P. F. Titzmann & R. M. Lee, Developmental Considerations in Acculturation Research
puberty timing (Graber & Brooks-Gunn, 1996), and the substantial differences in acculturation (Stoessel et al., 2014), direct measures of the underlying processes may be more advisable. Developmental processes may be better assessed by variables pertaining to whether or not an adolescent has solved important developmental tasks (Havighurst, 1948; McCormick, Kuo, & Masten, 2011) or is currently in a sensitive period of development to do so (Havighurst, 1948; Nurmi, 1993). Measures for acculturative stages may include levels of mastering the new language, the establishment of a satisfying social life in the new society, or the development of an achieved ethnic identity (Phinney, 1993).
Developmental Context Theory Development cannot be studied without taking into account the contexts in which developmental processes take place. In this regard, the ecological developmental theory of Bronfenbrenner (1977) has been identified to be particularly fruitful in describing the contexts of immigrant adolescents (Motti-Stefanidi et al., 2012; Oppedal & Toppelberg, 2016; Titzmann & Fuligni, 2015; Ward & Geeraert, 2016). Bronfenbrenner (1977, p. 514) assumed that human development is the result of constant exchange between the “growing human organism and the changing immediate environments in which it lives, as this process is affected by relations obtaining within and between these immediate settings, as well as the larger social contexts, both formal and informal, in which the settings are embedded.” He offered a taxonomy for describing the immediate environment of individuals that consists of microsystems, mesosystems, exosystems, and macrosystems. Although most studies on immigrant youth can be pinpointed to address particular systems of Bronfenbrenner’s taxonomy, studies rarely reflect the limitations of omitting other systems. Microsystems are proximal contexts with which an individual is directly linked, in constant interaction. For adolescents, microsystems may involve the exchanges that take place between the adolescent and parents, school teachers, or peers. Microsystems have received substantial interest in acculturation research. In relation to families, the family structure and potential role reversal has been addressed (e.g., Portes, 1997; Titzmann, 2012); in school relations the adolescent-teacher relationship has been investigated (e.g., Froehlich, Martiny, Deaux, & Mok, 2016); and in the peer domain, interethnic friendships are still a topic of intensive research (e.g., Jugert & Feddes, 2017). Microsystems are largely interrelated. Parents have contact with teachers through letters, emails, or direct interaction. Such interrelations can have unique effects on human development and are referred to as mesosystems Ó 2018 Hogrefe Publishing
75
(Bronfenbrenner, 1977). Research on mesosystems of adolescent immigrants has been conducted to a lesser extent than on microsystems. Crosnoe and Ansari’s study (2015) is one example and reveals common misconceptions in mesosystems: Although both mothers and teachers endorsed the need for mutual collaboration, the communication was marked by a teacher-to-mother directed assignment of tasks and by little freedom for mothers to independently decide what to do with their children. This study clearly showed how research can profit from addressing mesosystems, that is, the linkage between different microsystems (school and family in this case). Sun (2014) describes the phenomenon of “transnational kinscription” among parachute children who attend school in the United States but whose parents remain in Taiwan. He found “parents recruit helping hands to raise their children and to shape the next generation’s familial and cultural belonging through cross-border kin ties” (p. 1432). Adolescent immigrants can also be affected by settings that are indirectly connected through other microsystems, collectively known as an exosystem. A prototype for an exosystem for adolescents is their parents’ workplace or their teachers’ work environment that affect an adolescent through their parents’ or their teachers’ mood and behavior. Surprisingly, few studies deal with exosystems. The overarching macrosystem refers to the culture or subculture with the specific economic, legal, or political system, which affects all other systems in the developmental ecology. In an immigration situation, all ecological systems are affected by the transition to a new country or by the situation of being a member of a minority. Although there is a substantial amount of research on macrosystems (e.g., in crosscultural comparative work), the generalizability of findings across different immigrant groups and receiving societies is less often empirically addressed. This poses a challenge to immigration research, because models developed for one group or society may not necessarily apply to another. The “immigrant paradox” revealed that first-generation immigrant adolescents often do better in terms of school grades and school motivation than second- and latergeneration adolescents (Marks, Ejesi, & García Coll, 2014), a finding that is less consistently replicated in Europe (Dimitrova, Chasiotis, & van de Vijver, 2016). The implications of developmental context theory for acculturation research are that studies on immigrant adolescents can certainly profit from raising the awareness of the different layers in developmental contexts (MottiStefanidi et al., 2012; Ward & Geeraert, 2016), because they highlight the complexity of contextual variation that is often ignored in single context studies. Adjustment to one microsystem can, for example, come at high costs in another. This was shown in a study on adolescent immigrants in Germany: their desire for interethnic peer European Psychologist (2018), 23(1), 72–82