The Specificity Principle in Acculturation ScienceMarc H. .docx

The Specificity Principle in Acculturation Science
Marc H. Bornstein
Child and Family Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National
Institute of Child Health and Human
Development, National Institutes of Health, Public Health
Service
Abstract
The Specificity Principle in Acculturation Science asserts that
specific setting conditions of
specific people at specific times moderate specific domains in
acculturation by specific processes.
Our understanding of acculturation depends critically on what is
studied where, in whom, how,
and when. This article defines, explains, and illustrates the
Specificity Principle in Acculturation
Science. Research hypotheses about acculturation can be more
adequately tested, inconsistencies
and discrepancies in the acculturation literature can be
satisfactorily resolved, acculturation
interventions can be tailored to be more successful, and
acculturation policies can be brought to
new levels of effectiveness if the specificity principle that

governs acculturation science is more
widely recognized.
Migration and Acculturation
The world is in motion. Throughout human history, people have
been on the move, and
migration and acculturation have been facts of the human
condition ever since peoples of the
African savannah radiated outward in their treks to new lands
(Cann, Stoneking, & Wilson,
1987; Jin et al., 1999; Stringer, 1988). Polynesian expansion,
Phoenician trade, Jewish
diaspora, Persian realm, Alexandrian conquest, Roman
hegemony, Hun invasion, Umayyad
caliphate, Viking settlement, Ifat sultanate, Hanseatic league,
and Columbian exchange
illuminate the history of successive intercultural contacts, just
as, beginning 23 centuries BC
with Sargon’s expansion of Akkad across the Fertile Crescent,
Egyptian, Kushite, Aksumite,
Ottoman, Inca, Mongol, Songhai, Moghul, Napoleonic, and
British empires—all
intercultural permeations—followed one another inexorably.
Indeed, human beings have not

ceased migrating even though virtually all habitable places on
earth have long since been
settled.
It comes as little surprise, then, that migration and acculturation
are global concerns in our
own time. Everywhere one looks, the numbers stun. What in
1990 was 154 million and in
2000 175 million, the United Nations (U.N.) Population
Division reported that as of 2015
nearly 245 million people live outside the country of their birth
or citizenship. That
translates into roughly 1 in every 30 people on the face of the
globe (United Nations, 2016).
Address correspondence to: Dr. Marc H. Bornstein, Child and
Family Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of
Child
Health and Human Development, Suite 8030, 6705 Rockledge
Drive, Bethesda MD 20892-7971, USA, TEL: 301-496-6832,
FAX:
301-496-2766, [email protected]
HHS Public Access
Author manuscript
Perspect Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC
2018 January 01.
Published in final edited form as:
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2017 January ; 12(1): 3–45.
doi:10.1177/1745691616655997.

A
u
th
o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
A
u
th
o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
A
u
th
o
r M
a

n
u
scrip
t
A
u
th
o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
The top three countries in the world with foreign born as
percentages of their populations are
Luxembourg with 42%, Israel with 32%, and Switzerland with
28%. In 2010, about 6.5% of
the total population of European countries had foreign
nationalities, and 9.4% were born
abroad (Vasileva, 2011). As has been observed, if subsequent
generations are added to first-
generation migrants the numbers become even bigger. Western
European countries have

about 20% immigrants (up to the third generation), and
Australia has more than twice that
number.
The quantity of people forced to flee their homes – within their
countries as well as
internationally – far surpassed 60 million in 2015. The U.N.
High Commissioner for
Refugees estimated that at one point in 2015 an average of
~5,000 migrants a day travelled
just from Turkey to Greece. In the “biblical march” of refugees
from the Middle East to the
European Union (E.U.), about 1.1 million people sought
protection in Germany in 2015, and
Austria reported that asylum applications increased 231% from
2014 to 2015; by the close
of 2015, more than 170,000 migrants had entered Slovenia,
equivalent to approximately 8%
of the country’s extant population, and more than 160,000
Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans and
others applied for asylum in Sweden in 2015.
Most contemporary societies are far from culturally
homogenous, but entertain (usually
roiling) sociopolitical conditions associated with such vibrant

emigration and/or
immigration. Migration is consequently one of the defining
issues of the 21st C and currently
forms an essential feature of the social and economic life of
virtually every contemporary
nation state.
The United States is “a nation of immigrants” (Kennedy, 1964).
The largest numerical
foreign-born population in the world resides in the United
States, which was home to 47
million foreign-residents in 2015, or 19% of the population
(United Nations, 2016). In the
18th C, when the colonies proclaimed their independence from
Great Britain, the colonists
were all immigrants clinging to a narrow strip of land on the
North American continent’s
eastern seaboard. Assembled in Philadelphia, the colonists’
representatives charged Thomas
Jefferson to write out their Declaration of Independence. That
celebrated document is
surprisingly short, divided into three main parts. The first is a
crisp statement of natural
rights. In the second part, Jefferson and his compatriots
enumerated 18 grievances the

colonists held against the King of England. In Number 7, the
colonists, being migrants and
wanting to promote immigration and increase their numbers,
remonstrated King George for
having “endeavored to prevent the population of these States; …
obstructing the Laws of
Naturalization of Foreigners; [and] refusing to pass others to
encourage their migrations
hither ….”. In the third part, the Founding Fathers explicitly
“reminded” their British
cousins “of the circumstances of [their] emigration and
settlement… .”
So, the United States is, and has always been, a country of
acculturating peoples, even if the
countries of origin of its naturalizing citizens have constantly
shifted. Since its founding, the
United States has sustained two distinct waves of authorized
immigration (discounting
unauthorized immigration in the form of the slave trade that
dominated the 18th to mid-19th
Cs). The first from Europe reached a crescendo at the turn of
the 20th C. Today’s second
wave of immigrants emanates from Latin America and Asia. The
total population of Latin

Bornstein Page 2
2018 January 01.
A
u
th
o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
A
u
th
o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
A
u
th

o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
A
u
th
o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
Americans reached 55.4 million in 2014 or 17.4% of the total
U.S. population (Krogstad &
Lopez, 2015), making people of Latin origin the nation’s largest
ethnic minority. Between
July 1, 2011, and July 1, 2012, 1.1 million Latin Americans
constituted close to half of the

approximately 2.3 million people added to the U.S. population
during the same period (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2012a). The projected 2060 Latin American
population of the United States
is 128.8 million, or 31% of the U.S. population (Krogstad &
Lopez, 2015; Passel, Cohn, &
Gonzalez-Barrera, 2012; U.S. Census Bureau, 2012b).
A record total of 20.25 million Asian Americans (U. S. Census
Bureau, 2014) expanded
more than 45% between 2000 and 2012 (Hoeffel, Rastogi, Kim,
& Shahid, 2012) to
constitute more than 5% of the population of the United States.
Natural population growth
accounted for a small proportion of this increase (Humes, Jones,
Ramirez, 2011); rather,
Asian American population growth was fueled by immigration
and is projected to triple by
2050, when approximately 50% of Asian Americans will be
foreign born (Passel & Cohn,
2008; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Children of immigrants are
currently the fastest growing
population of children in the United States, accounting for
nearly 1 in 4 of all children living
in America (Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family

Statistics, 2011).
Migrants bring one culture into contact with another culture.
Culture defines the ways in
which a collection of people processes and makes sense of their
experiences, and so
generally speaking culture refers to shared meanings,
understandings, or referents and
permeates a wide array of biological, psychological, and social
processes (Bornstein, 2010;
Shore, 2002; Triandis, 1995). Acculturation traditionally refers
to changes that take place in
all those domains as a result of contacts between culturally
dissimilar peoples (Gibson,
2001; Hunt, Schneider & Comer, 2004; Redfield, Linton, &
Herskovits, 1936).
Acculturation transpires at both individual and societal levels.
At the societal level,
acculturation involves changes in social structures, service
institutions, and cultural
practices. At the individual level, acculturation involves
changes in a person’s customs,
habits, activities, language, and values. Immigrants face
multiple challenges in acculturating
within a dominant or existing society, retaining or surrendering

beliefs and behaviors from
their culture of origin while eschewing or adopting those from
their culture of destination.
Thus, acculturation is a complex phenomenon comprising
multiple processes and is rightly
thought of as an instance of the most thoroughgoing sort of
individual disorganization and
reorganization. For example, immigrants may convert overnight
from membership in the
majority group in their culture of origin to membership in a
minority group in their culture
of destination (Schwartz, Unger, Zamboanga, & Szapocznik,
2010).
What this Article Aims to Do, its Context, and Limitations
The main aim of this article is to deconstruct the topical and
higher-order construct of
acculturation through the introduction, explication, and
illustration of five terms that
compose a Specificity Principle in Acculturation Science. The
five terms consist of specific
setting conditions, specific peoples, specific times, specific
processes, and specific domains
of acculturation. Their recognition and regard are meant to
transform acculturation science

in ways that may be consequential theoretically, heuristic
empirically, and useful practically.
The notion of acculturation dates back at least to Plato, and
modern psychological thinking
Bornstein Page 3
2018 January 01.
A
u
th
o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
A
u
th
o
r M
a
n
u

scrip
t
A
u
th
o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
A
u
th
o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
about acculturation began with G. Stanley Hall (1904) and
Thomas and Znaniecki

(1918/1958), even if the construct entered the scientific
literature a bit earlier through
linguistics (Powell, 1880, 1900) and sociology (McGee, 1898).
Since Taft (1953, 1957) and
Born (1970), acculturation has been widely theorized to consist,
in a nutshell, of a small
number of categories or types: assimilation, separation,
integration, and marginalization. The
Specificity Principle offers a more nuanced and realistic logical
next step in the
advancement of acculturation science. The Specificity Principle
stands in contrast to that
typological construction, asserting a perspective that is
sensitive to the many variations
found among contemporary migrants and their circumstances
and so promises greater
fidelity to acculturation study and greater purchase on
explanatory power than any “one size
fits all” belief. The overarching theory that grounds the
Specificity Principle, and thus the
central argument of specificity, appeals to a moderator view
that focuses on how key factors
influence the size and direction of acculturation: As the
burgeoning literature amply reveals,

moderator effects are pervasive in acculturation, and here I
illustrate them with numerous
examples.
It is important to underscore at the outset that the following
treatment is not exhaustive in
delineating terms of specificity in acculturation, so this article
does not pretend to be the
final word on which variables to include or exclude in
specificity. It is only a start. Nor are
the five terms of the Specificity Principle as enumerated and
elaborated here rigidly
mutually exclusive, but as in many taxonomies the terms
sometimes interact and marginally
infringe on one another, and so their interactions are also
discussed. Nonetheless, conceptual
distinctions among the main terms of the Specificity Principle
will be intuitive. Further, this
article does not comprehensively review all studies in
acculturation; already that flourishing
literature does not submit to easy summary. Rather, the goal
here is to demonstrate the value
of integrating information from diverse perspectives in
fundamentally re-thinking the next

developments in acculturation theory, science, and research. To
substantiate its practical
worth, the article concludes with a brief exploration of
prominent implications of this new
specificity view in acculturation science for empiricism and
praxis.
In lifespan human development some characteristics and
experiences have broad
implications. Where one is born, how much education one
accrues, one’s gender, as
examples, doubtless have pervasive consequences over the life
course. Even so, as life
proceeds, advantages and disadvantages cumulate to
heterogeneity—so much so that
variability and so specificity are inevitable. That is, the lifespan
development of specific
characteristics in specific individuals is affected by specific
experiences in specific ways at
specific times. This is the Specificity Principle. To complement
universals, understanding
often depends on what is studied, in whom, how, and when. The
Specificity Principle
therefore differs from many common assumptions, for example
that overall stimulation

influences overall development or better diet ensures better
health. Some such generalities
may be valid. However, it is not the case necessarily that a
monolithic global shared
experience affects performance in all areas of life, is adequate
to adaptive functioning, or
compensates for selective deficiencies. Familial love, financial
well-being, or a stimulating
environment do not guarantee, or even speak to, lifespan
development of specific
characteristics, such as a healthy diet, empathic personality,
verbal competence, sports
prowess, ethical action, or myriad others. Rather, contemporary
science indicates that
Bornstein Page 4
2018 January 01.
A
u
th
o
r M
a
n
u

scrip
t
A
u
th
o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
A
u
th
o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
A
u
th

o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
specificities are often at play. The Specificity Principle
advances a theory that is
particularistic in nature, such that development depends on
several separate identifiable
factors, including the experience involved, who experiences and
who generates the
experience, when in life the experience occurs, how the
experience occurs, and the domain
of development affected by experience.
Relatedly, with respect to philosophy of science, specificity is
not contending absolute
reductionism. As noted, the life course embraces some
generalizations. As will become
evident, acculturation naturally does so as well. It is possible to
hold to specificity and to
acknowledge some generalizations (marked along the way and
in the conclusions).

Specificity in Acculturation
A widespread assumption in contemporary acculturation study
is that the processes and
pathways of acculturation are categorical and essentially
universal. In précis, individuals
who relinquish their culture-of-origin identity and adopt the
values, norms, and traditions of
their culture of destination assimilate into that new culture.
Individuals who cling to their
culture of origin and eschew interaction and identification with
members of their culture of
destination separate themselves. Individuals who maintain the
integrity of their original
culture while they also participate in the mainstream culture of
destination integrate
themselves. Individuals who fail to maintain their original
culture and avoid relations with
the majority culture are said to be marginalized (Berry, 1997).
However, the emerging
literature in acculturation science reveals that acculturation is
actually a much more subtle
and differentiated process moderated by multiple factors,
disabusing us of typological

notions or broad generalities.
The Specificity Principle in Acculturation Science asserts that
specific setting
conditions of specific peoples at specific times moderate
specific domains of
acculturation via specific processes.
In the context of the prevailing typological approach to
acculturation, this principle is a bit
counterintuitive and complicates our theoretical, empirical, and
practical lives -- but is
nonetheless emerging as true. We need to parse this principle
into its several “specifics” of
setting, person, time, process, and domain to best understand
the principle, how it works,
and how to take advantage of it. Figure 1 shows the plan. Here,
I deconstruct acculturation
and define, examine, and illustrate each term of the specificity
principle as well as their
interactions and afterward briefly discuss the principle’s
manifold implications for science
and policy, asserting a next step in the intellectual progression
of understanding
acculturation.

Specificity Principle: Setting Condition
Setting conditions of acculturation include reasons for
migrating, place, experience, and
status. That is, migration arises for myriad causes, such as
natural or predictable responses
with respect to resources, occupation, family reunification,
demographic growth, climate
change, financial insecurity, exploitation of human rights,
political or religious persecution,
and war. Emigration can occur from any country, and
immigration to any country, and so all
Bornstein Page 5
2018 January 01.
A
u
th
o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
A

u
th
o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
A
u
th
o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
A
u
th
o
r M
a

n
u
scrip
t
possible combinations and permutations of place are possible.
Other relevant setting
conditions at the societal and individual levels involve
immersion experience, legal status,
and so forth. Each setting condition moderates acculturation
meaningfully.
Setting Condition: Reason to Migrate
Migration may be voluntary or involuntary, temporary or
permanent. Some migrants
leave their homelands by choice, in search of family reunion
and marriage, economic
opportunity and employment, the promise of a stable and
prosperous future for themselves
and their children, or a more compatible sociopolitical climate
as in expatriation (Perreira,
Chapman, & Stein, 2006). A frequent pathway to acculturation,
accounting for about two-
thirds of permanent immigration to the United States for
example, is through desired family

reunification as promoted by the Immigration Act of 1965 (and
analogously Canada’s
Immigration Act of 1952). Economic theory posits that
migration is also motivated by the
desire to maximize economic well-being (Borjas, 1987). As
voluntary migrants to the United
States, Jamaican families profess to emigrate for better
economic and educational
opportunities rather than to escape oppression or human rights
violations (Ferguson,
Bornstein, & Pottinger, 2012). Temporary sojourners (foreign
students, religious
proselytizers, occupying soldiers, guest workers) usually
relocate on a time-limited basis
with intentions to return to their country of origin (Berry, 2006;
Schwartz et al., 2010).
By contrast with these classes of voluntary migrants,
involuntary migrants may be brought
permanently into contact with a new culture for political
reasons or through slavery, escape,
abuse, persecution, defection, financial extortion, sexual
exploitation, conquest, or
colonization (Gieling, Thijs, & Verkuyten, 2011; Ogbu, 1991).
During the reign of the

generals in South American countries such as Argentina and
Chile, droves of the middle
class sought refuge in their ancestors’ home countries in
Western Europe. Refugees
displaced by war or natural disasters are currently estimated at
15.1 million persons
worldwide (UN HCR, 2015). Asylum seekers from war zones
and terror regimes pursue
sanctuary in a new country because of fear of persecution or
violence. Since 2013, Europe
has witnessed a sharp increase in the number of such asylees. In
Germany, more than 35,000
people applied for political asylum in the month of June 2015
alone (Bundesamt für
Migration und Flüchtlinge, 2015). The United States has
witnessed a surge of families and
unaccompanied minors since 2014 that originated in Central
America on account of drug
trafficking, gang violence, and extreme droughts across the
Golden Triangle of El Salvador,
Honduras, and Guatemala. North Korea is unwittingly fostering
clandestine “chain
migrations” among family members who escape hunger and
repression to the South and then

mount funds to bribe brokers and secret relatives out of the
North in seriatim. These different
motives surrounding migration – voluntary versus involuntary,
temporary versus permanent
– and the vulnerabilities and strengths that each introduces
condition different pathways of
acculturation.
Impetuses and experiences of immigrants who choose their
culture of destination versus
ones who do not differ qualitatively and in ways that shape the
drive or opportunity of each
to adapt to their new culture (Akhtar, 1999). For example,
historical reasons for migration
have been invoked to explain why contemporary African
American mothers parent in one
Bornstein Page 6
2018 January 01.
A
u
th
o
r M
a

n
u
scrip
t
A
u
th
o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
A
u
th
o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
A
u

th
o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
way and Mexican American mothers parent in a different way:
Individuals with family
histories of voluntary immigration for economic reasons display
less resistance to the
dominant culture than individuals with family histories of
forced migration through
enslavement (Ispa et al., 2013; Nguyen & Benet-Martínez,
2010). Holroyd, Molassiotis, and
Taylor-Pilliae (2001) compared three types of biculturals,
keeping overarching cultural
context constant: immigrants who permanently relocated from
one cultural context to
another (Mainland Chinese immigrants to Hong Kong),
sojourners who worked in the
foreign culture for limited periods of time (Filipina domestic

helpers in Hong Kong), and
majority individuals who came into contact with a second
cultural group and language in
their home culture (college students in Hong Kong and in
Mainland China). Each group
followed a distinct path of acculturative change.
Setting Condition: Place
Place, a second setting condition, has several construals, each
of which moderates
acculturation. One reading of place is the culture of origin.
Unlike their Western European
immigrant peers to Israel, immigrants from the former Soviet
Union (FSU) to Israel were
not able to withdraw their savings before emigration; these
contrasting financial constraints
had contrasting consequences for the subsequent economic
independence and security of
each group as immigrants (Mirsky & Barasch, 1993). Although
95% of authorized
immigration to the United States from Mexico occurs for
reasons of family unification,
percentages appealing to that rationale vary dramatically among
the top nations sending
emigrants to the United States: Philippines (77%), Vietnam

(68%), Taiwan (59%), and India
(43%). Acculturation among Latin American immigrants to the
United States similarly
depends on their country of origin (Mendoza, Javier, & Burgos,
2007): Dominican American
and Mexican American infants’ vocabulary acquisition, even
though both are Spanish
speaking and living New York City, differ (Song, Tamis-
LeMonda, Yoshikawa, Kahana-
Kalman, & Wu, 2012). Patterns of residence and geographic
mobility among Puerto Ricans
in the United States differ from those of other Latino groups,
such as Mexicans and Cubans
(Denton & Massey, 1989; Massey & Bitterman, 1985; South,
Crowder, & Chavez, 2005);
Puerto Ricans tend to be segregated from non-Latino Whites at
higher rates, and Puerto
Ricans fare more poorly on a variety of health outcomes
(diabetes during pregnancy, asthma
prevalence among children) compared with other Latino groups
(Hajat, Lucas, & Kingston,
2000; Kieffer, Martin, & Herman, 1999; Lara, Akinbami,
Flores, & Morgenstern, 2006;
Zsembik & Fennell, 2005). Likewise, Asian Americans describe

heterogeneous groups of
peoples in the United States who trace their ancestry to many
Asian countries (Barringer,
Gardner, & Levin, 1993; Lowe, 1991).
Early adolescents emigrating from China, Central America, the
Dominican Republic, Haiti,
and Mexico and migrating to the United States all separated
from one or both parents for
extended periods and were all likely to report depressive
symptoms (Suárez-Orozco &
Suárez-Orozco, 2001). However, these groups differed in how
separations were managed.
Chinese families frequently migrated as a unit, whereas Haitians
nearly always incurred a
family disruption. Chinese children reported the fewest, and
Haitian children reported the
most, depressive symptoms. A meta-analysis of 83 studies
revealed an overall positive
association between biculturalism and adjustment (Nguyen &
Benet-Martínez, 2013).
Bornstein Page 7
2018 January 01.

n
u
scrip
t
A
u
th
o
r M
a
n
u
scrip
t
However, associations varied across immigrant groups and
across countries of origin: Latin,
Asian, and European immigrants had positive biculturalism-
adjustment associations,
whereas African immigrants had negligible or negative
associations. A study from Germany
investigated whether ethnic differences in parenting reflect
different investment strategies in
the future welfare of offspring as indicated by parents’
expectations about the

instrumentality (perceived costs and benefits) of schooling.
Comparing German mother-
child dyads, Vietnamese dyads, and Turkish dyads, Nauck and
Lotter (2015) found
differences in parenting styles, reflecting more active control in
collectivist cultures
(Vietnam) and a strong emphasis on children’s individual needs
in individualist cultures
(Germany) with an intermediate position of Turkey.
Calling on data from the New Immigrant Survey, Bradley,
Pennar, and Glick (2014)
described the home environments of children (ages birth to 3
years) whose parents legally
immigrated to the United States. Results revealed stark
variation in 32 indicators of home
conditions by both country (Mexico, El Salvador, India,
Philippines) and region (East Asia,
Europe, Caribbean, Africa). Similarly, when Xu, Farver, and
Krieg (2017) compared the
home environments of Chinese Americans, Filipino Americans,
and Vietnamese Americans,
they uncovered group differences in parents’ English reading
skills and involvement in

literacy activities in English and in their native language as well
as in the numbers of
children’s picture books in the home. Hernandez and Napierala
(2012) reported that more
than 60% of children whose parents immigrated from Western
Europe, India, and Africa to
the United States attended prekindergarten, whereas fewer than
50% of parents who
migrated from other regions enrolled their children in pre-
kindergarten. In Europe, the Dutch
Generation R Study, a population-based birth cohort study from
Rotterdam, revealed large
differences in family structure across various ethnic minority
groups. Only 5% of Dutch
toddlers and their peers from Moroccan- or Turkish-origin
families were reared by a single
parent, but 40% of the children from Antillean, Cape Verdian,
and Surinamese Creole
children lived in single-parent families (Flink et al., 2012).
Generally, immigrants from non-
Western countries tend to have stronger feelings of filial
obligation than immigrants from
Western countries (e.g., Dykstra & Fokkema, 2012; Liefbroer &
Mulder, 2006). Emigrants

from some countries tend to quickly adopt their new culture,
whereas emigrants from other
countries tend to maintain their ancestral culture (van de Vijver,
2017).
A second reading of place is the culture of destination. Here,
the compositions of local and
larger cultures are meaningful moderators of acculturation.
Many immigrants reside among
smaller or larger groups of co-nationals after migration. For
example, contemporary
Jamaican immigrants have established ethnic enclaves around
the United States, including
New York City and South Florida (Foner, …
American Journal of Public Health | August 2006, Vol 96, No.
81342 | Commentary | Peer Reviewed | Abraído-Lanza
Toward a Theory-Driven Model of Acculturation in
Public Health Research
| Ana F. Abraído-Lanza, PhD, Adria N. Armbrister, MA, Karen
R. Flórez, MPH, and Alejandra N. Aguirre, MPHInterest in
studying the
impact of acculturation on
immigrant health has in-
creased in tandem with the
growth of the Latino popu-

lation in the United States.
Linear assimilation models
continue to dominate public
health research despite the
availability of more complex
acculturation theories that
propose multidimensional
frameworks, reciprocal in-
teractions between the indi-
vidual and the environment,
and other acculturative proc-
esses among various Latino
groups.
Because linear and uni-
dimensional assessments
(e.g., nativity, length of stay
in the United States, and
language use) provide con-
stricted measures of accul-
turation, the rare use of
multidimensional accultura-
tion measures and models
has inhibited a more com-
prehensive understanding
of the association between
specific components of ac-
culturation and particular
health outcomes. A public
health perspective that in-
corporates the roles of struc-
tural and cultural forces in
acculturation may help iden-
tify mechanisms underlying
links between acculturation
and health among Latinos.

(Am J Public Health. 2006;
96:1342–1346. doi:10.2105/
AJPH.2005.064980)
BECAUSE OF ITS ORIENTATION
in and emphasis on health dis-
parities, the field of public health
should pay particular attention
to the impact of acculturation
on the health of Latinos. Latinos
are currently the largest ethnic
minority group in the United
States, numbering 35.3 million
persons and comprising 12.5%
of the country’s population.1
Although the percentage varies
across the different Latino
groups, more than two thirds
(65.2%) of Latinos (excluding
Puerto Ricans) living in the
United States are foreign-born.2
This large proportion of immi-
grants illustrates, in part, the
importance of considering
acculturation in research on
the health of Latinos.
Although definitions vary, ac-
culturation is broadly described
as the process by which individu-
als adopt the attitudes, values,
customs, beliefs, and behaviors
of another culture.3,4 The process
of acculturation presents numer-

ous challenges and life changes
that could potentially benefit or
adversely affect the health of im-
migrants as well as subsequent
US-born generations. Therefore,
it is important to consider accul-
turation processes when studying
the health of all Latinos in the
United States.
In the social and behavioral sci-
ences, there is a rich theoretical
literature on acculturation; how-
ever, models from this literature
have not been applied to much
public health research. Theoreti-
cally grounded studies of accul-
turation could provide effective
analytic tools for current efforts to
address health disparities among
Latinos. Because of its orientation
toward and examination of large-
scale structural and cultural forces
that promote health, prevent dis-
ease, and affect illness experi-
ences, a public health perspective
on acculturation may offer a
deeper understanding of Latino
health. Thus, a public health ap-
proach could contribute much to
the development and refinement
of acculturation theory and simul-
taneously address the health
needs of Latino populations in the
United States.

ACCULTURATION THEORY
AND MEASUREMENT
Research on acculturation and
health has not kept pace with ac-
culturation theory. As illustrated
in detailed reviews of the accul-
turation literature,3–7 in the early
1900s numerous social scientists
offered various acculturation the-
ories. The most influential mod-
els were set forth by sociologists
from the human ecological
school of thought, most notably
Park.8 In essence, Park proposed
a linear and directional process
by which loss of the original cul-
ture occurs through greater ac-
culturation. Despite the evolution
of more elaborate paradigms in
the social and behavioral sci-
ences, these linear assimilation
models were adopted by much
of the public health research on
acculturation.
With few notable exceptions,9
reciprocal acculturation processes,
or the influence of immigrant
groups on American society, re-
main virtually untested,7 as do
other more expansive contempo-
rary theories. Such models posit

orthogonal relations between the
original and the new culture,10 re-
sulting in various orientations that
include biculturalism (e.g., strong
adherence to both Mexican and
American value systems). Other
multidimensional models propose
typologies on the basis of cultural
awareness and ethnic loyalty.11
Still others postulate that immi-
grants selectively adopt traits and
behaviors from the new culture,
especially those traits leading to
increased economic and social
mobility, while maintaining cer-
tain values from their original
culture.3,4
There are numerous scales
available to measure accultura-
tion, perhaps reflecting its di-
verse conceptualizations. Al-
though the measurement of
acculturation is a matter of con-
troversy and debate12 in public
health literature, indexes of ac-
culturation that predominate are
nativity or generational status,
length of residence in the
United States, and language use.
These simple descriptors are
useful in laying the groundwork
for acculturation and for de-
scribing the heterogeneity of the
Latino population, but they are

limited in their ability to capture
all the nuances of acculturation
and to tap directly immigrants’
adherence to American values.
Furthermore, such proxy mea-
sures largely reflect the linear
and directional assumption of
earlier acculturation theories. To
August 2006, Vol 96, No. 8 | American Journal of Public Health
Abraído-Lanza | Peer Reviewed | Commentary | 1343
address some of these problems,
multidimensional scales have
been developed to tap domains
such as language, food, and
music preferences; the extent of
social ties and contacts with
friends of the same ethnic
group; parents’ place of birth;
ethnic identity; and social affilia-
tion with Latinos versus
Anglos.9,13,14 However, many of
these scales are scored by sum-
ming across items (with greater
scores reflecting strong adher-
ence to Anglo culture). Such
procedures minimize the utility
of measuring the multiple di-
mensions of acculturation.15,16
Greater advances in research

on acculturation and health
could be made if acculturation
were represented as a “latent
variable” with various indicators.
This allows the measurement of
Latino cultural “worldviews” or
belief systems, values (e.g., indi-
vidualism vs familialism), linguis-
tic preferences, and other behav-
iors and preferences, which
would represent the latent vari-
able of acculturation. Moreover,
the use of more elaborate statis-
tical techniques, such as struc-
tural equations,17 allows for the
associations between specific in-
dicators of acculturation and var-
ious health outcomes to be mod-
eled. Furthermore, because
health behaviors encompass a
disparate array of variables,
ranging from dietary practices to
the use of social support systems,
acculturation may be measured
best by considering factors rele-
vant to the particular health
issue at hand, rather than by a
monolithic “acculturation” con-
cept. For example, research on
obesity may be best served by
asking specific acculturation
questions on nutrition (e.g., ad-
herence to “traditional” diets
consisting of low-fat foods such
as beans, rice, and vegetables) or

other culturally based behaviors
(e.g., attitudes about exercise).
This would help identify the spe-
cific components of acculturation
that are associated with particu-
lar health outcomes.18
Many existing theories and
scales disregard historical, socie-
tal, and other structural factors,
as well as social dynamics that
promote and maintain specific
acculturation orientations or pat-
terns, such as biculturalism.
Pochismo, which is the fusion and
crystallization of American and
Mexican cultural elements that
evolved among Mexican Ameri-
cans of the southern border of
the United States,19 is a salient
example of this type of bicultur-
alism. In fact, pochismo could be
considered a distinct and free-
standing culture with its own
language (Spanglish), music, and
identity that evolved from the
dynamic and reciprocal interac-
tion of Mexican and American
cultures in the border region and
that would prove very difficult to
assess with current acculturation
measures.
As described in subsequent
sections, however, historical and
sociopolitical factors that influ-

ence immigration vary across the
different Latino groups. There-
fore, the specific types of social
and structural factors that should
be taken into account may de-
pend on the particular Latino
group being studied.
ACCULTURATION AS A
HEALTH RISK OR A
PROTECTIVE FACTOR
The integration of accultura-
tion theory into public health re-
search could advance the study
of various Latino health issues.
With respect to global health
indicators, such as all-cause
mortality and life expectancy,
there is growing evidence of bet-
ter health among Latinos than
among non-Latino Whites.20–24
However, high levels of accul-
turation among Latinos are asso-
ciated with increased rates of
cancer, infant mortality, and
other indicators of poor physical
and mental health.3,25 With
some exceptions,26 rates of risky
health behaviors (e.g., smoking,
alcohol use, high body mass
index) also increase with accul-
turation.17,23,27–33 These findings
suggest that, in the process of

acculturation, Latinos may be
exposed to different risk factors
or may adopt unhealthy behav-
iors that result in shifts in mor-
bidity and mortality for various
diseases.
The results are not all nega-
tive, however. Although accul-
turation is a “risk factor” for
myriad unhealthy behaviors,
there is also some evidence that
it is associated with several
healthy behaviors, such as
greater exercise and leisure-time
physical activity.17,27,28,34 The
observations that acculturation
can be both a risk and a protec-
tive factor for various health be-
haviors requires further study.17
However, research on these is-
sues has been hampered by the
measurement problems de-
scribed in the previous section.
For example, multidimensional
scales may be useful in identify-
ing specific components of ac-
culturation, such as norms con-
cerning smoking or alcohol
consumption, that present risk
or protective factors for particu-
lar health problems, such as to-
bacco use or binge drinking.9
The role of acculturation as a

risk and protective factor also
raises some intriguing theoreti-
cal issues and unanswered
questions.
NEED FOR THEORETICAL
MODELS
Despite growing evidence of
the association between accul-
turation and health behaviors
among Latinos in the United
States, few theories have been
proposed to explain these ef-
fects. In general, there is a great
lack of theoretical models on ac-
culturation and physical health
outcomes.35
Acculturation may be a proxy
for other variables, such as pro-
longed exposure to stressful
events or adverse circumstances,
including those associated with
immigration and eventual settle-
ment, or disadvantaged social
status. Although proxy variables
have not been fully investigated,
the adverse effect of accultura-
tion on health is not always at-
tenuated when adjusting for so-
cial disadvantage confounders
(specifically, socioeconomic sta-
tus).17,25 To date, there is a lack
of research on theoretical models
concerning the mechanisms by

which acculturation affects
health. Acculturation may affect
health behaviors as a conse-
quence of coping responses to
discrimination and poverty; loss
of social networks; exposure to
different models of health behav-
ior; and changes in identity, be-
havioral prescriptions, beliefs,
values, or norms.
An underlying assumption in
the literature is that beliefs or
norms concerning particular be-
haviors change with greater ac-
culturation. These mutable be-
liefs and norms are seldom
tested, however. One recent
study indicated that the majority
(almost 75%) of less accultur-
ated Latinas considered it worse
to be a smoker than to be obese,
and the majority (nearly 75%)
of more acculturated Latinas
held the opposite opinion.36 If
we assume that these norms are
reflected in women’s behavior
concerning smoking and mainte-

nance of weight, they are consis-
tent with some observations in
the literature (e.g., that accultura-
tion increases the odds of smok-
ing and exercise among Lati-
nas)27,28,37,38 but not others
(e.g., that acculturation increases
the likelihood of high body mass
index).27,28,30
Overall, changes in values,
belief systems, and worldviews
have remained unexplored in
public health research on accul-
turation and health outcomes.
Yet a growing literature docu-
ments the importance of consid-
ering the impact of acculturation
on these psychosocial variables
and their role in shaping the
health of Latinos.35,39 Whether
cultural values and other psycho-
social mechanisms—as well as
their associated effects on
health—decline with greater ac-
culturation remains a question
for further research.
ACCULTURATION TO
WHAT?
Another critical theoretical
question concerns the reference
culture to which Latinos are ac-
culturating. Although the refer-
ence group is not always speci-

fied,12 implicit in much research
on acculturation is the unwritten
understanding that White Ameri-
cans are the standard makers for
“American-ness.” In many studies
and measures, the assumption is
that increased acculturation
brings immigrants’ values and be-
haviors in line with a standard-
ized set of values, primarily those
associated with “White American
culture.”16(p39) Positing that White
culture is the reference point for
acculturation may misrepresent
acculturation and limit the under-
standing of complex health re-
sponses and outcomes among
Latinos. Therefore, a fuller
understanding of acculturation
processes among Latinos must in-
clude the interactions of Latinos
with other groups of color (whose
ability to disappear in the main-
stream is limited). This approach
must take into consideration the
prevalence of racial conflict and
the degree to which the dualistic
racial system is embedded in the
United States.40
Segmented assimilation the-
ory, which portrays immigrants
and their subsequent generations
as complex and active members
of their lived environments, pre-

sents an alternative to the as-
sumption that White culture is
invariably the reference point for
acculturation.5 Segmented assimi-
lation refers to diverse patterns
of adaptation whereby immigrant
groups differentially adopt the
attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors
of divergent cultural groups in
the United States. For example,
whereas some second-generation
Haitian adolescents do follow a
“standard” pattern of assimilation
to middle-class White America,
others adopt the values and
norms of Black inner-city youth.40
Thus, the segmented assimilation
framework documents various
potential patterns of accultura-
tion, highlighting the importance
of considering varied reference
groups and diverse patterns of
adaptation.
Pivotal to the concept of seg-
mented assimilation is the ac-
knowledgment of structural con-
straints faced by ethnic minority
groups, who often reside in large
metropolitan areas with high
rates of residential segregation
and racism.41 Often, the synergis-
tic effects of segregation and
racism isolate residents from

amenities and services and con-
centrate large numbers of mi-
norities in economically disad-
vantaged urban areas. The
inevitable interaction occurring
at economic, political, cultural,
and social levels between differ-
ent ethnic groups living in multi-
ethnic neighborhoods (e.g., Do-
minicans living with African
Americans in the South Bronx) is
largely neglected by the accultur-
ation literature. A paucity of
studies attempt to measure the
extent to which Latinos report
closeness or ideological familiar-
ity with African Americans.42
We are aware of no public health
studies that examine whether
Latinos adopt the culture of
other ethnic minority populations
in the United States, how struc-
tural factors (e.g., residential seg-
regation) may operate to promote
“ethnic minority acculturation,”
or the impact of this process on
health.
Issues such as acculturation in
the context of residential segrega-
tion, racism, and other deleteri-
ous aspects of life as a minority
in the United States demand at-
tention from a forward-thinking
public health research commu-

nity. Equally important to this
reconceptualized version of ac-
culturation is the exploration of
how ethnic enclaves might affect
health positively or negatively
through cultural, economic, and
social mechanisms.5,40 A public
health approach should consider
contextual and structural factors
in acculturation and challenge
the popular notion of White
American culture as the “accul-
turation standard.” This approach
could offer some innovative
methods to understand health
disparities in lived environments
while also effectively describing
the reality of minority groups in
the United States.
GENDER AND AGE
Research is also needed to bet-
ter understand why the effect of
acculturation on certain health
behaviors varies by gender and
age or developmental stage. For
example, as Latino men and
women acculturate, their alco-
hol use and smoking patterns
reflect the gender-related behav-
ioral norms in the United
States.31,33,38,43 In studies of
youths, greater acculturation in-
creases the likelihood of alcohol
use and smoking44–46; however,

acculturation operates with other
psychosocial factors pertinent to
the adolescent life stage (e.g.,
peer influence, low self-esteem,
self-efficacy to resist smoking and
alcohol use) to determine risky
health behaviors.47–49 Such find-
ings challenge the assumption of
a direct relation between accul-
turation and health behaviors.
These findings further illustrate
the need for more comprehen-
sive theoretical models that in-
corporate structural and contex-
tual factors, as well as mediating
variables, to explain the associa-
tion between acculturation and
health among Latinos in the
United States. Further studies
should also examine whether be-
haviors that are attributed to ac-
culturation (e.g., tobacco and al-
cohol use), instead reflect stages
of development or gender norms.
THE COMPLEXITIES OF
“CULTURE”
Simplifying culture into “eth-
nic,” “assimilated,” or other “risk”
categories (e.g., “high” vs “low”
acculturation) can inadvertently
fuel weak explanations of health
disparities by focusing attention
on culture rather than on struc-
tural constraints (e.g., lack of ac-

cess to resources).50 Yet much
August 2006, Vol 96, No. 8 | American Journal of Public Health
Abraído-Lanza | Peer Reviewed | Commentary | 1345
current research uses proxies of
culture and acculturation without
examining the societal contexts
that promote or inhibit health.
The role of individual agency on
health can be overestimated if
structural constraints are not con-
sidered.51 For example, US immi-
gration policy was amenable to
Cuban immigrants fleeing the
Castro regime (especially in the
1960s–1970s), and federal set-
tlement-assistance programs (e.g.,
the US Migration and Refugee
Assistance Act of 196252) were
established specifically to assist
them. Partly because of the up-
ward social mobility afforded by
these programs, today Cubans
are among the most healthy of
all long-standing Latino groups
in the United States.25
Other groups seeking political
asylum (e.g., Salvadorans and
Mariel Cubans), however, were
treated to noticeably less hospi-

tality. What is the impact (if
any) of these historical and po-
litical factors on acculturation
processes and health outcomes,
and how might they contribute
to different patterns among the
various Latino groups in the
United States? Although the
contextual features of accultura-
tion (e.g., circumstances before
immigrating, the political and
social climate of the United
States upon arrival) could deter-
mine the extent to which indi-
viduals and heterogeneous La-
tino groups adapt to new
environments, these contexts
are rarely studied.15,17,40
The complexity of these issues
led some researchers to suggest
that the use of acculturation
measures be suspended.12 We
disagree with this recommenda-
tion. Instead, we propose that
to understand Latino realities in
the United States, it is critical to
describe the context in which
ongoing cultural negotiations
take place and the dynamics
that reproduce and reconfig-
ure “Latino culture” according to
the equally complex American
settings in which immigrants and
other people of color find them-

selves. A consideration of the
intersection of large-scale social
forces and culture is critical to
stimulating the exploration of
much-neglected sociological con-
cepts, namely, class and power
dynamics in the public health lit-
erature on acculturation. Such
avenues of research could prove
to be fruitful in explaining the
complexities surrounding Latino
acculturation and health in the
United States.
CONCLUSIONS
Although we raise more ques-
tions than we answer, we pro-
pose that a theory-based public
health framework could con-
tribute much to understanding
the factors and mechanisms un-
derlying the association between
acculturation and health among
Latinos. If cultural norms, beliefs,
and values as well as broader
structural factors are considered,
a public health research agenda
on acculturation and health may
help to shift the paradigm from
linear models to models that are
multidimensional and more
comprehensive. A public health
framework offers the promising
opportunity to build new para-
digms that incorporate and ex-

pand on social and behavioral
science acculturation theories
and that cross disciplinary
boundaries. There is no doubt
that Latinos in the United States
face many hardships (e.g., pov-
erty, inadequate access to health
care, discrimination). However,
perhaps it is time to identify
and differentiate the cultural
resources and structural factors
that better explain how accultur-
ation affects health.
About the Authors
All authors are with the Department of
Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School
of Public Health, Columbia University,
New York, NY.
Requests for reprints should be sent to
Ana Abraído-Lanza, PhD, Department of
Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of
Public Health, Columbia University, 722
West 168 St, 5th floor, New York, NY
10032 (e-mail: [email protected]).
This article was accepted September 23,
2005.
Contributors
A. Abraído-Lanza originated the article
and took the lead role in its writing. All
authors participated in the literature re-
view and in the writing and revising of

the article.
Acknowledgments
Support for preparing this manuscript
was provided by the Initiative for Minor-
ity Student Development at Columbia’s
Mailman School of Public Health, an ed-
ucation project funded by the National
Institute of General Medical Sciences
(R25GM62454), by the National Can-
cer Institute (R03CA107876), and by
the Columbia Center for the Health of
Urban Minorities, funded by the Na-
tional Center on Minority Health and
Health Disparities (P60MD00206).
We give special thanks to Antonio T.
Abraído.
References
1. US Census Bureau. The Hispanic Pop-
ulation: Census 2000 Brief. Available at:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/
c2kbr01-3.pdf. Accessed April 21,
2006.
2. Population Profile of the United
States: 1997. Washington, DC: US
Bureau of the Census; 1998. Current
Population Reports Series P23–194.
3. Clark L, Hofsess L. Acculturation.
In: Loue S, ed. Handbook of Immigrant
Health. New York, NY: Plenum Press;
1998:37–59.

4. LaFromboise T, Coleman HLK,
Gerton J. Psychological impact of bicul-
turalism: evidence and theory. Psychol
Bull. 1993;114:395–412.
5. Zhou M. Segmented assimilation:
issues, controversies, and recent re-
search on the new second generation.
Int Migration Rev. 1997;31:975–1008.
6. Rudmin FW. Critical history of the
acculturation psychology of assimilation,
separation, integration, and marginaliza-
tion. Rev Gen Psychol. 2003;7:3–37.
7. Teske RHC, Nelson BH. Accultura-
tion and assimilation: a clarification. Am
Ethnologist. 1974;1:351–367.
8. Park RE. Human migration and
the marginal man. Am J Sociol. 1928;
33:881–893.
9. Hazuda HP, Stern MP, Haffner SM.
Acculturation and assimilation among
Mexican Americans: scales and population-
based data. Soc Sci Q. 1988;69:
687–705.
10. Berry JW. Conceptual approaches
to acculturation. In: Chun KM, Balls
Organista P, Marín G, eds. Acculturation:
Advances in Theory, Measurement and
Applied Research. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association;

2003:17–37.
11. Padilla AM. Bicultural develop-
ment: a theoretical and empirical exami-
nation. In: Malgady RG, Rodriguez O,
eds. Theoretical and Conceptual Issues in
Hispanic Mental Health. Malabar, Fla:
Krieger; 1994;19–51.
12. Hunt L, Schneider S, Comer B.
Should “acculturation” be a variable in
health research? A critical review of re-
search on US Hispanics. Soc Sci Med.
2004;59:973–986.
13. Cuellar I, Arnold B, Maldonado R.
Acculturation rating scale for Mexican
Americans, II: a revision of the original
ARSMA scale. Hispanic J Behav Sci.
1995;17:275–304.
14. Szapocznik J, Kurtines WM,
Fernandez T. Bicultural involvement
and adjustment in Hispanic-American
youths. Int J Intercultural Relations.
1980;4:353–365.
15. Cabassa LJ. Measuring accultura-
tion: where we are and where we need
to go. Hispanic J Behav Sci. 2003;25:
127–146.
16. Zane N, Mak W. Major approaches
to the measurement of acculturation
among ethnic minority populations: a con-
tent analysis and an alternative empirical

strategy. In: Chun KM, Balls Organista P,
Marín G, eds. Acculturation: Advances in
Theory, Measurement and Applied Re-
search. Washington, DC: American Psy-
chological Association; 2003:39–60.
17. Lara M, Gamboa C, Kahramanian I,
Morales L, Bautista D. Acculturation
and Latino health in the United States:
a review of the literature and its socio-
political context. Ann Rev Public Health.
2005;26:367–397.
18. National Heart, Lung, and Blood
Institute Web page. Epidemiologic Re-
search in Hispanic Populations Oppor-
tunities, Barriers and
Solution
s. Work-
ing Group July 31–August 1, 2003,

Bethesda, Md. Available at: http://www.
nhlbi.nih.gov/meetings/workshops/
hispanic.htm. Accessed April 11, 2006.
19. González Gutiérrez C. Fostering
identities: Mexico’s relationship with its di-
aspora. J Am History. 1999;86:545–567.
20. Abraído-Lanza AF, Dohrenwend
BP, Ng-Mak DS, Turner JB. The Latino
mortality paradox: a test of the “salmon
bias” and healthy migrant hypotheses. Am
J Public Health. 1999;89:1543–1548.
21. Hummer RA, Rogers RG, Amir SH,
Forbes D, Frisbie WP. Adult mortality
differentials among Hispanic subgroups
and non-Hispanic whites. Soc Sci Q.
2000;81:459–476.
22. Lin CC, Rogot E, Johnson NJ,
Sorlie PD, Arias E. A further study of
life expectancy by socioeconomic factors
in the National Longitudinal Mortality

Study. Ethn Dis. 2003;13:240–247.
23. Singh GK, Siahpush M. Ethnic-
immigrant differentials in health behav-
iors, morbidity, and cause-specific mor-
tality in the United States: an analysis
of two national databases. Hum Biol.
2002;74:83–109.
24. Sorlie PD, Backlund E, Johnson NJ,
Rogot E. Mortality by Hispanic status in
the United States. JAMA. 1993;270:
2464–2468.
25. Vega WA, Amaro H. Latino out-
look: good health, uncertain prognosis.
Annu Rev Public Health. 1994;15:39–67.
26. Hazuda HP, Haffner SM, Stern
MP, Clayton WE. Effects of accultura-
tion and socioeconomic status on obe-
sity and diabetes in Mexican Ameri-
cans. Am J Epidemiol. 1988;128:
1289–1301.

27. Abraído-Lanza AF, Chao MT,
Flórez KR. Do healthy behaviors de-
cline with greater acculturation? Impli-
cations for the Latino mortality paradox.
Soc Sci Med. 2005;61:1243–1255.
28. Cantero PJ, Richardson JL,
Baezconde-Garbanati L, Marks G. The
association between acculturation and
health practices among middle-aged and
elderly Latinas. Ethn Dis. 1999;9:
166–180.
29. Gordon-Larsen P, Harris KM,
Ward DS, Popkin BM. Acculturation and
overweight-related behaviors among
Hispanic immigrants to the United
States: the National Longitudinal study
of adolescent health. Soc Sci Med.
2003;57:2023–2034.
30. Himmelgreen DA, Pérez-Escamilla R,
Martinez D, et al. The longer you stay,
the bigger you get: length of time and
language use in the US are associated

with obesity in Puerto Rican Women.
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2004;25:90–96.
31. Marks G, Garcia M, Solis JM.
Health risk behaviors of Hispanics in
the United States: findings from
HHANES, 1982–84. Am J Public
Health. 1990;80(suppl):20–26.
32. Marín G, Posner SF. The role …
Assignment Discussion Brief #5. What do you think of the
concept of acculturation for health research? Do you think this
model can be improved? What aspects, dimensions or specifics
(ie Bornstein) do you think are critical to consider from
sociocontextual/socioecological perspective? Do you think US
has true “culture of destination”?Your discussion brief should
be 1.5 page maximum in length, double-spaced, 12 point font
Use the link please and use the reading also
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmz9cCF0KNE

The Specificity Principle in Acculturation ScienceMarc H. .docx

The Specificity Principle in Acculturation ScienceMarc H. .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to The Specificity Principle in Acculturation ScienceMarc H. .docx

Similar to The Specificity Principle in Acculturation ScienceMarc H. .docx (12)

More from joshua2345678

More from joshua2345678 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Specificity Principle in Acculturation ScienceMarc H. .docx