The process of acculturation—the psychological, social, and cultural transformations that occur when different cultures come into sustained contact—is a defining feature of our interconnected world (Berry et al., 2025). Understanding the psychology of acculturation (i.e., why and how individuals adapt to new cultural environments) is a central task for building inclusive and equitable societies. This knowledge hub provides a comprehensive, evidence-based overview of the psychological dynamics behind acculturation. It synthesizes key findings from peer-reviewed research published in advances.in/psychology to illuminate the developmental processes, social-cognitive mechanisms, and evolving contexts that shape our experience of living between and within cultures. This resource is designed to be a definitive guide for students, researchers, policymakers, and any individual seeking to navigate the complexities of cultural adaptation with greater clarity.
Key Takeaways
- Acculturation is a dynamic, lifelong process: It is not a static choice made upon arrival in a new culture. Research indicates that the challenges and optimal strategies of acculturation change across the lifespan, requiring a developmental perspective to understand how and when change occurs (Titzmann & Jugert, 2024).
- Successful adaptation can have paradoxical outcomes: The “integration paradox” reveals that immigrants with higher structural integration (e.g., education, income) may report a weaker sense of belonging. This is not a failure of adaptation but a result of shifting social comparisons, which can lead to a heightened sense of relative deprivation and injustice in the face of systemic barriers (Verkuyten, 2024). A similar paradox exists for emotional acculturation, where adapting to mainstream-culture emotional norms can improve peer relations but harm school engagement in discriminatory contexts (Jasini, Cochez, & Mesquita, 2025).
- The context of acculturation is expanding: Classic models focused on physical co-presence are being challenged. The digital age has created new transnational spaces for maintaining heritage ties and engaging with mainstream cultures (Stuart et al., 2025), while research with Indigenous peoples highlights the inadequacy of immigrant-centric models and calls for an “indigenized” science that acknowledges the unique history of colonialism (Ward et al., 2025).
- The “integration hypothesis” is under critical debate: The long-held belief that combining heritage-culture maintenance and mainstream-culture engagement (integration) is the most beneficial strategy is being challenged on methodological grounds. Rigorous statistical re-analysis suggests its benefits as a synergistic effect may be overestimated (Vu & Bierwiaczonek, 2025), sparking a foundational debate (Berry et al., 2025; Bierwiaczonek, 2025).
Foundational Concepts in Psychology of Acculturation Research
To effectively understand the dynamics of cultural adaptation, it is essential to begin with a clear, scientifically grounded understanding of the core concepts and the theoretical frameworks that have shaped the field. This section defines acculturation, outlines its classic models, and introduces a developmental perspective that helps explain why findings in the field can sometimes appear contradictory.
What is Acculturation and What Are the Classic Strategies?
Acculturation refers to the process of cultural and psychological change that occurs when individuals from different cultural backgrounds come into prolonged, first-hand contact. This process involves changes at both the individual level (e.g., in values, identities, and behaviors) and the group level (e.g., in social and cultural systems) (Berry et al., 2025), see Figure 1.
The most influential framework for understanding individual acculturation is the bidimensional model, which proposes that individuals navigate two fundamental issues:
- Heritage Culture Maintenance: To what extent do I wish to maintain my heritage culture and identity?
- Majority Culture Engagement: To what extent do I wish to engage with the larger majority society?
The interplay between these two dimensions yields four primary acculturation strategies:
- Integration: High maintenance of heritage culture and high engagement with the majority culture. This is often associated with biculturalism.
- Assimilation: Low maintenance of heritage culture and high engagement with the majority culture.
- Separation: High maintenance of heritage culture and low engagement with the majority culture.
- Marginalization: Low maintenance of heritage culture and low engagement with the majority culture.
While this model has been foundational, contemporary research is moving beyond viewing these strategies as static endpoints and is instead exploring the dynamic processes that lead to different outcomes over time and across different contexts.
Figure 1
Framework for Understanding Acculturation Phenomena as Presented in Berry et al. (2025)
Why Does Acculturation Research Seem Contradictory?
Individuals seeking to understand acculturation may encounter studies with seemingly conflicting conclusions. For example, one study might find that integration is linked to the best outcomes, while another suggests assimilation is more beneficial in certain domains. This apparent lack of consensus is not a sign of a field in chaos but reflects the complexity of a process that unfolds over time. Research demonstrates that these apparent contradictions can often be reconciled by adopting a developmental perspective (Titzmann & Jugert, 2024).
The core argument is that acculturation is not a single event but a process of change across the lifespan. By integrating concepts from developmental science, researchers can better understand when and how change occurs. For instance, an assimilation-oriented focus on learning the mainstream language might be most adaptive immediately after migration (an initial “phase transition”), whereas an integration strategy that balances both cultures might become more critical for long-term psychological well-being once a foothold is established. This reframes the question from “Which strategy is best?” to “Which strategy is most adaptive at this particular life stage and in this specific context?”
Titzmann and Jugert (2024) propose a toolkit of developmental concepts to guide more dynamic research, highlighting the need for longitudinal studies that can track change within individuals over time (see Table 1).
Table 1: A Developmental Science Toolkit for Acculturation Research from Titzmann and Jugert (2024)
| Developmental Concept | Benefit for Acculturation Research |
| Life Stage Principle | Helps capture how the effects of acculturative experiences differ depending on the developmental stage (e.g., childhood, adolescence) in which they occur. |
| Phase Transitions | Explains how major disruptions like migration create periods of developmental disequilibrium, increasing susceptibility to risk and protective factors. |
| Developmental Timing | Introduces nuanced concepts of timing (e.g., tempo, pace) to capture individual differences in the rate of acculturative change. |
| Nonergodicity | Highlights that findings about differences between individuals may not apply to the process of change within an individual over time. |
| Person-in-Context Approach | Emphasizes that development occurs through interactions between the individual and their environment, from family to society. |
While recent work advocates for a stronger developmental focus to resolve these contradictions (Titzmann & Jugert, 2024), there is active debate regarding the history of this perspective in the field. Foundational scholars argue that developmental principles have always been present—through the influence of Erikson, Vygotsky, and Bronfenbrenner—and that longitudinal research has long captured these changes (Berry, 2025). The emerging consensus, however, distinguishes between longitudinal methodology (measuring change over time) and developmental theory (understanding why change occurs differently across the lifespan) (Jugert & Titzmann, 2025).
The Social and Psychological Dynamics of Adaptation
Why do some individuals thrive during acculturation while others struggle? The answer extends far beyond simple strategy choices. A growing body of research reveals a complex interplay of social comparison processes, implicit emotional changes, and the critical role of the mainstream society’s receptiveness. This section explores the psychological architecture of adaptation, uncovering the nuanced reasons why acculturation can lead to paradoxical outcomes.
Why Can Successful Integration Lead to a Weaker Sense of Belonging?
A common assumption is that as immigrants achieve greater structural success—higher education, better jobs, and more cultural competence—their sense of belonging to the mainstream society will naturally increase. However, a significant body of research has identified the “integration paradox”: a counterintuitive phenomenon where more structurally integrated immigrants report lower psychological well-being and a weaker sense of belonging (Verkuyten, 2024).
This paradox challenges classic assimilation theories. The key to understanding it, as argued by Verkuyten (2024), lies in the neglected role of social comparison. Acculturation is an inherently comparative journey. According to Relative Deprivation Theory, discontent arises not from one’s absolute condition, but from the perception that one is unfairly disadvantaged compared to a relevant reference group.
- Early/Less-Integrated Stages: Immigrants may compare their current situation to their past or to co-ethnic peers, and their progress may feel substantial.
- Later/More-Integrated Stages: As immigrants achieve success, their reference group for comparison shifts to similarly qualified members of the dominant majority. It is at this stage that systemic barriers, like a “glass ceiling” in career advancement, become acutely visible.
When a highly educated immigrant perceives a disparity between their own outcomes and those of a majority-group peer with identical qualifications, the result is a powerful sense of injustice and relative deprivation. This, in turn, can fuel psychological distancing from a mainstream society perceived as unfair. This reframes the challenge for multicultural societies: it is not enough to provide equal opportunity; it is also necessary to dismantle the systemic barriers that create these predictable feelings of alienation among the most successful.
How Do We Adapt Emotionally and What Are the Risks?
Acculturation is not only an explicit process of changing behaviors and identities; it also occurs at an implicit, often unconscious, level. A key example is emotional acculturation, the process by which individuals’ emotional patterns—the types of situations that elicit certain emotions and their intensity—gradually align with the norms of the mainstream culture (Jasini et al., 2025).
However, like structural integration, this implicit form of adaptation can have paradoxical effects. In a two-year longitudinal study of immigrant minority youth, Jasini, Cochez, and Mesquita (2025) found that emotional acculturation was a double-edged sword.
- The Benefit: Youth whose emotional patterns more closely resembled those of the Belgian majority reported more social contact with majority-group peers over time. Emotional alignment appears to facilitate intercultural friendships.
- The Liability: This same emotional alignment negatively predicted their school engagement (e.g., motivation, compliance) over the same period, particularly in school contexts perceived as discriminatory, see Figure 2.
Figure 2
A higher emotional fit was related with reduced school adaptation when minority students perceived discrimination. Figure from Jasini et al. (2025).
The researchers suggest this mismatch occurs because the emotional norms that are adaptive for peer relationships (e.g., expressing autonomy-promoting emotions like pride or anger) can be interpreted as defiance by authority figures in a hierarchical and discriminatory school setting. This finding, along with the integration paradox (Verkuyten, 2024), points to a higher-order principle: the ultimate benefit of any acculturative adaptation is highly contingent on the receptiveness and fairness of the mainstream society. In discriminatory contexts, the very adaptations that should lead to success can become new vulnerabilities.
Reimagining the Contexts of Acculturation
Classic acculturation models were developed in a world defined by physical migration between nation-states. Today, the contexts of intercultural contact are being radically reshaped by digital technology and by a growing recognition of the unique political and historical status of Indigenous peoples. This section explores how the field is expanding to account for these new realities.
How is the Digital Age Changing Intercultural Contact?
The rise of the internet, social media, and mobile phones has fundamentally altered the acculturation experience (Stuart et al., 2025). Traditionally, migration created a sharp break from the heritage culture. Today, digital technologies allow for sustained, near-synchronous contact with one’s country of origin, family, and friends.
This digitally mediated contact has a complex, dual impact. On one hand, it can facilitate adaptation by providing access to practical information and helping to build new social networks in the mainstream country. On the other hand, it allows for the creation of robust online diasporic communities, strengthening heritage-culture ties to an unprecedented degree. This may make it easier to maintain a “separation” or “integration” strategy than in the past. As the review by Stuart et al. (2025) highlights, the effects vary by group and technology (see Table 2). Mobile phones are a critical lifeline for refugees, while for international students, social media presents both opportunities for connection and risks like information overload that can harm academic performance. Acculturation theory must evolve to account for a world where cultural contact occurs in these blended, digitally mediated environments (Berry et al., 2025).
Table 2: Positive and Negative Effects of Digital Intercultural Contact for Different Migrant Groups Presented in Stuart et al. (2025).
| Migrant Group | Primary Technology | Positive Effects (Benefits) | Negative Effects (Risks) |
| Forced Migrants (Refugees & Asylum Seekers) | Mobile Phones / Smartphones | – Practical Support: Aids in journey planning, navigation, translation, and accessing critical services and information. – Social Connection: Facilitates maintaining ties with family (bonding capital) and building new support networks in the receiving country (bridging capital). – Empowerment: Enables access to information about rights, serves as a tool for community building, and allows for digital self-representation (“digital witnessing”). | – Security & Exploitation: Poses risks of surveillance, fraud, theft, and extortion. Data can be used to refute asylum claims. – Psychological Stress: Creates pressure to stay constantly connected, which can lead to anxiety and emotional distress from communicating with separated family. – Harmful Exposure: Can expose users to online hate and misinformation targeted at their communities. |
| International Students | Social Media | – Social Capital: Helps build and maintain both bonding social capital (with home country friends/family) and bridging social capital (with host nationals and other students). – Adaptation Support: Reduces acculturative stress and homesickness, facilitates cultural learning, and improves language proficiency and academic engagement. – Relationship Building: Online connections can transition into meaningful offline friendships and support networks. | – Social Isolation: Over-reliance on home-country networks can create “virtual boundaries,” increasing homesickness and reducing motivation to engage with the host culture. – Negative Experiences: Interactions with host culture members online can lead to exposure to prejudice and discrimination. – Mental Health & Academics: Excessive use, driven by Fear of Missing Out (FoMO) and negative social comparison, can increase anxiety and social media exhaustion, negatively impacting academic performance. |
| Migrant Communities (Digital Diasporas) | Digital Platforms / Social Media | – Community & Identity: Strengthens transnational ties and allows for the creation of global “digital diasporas,” reinforcing cultural identity. – Information & Support: Provides access to social capital and information, especially for vulnerable or marginalized groups. – Political Mobilization: Facilitates homeland political engagement, activism, fundraising, and awareness-raising. Can be used for peacebuilding and countering propaganda. | – Conflict & Polarization: Can be used to spread disinformation, propaganda, and hate speech, creating online echo chambers that intensify conflict. – Nationalism & Separation: May reinforce “long-distance nationalism” that is disconnected from the reality of the homeland and can create separation from the host society. – Intensified Threat: Can transform how conflict manifests by facilitating vast information flows that heighten perceptions of threat. |
Why Do Standard Models Fail for Indigenous Peoples?
A profound challenge to traditional acculturation theory comes from research with Indigenous peoples. Ward et al. (2025) argue that applying immigrant-centric models to Indigenous populations is not only inadequate but also perpetuates colonial dynamics. For Indigenous peoples, the dominant culture is not a “host” society they chose to join; it is a colonial force imposed upon their ancestral lands. This requires a fundamentally different approach.
The authors call for the “indigenization” of acculturation science, a process grounded in decolonization that centers Indigenous worldviews, knowledge, and methodologies. This involves co-creating research with and for Indigenous communities. As an example, they describe their work with Māori in Aotearoa/New Zealand using the He Awa Whiria (Braided River) framework. This approach treats Western science and Mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) as two distinct but interwoven streams. Their research shows that Māori views on multiculturalism are inextricably linked to their unique legal status under the Treaty of Waitangi and the history of colonization. Multicultural policies are welcomed only if they empower Māori voices and do not undermine Indigenous sovereignty (see Table 3). This work demonstrates that the future of the field requires context-specific theories that move beyond a one-size-fits-all, immigrant-to-nation-state paradigm.
| Table 3 Rank Order of the Perceived Benefits and Risks of Multiculturalism in Ward et al. (2025) | |
| Benefits | Harm |
| Exposure to Cultural Diversity Increases Intercultural Knowledge & Understanding Bridging across Communities Fosters Acceptance and Inclusion Enriches National Development Enhances Global Connectivity Provides Opportunities for Positive Social & Political Change | Undermines Indigeneity Ethnic Conflict Pressure on Inadequate Resources Culture Clash Intercultural Misunderstandings Socio-political Outcomes of Poor Governance Cultural Threat Negative Impacts of Globalization |
A Foundational Debate: The Future of the Integration Hypothesis
Perhaps the most influential proposition in acculturation research is the “integration hypothesis,” which states that the integration strategy is associated with the most positive adaptation outcomes. However, this cornerstone of the field is now at the center of a critical debate, sparked by a methodological challenge and a theoretical rebuttal.
Is ‘Integration’ Really the Best Strategy?
In a rigorous meta-analytic re-examination, Vu and Bierwiaczonek (2025) challenge the statistical foundation of the integration hypothesis. They argue that, from a statistical perspective, the hypothesis implies an interaction effect: the combination of high heritage and high mainstream orientation should predict better outcomes beyond the separate main effects of each.
The problem, they contend, is that past meta-analyses often used flawed bivariate methods (e.g., adding or multiplying the two orientation scores) that fail to properly control for the main effects. This can create the illusion of an interaction. Using a state-of-the-art multivariate approach, they re-analyzed two large datasets. Their results were stark:
- Flawed bivariate methods showed an apparent interaction effect explaining ~2% of the variance in adaptation.
- The methodologically correct multivariate test showed the true interaction effect was effectively zero (see Figure 3).
Their analysis revealed that adaptation was overwhelmingly driven by the main effect of mainstream-culture orientation, not by the synergistic interaction of the two. Their conclusion is a direct challenge to conventional wisdom: the statistical evidence, when properly analyzed, does not support the integration hypothesis.
Figure 3
Two-stage MASEM Results show that integration as an interaction explains close to zero variation in adaptation outcomes, as presented in Vu and Bierwiaczonek (2025).
How Has the Integration Hypothesis Been Defended?
In a pointed opinion piece responding to the special issue, Berry et al. (2025), the originator of the model, offers a controversial rebuttal. Berry argues that the methodological critique misinterprets the hypothesis’s fundamental logic.
He contends that the integration hypothesis was never proposed as a statistical interaction. Rather, it is a comparative and relative proposition: that the adaptation outcomes for the group of people who follow an integration strategy will be superior when contrasted with the outcomes for groups following assimilation, separation, or marginalization. The goal, in his view, is to compare four distinct lived realities, not to isolate an abstract interaction term in a regression model. He critiques the reduction of a complex strategy to a statistical term as a form of “over-statisticalisation” that strips the phenomenon of its substantive meaning.
This debate, summarized in Table 4, reflects a deeper tension between the pursuit of statistical purity and the preservation of existing theory. The resolution will shape whether the next era of acculturation research prioritizes complex modeling or more top-down theory driven approaches.
Table 2: Contrasting Views on the Integration Hypothesis
| Feature | The Methodological Critique View (Vu & Bierwiaczonek, 2025) | The Foundational Commentary View (Berry et al., 2025) |
| Core Logic | Integration’s benefit is a statistical interaction effect between heritage and mainstream orientations. | Integration’s benefit is a relative outcome, superior when compared to the other three strategies. |
| Appropriate Test | A multivariate regression model that isolates the interaction term while controlling for main effects. | A comparative analysis (e.g., ANOVA) that contrasts the mean adaptation levels of four distinct groups. |
| Key Finding / Argument | The statistical interaction effect is near zero; the benefit is an artifact of a strong main effect of mainstream orientation. | Reducing the “lived strategy” of integration to an interaction term is a statistical abstraction that misses the point. |
| Primary Value | Methodological and statistical rigor. | Theory and substantive meaning. |
In a rejoinder, Bierwiaczonek (2025) directly refutes these criticisms, arguing they misinterpret the meta-analytical evidence and methods. Her response to Berry’s (2025) defense can be summarized as follows:
Table 3: Rebuttal to Berry’s Criticism and His Defense of the Integration Hypothesis
| Berry’s Criticism (as per Bierwiaczonek, 2025) | Bierwiaczonek’s (2025) Rebuttal |
| The critique (Vu & Bierwiaczonek, 2025) uses an “outdated” binary model (heritage vs. mainstream culture). | 1. Meta-analyses are limited by their data: The meta-analysis necessarily reflects the limitations of the primary literature. 2. The data source is the same: Much of this “binary” data (e.g., the ICSEY project) comes from projects led by Berry himself. 3. The key finding was ignored: Berry overlooks the finding that this “binary” model’s positive effects are driven only by mainstream orientation, not integration. |
| The integration hypothesis is not a “statistical interaction”; it’s a comparative finding (i.e., the integration group does better than other groups). | 1. This is the definition of an interaction: “Simultaneous… engagement” is exactly what an interaction term tests. Berry misrepresents what an interaction is. 2. Previous methods were flawed: The approaches Berry defends cannot properly test this simultaneous effect. |
| Interaction effects are “fragile,” “underpowered,” and unreliable in meta-analyses. | 1. This confuses the methodology: Berry’s critique applies to primary studies or study-level moderation, which are prone to ecological fallacy. 2. The correct method was used: The critique used individual-level interaction data, which is well-powered and eliminates this risk. This point is “entirely misplaced”. |
Bierwiaczonek (2025) concludes that instead of dismissing the evidence with these arguments, the field should seriously examine the meta-analytical finding: the positive effects attributed to integration are driven by mainstream culture orientation, while the inconsistency (heterogeneity) in results stems from heritage culture orientation.
Advancing the Science: Challenges and Future Directions
The scientific study of acculturation is a dynamic and self-critical field. The research synthesized here not only deepens our understanding but also charts a clear course for future inquiry. To build a more robust and socially just science, the field must embrace new contexts, refine its theories, and adopt more sophisticated and pluralistic methodologies. Key future directions include:
- Including All Cultures in Contact: Research must move beyond a unidirectional focus on minorities adapting to a dominant group and systematically study the changes that also occur within the dominant population, addressing the “missing side” of acculturation (Berry et al., 2025).
- Prioritizing Longitudinal and Context-Sensitive Research: To truly understand acculturation as a process, the field must shift from cross-sectional snapshots to longitudinal designs that track change over time, incorporating developmental principles (Titzmann & Jugert, 2024).
- Developing Context-Specific Theories: The field needs to develop new frameworks tailored to the unique realities of digitally mediated acculturation (Stuart et al., 2025) and the experiences of Indigenous peoples (Ward et al., 2025).
- Integrating New Psychological Mechanisms: Theories must be updated to systematically account for the powerful roles of social comparison (Verkuyten, 2024) and implicit processes like emotional acculturation (Jasini et al., 2025).
- Adopting Methodological Pluralism: The debate over the integration hypothesis highlights the need for a balanced approach. While embracing more rigorous quantitative methods is critical (Vu & Bierwiaczonek, 2025), researchers should also use qualitative and mixed-methods designs to capture the rich, substantive meaning of the acculturative experience (Berry et al., 2025).
By embracing this complexity, the field is poised to build a more holistic, robust, and socially relevant understanding of what it means to live and thrive in a multicultural world.
The findings and concepts presented in this guide are based on the following peer-reviewed articles published in advances.in/psychology.
References
Berry, J. W. (2025). Comments on the papers in the Special Issue “Acculturation reimagined: Setting the stage for the next era of inquiry.” advances.in/psychology, 2, e00432. https://advances.in/psychology/10.56296/aip00041/
Jasini, A., Cochez, A., & Mesquita, B. (2025). The paradoxical effect of emotional acculturation in discriminatory contexts: school adjustment of immigrant minority youth. advances.in/psychology, 2, e229104. https://advances.in/psychology/10.56296/aip00039/
Stuart, J., Ward, C., Karl, J. A., & Musizvingoza, R. (2025). Intercultural contact in the digital age: A review of emerging research on digitally mediated acculturation. advances.in/psychology, 2, e299122. https://advances.in/psychology/10.56296/aip00036/
Titzmann, P. F., & Jugert, P. (2024). The dynamics of acculturative change: The potential of a developmental perspective in acculturation science. advances.in/psychology, 2, e553629. https://advances.in/psychology/10.56296/aip00029/
Verkuyten, M. (2024). The neglected role of social comparisons in acculturation: Considering the integration paradox. advances.in/psychology, 2, e759126. https://advances.in/psychology/10.56296/aip00032/
Vu, D.-H., & Bierwiaczonek, K. (2025). Comparing bivariate and multivariate approaches to testing individual-level interaction effects in meta-analyses: The case of the integration hypothesis. advances.in/psychology, 2, e919144. https://advances.in/psychology/10.56296/aip00038/
Ward, C., Neha, T., & Ritchie, T. (2025). Re-imagining multiculturalism: Small steps towards indigenizing acculturation science. advances.in/psychology, 2, e251129. https://advances.in/psychology/10.56296/aip00034/