همانندی ها و تفاوت های فردی در احساس : پویایی های خشم و رویکرد انگیزش
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|4983||2011||9 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||5670 کلمه|
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله شامل 5670 کلمه می باشد.
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Volume 35, Issue 2, March 2011, Pages 196–204
Individuals who cross cultural boundaries face many challenges when trying to adapt to a receiving culture. Adaptation challenges such as learning to maneuver across societal domains may become increasingly complex if structural level factors such as discrimination are present. Researchers have conceptualized acculturation as a relatively autonomous decision indicating that four acculturation strategies exist: assimilation, separation, integration, and marginalization. Moreover, researchers have also long debated the link between acculturation strategy, adaptation hassles and negative health outcomes. However, models seeking to explain how individual difference and structural level variables may influence each other and subsequently influence acculturation and adaptation are needed. The purpose of this study is to lay the foundation for the conceptualization of such a model. We propose that temperamental predispositions to negative emotionality, anger, and impulsivity may highlight discrimination which in turn may lead to increases in acculturative stress and negative markers of psychosocial well-being. We used SEM to test our hypothesized model. Results supported a modified model. Implications for the measurement of adaptation and design of interventions are discussed.
Individuals who venture to cross language and culture boundaries expose themselves to alternate ways of living and thinking triggering changes in the conceptualization of the self (LaFramboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993). This process has been termed acculturation and change entails learning new behaviors, values, and beliefs of the receiving culture. Research has shown that individuals choose among four main acculturation strategies: assimilation, integration, separation, and marginalization (Berry, Kim, Power, Young, & Bujaki, 1989). Assimilation refers to the immigrant's decision to supplant behaviors and beliefs from the heritage culture with ones from the receiving culture. Integration refers to the decision to accommodate both cultures. Separation refers to the rejection of the receiving culture's behaviors and beliefs, while retaining the ones from the heritage culture. Marginalization refers to the rejection of both cultures. Capturing the four acculturation patterns requires that the assessment of affiliation to the receiving and heritage cultures be conducted separately. This choice of measurement implicates that affiliation to host and heritage cultures are orthogonal constructs. Assessment of the four acculturation strategies is fraught with controversies (Chirkov, 2009). First, there is variability in research findings regarding the purported orthogonality. Research sometimes unveils an inverse correlation, albeit small, between affiliations to host and heritage cultures which may indicate a preference for assimilation or separation (see Costigan and Su, 2004, Flannery et al., 2001 and Ryder et al., 2000). Second, although the acculturation literature unquestionably indicates that when individuals are asked to convey their acculturation preferences most indicate a preference for integration or separation (Sam & Berry, 2006), preferences for integration may reflect the normative discourse in the host society (i.e., what members of the host society believe and convey) and thus may not accurately reflect the actual acculturation process (Safdar, Struthers, & van Oudenhoven, 2009). Researchers have attempted to capture the complex notion of the process of culture change by indicating that factors outside of an individual's control exert a strong influence on the selection of an acculturation strategy such as attitudes towards the ethnic minority group held by members of the majority group (Bourhis, Moïse, Perreault, & Senécal, 1997) and availability of psychological resources related to coping (Safdar et al., 2009). However, notably absent from these models is the notion that an individual's choice of acculturation strategy, and consequently adaptation to change, may also be linked to affective regulatory processes. Albert Bandura (1986) legendary social cognitive theory (SCT) proposed that at the heart of an individual's self-efficacy lies cognition and self-regulation and that these processes underpin successful adaptation. We posit that acculturation may also be a process that is governed by the interaction of individual differences in emotion and consequent reaction to environmental factors. 1.1. Individual and structural factors related to acculturation The idea that individual difference factors influence the selection of an acculturation strategy is not new. Research indicates that both individual difference variables and structural factors facilitate or impinge acculturation strategies (Berry, 1980). Prior research has shown that individual difference variables such as personality (Ryder et al., 2000), self-efficacy (Ward & Kennedy, 1992), and need for cognitive closure (Kosic, 2002) influence the selection of an acculturation strategy. For example, extraversion, a sense of self-efficacy, and low tolerance for ambiguity predict a preference for assimilation while low socioeconomic status predicts a preference for other acculturation strategies (Berry, 1980). Our study was inspired by Padilla and Perez (2003) who suggest a socio-cognitive approach to the study of acculturation. The study of acculturation, in their view, has suffered from a static view of intergroup relations and an insufficient account of contextual determinants such as discrimination. According to Padilla and Perez (2003), intergroup relations are dynamic and in constant change meaning that the level of stigmatization for a particular minority group is in constant flux. The extent to which members of the host culture stigmatize ethnic minorities and the extent to which individuals are aware of the stigmatization will influence acculturation. This idea suggests that acculturation is a dynamic process responsive to situational factors. We would like to add to this model the thesis that temperamental predispositions may also influence the salience of and reaction to stressors such as discrimination and consequently selection of an acculturation strategy. This is an important thesis given the link between acculturation and adaptation. 1.2. Acculturation and adaptation Researchers have been concerned with the psychosocial adaptation of individuals undergoing the process of culture change (Moyerman & Forman, 1992). The study of the relationship between acculturation and adaptation is understandably important since maladjustment can result in considerable societal costs. For example, empirical findings suggest a relationship between maladjustment and negative mental health outcomes (Constantine et al., 2004 and Zheng and Berry, 1991). Acculturation and adaptation are linked by the experience of “acculturative stress” (Smart & Smart, 1995). Acculturative stress results from the complex challenges that individuals face when entering a new culture. These challenges range from learning a new language to being able to successfully maneuver in the social, institutional and economic layers that constitute the fabric of society (Organista, Organista, & Kurasaki, 2002). Acculturative stress is thus a form of psychological stress created from “culture shock” and results in decreased markers of mental health and well-being such as, reduced physical health, erratic decision-making, and occupational malfunctioning (Smart & Smart, 1995). Prior models have shown that individual difference variables related to the ability to cope with the process of culture change such as psychosocial well-being, perceptions of cultural competence, and social support are related to acculturation preferences (Safdar, Lay, & Struthers, 2003). However, a model linking individual differences in temperament to the process of adaptation and selection of an acculturation strategy has not been specified. The purpose of this study is to begin the process of delineating such a model by investigating the role that processes related to the regulation of behavior and affect have on the experience of culture related stressors and markers of well-being. Research aimed at delineating such a model is important given that researchers question the importance of studying the influence of acculturation on the health status and well-being of ethnic minorities undergoing the process of culture change (Hunt, Schneider, & Comer, 2004). Thus, it is imperative to uncover the role that other important individual difference variables such as affect may bear on an individual's selection of acculturation strategy and experience of acculturative stress. 1.3. Temperament and adaptation Research on affect regulation has focused primarily on individuals’ direct affective responses to stressors or aversive events. However, it is possible that greater predisposition to certain emotions also increases exposure to aversive events and to certain coping strategies (Bolger & Schilling, 1991). Individuals actively select and shape their environments (Buss, 1987). That is, an individual's temperament is linked to the situations that he/she selects and also to the way he/she copes with those situations. Neuroticism, defined as the propensity for negative emotionality and an inefficient way of coping, is a prime example. In a longitudinal study, comparing the effects of neuroticism, exposure to long term stressors, and change in life circumstances, neuroticism emerged as the strongest predictor of well-being (Ormel & Wohlfarth, 1991). Notably, this study clarified a causal link. Predisposition to neuroticism early in life had a direct effect on psychological distress and a stronger effect than deterioration of life circumstances or exposure to long term stressors (i.e., chronic illness of a family member and unemployment). Empirical findings indicate that two systems, susceptibility to either anxiety or impulsivity, are primary motivators of behavior. A high predisposition to anxiety inhibits behavior and conversely, a predisposition to act impulsively facilitates behavior. These two regulators of behavior are named the Behavioral Activation System (BAS) and the Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) (Gray, 1972). Anticipation of a reward or positive consequence activates the BAS, also known as the approach system, which in turn guides behavior towards the attainment of goals. Conversely, anticipation of punishment activates the BIS, a system that responds to anxiety by inhibiting behavior (Carver & White, 1994). The experience of positive affect is attributed to the BAS system and conversely, the experience of negative affect is regulated by the BIS system (Gray, 1972 and Carver and Scheier, 1990). Research on animals and humans supports the notion that impulsivity and anxiety guide behavior, indicating that different brain pathways are, in fact, involved in the regulation of a susceptibility to the expectation of reward or punishment (Fowles, 1993). Experts have posited that individual differences in the sensitivity of these systems underlie problematic behaviors and issues of adaptation (Fowles, 1987). An overactive BAS system may result in various forms of psychopathology and predisposition towards risk (Fowles, 1993). However, an underactive BIS system may result in attention related disorders such as ADHD (Quay, 1988). Researchers have linked individual differences in personality to these systems and are now beginning to uncover their influence on other powerful motivators of behavior such as affect. We would like to center our focus on one such powerful affective driver of behavior, anger. Although anger has been conceptualized as a negative affect, researchers are now beginning to understand the determinants of anger and as a result link it to the BAS system. 1.4. Anger: an affect derived from the approach system Recent evidence suggests that the experience of anger is linked to the approach system (Harmon-Jones, 2003 and Carver and Harmon-Jones, 2009). Anger is defined as an affect that initiates some form of retaliatory action, becoming a powerful driver of behavior rather than an inhibitor (Berwkowitz & Harmon-Jones, 2004). Although there is considerable debate in the literature about the specifics of situations that stir anger, most researchers align with the view that actions, preventing individual from attaining goals, are important determinants of anger (Berwkowitz & Harmon-Jones, 2004). The purpose of our study was to investigate the interrelationships between temperamental predispositions to neuroticism, anger, and the BAS system on perceived discrimination, the experience of acculturative stress, and assimilation. The main goal of this study was to investigate the influence of affect on one acculturation strategy, assimilation. We did not assess the four acculturation preferences because we align with the view that acculturation is not a process that occurs in a vacuum. In our view, the individual will actively pursue goals in accordance with his/her innate tendencies such as a tendency to regulate behavior through the active pursuit of goals (an approach system) and theoretically speaking, an approach system should only be related to assimilation. Although, undeniably, research suggests that acculturation is also influenced by the level of integration present in society at large, the goal of our study was to understand the extent to which temperamental predispositions influence assimilation.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The purpose of this study was to develop and test an exploratory model that would specify the role that motivation to regulate behavior through an approach system would have on the decision to assimilate. Furthermore, our interest lied on elucidating the influence of affective antecedents of the approach system on well-being in the context of the experience of discrimination and acculturative stress, both deterrents of assimilation. Because we consider this study a first attempt at specifying the role of seldom considered individual difference variables in acculturation research (i.e., affect), we inspected modification indices and made suggested changes to our original model to maximize model fit. Modification indices indicated that four paths should be added to our original model to improve model fit. After the addition of these paths, results yielded estimates suggestive of good fit. Results indicated that neuroticism influenced anger which in turn influenced a tendency to regulate behavior through the approach system. The approach system contributed to increases in assimilation yet heightened the experience of discrimination. This is an important finding because it elucidates that an individual's temperament can also contribute to accentuate the negative experience of acculturation hassles. We conducted our study in a border region where individuals have the opportunity to commute daily to Mexico. Moreover, our sample consisted of a mixture of individuals who were foreign and U.S. born and who varied in the length of time they had been residing in the U.S. For example, 75% of our sample reported to have lived in the U.S. between 5 and 35 years. These characteristics suggest that participants may have been at different stages of the acculturation process which may have influenced motivation to assimilate. Moreover, length of residence in the U.S. is associated with an increase in mental disorders. Future studies should attempt to replicate our model in a more homogeneous sample. A limitation of our study was that we assessed assimilation only. However, we would like to point out that the main objective of our study was to investigate the role of affect in the decision to assimilate. It was particularly interesting that our results supported our model in a border community where approximately 75% of the population is Hispanic. Affect influenced the experience of discrimination in a group of individuals who may be far removed from such experiences. Responses to the open-ended item of the acculturative stress instrument – asking participants to identify stressful situations they may have experienced as a result of being members of an ethnic minority – suggest that participants were fundamentally aware of the negative stereotypes endorsed by some members of the U.S. culture yet acknowledged that in El Paso there is less discrimination. An alternative explanation for these findings may be that individuals of Mexican descent who have lived in the U.S. for a shorter period of time may be perceiving discrimination from individuals of Mexican descent who have lived in the U.S. for a longer period of time. Unfortunately, we did not measure whether a contentious relationship exists between individuals of Mexican descent who vary in demographic characteristics related to culture change. Safdar et al. (2009) indicate that acculturation is a process subject to the influence of in-group/out-group distinctions. Jasinskaja-Lahti, Liebkind, Horenczyk, & Schmitz (2003) have shown that members of the same ethnic group can surely be perceived as the out-group. With our choice of sample, we incurred in other limitations including restricted generalizability to older adults. In addition, our design was cross-sectional. Ultimately, the best strategy to investigate the process of culture change and adaptation is via longitudinal studies. Presently, our research group is investigating the acculturation practices of the border community at large. Padilla and Perez (2003) advocated the use of a socio-cognitive approach to the study of acculturation. We attempted to advance their model by linking the experience of discrimination to individual differences in emotion regulation. We would like to advocate the use of an experimental approach for the study of emotion regulation, anger, distress, and acculturation in future studies. Research suggests that acculturation may be malleable and shift in response to contextual cues (Lechuga, 2008). Use of an experimental approach can contribute significantly to our understanding of the malleability of acculturation in response to contextual cues indicative of stereotype threat and potential discrimination. Moreover, a shift in acculturation strategy should be mediated by the regulation of affect. Schmitz, 1992 and Schmitz, 1994 has conducted extensive work on the relationship between the big five personality dimensions, coping, and acculturation strategies and outcomes. Schmitz's work suggests, indeed, that certain personality factors such as neuroticism and impulsivity are inversely related to a preference for integration and that certain coping strategies such as problem-oriented coping are positively related to preference for assimilation. However, Kosic's (2006) review of the literature on the relationship between acculturation and personality indicates that this is a complex relationship and research attempting to elucidate it has been fraught by inconsistent findings. Moreover, a small proportion of the acculturation variance is predicted by personality alone. Consequently, Kosic (2006) recommends following the “person x situation” view which posits that immigrants’ individual characteristics will interact with situational factors such as host culture members’ attitudes towards the acculturation strategies of immigrants. For example, research suggests that extraversion predicts assimilation (Kosic, 2006). However, maladjustment may result when extraverted immigrants enter a culture where members of the host society prefer separation. Following Kosic's recommendation, our objective was to contribute to previous work on acculturation and personality by elucidating interactional relationships between the individual and his/her environment that may lead to an aversive acculturation experience. We hope that our research expands acculturation theory by promoting the inclusion of individual level variables that may accentuate the experience of negative contextual factors. Interventions designed to advance the adjustment of individuals undergoing the process of culture change may be more successful if they target a combination of individual level and contextual factors.