Learning how to behave within a culture

Enculturation is the process through which people learn their culture’s values, beliefs and behavioural practices. People learn what they can do, as well as what others expect them to do.

Culture is a system of shared meanings, values and practices learned and passed on within a group. People can participate in several cultural groups. Enculturation therefore shouldn’t be treated as learning one uniform national way of behaving.

Learning begins early and continues throughout life. Family members, peers, schools and community institutions communicate expectations. Sometimes they teach these directly: an adult might explain how to greet a visitor. At other times, people learn by watching what others do and noticing the responses. Approval can encourage someone to repeat a behaviour; correction or exclusion can discourage it.

The role of enculturation in conversational behaviour

Imagine a hypothetical community where children are expected to wait until an older speaker has finished before contributing. A child repeatedly watches older siblings wait. The child receives praise for listening and is corrected after interrupting. These experiences teach the child that waiting communicates respect.

As a result, the child may interrupt less often when speaking with older people. Simply belonging to a particular culture doesn’t explain this behaviour. Rather, culturally patterned observation, instruction and feedback have made one way of participating more familiar and socially rewarding than another.

Adults in a different setting might encourage children to contribute immediately and debate their ideas. Children learning in that environment could participate more spontaneously. Neither pattern is automatically more respectful. Its meaning depends on the expectations shared by those involved.

Influence is not inevitability

Enculturation helps explain patterns of behaviour, but it doesn’t make everyone in a group behave alike. Individuals encounter different families, peer groups and institutions. They can question expectations rather than reproduce them, too. Even the same person may wait quietly at a family gathering but speak assertively with friends.

To explain a behaviour, we need to connect a specific cultural expectation to how someone learns it and the behaviour it influences. Group membership alone doesn’t establish that link. Individual preferences or the immediate situation may also contribute. Enculturation influences behaviour; it is not proof that culture is the only cause.

Cultural change through sustained contact

Acculturation is the process of cultural and psychological change that results from sustained contact between people from different cultures. Immigrants, refugees or people spending an extended period abroad may change their everyday practices and relationships, as well as how they identify culturally.

The distinction from enculturation lies in the emphasis. Enculturation concerns learning a culture; acculturation concerns change through intercultural contact. The two processes can overlap. They don't necessarily occur in neatly separated stages.

Berry’s model of acculturation

Berry’s model of acculturation is a two-dimensional framework that distinguishes acculturation patterns according to heritage-culture maintenance and participation in the wider society. The useful starting point is to treat these as separate dimensions: participating in a new society does not necessarily require someone to abandon an existing cultural identity.

• Integration is an acculturation pattern in which people maintain their heritage culture while participating in the wider society.
• Assimilation is an acculturation pattern in which people participate in the wider society without maintaining their heritage culture.
• Separation is an acculturation pattern in which people maintain their heritage culture but have limited participation in the wider society.
• Marginalization is an acculturation pattern in which people have limited heritage-culture maintenance and limited participation in the wider society.

These patterns describe people's relationships with cultures, not their personal worth. Marginalization, in particular, does not mean that someone has no identity or no cultural practices.

Applying the model to an extended stay

Imagine someone moving abroad for a multi-year work placement. They keep speaking their heritage language with family and celebrating familiar festivals. At the same time, they build friendships with local colleagues and join community activities. Berry’s model describes this as integration: both cultural maintenance and wider participation are present.

The model helps explain this experience. Continuing family practices can preserve a sense of connection, while participating locally can provide relationships and familiarity with everyday expectations. Keeping heritage practices is not, by itself, evidence that the person has failed to adapt.

Assimilation would fit better if the person largely abandoned heritage practices while participating extensively in local life. Someone who maintained heritage practices but had little involvement outside their heritage community would fit separation better. Limited connection with both would suggest marginalization. To classify the experience, we need evidence about both dimensions—not merely how long the person has lived abroad.

What the model explains—and what it simplifies

The four patterns offer a useful framework, but real experiences may vary across settings and over time. Someone might participate extensively at work yet maintain mainly heritage-community relationships elsewhere. One label can hide that variation.

Nor is acculturation entirely a free choice. A refugee may want wider participation but face language barriers, discrimination or restricted access to employment. We should therefore not automatically interpret limited participation as a preference for separation. Integration requires opportunities for inclusion as well as a willingness to participate.

The model organizes cultural maintenance and participation; on its own, it does not explain every emotional or social outcome. Applying it well requires connecting both dimensions to the person's circumstances and acknowledging the constraints that shape their experience.