A Person-Centred Analysis of Triadic Acculturation Gaps in Chinese Canadian Immigrant Families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Past research on the impacts of acculturation gaps among immigrant family members has yielded inconclusive results potentially due to inconsistent analytical methods, lack of consideration of family processes, and discrepant conceptualizations of acculturation. With a sample of 161 Chinese Canadian immigrant families, the current study adopted a person-centred approach with a family lens to examine the nature of acculturation gaps and how these gaps were associated with family functioning and individual psychological adjustment. Latent profile analyses were utilized to generate mother-father-child acculturation profiles based on individual reports of acculturation (in the domains of cultural identity and value, separately) from mothers, fathers, and children in the same family. The results identified five family acculturation profiles in the identity domain and four family acculturation profiles in the value domain. Parents’ cultural disengagement was linked to the most positive psychological wellbeing and family relationships for all family members. The expected acculturation gaps in the Canadian host dimension were not found to be associated with the most depressive symptoms or family conflicts, suggesting that acculturation gaps where adolescents were more acculturated to the host culture than their parents may be normative in immigrant families and thus not linked to youth maladjustment. In contrast, the reversed acculturation gaps in the host dimension and the expected acculturation gaps in the heritage dimension were consistently found to be associated with family conflicts and individual psychological distress. The results also revealed an undifferentiated acculturation style that was not outlined in Berry’s model. An undifferentiated style was characterized by average acculturation levels on both the heritage and host dimensions, and it was the most prevalent individual acculturation style in the identity domain and the second most prevalent style in the value domain. Directions for future research and the benefits of using a person-centered approach in the research of acculturation gaps are discussed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".