Journal article Open Access

Domains and dimensions in acculturation: Implicit theories of Turkish–Dutch

Arends-Tóth, Judit; van de Vijver, Fons J. R.


MARC21 XML Export

<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<record xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">
  <leader>00000nam##2200000uu#4500</leader>
  <datafield tag="540" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Other (Open)</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">2004-02-01</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <controlfield tag="005">20170912215932.0</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="001">889950</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="909" ind1="C" ind2="O">
    <subfield code="p">openaire</subfield>
    <subfield code="p">openaire</subfield>
    <subfield code="o">oai:zenodo.org:889950</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">The present study aims to further our understanding of psychological acculturation by examining which current models of acculturation correspond most with implicit theories of Turkish-Dutch. Current theoretical models of acculturation differ in two aspects: dimensionality (unidimensional adaptation, a bidimensional combination of culture maintenance and adaptation, or a multidimensional fusion of two cultures) and domain specificity (trait or domain-specific models). Domain specificity of acculturation played a more central role in the implicit theories of Turkish-Dutch than typically assumed in current theoretical models. The unidimensional domain-specific model was most frequently employed. Turkish-Dutch emphasized the importance of both Dutch and Turkish culture in their lives (thereby supporting the popular notion of integration), but this importance varied across domains: Adjustment to Dutch culture was more emphasized in the public (functional, utilitarian) domain while maintenance of Turkish culture was more emphasized in the private (social-emotional, identity) domain. This study documents the need to elaborate on domain specificity and on the meaning of integration in acculturation models.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0003-0220-2485</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">van de Vijver, Fons J. R.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="s">345444</subfield>
    <subfield code="z">md5:1e8c774ea6d56945d2a8852736c53ea7</subfield>
    <subfield code="u">https://zenodo.org/record/889950/files/article.pdf</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="542" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="l">open</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="980" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">publication</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">article</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Arends-Tóth, Judit</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="024" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">10.1016/j.ijintrel.2003.09.001</subfield>
    <subfield code="2">doi</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Domains and dimensions in acculturation: Implicit theories of Turkish–Dutch</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1="1" ind2="7">
    <subfield code="a">cc-by</subfield>
    <subfield code="2">opendefinition.org</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
64
12
views
downloads
Views 64
Downloads 12
Data volume 4.1 MB
Unique views 63
Unique downloads 12

Share

Cite as