Editorial Board:
Editor:
George H. Conklin,
 North Carolina
 Central University

Board:
Bob Davis,
 North Carolina
 Agricultural and
 Technical State
 University

Richard Dixon,
 UNC-Wilmington

Ken Land,
 Duke University

Miles Simpson,
 North Carolina
 Central University

Ron Wimberley,
 N.C. State University

Robert Wortham,
 North Carolina
 Central University

Editorial Assistants

Rob Tolliver,
 Duke University

Shannon O'Connor,
 North Carolina
 Central University

John W.M. Russell,
 Technical
 Consultant

® 

Volume 6, Number 1
Spring 2008

Acculturation of Iranian Migrants in Australia

by

Mohammad T. Iman

Shiraz University 

Introduction

    Migration is an inherently spatial phenomenon. By definition, an international migrant leaves one community and become part of another community in a foreign nation, at least for some minimum period of time. The spatial patterns have been described in surveys of global contemporary international migration such as Castel and Miller (1993) and Stralker (1994), whereas the economic of international labor migration have recently been studied by, for example, Van den Broeck (1996) from an institutionalist (or evolutionary) perspective in which the focus is on dynamic process and human institutions. However, the socio-economic causes and consequences of the spatial patterns have received surprisingly little systematic attention. Based on this idea, the process of acculturation or cultural adjustment of migrant can explain spatial pattern. This process regards the interaction between origin and destination. 

    Adaptation and acculturation problems experienced by immigrants and rising tensions between host community members and immigrant groups are factors that stimulate governments to formulate integration policies designed to facilitate the integration of immigrants within the host society. Integration policies designed to complement specific immigration policies would seem optimal in facilitating immigrant and host community adaptation in multicultural settings.

    Australia is one of the four major countries that officially accept the permanent settlement of immigrations and has taken three main policies regarding immigration and integration issues. Because, in 2000, of 224.6 thousands of population growth, the rate of natural increase was 0.63 and net overseas migration rate was 0.55 (DIMA, 2002). In the same year, 20 percent of the total labor force of Australia were overseas-born workers, of these 57 percent came from non-English speaking Countries (OECD, 2001). Based on these flow of immigration, Australia chose different policy to manage the transformation of population.

    From 1952 to 1966 is the era of cultural assimilation. Australia policy was to release to some extent the restriction act, but the priority was still with those ethnic groups who was ready to assimilate with the European way of life and culture. Since 1966 to 1980 is the period of cultural integration. In 1966, the government of Australia announced that applicants’ applications to settlement in Australia would be considered by ability to integrate readily and possession of qualification useful to Australia.  In this period, Iranians experienced different events (Islamic Revolution, civil war, and war) which can be regarded as push factors for their migration to abroad, especially to Australia. Only 288 Iranians have applied for Australian citizenship during pre-Islamic Revolution, while after it in 1981, the total Iranian emigrants to Australia rapidly raised to 3700 (DIMA, 2002).

    The experience of migrants moving to a socio-cultural system different from their own provides researchers with the opportunity of studying fundamental process of adaptation. The contemporary growth of international migrations has expanded such opportunities. Thus, research has focused on immigrants in a variety of host countries such as Canada (Berry et al., 1987), Australia (Taft, 1983), England (Bourhis et al., 1973), Japan (Patridge, 1987), and Sweden (Magiste, 1985). Migration is likely to disrupt attachments to supportive networks in the society of origin and to impose on the migrant the difficult task of incorporation into the primary groups of the host society. The migrant is also faced with problems of economic survival and social mobility in an unfamiliar socio-economic system. These uprooting experiences are accompanied by problems of acculturation into a new cultural system, of acquiring the language, the behavioral norms, and values characteristics of the host society (Manious, 1989; Rogler et al. 1983). Acculturation, therefore, is a major component of migration-induced adaptation. Its significance for research derives from traditional concerns in the social sciences of understanding psychological changes resulting from exposure to a new and different socio-cultural  environment (Rogler, et al., 1987). 

    The culture in which people live plays an important role in shaping their sense of self. They have a sense of themselves as being, for example, Australian, American, or Iranian. When an individual moves from one culture to another, many aspects of self-identity are modified to accommodate 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, 1963). Acculturation, to borrow Merton's (1987) phrase, is a "strategic research event."

    An examination of the extent literature on the acculturation process reveals two predominant formulations, which can be termed the unidimensional model and the bidimensional model. The primary difference between these two approaches resides in how they treat the relation between the culture of birth or upbringing, referred to here as the heritage culture, and the predominant cultural environment, or mainstream culture. Unidimensional models are based on the implicit assumption that change in cultural identity takes place along a single continuum over the course of time. More specifically, acculturating individuals are seen as being in a process of relinquishing the attitudes, values, and behaviors of their culture of origin while simultaneously adopting those of the new society (Gans, 1979). In contrast, theories who adopt a bidimensional perspective argue that acculturation can be more completely understood when heritage and mainstream cultural identities are seen as being relatively independent of one another (Ramirez, 1984). Using bidimensional perspective and regarding its cultural stress (through investigating mental health) is the major objective of this survey.

    Research on the acculturation of immigrants, and on inter-group relations among them and their descendants, has amassed a large empirical basis for policy development and program action. Research findings can help to shape human relations so that they avoid inter-group conflict and acculturative stress and approach those that characterized by mutual accommodation and positive adaptation (Berry, 1990). A case has been made for integration as the most positive individual and group acculturation strategy and for multiculturalism as the most positive public policy (Berry, 1997). This entails the acceptance of cultural diversity by, and the equitable participation of, all groups in the larger society.

    Recent research in the USA has led to the claim that acculturation is the cornerstone of immigration research (Cortes et al., 1994). Acculturation refers to the process through which migrants and their children acquire the values, behavioral norms, and attitudes of the host society (Cortes et al. 1994). Changes in values, norms and behaviors can occur in both the host society and the migrant population as a result of migration. It is a part of the ongoing process of socialization, but particularly relevant to newcomers in a society (Jayasuriya et al., 1992). So, the goal of this survey is to investigate the acculturation of Iranian migrants in Sydney, Australia. 

    The expectations and occasionally the dispensations that are associated with the status of visitor/stranger have long been of interest to sociologist (e.g. Heiss and Nash, 1967 and Schild, 1962). When culturally disparate groups come into contact with each other, they tend to have an impact on each other's social structures, institutional arrangements, political processes, and value systems. This complex state of affairs promoted Bochner (1982) to develop a set of principles that can be used to classify all of the empirically observed outcomes of cultural contact within a single overall framework. The principles were developed so that they would have maximum generality. 

    A historical overview of the various outcomes of intergroup contact shows that they can be classified into four, more or less, mutually exclusive categories. These are genocide, assimilation, segregation, and integration (Bouchner, 1982). Genocide means that there are many records instances in ancient as well as recent history where on group, usually in the majority or possessing superior technological resources, has killed or attempted to kill all members of another group with whom they came into contact. Assimilation is the term used to describe the ‘swallowing up’ of one culture by another. It was often the approach of colonial power, taking the form of imposing their cultural values and etiquette on the countries they had conquered. 

    Segregation refers to a deliberate policy of separate development. Since such policies are usually unsuccessful in practice, their main value in the present context lies in shedding light on the psychology of those advocating such a course. Integration means that cross-cultural relations, as a problem to be solved, can only be tackled when it is explicitly acknowledged that human groups differ in their respective cultural identities, that they a right to maintain their idiosyncratic features if they so wish, and that this principle applies to diversity both within and between societies. 

    In a comprehensive review, Anderson (1994) examines the four model of the adaptive process that have dominated the literature since the 1950s. The first is the recuperation model, based on the concept of 'cultural shock' (Oberg, 1960). More recently the medical connotations of this model have been elaborated with a variant focusing on psychological crisis and identity diffusion (Garza-Gurrero, 1974). The second type is the leaning model which emphasizes the need to accrue the knowledge and skills necessary to function in a new set of socio-cultural reinforcement contingencies (Taylor, 1994). The third is the ‘journey’ model, charting the process of moving from ignorance and rejection of the foreign culture to understanding and acceptance (e.g. Bennett, 1993). The fourth is the equilibrium model. It conceptualizes cross-cultural adaptation ‘as a dynamic process of tension reduction’ produced when manifested cultural differences disrupt the person's internal balance. 

    Whereas models of cross-cultural adaptation focus more on process of adjustments over time, model of acculturation focus more upon the content or outcomes of that complex process. Acculturation concerns the changes that result in both people and groups of people as a result of contact among people of different cultures. It is most often examined in people who relocate, such as exchange students and immigrants, but has also been studied in indigenous groups within plural societies (Berry and Kim, 1988).

    Acculturation is a process involving two or more groups, with consequences for both; in effect, however, the contact experiences have much greater impact on the nondominant group and its members. For this reason, much of the research on acculturation has focused on such nondominant peoples (such as immigrants and indigenous peoples), tending to ignore the impact on the dominant population. It is obvious, however, that immigrant-receiving societies and their native-born populations have been massively transformed in the past decades. Recent trends in acculturation research have come to focus more on the process of mutual change (Berry, 1997), involving both groups in contact.

    For more than 30 years, psychologists have focused on some fundamental aspects of these phenomena, particularly people's attitudes towards the process, their overt behavior (continuity or change), and their internal cultural identities. All are rooted in two basic aspects of intercultural contact that have been described by anthropologist and sociologists: (1) the degree of actual contact and the resultant participation of each group with the other, and (2) the degree of cultural maintenance manifested by each group. That is, in any intercultural situation, a group can penetrate (or ignore) the other, and groups can remain culturally distinct from (or merge with) each other. The distinction between these two group-level phenomena is critical for understanding the process of both cultural and psychological acculturation. 

    There is an important distinction would be made between the process of enculturation and acculturation. The former is the process that links developing individuals to their primary cultural contexts, while the latter is a process that individuals undergo in response to a changing cultural context. Acculturation is one of the inferred antecedents of observed variation in behavior. Related to acculturation is the more general phenomenon of culture change (Segall et al., 1999). In practice it is often difficult to separate the actual causes of change due to external forces from those due to internal forces. This is because many factors are usually operating simultaneously including contact, diffusion from other cultures and innovation from within the cultural group (Berry, 1990a).

    The term "acculturation" was coined in 1880 to explain changes in Native American language (Powell 1880:46). In 1936, anthropologists defined acculturation to more generally include “those phenomena which result when groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact” causing “changes in the original culture patterns of either or both groups” (Redfield and et al. 1936:149). In another formulation, acculturation was defined as: “culture change that is initiated by the conjunction of two or more autonomous cultural systems. Acculturative change may be the consequence of direct cultural transmission; it may be derived from noncultural causes, such as ecological or demographic modification induced by an impinging culture; it may be delayed, as with internal adjustment following upon the acceptance of alien traits or patterns; or it may be a reactive adaptation of traditional modes of life (Social Science Research Council, 1954: 974).

    Psychological research focused on the Holocaust and the problems of Jewish resettlement (e.g., Cohen, 1956; Ichheiser, 1949 and Zak, 1973), on biculturalism in multi-ethnic communities (e.g. Allen and Lambert, 1969; Saruk and Gulutsan, 1970 and Taft, 1963), and on the cultural oppression of Aboriginal peoples (e.g. Berry, 1970; Sommerlad and Berry, 1970). All of these studies share the logic that the interaction of two cultures A and B entails several possibilities: +A –B, -A +B, +A +B and in some studies –A –B, meaning that one culture or the other predominates, or they co-exist as biculturalism, or they are both diminished. 

    From the definition of acculturation, it can be identified some key elements that are usually studies in cross-cultural studies. First, there needs to be contact or interaction between cultures that is continuous and firsthand; this rules out short-term, accidental contact, and it rules out diffusion of single cultural practices over long distances. Second, the result is some change in the cultural or psychological phenomena among the people in contact, usually continuing for generations down the line. Third, taking these first two aspects together, we can distinguish between a process and a state. There is activity during and after contact that is dynamic, and there is a result of the process that may be relatively stable. This outcome may include not only changes in existing phenomena but also in some novel phenomena that are generated by the process of cultural interaction. 

    Berry has elaborated a fourfold typology of acculturation attitudes from the first studies of Aboriginal peoples and has generalized it (Berry 1997). Any individuals or ethnic groups in an acculturation context are presumed to be making decisions, first, about maintaining their identification with their original, heritage culture and, second, about continuing to have acculturative contact with other cultures. These four attitudes have been variously called "adaptation," “alternatives," "feeling," "goals," "identities," "modes," "options," "orientations," "paths," "policies," "preferences," "statuses," "strategies," and "styles (William and Berry, 1998)."

    The ways in which an individual (or a group) of Culture A wishes to relate to Culture B have been termed acculturation attitudes (see Berry et al., 1989 for review of the reliability, validity, and correlates of these attitudes). In a sense, they are conceptually the result of an interaction between ideas deriving from the modernity literature and the intergroup relations literature. In the former, the central issue is the degree to which one wishes to remain culturally as one has been (e.g., in terms of identity, language, way of life) as opposed to giving it all up to become part of a larger society. In the latter, the central issue is the extent one wishes to have day-to-day interactions with those of other groups in society, as opposed to turning away from other groups, and relating only to those of one's own group. A third issue is that of which group has the political power to choose the responses to the first two issues. In some societies, the dominant group virtually dictates  the ways in which the nondominant groups may act, whereas in other societies, nondominant groups are largely free to select their own course (Berry, 1974).

    When individuals are negative towards their heritage culture and positive towards some other cultures, then the presumption is that they must "unlearn" the norms and practices of their heritage culture and must learn and adopt those of the dominant society (Berry 1997:13). Such individuals are presumed to prefer Assimilation. In contrast, when individuals are positive towards their heritage culture and negative towards other cultures, then they are said to prefer Separation. When individuals are positive towards their heritage culture and towards some other cultures, then they are presumed to prefer "the Integrationist or bi-cultural acculturation strategy. (Berry 1997:27)." Finally, when individuals are negative towards their heritage culture and towards other cultures, then they are said to experience Marginalization, sometimes called Deculturation, since the heritage culture is supposedly unlearned and other cultures are not learned (Berry, 1992). Marginalization is also "a set of conditions characteristics of cultural contact between two groups, one dominant over the other (Berry, 1970:240)."  Marginalization also entails "confusion and anxiety…feeling of alienation, loss of identity, and what has been termed acculturative stress (Berry and et al. 1989:188)." Acculturative stress is a phenomenon that may underlie a reduction in the health status of individuals (including physical, psychological, and social aspects). To qualify as acculturative stress, these changes should be related in a systematic way to know features of the acculturation process as experienced by the individual. The relationship between these process can be outlined in Figure 1 below:

• Issue 1: Is it considered to be of value to maintain cultural identity and characteristics?  Answers: yes or no.
• Issue 2: Is it considered to be of value to maintain relationships with other groups?  Answers: yes or no.

    For purpose of conceptual presentation, a dichotomous response ("Yes" or "No") is shown the figure. When an individual in Culture A does not wish to maintain his or her identity (and so on) and seeks daily interaction with Culture B, then the assimilation (a) path or mode is defined. When this course is freely chosen by the acculturating group, we have the "melting point;" but when it is forced by the dominant group, we may call it a "pressure cooker." In contrast, (b) when there is a value placed on holding onto one's original culture, and at the same time a wish to avoid interaction with others, then the separation alternative is defined. If, however, such cultural distinctiveness is required by the dominant society, and the  nondominant group is kept at a distance from them, then we have the classic situation of segregation. When there is an interest both in maintaining one's original culture and in daily interactions with others (c) integration is the option; here is some degree of cultural integrity maintained, while moving to participate as an integral part of the larger social network. Such a course is possible only where the dominant society is open and accepting of the wishes of the various acculturating groups.

    It should be noted that the term integration as used here is clearly distinct from the term assimilation (although the two sometimes appear in the literature as synonyms); cultural maintenance is sought in the former case, but there is little or no interest in such continuity in the latter. It should also be noted that acculturation may be “uneven” across domains of behavior and social life; for example, one may seek economic assimilation (in work), linguistic integration (by way of bilingualism), and marital separation (by endogamy).

    Finally (d), when there is little interest in cultural maintenance, or in relations with other groups, the option of marginalization is defined. When this situation of being out of touch with either culture is the result of action by the dominant society (for example, by forced cultural loss, along with forced exclusion), the concept of "deculturation" or "ethnocide" have sometimes been employed. However, the classic concept of marginalization (Stonequist, 1935) now appears to be used generically to refer to this situation of being on the margin of two cultures, being accepted or supported by neither one.

    At the individual level, it needs to be considered the psychological changes that individuals in all the groups undergo, and their eventual adaptation to their new situations; this requires sampling and studying individuals who are variably involved in the process of acculturation. These changes can be a set of rather easily accomplished behavioral changes (e.g. in way of speaking, dressing, eating, and in one's cultural identity), or they can be more problematic, producing acculturative stress (e.g., uncertainly, anxiety, depression, even psychopathology) (Al-Issa and Tousignant, 1997). Adaptation can be primarily internal or psychological (e.g. sense of well-being, of self-esteem) or socio-cultural, linking the individual to other in the new society (e.g., competence in the activities of daily intercultural living) (Searle and Ward, 1990). 

Acculturation Context

    Respondent were Iranian residing in Sydney (Australia). Iran is a large South Asian nation with an ancient history of imperial power. Iran is comprised of more than a dozen identifiable ethnic groups, with several major languages spoken, and a diversity of religious practiced (Ganji, 1971). Historically, Iran was ruled by ab absolute monarch, the Shah, but in 1906, a limited constitutional government was formed, with an ensuing century of political struggles between the Shah, Islamic clerics, a wide range of political parties, and intervening foreign powers (Ganji, 1971). In 1979, an Islamic Revolution displaced the Shah's rule, and in 1980, Iran and Iraq began a long war of attrition over disputed territory. This modern history of political struggle, revolution, and war has resulted in several waves of emigration and refugee flight from Iran (Yekrangi, 1998).

    For the period to the 1979 revolution though Iran does not have an established tradition of emigration. Migration does not belong to the repertoire of life events with which the Iranian culture or collective psyche has any immediate familiarity. Because of  the lack of historical familiarity with migration and due to the political problems, intertwined with instability and repression back home, the Iranian refugee/migrant enclave has endured considerable difficulty in adaptation. In this way the Iranian enclave in the West is not easily characterized although, the term exile/ political refugee best reflects the current migratory status of this group (Sabagh and Bozorgmehr, 1994; Shahidian, 2000; Bozorgmehr, 2000).

    Before the 1979 Revolution and the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran, most of the migration between Iran and Australia was by service workers, particularly in the oil industry. In 1981 Australia began  a special assistance program for Baha'is seeking to escape religious persecution in Iran. By the end of the decade, around 2500 people had arrived under this and other refugee programs. The Iran-born are primarily Shi'a Muslims while others are of the Baha'i, Catholic and Armenian Apostolic faiths.

    The migratory status of a group either as an economic migrant, refugee, sojourner, or others, is usually considered as a post- migratory state. However, any migratory state is in fact an outcome of the interaction of many processes, which can be traced to the pre- migratory period (Berry, 1997; Mendoza, 1989). Iranians in Australia and West countries are best described as political refugees. Yet others ( Bauer, 1992; Shahidian, 2000; Bozorgmehr, 2000) have pointed out that the range of meaning subsumed under the heading exile better describes the Iranian experience in the Australia and West since 1979 revolution.

    During the 1980s there was a major war between Iran and Iraq. This resulted in an increase in migration to Australia. During the late 1980s and 1990s many professionals started to leave Iran for Australia due to economic and political hardship. In the latter of the 1990s, while political and religious persecution remained important reasons for migration, many Iranians also came under the skill and family streams of the Migration Program.

    The latest Census in 2001 recorded 18,840 Iran-born persons in Australia, an increase of 16 percent from the 1996 Census. The 2001 distribution by State and Territory showed New South Wales had the largest number with 10,410 followed by Victoria (3,200) Western Australia (2,000) and South Australia (1,660). The median age of the Iran-born in 2001 was 38.8 years compared with 46.0 years for all overseas-born and 35.6 years for the total Australian Population. The age distribution showed 8.0 percent were aged 0-14 years, 15.8 percent were 15-24 years, 41.4 percent were 25-44 years, 26.5 percent were 45-64 years and 8.2 percent were 65 and over.

    Of the Iran-born in Australia, there were 10,120 males (53.7 percent) and 8,720 females (46.3 percent). The sex ratio was 116.1 male per 100 females. In 2001, of Iran-born people aged 15 years and over, 52.4 percent held some forms of educational or occupational qualification compared with 46.2 percent for all Australians. Among the Iran-born, 32.5 percent had higher qualification (includes postgraduate degree, graduate diploma & graduate certificate and bachelor degree advanced diploma and diploma level) and 9.5 percent had Certificate level qualification. Of the Iran-born with no qualification, 35.2 percent were still attending an educational institution.

    Among Iran-born people aged 15 years and over, the participation rate in the labor force was 57.0 percent and the unemployment rate was 15.6 percent. The corresponding rates in the total Australian population were 63.0 and 7.4 percent respectively. Of the 8,240 Iran-born who were employed, 59.1 percent were employed in a Skilled occupation, 24,9 percent in Semi-Skilled and 16.0 percent in Unskilled. The corresponding rates in the total Australian population were 52.6, 28.9 and 18.6 percent respectively.

    At the 2001 Census, the rate of Australian Citizenship for the Iran-born in Australia was 90.7 percent. The rate for all overseas-born was 75.1 percent. The main language spoken at home by Iran-born people in Australia were Persian (62.1 percent), Assyrian (including Armanic) (8.5 percent), and English (7.8 percent). Of the 16,760 Iran-born who spoke a language other than English at home, 79.0 percent spoke English very well or well and 19.7 percent spoke English not well or not at all.

    At the 2001 Census the major religions amongst Iran-born were Islam (6,350), Baha'i (5,010 persons) and Western Catholic (1,090 persons). 6.3 percent stated “no Religion”. which this was lower than that of the total Australian population (15.5 percent). In the 2001 Census, the top three ancestries that Iran-born persons reported were, Iranian (12,690), Armenian (1,500) and Assyrian/Chaldean (1,460) (Australia Bureau of Statistics Census of Population and Housing, 2003). The trend of migration from Iran to Australia since 1980 can be seen in the following Table. 

Instrument

Contact-Acculturation Scale which has been developed by Mishra et al. (1996) was used in the survey. This scale was used for measuring the degree of change in people's lives as a result of their contact with outside world. The scale is based on a number of indicators of contact-acculturation suggested by Berry (1976) and Berry et al. (1986). At the same time, some new indices of contact have also been added drawing upon the features of tribal setting in India. The scale consists of a number of indices of contact such as official language, knowledge of English and other languages, ownership of people such as utensils, ornaments and furniture, dressing style, means of livelihood, use of technology, travel experience and exposure to movies. A person is rated on each of these indices on the scale ranging from 3-5 points, which are added up to derive an index of acculturation. The scale has been used for assessing the level of contact-acculturation of the sample of study.

    Three conceptually similar, but psychometrically distinct, methods of measuring acculturation were used. First, Merametdjian's (1995) adaptation of Sam's and Berry's (1995) fourfold scales has separate measures of Assimilation (five items), Separation (six items), Integration (five items), and Marginalization (four items). Second, cultural attitude scale were newly developed, consisting of independent measures of attitudes towards Australian culture and towards Iranian culture. Each scale had positively- and negatively – keyed items for each of 10 cultural topics. All of the preceding scales used at-type scoring system, ranging from 1 ("Disagree Totally") to 4 ("Agree Totally"). The third acculturation measure was forced-choice scale, consisting of 20 cultural topics for which the respondents must select whether they prefer the Australian practice, the Iranian practice, both Australian and Iranian practices, or the practices of a diversity of cultures.

Participants

    Participants consisted of Iranian who were recruited through Iranian community organization, department of immigration and multicultural affairs and informal network in the Sydney area. The cover letter explained that participation was anonymous and voluntary. Questionnaire packets included Persian and English versions of the questionnaire, as well as a stamped returned envelop. A total of 250 (from about 10,500 as an Iranian population in Sydney) packets were distributed (as a sample of the study which were selected randomly [systematic random sampling]), and 80 questionnaires were returned, for a response rate of 32%. Of these, 87% used the Persian form and 13% the English form. The mean age of the participants was 36 (SD=7.8). Males comprised 69% of the sample, females 31%, and 55% of the respondents had children. On average, respondents had 5.8 years of education after middle school, and 38% of them had completed at least four years of university.

    Acculturation scales are reported as the proportion of the scale that was agreed to, which is computed by sub from subtracting 1 from the scale score in order to begin the scale metric at 0, and then dividing by the scale range, which in this study was 3. Thus, total disagreement with the all of the items of a scale would result in a scale score of 0.00, and total agreement in a scale score of 1.00. For the forced-choice task, scale scores were computed as the proportion of items selected that belonged to each of the four preference categories. Again, a score of 0.00 means that the category was never preferred, and a score of 1.00 means that the category was always preferred.

    For the fourfold measures, scale scores were also computed as the mean z-score based on standardization using each individual's mean and standard deviation for the total 20 items in the fourfold paradigm. Z-transformed item scores measure how far a response was from each respondent's own average response, and z-transformed scale scores are the average of these self-referenced distances. Individual standardization eliminates acquiescence bias effects.

Tables 3, 4 and 5 present summary statistics for the scales used in this study. The computation of reliability coefficient for the forced-choice questions required that each of the four possible answer for each of the 20 questions be dummy coded 0 if it was not chosen and 1 if it was chosen. Cronbach alpha coefficients and inter-item correlations were generally adequate considering that some scale had as few as 4 or 5 items. Only the fourfold Integration scale showed poorly on both the Cornbach alpha coefficient and the mean inter-item correlation. However, Berry has argued that coherent preference, as measured by high Cronbach alpha coefficients, need not necessarily be expected because "preference for one acculturation strategy over others are known to vary, depending on context (Berry, 1997: 12)."

    Table 2 shows that different ways of measuring acculturation preference, for the same people, result in different findings. Respondents on average agreed to 0.27 of the ranging of the Assimilation scale, 0.35 of the Separation scale, 0.66 of the Integration scale, and 0.39 of the Marginalization scale, which sum to 1.62, demonstrating as in other studies that fourfold measures are contaminated by acquiescence effects. When z-transformed, the fourfold measures showed means scale scores of –0.42, -0.23, +0.76, and –0.09, respectively, which sum to 0.00, demonstrating that individual standardization did successfully remove acquiescence effects. 

    The usual fourfold finding of strong agreement to bicultural Integration and weak or moderate disagreement to other three scales was not replicated on the cultural attitude scales. There respondents agreed to 0.71 of the range of the Iranian scale and 0.53 of the Australian scale, which is indistinguishable from random responding. Thus, as a group, respondents were positive towards Iranian culture and were indifferent to Australian culture. The forced-choice scales replicated neither the fourfold measures nor the cultural attitude scales. Rather, when allowed to express an attitude towards multiculturalism, respondents preferred it to the unicultural and bicultural response option.

Fourfold Categorization

    Comparison of the four psychometric methods of measuring similar constructs on the same people stand out more dramatically in Table 5, which shows the categorization of participants based on their answers to the acculturation scales. Scale scores above the mid-point of 0.50 on the Likert scale, or above the z-score mean of 0.00, indicate agreement to the scale construct. For the cultural attitude scales, assignment of respondents to fourfold categories was based on patterns of agreement and/or disagreement to the scales about Australian and Iranian cultures. For Example, Assimilation was defined as more than 0.50 agreement to the Australian Scale and less than 0.50 agreement to the Iran Scale; Separation was defined by the reverse of this; Integration was defined by more than 0.50 agreement to both scale; and Marginalization was defined as less than 0.50 agreement to both scales. Scales scores exactly at 0.50 were unclassifiable. For the forced-choice task, scale scores above 0.25 indicate some degree of preference for the construct.

    Using the uncorrected fourfold scale, 20% of the respondents agreed to more than one of the scales, and someone agreed to all four scales which is a sure sign of acquiescence. Almost everyone reported some degree of agreement to the Integration scale. When the fourfold responses were z-transformed on an individual basis, 60% of the respondents were above the z-score mean of 0.00 on more than one scale, as would be expected considering that half of the z-scores must be positive. Thus, 99% of the respondents showed agreement to the Integration scale, and one-third of them also showed agreement to the Marginalization scale. For both the uncorrected and the z-transformed scale scores, everyone who agreed to the Marginalization scale also agreed to the Integration scale.

    The two cultural attitude scales produced unambiguous categorization of each respondent into only one acculturation category. Almost all respondents were positive towards Iranian culture, and roughly half were also positive towards Australian culture to some degree. Only five persons rejected both Australian and Iranian cultures. Thus, Marginalization operationalized as rejection of two cultures is relatively rare, especially compared to Marginalization operationalized as psychological distress.

    The forced-choice scale allowed respondents to express acculturation attitudes more narrowly towards many cultural topics as well as more globally towards multiculturalism. A strong majority reported themselves to be multicultural on more than 25% of the topics, but two-thirds of them still favored aspects of Iranian culture. Only one-third of them preferred bicultural Integration on more than 25% of the topics, which stands in dramatic contrast to the findings of the fourfold scales.

Acquiescence Effects

    Acquiescence effects on the fourfold scales were evident in the frequently counts of the Likert responses. Answers of "Agree Totally" or "Agree Slightly" were given 24% of the time to Assimilation items, 29% of the time to Separation items, 72% of the time to Integration items, and 34% of the time to Marginalization items. With 250 respondents answering 20 fourfold items, there were 20000 response opportunities, eliciting 8000 answers of agreement. This 40% agreement rate is significantly far greater than the 25% predicted by the ipsative intent of the scales (z=13.2, n=20000, p<0.001).

    Acquiescence may also be the cause of the excessively positive interscale correlations, as shown in Table 6. The correlations for the fourfold scales had a mean intercorrelation of r=+0.04,calculated using Fisher r-to-z transformations. This was significantly more positive than the expected. As shown in Table 6, the z-transformation resulted in the 6 interscale correlations averaging as expected, indicating that acquiescence effects were eliminated. Interscale correlations for the forced-choice measures, shown in the right-hand column, also had the expected mean interscale correlation.

    The only interscale correlation significantly different from the null condition of r=-0.33, and that was replicated by the z-transformed scales and the forced-choice scales, was Assimilation correlating with Integration at r=+0.04 and r=+0.03, respectively. These significant correlations mean that Assimilation and Integration scores were unrelated to each other, when the null condition would have had them negatively related to each other. This demonstrates how difficult it is to interpret correlations between ipsative measures.

    Analysis with respect to social-demographic variables (Table 7) revealed that, as compared to other variables, education generally had stronger relationship with integration (r=0.67), assimilation (r=0.65) and marginalization (r=0.55) attitudes of the sample. Contact-acculturation also had a stronger relationship with integration (r=0.44), assimilation (r=0.29), and separation (r=-0.36) attitudes of the subjects.

    Regression analysis (Table 8) indicated that, except for assimilation attitudes, contact-acculturation was the most powerful or robust predictor of the variations in individuals’ acculturation attitudes. On integration, separation and marginalization attitudes, it contributed approximately 19, 12 and 7 percent respectively to the variance in score.

    The findings of the study indicated that integration was the strongest orientation of the sample towards acculturation. Moderate degree of assimilation as well as separation were also present among this community. The evidence for marginalization was relatively weak in the subjects. Except for separation, people of the sample did not display any significant difference in their attitude towards acculturation. High integration orientation in the study seems to indicate the impact of the national policy and programs  that emphasis on the integration of the subjects with the mainstream society with du regard for dignity of their culture and identity. Other researchers (fort example, Mishra et al., 1996), who have assessed people's acculturation attitudes in multicultural societies that value cultural diversity and have deliberate programs to prevent assimilation of groups, have also reported dominant orientation of people towards integration. High scores of the sample on the measure of integration indicate a strong tendency on the part of people for keeping the elements of their own culture and of the external culture as much integrated in life as possible. To this extent, the findings of this study in respect of integration are consistent with other studies.

    The findings suggest that while greater or lessor separation may be a probable outcome in the process of acculturation of the subjects, the same cannot be held true with respect to marginalization. Traditional cultural roots of groups as well as psychological characteristics of individuals developed in that culture seem to play an important role in this process. Murphy (1965) reported that the migrants , who found people of their own cultural background in their respective new places, experienced lesser cultural shock and lesser acculturative stress that those who move to a culture which was completely new, alien and unfamiliar. There is also evidence to suggest that people hailing from a multicultural societal background tend to have more respect for people of other groups and cultures than those who have the experience of living in a predominantly unicultural context. This suggest that former have greater accommodation for others than the latter (Kalin & Berry, 1994).

    People's participation in the process of cultural; change is another crucial factor in this respect. Those who have a lower degree of contact with outside world and are reluctant to adopt changes for themselves, are more likely to experience marginalization than individuals who do not share these characteristics (Berry, 1990). Studies predict a greater marginalization among low acculturated people (especially of smaller groups) in comparison to that of high acculturated people (Mishra et al., 1996). The evidence for low marginalization in this study may be interpreted as an outcome of the socio-political context in which the subjects have been. Since the changes intended in developmental programs do not involve sacrifice of one's culture and identity, inconsistency with usual lifestyle is generally less encountered by the people. Slightly greater (though insignificant) marginalization among the subjects suggests the this orientation may develop among individuals in the early phases of acculturation, reflecting an inability on the part of individuals to decide upon the course of their action.

    An important issue in research on attitudes is that consistency. While in studies researchers have attempted to explore consistency between the attitude and behavior of individuals, consistency across different kind of attitudes has been frequently analyzed. These analyses are important to provide evidence of conceptual as well as metric validity for different attitudes. In the case of acculturation attitudes, Berry et al., (1989) hypothesized that integration and assimilation attitudes should show a positive correlation due to the common component of "desire of positively relate" with members of other groups in both the attitudes. The findings of the present study revealed almost a similar pattern of results. In this study, integration and assimilation scores were found to be positively and significantly correlated. It suggest that in the process of cultural change, relationship with other groups is more important factor than mere maintenance of one's culture and identity. The correlation between integration and marginalization has been found to be highly negative in the survey. This again in support of the findings of Berry et al., (1989) obtained with respect to acculturation attitudes of several immigrant group in Canada. These findings may allow us to conclude that the dynamics of acculturation do not differ whether we examine the groups which are at their place and the acculturation is brought on to them, or the groups which move to a new cultural context and face the challenges of acculturation there.

   Researchers have used a number of variables to predict the acculturation attitudes of individuals and groups undergoing acculturation in different contexts. Age, education, residence, earlier experience with other groups, and general acculturation features of groups have often been used as predictors of acculturation attitudes in studies. In present study, participants' age, education, livelihood and the level of acculturation (measured by contact-acculturation scale) were used. It has been suggested (for example Berry, 1980) that many of these factors may share common variance, since they form the components of a larger variable. In the present sample also, the variables of education and acculturation were found to be highly positively correlated. The analysis of partial correlation revealed that in the sample of study, much of the variance due to education was shared by the factor of acculturation.

   Of the four variables used in the study (age, education, livelihood, and acculturation), only education and acculturation appeared as significant correlates of acculturation attitudes of individuals in the sample. Education appeared to be positively correlated with integration, assimilation and marginalization, suggesting that educated individuals may not only develop high integration and assimilation tendencies, but also a high tendency of marginalization. This finding goes against the findings of other studies with respect to the development of marginalization attitude. In general, studies suggest that more educated individuals are less likely to develop marginalization in the course of acculturation than the uneducated.

    It seems likely that most Iranians now living in the Australia do not want to return to Iran and will to make the Australia their permanent home. Therefore, the process of acculturation seems inevitable. It is important to study the behavior of Iranian in the Australia in order to be aware of the problems that may arise during their process of acculturation. The findings my observations  in the field research suggest that it would be important for policy makers in field of mental health to pay special attention to women. Also, the discrepancy between the attitudes of male and females regarding the role of women may lead to a conflict between the sexes in the future. Women may want to promote a change in their sex role, towards liberation and equality, whereas men may be reluctant to accept this change Iranian should be aware of this potential conflict between the sexes and try to find ways to avoid it. 

Allen, C. and Lambert, W. E. 1969. "Ethnic Identification and Personality Adjustment." Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 1: 69-86.

Al-Issa, I. & Tousignant, M. 1997. Ethnicity, Immigration, and Psychopathology (eds.), New York: Plenum.

Anderson, L. E., 1994. "A New look at an Old Construct: Cross-Cultural Adaptation." International Journal of Intercultural Relations 18: 293-328.

Bennett, S. 1993. "Inequalities in Risk Factors and Cardiovascular Mortality among Australia's Immigrants." Australia Journal of Public Health 17, 3: 251-261.

Bauer, J. 1991. "A Long Way Home: Islam in the Adaptation of Iranian Women Refugee in Turkey and West Germany." In Fathi,  A. (ed.), Iranian Refugee and Exile Since Khomeini. Mazda Publishers.

Berry, J. W. 1970. "Marginality Stress and Ethnic Identification in an Acculturated Aboriginal Community." Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology 1: 17-22.

Berry, J. W. 1974. "Psychological Aspects of Cultural Pluralism: Utility and Identity Reconsidered." in Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology 2: 17-22, Honolulu, HI: East-West Center.

Berry, J. W. 1976. Human Ecology and Cognitive Style: Comparative Studies in Cultural and Psychological Adaptation. New York: Sage.

Berry, J. W. 1990. "Psychology of Acculturation." in J. Berman (ed.), Cross-Cultural Perspective…., Vol, 37, pp: 201-234, Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Berry, J. W. 1992. "Acculturation and Adaptation in a New City." International Migration 30: 69-85.

Berry, J. W. 1997. "Immigration, Acculturation and Adaptation." Applied Psychology: An International Review 46: 5-68.

Berry, J. W. and et al., 1986. "The Assessment of Acculturation." in W.J. Lonner and J.W. Berry (eds.), Field Methods in Cross-Cultural Research. London: Sage.

Berry, J. W., and et al., 1987. "Comparative Studies of Acculturation Stress." International Migration Review 21: 491-511.

Berry, J. W. and Kim, U. 1988. "Acculturation and Mental Health." in P. Dasen et al. (ed.), Health and Cross-Cultural Psychology, pp 207-236, London, Sage.

Berry, J. W. and et al. 1989. "Acculturation Attitudes in Plural Societies.", Applied Psychology: An International Review 38: 185-206.

Bochner, S. 1982. "The Social Psychology of Cross-Cultural Relation." In S. Bochner (ed.), Culture in Contact: Studies in Cross-Cultural Interaction, pp 5-44, Oxford: Pergamon.

Bourhis, R. Y. and et al., 1973. "Language as a Determinant of Welsh Identity." European Journal of Social Psychology 3: 447-460.

Bozorgmehr, M. 1997. "Internal Ethnicity: Iranian in Los Angeles." Sociological Perspectives 40: 387-408.

Bozorgmehr, M. 2000. "Does Host Hostility Create Ethnic Solidarity? The Experience of Iranians in the United States." Bulletin for the Royal Institute of Inter-Faith Studies Vol. 2, No. 1.

Castles, S and Miller, M. J. 1993. The Age of Migration. Macmillan: London

Cohen, B. B.  1956.  Psychological Factors Associated with Acculturation…, Ph D Thesis, New York University, New York.

Cortes, D. E. et al. 1994.  "Biculturality among Puerto Rican  Adults in the United State."  American Journal of Community Psychology 22,5:707-721.

DIMA  2002. Australian Immigration Consolidated Statistics (1999-2000).  Canberra.

Ganji, M. H. 1971. Iran.  In W. E. Preece (ed.), Encyclopedia Britannica Vol. 12, pp. 509-525.  Chicago: William Benton. 

Gans, H. 1979. "Symbolic Ethnicity: The Future of Ethnic Groups and Culture in America."  Ethnic and Racial Studies 2:1-20.

Garza-Guerrero, A. C. 1974.  "Cultural Shock: Its Mourning  and the Vicissitudes of Identity." Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association 22: 408-429.

Heiss, J and Nash, D. (1967), "The stranger in Laboratory Culture Revisited." Human Organization 26: 47-51.

Ichheiser, C.  1949.  Misunderstanding in Human Relations: A Study in False Social Perception. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Jayasuriya, L. and et al. 1992.  Ethnicity, Immigration and Mental Illness: A Critical Review of Australia Research. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Kalin, R and Berry, J. W. 1994. "Ethnic and Multicultural Attitude." in J. W. Berry and J. A. Laponce (eds.), Ethnicity and Culture in Canada: The Research Landscape. Torento: Buffalo.

Magiste, E. 1985. "Development of Intra-interlingual Interference in Bilinguals." Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 14:137-154.

Mainous, A. G. 1989. "Self Concept as an Indicator of Acculturation in Mexican Americans." Hispanic Journal of Behavioural Sciences 11: 178-189.

Merametdjian, M. C. 1995.  Somali Refugees in Troms: Acculturation of Men and Women. Thesis, University of Troms, Norway.

Merton, R. K. 1987. "Three Fragments from a Sociologist's Notebook: Establishing the Phenomenon, Specified Ignorance, and Strategic Research Materials." Annual Review Sociology 13: 1-28.

Mishra R. C. et al. 1996. Ecology, Acculturation and Psychological Adaptation: A Study of Adivasis in Bihar. New Delhi: Sage.

Murphey, H. B. M. 1977. "Migration, Culture, and Mental Health." Psychological Medicine 7:677-684.

Oberg, K. 1960. "Cultural Shock: Adjustment to a New Cultural Environment." Practical Anthropology 7: 177-182.

OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) 2001. Trends in International Migration. Annual Report, Australia.

Patridge, K. 1987. "Acculturation Attitudes and Stress of Westerners Living in Japan." in J. W. Berry and R.C. Annis (eds.), Ethnic Psychology: Research and Practice with Immigrants, Refugees,…, pp 105-113. Berwyn, PA: Swets North America.

Powell, J. W. 1880. Introduction to the Study of Indian Languages (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C. Government Printing Office. 

Ramirez, M. I. 1984. "Assessing and Understanding Biculturalism-Multiculturalism in Mexican-American Adults, in J.L. Martinez (ed.), Chicano Psychology (2ed.) pp 77-94, New York: Academic Press.

Redfield, R., Linton, R. and Herskovits, M. 1936. "Memorandum on the Study of Acculturation." American Anthropologist 38: 149-152.

Rogler, L. H., and et al. 1991. "Acculturation and Mental Health Status Among Hispanics." American Psychologist 46, 6: 585-597.

Rogler, L. H., and et al. 1983. A Conceptual Framework for Mental Health Research on Hispanic Population. New York:  Fordham University Hispanic Research Center.

Rogler, L. H., and et al. 1987.  "The Migration Experience and Mental Health: Formulations Relevant to Hispanics and Other Immigrants." in M. Gaviria & J. D. Arena (eds.), Health and Behaviour: Research Agenda for Hispanics.  pp 72-84, Chicago: University of Chicago.

Sabagh, J. B. & Bozorgmehr, M. 1994.  "Secular Immigrants: Ethnicity and Religiosity Among Iranian Muslims in Los Angeles." In Haddad, Y.Y., & Smith, J.(eds.), The Muslim Communities of North America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sam, D. L. and Berry, J. W. 1995.  "Acculturation Stress among Young Immigrants in Norway." Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 36: 10-24.

Saruk, A. and Gulutsan, S. 1970. "Academic Performance of Students and Cultural Orientation of their Parent." Alberta Journal of Educational Research 16: 189-195.

Schild, E.O. 1962. "The Foreign Student as Stranger, Learning the Norms of the Host Culture. Journal of Social Issues 18:41-54.

Segall, M.H. and et al. 1999. Human Behaviour in Global Perspective: An Introduction to Cross-Cultural Psychology. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon

Searle, W. & Ward, C. 1990. "The Prediction of Psychological and Socio-cultural Adjustment During Cross-cultural Transitions." International Journal of Intercultural Relations 14: 449-464.

Shahidian, H. 2000.  “Sociology and Exile: Banishment and Tensional Loyalties." Current Sociology 48, 2:71-99.

Social Science Research Council 1954. "Acculturation: an Exploratory Formulation." American Anthropologist 56: 973-1002.

Sommerlad, E. A., and Berry, J. W. 1970. "The Role of Ethnic Identification in Distinguishing between Attitudes towards Assimilation and Integration of a Minority Racial Group." Human Relations 23; 23-29.

Stonequist, E. V. 1935. "The Problem of Marginal Man." American Journal of Sociology 41: 1-12.

Stralker, P. 1940. The Work of Strangers: A Survey of International Labour Migration. International Labour Office, Genva.

Taft, R. 1963. "The Assimilation Orientation of Immigrants and Australians." Human Relations 16:279-293.

Taft, R. 1983. "Methodological Consideration in the Study of Immigrant Adaptation in Australia." Australian Journal of Psychology 38:339-346.

Tylor, A. 1994.  "The Construction of Cross-Cultural Miscommunication: Conflict in Perception, Negotiation, and Enactment of Participant Role and Status." Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17: 129-148.

Van den Broeck, J. (ed.) 1996.  The Economics of Labour Migration.  Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, United Kingdom.

William, C. . and Berry, J. A. 1998. "Primary Prevention of Acculturative Stress among Refugees." American Psychologist 46: 632-641.

Yekrangi, A. 1998.  Iran: History: Emigration. At: http://www.cyberiran.com/history/
emigration.html

Zak, I. 1973. "Dimension of Jewish-American Identity." Psychological Reports 33: 891-900.
 
 
 

Return to Sociation Today Spring 2008