International Journal of Intercultural Relations 88 (2022) 119–124

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

Towards a dynamic approach to acculturation

Karen van der Zee a, *, Jan Pieter van Oudenhoven b
a
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands
b
University of Groningen, the Netherlands

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: One of the most influential models of acculturation is Berry’s (1980) two-dimensional model. In
Acculturation this paper we argue that Berry’s model does insufficient justice to current demographic and
Immigrants technical developments. Modern societies and particularly big cities are characterized by large
Berry’s (1980) model
immigrant populations as well as super-diversity. Moreover, technical developments allow im­
Interactive Acculturation Model (IAM)
Fading majorities
migrants to maintain almost unlimited contacts with their original culture. We plea for a more
Super-diversity dynamic approach to acculturation that focuses on immigrants as well as non-immigrants and
Dynamic approach departs from behaviors, cognitions and emotions involved in interactional dynamics at a mo­
Dual Concern Theory lecular level, as well as from intercultural competencies. A five-dimensional model of multicul­
Cultural frame switching tural effectiveness is presented (van der Zee & van Oudenhoven, 2000, 2017), describing cultural
Intercultural competence empathy, open-mindedness, social initiative, emotional stability and flexibility as competencies
that facilitate interactional dynamics that are characterized by an integration of different cultural
perspectives.

Foreword by the President of the International Academy for Intercultural Research, Adam Komisarof

As the President of the International Academy for Intercultural Research (IAIR), it is my great pleasure to present to you the
Webinar Conference 2021 Award Paper Series. In IAIR, the following awards are given biennially: Lifetime Achievement, Best
Dissertation, Early Career, and The William B. Gudykunst Outstanding Book Award. Last year, our biennial conference was planned for
Rapperswil, Switzerland, yet due to the global pandemic, this event has been postponed until July 2022. However, realizing the needs
to move research in our field forward and to provide a venue for IAIR members to meet in 2021, Past President Steve Kulich and his
team at Shanghai International Studies University, supported by IAIR’s Executive Council and other IAIR members, organized IAIR’s
first webinar conference on July 12 and 13, 2021. The webinar gave us a formal chance to recognize our biennial awardees, who
presented their work online and will have the opportunity to do again in Rapperswil in 2022. To honor our awardees, IAIR and the
International Journal of Intercultural Relations are featuring their webinar presentations in a series of short papers to appear between the
autumn of 2021 and the Rapperswil conference. In this issue, one of our two winners of the Lifetime Achievement Award, Jan Pieter
van Oudenhoven, is featured.

A dynamic approach to acculturation

Over the past decades, acculturation increasingly has become an area of study (e.g., Sam and Berry, 2016). This is not surprising,

* Correspondence to: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculty of Social Sciences, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
E-mail address: k.i.van.Oudenhoven-vander.Zee@vu.nl (K. van der Zee).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2022.04.004
Received 20 January 2022; Received in revised form 5 April 2022; Accepted 6 April 2022
Available online 28 April 2022
0147-1767/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
K. van der Zee and J.P. van Oudenhoven International Journal of Intercultural Relations 88 (2022) 119–124

since rates of immigration have reached unprecedented levels throughout the world. Also nowadays, thousands of refugees leave
countries daily, such as Afghanistan, Syria and Ukraine, escaping the aversive impact of war and suppression. When immigrants settle
in a new country, they take part of their values and standards with them from their native countries. In the new country, they are
confronted with the values and standards of the dominant cultural group, often deviating from their own. This proves to be a
considerable challenge, increasingly also for the residents of the host country. The contact between groups of people with a different
cultural background whereby changes occur in original cultural patterns in one or both groups is called acculturation (Segall, Dasen,
Berry & Poortinga, 1999). One of the most influential models of acculturation is Berry’s model (1980), which describes acculturation
based on four strategies that differ in cultural preservation and a tendency to engage in contacts in the new society.
Berry’s model has been extremely helpful in understanding processes of acculturation. It provided a necessary response to earlier
oversimplified models that assumed a unidimensional process of gradually adopting the culture of the new society while concurrently
shedding one’s heritage culture. Nevertheless, as we will argue in the present paper, Berry’s approach does insufficient justice to
today’s complex integration issues (e.g., van Oudenhoven & Ward, 2013). Demographic and technological developments require a
more dynamic approach towards acculturation. Groups of migrants are larger, and particularly second and third generations are
increasingly diverse in terms of, for example, educational level, living circumstances and engagement in society. Modern media make
it easy to maintain intensive contact with the country of origin. Due to its dominant position, the majority group traditionally did not
feel the pressure to change its own culture. This has changed, because especially in large-scale migration cities, such as New York, Los
Angeles, Brussels and Amsterdam, non-migrants no longer represent the majority. In Amsterdam, for example, in 2021 56% of its
inhabitants had a migrant background (20% western vs. 36% non-western)1 and this percentage is expected to further increase. In the
present paper, we will present the ingredients of a more dynamic approach to acculturation that does justice to such developments.

Approaches to understanding acculturation: Berry’s and Bourhis’ models

Berry’s acculturation model (1980) describes the orientation of immigrants towards the new society on two dimensions relating to
the extent to which individuals (1) desire to preserve their ethnic culture and (2) wish to interact with the members of the majority
group (Berry, 1980). This results in four acculturation strategies: integration, assimilation, separation and marginalisation. Integration
is the strategy whereby individuals want to hold on to their own culture and identity, but at the same time value contact with the
majority group. Assimilation refers to a person who values interaction with the majority group but has no wish to preserve their own
culture and ethnic identity. Separation is at stake when a person wants to hold on to the own culture and identity and simultaneously
rejects interaction with the majority group. Finally, in the case of marginalisation, a person gives up the own culture and identity, but
also has no desire to interact with the majority group. Marginalisation is not always a strategy, but often a position that immigrants
unwillingly find themselves in, particularly when the majority is prejudiced against and reluctant to interact with them. However,
marginalisation as an acculturation strategy does not necessarily need to lead to social isolation. Some migrants neither feel ties with
their own culture nor with the culture of the host country, but still actively take part in the new society and maintain an open mind
towards other groups. These immigrants prefer to describe themselves in terms of their personal characteristics and are sometimes also
referred to as ‘individualistic’ (e.g., Bourhis, Moïse, Perrault & Senécal, 1997).
A basic premise of Berry’s model is that integration is the most adaptive strategy (see Berry, 1997). The advantage of this strategy is
that a person can select and combine the preferred characteristics from different social systems without losing the own cultural
background. Integration thus has a beneficial effect on one’s personal growth and also promotes understanding between social groups.
It must be noted that recent research has challenged this premise (Bierwiaczonek & Kunst, 2021; see also Kunst, 2021). For example, on
the basis of a reanalysis of a previous meta-analysis on primarily correlational studies and a new meta-analysis of exclusively longi­
tudinal studies, Bierwiaczonek and Kunst (2021) come to the conclusion that empirical support is still lacking for the assumption that
integration is the most beneficial acculturation strategy for immigrants’ adaptation.
Following up on Berry’s work, Bourhis et al. (1997) developed the Interactive Acculturation Model (IAM). This model stresses the
importance of focusing on the interaction between immigrant and the host community. In their view, problematic intergroup relations
occur when there is a mismatch between acculturation preferences of migrants and the host society. When a certain group of migrants
prefers integration, for example, while the host community has a preference for assimilation, this creates a misfit, leading to negative
consequences for intergroup relations. According to Bourhis et al. (1997), positive relational outcomes of acculturation can be
particularly expected when host community members and immigrants both adopt assimilationist, integrationist or individualist
perspectives. This is supposed to express itself, for example, in favourable intergroup attitudes and mutually satisfying verbal and
non-verbal communications. IAM regards combinations as problematic when host society members prefer assimilation and immigrants
prefer integration and vice-versa, and as conflictual when host society members prefer assimilation or integration and immigrants
prefer separation. Also, this premise of Bourhis’ model has been challenged. For example, in 2009 Komisarof published a study testing
a modified Interactive Acculturation Model in Japan. In his research, Komisarof assessed how perceptions of acculturation strategy
compatibility between Japanese and American coworkers affected their quality of intercultural relations. His study suggests that
consensual combinations of acculturation strategies (both parties embracing the same acculturation strategy) do not result in better
relational outcomes compared to problematic strategies. As an explanation, Komisarof (2009) argues that ‘longer tenures abroad and
years of working with their cultural outgroup’ caused problematic types in his study to have to have ‘a more thorough level of cultural

1
https://allecijfers.nl/gemeente/Amsterdam

120
K. van der Zee and J.P. van Oudenhoven International Journal of Intercultural Relations 88 (2022) 119–124

immersion’ (p. 411). In his view, consensual IAM types may be more naïve and therefore overestimate the similarity of their accul­
turation strategies to those of their cultural outgroup coworkers.

Developments that challenge Berry’s and Bourhis’ models

Although both Berry’s and Bourhis’ models recognise that acculturation strategies may change across situations and over time, they
do insufficient justice to changed demographics in many contemporary societies as well as emerging transnationalism (e.g., van
Oudenhoven & Ward, 2013). First, Berry’s (1980) model was built on the idea of immigrants that belong to the cultural minority and
have to define their identity and relationships in a new cultural environment with a dominant host community. As we already argued,
there is a growing number of cities with neighborhoods where immigrant groups outnumber what used to be the cultural majority.
Hence, this may urge scholars to consider acculturation as a process of mutual adjustment rather than as an orientation of immigrants
towards the host society. In this regard, Crul and Lelie (2021), studied acculturation among non-immigrants living in minority majority
neighborhoods in Rotterdam. Despite negative attitudes towards the cultural outgroups of immigrants in their neigbourhood,
non-immigrants in this study clearly displayed integrative behaviors towards the immigrant community. They did so for example by
adopting some of immigrants’ habits, or by learning words from their language. Also in the study by Komisarof (2009) that we dis­
cussed in the previous section, there was no clearly identifiable dominant culture in some organizational contexts. What, for example,
constitutes the dominant culture in a multinational company with a majority of Japanese local employees with an American head
office and American executives? Komisarof’s study treated Japanese and American respondents in the same way, asking them to reflect
on their own acculturation strategy and that of the cultural outgroup. Statistical analyses revealed that group membership (being
Japanese vs. American) hardly affected the outcomes,2 supporting the idea that acculturation can be approached as a process of mutual
adjustment.
Processes of mutual adjustment of immigrants and non-immigrants may in turn enhance the likelihood of spontaneous mixing of
culture (see van Oudenhoven & Ward, 2013). By adding elements, immigrants contribute to the host country’s cultural transformation
by a process referred to as creolisation. We see this for example reflected in music, street language and food. It opens up a new way of
assimilation for immigrants into a creolised culture to which they themselves have contributed (van Oudenhoven & Ward, 2013).
Creolisation is not covered in Berry’s and Bourhis’ models.
Mutual adjustment may not always be a process in which both parties accommodate to the same extent. Even in the absence of a
numerical majority, immigrants may feel a need or feel pressured to adopt norms that reinforce membership of a desired group in the
host society, most likely being the non-immigrant group that holds the highest status position in society. In this regard, Bourhis,
Montaruli, El-Geledi, Harvey and Barrett (2010) examined acculturation preferences of migrant and non-migrant students in the
context of Los Angeles and Montreal. Both the United States and Canada harbour multiple non-migrant groups. In their study, Bourhis,
Montaruli, El-Geledi, Harvey, and Barrette (2010) showed that among immigrant students in Los Angeles, assimilationists had more
favourable attitudes towards the host European Americans than to African Americans. At the time of the study, European Americans
already made up only 30% of the Los Angeles County population, but their higher socioeconomic status and their political power has
remained strong in comparison to any other ethno-linguistic group in the region, which also nowadays seems to be the case.
The idea of assimilating or integrating into a high-status non-immigrant group is not at odds with Berry’s and Bourhis’ models, but
it does require a refinement of their assumptions. It becomes even more complex if we take into consideration the growing variation in
characteristics within immigrant groups themselves. In the sixties and seventies, low-skilled labour immigrants settled in Northern
European cities, for example in the Netherlands and Germany. They formed a relatively homogeneous group. However, the social
mobility paths of their children and grandchildren move in different directions. Which paths they end up in, seems dependent on
factors such as neighborhood, parental and schooling conditions (see Crul, 2016). The resources that immigrants have available to
them may also determine the groups they can assimilate or integrate into. Segmented assimilation theory (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001)
suggests that some immigrants are socially mobile because of their strong social cohesion while others remain vulnerable because they
assimilate into the underclass. In this regard, a study by Crul (2016) compares two neighborhoods in Amsterdam, one of which is
diverse in terms of culture but not in terms of social class (‘Bijlmer’) and one of which is diverse both in terms of cultural backgrounds
and social class (‘Nieuw-West’). Immigrant children raised in the latter neighborhood more often displayed favourable patterns of
upward mobility, assimilating in more privileged layers in society, as compared to immigrant children that spent their childhood in the
former neighborhood. In other words, dependent on the groups in which immigrants assimilate, acculturation outcomes can differ
drastically. Vertovec (2019) refers to the increasing diversity on different dimensions as super-diversity. Super-diversity seems to go
along with different manifestations of integration and assimilation dependent on immigrants’ positions on other dimensions, a factor
that has been overlooked in the traditional acculturation models.
Finally, the growth in opportunities for transnational contact is a factor that influences acculturation and intercultural relations
(see van Oudenhoven & Ward, 2013). Transnationalism refers to multiple ties and interactions that link people or institutions across
borders of nation states (Vertovec, 1999). The growth in transnationalism is facilitated by technological developments that on the one
hand have increased geographic proximity, whereas on the other hand have enhanced opportunities for virtual contact. Van
Oudenhoven and Ward (2013) argue that the emergence of transnationalism seems to require a third dimension to be added to Berry’s
dimensions referring to ‘the desire to be engaged in transnational contacts’ (p. 89). In the dynamic approach we advocate, the focus is

2
In the Komisarof (2009) study, group membership (being American or Japanese) only interacted with their independent variables (acculturation
strategy alignment) for one outcome measure.

121
K. van der Zee and J.P. van Oudenhoven International Journal of Intercultural Relations 88 (2022) 119–124

on what happens in concrete interactions between members of different cultural groups in terms of concern for one’s own original
culture and concern for the cultural perspective of the interaction partner. Being engaged in transnational contact then becomes a
factor that may have an impact on both these concerns, rather than an extra dimension to be included. What the impact of trans­
national contact will be on concern for one’s identity and the identity of the interaction partner is undetermined. Whereas one could
argue that transnational contacts make immigrants more focused on their own cultural perspective, particularly transnational eco­
nomic activities may also increase concern for the perspective of the host community, since host country nationals are important
customers of immigrants’ products and services (Snel, Engbersen and Leerkes, 2006).

A dynamic approach to acculturation

Demographic and technological developments ask for a more dynamic approach to acculturation. We define acculturation in terms
of effective cognitive, behavioral and emotional adjustments made in interaction with people with a different cultural background. As
becomes clear from this definition, our dynamic model of acculturation incorporates both immigrants and non-immigrants and is focused
on interactional dynamics. Furthermore, our model takes into account the role of intercultural competence that, as we will argue, fa­
cilitates constructive interactions between individuals of different cultural groups.

A focus on immigrants and non-immigrants

As we argued, in societies that become increasingly diverse, lines between majority and minority are blurring and acculturation
becomes equally relevant for both. Even more so, effective interaction between members of different cultures will inevitably often­
times involve non-immigrants. Their emotions, perceptions and behaviors are just as relevant as those of immigrants. Acculturation
outcomes are shaped in mutual interactions between immigrants and non-immigrants or between immigrants with different cultural
backgrounds, rather than through the attitudes and behaviors of one party in the interaction. So, as a first characteristic, a dynamic
approach to acculturation needs to extend beyond the traditional focus on immigrants, approaching non-immigrants’ acculturation
attitudes solely as a factor that is relevant to immigrants’ adjustment. We believe a dynamic model should treat immigrants and non-
immigrants in the same way, focusing on interactions between individuals with different cultural backgrounds, regardless of immigrant
status.

A focus on interactional dynamics

Second, we think it is in the dynamic interaction between members of different cultural groups that acculturation outcomes are
shaped. This entails a series of mutual adjustments that involve emotions, cognitions and behaviors. Although the IAM already pro­
vided a dynamic model focusing on relationships between majority and minority members, this model regarded variables indicating
such mutual adjustments as the outcome of acculturation dynamics rather than its core element. So, rather than examining general
acculturation orientations, we plea for a focus on what happens in concrete interactions. Take the example of Selvi, a Turkish-Dutch
woman, who is a second-generation immigrant. She holds a university degree and works as a senior manager in a bank. On a
typical workday she interacts frequently with her close colleague Sven who is native Dutch. In the evening she will return home and
have a chat with her Moroccan-Dutch neighbor Nadia who watches her dog during the day. In the evening she is oftentimes active as
volunteer to help refugees from Ukraine. Presumably, Selvi’s experience of being a cultural minority varies across these encounters and
she will not display the same acculturation strategy towards the different interaction partners. To understand what happens in each of
these interactions, the focus needs to be on the interactions themselves rather than on an underlying strategy.
A useful and well-known model for the study of behavior in dyadic interactions is Dual Concern Theory (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986). This
two-dimensional model describes behavior in dyadic situations in terms of four strategies that represent combinations of low and high
concern for self versus other (integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding). Dual Concern Theory has been developed as a framework
for studying conflict behavior. Combining the assumptions behind Dual Concern Theory for concrete dyadic interactions with Berry’s
two dimensional model, one could analyse acculturation in concrete interactions in terms of whether or not an interaction partner is
concerned about (1) one’s own cultural identity and (2) the cultural identity of the other person. This would result in four strategies
that can be named as identity integration, identity assimilation, identity infliction and identity avoidance. First, identity integration means
trying to connect one’s own perspective with the perspective of the interaction partner which may result in new ways of approaching
the situation. In a way, this can be considered as a process of creolisation that takes place in a concrete interaction. Identity assimilation
refers to giving in to the cultural perspective of the interaction partner. Identity infliction means imposing one’s cultural perspective on
the interaction partner. Finally, identity avoidance refers to avoiding discussing cultural perspectives that are potentially conflicting.
As we already discussed, a central premise of Berry’s (1997) model is that integration is the strategy that is associated with the best
acculturation outcomes. Also in the (intercultural) conflict literature, integration is generally perceived as most effective as an overall
strategy because it addresses the needs of both interaction partners (see van der Zee & van Oudenhoven, 2017; van der Zee, 2015, for a
discussion). At the same time, it is argued that in sequences of interaction, it may be effective to alternate conflict strategies, dependent
upon characteristics of the context (e.g., Euwema, Van de Vliert, & Bakker, 2003). This may also hold in the context of acculturation.
Whereas integration may be preferable as an overall strategy, which strategy is most likely and effective in a concrete situation may
depend on contextual factors. In the previous section, we mentioned the relative status position of one’s interaction partners or their
cultural group as examples of such factors (see also Schalk-Soekar, van de Vijver, & Hoogsteder, 2004).
Sometimes, assimilation may be the preferred option, for example when trying to get access to valued resources such as admission

122
K. van der Zee and J.P. van Oudenhoven International Journal of Intercultural Relations 88 (2022) 119–124

to a prestigious educational program or applying for a job. When an issue is important and holding on to one’s cultural perspective will
not threaten the relationship with the interaction partner (e.g., asking a day off for a religious holiday), identity infliction can be the
best strategy (e.g., Hecht & Faulkner, 2000). Of course, it is questionable whether it is healthy to continue assimilating throughout a
longer period of being in the program or the job, or to inflict one’s identity on another person too often. Over the course of interactions,
the focal person in both examples may need to switch back to integration. Contextual factors need to be incorporated in a dynamic
approach to acculturation. Bierwiaczonek and Kunst’s (2021) failure to find support for Berry’s (1980, 1997) premise that particularly
integration predicts positive acculturation outcomes may be related to the fact that acculturation has been approached as a general
strategy without taking into account the influence of contextual factors.
In the previous section, we focused on behavior. What happens in dynamic interactions between members of different cultural
groups is to an important extent driven by cognitions. The ability to connect to members of different cultural groups is facilitated by a
process of cultural frame switching (van Oudenhoven & Benet-Martínez, 2015; van der Zee, 2015). We can all imagine the immigrant
from Germany who, during the European Cup, either identifies with the Netherlands or with Germany, depending on which team is
playing. The type of soccer match then becomes a prime that determines which identity dominates. Experimental research shows that
identities can be primed and that bicultural individuals indeed behave differently depending on which identity is salient. This process
does not require actual experience as an immigrant in a different culture but is also evoked among natives who are presented with
different cultural perspectives. As an example, Leung and Chiu (2010) made use of American and Chinese primes in their studies on
Chinese students in Hong Kong and Chinese American students in the United States. Being presented with symbols of different cultures
was enough to change their behavior. Students who were given the American primes were more prone to internal attributions that are
typically associated with Western cultures in a follow-up assignment, whereas students with Chinese primes were more prone to
external attributions characteristic of Eastern cultures. This suggests that different cultural identities are represented internally
through exposure and learning. Frame switching is facilitated by the cognitive ability to integrate different cultural perspectives which
may differ from one person to another. This means that biculturals perceive overlap rather than dissociation between cultural ori­
entations, and they perceive harmony rather than tension between these orientations (Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005).
Finally, at an emotional level, confrontation with different cultural viewpoints may either evoke positive emotions because in­
dividuals feel positively challenged, or negative emotions of anxiety and uncertainty, due to a loss of predictability and sense of control
(van der Zee & van Oudenhoven, 2017). As we will discuss in the next section, some individuals will more easily experience a sense of
safety or even positive challenge and this will impact on their emotional responses to cultural perspectives that differ from their own
(van der Zee, van Oudenhoven, & de Grijs, 2004).
Methodologically, what is new in our approach is that we advocate analyzing acculturation in the context of (sequences of) concrete
interactions, making use of methodological tools developed to record and analyze such sequences. For example, the study by Komisarof
(2009) testing IAM already focused on concrete interactions by asking Japanese and American employees to imagine a colleague from
the other cultural group with whom they worked regularly. They responded to questions regarding their own and the other person’s
acculturation strategies as reflected in emotions, cognitions and behaviors. Although this study came close to studying concrete in­
teractions by focusing on concrete interactions with a specific colleague, the task of the participants was still to assess their own and the
other person’s acculturation strategy across situations. For the purpose of recording and analyzing behaviors, cognitions and emotions
in sequences of concrete interactions, measurement tools are available such as diary methods (see for example Reis & Wheeler, 1991)
or methods to record and transcribe videotaped real-life interactions or interactions in role playing (Adair & Brett, 2005; Giebels &
Taylor, 2009). These methods can be usefully applied in the study of acculturation.

A focus on intercultural competence

In the previous sections, we discussed that behaviors and associated cognitions and emotions may depend on contextual factors. In
discussing cognitions and emotions, we touched upon individual differences in the ability of frame switching and the tendency to
respond with positive versus negative emotions in intercultural situations. In addition to context, competency is a second important
factor to incorporate in a dynamic approach to acculturation. The ability to engage in effective intercultural interactions entails a
competency that, to some extent at least, can be developed. Relevant in this regard is the five-dimensional model of intercultural
effectiveness developed by van der Zee and van Oudenhoven (2000; see also, 2017), encompassing cultural empathy,
open-mindedness, emotional stability, flexibility, and social initiative. Cultural empathy regards the ability to empathize with the
feelings, thoughts and behaviors of individuals from a different cultural background. Second, open-mindedness refers to the extent to
which people have an open and unprejudiced attitude towards different groups and towards different cultural norms and values.
Emotional stability indicates people’s tendency to remain calm in stressful situations versus a tendency in such circumstances to show
strong emotional reactions. Fourth, flexibility refers to people’s ability to adjust their behavioral strategies to different or more
restricted circumstances within a foreign culture. Finally, high social initiative indicates a tendency to approach social situations in an
active way and to take initiatives.
The five dimensions have been distinctively related to the perception of threat and challenges in intercultural situations (see van
der Zee & van Oudenhoven, 2017, for an overview). The dimensions of emotional stability and flexibility seem to protect individuals
against the experience of diversity as a threat. Emotionally instable and inflexible individuals tend to respond to uncertainty and loss of
control with anxiety. They need the protection of their own cultural world view in order to feel safe. Confronted with different cultures,
they put pressure on others to assimilate or they try to exclude those others in order to get rid of their anxious feelings. The intercultural
competencies of cultural empathy, open-mindedness and social initiative predispose individuals to experience diversity as a positive
learning experience. Being confronted with different cultural perspectives, they respond with curiosity and eagerness to learn.

123
K. van der Zee and J.P. van Oudenhoven International Journal of Intercultural Relations 88 (2022) 119–124

Empirical evidence supports the claim that the five competencies are in a predictable way related to emotions, cognitions and
behaviors that facilitate positive intergroup relations. For example, research by Benet-Martínez & Haritatos (2005) suggests that
emotional stability negatively predicts the conflict people experience between the different cultures they carry within them. Openness
to experiences (a trait close to open-mindedness) positively predicts perceived harmony between these cultures. As we stated, in­
dividuals high on this trait respond with curiosity when being confronted with different cultural viewpoints and may more easily
connect different views to their own perspectives, as compared to low scorers. With respect to emotions, intercultural competencies not
only facilitate positive appraisals of intercultural situations, but also enhance positive and reduce negative affective responses to these
situations (e.g., van der Zee et al., 2004).

Conclusion

In this paper we plead for a dynamic approach to acculturation, focusing both on migrants and non-migrants. We think it is in the
dynamic interaction between members of different cultural groups that acculturation outcomes are shaped. This entails a series of
mutual adjustments that involve emotions, cognitions and behaviors. We presented the five-dimensional framework of multicultural
effectiveness, describing competencies that make individuals better equipped to integrate different cultural perspectives at the
emotional, cognitive and behavioral level (van der Zee & van Oudenhoven, 2000). We hope that future research will further elaborate
on the suggested dynamic approach. Furthermore, we believe that its insights will benefit educational programs in schools, at work and
in neighbourhoods to prevent segmentation and stimulate equal opportunities for growth and participation.

References

Adair, W. L., & Brett, J. M. (2005). The negotiation dance: Time, culture, and behavioral sequences in negotiations. Organization Science, 16, 33–51.
Benet-Martínez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural identity integration (BII): Components and psychosocial antecedents. Journal of Personality, 73, 1015–1050.
Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation, Theory, Models And Some New Findings (pp. 9–25). Colorado, CO:
Westview Press.
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 5–68.
Bierwiaczonek, K., & Kunst, J.R. (2021). Revisiting the integration hypothesis: correlational and longitudinal meta-analyses demonstrate the limited role of
acculturation for cross-cultural adaptation.
Bourhis, R. Y., Moïse, L. A., Perrault, S., & Senécal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of
Psychology, 32, 369–386.
Bourhis, R. Y., Montaruli, E., El-Geledi, S., Harvey, S. P., & Barrette, G. (2010). Acculturation in multiple host community settings. Journal of Social Issues, 66,
780–802.
Crul, M. (2016). Super-diversity vs assimilation: How complex diversity in majority-minority cities challenges the assumption of assimilation. Journal of Ethnic and
Migration Studies, 42, 54–68.
Crul, M., & Lelie, F. (2021). Measuring the impact of diversity attitudes and practices of people without migration background on inclusion and exclusion in ethnically
diverse contexts: Introducing the diversity attitudes and practices impact scales. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 44, 2350–2379.
Giebels, E., & Taylor, P. J. (2009). Interaction patterns in crisis negotiations: Persuasive arguments and cultural differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 5.
Hecht, M. L., & Faulkner, S. L. (2000). Sometimes Jewish, sometimes not: The closeting of Jewish American identity. Communication Studies, 51, 372–387.
Komisarof, A. (2009). Testing a modified interactive acculturation model in Japan: American– Japanese coworker relations. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 33, 399–418.
Kunst, J. R. (2021). Are we facing a “causality crisis” in acculturation research? The need for a methodological (r) evolution. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 85, A4–A8.
Leung, K. Y., & Chiu, C. Y. (2010). Multicultural experience, idea receptiveness and creativity. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41, 723–741.
M.C. Euwema E. Van de Vliert A.B. Bakker Substantive and relational effectiveness of organizational conflict behaviour 14 2003 119 139.
Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation. Berkeley: University California Press.
Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement (first ed.). New York (NY): Random House.
Reis, H. T., & Wheeler, L. (1991). Studying social interaction with the Rochester Interaction Record. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 269–318.
Sam, D., & Berry, J. (Eds.). (2016). The Cambridge Handbook of Acculturation Psychology. Cambridge University Press.
Schalk-Soekar, S. R. G., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Hoogsteder, M. (2004). Attitudes toward multiculturalism of immigrants and majority members in the Netherlands.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28, 533–550.
Segall, M. H., Dasen, P. R., Berry, J. W., & Poortinga, Y. H. (1999). Human Behavior In Global Perspective: An Introduction To Cross-cultural Psychology (second ed.). New
York: Pergamon.
Snel, E., Engbersen, G., & Leerkes, A. (2006). Transnational involvement and social integration. Global Networks, 6, 285–308.
van der Zee, K. I. (2015). Expanding Horizons. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
van der Zee, K. I., & van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2000). Psychometric qualities of the multicultural personality questionnaire: A multidimensional instrument of
multicultural effectiveness. European Journal of Personality, 14, 291–309.
van der Zee, K. I., & van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2017). Personality and international competence. In T. Church (Ed.), The Praeger Handbook of Personality Across Cultures
(pp. 277–298). Santa Barbara (CA): ABC CLIO Corporate.
van der Zee, K. I., van Oudenhoven, J. P., & de Grijs, E. (2004). Personality, threat and cognitive and emotional reactions to intercultural situations. Journal of
Personality, 72, 1069–1096.
van Oudenhoven, J. P., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2015). In search of a cultural home: From acculturation to frame-switching and intercultural competencies. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 46, 47–54.
van Oudenhoven, J. P., & Ward, C. (2013). Fading majority cultures: The implications of transnationalism and demographic changes for immigrant acculturation.
Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 23, 81–97.
Vertovec, S. (2019). Talking around super-diversity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 42, 125–139.

124