legacy of Kenneth Clark. Washington DC: American Psychological standoff Press. Nesdale. , D. , Rooney. , R. , & Smith. , L.\r\n(1997). Migrant ethnic identity and psychological distress. Journal of cross-cultural Psychology, 28(5), 569-588. doi: 10. 1177/0022022197285004 Phinney, J. S. (1990). When we talk about American ethic groups, what do we mean? American Psychologist, 51, 918-917. Phinney, J. S. , & Ong, A. D. (2007). Conceptualization and measurement of ethnic identity: Current status and future directions. Journal of hash out Psychology, 54, 271-281. doi: 10. 1037/0022-0167. 54. 3. 271 Portes, A. , & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkerly: University of atomic number 20 Press.\r\nRedfield, R. , Linton, R. , & Herskovits, M. J. (1936) m emorandum on the study of acculturation. American Anthropologist, 38, 149-152. Ross-Sheriff, F. (2011). Global migration and gender. Journal of Women and Social Works, 26(3), 233-238a. doi: 10. 1177/0886109911417692 Rudmin, F. W. (2003). hypercritical history of the acculturation psychology of assimilation, separation, integration, and marginalization. Review of General Psychology, 7, 3-37. doi: 10. 1177/01461670731197 Sam, D. , & Berry, J. W. (1995). Acculturative stress among young immigrants in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 36, 10-24.\r\nSam, D. , & Berry, J. W. (2006). The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology [Electronic version]. Retrieved from http://www. qut. eblib. com. au. ezp01. library. qut. edu. au/patron. Schildkraut, D. J. (2007). Defining American identity in the 21st century: How much â€Å"there” is there? Journal of Politics, 69, 597-615. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1468-2508. 2007. 00562. x Schwartz, S. J. , Unger, J. B. , Zamboanga, B. L. , & Szapocznik, J. (2010). Rethinking the concept of acculturation: Implications for the theory and research. American Psychologist, 65(4), 237-251. doi: 10. 1037/a0019330 Sellers, R.M. , Caldwell, C. H. , Schmeelk-Cone, K. H. & Zimmerman, M. A. (2003).\r\nracial identity, racial discrimination, perceived stress, and psychological distress among African American young adults. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44(3), 302-317. Seller, R. M. , & Shelton, R. M. (2000). The role of racial identity in perceived racial discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(5), 1079-1092. Shiraev, E. , & Levy, D. (2007). cross-cultural Psychology: Critical thinking and contemporary applications. Boston: Pearson Education Inc. Sodowsky, G. , Kwan, K. , & Pannu, R., (1995). Ethnic identity of Asians in the United States.\r\nIn J. Ponterotto (Ed. ), Handbook of multicultural counselor (pp. 110- 130). Newbury Park: Sage. Stephenson, M. (2000). Developme nt and validation of the Stephenson Multigroup Acculturation get over (SMAS). Psychological Assessment, 12, 77-88. doi: 10. 1037/1040-3590. 12. 1. 77 Szapocznik, J. , Kurtines, W. , & Fernandez, T. (1980). Bicultural troth and adjustment in Hispanic-American youths. International Journal of Interculture Relations, 4, 353-365. Tadmor, C. T. , Tedlock, P. E. , & Peng, K. (2009).\r\nAcculturation strategies and integrative complexity: The congnitive implications of biculturism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40, 105-139. doi: 10. 1177/0022022108326279 Tajfel, H. , & Turner, J. C. (2001). An Integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Hogg, M. , & Abrams, D. (Eds. ). The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 94-109). New York: Psychology Press. Turner, J. C. , Hogg, M. A. , Oakes, P. J. , Reicher, S. D. & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Balckwell. Unger, J. B. , Gallagher, P. , Shakib, S. , Ritt-Olson, A. , Palmer, P. H. , & Johnson, C.\r\nA. (2002). The AHIMSA acculturation scale: A new measure of acculturation for adolescents in a multicultural society. Journal of Early Adolescence, 22, 225-251. doi: 10. 1177/02731602022003001 Van Hear, N. (2010). Theories of migration and social change. Journal of Ethic and Migration Studies, 36(10), 1531-1536. doi: 10. 1080/1369183X. 2010. 489359 Yip, T. , G, C. G. , & Takeuchi, D. T. (2008). Racial discrimination and psychological distress: The impact of ethnic identity and age among immigrant and United States-born Asian adult. Dev Psychol, 44(3), 787-800. doi: 10. 1037/0012-1649. 44. 3. 787.\r\n'