Abstract In his thoughtful commentary, John L. Arnett expresses concern that as clinical psychologists make the transition from a focus on mental health care to participation in all of health care, there is a danger that they will lose important aspects of professional identity. He indicates that he saw such indications in Drs. Steep's and Mantell's descriptions of experiences in our article. In this response, we use Berry's (1980) model of acculturation to explain that the most successful cultural transitions occur when one keeps the critical and important aspects of the former culture and identity but also participates in and adopts the cultural aspects of the new setting. We characterize the new roles being assumed by psychologists in integrated health care settings as reflecting this strategy. The adoption of certain language and customs helps facilitate the processes of coordination and communication that are needed for successful collaborations and interdisciplinary work. Dr. John Arnett's thoughtful commentary raises a number of important issues and concerns that certainly will further the discussion and debate on clinical psychology education and training. Because we must be brief in this response, we will focus on only one of the issues Dr. Arnett raises in regards to our article: changes in the professional identity of clinical psychologists. In speaking of Drs. Steep's and Mantell's new roles and activities as health, rather than mental health, care providers, Dr. Arnett states that their professional identities as psychologists suffered significant loss in the transition process. In our view, nothing could be farther from the truth. Drs. Mantell and Steep, and others like them entering into these new roles, have not experienced loss, but instead an expanded identity whereby traditional psychological skills and knowledge have been supplemented with new abilities and understandings that provide an entry and more ready application in the health arena. We liken psychologists' move into the integrated health-care arena to the acculturation process experienced by immigrants in a new country. As described by Berry (1980; Berry & Sam, 1997), there are two aspects of the acculturation process: 1) cultural maintenance - the degree to which immigrants hold onto the culture and norms of country of origin, and 2) contact and participation - the degree to which immigrants adopt the mores and culture of new country. Those immigrants who hold tightly to the culture and identity of country of origin, and adopt little or none of the ways of new country are separated. They will remain in enclave of immigrants, seldom venturing out and or having impact in the broader community. Their identities have not changed; they are Mexican, or Hungarian, or Chinese and are in, but not a part of, new country. The assimilated immigrants, on the other hand, quickly adopt the ways and culture of new country while abandoning or rejecting the ways of the native country. They change identities to Americans or Canadians, blend in with new culture and put aside those aspects of former selves that conveyed native heritage. For them, there is a loss in identity. Integrated immigrants meanwhile are ones who keep important aspects of heritage but also participate in and adopt the cultural aspects of new country. They are Mexican-Americans or Hungarian-Canadians and are proud and pleased with both aspects of identity. The strategy of integration correlates most strongly with positive adaptation during acculturation (Berry & Sam, 1997). It is our belief that the experiences of Drs. Steep and Mantell are best described by the integration strategy. They have not lost identity as psychologists, but as they enter into a new work culture and take on new roles, identities have broadened. They have moved out of the enclave of clinical psychologists to take on identities as prescribing psychologist or primary care psychologist, which show a merger of the old and new cultures. …