Berry’s Acculturation Model
The concept of acculturation knew an evolution since its former definition. It was initially defined as the result of a change in culture by uninterrupted contact between two distinct cultural groups (Redclief, Linton and Herskovits, 1936, quoted by Berry, Kim, Minde, & Mok, 1987). This former definition did not involve individual psychological factors. The definition of acculturative process by Berry (1987) postulated a psychological change in an individual whose membership group lived an experience of acculturation (Berry and al., 1987).
Subsequently, several models of the acculturative process have been developed (Smith & Khawaja, 2011) and the model proposed by John W. Berry has become predominant. This author defines acculturation as a dual process of cultural and psychological changes that occurs as the result of contact between two or more social groups and their individual members (Berry, 2005, p. 698).
The acculturative process takes place in this model on two distinct levels. At a first level, it involves contact between the original culture’s group as well as the host culture. It is postulated that the two interacting cultures will undergo an influence that makes them change each other. The second level concerns the psychological aspects of the individual: the individual facing different standards in this new context will have to modify his usual attitudes and psychological behaviors in order to adapt to the new requirements of his new place. Several acculturation strategies (Berry, 2005) will be mobilized by the individual and, depending on the constraints that the host culture imposes on the individual, he is not entirely free of his choices. These constraints can be the source of acculturative stress.
From this model, Berry offers a structure in two dimensions according to the strategies of acculturation mobilized. The first axle is orientation towards remaining or not identity and heritage culture of the individual, both from the point of view of the culture of origin and of the host culture. The second axle is the degree of interrelationship between groups. According to the positive or negative valency on both axles respectively, four strategies of the migrant group are identified: incorporation, assimilation, separation and marginalization. Also, for strategies of the host culture, four strategies can be used: multiculturalism, melting pot, segregation or exclusion (Berry & Sabatier, 2011).
We need to clarify that this model was originally conceived to understand and to explain the strategies for adapting migrants and refugees. Therefore, it has not been defined for a particular population such as international students whose, for the most part, come into contact with another culture only for a limited time, that of their studies.
Other models do not target this population either specifically. However, the Multidimensional Individual Difference Acculturation (MIDA) model was lengthwise tested on this particular population (Rasmi, Safdar and Lewis, 2009, quoted by Smith & Khawaja, 2011). Unfortunately, no tool allows identifying with effectiveness the living of the students entered in the acculturative process. Every model brings supplementary benefits but it gives up other appropriate elements.
Acculturative Stress: Stress Model
For many authors, stress is not a disease. It is a non-specific response from the organism to a disparate set of requests made to it (Graziani, Hautekèete, Rusinek, & Servant, 2001, p. 3). Initially, Selye’s (1946) seminal work conceptualized the stress in the direction of a stimulus or a reaction-producing agent. He subsequently reserved the term ‘stress’ to the reaction of the body to confront external aggressions, involving the creation of a new term, the stressor, thereby confusing the definition of stress (Graziani and al., 2001). With his experiments on animals, Selye has identified that, regardless of the nature of the stresses, the organism produces an identical, so-called non-specific response: hyperactivity of the adrenal cortex. Usually, this response follows three successive phases: the alarm, the resistance and exhaustion. It gives the name of General Syndrome of Adaptation to this reaction. Its model is purely biological because it does not intervene any psychological, cultural or social factors, which limits the validity of the model to acute stress. In addition, timeline is absent from this model. Now we know that the reaction to the stressful event can occur several months after exposure as in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Graziani and colleagues (2001) lead to the definition of stress as
the set of physiological, motor, behavioral, emotional and cognitive reactions produced by an individual facing a situation that momentarily or definitively exceeds his or her ability to cope with the change of a pattern of non-stimulation or stimulation of intensity and variable frequency. This change can take two forms, chronic and acute. ‘Good stress’ can be distinguished when these reactions allow for temporary accommodation, correct adaptation within a reasonable period, and ‘pathological stress’ characterized by immediate or delayed physiological and psychological disorders indicative of a prolonged disturbance of adaptation (Graziani and al. 2001, p. 7).
This definition emphasized the change on which the individual must operates to fit to situation. In the extension of this perspective, Lazarus and Folkman offered their own model.
Lazarus and Folkman’ Stress Model
The Lazarus and Folkman’ stress model (1984) is said to be interactionist. It postulates that stress ‘… would consist of a transaction between a person and the environment in which the situation is evaluated by the individual as overflowing with his resources and endangering his well-being’ (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984, p. 46, quoted by Bruchon-Schweitzer & Dantzer, 2003). The individual makes a subjective assessment of the situation in order to estimate whether the demands of the environment will exceed his individual psychological resources. This subjective assessment involves many psychological factors that can alter the individual’s judgment. One of these factors is the individual’s belief in his ability to control the situation. Rotter (1966, 1975, quoted by Graziani and al., 2001) calls this belief the ‘locus of control’. It can be internal or external. A person with an internal locus deems a new ambiguous situation perfectly controllable while another person with an external locus assesses the situation as uncontrollable. This external locus seems stable and is found in a personality type marked by trait anxiety as Graziani and al. (2001) note.
From the beginnings of Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) thesis on stress and coping, the interdependence between culture and stress is conceptually recognized. Lazarus and Folkman believe that individual’s values, beliefs, and norms modulate the stressor assessment process, which would allow the subject to provide the appropriate response. Therefore, we have an influence of cultural factors on coping choices that an individual makes in a stressful situation. Of course, stress and coping are common processes to all humans and are dependent upon culture and ethnicity. However, each culture prescribes its goals and strategies specific to its members in the choice of coping used in stressful situations (Kuo, 2011).
To conclude, an individual, as an international student committed in a university education abroad, involved in a new foreign context has to evaluated his resources to cope with many tresses. If the situation exceeds his capacities, acculturative stress could engender harmful symptoms as depression or anxiety.
