INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND GROUP PROCESSES Is Acculturation Unidimensional or Bidimensional? A Head-to-Head Comparison in the Prediction of Personality, Self-Identity, and Adjustment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The unidimensional model of acculturation posits that heritage and mainstream culture identifications have a strong inverse relation, whereas the bidimensional model posits that the 2 identifications are independent. The authors compared these models in 3 samples of ethnic Chinese (ns = 164, 150, and 204), 1 sample of non-Chinese East Asians (n = 70), and one diverse group of accultumting individuals (n = 140). Although the unidimensional measure showed a coherent pattern of external correlates, the bidimensional measure revealed independent dimensions corresponding to heritage and mainstream culture identification. These dimensions displayed patterns of noninverse correlations with personality, self-identity, and psychosocial adjustment. The authors conclude that the bidimensional model is a more valid and useful operationalization of acculturation. The culture in which people live plays an important role in shaping their sense of self. Indeed, one facet of people's self-identity is that they belong to a certain cultural group. Thus, they have a sense of themselves as being, for example, Canadian, American, or Chinese. When an individual moves from one culture to another, many aspects of self-identity are modified to accom-modate information about and experiences within the new culture. This process, generally referred to as acculturation, involves changes that take place as a result of continuous and direct contact between individuals having different cultural origins (Redfield, Linton, & Herskovits, 1936). Such changes may be observed in a number of different domains, including attitudes, behaviors, val-ues, and sense of cultural identity. At a fundamental level, then, acculturation involves alterations in the individual's sense of self. An examination of the extant literature on the acculturation process reveals two predominant formulations, which we term the
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".