Cross-Cultural Interactions

Acculturation theory

Acculturation theory suggests what might happen at the point of culture contact. That is, what will result from the mix of negotiation and communication styles?

Acculturation theory is a "mature" paradigm in anthropology. It received the most attention during the 1930s and 1940s. This attention was primarily a response to problems with Indian peoples in the Americas and problems of British colonial rule. The questions were: To what extent can indigenous peoples be assimilated into "advanced" cultures, and how might this process of assimilation be facilitated? The most widely accepted definition of acculturation is that of Redfield, Linton, and Herskovits: "Acculturation comprehends those phenomena which result when groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact, with subsequent changes in the original cultural patterns of either or both groups".

In most cases, including the above, the emphasis was on "what" happens when cultures meet. Secondarily (in keeping with the tradition of anthropology), the "why" of the phenomena was investigated and hypotheses formed. Consequently, most research into acculturation is descriptive in nature. However, implicit in most reports is a causal model: the dependent variable in most studies might be described as some degree of acceptance of aspects of another culture. At one end of such a "scale of acceptance" is the complete assimilation of behaviors, traits, or values of another culture. At the other end of the scale is "reaction," that is, rejection of the aspects of the other culture. Somewhere in the middle of the scale is adaption or syncretism the mixing of the two cultures, or as Beals puts it: "While the totality of the emergent culture may be regarded as a syncretism, large areas of the social structure may be essentially new". More complex conceptions of the dependent variable have also been suggested (e.g., Bateson).

Various explanatory variables have been posited, including types of contact situations (e.g., friendly vs. hostile; inequalities in size, complexity or power of groups; existence of force), processes of contact (e.g., order and manner of presentation or cultural traits, resistances, time constraints), and individual characteristics (e.g., class, role, status, and personality differences). The degree of acceptance was hypothesized to be functionally related to three classes of variables situation, process and individual characteristics; i.e., A = f(S,P,I). It should be noted that power (or force) was the most commonly reported important influence on acculturation. Such a paradigm bears more than coincidental resemblance to attitude change models and the social exchange theory (described in a subsequent section of the paper). Only the dependent variable is different acceptance versus attitude change or specific behaviors such as agreements.

Another difference between the acculturation paradigm and more recent social-psychological models is the units of analysis. Acculturation theory has really been applied in a macro sense, the units of analysis being entire cultures. The units of analysis in social psychology have been the individual or, at most, small groups.

Acculturation theory fits the specific situation of cross-cultural negotiations very well. Acculturation theory is particularly useful if process measures are selected as the dependent variable. That is, what factors will determine which parties will adopt which negotiation and communication styles, given that these styles are culture specific?

Certainly, the most obvious example is language. What language will be spoken during cross-cultural negotiations? Will one party adopt the language of the other party? Given that the parties to the negotiation are from cultures X and Y, there exist several possibilities or operational definitions of the dependent variable, adoption of language:

Language X used;
Language Y used;
Language X used part of the time, language Y used the rest, by both parties;
Interpreters used for translations;
A third language, Z, used; and
Combinations of the above.

As mentioned earlier, acculturation theory suggests three classes of determinants situation, interaction process, and individual characteristics. Certainly one individual characteristic will be critical linguistic capability. The results of previous research also suggest that power difference will be another important determinant.

The circumstance of Japanese and American cross-cultural negotiations seems to fit this theory. Most often, English is the language spoken during the negotiations between Japanese and Americans. Part of the explanation is that the Japanese possess greater linguistic abilities than Americans. Japanese schools teach and emphasize English. However, in the long term, the most important explanation is the power-differential, both economic and military. The Japanese emphasis on learning English can be attributed in large part to the American occupation following World War II. Additionally, until recent times, Japan has been economically dependent on the United States. However, there are exceptions. For example, it is common practice for high-level Japanese executives to use interpreters, even though they may speak and understand English. Here the use of interpreters is expressive of the person's power. Further, with the increasing economic interdependence of the 1980s, changes are taking place. Japanese businessmen now complain about Americans' ignorance of Japanese business customs.

In the case of negotiations between Canadians, one might also predict a greater use of the English language, and for similar reasons as those described regarding Japanese/American negotiations. That is, Francophones (French speakers) make up only about 25% of the Canadian population, and their per capita income is also lower than the Canadian average, suggesting concomitant power differences. Acculturation theory not only suggests how the process of negotiation might vary acceptance, syncretism, or reaction; but also the theory provides clues to the determinants and associated mechanisms of the variation.

Acculturation theory can serve as a useful guide for the investigation of the relation of cultural variation of the parties and the process of cross-cultural negotiations.