Revisiting the Integration Hypothesis: Correlational and Longitudinal Meta-Analyses Demonstrate the Limited Role of Acculturation for Cross-Cultural Adaptation

The paper, in plain language

Testing the field's favourite claim

For decades, 'integration works best' has been the closest thing acculturation psychology has to a law, repeated in textbooks and translated into integration policy. Kinga Bierwiaczonek and I gathered the correlational and, critically, the longitudinal evidence and meta-analysed both — the first time the claim had been put to that comprehensive a test.

What we found

Cross-sectionally, the associations between acculturation strategies and adaptation are small. Longitudinally — where a causal claim would have to leave its trace — they shrink further, some to the point of indistinguishability from zero. The hypothesis is not refuted so much as revealed to have been living on far less evidence than its citation count implied.

Why it matters

Policies and interventions premised on steering migrants toward one strategy rest on weaker ground than assumed. Our subsequent large-scale meta-analysis in Nature Communications points to where the explanatory power actually sits: social and contextual conditions — discrimination, support, contact — rather than the migrant's strategy choice.