Integration leads to better minority outcomes than other acculturation strategies

Evidence

Group members can be classified as “high” or “low” on each of these dimensions resulting in the strategies of “integration” (high on both), “assimilation” (low, high), “separation” (high, low), and “marginalization” (low, low). Thus, while incorporating the notion of “reference groups,” acculturation research goes beyond this concept by acknowledging the possibility of multiple group memberships, and that people can simultaneously have a positive orientation toward more than one group (integration), or toward neither the minority nor majority group (marginalization). Focusing on outcome variables like stress, self-esteem, and psychosomatic indices, there is now converging evidence that integration is usually the strategy with the most beneficial outcomes for minority members, and marginalization has the worst outcomes (Berry, 1997; Liebkind, 2001). — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 456

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines Berry’s four acculturation strategies from the two dimensions.
• XREF: Relevant to the reader’s existing interests in immigrant integration debates and identity politics.