Graduate Level Psychology

The Immigrant Experience: Differences in Acculturation, Intercultural Sensitivity, and Cognitive Flexibility Between the First and Second Generation of Latino Immigrants Christine N. Christmas & Gina G. Barker

This study tested the assertion that intercultural communication competence develops as a result of intercultural adaptation. Surveys were collected from a sample of 216 first- and second-generation Latino immigrants in the US. It was predicted that first-generation immigrants would score higher on cognitive flexibility, intercultural sensitivity, and biculturalism than second-generation immigrants because of their direct exposure to two cultures. These hypotheses were not supported, as second-generation immigrants scored higher on all three measures. As predicted, bicultural orientation was correlated with both cognitive flexibility and intercultural sensitivity. The findings are discussed with attention to immigrants’ acculturation strategies.

Keywords: Biculturalism; Cognitive Flexibility; Immigrant Acculturation; Intercultural Communication; Intercultural Sensitivity

Introduction

It has been estimated that two million people cross international borders daily (Omelaniuk, 2005) and that more than 190 million people worldwide live outside their country of birth or citizenship (Martin & Zürcher, 2008). Sojourners take residence abroad for various reasons, but whether short term or long term, the success of their international experience typically rests on some degree of adaptation to a new culture and development of intercultural communication competence.

Christine N. Christmas is a graduate of Liberty University. Gina G. Barker is at Coastal Carolina University. Correspondence to: Gina G. Barker, Coastal Carolina University, P.O. Box 261954, Conway, SC 29528, USA. Email: [email protected]

Journal of International and Intercultural Communication Vol. 7, No. 3, August 2014, pp. 238–257

ISSN 1751-3057 (print)/ISSN 1751-3065 (online) © 2014 National Communication Association http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2014.929202

Immigrants make up a particular group of sojourners who move to another country to find freedom, security, or a higher quality of life. In the United States, the ethnic minority population is increasing because of a steady flow of immigration. Individuals with a Latin American background now comprise over 16% of the U.S. population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010), and they are the fastest-growing ethnic group in the US.

Over the last century, two perspectives on immigrant adaptation have prevailed. The assimilationist perspective, illustrated by the melting pot analogy, prescribes new culture acquisition by means of rejecting the original culture. Assimilation has been hailed as the ideal approach for immigrants to adapt to their new environment (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001). In stark contrast is the pluralistic perspective, illustrated by the salad bowl analogy, which maintains that immigrants should preserve their native culture while adapting to their host culture (van Oudenhoven, Ward, & Masgoret, 2006). The pluralistic view, which is generally favored by immigrants themselves, rests on the notion that complete assimilation may not be desirable or even possible (Birman, 1998; Postiglione, 1983; van Oudenhoven et al. 2006).

Much of the research on immigrant populations has focused on negative effects of cultural transition (Alegría et al., 2008; Padilla & Gonzalez, 2001; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001) with assimilation lauded as the solution. Some studies have suggested, however, that assimilation may also foster negative outcomes, especially among young people (Harker, 2001; Padilla, 2006; Phinney, Horenczyk, Liebkind, & Vedder, 2001). There is now ample evidence that immigrants can function effectively within a host culture while retaining their native cultural identity and competence. Such an approach is referred to as a bicultural orientation, bicultur- alism, or integration (Benet-Martínez, Lee, & Leu, 2006; Berry, 1997, 2006; Guimond, Oliveira, Kamiesjki, & Sidanius, 2010; LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993; Padilla, 2006; Szapocznik, Kurtines, & Fernandez, 1980; Tadmor & Tetlock, 2006; van Oudenhoven, 2006).

This study addresses ramifications of immigrants’ intercultural adaptation processes and approaches to acquiring a new cultural repertoire, also referred to as acculturation. It examines intercultural communication competencies, such as intercultural sensitivity and cognitive flexibility, which are associated with the adaptation process. The central aim is to see if differences emerge between first-generation immigrants, who have had direct experience with at least two distinct cultures in two different countries, and second- generation immigrants, who have grown up in one country and in most cases only have had indirect exposure to their culture of heritage. Specifically, using a quantitative design, this study compares the degree of biculturalism, intercultural sensitivity, and cognitive flexibility among first- and second-generation Latino immigrants living in the US and examines the degree to which the three variables were positively correlated. For the purpose of this study, a Latino immigrant to the US is defined as a person born in a Latin American country now residing permanently in the US or a person born in the US to Latin American parents.

Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 239

Literature Review

As background for this study, literature related to intercultural adaptation, biculturalism, and intercultural communication competence was examined. The point of departure was a view of culture as a self-sustaining meaning system that incorporates beliefs, values, norms, traditions, language usage, and communication styles. Culture undergirds every aspect of human activity, including the political, economic, social, and religious domains of society (Navas, Rojasb, García, & Pumaresd, 2007). Culture does not just surround people, but profoundly influences the cognition, affect, and behavior of those who share it and impacts who they become (Benet-Martínez, Lee, & Leu, 2006). A shared culture enables its members to experience and interpret the world in similar ways. However, this interpretive framework is often taken for granted until challenged and made salient through intercultural encounters (Sussman, 2000).

Intercultural Adaptation and Acculturation

Research on the cross-cultural transition of immigrants and other sojourners across several disciplines has resulted in a rich body of literature. Within the field of intercultural communication, Kim’s (1988, 2001) work, in particular, has shed light on the internal and external factors impacting the process of intercultural adaptation, which she defined as: “The entirety of the phenomenon of individuals who, upon relocating into an unfamiliar sociocultural environment, strive to establish and maintain a relatively stable, reciprocal, and functional relationship with the environment” (Kim, 2005, p. 380). Early literature on intercultural adaptation (e.g., Gordon, 1964) assumed that immigrants would either adopt their new culture or maintain their native culture without adapting to the host society, but that both were not possible. In case of the former, immigrants would deculturate (unlearn their original culture) and acculturate (acquire their new culture) in a unidimensional fashion; a process eventually resulting in complete assimilation (Kim, 2001; LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993).

A different perspective has been furthered by Berry (2006), who defined acculturation as “a process of cultural and psychological change that results from the continuing contact between people of different cultural backgrounds” (p. 27). Recognizing two dimensions involving two independent processes of acculturation—one to the native culture and one to the host culture—his fourfold taxonomy includes the acculturation strategies assimilation, separation, marginalization, and integration (Berry, 1997). This perspective suggests that it is possible for an individual to be highly acculturated to one, neither, or both cultures (Birman, 1998, Somani, 2010; Szapocznik et al., 1980).

Assimilation occurs when “individuals do not wish to maintain their cultural heritage and seek daily participation with other cultures in the larger society” (Berry & Sabatier, 2010, p. 193), which historically has been viewed as the ideal acculturation strategy for immigrants. It should be noted, however, that acculturation does not necessarily take place evenly across every domain. Navas et al. (2007) found, for example, that

240 C. N. Christmas and G. G. Barker

assimilation is more likely to take place in relation to a host country’s political and economic systems than to its value system.

A strategy of separation is employed when “individuals place a value on holding on to their original culture, and at the same time wish to avoid interaction with others” (Berry, 2008, p. 331). This approach may be chosen by immigrants and sojourners as a reaction to pressures to assimilate to the host culture (Postiglione, 1983) or when limited contact between host nationals and immigrants leads to negative attitudes, discrimination, and social distance (van Oudenhoven et al., 2006).

Marginalization occurs when individuals neither maintain their original culture nor acquire a new one (Berry, 1997). It may be a result of the acculturation experience being perceived as too challenging to overcome (Amer & Hovey, 2007) or individuals failing to acquire a cultural identity or a sense of belonging in either culture (Pollock & van Reken, 2009).

Finally, integration involves simultaneously maintaining one’s original culture and becoming fully functional members of the host society. Bennett (1993) suggested that those engaged in the integration process define their own identity and evaluate their behavior and values in contrast to and in concert with both cultures. Van Oudenhoven et al. (2006) noted that immigrant integration requires a pluralistic society that accepts culturally different people.

Although Berry’s (1997) acculturation model has been criticized for furthering immigration policies characterized by pluralism (Gillespie, McBride, & Riddle, 2010) and for failing to measure host culture adoption (Chirkov, 2009; Matsudaira, 2006; Ward & Kus, 2012), it has come to dominate recent acculturation research (Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2013).

Biculturalism among Immigrants

Individuals who have integrated two cultures are considered bicultural. Bicultural competence is characterized by knowledge of beliefs and values of two cultures, communication competence in both cultures, and a positive attitude toward both groups (Keefe & Padilla, 1987; LaFromboise et al., 1993; Phinney et al., 2001). LaFromboise et al. (1993) used the term alternation to refer to a type of biculturalism where individuals feel assimilated in two cultures but, rather than integrating two cultural systems or schemas into a coherent whole, enact one cultural framework or the other, depending on the context. Research on cultural frame-switching (Benet-Martínez et al., 2006; Haritatos & Benet-Martínez, 2002; Hong, 2010) supports this notion that bicultural individuals may shift between their two cultures in response to cultural cues while keeping them distinct, separate, and even disassociated. Moore and Barker (2012) reported that while some bicultural or multicultural individuals tend to alternate among their cultural identities, others incorporate elements from each culture into a coherent identity that they adhere to consistently regardless of cultural context.

A number of studies have reported positive outcomes of biculturalism among immigrant populations (Cuéllar, 2000; Omizo, Kim, & Abel, 2008; Szapocznik et al., 1980; Tadmor & Tetlock, 2006). Gil, Vega, and Dimas (1994) found that while

Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 241

foreign-born Latino teenagers had higher levels of stress than their US-born peers, biculturalism was associated with a greater ability to negotiate the demands of the home and external environments and to minimize conflicts in both domains. Padilla and Gonzalez (2001) reported that immigrant students had a higher grade point average than their US-born counterparts. According to Ramírez (1974), the academic advantages of biculturalism stem from having two different cognitive orientations and switching between them to meet the demands of the situation. In addition, bicultural individuals have been shown to be more adjusted in their host culture, but also are believed to possess enhanced intercultural skills that enable them to adjust to various people or situations in other cultures (Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2013), to embrace and incorporate divergent cultural elements into their own worldview (Kim, 2008), and to function as boundary spanners and conflict mediators in multicultural contexts (Hong, 2010).

The ability to maintain a bicultural orientation may decline in the second, third, and subsequent generations of immigrants, as exposure to the culture of heritage decreases. It is clear from studies involving Latino immigrants that opportunities for these individuals to spend time in their countries of heritage are limited (Birman, 1998; Dennis, Basañez, & Farahmand, 2010; Padilla, 2006). Keefe and Padilla (1987) reported a decline in cultural awareness from the first to fourth generations of Mexican immigrants, with the most drastic decline occurring between the first and the second generation. Cultural awareness was conceptualized in their study as language proficiency, knowledge of historical events that have shaped the culture, understanding and appreciation of artistic and musical works, and norms and values guiding behavior.

Intercultural Communication Competence

The process of intercultural adaptation—whether approached with the goal of assimilation or bicultural integration—leads to the acquisition of intercultural communication competence in a range of areas “from the most obvious language competence and knowledge about the norms of the host culture to the ability to act in ways that are effective and appropriate in the host environment” (Kim, 2001, p. 73). A similar concept is that of intercultural literacy, which is defined as “the competencies, understandings, attitudes, language proficiencies, participation and identities necessary for effective cross-cultural engagement” (Heyward, 2002, p. 10). An interculturally literate person is competent to shift between different cultural identities as needed and to communicate from the standpoint of an insider.

Because language acquisition is a critical building block in the development of host culture competence, scholars have also identified language as a major barrier to effective intercultural communication (Cools, 2006; Lee, 2006). The acquisition of intercultural communication competence also requires sensitivity and flexibility (Arasaratnam & Doerfel, 2005; Chen & Starosta, 2000; Spitzberg, 2000).

Intercultural sensitivity is a critical component of intercultural communication competence (Del Villar, 2010; Tamam, 2010). Bhawuk and Brislin (1992) argued that

242 C. N. Christmas and G. G. Barker

“to be effective in another culture, people must be interested in other cultures, be sensitive enough to notice cultural differences, and also be willing to modify their behavior as an indication of respect for the people of other cultures” (p. 416). Intercultural sensitivity thus requires first an ability to discriminate and experience relevant cultural differences (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003) and second a willingness to embrace and accept such cultural disparities (Bennett, 1993). Chen and Starosta (1998) defined intercultural sensitivity as an “active desire to motivate [oneself] to understand, appreciate, and accept differences among cultures” (p. 231). They identified five dimensions of intercultural sensitivity, including: interaction engagement, respect for cultural differences, interaction confidence, interaction enjoyment, and interaction attentiveness (Chen & Starosta, 2000).

Flexibility is considered to be another key component of intercultural communication competence (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984). Endicott, Bock, and Narvaez (2003) defined cognitive flexibility as “the ability to understand, consider, and weigh multiple frameworks or schemas” (p. 415). Martin and Anderson (1998), who developed the cognitive flexibility scale, emphasized awareness of available options and alternatives as a key component. They argued that cognitive flexibility also requires a willingness to be flexible and adaptable. The construct thus also incorporates elements of motivation. Martin and Anderson (1998) argued that cognitive flexibility leads to self-efficacy, as it enables a person to believe in their ability to be flexible and therefore be more confident when communicating with strangers or in new situations. Cognitive flexibility has also been linked to open-mindedness, lower anxiety, and self-compassion (Martin, Staggers, & Anderson, 2011).

Hypotheses and Rationale

From the review of the literature, it is evident that the unidimensional view of immigrant acculturation that characterized early research and led to promotion of assimilation has been replaced with a two-dimensional view of the acculturation process, which highlights the benefits of integration and a bicultural orientation. However, these positive outcomes seem to phase out with subsequent generations (Keefe & Padilla, 1987; Nguyen, 2006). Lacking the direct exposure to and experience with their culture of origin that their parents had, the second generation may be at a disadvantage in certain respects.

A review of several immigrant studies revealed no clear, agreed-upon definition of a first- or second-generation immigrant. Some studies (e.g., Stodolska, 2008) refer to the first- and second-generation immigrant cohorts but do not operationalize these terms. Portes and Rumbaut (2005) defined the second generation as “native-born children of foreign parents or foreign-born children who were brought to the US before adolescence” (p. 988). Padilla and Gonzalez (2001) considered a first- generation immigrant one who had moved to the US after being born in another country and a second-generation immigrant one who was born in the US to immigrant parents, or moved to the US before the age of five, while Kim, Brenner, Liang, and Asay (2003) defined the first generation as those who immigrate as adults

Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 243

and labeled those who immigrated to the US as a child or adolescent the 1.5 generation.

The difficulty seems to lie in determining at what age a child starts to perceive cultural cues. Newman and Newman (2003) said, “Depending on their age at the time of immigration, many young immigrants have already been socialized to the culture of their parents and as a consequence experience some difficulty in adapting.” (p. 473). Mena, Padilla, and Maldonado (1987) reported that adolescents immigrating before the age of 12 experienced less acculturative stress than those immigrating after the age of 12, while Portes and Rumbaut (2001) noted that immigrant children born in the U.S or having moved there at a very young age are almost identical in their linguistic abilities and cultural assimilation. Based on the above-cited research, particularly Mena et al. (1987) and Portes and Rumbaut (2001), first-generation immigrants in the present study were operationalized as individuals who were born in another country of citizenship and moved to the US after the age of 12, while second-generation immigrants were operationalized as those who were born in the US to immigrant parents, or those who immigrated before the age of 12.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the degree to which the intercultural adaptation of first-generation Latino immigrants was associated with greater intercultural communication competence—specifically intercultural sensitivity and cognitive flexibility—when compared with second-generation Latino immigrants. This predicted difference was based on the fact that first-generation immigrants have had direct experience with at least two distinct cultures in two different countries, while second-generation immigrants have grown up in the US and in most cases only have had indirect exposure to their culture of heritage. As noted above, intercultural sensitivity is defined as an “active desire to motivate [oneself] to understand, appreciate, and accept differences among cultures” (Chen & Starosta, 1998, p. 231), and cognitive flexibility is defined as “the ability to understand, consider, and weigh multiple frameworks or schemas” (Endicott et al., 2003, p. 415).

H1: First-generation Latino immigrants have higher levels of intercultural sensitivity than second-generation Latino immigrants.

H2: First-generation Latino immigrants have higher levels of cognitive flexibility than second-generation Latino immigrants.

This study also assessed the acculturation strategies used by first- and second- generation immigrants by measuring their levels of biculturalism, defined as possessing knowledge of beliefs and values of both cultures, language proficiency and communication competence in both cultures, and a positive attitude toward both cultures (Keefe & Padilla, 1987; LaFromboise et al., 1993; Phinney et al., 2001). Biculturalism stems from using an acculturation strategy characterized by integration (Berry, 2006) and allows immigrants to operate as insiders in both cultural contexts.

H3: First-generation Latino immigrants have higher levels of biculturalism than second-generation Latino immigrants.

Lastly, the notion that a bicultural orientation would be associated with both intercultural sensitivity and cognitive flexibility was tested. Several scholars have

244 C. N. Christmas and G. G. Barker

linked biculturalism to these intercultural communication competencies, while conceptualizing them as flexibility, adaptability, empathy (Cuéllar, 2000; Omizo et al., 2008; Szapocznik et al., 1980), or an ability to switch between cognitive orientations (Ramírez, 1974). Tadmor and Tetlock (2006) reported that immigrants choosing an acculturation strategy of integration, rather than assimilation or separation, had higher levels of integrative complexity, defined as “the degree to which a person accepts the reasonableness of different cultural perspectives on how to live” (p. 178), which is conceptually similar to intercultural sensitivity.

H4 Biculturalism is positively correlated with both intercultural sensitivity and cognitive flexibility.

Method

A quantitative survey design utilizing established instruments was chosen to test the four hypotheses guiding this study. In addition, a six-item demographic questionnaire was included to address participants’ gender, age, country of origin, age of immigration, and cultural background of each parent (if born in the US).

The 24-item Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (Chen & Starosta, 2000) was used with permission from Dr. Guo-Ming Chen to measure attitudes toward a culture perceived as other than one’s own. It includes items such as: “I respect the values of people from different cultures,” and “I think people from other cultures are narrow-minded.” The scale is thus not culture-specific, and the intent was not to measure attitudes towards American or Latin cultures specifically. The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of the scale was .80. In addition, the 12-item Cognitive Flexibility Scale (Martin & Anderson, 1998) was used with permission from Dr. Matthew Martin to test the elements of cognitive flexibility, i.e., awareness, willingness, and self-efficacy. The scale includes items such as, “I can communicate an idea in many different ways,” and “I am willing to listen and consider alternatives to a problem.” The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of the scale was .71.

Finally, the 20-item Abbreviated Multidimensional Acculturation Scale (Zea et al., 2003) was used with permission from Dr. Maria Zea to measure cultural identity, language competence, and cultural competence in regards to both U.S. culture and the participants’ culture of origin. Identity is measured with items such as “I feel good about being Latino” and “I think of myself as being U.S.-American.” The language competence subscale measures participants’ perception of fluency in English and Spanish and cultural competence is measured in terms of familiarity with popular media, entertainment, history, and political leaders. The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of the biculturalism scale was .85.

In consideration of the varying linguistic proficiencies of participants, the demographic questionnaire, Intercultural Sensitivity Scale, and Cognitive Flexibility Scale were translated into Spanish and verified by way of back-translation. The acculturation scale already existed in Spanish. The instruments were then combined into a single, bilingual questionnaire with each question or item listed in English

Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 245

followed by Spanish. All Likert items were measured on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

Sampling and Analysis

Participants were sampled at community centers, churches, and two universities in the Southeast and mid-Atlantic regions of the US in July and August 2010. Participants were not randomly selected; rather this constitutes a sample of convenience. A total of 295 individuals participated, generating a sample of 216 usable surveys (103 men and 113 women). Most of the participants (146) identified Mexico as their or their parents’ country of origin. Other countries represented included: El Salvador (14), Colombia (10), Puerto Rico (7), Peru (7), Cuba (6), Guatemala (5), Honduras (5), Brazil (5), Argentina (3), Venezuela (3), The Dominican Republic (2), Uruguay (1), Bolivia (1), and Costa Rica (1). Sampling from multiple countries was not to ignore differences among the cultures in these countries, but rather to recognize similarities that exist in the experiences of immigrants from Latin America now residing in the US.

The surveys were first coded based on generational status. The participants who were born in another country of citizenship and having moved to the US after the age of 12 were coded as first-generation immigrants, while those born in the US to immigrant parents and those having immigrated before the age of 12 were coded as second-generation immigrants. The first generation was represented by 118 participants with an average age of 33.8 (range 18–69), and the second generation was represented by 98 participants with an average age of 21.6 (range 18–45). About two-thirds of the first-generation immigrants (76 participants) had moved as adults; the remaining third as adolescents. Just over half of the second-generation immigrants (52 participants) were born in the US.

The scores from each scale were averaged. The scores from the U.S. and Latino acculturation subscales were averaged and then multiplied to obtain a bicultural score for each participant, following the directions from Zea et al. (2003). In addition, scores for each of the three subscales—language, identity, and cultural competence—were averaged for U.S. and Latin American cultures, respectively. Independent-samples t-tests were used to analyze differences in the dependent variables intercultural sensitivity, cognitive flexibility, and biculturalism between the first and the second generation as well as to assess differences between the two generations on the three acculturation subscales. Pearson product-moment correlations were used to assess the relationships among the variables intercultural sensitivity, cognitive flexibility, and biculturalism. In addition, linear regression was used to control for the effect of English-language proficiency, specifically, and to test whether this variable mediated the effect of generational status on cognitive flexibility and intercultural sensitivity, respectively.

246 C. N. Christmas and G. G. Barker

Results

The first hypothesis predicted that first-generation Latino immigrants would have higher levels of intercultural sensitivity than second-generation Latino immigrants. The analysis yielded a small, but significant difference between the generations (t(210) = −2.24, p = .026); however the second generation scored higher, which was opposite from what the hypothesis predicted. The first generation produced a mean score of 3.97 (SD = .48), and the second generation produced a mean score of 4.11 (SD = .43). The effect size (d = .31) was small, as determined by Cohen’s (1988) guideline.

The second hypothesis predicted that first-generation Latino immigrants would have higher levels of cognitive flexibility than second-generation Latino immigrants. Similar to the first hypothesis, a small, but statistically significant difference (t(212) = −2.94, p = .004) in the opposite direction was found between the first generation, whose mean score was 3.85 (SD = .49), and the second generation, whose mean score was 4.05 (SD = .44). Thus, the second hypothesis was not supported either. The effect size (d = .43) was small (Cohen, 1988).

The third hypothesis predicted that first-generation immigrants would score higher on biculturalism than their second-generation counterparts. The analysis revealed a significant difference between the two groups (t(202) = −8.54, p < .001); but again, in the opposite direction from what was expected. The mean score for the first generation was 9.63 (SD = 3.15), compared with a mean score of 13.35 (SD = 3.03) for the second generation. The effect size (d = 1.17) was large, i.e. well above the .8 required by Cohen (1988).

After testing the differences in biculturalism, scores on the three subscales—cultural identity, language, and cultural competence—were examined for both cultural groups to further discern the differences between the first and the second generation. As displayed in Table 1, the two generations demonstrated almost no differences on the three Latin dimensions of acculturation, while differences were apparent on the U.S. dimensions.

Table 1 First-Generation and Second-Generation Acculturation Subscale Scores

Subscale Generational status N M SD SE

Latin Identity First generation 110 4.77 .55 .05 Latin Identity Second generation 94 4.81 .50 .05 U.S. Identity First generation 108 2.92** 1.17 .11 U.S. Identity Second generation 94 3.95** 1.06 .11 English First generation 112 2.50** .71 .07 English Second generation 94 3.84** .53 .05 Spanish First generation 112 3.78 .49 .05 Spanish Second generation 94 3.71 .54 .06 Latin Competence First generation 112 2.72* .74 .07 Latin Competence Second generation 94 2.48* .78 .08 U.S. Competence First generation 112 2.20** .76 .07 U.S. Competence Second generation 94 3.21** .77 .08

*p < .05, **p < .001.

Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 247

The results showed that first- and second-generation immigrants did not differ in regards to identifying with their Latin cultural heritage (α = .83) or in their Spanish language competence (α = .71). A post hoc analysis, using G*Power software (Faul et al., 2007), showed that very large sample sizes would be required for Latin identity and Spanish language generational differences to be significant at the .05 level. The effect sizes were d = .08 and d = .14, respectively. Since Cohen’s (1988) guideline suggests that an effect size of at least .2 is required for the effect to be considered small, it is unlikely that the nonsignificant t-tests can be attributed to a limited sample size.

Only a very slight but significant difference (t(204) = 2.254, p = .025) emerged in regards to Latin cultural competence (α = .82). The first generation’s mean score was 2.72, compared with the second generation’s mean score of 2.48. The effect size (d = .32) was small (Cohen, 1988). In regards to U.S. cultural identification (α = .91), a significant difference (t(200) = −6.559, p < 001) was found between the first generation (M = 2.92) and the second generation (M = 3.95). The effect size was large (d = .92). In a similar fashion, significant results (t(204) = −9.483, p < .001) emerged in relation to U.S. cultural competence (α = .91). The first generation yielded a mean score of 2.20, and the second generation a mean score of 3.21. The effect size was again large (d = 1.32). Finally, there was a significant difference (t(204) = −15.16, p < .001) between the two groups’ English-language competence (α = .94), where the first generation (M = 2.50) scored lower than the second (M = 3.84). The effect size (d = 2.14) was large. In fact, a linear regression analysis revealed that the differences between the two generations’ scores on both cognitive flexibility (t(201) = 4.05, p < .001) and intercultural sensitivity (t(199) = 3.82, p < .001) could be explained by their English-language proficiency, while generational status did not have a significant effect.

The fourth hypothesis predicted that biculturalism would be positively correlated with both intercultural sensitivity and cognitive flexibility. The analysis yielded a moderate association between intercultural sensitivity and cognitive flexibility; (r = .51, p < .01). The relationships between cognitive flexibility and biculturalism (r = .37, p < .01) and intercultural sensitivity and biculturalism (r = .36, p < .01) were weak, but similar with associations accounting for 14% and 13% of the variance in biculturalism, respectively. A partial correlation analysis controlling for the impact of biculturalism on the intercultural sensitivity and cognitive flexibility variables showed that biculturalism did not explain the relationship between intercultural sensitivity and cognitive flexibility (r = .42, p < .01).

Discussion

The main focus of this study was to assess differences in intercultural sensitivity, cognitive flexibility, and biculturalism between the first and the second generation of Latino immigrants. The literature on immigrants’ intercultural adaptation provided adequate support for the prediction that first-generation immigrants who have had tangible and direct exposure to both home and host cultures would be more likely to

248 C. N. Christmas and G. G. Barker

develop a bicultural orientation and higher levels of intercultural sensitivity and cognitive flexibility than subsequent generations. Yet, contrary to expectations, second-generation immigrants scored higher on all three measures. Although the correlations were weaker than expected, the results support the notion that biculturalism is associated with greater intercultural sensitivity and cognitive flexibility, both components of intercultural communication competence. The findings thus warrant a closer examination of the acculturation strategies used by the first-generation Latino immigrants and the second-generation Latino immigrants, respectively.

The results of previous studies (Bhawuk & Brislin, 1992; Gil et al., 1994; Kim, 1988, 2001; Olson & Kroeger, 2001) had suggested that as immigrants adapt to meet the demands of their host environment, they experience cultural similarities and differences and develop a heightened sense of self and other awareness. This cultural awareness was conceptualized as intercultural sensitivity. Chen and Starosta (2000) argued that interculturally sensitive people are able to negotiate cultural meanings through effective communication with others who are culturally different. The results of this study suggest that first-generation Latino immigrants have either encountered barriers or lack motivation to embracing and adapting to U.S. culture, which in turn has inhibited their acquisition of intercultural sensitivity. Their lacking proficiency in English emerged as an explanatory variable. This is consistent with previous research, which has identified language proficiency as a critical component of intercultural communication competence and intercultural literacy (Heyward, 2002; Kim, 2001; LaFromboise et al., 1993; Phinney et al., 2001). Multilingualism has also been linked to cultural openness (Dewaele & van Oudenhoven, 2009). Preston (2007) noted that only 23% of first-generation Latino immigrants are fluent in English compared with 88% of second-generation immigrants.

The prediction that first-generation Latino immigrants would demonstrate higher levels of cognitive flexibility than their second-generation counterparts was based largely on the work of Cuéllar (2000), Martin and Anderson (1998), and Tadmor and Tetlock (2006), who have linked acculturation, as well as integration of cultural identities and values, to cognitive flexibility. Other studies have shown, however, that there is little to no difference between the first and the second generation in terms of cognitive assessment. For instance, Leung, Maddux, Galinsky, and Chiu (2008) reported that creativity rates were high for both first- and second-generation immigrants. Although the present study did not investigate creativity specifically, as Kloo, Perner, Aichhorn, and Schmidhuber (2010) stated, “cognitive flexibility is necessary for effective problem-solving and creativity” (p. 208). Interestingly, they also found that cognitive flexibility follows an inverted U-shape, where flexibility increases through early childhood, but begins to decrease with age. The first- generation participants’ slightly higher average age may have contributed to their lower scores on this measurement.

First-generation immigrants’ exposure to different cultures and experiences with intercultural adaptation are similar to those of third-culture individuals, also known as third-culture kids. Third-culture individuals have been found to possess

Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 249

heightened perceptual skills that are conceptually similar to intercultural sensitivity and/or cognitive flexibility, including appreciation for different people and perspec- tives (Pollock & van Reken, 2009), ability to adjust easily (Fail, Thompson, & Walker, 2004), open-mindedness (Dewaele & van Oudenhoven, 2009), interpersonal sensit- ivity (Lyttle, Barker, & Cornwell, 2011), and fluency in multiple languages (Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2003). However, unlike most of the first-generation Latino immigrants participating in this study, third-culture individuals often experience a privileged upbringing. They are generally very well educated, wealthy, and mobile (McCaig, 1994; Pollock & van Reken, 2009). Also, while some of the first-generation immigrants in this study moved to the US as early as at age 12, most had already reached adulthood before making the transition. By contrast, third-culture indivi- duals’ intercultural adaptation takes place during their developmental years. This enables them to acquire bicultural or even multicultural competencies with little conscious effort (Moore & Barker, 2012) along with the necessary language skills, which are also easier to acquire at an early age (Stevens, 1999).

The second-generation Latino immigrants in this study scored higher on biculturalism, which indicates that since most of them were born in the US, they have had significant exposure to a Latin culture, presumably at home. Both generations scored very high on the Latin cultural identity subscale. Previous studies have suggested that second-generation immigrants tend to favor assimila- tion over integration (Dennis et al., 2010; Szapocznik & Kurtines, 1993). The results of this study suggest otherwise and thus echo those of Ramírez (1983) and Phinney (1992) who also found that second- and third-generation immigrants often remain involved enough with their ethnic cultural heritage to become bicultural. Ramirez and Hosch (1991) reported that when the cultural values and practices of Latino adolescents were drastically divergent from that of their parents, familial dysfunc- tion increased. This may cause the second generation to embrace their cultural heritage to a greater extent. The second generation in this study scored slightly higher on the U.S. cultural competence and language subscales, but lower on the U.S. identity scale in favor of a Latin cultural identity. Similarly, Keefe and Padilla (1987) reported a sharp decline in cultural awareness—i.e., language proficiency, knowledge of significant historical events, appreciation of artistic and musical works, behavioral norms, and values—from the first to second generation of Mexican immigrants. By contrast, they found that loyalty to culture of origin did not decline in subsequent generations. Although the immigrants possessed limited knowledge of their heritage culture, they still maintained a Mexican identity and engaged in culture-specific activities. While the second to fourth generation of immigrants interacted more with Anglo Americans in formal spheres of life than first-generation immigrants, their social life was spent almost exclusively within their ethnic group.

The results of the present study point to the conclusion that second-generation Latino immigrants are more exposed to two cultures than expected, because the first generation has not assimilated into U.S. culture. Birman (1998) reported that Latino adolescents, who had arrived in the US at age 6 or later, were found to serve as

250 C. N. Christmas and G. G. Barker

brokers of American culture to their first-generation immigrant parents, because their homes were predominantly Hispanic-oriented and Spanish-speaking. Also, Tran (2010) reported that speaking Spanish with parents and friends does not hinder the second generation’s acquisition of English. This suggests that first-generation Latino immigrants are employing an acculturative strategy of separation rather than one of integration (Berry, 1997, 2008; van Oudenhoven et al., 2006). A lack of money, education, and—in some cases—citizenship is a confounding variable that likely impacts the language acquisition and acculturation experience of Latino immigrants.

Immigrants’ acculturation processes are also affected by the host society’s receptivity, which determines immigrants’ access to social communication networks and support (Kim, 2001). Berry (2009) emphasized the fact that not only do immigrants choose acculturation strategies when adapting to a host culture, but host societies also employ different acculturation strategies towards immigrants. Padilla and Perez (2003) explained that negative attitudes towards immigrants, which may lead to discrimination and social stigma, constrain their adaptation, and Keefe and Padilla (1987) reported that perceived discrimination was associated with a stronger heritage-culture identity. When immigrants perceive that they are not welcome or that their cultural identity is threatened by pressure to assimilate, they are more likely to employ an acculturation strategy of separation. To illustrate this interrelationship, Sam and Berry (2006) matched the four immigrant acculturation strategies assimilation, marginalization, separation, and integration with four host society acculturation strategies labeled melting pot, exclusion, segregation, and multiculturalism.

The first generation’s acculturation strategy may thus also be understood as an effect of segregation. In a discussion of transnational communities, linguistic shifts, and segmented assimilation among immigrants, Portes (1997) argued that transna- tional communities are often formed by groups of immigrants present in large numbers for the purpose of advancing politically and economically without giving up their native cultural heritage. Such communities also mitigate the need of immersion into the host culture for the purpose of social support. A similar notion was furthered by Croucher (2011), who argued that immigrant groups retain and strengthen their group boundaries and ethnic and religious group memberships in order to maintain their vitality and group identity.

Recommendations for Further Research

Despite the limitations of the present study, particularly the use of a convenience sample, its results add to the literature on immigrants’ acculturation strategies and suggest several directions for further research. Primarily, the current study should be replicated with the addition of subsequent generations of Latino immigrants to gauge when intercultural sensitivity, cognitive flexibility, and biculturalism begin to phase out. While the current sample represents a wide range of Latin American cultures, the majority of data were collected among members of Hispanic churches, which may serve as transnational communities, discussed above.

Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 251

This study should be replicated among other immigrant populations to examine whether first- and second-generation immigrants of various ethnicities acculturate differently on the basis of socioeconomic factors, size of the group, and cultural values. A portion of the sample was obtained among university students, who to a greater extent belonged to the second generation. Thus, it is possible that education level and university experience served as mediating variables. Language proficiency should also be examined more closely as a predictor variable.

The measurements of intercultural sensitivity, cognitive flexibility, and bicultural- ism were appropriate for this study, as the instruments captured the concepts under investigation while demonstrating acceptable levels of reliability. Also, using a bilingual questionnaire increased the validity of the results, as it ensured that participants understood the questions. However, since all self-reported data depend on accurate self-awareness, other established instruments, such as the Bicultural Involvement Questionnaire (Szapocznik et al., 1980), and the Intercultural Develop- mental Inventory (Hammer et al., 2003), may prove useful in studying acculturation strategies and intercultural communication competence among different generations of immigrants, because different measurements operationalize key concepts differ- ently. In addition, measurements that rely on peer-reports may be considered in order to reduce the reliance on participants’ level of self-awareness.

It is also recommended that qualitative methods, such as in-depth interviews, be employed in order to examine in greater depth and detail how a bicultural identity and bicultural communication competence is experienced and understood by bicultural individuals. Qualitative methods should also be utilized to analyze the processes immigrants undergo to organize, integrate, and move between their various cultural orientations and to determine the degree to which and the manner in which two cultural schemas are integrated (Chirkov, 2009; Ward, 2008).

Cross-national comparisons are also needed, as the political and cultural realities of different host societies may lead to different acculturation outcomes (Kim, 2001; Padilla & Perez, 2003). The presence of pluralistic policies tends to support biculturalism, whereas mono-cultural societies tend to exert more pressure on immigrants to conform and assimilate to the mainstream culture (Postiglione, 1983).

Finally, the lack of agreed-upon definitions of who makes up the first and the second generation of immigrants, respectively, makes comparisons among studies difficult. Consequently, definitions should be further developed and standardized with particular attention to developmental factors related to the age of immigration.

Conclusions

Based on the notion that intercultural adaptation leads to greater intercultural communication competence, the increased exposure to different cultures by first- generation Latino immigrants was expected to generate higher scores on measurements of intercultural sensitivity, cognitive flexibility, and biculturalism than second-generation immigrants. The results of this study indicate that there

252 C. N. Christmas and G. G. Barker

are differences between the generations, but also similarities in the cohorts’ Latin American identity and Spanish-language skills.

While biculturalism was indeed found to be associated with higher levels of intercultural sensitivity and cognitive flexibility, it was the second generation, rather than the first generation, that demonstrated a higher level of biculturalism, perhaps because of their continued exposure to Latin American culture leading to a more integrated acculturative experience than was expected. The first generation’s reliance on transnational communities and acculturation strategies characterized by separa- tion has reduced their need to achieve U.S. culture competence and English language competence.

In light of the increased Latino immigration to the US, the intercultural adaptation processes and intercultural communication competence of immigrants representing different generations remain important areas of research. The acculturation strategies employed by different groups profoundly impact not just the immigrants themselves and their children, but also host nationals, as articulated by Kim (2001): “In this increasingly integrated world, cross-cultural adaptation is a central and defining theme: The multicultural world is enhanced by the experiences of sojourners, immigrants, and others who successfully make the transition” (p. xi).

References

Alegría, M., Canino, G., Shrout, P.E., Woo, M., Duan, N., Vila, D., et al. (2008). Prevalence of mental illness in immigrant and non-immigrant U.S. Latino groups. American Journal of Psychiatry, 165, 359–369.

Amer, M.M., & Hovey, J.D. (2007). Socio-demographic differences in acculturation and mental health for a sample of 2nd generation/early immigrant Arab Americans. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 9, 335–347. doi:10.1007/s10903-007-9045-y

Arasaratnam, L.A., & Doerfel, M.L. (2005). Intercultural communication competence: Identifying key components from multicultural perspectives. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 137–163. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2004.04.001

Benet-Martínez, V., Lee, F., & Leu, J. (2006). Biculturalism and cognitive complexity: Expertise in cultural representations. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 37, 386–407. doi:10.1177/00220 22106288476

Bennett, M.J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R.M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 109–135). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Berry, J.W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An Interna- tional Review, 46, 5–34.

Berry, J.W. (2006). Stress perspectives on acculturation. In D.L. Sam & J.W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 43–57). New York, NY: Cambridge.

Berry, J.W. (2008). Globalization and acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 328–336. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.04.001

Berry, J.W. (2009). A critique of critical acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33, 361–371. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.06.003

Berry, J.W., & Sabatier, C. (2010). Acculturation, discrimination, and adaptation among second generation youth in Montreal and Paris. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 191–207. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.11.007

Bhawuk, D.P.S., & Brislin, R.W. (1992). The measurement of intercultural sensitivity using the concepts of individualism and collectivism. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, 413–436. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(92)90031-O

Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 253

Birman, D. (1998). Biculturalism and perceived competence of Latino immigrant adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 335–354. doi:10.1023/A:1022101219563

Chen, G.M., & Starosta, W.J. (1998). Foundations of intercultural communication. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Chen, G.M., & Starosta, W.J. (2000). The development and validation of the intercultural communication sensitivity scale. Human Communication, 3, 1–15.

Chirkov, V. (2009). Critical psychology of acculturation: What do we study and how do we study it, when we investigate acculturation?International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33, 94–105. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.12.004

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cools, C. (2006). Relational communication in intercultural couples. Language and Intercultural Communication, 6, 262–274. doi:10.2167/laic253.0

Croucher, S.M. (2011). Social networking and cultural adaptation: A theoretical model. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 4, 259–264. doi:10.1080/17513057.2011.598046

Cuéllar, I. (2000). Acculturation and mental health: Ecological transactional relations of adjustment. In I. Cuéllar & F.A. Paniagua (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural mental health (pp. 45–62). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Del Villar, C.P. (2010). How savvy are we?: Towards predicting intercultural sensitivity. Human Communication, 13, 197–215.

Dennis, J., Basañez, T., & Farahmand, A. (2010). Intergenerational conflicts among Latinos in early adulthood: Separating values conflicts with parents from acculturation conflicts. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 32, 118–135. doi:10.1177/0739986309352986

Dewaele, J., & van Oudenhoven, J. (2009). The effect of multilingualism/multiculturalism on personality: No gain without pain for Third Culture Kids?International Journal of Multi- lingualism, 6, 443–459. doi:10.1080/14790710903039906

Earley, P.C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Endicott, L., Bock, T., & Narvaez, D. (2003). Moral reasoning, intercultural development, and multicultural experiences: Relations and cognitive underpinnings. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 403–419. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(03)00030-0

Fail, H., Thompson, J., & Walker, G. (2004). Belonging, identity and third culture kids: Life histories of former international school students. Journal of Research in International Education, 3, 319–338. doi:10.1177/1475240904047358

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. doi:10.3758/BF03193146

Gil, A.G., Vega, W.A., & Dimas, J.M. (1994). Acculturative stress and personal adjustment among Hispanic adolescent boys. Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 43–54. doi:10.1002/1520- 6629(199401)22:1<43::AID-JCOP2290220106>3.0.CO;2-T

Gillespie, K., McBride, J.B., & Riddle, L. (2010) Globalization, Biculturalism and Cosmopolitanism: The acculturation status of Mexicans in upper management. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 10, 37–53. doi:10.1177/1470595809359581

Gordon, M.M. (1964). Assimilation in American life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Guimond, S., Oliveira, P.D., Kamiesjki, R., & Sidanius, J. (2010). The trouble with assimilation:

Social dominance and the emergence of hostility against immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 642–650. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.01.002

Hammer, M.R., Bennett, M.J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 421–443. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(03)00032-4

Harker, K. (2001). Immigrant generation, assimilation, and adolescent psychological well being. Social Forces, 79, 969–1004. doi:10.1353/sof.2001.0010

Haritatos, J., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2002). Bicultural identities: The interface of cultural, personality, and socio-cognitive processes. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 598–606. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00510-X

254 C. N. Christmas and G. G. Barker

Heyward, M. (2002). From international to intercultural: redefining the international school for a globalized world. Journal of Research in International Education, 1, 9–32. doi:10.1177/ 147524090211002

Hong, H.-J. (2010). Bicultural competence and its impact on team effectiveness. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 10, 93–120. doi:10.1177/1470595809359582

Keefe, S., & Padilla, A.M. (1987). Chicano ethnicity. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.

Kim, B., Brenner, B., Liang, C., & Asay, P. (2003). A qualitative study of adaptation experiences of 1.5 generation Asian Americans. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9, 156–170. doi:10.1037/1099-9809.9.2.156

Kim, Y.Y. (1988). Communication and cross-cultural adaptation: Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.

Kim, Y.Y. (2001). Becoming intercultural: An integrative theory of communication and cross-cultural adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kim, Y.Y. (2005). Adapting to a new culture: An integrative communication theory. In W.B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 375–400). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kim, Y.Y. (2008). Intercultural personhood: Globalization and a way of being. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 359–368. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.04.005

Kloo, D., Perner, J., Aichhorn, M., & Schmidhuber, N. (2010). Perspective taking and cognitive flexibility in the dimensional change card sorting (DCCS) task. Cognitive Development, 25, 208–217. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2010.06.001

LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 395–412. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.395

Lee, P.-W. (2006). Bridging cultures: Understanding the construction of relational identity in intercultural friendship. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 35, 3–22. doi:10.1080/17475740600739156

Leung, A.K., Maddux, W.W., Galinsky, A.D., & Chiu, C. (2008). Multicultural experience enhances creativity: The when and how. American Psychologist, 63, 169–181. doi:10.1037/0003- 066X.63.3.169

Lyttle, A., Barker, G.G., & Cornwell, T. (2011). Adept through adaptation: Third culture individuals’ interpersonal sensitivity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 686–694. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.02.015

Martin, M.M., & Anderson, C.M. (1998). The cognitive flexibility scale: Three validity studies. Communication Reports, 11, 1–9. doi:10.1080/08934219809367680

Martin, M.M., Staggers, S.M., & Anderson, C.M. (2011). The relationships between cognitive flexibility with dogmatism, intellectual flexibility, preference for consistency, and self-compassion. Communication Research Reports, 28, 275–280. doi:10.1080/08824096.2011.587555

Martin, P., & Zürcher, G. (2008). Managing migration: The global challenge. Population Bulletin, 63. Retrieved from http://www.prb.org/pdf08/63.1migration.pdf

Matsudaira, T. (2006). Measures of psychological acculturation: A review. Transcultural Psychiatry, 43, 462–487. doi:10.1177/1363461506066989

McCaig, N.M. (1994). Growing up with a world view: Nomad children develop multicultural skills. Foreign Service Journal, 32–41.

Mena, F.J., Padilla, A.M., & Maldonado, M. (1987). Acculturative stress and specific coping strategies among immigrant and later generation college students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9, 207–225. doi:10.1177/07399863870092006

Moore, A.M., & Barker, G.G. (2012). Confused or multicultural: Third culture individuals’ cultural identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 553–562. doi:10.1016/j. ijintrel.2011.11.002

Navas, M., Rojasb, A.J., García, M., & Pumaresd, P. (2007). Acculturation strategies and attitudes according to the Relative Acculturation Extended Model (RAEM): The perspectives of natives versus immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 67–86. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.08.002

Newman, B.M., & Newman, P.R. (2003). Development through life: A psychosocial approach (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 255

Nguyen, H. (2006). Acculturation in the United States. In D. Sam & J. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 311–330). New York, NY: Cambridge.

Nguyen, A.D., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2013). Biculturalism and adjustment: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 122–159. doi:10.1177/0022022111435097

Olson, C.L., & Kroeger, K.R. (2001). Global competency and intercultural sensitivity. Journal of Studies in International Education 5, 116–137. doi:10.1177/102831530152003

Omelaniuk, I. (2005). World migration 2005: Costs and benefits of international migration. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Migration.

Omizo, M., Kim, B., & Abel, R. (2008). Asian and European American cultural values, bicultural competence, and attitudes toward seeking professional psychological help among Asian American adolescents. Journal of Multicultural Counseling & Development, 36, 15–28. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1912.2008.tb00066.x

Padilla, A.M. (2006). Bicultural social development. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 28, 467–497. doi:10.1177/0739986306294255

Padilla, A.M., & Gonzalez, R. (2001). Academic performance of immigrant and US-born Mexican heritage students: Effects of schooling in Mexico and Bilingual/English language instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 727–742. doi:10.3102/00028312038003727

Padilla, A.M., & Perez, W. (2003). Acculturation, social identity, and social cognition: A new perspective. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25, 35–55. doi:10.1177/0739986303251694

Phinney, J.S. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scale for use with adolescents and young adults from diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156–176. doi:10.1177/074355489272003

Phinney, J.S., Horenczyk, G., Liebkind, K., & Vedder, P. (2001). Ethnic identity, immigration, and well-being: An interactional perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 493–510. doi:10.1111/ 0022-4537.00225

Pollock, D.C., & van Reken, R.E. (2009). Third culture kids: The experience of growing up among worlds. Boston, MA: Nicholas Brealey.

Portes, A. (1997). Immigration theory for a new century: some problems and opportunities. International Migration Review, 31, 799–825. doi:10.2307/2547415

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. (2005). Introduction: The second generation and the children of immigrants longitudinal study. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28, 983–999. doi:10.1080/01419870500224109

Postiglione, G.A. (1983). Ethnicity and American social theory: Toward critical pluralism. Lantham, MD: University Press of America.

Preston, J. (2007, November 30). Latino Immigrants’ Children Found Grasping English. New York Times, p. 15.

Ramírez, M. (1974). Cultural democracy, biocognitive development, and education. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Ramírez, M. (1983). Psychology of the Americas: Multicultural perspectives in personality and mental health. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.

Ramirez, J.I., & Hosch, H.M. (1991). The influence of acculturation on family functioning among Hispanic Americans in a bicultural community. Paper presented at the biennial conference on community research and action, Tempe, AZ. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED346387).

Sam, D.L., & Berry, J.W. (2006). The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge.

Somani, I.S. (2010). Becoming American. Journal of International & Intercultural Communication, 3, 59–81. doi:10.1080/17513050903428125

Spitzberg, B., & Cupach, W. (1984). Interpersonal communication competence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Spitzberg, B.H. (2000). A model of intercultural communication competence. In L. Samovar & R. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (9th ed., pp. 375–387). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Stevens, G. (1999). Age at immigration and second language proficiency among foreign-born adults. Language and Society, 28, 555–578. doi:10.1017/S0047404599004030

Stodolska, M. (2008). Adaptation processes among young immigrants: An integrative review. Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies, 6, 34–59. doi:10.1080/15362940802119203

256 C. N. Christmas and G. G. Barker

Sussman, N.M. (2000). The dynamic nature of cultural identity throughout cultural transitions: Why home is not so sweet. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 355–373. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0404_5

Szapocznik, J., & Kurtines, W. (1993). Family psychology and cultural diversity: Opportunity for theory, research, and application. American Psychologist, 48, 400–407. doi:10.1037/0003- 066X.48.4.400

Szapocznik, J., Kurtines, W., & Fernandez, T. (1980). Biculturalism and adjustment among Hispanic youths. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 4, 353–365. doi:10.1016/0147-1767 (80)90010-3

Tadmor, C., & Tetlock, P. (2006). Biculturalism: A model of the effects of second-culture exposure on acculturation and integrative complexity. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 173–190. doi:10.1177/0022022105284495

Tamam, E. (2010). Examining Chen and Starosta’s model of intercultural sensitivity in a multiracial collectivistic country. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 39, 173–183. doi:10.1080/17475759.2010.534860

Tran, V. (2010). English gain vs. Spanish loss?: Language assimilation among second-generation Latinos in young adulthood. Social Forces, 89, 257–284. doi:10.1353/sof.2010.0107

Tokuhama-Espinosa, T. (2003). Third culture kids: A special case for foreign language learning. In T. Tokuhama-Espinosa (Ed.), The multilingual mind: Issues discussed by, for, and about people living with many languages (pp. 165–169). Westport, CT: Praeger.

US Census Bureau. (2010, January 7). Supporting the 2010 Census. Retrieved from http://www. census.gov/2010census/data/

van Oudenhoven, J.P. (2006). Immigrants. In D. Sam & J. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 163–180). New York, NY: Cambridge.

van Oudenhoven, J.P., Ward, C., & Masgoret, A. (2006). Patterns of relations between immigrants and host societies. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30, 637–651. doi:10.1016/j. ijintrel.2006.09.001

Ward, C. (2008). Thinking outside the Berry boxes: New perspectives on identity, acculturation and intercultural relations. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 105–114. doi:10.1016/j. ijintrel.2007.11.002

Ward, C., & Kus, L. (2012). Back to and beyond Berry’s basics: The conceptualization, operationalization and classification of acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 472–485. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.02.002

Zea, M.C., Asner-Self, K.K., Birman, D., & Buki, L. (2003). The abbreviated multidimensional acculturation scale: Empirical validation with two Latino/Latina samples. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9, 107–126. doi:10.1037/1099-9809.9.2.107

Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 257

Copyright of Journal of International & Intercultural Communication is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.