Down the rabbit hole: Acculturation, integration and adaptation

The re -analysis of Nguyen and Benet-Mart & iacute;nez's (2013) meta -analytic data and a new metaanalysis of longitudinal studies by Bierwiaczonek and Kunst (2021) showed that the relationship between acculturation and adaptation is weak and that the effect size for unbiased results for integration may not differ from zero. These findings pose a major challenge to acculturation theory and research where the premises that acculturation is reliably related to adaptation and that integration is the most adaptive strategy are widely accepted. In this paper I consider how we as acculturation scholars could respond to this challenge. First, I summarize the results of Bierwiaczonek and Kunst's (2021) meta -analytic studies and the response by Grigoryev et al. (2023), noting that the findings reported in both papers are characterized by small effect sizes and large amounts of heterogeneity. I then consider what single studies can tell us about acculturation and adaptation, highlighting the influence of methodological and contextual factors on this relationship. Finally, I synthesize research on cultural identity configurations, bicultural identity integration and cultural identity styles to show how each program of research on cultural identity integration leads to different, but more nuanced, conclusions about the relationship between acculturation and adaptation. To advance acculturation theory and research I argue that we should reframe our questions from "to what extent are acculturation and integration related to adaptation?" to "how and when are acculturation and integration related to adaptation?" I also advocate putting more emphasis on acculturation processes and contexts in future research.