Critical Evaluation of the Role of Engaging in Both the Heritage Culture and the Larger Society for Cross-Cultural Adaptation

The “integration hypothesis,” the notion that individuals engaging in both their heritage culture and the larger society have better adaptation than other strategies (e.g., engaging with only one cultural framework or neither framework) has been recently criticized in the literature. Bierwiaczonek and Kunst (2021) evaluated the “integration hypothesis” and contributed new meta-analytic evidence from longitudinal studies, arguing that there is limited support for the role of acculturation in adaptation and that contextual factors are more important than acculturation. This paper shows that their correlational meta-analysis underestimates the integration-adaptation effect size, and findings from the longitudinal meta-analysis are not appropriate for their claim. We present empirical findings in support of the integration hypothesis, particularly in the case of positive indicators of adaptation (e.g., life satisfaction, self-esteem), and examine additional moderators using multilevel analyses of two multinational datasets: Nguyen and Benet-Martinez’s (2013) meta-analytic data and the ICSEY dataset (Berry et al., 2006). We complement these findings with theoretical work, relevant evidence from qualitative studies, other meta-analyses, and reviews.