How Well Does Berry’s Model of Acculturation Apply to Latina Young Adult College Students in the U.S.?
Introduction: Berry’s (1992, 1997) model of acculturation shifted the study of acculturation from a unidimensional to a bidimensional framework, in which individuals may fall within one of four categories based on their endorsed levels of acculturation and enculturation. While this model has been widely accepted, many have critiqued the ability to replicate the four categories in various populations (Schwartz & Zamboanga, 2008). Additionally, little research has examined the fit of these categories for Latina college students. Patterns of acculturation are important to examine, as these patterns are associated with academic success (Moní et al., 2018) and psychological distress (Cano & Castillo, 2010). Accordingly, the current study used a latent profile analysis to examine patterns of acculturation and enculturation in Latina college students.
Method: Participants were 611 Latina cisgender women who were full-time undergraduate students in the U.S. between 18-26 years old (Mage = 20.85; SD = 1.89) who completed an online study on their health and behaviors. The survey included measures of acculturation and enculturation (Stephenson Multigroup Acculturation Scale; Stephenson, 2000) and sociodemographic information.
Results: Using latent profile analysis, we compared models with one, two, three, four, and five profiles to investigate which provided the best fit to the data. The best-fitting model supported three profiles (AIC = 1,568.21; BIC = 1,612.36; aBIC = 1,580.61; Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin (VLMR) test p = .044; Entropy = .91). Profile 1 (n = 513) was characterized by high acculturation and enculturation. Profile 2 (n = 2) was characterized by the lowest levels of acculturation and enculturation. Profile 3 (n = 96) was characterized by high acculturation and low enculturation. Based on the small proportion sorted into Profile 2, this profile has reduced meaningfulness; to promote parsimony, the two-profile model should be considered (Spurk et al., 2020). The two-profile solution also provided excellent fit (AIC = 1,585.99; BIC = 1,616.90; aBIC = 1,594.68; VLMR test p < .001; Entropy = .86). Profile 1 (n = 513) was characterized by high acculturation and enculturation, whereas Profile 2 (n = 98) was characterized by high acculturation and low enculturation.
Discussion: Findings provided mixed support for Berry’s four-category model with Latina college student women. Three of the profiles aligned with Integration, Assimilation, and Marginalization categories (with little representation in the Marginalization category), and in the second iteration, the two profiles aligned with Integration and Assimilation. Most literature supports three profiles (and in some studies, additional profiles; Schwartz & Zamboanga, 2008); however, Marginalization (which we observed) was not commonly supported in prior studies. Findings inform the design of interventions to address acculturative stress (Mayorga et al., 2018) and promote positive academic and mental health outcomes.