Integration yields the best acculturation outcomes and marginalization the worst.

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). — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 456

Categorization

• DEFINE: Lays out Berry’s four acculturation strategies as a 2x2 framework.
• XREF: Connects to the earlier chapter content about intergroup relations and to the essay on sacrifice, where groups assert identity through costly belonging.