I The Integrated Acculturation Model: Expanding Acculturation to Cultural Identities in Addition to Race and Ethnicity Accepted version Jorge G. Garcia, Jeff DiNardo, Maria Inmaculada Lopez Nuñez, Diona Emmanuel, and Christian D. Chan This article is an attempt to integrate existing conceptual knowledge on accul- turation as well as to expand the use of the construct, which has traditionally had race and ethnicity as its focus, to also include cultural identities such as sexual orientation, gender identity, nationality, and disability. The article begins with a review of existing theoretical contributions from both the United States and Europe. We then propose a model to update and expand the use of acculturation. Finally, we provide an assessment framework. Keywords: acculturation, multicultural counseling, race, ethnicity, cultural identities Este artículo es un intento de integrar los conocimientos conceptuales exis- tentes sobre la aculturación además de expandir el uso de este constructo, que tradicionalmente se ha enfocado hacia la raza y la etnicidad, para incluir también identidades culturales tales como la orientación sexual, la identidad de sexo, la nacionalidad y la discapacidad. El artículo comienza con una revisión de las contribuciones teóricas existentes tanto de Estados Unidos como de Europa. A continuación, proponemos un modelo para actualizar y expandir el uso de la aculturación. Por último, proporcionamos un marco de evaluación. Palabras clave: aculturación, consejería multicultural, raza, etnicidad, identidades culturales In recent years, it seems that the concept of acculturation has been receivingdecreasing attention as a theoretical construct and as a predicting vari- able of counseling or therapeutic outcomes. One example is the lack of a separate chapter on acculturation in traditionally comprehensive handbooks reflecting state-of-the-art multicultural research, such as the long-running handbook by Casas et al. (2017), now in its fourth edition. Previous literature states that various factors influence acculturation, includ- ing age, gender, environment, family context, parental monitoring, reason for immigration, racial identity, age at the time of immigration, and duration (Cheng et al., 2015). Acculturation consists of cultural and psychological Jorge G. Garcia, Jeff DiNardo, and Diona Emmanuel, Department of Counseling and Human Develop- ment, George Washington University; Maria Inmaculada Lopez Nuñez, Department of Social, Work and Differential Psychology, Universidad Complutense de Madrid; Christian D. Chan, Department of Counseling and Educational Development, University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jorge G. Garcia, Department of Counseling and Human Development, George Washington University, 2134 G Street, NW, #326, Washington, DC 20052 (email: garcia@gwu.edu). changes that affect behavior, parenting styles, psychological adjustment, career choice, mental health outcomes, and treatment engagement (Arévalo Avalos & Flores, 2016; Yu et al., 2016). Studies about the relationship between acculturation and psychological outcomes have yielded diverse and inconsistent results despite the increasing number of empirical research articles on this topic (Collazos et al., 2008). A tentative explanation by these authors is that acculturation may not be the only predictor of mental health problems in immigrants. Some researchers have reported that variables other than acculturation, such as poor working conditions, low social support, and perceived discrimination, may have an impact on the mental health of immigrants (Rodríguez Álvarez et al., 2014). Rodríguez Álvarez et al. (2014) also stated that discrimination plays a large role in the mental health of female immigrants. Other factors that correlate with mental health include type of immigration (e.g., refugee vs. voluntary), a positive selection of the immigrant population (migration by the strongest), and the quality of the host country’s services (Sevillano et al., 2014). Other studies have reported that specific acculturation patterns accurately predict psychosocial adaptation, including the potential for higher stress and depression (Basabe et al., 2009; Berry & Sabatier, 2011). Much of the research using the acculturation construct has focused on medical and mental health outcomes. Ruiz et al. (2006) found an association between acculturation and infant birth weight and head circumference in a sample of Hispanic women. In addition, Nguyen (2008) reported a connection among acculturation, parenting style, and depression in a sample of Vietnamese American immi- grants, with an acculturation gap between generations resulting in increased levels of depression. We decided to review the concept of acculturation by (a) summarizing the history and nature of acculturation models both in Europe and in the United States, (b) offering an integrated model of acculturation grounded in principles that reflect the lessons learned from the literature review, and (c) offering a framework for developing a future model of assessment. acculturation models About 5 decades ago, Gordon (1964) described an acculturation model that was unidirectional and unidimensional, wherein immigrants were situated along a continuum between maintaining their culture of origin and adopt- ing the host country’s culture. The implicit definition of acculturation was that individuals would relinquish the values of their culture of origin and assimilate those of the host culture (Gordon, 1964). However, this model has limitations that include ignoring the individuals’ culture of origin, be- ing linear and unidimensional, and being unable to distinguish bicultural identities. Despite these limitations, this early model laid the foundation for considering acculturation as a process that occurs over time with a meaning- ful impact on the lives of those experiencing it. Berry (1980) offered a bidirectional model with two attitudinal dimensions: maintenance of the original cultural identity and desire to have contact and participate in the host culture. The combination of these two dimensions yields four acculturation patterns, namely, integration, assimilation, separation, and marginalization. Integration refers to the process of keeping the original culture while having active participation in the host culture. Assimilation occurs when individuals abandon their culture of origin and embrace the host culture. Separation refers to rejecting the host culture and retreating into the culture of origin. Finally, marginalization describes a situation wherein individuals isolate themselves from both cultures. Some authors have stated that, compared with other patterns, the integration pattern leads to better personal adjustment, social adaptation, and psychological well-being and to less acculturation stress (e.g., Phinney et al., 2001). Some limitations of this model include lack of consideration of maintaining an existing cultural identity and relating with the characteristics of a dominant culture (Bourhis et al., 1997). On the basis of Berry’s (1980) model, some authors have developed an interactive model that incorporates the societal perspective of immigrants (e.g., Bourhis et al., 1997). Acculturation patterns depend on the immigrants’ ethnocultural background as well as on the demographic, socioeconomic, and political circumstances of the host culture. This model prioritizes an individual approach over group affiliation. In the process of acculturation, both immigrants and the host culture value individual characteristics more than group characteristics. Patterns of integration, assimilation, separation, and marginalization apply to the individual immigrant and the host culture. The modification to Berry’s (1980) model consisted in the addition of two categories of marginalization: anomie and individualism. The first refers to rejecting both the native and host cultures, whereas the second alludes to rejecting one’s own group and individuals from other groups. This model contributes to the concept of acculturation by including contextual factors, adding two more patterns of acculturation, and describing different relationship patterns between immigrants and host cultures. Its limitation appears to be that it does not consider potentially different patterns of acculturation within bicultural or even multicultural categories of acculturation (Birman, 1994). According to Birman (1994), acculturation is a complex process that is not linear. She proposed an ecological/systemic model because acculturation strategies or patterns vary as a function of context (e.g., home, school, work) and the socialization process. This model incorporates traditional models, which focus on the acquisition and development of cultural competencies (Berry, 1980), and the cultural identity models of Helms (1986) and Phin- ney (1992), which emphasize the development of positive feelings of group identity and belonging. Given the different possible combinations of these two dimensions (identity and cultural competence) across the host and na- tive cultures, this model yields seven acculturation strategies: assimilation, separation, marginalization, blended biculturalism, integrated biculturalism, instrumental biculturalism, and identity exploration. The contribution of this model lies in its inclusion of different patterns of bicultural acculturation strategies, but its main limitation is its lack of specification of the contextual factors that may influence the acculturation process. Based on the work by European researchers Piontkowski and Florack (1995) and further developed by Piontkowski et al. (2002), the psychosocial model combines the four acculturation strategies (integration, assimilation, sepa- ration, and marginalization) described by Berry (1980) and the interactive nature of Bourhis et al.’s (1997) model. It holds that the acculturation process is influenced by the attitudes and strategies of the immigrant population and those of the host society. A primary contribution was the introduction of psychosocial variables that may predict acculturation patterns, such as ex- pected outcome, in-group bias, and group similarity. These authors examined the acculturation process with the dominant groups of Germans, Swiss, and Slovaks and the nondominant groups of Turks, Yugoslavians, and Hungar- ians. Different studies conducted in Switzerland, Germany, and Slovakia have provided support for the role of these psychosocial variables and the ethnic origin of immigrant groups in the process of acculturation (Rohmann et al., 2006; Vincze & Gasiorek, 2016). Although this model provided an integra- tion of Berry’s (1980) model and Bourhis et al.’s model, adding psychosocial variables that may play a role in the acculturation process, it did not consider potential bicultural categories of acculturation. Another model, the extended relative acculturation model, was developed in Spain by Navas et al. (2004, 2005) from studying the acculturation process of African immigrants who settled in the Almería province. This model in- corporates and expands on different theories described earlier. The model considers both the immigrants’ acculturation attitudes or strategies (Berry, 1980) and the host group’s perception of the immigrants (Bourhis et al., 1997). However, the model differentiates between the acculturation attitudes preferred by both groups (ideal) and the actual adopted acculturation strate- gies (real). A key aspect of this model is that it differentiates seven contextual domains of acculturation, namely, linguistic, education, work, family, politics/ civics, spirituality/religion, values, and social. The resulting acculturation process reflects a relative adaptation between the immigrant and the host society across these seven domains. Navas et al. (2004) incorporated key ele- ments of Bourhis’s et al. (1997) model, such as the consensual, problematic, and conflictive relationships that may originate in the acculturation process. This model contributes a significant aspect to the acculturation concept by including seven categories across which the acculturation process may occur, although no clear mention of bicultural strategies was included. limitations of existing models Overall, on the basis of the established literature, development of the accultura- tion construct seems to have been characterized by an increase in understanding over time. The earliest, unidimensional efforts did not sufficiently reflect the acculturation experience. Models that are more recent favor a multidimensional view. Still emphasizing a focus on the individual, the bidimensional models did not account for the potential influence of interactions between minority and dominant groups or larger contextual elements. The more recent interaction- ist models reflect an increased focus on context and the different domains in which acculturation occurs. The combined efforts of many researchers have pushed the understanding and use of acculturation to a more sophisticated level. By building on the work of researchers in the United States and Europe, we plan to continue the advancement of the acculturation construct by offering an integrated acculturation model (IAM), described below. proposed IAM model The proposed IAM model integrates the work on acculturation at multiple levels of interaction, including psychological (Phinney, 1992; Stryker & Serpe, 1994), instrumental (Birman, 1994), contextual (Berry, 1997; Navas et al., 2004), and developmental (Schwartz & Zamboanga, 2008). psychological level One part of the model focuses on the psychological aspects of acculturation to incorporate the affective and cognitive pieces of identity development. Belonging refers to the degree to which an individual feels part of the group. Affirming refers to the degree to which the affiliation feels satisfying and rewarding. Allegiance describes the degree to which an individual wants to be a part of the group (Phin- ney, 1992). Finally, salience refers to the degree to which this aspect of cultural identity is important to a person’s global identity (Stryker & Serpe, 1994). instrumental level Another part of the model focuses on instrumental aspects of acculturation to ascertain the degree to which an individual can perform effectively within each cultural identity. There are acculturation norms, values, and social roles that represent the skills in which acculturation strategies will manifest. One domain that requires special attention is language. Language is a primary tool that mediates cultural learning and influences the ways in which individuals make meaning of their world (Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2010). This domain ap- plies not only to different languages but also to differences within languages, such as vernacular and colloquial phrases. contextual level The research literature on acculturation has also suggested that there are sev- eral key contextualizing factors that help explain a particular trajectory with an individual’s acculturation strategy. These contextual factors—conceptual, domains, and process (dynamics)—are described below. CONCEPTUAL FACTORS Public versus private. One conceptual aspect is the distinction between public and private settings (Arends-Tóth & van de Vijver, 2004). Instrumental performance may indicate public adaptation, whereas psychological identity correlates with more private, family environments. There may be a discrepancy between how one acts in public settings and how one acts in a home or family context. There are also key differences in the types of demands placed on an individual in these settings, which would require different response strategies. It has been suggested by some authors that public arenas are more likely than private ones to foster assimilation or integration strategies (e.g., Navas et al., 2007). Perceived similarity. A second conceptual aspect relates to the individual’s perceptions of the similarity between the historical and emerging cultures (Schwartz et al., 2010). The relative ease of acculturation is likely influenced by how easy the individual imagines the acculturation process will be. Too great a disparity between cultural expectations may deter an individual from attempting to embrace new cultural practices; significant similarity may foster a premature shift to the emerging experience, resulting in a loss of previous identity. These dynamics are specific to the perceptions of the individual ac- culturating, although social referencing to the perceptions of others is also a likely contributing factor. Visibility. A third conceptual aspect is the degree to which the identities of inter- est are visible (Navas et al., 2007). An example of this is observed with disability identity status, depending on the disability. The visibility (or lack thereof) of a disability influences the degree to which the individual’s acculturation would actually occur (Gibson, 2006). Another example would be the experience of transgender individuals who may feel pressure to “pass” as their assigned gender to avoid social ostracizing (Pfeffer, 2014, p. 1). Societal climate. A fourth conceptual aspect is that of the current societal cli- mate, which also speaks to the effects of macrosystem influences (Kosic et al., 2005). For example, there are unique regional reactions to the lesbian, gay, and bisexual community, which influence the degree to which such individuals are even welcome to acculturate within the dominant culture. Often disapproved of in the United States, low socioeconomic status is not an identity that an in- dividual would be socially sanctioned to affirm. In such situations, the degree to which the group is or is not accepted by the dominant culture facilitates or hinders acculturation strategies. Another aspect of societal climate is the degree to which an identity can be perceived by others as a source of pride or value. Expanding to other cultural identities. A fifth conceptual aspect is that although acculturation has traditionally focused on racial and ethnic identities, we believe that this concept also applies to a range of other cultural identities (Hahm & Ad- kins, 2009; Handelsman et al., 2005). For example, imagine a situation in which a person acquires a disability and has to negotiate how to adapt to the change from their historical nondisability identity to their new emerging disability identity. Slight alterations to the acculturation framework may help increase research efforts to apply the acculturation construct in a more holistic manner. There are numerous situations in which an expansion of the acculturation construct can be helpful in understanding processes that are at work. For example, in looking at socioeconomic status, researchers may find it helpful to apply the construct of acculturation in understanding the situation of individuals who have recently experienced a dramatic shift in income because of losing employment or winning the lottery. Other examples include understanding the experiences of individuals who are establishing their spiritual or religious belief system or the experiences of individuals who are coming out to join or engage with the larger lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community. Cultural learning mediates identity development in these examples, and the acculturation construct may offer some insight. Historical and emerging designations. Finally, a sixth conceptual component of the proposed model is the specification of historical and emerging identities. This language may help the individual clarify and distinguish the historical cultural identity and the new cultural experience with which the individual has established contact. This distinction readily applies to ethnic differences. For instance, an individual immigrating to the United States would identify the country of origin as historical and the United States as emerging. This would also apply to other cultural developments, such as converting to a new religion, discovering a sexual identity, and making meaning of an acquired disability. In addition to providing a consistent framework for researchers, this language allows the individual to define what has historically influenced their way of seeing the world with new cultural experiences that maintain a developmental influence on the overall worldview. This is not to suggest that every exposure to a new worldview will be taken on by an individual. Instead, the contact may influence how the individual relates to their historical identity, or it may reinforce its salience. DOMAINS FACTORS Developed by Navas et al. (2004), the relative acculturation extended model has made an innovative contribution regarding the important life contexts in which acculturation occurs. These domains include linguistic, education, work, family, politics/civics, spirituality/religion, values, and social. PROCESS (DYNAMICS) FACTORS Group acculturation. The first aspect is the notion of individual or group accultura- tion (Sam, 2015). Perhaps reflective of larger cultural identities as collectivist or individualistic, this aspect questions the degree to which both individual and group acculturation strategies are congruent or independent of one another. According to systems theories, it is difficult, if not outright impossible, for an individual to make changes without experiencing some environmental influence (Corey, 2015). Historically, acculturation research has focused on an individual’s acculturation; however, there has also been noteworthy work on the acculturation gap that often occurs between generations of a family and can be a source of strife. Additional work may benefit from looking at more group-oriented acculturation strategies. Permanence of cultural contact. The second aspect is the perceived permanence of the cultural contact with the emerging identity (Schwartz et al., 2010). Individuals in situations that are perceived to be permanent have a different investment than do individuals for whom the cultural experience is transient, such as those study- ing abroad. Thus, it is possible that less permanent cultural contact would allow for easier maintenance of the existing cultural identity, whereas more permanent cultural contact may require some degree of adjustment for optimal functioning. developmental level The acculturation construct might benefit from a greater emphasis on its de- velopmental dynamics. Acculturation strategies are not static, and the use of repeated measures may help to elucidate the life-span approach to accultura- tion (Schwartz & Zamboanga, 2008). Over time, the result of one acculturation process provides the foundation for the beginning of the next. With continuous exposure to new ways of being, an individual will maintain or amend their cul- tural expectations and practices. Within a particular domain of functioning, the same individual can use different acculturation strategies over time. Similarly, the contextual issues highlighted above also change over time, and the recip- rocal influence is an important consideration for researchers and counselors. In addition, assessment measures of acculturation would benefit from being repeated over time to better reflect the process of acculturating as opposed to categorization of patterns on the basis of isolated moments in time. Figure 1 presents all of the elements of the proposed IAM model. The reader can find the different aspects of the model (theoretical integration components, model outcomes, and client outcomes) in graphic form. model outcomes ACCULTURATION STRATEGIES As we were building on the frameworks of previous acculturation models, we found that the complexity involved in unifying a spectrum of acculturation experiences requires new dialogue for the purposes of meeting the concep- tualization of acculturation processes and cultural identities situated in the new theoretical model. Unifying an extensive historical approach focuses on the long-standing trajectory of acculturation research applied to understand and accurately describe lived experiences of acculturation. Considering the proposed theoretical model, we negotiated applications of acculturation strat- egies most relevant to understanding and applying the process of accultura- tion as a multilayered construct on historical and emerging identities. This positioning focuses on identifying acculturation as a developmental process affected by contextual factors. At this time, we believe that the seven strategies identified by Birman (1994) would best apply to the IAM model, dependent on future research investigating whether these permutations continue to reflect FIGURE 1 The Integrated Acculturation Model these possible patterns of acculturation. Given the developmental focus of the proposed model, it will also be interesting to determine the nature of ac- culturation patterns used over time as opposed to at an isolated point in time. The proposed IAM model expands the informative perspective of previous acculturation theories, models, and measures to attend to multiple layers constructed in social and cultural identities. Given that the preponderance of the acculturation literature focuses primarily on immigrant transitions and mental health, there is a distinct plausibility of other intersecting iden- tities influencing the acculturation process of one identity. The literature on acculturation is extensive, which affords researchers the opportunity to investigate existing models as well as develop new and innovative models that build on the historical framework of multiculturalism and diversity. Our contribution focuses on the inherent interaction between an indi- vidual’s cultural (primarily ethnic) background and reference points and the overarching social structures situating them within power relations, sociopolitical constraints, and policy issues (Lopez-Class et al., 2011). Thus, acculturation involves multiple layers, ranging from the consolidation of one’s cultural group’s values and beliefs to the societal issues affecting factors of psychosocial adaptation. Instrumental to the contribution of our model is the identification of multiple forms of identity (e.g., ethnicity, sexual/affectional identity, gender identity, social class, ability status) with associated forms of acculturation processes. Although this adaptation charts a shift in the discourse regarding accultura- tion, it operates on the assumption that social and cultural identities cannot operate under a unilateral approach. Negotiating identity engages specifi- cally with facets of a multiplicity of social and cultural identities consolidated (Dynamics) in the overarching acculturation process. The adaptation in the identified model generates solid discussion on matters of pivotal and critical incidents resulting in a period of acculturation. When these critical incidents occur, members of cultural groups rely on particular strategies to engage facets of their own respective cultural groups. Our model focuses specifically on developmental approaches to the accul- turation process and proposes that individuals have historical and emerging identities that influence each other. Counselors using this model would help clients distinguish aspects contributing to these identities. For example, a counselor working with an immigrant could help them with negotiating their culture of origin (historical identity) and the host culture (emerging iden- tity). In using this terminology, the IAM model conceptualizes acculturation as a fluid, dynamic process, eschewing a static understanding of the self in regard to culture (Lechuga, 2008). It is important to note that an individual’s previously formed (historical) identity continues to have a relationship with the developing (emerging) identity; the two identities are neither mutually exclusive nor competing. Because previous studies indicate that accultura- tion is a multidimensional construct, several researchers have also suggested using a bidimensional scale to measure acculturation (Andrews et al., 2013). ASSESSMENT CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FUTURE Below, we propose a tentative assessment strategy that best reflects the elements of the IAM model. Three aspects are considered: (a) number and nature of items, (b) general demographic questions, and (c) interpretation and validation. Number and nature of items. Tentatively, we believe that to measure acculturation in a way consistent with the IAM model, researchers should develop a scale, for which we suggest a name such as the IAM scale. In line with the number of identity variables (four) and instrumental variables by domain (eight), we recommend 24 items in a potential acculturation scale consistent with our model, with each item conveying the specific meaning of each one of these variables. On the basis of our review of the literature, the range of items in ac- culturation scales is between four (Navas et al., 2004) and 36 (Rodriguez et al., 2002). The total number of items in versions of Phinney’s (1992) Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure is also within this range. This 24-item self-report IAM scale could be divided into two parts, one address- ing the respondent’s historical identity (12 items) and the other addressing their emerging identity (12 items). For example, regarding the psychologi- cal aspects of acculturation, one question could be “To what extent do you feel a sense of belonging in your historical cultural group?” with an identical question asking about the respondent’s emerging cultural group. Items could be rated using a 5-point Likert-type scale (0 = no sense of belonging, 4 = a very strong sense of belonging). Similarly, regarding the instrumental aspects of ac- culturation, one question could ask, “To what extent do you feel close to the family norms and values of your historical culture?” (0 = no sense of closeness, 4 = a very strong sense of closeness), with an identical question asking about the respondent’s emerging culture. This wording is consistent with the phasing used in other acculturation scales, such as Navas et al.’s (2004). General demographic questions. To accurately apply this scale, researchers will need to obtain key demographic information, which will entail participants indicating which cultural group category best represents their cultural identity (e.g., ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability status, nationality) and respond- ing to culturally specific items. For example, if participants identify ethnicity, they would be asked what specific ethnic group best represents them. If par- ticipants indicate sexual orientation, then they would need to specify which sexual orientation group best represents this identity. Interpretation and validation. As noted earlier, we believe that Birman’s (1994) acculturation strategies best represent the outcomes of the proposed IAM model. These include assimilation, separation, marginalization, blended bi- culturalism, integrated biculturalism, instrumental biculturalism, and identity exploration. On the basis of scores on the IAM scale (across historical and emerging dimensions, in both the psychological and instrumental sections), an overall acculturation strategy would emerge (e.g., high scores on emerg- ing culture and low scores on historical culture would reflect assimilation). However, more specifically, assimilation (in the example above) could be true for a particular contextual domain (e.g., family) but not for another domain (e.g., work), which allows for a more precise acculturation analysis that could, in turn, lead to a more idiosyncratic or appropriate treatment or intervention that considers acculturation as a component. It would also allow researchers to obtain a more precise measure and interpretation of their results. Considering the complexity of the combination of scores and individual ex- pressions of social and cultural identities, it will be challenging to psychometri- cally validate the IAM scale. Although an objective of scale development is to determine normative scores, the four aspects of acculturation (e.g., psychologi- cal, instrumental), in addition to the historical and emerging dimensions, will likely result in significant variation across scores and domains. These variations may provide psychometric insights that cannot be fully captured by conclusive measures and outcomes. Thus, the recommendation based on this new model is to observe the unification, comprehension, and application of scores within the assessment to negotiate an ipsative representation (Hughes, 2014, Chapter 6; Rogers & Widiger, 1989). With significant utility, ipsative representations can demonstrate the differences and marked indicators in comparison with self as opposed to comparisons with other members of a given group. For example, a test taker could retake the IAM scale at a later point in time, and at that later time, the individual could obtain different scores than those obtained on the earlier administration of the measure. Much of this representation would rely on intraindividual (as opposed to interindividual) comparisons. We believe that the strategies for validation of a scale of the nature proposed in this article (pre- liminary IAM denomination) would involve the traditional ones used in similar validation studies, such as exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses; internal consistency measurement; and discriminant, convergent, and predictive validity. client outcomes We believe that the IAM model can improve client outcomes because it may help clients to define their goals more accurately, increase their level of awareness, understand their cultural identity, and gain a broader sense of personal understanding; it may also facilitate the client-counselor relation- ship or counseling process. Goals can be enhanced by adding those related to acculturation strategies that may improve clients’ cultural adaptation and overall well-being (e.g., becoming aware of the consequences of separation or marginalization strategies). Awareness can be increased by understanding aspects of the historical culture that may affect successful adaptation to a new culture (e.g., cultural values that may facilitate adaptation). Cultural identity can be better understood, as can the way in which it may influence clients’ sense of well-being at the psychological and behavioral levels (e.g., strength and direction of clients’ sense of psychological affiliation to a particular culture). Overall, personal understanding can increase as a result of clients gaining greater personal insight because of the integration of aspects of their culture into a holistic definition of self. Finally, through increased cultural awareness, clients can help counselors know how best to address the cultural elements that influence the counseling process (e.g., how to make clients’ values consistent with counseling goals). discussion ADVANTAGES OF THE IAM MODEL The IAM model has two initial advantages: its international nature and appli- cability and the fact that it includes a definition of culture that goes beyond ethnicity and immigration. The IAM model can also be helpful in understand- ing the contemporary societal issues that new generations are facing when dealing with the acculturation process (e.g., anti-immigrant sentiment) and in understanding individuals who are developing a new cultural self and who are trying to adapt to the cultural norms and values of the emerging cultural group (e.g., making meaning of an acquired disability). Our purpose in proposing a model that integrates the various aspects of the acculturation literature is that it may lead to the future construction of a new acculturation measure. The proposed model contains several strengths. First, it emphasizes a diversity approach in which cross-cultural contact is part of the developmental process for all individuals involved. Second, the historical and emerging identity designations widen the applicability of the construct, which allows it to be applied to a larger number of interpersonal and systemic conditions. Third, the division of behavioral and psychological aspects encourages a more nuanced examination of acculturation dynamics. Fourth, the model looks to integrate U.S. and European views of accultura- tion. Finally, the model provides a foundation for which an assessment could be created to evaluate an individual’s acculturation process regarding one aspect of the individual’s identity over time. LIMITATIONS We believe that the main limitations of the proposed IAM model are related to concerns about developing a new acculturation instrument and concerns about the variable application across specific cultural identities. At this point, we do not have psychometrically validated evidence to support the structure of an instrument tested through factor analysis. The second limitation has to do with cultural identities, particularly with issues of intersectionality and the integration of multiple identities to create a holistic experience. Although clients would identify a cultural identity salient to them at a given moment, the model could still fail to account for the aggregation of all identities interacting at a given time. We note a final limitation that derives from the acculturation/ enculturation discussion. As stated by Yoon et al. (2011), acculturation is bi- linear in the sense that it should apply to enculturation (developing a cultural orientation to the individual’s native culture) as well. Other researchers have stated similar views about enculturation (Waldram, 2009; Weinreich, 2009). Although some authors may be tempted to use these terms interchangeably, we believe that researchers can address this issue in the future by outlining specific strategies for enculturation in addition to acculturation. As for validation of the IAM model, we suggest several procedures. A first validation strategy would be to consider a Delphi technique. Through sev- eral rounds of content validation, researchers would ask selected experts to identify and rank the elements thought to be part of a theory. Then, they would check the results to determine whether they conform to the stated theory, which can also be modified on the basis of this analysis (Adler & Ziglio, 1996; Vázquez-Ramos et al., 2007). A second strategy would be to develop a scale that measures acculturation on the basis of the principles of the model. Then, standard empirical validation procedures involving dif- ferent forms of validity (content, construct, discriminant, convergent) and factor analysis would be used to determine whether the theoretical factors of the model correspond with the factors yielded by the statistical analysis. Finally, a method similar to this previous one would be to use a theoretical domains framework. This method yields theory domains through discrimi- nant content validation and cluster analysis. The difference between this procedure and the aforementioned one is that it uses expert observers to investigate the theoretical factors using closed- and open-sorting task pro- cedures (Cane et al., 2012). The aforementioned limitations notwithstanding, the model presented in this article offers a direction for future research that may yield valuable insights. An increased understanding of clients’ acculturation process can be achieved by expanding the range of cultural identities that researchers explore using the acculturation construct to include, in addition to race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, nationality, and disability, as well as others. references Adler, M., & Ziglio, E. (Eds.). (1996). Gazing into the oracle: The Delphi method and its application to social policy and public health. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Andrews, A. R., III, Bridges, A. J., & Gomez, D. (2013). A multi-study analysis of conceptual and measurement issues related to health research on acculturation in Latinos. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 24(2), 134–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043659612472199 Arends-Tóth, J., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2004). Domains and dimensions in accultura- tion: Implicit theories of Turkish-Dutch. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2003.09.001 Arévalo Avalos, M. R., & Flores, L. Y. (2016). Nontraditional career choices of Mexi- can American men: Influence of acculturation, enculturation, gender role traits, self-efficacy, and interests. Journal of Latina/o Psychology, 4(3), 142–157. https://doi. org/10.1037/lat0000048 Basabe, N., Páez, D., Aierdi, X., & Jiménez-Aristizabal, A. (2009). Salud e inmigración: Aculturación, bienestar subjetivo y calidad de vida [Health and immigration: Accultura- tion, subjective well-being and quality of life]. Immigrazioaren Euskal Behatokia/ Observatorio Vasco de Inmigración. Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. M. Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, models and some new findings (pp. 9–25). Westview Press. Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology, 46(1), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.x Berry, J. W., & Sabatier, C. (2011). Variations in the assessment of acculturation at- titudes: Their relationships with psychological wellbeing. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(5), 658–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.02.002 Birman, D. (1994). Acculturation and human diversity in a multicultural society. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D. Birman (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context (pp. 261–284). Jossey-Bass Publishers. Bourhis, R. Y., Moïse, L. C., Perreault, S., & Senécal, S. (1997). Towards an interac- tive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology, 32(6), 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/002075997400629 Cane, J., O’Connor, D., & Michie, S. (2012). Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implementa- tion Science, 7, Article 37. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-37 Casas, J. M., Suzuki, L. A., Alexander, C. M., & Jackson, M. A. (Eds.). (2017). Handbook of multicultural counseling (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. Cheng, P.-H., Carter, R. T., & Lee, D. Y. (2015). The relationship between racial iden- tity status attitudes and acculturation among Chinese and Korean Americans: A criterion profile analysis. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 43(2), 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1912.2015.00067.x Collazos, F., Qureshi, A., Antonín, M., & Tomás-Sábado, J. (2008). Estrés aculturativo y salud mental en la población inmigrante [Acculturative stress and mental health in the immigrant population]. Papeles del Psicólogo, 29(3), 307–315. http://www. papelesdelpsicologo.es/pdf/1613.pdf Corey, G. (2015). Theory and practice of counseling and psychotherapy (10th ed.). Cengage Learning. Gardiner, H. W., & Kosmitzki, C. (2010). Lives across cultures: Cross-cultural human development (5th ed.). Pearson. http://www/ Gibson, J. (2006, November/December). Disability and clinical competency: An in- troduction. The California Psychologist, 6–10. Gordon, M. M. (1964): Assimilation in American life: The role of race, religion, and national origins. Oxford University Press. Hahm, H. C., & Adkins, C. (2009). A model of Asian and Pacific Islander sexual minority acculturation. Journal of LGBT Youth, 6(2–3), 155–173. https://doi. org/10.1080/19361650903013501 Handelsman, M. M., Gottlieb, M. C., & Knapp, S. (2005). Training ethical psycholo- gists: An acculturation model. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36(1), 59–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.36.1.59 Helms, J. E. (1986). Expanding racial identity theory to cover counseling process. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33(1), 62–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.33.1.62 Hughes, G. (2014). Ipsative assessment: Motivation through marking progress. Palgrave Macmillan. Kosic, A., Mannetti, L., & Sam, D. L. (2005). The role of majority group attitudes towards out-group in the perception of the acculturation strategies of immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(3), 273–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijintrel.2005.06.004 Lechuga, J. (2008). Is acculturation a dynamic construct? The influence of method of priming culture on acculturation. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 30(3), 324–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986308319570 Lopez-Class, M., González Castro, F., & Ramirez, A. G. (2011). Conceptions of accul- turation: A review and statement of critical issues. Social Science & Medicine, 72(9), 1555–1562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.03.011 Navas, M., García, M. C., Sánchez, J., Rojas, A. J., Pumares, P., & Fernández, J. S. (2005). Relative acculturation extended model (RAEM): New contributions with regard to the study of acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.04.001 Navas, M., Pumares, P., Sánchez-Miranda, J., García, M. C., Rojas, A. J., Cuadrado, I., Asensio, M., & Fernández-Prados, J. S. (2004). Estrategias y actitudes de aculturación: La perspectiva de los inmigrantes y de los autóctonos en Almería [Strategies and attitudes of accul- turation: The perspective of immigrants and natives in Almería]. Dirección General de Coordinación de Políticas Migratorias, Consejería de Gobernación, Junta de Andalucía. Navas, M., Rojas, A. J., García, M., & Pumares, P. (2007). Acculturation strategies and attitudes according to the relative acculturation extended model (RAEM): The perspectives of natives versus immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Rela- tions, 31(1), 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.08.002 Nguyen, P. V. (2008). Perceptions of Vietnamese fathers’ acculturation levels, parenting styles, and mental health outcomes in Vietnamese American adolescent immigrants. Social Work, 53(4), 337–346. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/53.4.337 Pfeffer, C. A. (2014). “I don’t like passing as a straight woman”: Queer negotiations of identity and social group membership. American Journal of Sociology, 120(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1086/677197 Phinney, J. S. (1992). The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: A new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7(2), 156–176. https://doi. org/10.1177/074355489272003 Phinney, J. S., Horenczyk, G., Liebkind, K., & Vedder, P. (2001). Ethnic identity, im- migration, and well-being: An interactional perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 57(3), 493–510. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00225 Piontkowski, U., & Florack, A. (1995, July 2–7). Attitudes toward acculturation from the dominant group’s point of view [Conference presentation]. VI European Congress of Psychology, Athens, Greece. Piontkowski, U., Rohmann, A., & Florack, A. (2002). Concordance of acculturation attitudes and perceived threat. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 5(3), 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430202005003003 Rodriguez, N., Myers, H. F., Mira, C. B., Flores, T., & Garcia-Hernandez, L. (2002). Development of the Multidimensional Acculturative Stress Inventory for adults of Mexi- can origin. Psychological Assessment, 14(4), 451–461. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040- 3590.14.4.451 Rodríguez Álvarez, E., González-Rábago, Y., Bacigalupe, A., Martín, U., & Lanborena Elordui, N. (2014). Inmigración y salud: Desigualdades entre la población autóctona e inmigrante en el País Vasco [Immigration and health: Social inequalities between native and immigrant populations in the Basque Country (Spain)]. Gaceta Sanitaria, 28(4), 274–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2014.01.010 Rogers, J. H., Jr., & Widiger, T. A. (1989). Comparing idiothetic, ipsative, and nor- mative indices of consistency. Journal of Personality, 57(4), 847–869. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00497.x Rohmann, A., Florack, A., & Piontkowski, U. (2006). The role of discordant accultura- tion attitudes in perceived threat: An analysis of host and immigrant attitudes in Germany. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(6), 683–702. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.06.006 Ruiz, R. J., Dolbier, C. L., & Fleschler, R. (2006). The relationships among accultura- tion, biobehavioral risk, stress, corticotropin-releasing hormone, and poor birth outcomes in Hispanic women. Ethnicity and Disease, 16(4), 926–932. Sam, D. L. (2015). Acculturation. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 68–74). Elsevier. https://doi. org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.24034-8 Schwartz, S. J., Unger, J. B., Zamboanga, B. L., & Szapocznik, J. (2010). Rethinking the concept of acculturation: Implications for theory and research. American Psychologist, 65(4), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019330 Schwartz, S. J., & Zamboanga, B. L. (2008). Testing Berry’s model of acculturation: A confirmatory latent class approach. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14(4), 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012818 Sevillano, V., Basabe, N., Bobowik, M., & Aierdi, X. (2014). Health-related quality of life, ethnicity and perceived discrimination among immigrants and natives in Spain. Ethnicity & Health, 19(2), 178–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2013.797569 Stryker, S., & Serpe, R. T. (1994). Identity salience and psychological centrality: Equivalent, overlapping, or complementary concepts? Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(1), 16–35. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786972 Vázquez-Ramos, R., Leahy, M., & Estrada Hernández, N. (2007). The Delphi method in rehabilitation counseling research. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 50(2), 111–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/00343552070500020101 Vincze, L., & Gasiorek, J. (2016). The moderating effect of valenced contact: Slovak language media use, acculturation and L2 confidence among young Hungarian speakers. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37(8), 805–816. https:// doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2016.1142552 Waldram, J. B. (2009). Is there a future for “culture” in acculturation research? An anthropologist’s perspective. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(2), 173–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.03.004 Weinreich, P. (2009). ‘Enculturation,’ not ‘acculturation’: Conceptualising and assess- ing identity processes in migrant communities. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(2), 124–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.12.006 Yoon, E., Langrehr, K., & Ong, L. Z. (2011). Content analysis of acculturation research in counseling and counseling psychology: A 22-year review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021128 Yu, J., Cheah, C. S. L., & Calvin, G. (2016). Acculturation, psychological adjustment, and parenting styles of Chinese immigrant mothers in the United States. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 22(4), 504–516. https://doi.org/10.1037/ cdp0000091