The Differences (or Similarities) Between Ethnic identity, Cultural identity, and Acculturation

With an unprecedented increase in the international immigration rate, many social scientists like to study many aspects of cultures that interact with the entire immigration process, as well as many changes that occur in recipient countries as well as immigration groups became. Review of attitudes, cultural and / or behavioral changes arising from the process of community immigration and adaptation have identified three structures that attract researchers' attention.

The structure of national identity and cultural adaptation is not clear (Liebkind, 2001; Phinney, 1990, 1998) and often these two concepts are used interchangeably (Nguyen, Messé, & Stollak, 1999). However, I believe that cultural adaptation is a wider structure, such as behavior, attitudes and values ​​that change with cultural touch. Ethnic identity is an aspect of cultural adaptation that focuses on the subjective sense of belonging to a group or culture (Phinney, 1990). As an aspect of cultural adaptation, ethnic identity can be thought of in terms of a theoretical framework for understanding cultural adaptation. Current viewpoints emphasize cultural adaptation rather than a linear process of change, but it is necessary to abandon the original culture of that person and integrate it into a new culture (Berry, 1990, 1997; LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton), 1993; Nguyen et al., 1999; Sayegh & Lasry, 1993)

There are two identity models in the literature of cultural adaptation theory. The linear model shows that as individuals strengthen their identities in new cultures, weaken the identity in the original culture (crucible). The two-dimensional model shows that the relationship between individuals and the original culture and new culture is an independent dimension (salad ball). One option here is to be closely related to both cultures, which is the present spirit (Ramirez 1984, Szapocznik & Kurtines 1980). Elements of bicultural competence (LaFromboise et al. 1993) have been proposed, and by using identity and behavior as separate dimensions, various bicultural styles can be described (Birman 1994). Several studies have decided to select a reference group label (eg, racial identification, bicartural, mainstream identification) for the participants, then find a logical relationship between label selection and cultural adaptive attitude Request (Rotheram-Borus 1990). Empirical research is behind theory

The cultural adaptation model of Berry (1990, 1997) is a useful starting point for understanding the evolution of ethnic identity (Phinney, 1990). Through a two-dimensional model of similar cultural adaptation, the national identity and identity ("national identity") as a member of a new society can be regarded as two dimensions of an independently changing group identity, ie each identity Strong, safe, or undeveloped and weak (eg Bourisis, Moise, Perreault, and Senecal, 1997). Individuals agreeing to a new society while maintaining a strong social identity are considered to have a comprehensive (or two cultural) identity. People who have a strong national identity but do not agree with the new culture have independent identities and abandon ethnic identity and