What Comes First, Acculturation or Adjustment? A Longitudinal Investigation of Integration Versus Mental Resources Hypotheses
Bibliographic record
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".