How does assimilation differ from acculturation

For our study, we formulated the following hypotheses:. Sample characteristics are shown in Table 1. Participants were surveyed using a self-report questionnaire.

For migrants the questionnaire was translated into Uzbek and Tajik translation and back translation were used. All participants were informed that participation was voluntary and that their responses were anonymous. The scales were formed by averaging their corresponding items. Perceived security. Intercultural contacts. The tolerance scale measured the degree of acceptance of culturally different individuals or groups. Multicultural ideology. The integration strategies of migrants and the integration expectations of Russians were assessed with four items e.

Life satisfaction. Sociocultural adaptation. This scale was used for the migrant sample only. Russian-language proficiency. Demographic variables. To test the predicted model with the three hypotheses we followed a Structural Equation Modeling approach Kline, The majority of respondents Table 2.

The tested model is presented in the Figure 1. Sociocultural adaptation was used in the group of migrants only. Standardized regression coefficients for the empirical model for the group of migrants are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. The empirical model for the group of migrants is presented in Figure 2. Figure 2. The empirical model for the group of migrants. The contact hypothesis was also partially supported: contacts were positively associated only with the integration strategy.

The integration hypothesis was partially supported also. Standardized regression coefficients for the empirical model for the group of Russians are presented in Table 4. Table 4. The empirical model for the group of Russians is presented in Figure 3. Figure 3. The empirical model for the group of Russians. Therefore, the multiculturalism hypothesis was partially supported. The contact hypothesis was also partially supported. We found significant and positive relationships between perceived security and multicultural ideology in the migrants and the majority group but did not find significant relationships between perceived security and ethnic tolerance in either group.

The number and frequency of intercultural contacts were positively but not significantly linked to ethnic tolerance in the migrants. Intercultural contacts in the group of Russians were negatively linked to the acculturation expectation of assimilation and positively related to the expectation of integration.

We found a significant positive relationship between intercultural contacts and the integration of the migrants as well. These results are consistent with the results of some previous studies e. The main aim of migrants from Central Asia in moving to Russia is to improve conditions of life for their families. Nevertheless, as predicted, the integration strategy of the migrants was positively related to their self-esteem.

By definition, the integration and assimilation acculturation strategies differ in their level of cultural maintenance. We can conclude that the Russians did not expect that migrants would reject their own culture, while the migrants considered adopting Russian culture to be important.

For the migrants, assimilation was the best acculturation strategy for achieving better sociocultural adaptation and higher life satisfaction, while integration was the best strategy for achieving high self-esteem.

We suppose that such differential findings might be overcome with time. The relationship of the integration strategy to the self-esteem of the migrants is a promising sign that cultural maintenance for migrants will be as useful and functional as cultural participation in the larger host society over time. One of the limitations of this study is that migrants from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan were considered as a uniform group of labor migrants from Central Asia, although differences could exist in the acculturation of these groups.

Mar 8, Assimilation is a broader concept and refers to the manner in which people take new information. Explanation: Acculturation and assimilation are two very important concepts in sociology and anthropology that describe cross cultural effects on both minorities as well as majorities in societies that are multi ethnic and multi cultural in nature. Related questions How can we avoid ageism? How does ageism affect society? How are humans capable of altruism? How is altruism hardwired in humans?

It can be language or, clothing or, food or, customs. However, if there is still identifiable difference between host culture and native culture then the culture is gone through acculturation. In acculturation the native culture adopt few elements of host culture but, still practice few of their own elements of culture as well.

So, it is not the complete adaptation of host culture or dominant culture rather, few modification in the native culture, which resulted from adaptation of host culture elements. On the other hand, assimilation is the process in which native culture go through complete change and adopt all the elements of host culture.