Few political and social issues generate as much passion and controversy as immigration. One of the most prominent concerns among anti-immigration campaigners is the idea that immigration breaks down the host society’s cultural traditions and harms its cultural identity. Central to these debates is what academics call “acculturation”. This term refers to behavioural or psychological changes in immigrants or their descendants that follow migration. They are typically changes that make behaviour ...

Few political and social issues generate as much passion and controversy as immigration. One of the most prominent concerns among anti-immigration campaigners is the idea that immigration breaks down the host society’s cultural traditions and harms its cultural identity. Central to these debates is what academics call “acculturation”. This term refers to behavioural or psychological changes in immigrants or their descendants that follow migration. They are typically changes that make behaviour or ways of thinking more similar to members of the adopted society.

Recent studies typically measure behavioural or psychological traits in first generation migrants, second generation migrants, and non-migrants who have been living in the host area for several generations. The evidence suggests that acculturation is common, but generational. While first generation migrants typically retain the values of their society of origin, later generations shift about 50% of the way from their parents’ values towards non-migrant values. This even occurs in communities that form large, cohesive minorities.

Migration with no acculturation breaks down distinct host cultures. This is the scenario envisioned by anti-immigration campaigners. Even a little migration, without acculturation, soon creates a homogeneous worldwide blend of the cultural traits that were originally unique to different societies. But adding just a small amount of acculturation to the simulations could preserve cultural differences. For example, even for relatively high migration rates where ten per cent of the society migrates in each time period, just a 20% probability of acculturation is needed to maintain distinct cultural variation between societies. This suggests that the 50% acculturation level observed in the real-world is strong enough to preserve distinct cultures.

These results held for both “neutral” traits such as dress or dance, and for costly cooperative traits, such as building bridges or paying taxes, where individuals pay initial costs to benefit the entire society. Much concern over immigration centres on the latter – that immigrants take benefits without paying costs. There were, however, levels of migration at which no level of acculturation could preserve cultural traditions. When 50% or more of the societies migrate, then distinct traditions cannot be maintained. While this exceeds modern levels of migration, we might think of historical cases of colonisationas examples where high levels of migration broke down traditions.

Whatever future research finds, it would surely be better if immigration policy and media coverage of immigration, were better informed by the available evidence concerning migrant acculturation.

Which best serves as the title for the passage?