Variants of biculturalism in migrant and host adolescents living in Italy and Spain: Testing the importance of life domains through the Relative Acculturation Extended Model

Abstract

Several variants of biculturalism have recently been proposed (Schwartz, Birman, Benet-Martínez, & Unger, 2016). Nevertheless, few studies have identified different types of bicultural individuals, and no one has addressed the possibility that these types could depend on acculturation domains. By using the Relative Acculturation Extended Model (RAEM), this study aimed to explore if different variants of biculturalism could be individuated, and if some of these variants were sensitive to life domains. Four samples of migrant and host adolescents living in Italy (n = 173 and n = 186) and Spain (n = 139 and n = 156) answered a questionnaire about acculturation perceptions and preferences in central and peripheral life domains. Together with acculturation options consistent with Berry's (1997) model (full-assimilation, full-separation and full-marginalisation), some variants of biculturalism emerged from the latent class analysis: full-high and full-low integration, which were not sensitive to life domains; and "alternate" acculturation options that were sensitive to life domains, with participants switching from their original culture to the host culture according to the peripheral and central domains. Acculturation options varied across the four samples, with Italians switching more from one culture to another, and Spanish adolescents being more full-high or full-low integrated.

Family acculturation in host and immigrant couples: Dyadic research in an Italian context

“…In line with the literature on acculturation models for domains (Arends-Tóth & Van de Vijver, 2003) applied to the RAEM model by Mancini and Bottura (2014) and Mancini, Navas Luque, López-Rodríguez, and Bottura (2018), the domain-specific strategies and the acculturation attitudes of dyads were presented by aggregating them into peripheral (work, economic, social) and central domains (family, religious beliefs and customs, and ways of thinking, principles and values). In Table 2, we report the mean scores of Italian and immigrant dyads and the significant differences between them.…”

Citizenship and socio-political integration: A person-oriented analysis among Russian-speaking minorities in Estonia, Finland and Norway

“…Namely, previous research on immigrant integration could be criticized for over-reliance on sample homogeneity: most studies have assumed that patterns at the level of the sample apply to all (or most) participants (for research examples, see Sam & Berry, 2016). Acculturation psychological research has increasingly started to acknowledge the value of a person-oriented approach and complemented the predominantly variable-oriented literature by examining the variety of profiles among different immigrant subgroups (Bámaca-Colbert & Gayles, 2010;Grigoryev & van de Vijver, 2018;Haugen & Kunst, 2017;Inguglia & Musso, 2015;Kruusvall et al, 2009;Maehler et al, 2019;Mancini, Navas, López-Rodríguez, & Bottura, 2018).…”

Understanding adolescents’ acculturation processes: New insights from the intergroup perspective

“…Recent developments of the acculturation literature (e.g., Bourhis, Montaruli, El‐Geledi, Harvey, & Barrette, 2010; Mancini, Navas, López‐Rodríguez, & Bottura, 2018; Navas et al., 2005) have highlighted the importance of adopting intergroup perspectives that consider the interplay between the experiences of migrant adolescents and their non‐migrant peers. Notably, intergroup perspectives consider both (a) the acculturation orientations adopted by adolescents from migrant families and (b) the acculturation orientations (or preferences) adopted by destination‐society individuals toward individuals from migrant families.…”

“…In line with these theoretical advancements, the Relative Acculturation Extended Model (Navas et al., 2005) has integrated prior theoretical contributions by considering the perspectives of both natives and migrant‐descent individuals. Notably, this model differentiates between acculturation orientations put into practice, and acculturation preferences of individuals from both migrant and native groups and argues that people can display different acculturation orientations and preferences across different life domains (Mancini & Bottura, 2014; Mancini et al., 2018; Navas et al., 2005). A prime example is the delineation between “public” (e.g., in schools or workplaces) and “private” (e.g., in family settings) acculturation (Arends‐Tóth & van de Vijver, 2008).…”

“…In light of the recent developments in the acculturation literature emphasizing the importance of adopting intergroup perspectives (Mancini et al., 2018; Navas et al., 2005), the current studies address how acculturation processes of adolescents from migrant families are embedded in their primary proximal socialization contexts across two nations. Specifically, the main aim of the current studies was to understand the combined effects of parents’ acculturation orientations (i.e., reflecting ingroup norms) and acculturation preferences of non‐migrant classmates (i.e., reflecting outgroup norms) on adolescents’ own acculturation orientations.…”