Deculturation: A Secret of Birth

1. Introduction: Berry Model and Its ProblemsCurrently, many attempts have been made to apply the Berry model as a model of acculturation 1 used to explain various phenomena. The Berry model is a bidimensional model of acculturation proposed by John Widdup Berry. As shown in Table 1, the model has an extraordinarily concise structure with a 2 ' 2 matrix of two yes-no questions: the first query concerns whether one should retain one's own cultural identity and customs, whereas the second query pertains to whether one should seek contact with the larger society.Using the two axes of cultural identity retention and larger society contact, the Berry model was developed with research focusing on traditional minorities impacted by western culture. This explains the use of the term "larger society" in one of the questions. The Berry model is characteristic in its simple categorization of individual attitudes toward contact with new cultures. This model was later applied to various psychology-related studies conducted by other researchers. Examples include analyses of the model's application to immigration (e.g., Kosic, 2002) and of psychological development among youth (e.g., Handelsman, Gottlieb, & Knapp, 2005).The Berry model has also been used in business administration. In the 1980s, focus was placed on mergers and acquisitions (MA Elsass & Veiga, 1994; Larsson & Lubatkin, 2001).The Berry model can certainly be easily and intuitively understood. Thus, other fields have found it easier to apply the Berry model. Even in business administration, it is easy to imagine more expanded applications of the model. For example, according to the model outline that shows the relevance of individual inclinations to acculturation, the model can be applied to analyze a specific individual's influence within an organization on changes in cultural identity of that organization (Sato, 2014). On the other hand, focusing on the details of the model, if one assumes that these two questions show the relationship between the cultural identity of an individual and the organization to which that individual belongs, it is also possible to easily show the relevance of these two questions to such studies as those on lukewarm feelings in Japanese firms (Takahashi, 2013; Takahashi, Ohkawa, & Inamizu, 2014) or on the effect of inpatriates on Japanese firms (Kim, 2013).Simultaneously, a number of studies have asserted that the Berry model has definite flaws (e.g., Demes & Geeraert, 2014; Rudmin, 2003; Rudmin & Ahmadzadeh, 2001). For example, Schwartz and Zamboanga (2008) raise three concerns. The first pertains to the validity of "deculturation" ("marginalization" in their model). 2 Specifically, how immigrants develop cultural identities having rejected both inherited cultures and new cultures alike can be considered as ambiguous. Furthermore, both questions being answered in the affirmative indicates biculturalism; however, several types of this pattern exist and some feel that integration is only one of those types. Finally, there also exist doubts regarding the mutual independence of the four types of cells within the Berry model. In other words, the four cells depend only on a single factor. In sum, the criticism of this model is directed at the consistency between the responses to the two questions and the categorized cells.The existence of a cell labeled "deculturation" (or "marginalization"), which is the first item noted by Schwartz and Zamboanga (2008), is unique, and attracts attention. …


Introduction: Berry Model and Its Problems
Currently, many attempts have been made to apply the Berry model as a model of acculturation 1 used to explain various phenomena. The Berry model is a bidimensional model of acculturation proposed by John Widdup Berry. As shown in Table 1, the model has an extraordinarily concise structure with a 2  2 matrix of two yes-no questions: the first query concerns whether one should retain one's own cultural identity and customs, whereas the second query pertains to whether one should seek contact with the larger society.
Using the two axes of cultural identity retention and larger society contact, the Berry model was developed with research focusing on traditional minorities impacted by western culture. This explains the use of the term "larger society" in one of the questions. The Berry model is characteristic in its simple categorization of individual attitudes toward contact with new cultures. This model was later applied to various psychology-related studies conducted by other researchers. Examples include analyses of the model's application to immigration (e.g., Kosic, 2002) and of psychological development among youth (e.g., Handelsman, Gottlieb, & Knapp, 2005).
The Berry model has also been used in business administration. In the 1980s, focus was placed on mergers and acquisitions (M&A) as a type of opportunity for members of an organization to come into contact with a new culture, and the "organizational culture fit" in M&A came to be regarded as an issue (Buono, Bowditch, & Lewis, 1985). Later, attempts were made to analyze the propriety of M&A 1 A broadly accepted definition of "acculturation" is as follows: "those phenomena which result when groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact, with subsequent changes in the original culture patterns of either or both groups" (Redfield, Linton, & Herskovits, 1936).
based on acculturation (Nahavandi & Malekzadeh, 1988), and the methodology of categorization with two axes of "original" cultural identity and attitude toward a "new" organization influenced other studies (e.g., Cartwright & Cooper, 1993;Elsass & Veiga, 1994;Larsson & Lubatkin, 2001).  (Sato, 2014). On the other hand, focusing on the details of the model, if one assumes that these two questions show the relationship between the cultural identity of an individual and the organization to which that individual belongs, it is also possible to easily show the relevance of these two questions to such studies as those on lukewarm feelings in Japanese firms  (Takahashi, 2013;Takahashi, Ohkawa, & Inamizu, 2014) or on the effect of inpatriates on Japanese firms (Kim, 2013).
Simultaneously, a number of studies have asserted that the Berry model has definite flaws (e.g., Demes & Geeraert, 2014;Rudmin, 2003;Rudmin & Ahmadzadeh, 2001). For example, Schwartz and Zamboanga (2008) raise three concerns. The first pertains to the validity of "deculturation" ("marginalization" in their model The existence of a cell labeled "deculturation" (or "marginalization"), which is the first item noted by Schwartz and Zamboanga (2008), is unique, and attracts attention. This is because it should be the cell that typifies acculturation; however, depending on the meaning of the question, the cell indicates the non-existence of a culture that has been retained or selected, which is paradoxical at first glance. The cell for deculturation (marginalization) is characteristic of the Berry model and is emblematic of criticism of the model.
Though popular, why did the model include defects that impact its consistency? One efficacious approach to this fundamental concern is to first review Berry's suggestion of this model. Such a review of the Berry model as initially proposed by Berry (1976) 3 is given below, enabling us to clarify this concern by explicating the process through which the Berry model was developed.

Development Process: Berry's Initial Purpose
The Berry (1976) model, well known in cross-cultural psychology, combined psychology with anthropology. It focused on "ecology," "culture," and "behavior," defining relationships among them wherein a) human "behavior" is defined by "culture," and b) "culture" is defined by "ecology." In addition, it employed psychological methods to clarify a) the relationship of "culture" leading to "behavior" and used anthropological findings to clarify b) the relationship of "ecology" leading to "behavior." More explicitly, Berry's study gathered samples from the western society, hunter communities, and gatherer communities and examined their relevance between independent variables comprising acculturation, ecology, culture, and psychological trends as dependent variables.

Samples
The participants of the survey, conducted by Berry (1976), belonged to multiple communities in North America, Oceania, Africa, and Europe. Furthermore, the survey used ethnography, an anthropological method, to explain each community. The survey was conducted at three distinct times, with a sample of Caucasian 3 However, Berry (1974, pp. 18-20) proposes categorizing patterns of minorities within culturally diverse societies into eight types based on a 2  2  2 matrix, using three yes-no questions that ask 1) whether identities are maintained; 2) whether positive relationships are held with controlling groups; and 3) whether the choices in the previous two questions were voluntary. However, Berry (1976) is thought to be the first case of a prototype acculturation model with four categories. This model was frequently used by Berry himself, along with other researchers. societies primarily constituting industry and agriculture, a minority sample of agriculture and livestock industries, and a minority community of hunters and/or gatherers.

Independent variables
Acculturation and eco-cultural indices are the independent variables used in the analysis of Berry (1976), with the latter further comprising an ecological index and a cultural index.
The acculturation index is coded such that it increases as the level of western culture increases, with scores being given to each community. The ecological index scores on exploitive patterns, settlement patterns, and the mean size of community. For example, the sample of "small groups migrating while living a gatherer lifestyle" is the highest on the ecological index. Finally, the more a society is stratified and the greater the level of demands for socialization, the lower the score on the cultural index.

Dependent variables
"Behavior" is the dependent variable. However, behavior is categorized into "differentiation" and "acculturative stress." "Acculturative stress" is the level of stress felt by an individual exposed to acculturation.
"Differentiation" refers to psychological differentiation. Berry (1976) completely relies on the previous studies of Witkin, Dyk, Faterson, Goodenough, and Karp (1962) and considers the preference for one's own judgment and not falling into alignment with others "psychological differentiation." Berry (1976) considers this lack of alignment and the preference for one's own judgment to be individual "behavior" and uses cognitive tests to measure psychological differentiation.

Berry's result
With independent and dependent variables in place, a number of hypotheses 4 is given, which is then validated on both samples (communities, peoples, or cultures) and individuals. The results of the validation showed that "no hypothesis was left entirely without support" (Berry, 1976, p. 200). Judging from his expression, Berry's (1976) goal was mostly achieved.

Berry Model Invented
In Berry's (1976) analysis, acculturative stress-a dependent variable-was measured using psychological attitudes toward 1) stress (a 20-item neurological disease checklist), 2) marginality (a 14-item marginality scale), and 3) 24 question items related to psychological attitudes toward one's own group as well as the group of others (i.e., western culture). Furthermore, a subscale label of A ("assimilation"), I ("integration"), or R ("rejection") is affixed to each question item, such as "Assimilation (A): nine items; Integration (I): nine items; Rejection (R): six items." Question items are rated from 1 to 5, with 5 being "strongly agree." The aforementioned three subscales are totaled, and each community is analyzed for the mean, standard deviation, and correlation coefficient.
The results of the analysis, however, are not noteworthy. The fact that the relationships among the three modes were categorized as the question items is notable, as summarized in  Table 2 empty. This cell is filled with the "deculturation" label, completing the matrix. In fact, Berry's study (1976)

Discussion
A review of Berry's study revealed that the prototype of the Berry model was created to show the relationship between groups of question items, and that labels were at first limited to "assimilation," "integration," and "rejection," with "deculturation" used to fill in the remaining empty cell. 5 In addition, two important points are observed while closely examining the question items in the list. Firstly, most of the question items and the three subscales either do not match or have an unclear relationship (e.g., 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24). Secondly, the correspondence between the 24 items and the two questions in Table   2 is also unclear at multiple instances. Given these problems, it is difficult even to accept the fact that Table 2 summarizes the 24 question items.
However, this prototype was developed into the Berry model as a representation of acculturation modes, and, as previously noted, the Berry himself often refers to this model as an explanation of "acculturation strategies" (e.g., Berry, 2001Berry, , 2005).
The Berry model composed of two simple questions seems clear and easy to use; however, the use of the model while ignoring its formation can lead to at least two definite problems. First, inconsistencies exist in the fact that the Berry model treats acculturation in the aggregate, whereas the question items are geared toward individuals. Second, there is no logical agreement in the cell labels, particularly "deculturation" (marginalization), and the meaning of the responses to the two questions (Rudmin, 2003;Schwartz, & Zamboanga, 2008).
In addition, individual tendencies may not necessarily be categorized using the 24 question items on only one of the A/I/R subscales. This is because it is possible that one individual may answer yes to questions with differing subscales. However, inconsistently, individuals and groups 6 are categorized in only one of the four cells in the Berry model.
In sum, it is difficult to conclude that Berry carefully examined word meanings, principles, and consistency in the relevance between the 24 question items and the three labels; in the three labels and the two questions; and in the two questions and the 24 question items. As a result, the Berry model, which seems to be quite simple at first glance may be ambiguous and therefore has been the target of criticism, as has been previously mentioned. In other words, the Berry model was formed because of Berry's fallacy of oversimplification. Table 1, the Berry model, and Table 2, which summarizes the 24 question items, appear to be similar, but they should be considered fundamentally different. The issue of oversimplification divides the two.

Conclusion
As pointedly noted by Rudmin (2003), Berry sometimes neglected to thoroughly explain things, change cell labels, or define those labels. The ambiguous posture of the model's creator, then, can be considered as a reflection of the lack of rigorous discussion during the time of creation of the model. As seen, the Berry model is imperfect. In further studies using this model, researchers must resolve the fallacies left behind by Berry.