Asian American Acculturation and Enculturation

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Asian American Acculturation and Enculturation Development of a Bilinear Multidimensional Operationalization
Physical Description:
1 online resource (86 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Zhang, Shengying
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Counseling Psychology, Psychology
Committee Chair:
Moradi, Banafsheh
Committee Members:
Choi, Chun-Chung
Miller, Scott A
Shehan, Constance L

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
acculturation -- asian -- enculturation
Psychology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Counseling Psychology thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
Asian American acculturation and enculturation theory and measurement have evolved over the past several decades to better understand the adaptation experiences of Asian American individuals and their psychological functioning in the United States (U.S.). The present study extends the study of acculturation and enculturation by testing the factor structure of Asian American acculturation and enculturation, previously found to reflect (a) Language-related Behavior, (b) Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge, and (c) Pride and Cultural Group Association (Zhang & Moradi, 2013). Confirmatory factor analyses of data from 232 Asian and Asian American participants in the U.S. confirmed the stability of this three-factor structure. Evidence of internal consistency reliability as well as discriminant and concurrent criterion-related validity were garnered for the acculturation and enculturation full scale and subscale scores. Consistent with prior literature, results suggested that values measures assessed distinct but correlated constructs relative to these three acculturation and enculturation constructs. The present study offers the first known empirically tested bilinear multidimensional measure of Asian American acculturation and enculturation.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Shengying Zhang.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2013.
Local:
Adviser: Moradi, Banafsheh.
Electronic Access:
RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2014-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2013
System ID:
UFE0045713:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 ASIAN AMERICAN ACCULTURATION AND ENCULTURATION: DEVELOPMENT OF A BILINEAR MULTIDIMENSIONAL OPERATIONALIZATION By SHENGYING ZHANG A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULF ILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2013

PAGE 2

2 2013 Shengying Zhang

PAGE 3

3 To every person and family of immigrant background, for your perseverance, resilience, and sense of humor in the face of chan ge.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS "Life takes us to unexpected places... love brings us home." This quote from Sarah Mueller resonates with me as I think about Asian persons like myself and their experiences living in the United States. Since the immigration of t he first Japanese person to the United States on May 7, 1843, many generations of Asian persons have set sail across the oceans to the United States in search for opportunities to better their lives. They worked hard, fought injustices, and loved furiously to make the United States home for their families and ethnic communities. As I embark on my own journey to this country by means of pursuing higher education, I continue to feel incredibly thankful toward a selected group of individuals whom have closely supported me along this long and rich journey. It is with great humility and deep gratitude that I honor them here with the completion of this dissertation project. First, I would like to my dissertation committee members Bonnie Moradi, Scott A. Miller, Constance L. Shehan, and Chun Chung Choi, for their guidance and support. I especially want to thank Bonnie for her encouragement and mentorship as my faculty advisor. Not only did she spend numerous hours and tremendous efforts in helping me conceptualize research ideas and in repeatedly reviewing wri tten drafts of my dissertation and thesis she remains patient in fostering my research self efficacy and my overall professional growth as a budding counseling psychologist. I am thankful to have had her play an integral role throughout my doctoral training. I also want to thank Chun Chung Choi for playing a critical role in all aspects of my professional and personal growth possible. Chun Chung generously offers me his guidance and support throughout our mult iple professional collaborations in clinical, research, and service roles and responsibilities. But above all, it is his authentic and abundant care and encouragement for me as a mentor, teacher, and friend that kept me going in graduate school, to which I am most grateful

PAGE 5

5 There exists a group of very important people who have accompanied me in life thus far, who never saw me as anything less than a whole person, and inspire me to become better than I am. They deserve my deepest appreciation and gratitude. First, I owe my life existence and all that I have attained in life to my parents, Teo Leong Kai and Wong Siew Choo. I am eternally grateful for their undying love, warmth, and support for me. They have always encouraged me to dream big and stay grounded. It is their unconditional love and care from thousands of miles away that fuels my passion for life. They allow me to pursue my educational dreams and career goals in the security of their dedicated support and guidance. I thank my brother, Zhang Zhengyan g, for always sharing with me the purest form of happiness and honesty that only a sibling could. I thank my sister in law, Tan Ying Shan, for her sweet nature, thoughtfulness, and care for everyone in our family. I am extremely grateful to Sharon Lee and Yi Jiun Lin for being there for me, whenever and wherever, no matter what happens. They inspire me to become a better version of myself, and never fail to make me believe in myself. Their very presence and active participation in my life is of great import ance and meaning beyond words can describe. I deeply appreciate Kuan Ling Yeh for our countless deep and meaningful conversations and for sharing her passion, honesty, and joyful connection s She exemplifies the vibrancy in life that I aspire to have and t he many qualities as a person / professional I hope to grow as my own. I thank Taylor Locker for her wonderful friendship throughout my doctoral studies, joining me in every quest and celebrating each accomplishment with laughter and her dogs. I thank Khanh Nghiem for her camaraderie, encouragement, and positivity that brings me strength, calmness, and health through the most challenging and introspective times, over bubble teas and Indian cuisines no doubt. I thank Sara Nash for sharing with me her wholesom e and spirited being, where her wisdom, emotionality,

PAGE 6

6 and creativity often make me think, cry, and laugh all at the same time. I thank Yu Ciao Kuo for embracing me as family in Gainesville as she provides me with a much needed sense of comfort and sisterhoo d. I thank E N. Tebbe, not only for rendering me statistical a ssistance to my dissertation but also for the genuineness, enthusiasm, and zest as a person and a scholar. I thank Ryan Duffy for our open and honest conversations, often surrounding fun and intriguing analyses of everything, and for his consistent belief in and positive regard for me. I thank Jerry Macdaid for modeling for me the true nature and abilities of a crisis responder, and for his company through many wooded trails, lush prairies, an d calm lakes and rivers. I thank Alice Martin for accompanying and enlightening me through every ups and downs, for helping me learn to trust and nurture myself, and for nourishing my soul as life challenges waxes and wanes. Special thanks go to Marshall K nudson and folks at the Alachua County Crisis Center who taught me the gestalt of therapeutic practice and doing what needs to be done; Charles L. Beale, Brad Wolgast, Merris A. Hollingsworth, Carolyn A. Heitzmann, Matthew E. FitzGerald, and everyone at th e University of Delaware Center for Counseling and Student Development who help me integrate and hone my professional knowledge and skills as a psychology intern; Mary J. Heppner, Lisa Y. Flores, and faculty members at the University of Missouri Columbia c ounseling psychology program who encouraged me to pursue doctoral training in counseling psychology; and my peers and colleagues at the University of Florida counseling psychology program who have ventured with me through trials and tribulations of graduat e school. Last but not least, I thank Kevin Y. Wang for his plentiful love, care, and support. He readily shares with me his steadiness, sensibility, humor, and warm embrace I n his doting ways he reminds me to always eat, play, laugh and sleep thus ma intaining my health and sanity. Most importantly, I am grateful to him for envisioning with me a safe space called home.

PAGE 7

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4 LIST OF TA BLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 9 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 10 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................ ............... 1 2 Acculturation and Enculturation: Theory, Definition, and Correlates ................................ ... 1 3 Conceptual Models of Acculturation (and Enculturation) ................................ ...................... 1 6 Linearity: From a Unilinear to a Bilinear Model ................................ ............................. 16 Dimensionality: A Multidimensional Model ................................ ................................ ... 1 8 Distinction between behaviors and values ................................ ............................... 1 9 Distinction between cultural identity and ethnic identity ................................ ......... 21 Assessment of Acculturation and Enculturation ................................ ................................ ..... 2 2 Existing Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 2 2 Newer Development in Measurement ................................ ................................ ............. 2 4 Purpos e of t he Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 2 6 2 METHOD ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 2 9 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 29 Instruments ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 30 Procedures ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 31 Instruments for Analyses of Concurrent and Discriminant Validity ................................ ...... 3 3 Vancouve r Index of Acculturation (VIA) ................................ ................................ ....... 3 3 Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM) ................................ ................................ 3 4 Bicultural Self Efficacy Scale (BSES) ................................ ................................ ............ 35 Impression Management Subscale of t he Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (IM BIDR 6) ................................ ................................ ............................ 3 6 Asian Values Scale Revised (AVS R) ................................ ................................ ............ 3 6 European American Values Scale for Asian Americans Revised (EAVS AA R) ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 37 Demographic an d B ackgr ound V ariables ................................ ................................ ........ 38 3 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 39 Preliminary Analyses ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 3 9 Confirmatory Factor Analyses ................................ ................................ ................................ 40 Acculturation Items ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 42 Enculturation Items ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 4 3 Reliability ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 4 4

PAGE 8

8 Validity ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 4 4 4 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 53 Bilinear Multidimensional Operationalization ................................ ................................ ....... 5 3 Limitations and Implications for Research and Practice ................................ ........................ 57 APPENDIX A ZHANG AND MORAD ) ACCULTURATION ITEMS ................................ ........ 6 2 B 13 ) ENCULTURATION ITEMS ................................ ....... 6 4 C VANCOUVER INDEX OF ACCULTURATION ................................ ................................ 6 6 D MULTIGROUP ETHNIC IDENTITY MEASURE ................................ ............................... 6 7 E BICULTURAL SELF EFFICACY SCALE ................................ ................................ .......... 6 8 F IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT SUBSCALE OF THE BALANCED INVENTORY OF DESIRABLE RESPONDING ................................ ................................ .......................... 70 G ASIAN VALUES SCALE REVISED ................................ ................................ ................... 71 H EUROPEAN AMERICAN VALUES SCALE FOR ASIAN AMERICANS REVISED ..... 7 2 I DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE ................................ ................................ .................. 7 3 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 7 7 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 8 6

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Tab le page 3 1 Confirmatory factor analysis of acculturation items ................................ .......................... 4 8 3 2 Confirmatory factor analysis of enculturation items ................................ ......................... 49 3 3 Means, stand acculturation and enculturation full scale and subscale scores and criterion related validity indicators ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 50

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3 1 Confirmatory factor analysis model for acculturation items ................................ ............ 51 3 2 Confirmatory factor analysis model for enculturation items ................................ ............. 52

PAGE 11

11 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy ASIAN AMERICAN ACCULTURATION AND ENCULTURATION: DEVELOPMENT OF A BILINEAR MULTIDIMENSIONAL OPERATIONALIZATION By Shengying Zhang August 2013 Chai r: Bonnie Moradi Major: Counseling Psychology Asian American acculturation and enculturation theory and measurement ha ve evolved over the past several decades to better understand the adaptation experiences of Asian American individuals and their psycholo gical functioning in the United States (U.S.) The present study extends the study of acculturation and enculturation by testing the factor structure of Asian American acculturation and enculturation previously found to reflect (a) Language related Behavi or, (b) Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge, and (c) Pride and Cultural Group Association ( Zhang & Moradi, 2013 ) Confirmatory factor analyses of data from 232 Asian and Asian American participants in the U .S. confirmed the stability of this three factor structure. Evidence of internal consistency reliability as well as discriminant and concurrent criterion related validity were garnered for the acculturation and enculturation full scale and subscale scores. Consistent with prior literature results sugge sted that values measures assessed distinct but correlated constructs relative to these three acculturation and enculturation constructs. T he present study offer s the first known empirical ly tested bilinear multidimensional measure of Asian American accult uration and enculturation

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND REV IEW OF THE LITERATUR E Acculturation has been referred to as one of the most important individual difference constructs in understanding the experiences of racial and ethnic minority populations (Zan e & Mak, 2003). The study of Asian/Asian American 1 acculturation and enculturation processes is particularly significant and necessary at this time given that Asian populations represent the fastest growing racial group in the United States in the last dec ade (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). According to the 2010 Census, populations who self percent from 2000 to 2010, representing 4.8 percent (or 14.7 million people) of the total U.S. population; compa ratively, the overall increase in the total U.S. population was 9.7 percent from 2000 to 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). Research within the field of counseling and counseling psychology also reflects this growing interest in understanding cultural adapta tion and adherence among Asian/Asian American individuals as a result of interactive contact with the dominant culture in the United States; empirical evidence shows that the majority of studies on acculturation and enculturation between 1988 and 2009 have been conducted with Asian/Asian American individuals, and Asian/Asian American groups are also the most recently studied groups of racial/ethnic minority individuals as compared to African American, Native American, and Latino/a groups (Yoon, Langrehr, & Ong, 2011). A large body of literature has focused on the conceptualization and operationalization of Asian/Asian American acculturation and enculturation (e.g., Kim, Atkinson, & Yang, 1999; Suinn, Rickard Figueroa, Lew, & Vigil, 1987) and this proliferat ion has led to efforts to clarify acculturation and enculturation models and the constructs assessed across measures (e.g., Kim, 1 the United States.

PAGE 13

13 2009; Kim & Abreu, 2001; Miller, 2007, 2010; Miller, Yang, Hui, Choi, & Lim, 2011c; Zhang & Moradi, 2013 ). The present study ex tends the literature on Asian/Asian American acculturation and enculturation by developing and evaluating a measure that is grounded in conceptual and empirical efforts to consolidate extant models (e.g., Kim & Abreu, 2001; Zhang & Moradi, 2013 ). Specifica lly, t he purpose of the present study is to take the next steps toward develop ing a bilinear and multidimensional measure of Asian American acculturation and enculturation. Specifically, this study aims to replicate and refine the factor structure of Asian American acculturation and enculturation found by Zhang and Moradi (2013 ) and to offer further psychometric evaluation (e.g., reliability and validity) of data produced by the refined structure Acculturation and Enculturation: Theory, Definition, and C orrelates which result when groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous first hand contact, with subsequent changes in the original cultural pa (p. 149). Although acculturation has been described to occur at both the societal/group (e.g., economical, political, structural) and individual level, psychological research has largely focused on the individual aspect of (1967). Specifically, the study of psychological acculturation (hereafter referred to as a res ult of being in contact with a dominant (e.g., mainstream or host) culture. It is important to non dominant groups and individuals. In fact, Rudmin (2003) warn ed against conceptualizing acculturation as "something that happens only to minority people and that the cultures of dominant people are somehow monolithic, immutable, and without acculturative origins" (p. 6,

PAGE 14

14 Rudmin, 2003). He asserted the need to examine the influence of intercultural contact and thus the acculturation processes for both minority and dominant groups. Nevertheless, various scholars (e.g., Berry, 1997; Schwartz, Unger, Zamboanga, & Szapocznik, 2010) have highlighted the greater likelihood f or members of minority groups, such as individuals from racial/ethnic minority and/or immigrant populations in the United States, to adapt and adhere to the majority or mainstream culture (in this case, the mainstream culture of the United States) and the lower likelihood for members of a dominant group to adapt to a minority culture. As such, the process of acculturation is especially salient to individuals with immigrant backgrounds, including non U.S. born first generation and 1.5 generation Asian/Asian American immigrants (i.e., those who immigrated to the United States as a child or an adolescent; Kim, Brenner, Liang, & Asay, 2003), as well as U.S. born Asian American individuals raised in immigrant households (i.e., second generation immigrants and bey ond) (Schwartz, Unger, Zamboanga, & Szapocznik, 2011). Related to the concept of acculturation, the concept of enculturation was first defined as including the value s, ideas, and concepts that are salient for the culture (Herskovits, 1948). Kim (2007a) emphasized two advantages in conceptualizing enculturation as a psychological construct separate from acculturation. First, enculturation may be a more appropriate term to describe the experiences of Asian American individuals who were born in the United States because the cultural maintenance process of acculturation may not accurately reflect the possibility that these individuals may not have been fully enculturated, or culturally socialized,

PAGE 15

15 par with the term acculturation which f ocuses on the process of adaptation to U.S. dominant cultural norms. Weinreich (2009) further postulated that the term enculturation refers to the process of individuals selectively acquiring or retaining elements of significant cultures be it of their o wn heritage culture, the mainstream culture, or a subculture within a multicultural context (e.g., Korean hiphop, Asian pride) during their cultural socialization and maintenance. In their content analyses of acculturation and enculturation theories and measures, Kim and Abreu (2001) proposed that acculturation be used to describe the process of adapting to U.S. cultural norms, and that enculturation be used to describe the process of (re)socializing and maintaining the norms of the indigenous culture. F or Asian American individuals, Kim (2009) retained the norms o and enculturation for Asian/Asian American individuals have been linked with mental health indicators such as disordered eating and body image problems (e.g., Lau, Lum, Chronis ter, & Forrest, 2006; Reddy & Crowther, 2007; Stark Wroblewski, Yanico, & Lupe, 2005), acculturative stress (e.g., Hwang & Ting, 2008; Kim & Omizo, 2005), psychological pathology (e.g., Sue & Chu, 2003), depressive symptoms (e.g., Rahman & Rollock, 2004; W ong, Tran, & Lai, 2009), psychological functioning (e.g., Kim & Omizo, 2006), gender role conflict (e.g., Liu & Iwamoto, 2006), and substance use (e.g., Liu & Iwamoto, 2007); social functioning indicators such as family conflict (e.g., Park, Kim, Chiang, & Ju, 2010; Tajima & Harachi, 2010), vocational functioning (e.g., Leong, Kao, & Lee, 2004; Miller & Kerlow Myers, 2009; Tang, Fouad, & Smith, 1999), prejudicial social attitudes (e.g., Liu, Pope Davis, Nevitt, & Toporek, 1999), perceived prejudice (e.g., F rey & Roysircar, 2006; Nilsson, Butler, Shouse, & Joshi,

PAGE 16

16 2008), communication styles (e.g., Park & Kim, 2008), concerns for loss of face (Yakunina & Weigold, 2011), social connectedness to mainstream and/or ethnic communities (Yoon, Hacker, Hewitt, Abrams, & Cleary, 2012), and family relationships (e.g., Kim, Ahn, & Lam, 2009); and counseling process and outcome related variables such as attitudes toward help seeking (e.g., Kim, 2007b; Liao, Rounds, & Klein, 2005; Miller et al., 2011c; Ruzek, Nguyen, & Herz og, 2011), perception of mental illness (e.g., Kumar & Nevid, 2010), perceived counselor empathy (e.g., Kim, Atkinson, & Umemoto, 2001; Wang & Kim, 2010), emotional self disclosure (e.g., Chen & Danish, 2010), and client counselor working alliance (e.g., K im, Ng, & Ahn, 2005; Wang & Kim, 2010). Conceptual Models of Acculturation (and Enculturation) Conceptualization and measurement of acculturation and enculturation have evolved over time. To promote conceptual clarity, Miller (2007) proposed a standardiza tion of terminology based on recommendations by Kim and Abreu (2001) and Magaa et al. (1996). Specifically, Miller (2007) suggested that the terms linearity be used to describe the number of cultures that the model or measure of acculturation and encultur ation references, and that dimensionality be used to describe the multiple domains of acculturation and enculturation. The terms linearity and dimensionality are used accordingly in the present discussion. Linearity: From a Unilinear to a Bilinear Model Th acculturation process: the unilinear and bilinear models. Early perspectives conceptualized acculturation as a unilinear process whereby the retention of the heritage culture and the adaptation to the mainstream culture were considered opposite ends of a single continuum (Ryder, Alden, & Paulhus, 2000; Schwartz et al., 2010). As such, greater adherence to the

PAGE 17

17 ge culture. This conceptualization was thought to apply to many immigrants who were expected to lose their cultures (Schwartz et al., 2010). However, a major criti cism of the unilinear model is that it does not allow for independent determination of acculturation to the mainstream culture and of enculturation to the indigenous culture (Cullar, Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995; Kim & Abreu, 2001; Miller & Kerlow Myers, 200 9; Ryder et al., 2000). Consequently, the unilinear model fails to capture the reality of biculturalism for many ethnic minority people in the United States, which can include the possibilities of high adherence to both heritage and mainstream cultures, or low adherence to both cultures. As a result, in the recent development of acculturation and enculturation measures for different ethnic groups, the bilinear approach has superseded the unilinear approach for conceptualizing acculturation and enculturation (e.g., Cullar et al., 1995; Lee, Yoon, & Liu Tom, 2006; Ryder et al., 2000; Zea, Asner Self, Birman, & Buki, 2003). In the 1980s, Berry (1980) developed a landmark model of acculturation that introduced the bilinear perspective, where it is possible for and a second mainstream culture. Within this model, Berry (1980) asserted that there are four acculturation outcomes possible, namely integration, assimilation, separation, and marginalization. Integration occurs when an individual maintains adherence and proficiency in both the indigenous and host (or dominant) cultures. Assimilation occurs when an individual internalizes the dominant culture and rejects or no longer adheres to the indigenous culture. Separ ation (or rejection) occurs when an individual maintains proficiency in the indigenous culture, but does not adapt to the dominant culture. Marginalization (or deculturation) occurs when an individual rejects both the indigenous and dominant cultures. Howe ver, this categorical

PAGE 18

18 model of acculturation has been criticized for the following reasons: (a) distinctions between high and low indigenous culture retention and host culture acquisition rely on arbitrary cut offs and (b) the validity and differentiation of four separate categories is not evident in extant samples (Rudmin, 2003; Schwartz et al., 2010). More recent conceptualizations do not focus on these four formulations and rather e of origin and of the host culture, whereby it is possible for individuals to maintain a positive relationship with both cultures and to shift their behaviors as needed across social contexts to fit into these cultures (e.g., Cullar et al., 1995; LaFromb oise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993; Miller, 2007; Ryder et al, 2000). This newer paradigm is reflected in existing acculturation/enculturation research on Asian and/or Asian American individuals as well. Specifically, nonsignificant to moderate correlations bet ween adherence to Asian culture (or enculturation) and adherence to mainstream American culture (or acculturation) support a bilinear model whereby acculturation and enculturation are psychometrically oblique (factors correlate with one another; e.g., Lee et al., 2006; Miller, 2007; Zhang & Moradi, 2013 ), but not opposite ends of a single continuum. Dimensionality: A Multidimensional Model Related to the issue of linearity, conceptualizations of acculturation and enculturation have evolved from a unidimens ional framework that delineated acculturation and enculturation each as a single global domain, to multidimensional frameworks that delineate acculturation and enculturation each as involving multiple domains. For example, Schwartz et al. (2010) proposed t hat acculturation and enculturation each is composed of three dimensions, namely, practices (e.g., language and food preferences), values (e.g., collectivism, interdependence, and familism ithin the receiving culture),

PAGE 19

19 as well as of the receiving culture group). These authors described that these processes may change at different rates and in d ifferent directions, may vary for different groups (e.g., immigrants, refugees, asylum seekers), and may vary depending on the receptivity of the host cultural context to the group (e.g., discrimination versus acceptance). They highlighted that the multidi mensionality of acculturation and enculturation is important for capturing these nuances. derived from a review of acculturation and enculturation measures. Specifically, in their content review of acculturation and enculturation measures, Kim and Abreu (2001) examined the item content of 33 measures of acculturation for U.S. ethnic minority groups and identified four basic dimensions from these items: behaviors (e.g., languag e use and preferences, media preferences), values (e.g., attitudes and beliefs about social ties, cultural customs and traditions), knowledge (e.g., understanding culture specific information such as history or cultural significance of an event), and cultu ral identity (e.g., self indigenous cultural group and toward the mainstream cultural group). Based on this review, they proposed a formal, four dimensional model comprised of the four interrelated dimens ions of behaviors, values, knowledge, and cultural identity. Distinction between behaviors and values Although the aforementioned conceptualizations suggest multiple dimensions of acculturation and enculturation, research on Asian American acculturation/e nculturation has often focused on broad behavioral (e.g., language and communication, social interactions) and values (e.g., belief systems, worldviews, political ideology) domains (Miller, 2007, 2010; Miller et al., 2011c). Specifically, the distinctions between the rates of change of behaviors and of

PAGE 20

20 values over time and across individuals from different generational statuses since immigration have been examined. For instance, Kim et al. (1999) found that level of Asian values did not differ significantly across first generation, second generation, and third generation (and beyond) Asian American immigrant groups, but found the expected pattern of lower behavioral acculturation for individuals who have more recently immigrated to the United States. Consequ ently, Kim et al. (1999) argued that this pattern suggests distinct change processes for behaviors and values, with the former occurring faster than the latter. Similarly, Portes and Rumbaut (2005) found that while many Asian American adolescents did not u se or were not proficient in their families' "native" languages (i.e., part of the behavioral domain), they may still identify strongly with their heritage cultural groups and/or adhere to many heritage cultural values. The distinctiveness between behavio rs and values dimensions was further iterated in studies that examined the fit of various measurement models to behaviors and values acculturation and enculturation data from Asian/Asian American samples (Miller, 2007, 2010). Specifically, Miller (2007) ex amined three measurement models, namely, unilinear unidimensional (i.e., single acculturation construct with host culture adopted at the expense of losing culture of origin, with no distinction between behaviors and values dimensions), bilinear unidimensio nal (i.e., acculturation and enculturation as correlated factors, but with no distinction between behaviors and values dimensions), and bilinear multidimensional (i.e., acculturation and enculturation each having behaviors and values dimensions). Miller ( 2007) found that with a sample of Asian American individuals, the bilinear multidimensional measurement model demonstrated superior fit compared to the unilinear unidimensional and the bilinear unidimensional models. Miller (2010) conducted a cross

PAGE 21

21 validat ion study with a different sample of Asian American individuals and found again that a bilinear multidimensional model provided superior fit to the data when compared to unilinear unidimensional and bilinear unidimensional models. Together, these findings demonstrated support for the notion that Asian American individuals can simultaneously adhere to a second culture (acculturation) while maintaining adherence to their heritage culture (enculturation), and that the acculturation/enculturation process occurs across the behavioral and values domains separately. Additionally, the small and moderate correlations (i.e., in the .20s to .30s) found between behaviors and values dimensions for Asian American individuals (Miller, 2007, 2010; Miller et al., 2011c) also suggest the distinctiveness between these two dimensions. Distinction between cultural identity and ethnic identity Within the acculturation literature, overlap between conceptualizations of cultural identity, one of the four dimensions of acculturation i dentified by Kim and Abreu (2001), and conceptualizations of ethnic identity has been noted. Kim (2007a) described cultural identity as toward indigenous and d ominant groups (e.g., feelings of pride toward the indigenous group), de scription of ethnic identity individuals and the focus is on how they relate to their own group as a subgroup of the larger uence between the operational definitions of cultural identity and ethnic identity has caused considerable confusion in the literature. Scholars often point out the lack of differentiation between these two constructs (e.g., Kim, 2007a) or attempt to disti nguish one from another in their reviews of ethnic identity

PAGE 22

22 (e.g., Fischer & Moradi, 2001) or cultural identity (e.g., Yoon et al., 2011) by only including studies that examined these constructs independent of one another; specifically, Fischer and Moradi assessment or a dimension of acculturation, whereas Yoon et al. (2011) excluded studies that examined ethnic identity as an independent construct instead of as a dimension of acculturation/enculturation in their review of acculturation/enculturation measures. Nevertheless, no current research study has clearly delineated the theoretical and conceptual differences or similarities between these two constructs, nor empiric ally examined these constructs from a measurement standpoint. However, some measures of acculturation have attempted to include some items reflecting cultural or ethnic identity (e.g., Chang, Tracey, & Moore, 2005; Suinn, Ahuna, & Khoo, 1992). As such, cul tural identity remains one of the dimensions of acculturation/enculturation that requires further examination, specifically in its relatedness or distinctiveness from ethnic identity. Assessment of Acculturation and Enculturation Existing Measures Current ly, many measures of Asian/Asian American acculturation and enculturation have been developed and used in various studies. In their content analysis, Yoon et al. (2011) reported 18 most frequently used acculturation/enculturation measures, of which seven w ere specifically developed for use with Asian/Asian American individuals (Suinn et al., 1987; Kim et al., 1999; Gim Chung, Kim, & Abreu, 2004; Hong, Kim, & Wolfe, 2005; Tsai, Ying, & Lee, 2000; Kim, Li, & Ng, 2005a; Wolfe, Yang, Wong, & Atkinson, 2001). Th e most frequently used measure of all 18 measures was the Suinn Lew Asian Self Identity Acculturation Scale (SL ASIA; Suinn et al., 1987), a unilinear measure that yields a single full scale acculturation score. The second most

PAGE 23

23 frequently used measure of t hese 18 measures that emerged from the content analysis was the Asian Values Scale (AVS; Kim et al., 1999), a 36 item unilinear unidimensional measure of Scale (AAMAS Asian culture of origin (enculturation), the White mainstream culture (acculturation), as well as a pan ethnic Asian American culture, was ranked as the sixth most frequently u sed measure out of these 18 measures, and was tied at this sixth rank with four other measures. Notably, among the AAMAS items for each culture, six items assess behaviors (language and food consumption), three items assess cultural knowledge, and six item s assess cultural identity; however, the items are not scored along these separate dimensions and instead yield a total score for each of the three cultural domains. The other four acculturation/enculturation measures specifically developed for use with A sian/Asian American individuals that were reported on this list of most frequently used measures were European American Values Scale for Asian Americans Revised (EAVS AA R; Hong et al., 2005), General Ethnicity Questionnaire (GEQ; Tsai et al., 2000), and A sian American Values Scale Multidimensional (AAVS M; Kim et al., 2005a). These widely used measures of Asian American acculturation and/or enculturation (e.g., AVS, AAMAS) often assess some, but not all, of the four dimensions of values, behaviors, cultura l identity, and cultural knowledge that Kim and Abreu (2001) proposed; when multiple dimensions are assessed, the number of items measuring each dimension is not balanced (e.g., AAMAS), and often, only an overall score for acculturation and enculturation i s computed (e.g., AAMAS, SL ASIA) ( Zhang & Moradi, 2013 in assessing the constructs of acculturation and enculturation and their multiple dimensions for

PAGE 24

24 Asian American individuals, and given the viability of a bilinear multidimensional model, several researchers (Kim, 2007a; Kim & Abreu, 2001; Miller, 2007, 2010; Yoon et al., 2011) have called for the development of a single bilinear multidimensional measure of Asian American acculturation and enculturation. Specifically, Kim and Abreu (2001) called for research on existing measures as opposed to developing a new measure from scratch to separate items that assess different dimensions. Newer Development in Measurement In response to the cal ls for research on measurement dev elopment, Zhang and Moradi (2013 ) conducted a study that empirically evaluated the dimensions of Asian American acculturation and enculturation assessed in extant measures of these constructs. Specifically, these authors r eviewed items from existing acculturation/enculturation measures along the conceptualization offered by Kim and Abreu (2001). They selected measures and items for their analyses using the following considerations: clarity and distinctiveness to minimize co ntent redundancy; reflection of behaviors, values, knowledge, and cultural identity dimensions; parallel content across acculturation and enculturation dimensions; clarity and balance in item response formats (i.e., endorsement, frequency, and language pro ficiency formats; Kang, 2006). They also drew additional items from acculturation/enculturation measures designed for use with multiple populations in order to capture unique content not reflected in Asian/Asian American specific measures. They refined the items to clarify terminology (e.g., using the terms mainstream America or Americans to assess U.S. acculturation) and selected a 4 point response scale (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree ) to rate all the items due to its precision in assessing A sian American samples in prior research (Hong et al., 2005; Kim & Hong, 2004). Finally, they submitted the item pool to Asian/Asian American consultants for feedback on item

PAGE 25

25 clarity and relevance, as well as survey measure length. Ultimately, their final i tem set was made up of all 25 items from the Asian Values Scale Revised (AVS R; Kim & Hong, 2004), 25 items from the EAVS AA II modified for use with Asian Americans (ARSMA II AA; Lee et al., 2006), 11 of 39 items from the abridged version of General Ethnicity Questionnaire Chinese (GEQC; Tsai et al., 2000) and 11 of 38 items from the abridged version of General Ethnicity Questionnaire American (GEQA; Tsai et of Multidimensional Acculturation Scale (AMAS; Zea Acculturation Scale (SMAS; Stephenson, 2000). Zhang and Moradi (2013 ) then submitted data from a sample of Asian and Asian American partic three factor solution to be the most interpretable for the acculturation items and for the enculturation items. The three factor solutions reflected the dimensions of Language re lated Behavior, Pride and Cultural Group Association, and Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge, which paralleled three of the four dimensions described by Kim and Abreu (2001), namely behavior, cultural identity, and knowledge respectively. Importantly, Z hang and Moradi (2013 ) found values to be a related but distinct construct from the other three acculturation and enculturation dimensions as assessed by the items from existing measures. Specifically, low inter item correlations were found within the AVS R items and within the EAVS AA R items, and these items sets also had low correlations with other acculturation and enculturation items.

PAGE 26

26 As well, the correlations of values with the other acculturation and enculturation dimensions were small to medium ( r = .09 to .42) and smaller than the magnitude of correlations among the other acculturation dimensions and among the other enculturation dimensions. This pattern suggested that behaviors, cultural identity, and knowledge dimensions are more closely related t o one another than with values. Ulti ) findings offered initial evidence that existing measures of acculturation and enculturation reflected multiple dimensions of Language related Behavior, Pride and Cultural Group Associati on, and Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge, and that values may be a related but distinct construct from these dimensions. Conseq ) study showed the plausibility of consolidating existing measures into a bilinear multidime nsional measure of Asian American acculturation and enculturation, thus leading to the focus of the present study on further measurement development. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the present study is to take the next steps toward develop ing a biline ar and multidimensional measure of Asian American acculturation and enculturation. Specifically, this study aims to replicate and refine the factor structure of Asian American acculturation and enculturation found by Zhang and Moradi (2013 ) and to offer f urther psychometric evaluation (e.g., reliability, and validity) of data produced by the refined structure C onfirmatory factor analyses (CFA) will be used to test the replicability of the three factor structure, d erived by Zhang and Moradi (2013 ), reflec ting Language related Behavior, Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge, and Pride and Cultural Group Association in a new sample. Additionally, item reductions will be made based on empirical (e.g., factor loading and cross loadings discrepancy; Worthington & Whittaker, 2006) and conceptual (e.g., content areas

PAGE 27

27 and redundancy; Yoon et al., 2011) considerations Subsequently evidence of reliability and validity for the refined measure will be turation and enculturation full scale and subscale items are expected to be at least .70. To demonstrate discriminant validity, it is expected that acculturation and enculturation subscale scores will not be associated with socially desirable responding as reflected by scores on the Impression Management subscale of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (Paulhus, 1991). Evidence of discriminant distinctive cor relations with concurrent criterion related validity indicators (described below). To demonstrate concurrent criterion related validity, it is expected that acculturation and enculturation full scale scores will be correlated significantly and positivel y with the corresponding scores on the Vancouver Index of Acculturation (VIA; Ryder et al., 2000), a bilinear but unidimensional measure of acculturation and enculturation. Specifically, it is expected that acculturation full scale scores will be correlate d significantly and positively with the VIA Mainstream subscale scores, whereas the enculturation full scale scores will be correlated significantly and positively with the VIA Heritage subscale scores. Additionally, the posited distinctiveness of accultur ation and enculturation dimensions (i.e., Language related Behavior, Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge, and Pride and Cultural Group Association) will be explored by testing correlations between these subscales and corresponding constructs of participa ethnic identity, and bicultural self efficacy (i.e., the belief that a person can effectively function in two cultural groups without it is expected that Language related Behavior enculturation subscales scores will be correlated significantly and

PAGE 28

28 negative related Behavior acculturation subscale s will be corr elated significant ly and positive ly use of English as their first language ( Zhang & Moradi, 2013 ). Furthermore, it is expected that Pride and Cultural Group Association enculturation subscale scores will correlate significantly and posit ively with the ethnic identity subscale scores of the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM; Phinney, 1992), whereas Pride and Cultural Group Association acculturation subscale scores will correlate significantly and positively with the MEIM Other group subscale scores. It is also expected that both the Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge enculturation and acculturation subscale scores will correlate significantly and positively with the Knowledge subscale scores of the Bicultural Self Efficacy Scale ( BSES; David, Okazaki, & Saw, 2009). In addition to the above aims, correlations with the AVS R and EAVS AA R will be examined to evaluate the replicabi ) findings that behaviors, cultural identity, and knowledge are more clo sely related to one another than with values. Data were collected in conjuncti ) earlier study, but are from a sample independent of that used in that earlier study.

PAGE 29

29 CHAPTER 2 METHOD Participants Data from 232 Asian and Asi an American participants w as analyzed. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 52 years old ( M = 25.21, SD = 6.17, Mdn = 23.00). Approximately 56.5% of the sample identified as women, 29.3% as men, and 14.2% did not indicate their gender. In terms of sexual orientation, 63.8% of the sample identified as exclusively heterosexual, 16.4% as mostly heterosexual, 2.6% as bisexual, 2.2% as exclusively lesbian or gay, and 15.1% did not onal degree indicated that 26.3% of the sample had a college degree, 21.1% had a professional or graduate degree, 19.8% had some college or technical school education, 9.5% had a high school degree, 8.6% had some professional or graduate education, and 14. 7% did not indicate the highest education they have completed. In terms of socioeconomic status, we used categories following a experiences of their socioeconomic ends meet and had enough m residing i n 34 out of the 50 United States, with most participants residing in the states of California (22.4%), Florida (9.5%), Pennsylvania (7.3%), New York (6.5%), Virginia (5.6%), Michigan (4.3%), Illinois (4.3%), Iowa (3.4%), and Hawaii (2.2%). In terms of eth nicity, the participants identified themselves as Chinese (31.5%), Asian

PAGE 30

30 with more than one ethnic/racial background (9.5%), Korean (8.2%), Vietnamese (8.2%), Filipino (6.9%), Taiwanese (6.5%), Asian Indian (4.7%), Japanese (2.2%), Singaporean (1.7%), Thai (1.7%), other (1.7%), Hmong (1.3%), Pakistani (0.9%), Cambodian (0.4%), and 14.7% did not indicate their ethnicity. Moreover, a plurality of participants identified their first language as English (39.2%) or Chinese or Mandarin (12.5%), and the remaining participants identified Cantonese/Taishanese (7.3%), Vietnamese (5.6%), Korean (4.3%), Chinese dialect (e.g., Fujianese, Teochew, Hunanese) (2.2%), Hindi (1.7%), Tagalog (1.7%), Hmong (1.3%), Thai (1.3%), Kannada (0.9%), Arabic (0.4%), Burmese (0.4%), Camb odian (0.4%), Japanese (0.4%), Persian (0.4%), Taiwanese (0.4%), Urdu (0.4%), other (2.2%) or unknown (14.7%) languages. In terms of the first generation of their family to move to the United States, 14.2% of the sample reported that they alone were the fi rst generation to move to the United States, 21.6% reported themselves and their parents, 36.6% reported their parents, 9.5% reported their grandparents, 3.4% reported their great grandparents and beyond, and 14.7% did not report the first generation of th eir family to move to the United States. Approximately 50.4% of the sample was born in the United States. For the participants who were not born in the United States, their mean number of years lived in the United States was 14.43 ( SD = 10.26). The mean nu mber of years that the participants were educated in the United States was 14.93 ( SD = 6.78). Instruments Dimensions of a cculturation and e nculturation ) final EFA item pool reflecting the Language related Behavior, Cultural and Soc iopolitical Knowledge, and Pride and Cultural Group Association dimensions of Asian American acculturation and enculturation was used as a starting point for the item selection steps described in the proposed analyses section for the confirmatory factor an alyses. Zhang an ) final item set

PAGE 31

31 was comprised of 41 items assessing the aforementioned three dimensions of acculturation and 39 items assessing the three dimensions of enculturation. All items were rated on a 4 point scale of level of agre ement (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree). This scale was selected due to its precision relative to a 7 point scale in assessing cultural values in Asian American samples (Hong et al., 2005; Kim & Hong, 2004). Examples of acculturation items incl ude "I feel comfortable speaking English," "I know American political leaders well," and "I would prefer to live in a community made up of mainstream Americans." Examples of enculturation items include "I enjoy speaking the language of my heritage culture, "I am knowledgeable about the culture and traditions of my heritage culture," and "I like to interact and associate with people from the same heritage culture as myself." In terms of reliability, the acculturation full scale and subscale items yielded C ronbach's alphas ranging from .93 to .96, and the enculturation full scale and subscale items yielded Cronbach's alphas ranging from .89 to .96 in a prior sample of Asian and Asian American individuals ( Zhang & Moradi, 2013 ). In terms of criterion related validity, the acculturation and enculturation full scale and subscale scores were correlated significantly in the expected number of years formally educated in th e United States ( Zhang & Moradi, 2013 ). Procedures Participants were recruited via online resources such as electronic mail and listserves, discussion boards, student organizations at universities and colleges, and virtual communities for Asian and Asian American individuals. Recruitment notices invited individuals to participate in a study of the experiences of Asian and Asian American individuals in the United States. Participants were directed to an online survey that was made available through an inter net site

PAGE 32

32 hosted by SurveyMonkey. The survey began with an informed consent page that reiterated the purpose of the study, outlined the inclusion criteria for the study, stated the confidentiality and anonymity of responses, indicated institutional review b oard (IRB) approval, and provided contact information for the researchers and IRB, should the participants have any questions about the study. No compensation was offered. To participate in the study, respondents had to first affirm that they (1) were 18 y ears of age or older, (2) resided in the United States, and (3) were of Asian descent or background. If respondents affirmed that they met these inclusion criteria and agreed to participate after reading the informed consent, they were connected to the sur vey. A total of 441 entries were submitted. To prepare the data for analyses, data were screened and incomplete entries (i.e., missing more than 50% of the total number of items excluding demographic items) or entries missing more than 20% of items on the acculturation and enculturation measures (the primary measures of interest) were removed from analyses. Additionally, two validity questions asking participants to mark a particular response (e.g., e survey to check that participants were responding attentively and not randomly. If participants responded incorrectly to either validity check item, their data were screened to determine if the rest of their responses suggested random responding. Based o n these procedures, 202 entries were removed for missing more than 50% of responses on the entire survey; some of these incomplete entries may have been from complete t he survey at a later time, but this possibility cannot be tested due to the anonymity of the survey responses. An additional six participants were removed for missing more than 20% of items on the acculturation and enculturation measures, and one additiona l participant was removed because she answered both validity questions incorrectly and the rest of her answers

PAGE 33

33 suggested random responding. These procedures resulted in 232 participants for analyses. NORM software (Schafer & Graham, 2002) was used to imput e item level missing data based on expectation maximization parameters in the data set. Instruments for Analyses of Concurrent and Discriminant Validity Vancouver Index of Acculturation (VIA) The VIA (Ryder et al., 2000) is a 20 item self report bilinear a nd unidimensional measure with 10 items assessing orientation toward mainstream North American culture or acculturation and 10 items assessing orientation toward one's heritage culture or enculturation. The measure asks participants to rate on a 9 point sc ale (1 = strongly disagree to 9 = strongly agree) their adherence to the values, social relationships, and traditions of each culture; examples to maintain o r develop the practices of my heritage culture," and "I believe in mainstream North American values." Items on each subscale are averaged and higher scores indicate greater levels of acculturation or enculturation on the respective subscale. Across samples of East and Southeast Asian individuals, Filipino American individuals, and Asian American college and in the mid to high .80s for the VIA Mainstream items (e.g ., David & Okazaki, 2006; Hwang & Ting, 2008; Ryder et al., 2000; Ting & Hwang, 2009). In terms of validity, in their samples of Chinese and non Chinese East and Southeast Asian individuals, Ryder et al. (2000) reported convergent validity correlations of .57 and .60 for the Heritage dimension and .60 and .51 for the Mainstream dimension with the SL ASIA (Suinn et al., 1987), a unidimensional and unilinear (i.e., Asian [low scores] to American [high scores]) measure of acculturation. For this study, VIA M

PAGE 34

34 Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM) The MEIM (Phinney, 1992) is a self report measure that assesses the dimensions of ethnic identity search, affirmation and belonging, a nd other group orientation. Specifically, 12 items assess ethnic identity and 6 items assess other group orientation separately. The measure asks participants to rate on a 4 point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree) for items such as "I hav e a clear sense of my ethnic background and what it means for me," "I participate in cultural practices of my own group, such as special food, music, or customs," and "I enjoy being around people from other ethnic groups other than my own." Appropriate ite ms are reverse coded and item ratings are averaged to yield two separate scores for the MEIM ethnic identity subscale and the Other group orientation subscale. A higher score on the ethnic identity subscale indicates a more positive ethnic identity, wherea s a higher score on the Other group orientation subscale indicates a greater willingness to interact with other ethnic groups than one's own. Lee and Yoo (2004) reported Cronbach's alphas of .72 to .81 for ethnic identity related subscales of the MEIM and .76 for Other group orientation with a sample of Asian American college students, whereas Iwamoto and Liu (2010) reported Cronbach's alphas of .77 and .90 for the MEIM with a sample of Asian American and Asian international college and graduate students. I n terms of validity, scores on the MEIM and Other group orientation has been found in a prior study to be correlated with self esteem ( r = .23 for ethnic identity and .33 for Other group orientation) and social connectedness ( r = .44 for ethnic identity an d .48 for Other group orientation) with a sample of Asian American undergraduate students (Lee, 2003), suggesting support for criterion related validity for both subscales. For this study, the ethnic identity .90, while the MEIM Other group orientation

PAGE 35

35 Bicultural Self Efficacy Scale (BSES) The BSES (David et al., 2009) is a 26 item self report measure that assesses bicultural of being biculturally competent across six domains: both standard Engli sh and the language of my heritage culture (e.g., urban street talk, Spanish, Beliefs and For the purpose of this study, only the Knowledge of Cultural Beliefs and Values subscale will be used. Res pondents use a 9 point rating scale (1 = strongly disagree to 9 = strongly agree) to answer each item. Item ratings are averaged to yield an overall score for each dimension, with higher scores indicating greater levels of perceived self efficacy on being biculturally competent. With their sample of bicultural individuals where approximately 64% was Asian American Social Groundedness, .78 for Communication Ability, .84 for Positive Attitudes Toward Both Groups, .86 for Knowledge of Cultural Beliefs and Values, .63 for Role Repertoire, and .71 for subscales to range fro m .46 to .92 with a sample of self identified ethnic minority college students where approximately 34% was made up of Asian American individuals. With regards to

PAGE 36

36 her itage and mainstream cultures (David et al., 2009). For this study, the Knowledge of Cultural Impression Management subscale of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (IM BI DR 6) The IM BIDR 6 (Paulhus, 1991) is a 20 item measure that assesses socially desirable responding. The measure asks participants to rate on a 7 point scale (1 = not true to 7 = very an overall score, with higher scores indicating exaggerated desirable responding. With their sample of Chinese American individuals, alpha for the IM BIDR 6 to be .79. In terms of validity, prior studies have found that IM BIDR 6 scores correlate positively with other measures of social desirability for Asian American individuals (David e t al., 2009; Lalwani, Shavitt, & Johnson, 2006). For this study, the IM BIDR Asian Values Scale Revised (AVS R) The AVS R (Kim & Hong, 2004) is a 25 item self report unilinear measure based on the original 36 item AVS ( Kim et al., 1999). The AVS R is designed to assess Asian American the needs of others before considering one's own needs"), conformity to norms (e.g., "One sho uld not deviate from familial and social norms"), family recognition through achievement (e.g., "One's achievements should be viewed as family's achievements"), emotional self control (e.g., "One should have sufficient inner resources to resolve emotional problems"), filial piety (e.g.,

PAGE 37

37 "Children should not place their parents in retirement homes", and humility (e.g., "One should be discouraged from talking about one's accomplishments"). The measure asks participants to rate on a 4 point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree) their endorsement of these Asian cultural values. Appropriate items are reverse coded and item ratings are averaged to yield an overall score, with higher scores indicating greater adherence to Asian cultural values. Miller et and graduate studen ts, while Zhang and Moradi (2013 ) reported a Cronbach's alpha of .80 with a sample of Asian and Asian American individuals. In terms of vali dity, scores on the AVS R have been found to be correlated with psychological distress disclosure ( r = .34) with individuals of Asian descent (Chen & Danish, 2010), suggesting support for criterion related validity. For this study, the AVS R yielded a Cro European American Values Scale for Asian Americans Revised (EAVS AA R) The EAVS AA R (Hong et al., 2005) is a 25 item self report unilinear measure that is an extension of the original European American Values Scale for Asian American s (EAVS AA; Wolfe et al., 2001). The EAVS AA endorsement of European American cultural values such as childrearing practices, marital ould not have children are rated on a 4 point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree). Appropriate items are reverse coded and item ratings are aver aged to yield an overall score, with higher scores indicating greater adherence to European American cultural values. Miller et al. (2011c) reported students, while Zhang and Moradi (201 3 ) reported a Cronbach's alpha of .71 with a sample of

PAGE 38

38 Asian and Asian American individuals. In terms of validity, scores on the EAVS AA R have been found to be correlated with precise communication style ( r = .19) with a sample of Asian Ame rican students (Park & Kim, 2008), suggesting support for criterion related validity. For this study, the EAVS AA Demographic and Background V ariables In addition to the instruments above, participants were asked to rep ort their demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, age, sexual orientation) and a number of background variables (e.g., their length of stay in the United States, whether English was their first language, generation status since immigration).

PAGE 39

39 CHAPTER 3 RESULTS Several guidelines in the literature indicated that s ample size s of at least 200 w ere usually sufficient to derive meaningful and interpretable models and fit indices for CFA (Hau & Marsh, 2004; Quintana & Maxwell, 1999 ; Weston & Gore, 2006 ), and m odels with greater degrees of freedom attain higher power at lower sample sizes (MacCallu m, Browne, & Sugawara, 1996). Under these guidelines the sample size of 232 was considered acceptable for the analyses. Pr eliminary Analyses Item e xclusion an d r etent ion Prior to conducting the CFA item retention decisions were made by examining the EFA results re ported by Zhang and Moradi (2013 ). To ensure the construct specificity and stability of emergent factors for the CFA (Kahn, 2006), item retention decisions w ere made based on empirical (e.g., factor loading and cross loading discrepancy; Worthington & Whittaker, 2006) and conceptual (e.g., content areas and redundancy; Yoon et al., 2011) considerations. Specifically, based on ) EFA resu lts, items with factor loadings of less than .40 and with indistinctive loadings across factors (i.e., factor loadings and cross loading discrepancies of less than .15; Worthington & Whittaker, 2006) were identified for remov al Additionally, one encultura tion item (i.e., "I like to identify myself as Asian American") loaded negatively on the Language related Behavior factor ( .51) indicating ambiguity in its conceptual meaning and reflection of enculturation. Specifically, this negative loading indicated that individuals who reported more language related behavioral enculturation (e.g., spoke, wrote, read in Asian language, consumed Asian language media) were less likely to identify as Asian American. Given that this item was embedded among other items ask ing about heritage culture, it is possible that participants may have interpreted identification as Asian American as a contrast to identification as Asian, and that relative to Asian identification, Asian

PAGE 40

40 American identification may be associated with low er levels of Asian language related behavior. Nevertheless, this item was a lower loader relative to the other items on the Language related Behavior factor ( Zhang & Moradi, 2013 meaning and reflection of e nculturation identified it for removal. Overall, there were 41 acculturation (13 Language related Behavior, 12 Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge, and 16 Pride and Cultural Group Association) and 38 enculturation (18 Language related Behavior, 9 Cultura l and Sociopolitical Knowledge, and 11 Pride and Cultural Group Association) ite ms ) EFAs that meet these factor loading and cross loading criteria. A preliminary CFA of data from the present sample of 232 participants w as con ducted using AMOS 7.0 (Arbuckle, 1995 2006) to confirm the stability of these item exclusion decisions. Specifically, these item exclusion decisions were checked against the modification indices from the CFA to ensure that dropped items based on the EFA re sults were those whose modification indices suggested high overlap with other items, suggesting some content redundancy. Also, the standardized regression weights were examined to ensure that dropped items based on the EFA results were those whose standard ized regression weights were low relative to other items retained Upon inspection, all the item exclusion decisions based on the EFA results from Zhang and Moradi (2013 ) were supported by the preliminary CFA Confirmatory Factor A nalyses To test the repl icability of the three factor structure reflecting Language related Behavior, Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge, and Pride and Cultural Group Association with acculturation items and enculturation items CFA of the 41 retained acculturation items and t he 3 8 retained enculturation items was conducted using Amos 7.0 (Arbuckle, 1995 2006) with data from the present sample of 232 participants To examine if the items met the guidelines of

PAGE 41

41 univariate and multivariate normality as outlined by Weston and Gore (2006), the skewness and kurtosis for each item and cases that had large Mahalanobis distances were examined. In terms of univariate normality, most of the data met guidelines for univariate normality except one w hich was found to have a negative s kew ( 3.44) and a positive kurtosis (11.66) above the absolute value of 3.0 and 10.0 cutoffs for skewness and kurtosis respectively (Weston & Gore, 2006). N evertheless, th is item was retained for CFA as its skewness and k urtosis may be a function of participants responding to the survey items in English; as well, the item content appeared conceptually relevant to retain. In terms of multivaria te normality, cases with the largest Mahalanobis distances were examined to check against random responding I t was also found that the removal of the largest multivariate outlier within the acculturation and enculturation data had minimal impact on fit indices and parameter estimates As such, all 232 participants in the CFA data sets were retained. Following several recommendations outlined by Weston and Gore (2006) and Worthington and Whittaker (2006) the model fit was e valuated based on the significance and strength of estimated parameters, variance accounted for in endogenous obs erved and latent variables, and the extent to which the overall model fits the observed data as indicated by a range of fit indices such as Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Residual Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) values West on and Gore (2006) noted that criteria for acceptable fit have ranged from CFI .90, RMSEA with a maximum upper bound of the 90% CI of .10, and SRMR .10 (e.g., Hu & Bentler, 1995 ; Browne & Cudek, 1993; Bentler, 1995 ) to a more stringent CFI .95, RMSEA ; Quintana & Maxwell, 1999), and that the less stringent criteria should be used for samples smaller than 500 and for more complex models

PAGE 42

42 Additionally modification indices were evaluated to inform further item removal decisions (Weston & Gore, 2006) Items with the largest modification indices suggested high overlap with other items and were reviewed for conceptual content redundancy with other items Specifically, items tha t were conceptually redundant were considered for removal to optimize measure length. removed because it overlapped with and ha d a lower factor loading (.63 My friends no ). After these item removal decisions, there remained 22 acculturation (7 Language related Behavior, 7 Cultural and Sociopolitical Kno wledge, and 8 Pride and Cu ltural Group Association) and 18 enculturation (6 Language relat ed Behavior, 5 Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge, and 7 Pride and Cultural Group Association) items that m et criteria for retention and yielded adequate model fit The details of each of these final models for acculturation and enculturation items are described next. Acculturation I tems T he three factor structure reflecting Language related Behavior, Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge, and Pride and Cultural Group Association was tested with acculturation items I tems were estimated to load onto the ir intended factors on the b asis of ) EFA findings, and the three factors were allowed to correlate. After the previously described iterative item elimination s f ollowing recommendations (Weston & Gore, 2006; Worthington & Whittaker, 2006) all the remaining items loaded significantly onto their intended factors; loadings for the Language related Behavior factor ranged from .58 to .83, for the Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge factor ranged from .71 to .86, and for the Pride and C ultural Group Association factor ranged from .61 to .85. CFA of the final set of acculturation items suggested that this three factor model met the less stringent criteria (Weston

PAGE 43

43 & Gore, 2006) for acceptable fit to the data, 2 (206, N = 232) = 459.75, p < .001, CFI = .913, SRMR = .069, RMSEA = .073, 90% CI [.064, .082]. All items loaded significantly onto their intended factors; factor loadings and factor intercorre lations are presented in Table 3 1 and th e model is presented in Figure 3 1 En culturation I tems T he three factor structure reflecting Language related Behavior, Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge, and Pride and Cultural Group Association was tested with enculturation items I tems were estimated to load onto the ir intended factors on the b asis of ) EFA findings, and the three factors were allowed to correlate. After the previously described iterative item eliminations f ollowing recommendations (Weston & Gore, 2006; Worthington & Whittaker, 2006), all the remaining items loaded significantly onto their intended factors; loadings for the Language related Behavior factor ranged from .67 to .83, for the Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge factor ranged from .60 to .87, and for the Pride and C ultural Group Association factor ranged from .59 to .79. This model approximated but did not meet the less stringent criteria for acceptable model fit 2 (132 N = 232) = 399.27 p < .001, CFI = .887 SRMR = .066 RMSEA = .094, 90% CI [.083 104 ] Examination of modification indices indicated large modification indice s for the covariances between the uniquenesses of two pairs of items on the Language re lated Behavior subscale read and write well in the language of my heritage culture Covariances for each of these item p airs were estimated and fit indices were reexamined. CFA of the final set of enculturation items suggested that this three factor model (with the two uniqueness cov ariances) provided acceptable

PAGE 44

44 fit to the data, 2 ( 130 N = 232) = 328.16 p < .001, CFI = .91 6 SRMR = .063 RMSEA = .081 90% CI [.070, .09 2]. All items loaded significantly onto their intended factors; factor loadings and factor intercorre lations are pr esented in Table 3 2 and the model is presented in Figure 3 2 Acculturation and e nculturation full scale and subscale scores were computed based on these final models and used in reliability and validity analyses. Reliability Internal consistency reliabi lity for the acculturation and enculturation full scale and subscale item enculturation full scale items acculturation subscal e item s (i.e., Language related Behavior, Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge, and Pride and Cultural Group Association .92; whereas for the enculturation subscale item 3 fo r Validity To evaluate validity evidence for the acculturation and enculturation full scale and subscale scores, zero order and point biserial correlations were computed with scores on the validity indicators Effect si zes were interpreted as small ( r = |.10|), medium ( r = |.30|), and large ( r = |.50|) following benchmarks summarized by Cohen (1992). Correlations are reported in Table 3 3 In support of discriminant validity acculturation and enculturation full scale an d subscale scores was found to be generally uncorrelated with socially desirable responding as reflected by scores on the Impression Management subscale of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding ( IM BIDR 6; Paulhus, 1991) with the exception of two significant correlations

PAGE 45

45 between IM BIDR 6 scores and the Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge acculturation subscale scores ( r = .19, p < .05) and the Language related Behavior enculturation subscale scores ( r = .15, p < .05) Evidence of discriminant validity was also deduced from acculturation and enculturation related validity indicators Specifically, i n support of concurrent criterion related validity, acculturation and enculturation ful l scale scores w ere found to be correlated significantly and positively with the corresponding scores on the VIA ( Ryder et al., 2000). Specifically, it was found that acculturation full scale scores correlated significantly and positively with the VIA Main stream subscale scores ( r = .58, p < .0 1 ) whereas the enculturation full scale scores correlated significantly and positively with the VIA Heritage subscale scores ( r = .69, p < .01) Additionally, the posited distinctiveness of acculturation and encultu ration dimensions (i.e., Language related Behavior, Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge, and Pride and Cultural Group Association) w as supported by correlations between these subscale s cores and their first language (1 = no, 2 = yes ) ethnic identity, and bicultural self efficacy (i.e., the belief that a person can effectively function Specifically, La nguage related Behavior enculturation subscale scores corr elated significantly and negativ (1 = no, 2 = yes ) ( r = .22, p < .01) whereas Language related Behavior acculturation subscale scores c orrelated significantly and positiv (1 = no, 2 = yes ) ( r = .18, p < .05) ( Zhang & Moradi, 2013 ). Furthermore, Pride and Cultural Group Association enculturation subscale scores correlate d signifi cantly and positively with the ethnic

PAGE 46

46 identity subscale scores of the MEIM ( Phinney, 1992) ( r =. 69 p < .0 1 ) whereas Pride and Cultural Group Association acculturation subscale scores c orrelate d significantly and positively with the MEIM Other group orien tation subscale scores ( r =. 36 p < .0 1 ) Finally t he Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge enculturation and acculturation subscale s scores correlate d significantly and positively with the Knowledge of Cultural Beliefs and Values subscale scores of the B SES ( David et al. 2009) ( enculturation: r =. 44 p < .0 1; acculturation: r =. 2 8, p < .0 1 ) I t should be noted that the strongest correlation with each criterion validity indicator was mostly with the intended subscale score. For instance, Language related Behavior ac culturation subscale scores w ere correlated significantly and positive ly language (1 = no, 2 = yes ) ( r = .18, p < .05) but Pride and Cultural Group Association as well as Cultural and Sociopoliti cal Knowledge ac culturation subscale s scores were not correlated with (1 = no, 2 = yes ) ( r = .09 and .07, n.s., respectively). Similarly, Pride and Cultural Group Association en culturation subscale score s had a large correlation with the ethnic identity subscale scores of the MEIM ( r = .69, p < .01), but Language related Behavior as well as Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge en culturation subscale scores had small to medium correlations with the ethnic identity subscale scores of the MEIM ( r = .23 and .38, p < .01, respectively). The only exception was the correlation between MEIM Other group orientation subscale scores and Language related Behavior acculturation subscale scores ( r = .46, p < .01) which was comparatively larger than the correlation between MEIM Other group orientation subscale scores and the intended Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge acculturation subscale scores ( r = .36 p < .01 ) Overall, t hese findings provided support for the di stinctiveness of the acculturation and enculturation dimensions of Language related Behavior, Pride and Cultural Group Association and Cultural and Sociopolitical

PAGE 47

47 Knowledge. For exploratory purposes, correlations of the acculturation and enculturation sub scale scores with AVS R and EAVS AA R scores were examined to evaluate the replicability of ) findings that behaviors, knowledge, and cultural identity are more closely related to one another than with values Similar to Zhang and M ) findings, while acculturation full scale and subscale scores were correlated positively with EAVS AA R scores, the effect sizes were small to medium ( r = |.17| to |.33|, p < .05) Moreover, while enculturation full scale score were correlate d significantly and positively with the AVS R scores ( r = .15, p < .05), enculturation subscale scores we re generally not correlated with AVS R scores with the exception of significant positive correlation between Pride and Cultural Group Association subsc ale scores and AVS R scores ( r = .14, p < .05), and both of these effect sizes were small. As such, these findings were consistent with ) finding s that some orthogonality exists between behaviors, knowledge, and cultural identity on the one hand and values on the other hand

PAGE 48

48 Table 3 1. Confirmatory factor a nalysis of a c culturation i tems Factors/ Items Factor Loadings Unique ness M SD Language related Behavior I speak English well. .58 .34 3.89 .31 I often write in English ( e.g., letters). .66 .44 3.81 .45 I enjoy speaking English. .65 .42 3.73 .54 My thinking is often done in English. .61 .38 3.70 .59 I feel comfortable speaking English. .77 .59 3.78 .48 I enjoy reading in English (e.g., books). .83 .69 3.76 .49 I enj oy watching TV in English. .64 .40 3.64 .57 Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge I know the history of mainstream Americans well. .86 .74 3.20 .71 I know popular mainstream American newspapers and magazines well. .71 .50 3.19 .75 I know mainstr eam American current affairs well. .76 .58 3.22 .69 I know the national heroes of mainstream America well. .80 .64 3.18 .73 I know mainstream American literature well. .80 .64 3.09 .78 I know mainstream American social norms and customs well. .83 .6 9 3.42 .65 I am knowledgeable about mainstream American culture and traditions. .75 .57 3.45 .68 Pride and Cultural Group Association I like to identify myself as mainstream American. .77 .59 2.41 .82 I am proud to be a part of mainstream America ns. .72 .52 2.72 .76 My friends now are mainstream Americans. .65 .42 2.77 .79 I feel I have a lot in common with mainstream Americans. .84 .70 2.71 .85 I like to interact and associate with mainstream Americans. .68 .46 3.06 .73 I relate to my par tner or spouse in a way that is similar to mainstream Americans. .61 .37 2.71 .75 I identify with mainstream Americans. .85 .73 2.70 .83 I feel connected with mainstream American culture. .79 .62 2.99 .87 Note. The latent variable correlations betwee n Language related Behavior and Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge, Language related Behavior and Pride and Cultural Group Association, and Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge and Pride and Cultural Group Association were r = .58, r = .42, and r = .51 respectively. Fit indices for final model : CFI = .913, SRMR = .069, RMSEA = .073 [ 90% CI: .064, .082 ]

PAGE 49

49 Table 3 2. Confirmatory factor a nalysis of en culturation i tems Factors/ I tem s Factor Loadings Unique ness M SD Language related Behavior I enjo y watching TV in the language of my heritage culture .67 .45 2.50 .9 5 I enjoy reading in the language of my heritage culture (e.g., books). .72 .52 1.90 .84 I often write in the language of my heritage culture (e.g., letters). .73 .53 1.63 .74 I speak the language of my heritage culture well. .81 .65 2.59 1.02 My thinking is often done in the language of my heritage culture. .69 .48 1.78 .8 2 I read and write well in the language of my heritage culture. .83 .69 2.06 1.0 5 Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge I know history of my heritage cultural group well. .77 .60 2.61 .90 I am knowledgeable about the culture and traditions of my heritage culture. .60 .36 3.09 .67 I know current affairs of my heritage cultural group well. .78 .61 2.39 .89 I know national heroes from my heritage cultural group well. .87 .75 2.41 .92 I know political leaders from my heritage cultural group well. .80 .64 2.17 .8 9 Pride and Cultural Group Association I like to interact and associate with people from the s ame heritage culture as myself. .78 .61 3.14 .6 9 I am proud to be a part of my heritage cultural group. .59 .35 3.53 .62 I often interact and associate with people from the same heritage culture as myself. .73 .53 2.84 .8 5 I feel I have a lot in commo n with people from the same heritage culture as myself. .79 .62 2.97 .79 I go to places where people are from the same heritage culture as myself. .59 .35 2.79 .79 I associate with my heritage cultural group. .78 .61 3.09 .7 1 I identify with my herita ge cultural group. .79 .62 3.25 .7 1 Note. The latent variable correlations between Language related Behavior and Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge, Language related Behavior and Pride and Cultural Group Association, and Cultural and Sociopolitical Kn owledge and Pride and Cultural Group Association were r = .61, r = .44, and r = .53, respectively. Fit indices for final model : CFI = .916, SRMR = .063, RMSEA = .081 [ 90% CI: .070, .092 ]

PAGE 50

50 Table 3 3. M eans, standard d eviations, C lphas, and biva riate c orrelations for a cculturation and e nculturation full s cale and subscale scores and criterion related validity indicators Variable n i M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1.Acculturation (full) 22 3.23 0.43 .93 2. ACC B 7 3.76 0.36 .85 .71 ** 3. ACC K 7 3.25 0.58 .92 .83 ** .53 ** 4. ACC CI 8 2.76 0.62 .91 .85 ** .41 ** .49 ** 5. Enculturation (full) 18 2.60 0.53 .91 .42 ** .25 ** .33 ** .39 ** 6. ENC B 6 2.07 0.72 .88 .4 2 ** .30 ** .40 ** .31 ** .83 ** 7. ENC K 5 2.53 0.70 .88 .35 ** .23 ** .23 ** .36 ** .83 ** .57 ** 8. ENC CI 7 3.09 0.56 .88 .24 ** .07 .17 .29 ** .78 ** .40 ** .48 ** 9. IM BIDR 6 b 20 4.13 0.83 .78 .08 .08 .19 .04 .09 .15 .08 .03 10. VIA Mainstream a 10 6.74 1.08 .85 .58 ** .40 ** .33 ** .62 ** .05 .09 .09 .06 .06 11. VIA Heritage a 10 6.67 1.14 .85 .17 .06 .14 .17 .69 ** .46 ** .49 ** .71 ** .06 .28 ** 12. English as 1st language a c 1. 4 6 0.50 .1 2 .18 .09 .07 .11 .22 ** .05 .02 .11 .03 .08 13. MEIM EI a 12 3.11 0.51 .90 .06 .05 .03 .16 .53 ** .23 ** .38 ** .69 ** .06 .13 .63 ** .05 14. MEIM Other a 6 3.46 0.46 .77 .46 ** .46 ** .34 ** .36 ** .18 ** .17 .15 .11 .05 .50 ** .14 .0 1 .10 15. BSES K a 4 6.90 1.16 .74 .20 ** .18 .28 ** .06 .41 ** .21 ** .44 ** .37 ** .04 .38 ** .54 ** .04 .59 ** .27 ** 16. AVS R b 25 2.38 0.32 .83 .15 .13 .21 ** .04 .15 .12 .09 .14 .19 .09 .24 ** .04 .11 .09 .03 17. EAVS AA R b 25 3.00 0.25 .6 5 .30 ** .33 ** .28 ** .17 .06 .10 .06 .01 .17 .21 ** .04 .08 .17 .28 ** .22 ** .43 ** Note. Sample size ranged from 185 to 232 due to missing data on some criterion related validity indicators n i = Number of items that comprised each score; Enculturatio n (full) = Enculturation items that loaded in the three factor s tructure ; ENC B = Language related Behavior Enculturation; ENC K = Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge Enculturation; ENC CI = Pride and Cultural Group Association Enculturation ; Acculturati on (full) = Acculturation items that loaded in the three factor structure ; ACC B = Language related Behavior Acculturation ; ACC K = Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge Acculturation ; ACC CI = Pride and Cultural Group Association Acculturation; IM BIDR 6 = Impression Management subscale of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding; VIA = Vancouver Index of Acculturation; MEIM EI = Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure ethnic identity subscale ; MEIM Other = Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure Other group o rientation subscale ; BSES K = Knowledge of Cultural Beliefs and Values domain of the Bicultural Self Efficacy Scale ; AVS R = Asian Values Scale Revised; EAVS AA R = European American Values Scale for Asian Americans Revised; English as 1 st lan guage (1 = no 2 = yes ). a Convergent validity indicator b Discriminant validity indicator. c Dichotomous variable (Point b iserial correlation coefficient r eported) p < .05. ** p < .01

PAGE 51

51 Figure 3 1. Confirmatory factor a nalysis model for acculturation items

PAGE 52

52 Figure 3 2. Confirmatory factor a nalysis model for enculturation items

PAGE 53

53 CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION The present study responds to call s for the development of a single bilinear multidimensional measure of Asian American acculturation and enculturation (Kim, 2007a; Kim & Abreu, 2001; Miller, 2007, 2010; Yoon et al., 2011) that is derived from the examination of items that assess different acculturation/enculturation dimensions in existing measures (Kim & Abreu, 2001) This research contributes to the growing l iterature on Asian American acculturation and enculturation by taking the next steps to ward developing and psychometrically evaluating a bilinear multidimensional measure of Asian American acculturation and enculturation. The present findings from confirma tory factor analyses of data from Asian and Asian American individuals replicate and support a stable three factor structure of Asian American acculturation/enculturation found by Zhang and Moradi (2013 ); reliability and validity analyses offer support for this refined structure. Together, these findings offer evidence of a bilinear multidimensional measure of Asian American acculturation and enculturation and prompt directions for future research. Bilinear Multidimensional Operationalization The present fi ndings from confirmatory factor analyses support the replicability of the three factor structure, d erived by Zhang and Moradi (2013 ), reflecting Language related Behavior, Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge, and Pride and Cultural Group Association of A sian American acculturation and enculturation. Specifically, low or indistinctive loading items (2013) exploratory factor analyses findings were iteratively removed based on empirical and conceptual guidelines (Weston & Gore, 2006; Worthington & Whittaker, 2006) to optimize measure length while attaining adequate model fit. The outcome reflected 22 acculturation and 18 enculturation items that load ed significantly o nto their intended factors

PAGE 54

54 where the final models met criteria for ac ceptable fit to the data (Weston & Gore, 2006) The correlations among the three acculturation factors (i.e., r = .58 between Language related Behavior and Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge, r = .41 between Language related Behavior and Pride and Cultur al Group Association, and r = .51 between Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge and Pride and Cultural Group Association ) and the correlations among the three enculturation factors (i.e., r = .61 between Language related Behavior and Cultural and Sociopoli tical Knowledge, r = .44 between Language related Behavior and Pride and Cultural Group Association, and r = .53 between Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge and Pride and Cultural Group Association) reflect medium to large effect sizes, which are consist ent with (2013) findings of factor intercorrelations These patterns of correlation s from the present study suggest that these three acculturation/enculturation factors are moderately associated with each other and thus suggest support f or the multidimensionality conceptualization within the acculturation/enculturation framework. Reliability and validity evidence also support the three factor structure and the utility of a mul tidimensional m easure ulturation full scale and subscale scores ranged from 85 to .93, and for the enculturation full scale and subscales scores ranged from .88 to .91, falling in the excellent range 300 and for each subscale to have 11 or less items) Discriminant validity wa s garnered by the f inding that acculturation and enculturation full scale and subscale scores were generally not rel ated to impression management, with the exception of Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge acculturation subscale scores and the Language related Behavior enculturation subscale scores. Specifically, these exceptions indicate d that individuals who reported more knowledge

PAGE 55

55 acculturation (e.g., knowledgeable about mainstream American history, current affairs, social norms and customs, culture and traditions) and less language related behavioral enculturation (e.g., spoke, wrote, read in Asian language, consume d Asian language media) were more likely to express socially desirable responses. Given that some of the items in the IM BIDR 6 ask about adhering to the law (e.g., "I always obey laws, even if I'm unlikely to get caught," "I always declare everything at c ustoms," and "I sometimes drive faster than the speed limit" which is a reverse coded item) and about respecting other people (e.g., "I have said something bad about a friend behind his or her back which is a reverse coded item, "When I hear people talkin g privately, I avoid list e ning," and "I don't gossip about other people's business"), it is possible that Asian/Asian American participants who bear more knowledge about the social norms and cultures in the United States may be more prone to report conform ing to socially and interpersonally acceptable ways of being (e.g., behave in a law abiding manner, be respectful of others). As w ell, discriminant validity wa s attained from the finding that acculturation and enculturation subscales correlate d distinctiv ely with concurrent criterion related validity and bicultural self efficacy. Specifically, these concurrent criterion related validity indicators yielded a pattern of stronger correlations with the intended acculturation and enculturation subscale scores F or instance, Language related Behavior acculturation and enculturation sh as their first language, but the other two subscale scores (i.e., Pride and Cultural Group Association, and Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge) were not correlated with this indicator. This finding supports and is consistent with the expectation of d istinctiveness among the three acculturation

PAGE 56

56 and enculturation dimensions of Language related Behavior, Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge, and Pride and Cultural Group Association. Concurre nt criterion related validity wa s also garnered by the finding that acculturation and enculturation full scale scores correlated significantly and positively with the respective subscales of the VIA (Ryder et al., 2000), a bilinear and unidimensional measure assessing orientation toward mainstream North American cultu Taken together, these reliability and validity findings offer preliminary support for future use of the se acculturation and enculturation full scale s and subscal es to assess Asian American general processes (i.e., by using full scale s) or as domain specific processes (i.e., by using subscale s independently ). Furthermore consistent with findings from Zhang and Mor adi (2013) values was found to be a correlated but separate construct from the three acculturation and enculturation dimensions. The magnitude of correlations between AVS R scores and enculturation full scale and subscale scores ( r = .09 to .15) and those between EAVS AA R scores and acculturation full scale and subscale scores ( r = .17 to .33) were small to medium. These correlations of values with acculturation and enculturation dimensions were also generally smaller than the magnitude of correlations am ong the acculturation dimensions ( r = .41 to .53) and among the enculturation dimensions ( r (2013) findings that behaviors, knowledge, and cultural identity are more closely aligned with one another than with values. These pattern s of correlations raise questions that warrant further exploration regarding the distinctiveness of values from accult u ration and enculturation processes for Asian and Asian American individuals. For instance, Zh ang and Moradi (2013) broached the question of whether values are so dist inctive from these accul t u ration and

PAGE 57

57 enculturation dimensions so as to be conceptualized as correlated w ith but separate from the accul t ura t i on and enculturation framework. However i t should be noted that low internal consistency reliabilit ies with the EAVS AA R found in recent studies where Cronbach's alphas for EAVS AA R were found to range from .60 to .67 (Iwamoto & Liu, 2010; Kim & Omizo, 2005; Miller et al., 2011; Omizo & Kim, 2008; Park & Kim, 2008; Wang & Kim, 2010) occurred in th e present study as well ; c onsistent with these low alphas, Cronbach alpha for the EAVS AA R in the present study was found to be low and deemed unsatisfactory at .65 (Ponterotto & Ruckdeshel, 2007 ) This intern al consistency problem for the EAVS AA R reflects the need for further construct clarification and operationalization of the values domain before firm conclusion s or interpretation s are drawn with regards to the association (or distinctivenes s ) between values and the acculturation and enculturation dimensions. Limitations and Implications for Research and Practice The present findings should be interpreted in light of a number of limitations and directions for future research. First, while Int ernet recruitment allows for access to large numbers of potential participants, an age diverse sample, and variability in residence location (including locations with many Asian American communities or few Asian American persons), Internet samples limit pa rticipation to individuals who have computer and Internet access. Also the majority of participants in the prese nt study reported that they were college educated financially comfortable or affluent, and exclusively or mostly heterosexual. Therefore, caut ion must be taken when generalizing the present findings to broader populations of Asian American individuals. There are several other noteworthy considerations regarding the generalizability of the findings. Specifically, this survey was conducted in Engl ish and t hus Asian and Asian American

PAGE 58

58 individuals who were less comfortable with the use of English may not be well represented in the current sample. G iven that Language related Behavior is one of the key dimension s of acculturation /enculturation assessed in existing measures, the language in which a res earch survey on acculturation is conducted in may be particularly salient as Asian individuals who may be less acculturated may be missed in the sampling Also, while a broad number of Asian ethnic groups w ere represented in this study, the predominance of participants from East Asian (i.e., Chinese, Korean, Taiwanese, and Japanese) ethnicities may limit the generalizability of t he findings across other Asian ethnic communitie s where large within group varia bility exists. Similarly, it is important to consider inclusion of participants across various histories of immigration to the United States to capture the variability of their acculturation and enculturation processes (Chang et al. 2005; del Prado & Chur ch, 2010). Overall, the demographic composition of the sample shapes the boundaries of generalizability for the present findings. Further research is needed to evaluate the stability and replicability of these findings with Asian and Asian American individ uals of diverse socioeconomic, education, ethnic, sexual ori entation, and other backgrounds Within the context of these limitations, the present findings can inform theory, research, and practice in a number of ways. With regard to theoretical and researc h advancements, the present factor analyses and full scale and subscale intercorrelations offer support for a single bilinear multidimensional measure of acculturation and enculturation for Asian American individuals with distinct subscales representing La nguage related Behavior, Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge, and Pride and Cultural Group Association Specifically, the correlation between acculturation and enculturation full scale scores was .43, suggesting that the shared variance between these co nstructs is insufficient to represent opposite ends of a single

PAGE 59

59 continuum (i.e., of a unilinear conceptualization). In addition, the magnitude of intercorrelations for acculturation subscales ( r = .41 to .53) and those for enculturation subscales ( r = .40 to .57) was stronger than the correlations across corresponding acculturation and enculturation subscales ( r = .30 for Language related Behavior, r = .23 for Cultural and Sociopolitical Knowledge, and r = .29 for Pride and Cultural Group Association), t herefore also supporting the bilinearity conceptualization for acculturation and enculturation. Future research may explore the reliability and validity of this measure with Asian and Asian American individuals of previously highlighted diverse background s especially by further evaluating the relationships of the acculturation and enculturation subscales with various mental health correlates to examine concurrent criterion related validity, as well as establishing measurement stability over time by assess ing test retest reliability Additionally, f urther adoption of mainstream values in the United States, could help clarify whether the observed distinctiveness of the values domain from the acculturation and enculturation dimensions in the present study and in prior research (Miller, 2007, 2010; Miller et al., 2011; Zhang & Moradi, 2013 ) is indicative of methodological error that may limit the confidence of empiric al findings (for instance, as reflected in the lower internal consistency estimate for the EAVS AA R scores in this study) or conceptually meaningful distinction that may prompt theoretical refinement about the dimensions of acculturation and enculturation for Asian and Asian American individuals. Furthermore the present findings reflected the overlap between conceptualizations of cultural identity and of ethnic identity within acculturation literature (Kim & Abreu, 2001) as eviden ced by the large correla tion between Pride and Cultural Group Association enculturation

PAGE 60

60 subscale scores and the ethnic identity subscale scores of the MEIM ( r = .69, p < .01) ; items in the ethnic identity subscale of the MEIM (e.g., that include mostly members of my own ethnic group ) seem to be similar to item s in the Pride and Cultural Group Association enculturation subscale (e.g. people from the same heri tage culture as myself ). Nevertheless, this conceptual overlap presents a promising area in future research for two bodies of literature ( acculturation /enculturation and ethnic identity) to in form each other in exploring and clarifying construct conceptualization and operationalization As Zha ng and Moradi (2013) stated in their study, the development of a bilinear multidimensional measure of Asian American acculturation and enculturation can help practitioners understand the nuances across these different dimensions and in turn allow them to i dentify the salience of these acculturation and enculturation dimensions in their Asian and Asian cultural political experiences of living in the United States. Furthermore, practitioners may tailor their therapy process es or interv ention strategies to meet the psychological needs of their Asian and Asian American clients. For example, request, a therapist may still conduct bilingual counseling in English and in an Asian language of (i. e., high language related behavioral acculturation and (i.e., hig h cultural and sociopolitical knowledge acculturation and low cultural and sociopolitical kn owledge enculturation) and who primarily associates oneself with Asian American social groups and also enjoys hanging out with a few non Asian American friends (i.e ., high pride and cultural group association enculturation and acculturation). Ultimately, the present study

PAGE 61

61 provides the first known empirical evidence for a bilinear multidimensional measure of Asian American acculturation and enculturation and thus repr esents an important advancement in the literature on acculturation theory and conceptualization. The development and psychometric evaluation of this measure can serve to advance our knowledge and understanding of the unique experiences of Asian/Asian Ameri can populations, the fastest growing racial group in the United States from 2000 to 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012) Such understanding, in turn, can inform the development of culturally sensitive and empirically based policy, prevention, and intervention strategies to better serve Asian/Asian American persons and communities.

PAGE 62

62 APPENDIX A 2013 ) ACCULTURATION ITEM S The following questionnaire contains statements about (a) heritage culture, heritage cultural group, and language of my heri tage culture as well as (b) mainstream America or Americans. By heritage culture and heritage cultural group, we are referring to your Asian culture of origin (e.g. Chinese, Indian, Indonesian, Turkish). By language of my heritage culture, we are referri ng to the Asian language spoken by you or your family (e.g., Mandarin, Hindi, Bahasa Indonesia, Turkish). If you come from a multicultural family, please choose the Asian culture you relate to the most. By mainstream America or Americans, we are referring to the dominant culture or cultural group in the United States of America. INSTRUCTIONS: Please use the scale below to indicate how much you agree with the following statements. Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree 1 2 3 4 1. I speak English well. 2. I understand English well. 3. I often speak English. 4. I often write in English (e.g., letters). 5. I read and write well in English. 6. I enjoy speaking English. 7. My thinking is often done in English. 8. I feel comfortable speaking Eng lish. 9. I enjoy reading in English (e.g., books). 10. I enjoy listening to English music. 11. I enjoy movies in English. 12. I enjoy watching TV in English. 13. I often listen to music or look at movies and magazines from mainstream America. 14. I like to identify myse lf as mainstream American. 15. I am proud to be a part of mainstream Americans. 16. Now, my friends are mainstream Americans. 17. I would prefer to live in a community made up of mainstream Americans. 18. My friends now are mainstream Americans. 19. I feel I have a lot in common with mainstream Americans. 20. I admire people who are mainstream Americans. 21. I like to interact and associate with mainstream Americans. 22. I am proud of mainstream American culture. 23. I relate to my partner or spouse in a way that is similar to mainstream Americans. 24. The people I date are mainstream Americans. 25. I identify with mainstream Americans.

PAGE 63

63 26. I feel connected with mainstream American culture. 27. I often interact and associate with mainstream Americans. 28. I go to places where people ar e mainstream Americans. 29. My family often cooks foods from mainstream America. 30. I know the history of mainstream Americans well. 31. I know popular mainstream American newspapers and magazines well. 32. I know mainstream American current affairs well. 33. I kno w American political leaders well. 34. I know the national heroes of mainstream America well. 35. I know mainstream American literature well. 36. I know popular mainstream American actors and actresses well. 37. I know popular mainstream American television shows well. 38. I know holidays celebrated by mainstream Americans well. 39. I know mainstream American social norms and customs well. 40. I am knowledgeable about the history of mainstream Americans 41. I am knowledgeable about mainstream American culture and tradition s.

PAGE 64

64 APPENDIX B 2013 ) ENCULTURATION ITEM S The following questionnaire contains statements about (a) heritage culture, heritage cultural group, and language of my heritage culture as well as (b) mainstream America or Americans. By her itage culture and heritage cultural group, we are referring to your Asian culture of origin (e.g. Chinese, Indian, Indonesian, Turkish). By language of my heritage culture, we are referring to the Asian language spoken by you or your family (e.g., Mandarin Hindi, Bahasa Indonesia, Turkish). If you come from a multicultural family, please choose the Asian culture you relate to the most. By mainstream America or Americans, we are referring to the dominant culture or cultural group in the United States of Am erica. INSTRUCTIONS: Please use the scale below to indicate how much you agree with the following statements. Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree 1 2 3 4 1. I enjoy watching TV in the language of my heritage culture. 2. I enjo y reading in the language of my heritage culture (e.g., books). 3. I often listen to music or look at movies and magazines from my heritage culture. 4. I enjoy listening to music in the language of my heritage culture. 5. I often write in the language of my h eritage culture (e.g., letters). 6. I speak the language of my heritage culture well. 7. I often speak the language of my heritage culture. 8. My thinking is often done in the language of my heritage culture. 9. I enjoy speaking the language of my heritage cul ture. 10. I know popular television shows in the language of my heritage culture well. 11. I enjoy movies in the language of my heritage culture. 12. I read and write well in the language of my heritage culture. 13. I feel comfortable speaking the language of my h eritage culture. 14. I know popular newspapers and magazines in the language of my heritage culture well. 15. I understand the language of my heritage culture well. 16. I know popular actors and actresses from my heritage cultural group well. 17. When I was a child, my friends were from the same heritage culture as myself. 18. My friends, while I was growing up, were from the same heritage culture as myself. 19. I know history of my heritage cultural group well. 20. I am knowledgeable about the culture and traditions of my heritage culture. 21. I am knowledgeable about the history of my heritage cultural group. 22. I know social norms and customs of my heritage cultural group well. 23. I know current affairs of my heritage cultural group well. 24. I know holidays celebrated by my h eritage cultural group well. 25. I know national heroes from my heritage cultural group well.

PAGE 65

65 26. I know political leaders from my heritage cultural group well. 27. I often practice the traditions and keep the holidays of my heritage cultural group. 28. I like to i nteract and associate with people from the same heritage culture as myself. 29. I am proud to be a part of my heritage cultural group. 30. I often interact and associate with people from the same heritage culture as myself. 31. I feel I have a lot in common with people from the same heritage culture as myself. 32. I go to places where people are from the same heritage culture as myself. 33. I am proud of my heritage culture. 34. I associate with my heritage cultural group. 35. I identify with my heritage cultural group. 36. My heritage culture has had a positive impact on my life. 37. My friends now are from the same heritage culture as myself. 38. I would prefer to live in a community made up of people from the same heritage culture as myself.

PAGE 66

66 APPENDIX C VANCOUVER INDEX OF ACCULTURATION Many of these questions will refer to your heritage culture. By heritage culture, we are referring to your Asian culture of origin (e.g. Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese). INSTRUCTIONS: Please answer each question as carefully as possible by using the scale to indicate your degree of agreement or disagreement. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral/ Depends Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. I often participate in my heritage cultural traditions. 2. I often participate in mainstream Ame rican cultural traditions. 3. I would be willing to marry a person from my heritage culture. 4. I would be willing to marry an American person. 5. I enjoy social activities with people from the same heritage culture as myself. 6. I enjoy social activities with typical American people. 7. I am comfortable working with people of the same heritage culture as myself. 8. I am comfortable working with typical American people. 9. I enjoy entertainment (e.g., movies, music) from my heritage culture. 10. I enjoy American entertainment (e.g. movies, music). 11. I often behave in ways that are typical of my heritage culture. 12. I often behave in ways that are 'typically American.' 13. It is important for me to maintain or develop the practices of my heritage culture. 14. It is important for me to maintain o r develop American cultural practices. 15. I believe in the values of my heritage culture. 16. I believe in mainstream American values. 17. I enjoy the jokes and humor of my heritage culture. 18. I enjoy typical American jokes and humor. 19. I am interested in having friends from my heritage culture. 20. I am interested in having American friends.

PAGE 67

67 APPENDIX D MUL TIGROUP ETHNIC IDENT ITY MEASURE In this country, people come from many different countries and cultures, and there are many different words to describe the different back grounds or ethnic groups that people come from. Some examples of the names of ethnic groups are Hispanic or Latino, Black or African American, Asian American, Chinese, Filipino, American Indian, Mexican American, Caucasian or White, Ital ian American, and m any others. These questions are about your ethnicity or your ethnic group and how you feel about it or react to it. INSTRUCTIONS: Please fill in: In terms of ethnic group, I consider myself to be ___________. Use the scale below to indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement. Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree 1 2 3 4 1. I have spent time trying to find out more about my ethnic group, such as its history, traditions, and customs. 2. I am active in organ izations or social groups that include mostly members of my own ethnic group. 3. I have a clear sense of my ethnic background and what it means for me. 4. I like meeting and getting to know people from ethnic groups other than my own. 5. I think a lot abou t how my life will be affected by my ethnic group membership. 6. I am happy that I am a member of the group I belong to. 7. 8. I often spend time with people from et hnic groups other than my own. 9. I have a strong sense of belonging to my own ethnic group. 10. I understand pretty well what my ethnic group membership means to me. 11. In order to learn more about my ethnic background, I have often talked to other peopl e about my ethnic group. 12. I have a lot of pride in my ethnic group. 13. 14. I participate in cultural practices of my own group, such as special food, music, or customs. 15. I am involv ed in activities with people from other ethnic groups. 16. I feel a strong attachment towards my own ethnic group. 17. I enjoy being around people from other ethnic groups other than my own. 18. I feel good about my cultural or ethnic background.

PAGE 68

68 APPENDI X E BICULTURAL SELF EFFICACY SCALE INSTRUCTIONS: Please answer each statement as carefully as possible. Please use the scale to i ndicate your degree of agreement or disagreement. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. I can count on both mainstream Americans and people from the same heritage culture as myself. 2. I can communicate my ideas effectively to both mainstream Americans and people from the same heritage culture as myself. 3. I have generally positive feel ings about both my heritage culture and mainstream American culture. 4. I am knowledgeable about the history of both mainstream America and my heritage cultural group. 5. I can develop new relationships with both mainstream Americans as well as people from t he same heritage culture as myself. 6. It is acceptable for an individual from my heritage culture to participate in two different cultures. 7. I can communicate my feelings effectively to both mainstream Americans and people from the same heritage culture a s myself. 8. I am knowledgeable about the values important to mainstream American as well as to my heritage cultural group. 9. I feel comfortable attending a gathering of mostly mainstream Americans as well as a gathering of mostly people from the same herita ge culture as myself. 10. An individual can alter his or her behavior to fit a particular social context. 11. I have a generally positive attitude toward both mainstream Americans and my heritage cultural group. 12. It is acceptable for a mainstream American indi vidual to participate in two different cultures. 13. I have strong ties with mainstream Americans as well as people from the same heritage culture as myself. 14. I am proficient in both standard English and the language of my heritage culture. 15. I can choose th e degree and manner by which I affiliate with each culture. 16. I am knowledgeable about the gender roles and expectations of both mainstream Americans and my heritage cultural group. 17. I feel at ease around both mainstream Americans and people from the same heritage culture as myself. 18. I have respect for both mainstream American culture and my heritage culture. 19. Being bicultural does not mean I have to compromise my sense of cultural identity. 20. I can switch easily between standard English and the language o f my heritage culture. 21. I have an extensive network of mainstream Americans as well as an extensive network of people from the same heritage culture as myself. The Bicultural Self Efficacy Scale 36

PAGE 69

69 22. I take pride in both the mainstream American culture and my heritage culture. 23. I am confident t hat I can learn new aspects of both the mainstream American culture and my heritage culture. 24. It is possible for an individual to have a sense of belonging in two cultures without compromising his or her sense of cultural identity. 25. I am knowledgeable abou t the holidays celebrated both by mainstream Americans and by my heritage cultural group. 26. I feel like I fit in when I am with mainstream Americans as well as people from the same heritage culture as myself.

PAGE 70

70 APPENDIX F IMPRESSION MANAGEMEN T SUBSCALE OF THE BALANCED INVENTO RY OF DESIRABLE RESPONDING INSTRUCTIONS: Using the scale below as a guide, indicate how much you agree with each statement. Not True Somewhat True Very True 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. I sometimes tell lies if I have to. 2. I never cover up my mistakes. 3. There have been occasions when I have taken advantage of someone. 4. I never swear. 5. I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget. 6. 7. I have said something bad about a friend behind his or her back. 8. When I hear people talking privately, I avoid listening. 9. I have received too much change from a salesperson without telling him or her. 10. I always declare everything at customs. 11. When I was young I sometimes stole things. 12. I h ave never dropped litter on the street. 13. I sometimes drive faster than the speed limit. 14. I never read sexy books or magazines. 15. 16. 17. I have taken sick leave from 18. I have never damaged a library book or store merchandise without reporting it. 19. I have some pretty awful habits. 20.

PAGE 71

71 APPENDIX G ASIAN VALUES SCALE REVISED INSTRUCT IONS: Use the scale below to indicate the extent to which you agree with the value expressed in each statement. Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree 1 2 3 4 1. One should not deviate from familial and social norms. 2. Children sh ould not place their parents in retirement homes. 3. One need not focus all energies on one's studies. 4. One should be discouraged from talking about one's accomplishments. 5. Younger persons should be able to confront their elders. 6. When one receives a gift, one should reciprocate with a gift of equal or greater value. 7. One need not achieve academically in order to make one's parents proud. 8. One need not minimize or depreciate one's own achievements. 9. One should consider the needs of others before considering one's o wn needs. 10. Educational and career achievements need not be one's top priority. 11. One should think about one's group before oneself. 12. One should be able to question a person in an authority position. 13. Modesty is an important quality for a person. 14. One's achievem ents should be viewed as family's achievements. 15. One should avoid bringing displeasure to one's ancestors. 16. One should have sufficient inner resources to resolve emotional problems. 17. The worst thing one can do is to bring disgrace to one's family reputation. 18. One need not remain reserved and tranquil. 19. One should be humble and modest. 20. Family's reputation is not the primary social concern. 21. One need not be able to resolve psychological problems on one's own. 22. Occupational failure does not bring shame to the family 23. One need not follow the role expectations (gender, family hierarchy) of one's family. 24. One should not make waves. 25. One need not control one's expression of emotions.

PAGE 72

7 2 APPENDIX H EUROPEAN AMERICAN VA LUES SCALE FOR ASIAN AMERICANS REVISED INSTRUCTIONS: Use t he scale below to indicate the extent to which you agree with the value expressed in each statement. Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree 1 2 3 4 1. I think it is fine for an unmarried woman to have a child. 2. Sometimes, it is n ecessary for the government to stifle individual development. 3. You can do anything you put your mind to. 4. Single women should not have children and raise them alone. 5. I prefer not to take on responsibility unless I must. 6. I do not like to serve as a model for others. 7. It is OK if work interferes with the rest of my life. 8. It is OK to allow others to restrict one's sexual freedom. 9. No one is entitled to complete sexual freedom without restriction. 10. A woman should not have a child unless she is in a long term relatio nship. 11. I follow my supervisor's instructions even when I do not agree with them. 12. The world would be a better place if each individual could maximize his or her development. 13. Partners do not need to have similar values in order to have a successful marriage. 14. I cannot approve of abortion just because the mother's health is at risk. 15. It is OK for a woman to have a child without .being in a permanent relationship. 16. Friends are very important. 17. Faithfulness is very important for a successful marriage. 18. Monetary compe nsation is not very important for a job. 19. A student does not always need to follow the teacher's instructions. 20. Luck determines the course of one's life. 21. Cheating on one's partner doesn't make a marriage unsuccessful. 22. Greater emphasis on individual developme nt is not a good thing. 23. I have always enjoyed serving as a model for others. 24. Being humble is better than expressing feelings of pride. 25. Faithfulness is not important for a successful marriage.

PAGE 73

73 APPENDIX I DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTION NAIRE INSTRUCTIONS: Please tell us a little about yourself. This information will be used only to describe the sample as a group. 1. What is your age? Age: ____________ 2. What is your ethnic background? a. Cambodian b. Chinese c. Filipino d. Hmong e. Indian f. Japanese g. Korean h. Laotian i. Malaysian j. Pakistani k. Ta iwanese l. Thai m. Vietnamese n. Pacific Islander (please specify): _____________________ o. More than one ethnic/racial background (please specify): _____________________ p. Other (please specify): ______________________ 3. How would you identify your gender? a. Man b. Wo man c. Transgender (Male to Female) d. Transgender (Female to Male) e. Gender queer f. Other (please describe): _________________ 4. What is your generational status? a. 1st generation (I was NOT born in the U.S.) b. 1st generation Adoptee (I was NOT born in the U.S. AND I wa s adopted) c. 1.5 generation ( I was NOT born in the U.S., but was predominantly raised there since I was a child) d. 2nd generation (I WAS born in the U.S., and at least one parent was not) e. 3rd generation (Both myself and parents were born in the U.S., but at l east one grandparent was not) f. 4th generation (Myself, both parents, & all grandparents were born in the U.S.) g. 5th generation and beyond (Myself, both parents, all grandparents, and all great grandparents were born in the U.S.) 5. Were you born in the U.S.?

PAGE 74

74 a. Y es b. No, please specify the country you were born in: _______________ 6. How long have you lived in the U.S.?: a. ____ years and ____ months b. I was born in the U.S. 7. Is English your first language? a. Yes b. No, please specify your first language: 1) Cantonese 2) Chinese/M andarin Chinese 3) Hmong 4) Japanese 5) Khmer 6) Korean 7) Nepali 8) Tagalog 9) Taiwanese 10) Tamil 11) Thai 12) Vietnamese 13) Other (please specify) ____________________________ 8. With what language(s) are you fluent? [multiple selection possible] a. Cantonese b. Chinese/Mandarin Chinese c. H mong d. Japanese e. Khmer f. Korean g. Nepali h. Tagalog i. Taiwanese j. Tamil k. Thai l. Vietnamese m. Other (please specify) ____________________________ 9. What is the highest professional education/degree you have completed : a. Elementary school b. Middle/Junior high school c. High sc hool d. Some college/technical school e. College f. Some professional/graduate school

PAGE 75

75 g. Professional/Graduate school 10. How long were you formally educated in the U.S.?: _____ years and _____ months 11. Are you currently a full time student? a. I am currently not a student b. I am currently an undergraduate college student: Please indicate what year you are in: 1) 1 st year 2) 2 nd year 3) 3 rd year 4) 4 th year 5) 5 th year or more c. I am currently a graduate/professional student: Please indicate what degree you are pursuing: 1) MS, MA, MEd, MBA) 2) Doctoral degree (Ph.D. only) 3) Professional degree (e.g., JD, MD, PharmD) 12. If you are a student, what is your academic major or professional field? a. ________________ (please specify academic major or professional field) b. I am not a student 13. What is your employment status: a. Employed full time b. Employed part time c. Not employed 14. a. We could never make ends meet and were always short of money. b. Quite often, we could not make ends meet and were short of money. c. Sometimes, we were able to make ends meet and had enough money. d. Most of the time, we could make ends meet and had enough money. e. We could always make ends meet and had enough money 15. Are you financially independent of the family in w hich you grew up? a. Yes b. No 16. What is your annual household income (the combined income of people (including yourself) who are currently responsible for you financially): Below $10,000 $100,001 to $110,000 $10,001 to $20,000 $110,001 to $120,000 $20,0 01 to $30,000 $120,001 to $130,000 $30,001 to $40,000 $130,001 to $140,000 $40,001 to $50,000 $140,001 to $150,000

PAGE 76

76 $50,001 to $60,000 $150,001 to $175,000 $60,001 to $70,000 $175,001 to $200,000 $70,001 to $80,000 $200,001 to $225,000 $80,001 to $90,000 $225,001 to $250,000 $90,001 to $100,000 above $250,000 17. How would you identify your sexual orientation? (please check the one best descriptor) a. Exclusively lesbian or gay b. Mostly lesbian or gay c. Bisexual d. Mostly Hetero sexual e. Exclusively Heterosexual f. Asexual g. Other. Please describe: _______________ 18. What is your relationship status? a. Single b. Dating c. Married/Committed relationship d. Divorced/Separated 19. Finally, we would like to obtain information regarding the geographic locati on of our sample. This information will remain c onfidential. Please fill in the state and city in the UNITED STATES where you currently reside below: State: _______________ City: _______________

PAGE 77

77 LIST OF REFERENCES Arbuckle, J. L. (1995 2006). Amos 7.0 User's Guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc. Benet Martnez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural Identity Integration (BII): Components and psychosocial antecedents. Journal of Personality, 73, 1015 1050. doi:10.1111/j.1467 6494.2005.00337.x Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. M. Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, models, and some new findings (pp. 9 25). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 5 34. doi:10.1080/026999497378467 Chang, T., Tracey, T. J. G., & Moore, T. L. (2005). The dimensional structure of Asian American acculturation: An examination of prototypes. Self and Identity, 4, 25 43. doi:10.1080/13576500444000 155 Chen, J. C., & Danish, S. J. (2010). Acculturation, distress disclosure, and emotional self disclosure within Asian populations. Asian American Journal of Psychology 1, 200 211. doi:10.1037/a0020943 Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bull etin, 112, 155 159. doi:10.1037/0033 2909.112.1.155 Cullar, I., Arnold, B., & Maldonado, R. (1995). Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans II: A revision of the original ARSMA Scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 17 275 304. doi:10.1 177/07399863950173001 David, E. R., & Okazaki, S. (2006). The Colonial Mentality Scale (CMS) for Filipino Americans: Scale construction and psychological implications. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 241 252. doi:10.1037/0022 0167.53.2.241 David, E. R., Okazaki, S., & Saw, A. (2009). Bicultural self efficacy among college students: Initial scale development and mental health correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 211 226. doi:10.1037/a0015419 del Prado, A. M., & Church, A. T. (2010). Deve lopment and validation of the Enculturation Scale for Filipino Americans. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 469 483. doi: 10.1037/a0020940 Fischer, A. R., & Moradi, B. (2001). Racial and ethnic identity: Recent development and needed directions. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (2nd ed., pp. 341 370). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Frey, L. L., & Roysircar, G. (2006). South Asian and East Asian international students' perceived

PAGE 78

78 prejudice, acculturation, and frequency of help resource utilization. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 34, 208 222. doi:10.1002/j.2161 1912.2006.tb00040.x Gim Chung, R. H., Kim, B. S. K., & Abreu, J. M. (2004). Asian America n multidimensional acculturation scale: Development, factor analysis, reliability, and validity. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 10, 66 80. doi:10.1037/1099 9809.10.1.66 Graves, T. D. (1967). Acculturation, access, and alcohol in a tri e thnic community. American Anthropologist, 69, 306 321. doi:10.1525/aa.1967.69.3 4.02a00030 Hau, K., & Marsh, H. W. (2004). The use of item parcels in structural equation modelling: Non normal data and small sample sizes. British Journal of Mathematical And Statistical Psychology, 57, 327 351. doi:10.1111/j.2044 8317.2004.tb00142.x Helms, J. E. (1996). Toward a methodology for measuring and assessing racial as distinguished from ethnic identity. In G. R.Sodowsky & J. C.Impara (Eds.), Multicultural Assessmen t in Counseling and Clinical Psychology (pp. 143 192). Lincoln, NE: Euros Institute of Mental Measurement. Herkosvits, M. J. (1948). Man and his works: The science of cultural anthropology. New York, NY: Knopf. Hong, S., Kim, B. S. K., & Wolfe, M. M. (200 5). A psychometric revision of the European American Values Scale for Asian Americans using the Rasch model. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development 37 194 207. Hwang, W. C., & Ting, J. Y. (2008). Disaggregating the effects of acculturat ion and acculturative stress on the mental health of Asian Americans. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 14 147 154. doi:10.1037/1099 9809.14.2.147 Iwamoto, D. K., & Liu, W. M. (2010). The impact of racial identity, ethnic identity, Asian values, and race related stress on Asian Americans and Asian international college being. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 79 91. doi:10.1037/a0017393 Kahn, J. H. (2006). Factor analysis in counseling psychology research, training, and practice: Principles, advances, and applications. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 684 718. doi:10.1177/0011000006286347 Kang, S. M. (2006). Measurement of acculturation, scale formats, and language competence: Their implications for adjust ment. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 37, 669 693. doi:10.1177/0022022106292077 Kim, B. S. K. (2007a). Acculturation and enculturation. In F. T. L. Leong, A. G. Inman, A. Ebreo, L. H. Yang, L. M. Kinoshita, & M. Fu (Eds.), Handbook of Asian American psychology (2nd ed., pp. 141 158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

PAGE 79

79 Kim, B. S. K. (2007b). Adherence to Asian and European American cultural values and attitudes toward seeking professional psychological help among Asian American college students Journal of Counseling Psychology 54 474 480. doi:10.1037/0022 0167.54.4.474 Kim, B. S. K. (2009). Acculturation and enculturation of Asian Americans: A primer. In N. Tewari & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Asian American psychology: Current perspectives (pp.97 112 ). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Kim, B. S. K., & Abreu, J. M. (2001). Acculturation measurement: Theory, current instruments, and future directions. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multi cultural counseling (2nd ed., pp. 394 424). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Kim, B. S. K., Ahn, A. J., & Lam, N. A. (2009). Theories and research on acculturation and enculturation experiences among Asian American families. In N. H. Trinh, Y. C. Rho, F. G. Lu, & K. M. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of mental health and acculturation in Asian American families (pp. 25 43). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press. Kim, B. S. K., Atkinson, D. R., & Umemoto, D. (2001). Asian cultural values and counseling process: Curren t knowledge and directions for future research The Counseling Psychologist, 29, 570 603. doi:10.1177/0011000001294006 Kim, B. S. K., Atkinson, D. R., & Yang, P. H. (1999). The Asian Values Scale: Development, factor analysis, validation, and reliability. Journal of Counseling Psychology 46 342 352. doi:10.1037/0022 0167.46.3.342 Kim, B. S. K., Brenner, B. R., Liang, C. H., & Asay, P. A. (2003). A qualitative study of adaptation experiences of 1.5 generation Asian Americans. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9, 156 170. doi:10.1037/1099 9809.9.2.156 Kim, B. S. K., & Hong, S. (2004). A psychometric revision of the Asian Values Scale using the Rasch model. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development 37 15 27. Kim, B. S. K., Li L. C., & Ng, G. F. (2005a). The Asian American Values Scale Multidimensional: Development, reliability, and validity. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 11, 187 201. doi:10.1037/1099 9809.11.3.187 Kim, B. S. K., Ng, G. F., & Ahn, A. J. (2 005b). Effects of client expectation for counseling success, client counselor worldview match, and client adherence to Asian and European American cultural values on counseling process with Asian Americans. Journal of Counseling Psychology 52 67 76. doi: 10.1037/0022 0167.52.1.67 Kim, B. S. K., & Omizo, M. M. (2005). Asian and European American cultural values, collective self esteem, acculturative stress, cognitive flexibility, and general self efficacy among Asian American college students. Journal of Co unseling Psychology, 52, 412 419. doi:10.1037/0022 0167.52.3.412 Kim, B. S. K., & Omizo, M. M. (2006). Behavioral acculturation and enculturation and

PAGE 80

80 psychological functioning among Asian American college students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Ps ychology, 12, 245 258. doi:10.1037/1099 9809.12.2.245 Kumar, A., & Nevid, J. S. (2010). Acculturation, enculturation, and perceptions of mental disorders in Asian Indian immigrants. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 16 274 283. doi:10.103 7/a0017563 LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H. L. K., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 395 412. doi:10.1037/0033 2909.114.3.395 Lalwani, A. K., Shavitt, S., & Johnson, T. (2006). What is the relation between cultural orientation and socially desirable responding?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 165 178. doi:10.1037/0022 3514.90.1.165 Lau, A. S. M., Lum, S. K., Chronister, K. M., & Forrest, L. (2006). Asian American col lege women's body image: A pilot study. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12, 259 274. doi:10.1037/1099 9809.12.2.259 Lee, R. M. (2003). Do ethnic identity and other group orientation protect against discrimination for Asian Americans?. Jo urnal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 133 141. doi:10.1037/0022 0167.50.2.133 Lee, R. M., & Yoo, H. (2004). Structure and measurement of ethnic identity for Asian American college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 263 269. doi:10.1037/0022 016 7.51.2.263 Lee, R. M., Yoon, E., & Liu Tom, H. T. (2006). Structure and measurement of acculturation/enculturation for Asian Americans using the ARSMA II. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development 39 42 55. Leong, F. T. L., Kao, E. M. C, & Lee, S. H. (2004). The relationship between family dynamics and career interests among Chinese Americans and European Americans. Journal of Career Assessment, 12, 65 84. doi:10.1177/1069072703257734 Liao, H. Y., Rounds, J., & Klein, A. G. (2005). A test of Cramer's (1999) help seeking model and acculturation effects with Asian and Asian American college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology 52 400 411. doi:10.1037/0022 0167.52.3.400 Liu, W. M., & Iwamoto, D. K. (2006). Asian American men's gender role conflict: The role of Asian values, self esteem, and psychological distress. Psychology of Men & Masculinity 7 153 164. doi:10.1037/1524 9220.7.3.153 Liu, W. M., & Iwamoto, D. K. (2007). Conformity to masculine norms, Asian values, coping strategies peer group influences and substance use among Asian American men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity 8 25 39. doi:10.1037/1524 9220.8.1.25 Liu, W. M., Pope Davis, D. B., Nevitt, J., & Toporek, R. L. (1999). Understanding the function

PAGE 81

81 of acculturation and prejudicial attitudes among Asian Americans. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 5 317 328. doi:10.1037/1099 9809.5.4.317 MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covaria nce structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130 149. doi:10.1037/1082 989X.1.2.130 Magaa, J. R., de la Rocha, O., Amsel, J., Magaa, H. A., Fernandez, M. I., & Rulnick, S. (1996). Revisiting the dimensions of acculturation: Cultural theory and psych ometric practice. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 18 444 468. doi:10.1177/07399863960184002 Mak, W. W. S., Chen, S. X., Lam, A. G., & Yiu, V. F. L. (2009). Understanding distress: The role of face concern among Chinese Americans, European America ns, Hong Kong Chinese, and mainland Chinese. The Counseling Psychologist, 37, 219 248. doi:10.1177/0011000008316378 Miller, M. J. (2007). A bilinear multidimensional measurement model of Asian American acculturation and enculturation: Implications for cou nseling interventions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 118 131. doi:10.1037/0022 0167.54.2.118 Miller, M. J. (2010). Testing a bilinear domain specific model of acculturation and enculturation across generational status. Journal of Counseling Psychol ogy, 57, 179 186. doi:10.1037/a0019089 Miller, M. J., & Kerlow Myers, A. E. (2009). A content analysis of acculturation research in the career development literature. Journal of Career Development, 35, 352 384. doi:10.1177/0894845308327739 Miller, M. J., K im, J., & Benet Martnez, V. (2011a). Validating the Riverside Acculturation Stress Inventory with Asian Americans. Psychological Assessment, 23, 300 310. doi:10.1037/a0021589 Miller, M. J., Yang, M., Farrell, J. A., & Lin, L. (2011b). Racial and cultural factors affecting the mental health of Asian Americans. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 81, 489 497. doi:10.1111/j.1939 0025.2011.01118.x Miller, M. J., Yang, M., Hui, K., Choi, N, Y, & Lim, R. H. (2011c). Acculturation, enculturation, and Asian Ame professional psychological help. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 346 357. doi:10.1037/a0023636 Nilsson, J. E., Butler, J., Shouse, S., & Joshi, C. (2008). The relationships among perf ectionism, acculturation, and stress in Asian international students. Journal of College Counseling, 11, 147 158. doi:10.1002/j.2161 1882.2008.tb00031.x Nwadiora, E., & McAdoo, H. (1996). Acculturative stress among Amerasian refugees: Gender and racial d ifferences. Adolescence, 31, 477 487.

PAGE 82

82 Park, Y. S., & Kim, B. S. K. (2008). Asian and European American cultural values and communication styles among Asian American and European American college students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 14 47 56. doi:10.1037/1099 9809.14.1.47 Park, Y. S., Kim, B. S. K., Chiang, J., & Ju, C. M. (2010). Acculturation, enculturation, parental adherence to Asian cultural values, parenting styles, and family conflict among Asian American college students. Asi an American Journal of Psychology, 1, 67 79. doi:10.1037/a0018961 Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 1 7 59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Phinney, J. S. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156 176. doi:10.1177/074355489272003 Ponterotto, J. G., & Ruckdeshel, D. E. (2007). An overview of the coefficient alpha and a reliability matrix for estimating adequacy of internal consistency coefficients with p sychological research measures. Perceptual Motor Skills, 105, 997 1014. doi:10.2466/PMS.105.7.997 1014 Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2005). Introduction: The second generation and the children of immigrants longitudinal study. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28, 983 999. doi:10.1080/01419870500224109 Quintana, S. M., & Maxwell, S. E. (1999). Implications of recent developme nts in structural equation modeling for counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 27, 485 527. doi:10.1177/0011000099274002 Rahman, O., & Rollock, D. (2004). Acculturation, competence, and mental health among South Asian students in the United St ates. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 32, 130 142. doi:10.1002/j.2161 1912.2004.tb00366.x Reddy, S. D., & Crowther, J. H. (2007). Teasing, acculturation, and cultural conflict: Psychosocial correlates of body image and eating attitudes among South Asian women. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 13 45 53. doi:10.1037/1099 9809.13.1.45 Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. J. (1936). Memorandum on the study of acculturation. American Anthropologist, 56, 973 1002. Rud min, F. W. (2003). Critical history of the acculturation psychology of assimilation, separation, integration, and marginalization. Review of General Psychology, 7, 3 37. doi:10.1037/1089 2680.7.1.3 Ruzek, N. A., Nguyen, D. Q., & Herzog, D. C. (2011). Accul turation, enculturation,

PAGE 83

83 psychological distress and help seeking preferences among Asian American college students. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 2, 181 196. doi:10.1037/a0024302 Ryder, A. G., Alden, L. E., & Paulhus, D. L. (2000). Is acculturatio n unidimensional or bidimensional? A head to head comparison in the prediction of personality, self identity, and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79 49 65. doi:10.1037/0022 3514.79.1.49 Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Mis sing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods 7 147 177. doi:10.1037/1082 989X.7.2.147 Schwartz, S. J., Unger, J. B., Zamboanga, B. L., & Szapocznik, J. (2010). Rethinking the concept of acculturation: Implications for theory and res earch. American Psychologist 65 237 251. doi:10.1037/a0019330 Schwartz, S. J., Unger, J. B., Zamboanga, B. L., & Szapocznik, J. (2011). How selective is acculturation? Broadening our perspective. American Psychologist, 66, 155 157. doi:10.1037/a0022560 S hen, F. C. (2009). Validating the Internalization of Asian American Stereotypes Scale. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. Sciences and Engineering, 69 (8 B), 5056. Stark Wroblewski, K., Yanico, B. J., & Lupe, S. (2005). Acculturation, internal ization of western appearance norms, and eating pathology among Japanese and Chinese international student women. Psychology of Women Quarterly 29 38 46. doi:10.1111/j.1471 6402.2005.00166.x Stephenson, M. (2000). Development and validation of the Stephe nson Multigroup Acculturation Scale (SMAS). Psychological Assessment, 12, 77 88. doi:10.1037/1040 3590.12.1.77 Sue, S., & Chu, J. Y. (2003). The mental health of ethnic minority groups: Challenges posed by the supplement to the Surgeon General's report on mental health. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry 27 447 465. doi:10.1023/B:MEDI.0000005483.80655.15 Suinn, R. M., Ahuna, C., & Khoo, G. (1992). The Suinn Lew Asian Self Identity Acculturation Scale: Concurrent and factorial validation. Educational and Psy chological Measurement, 52, 1041 1046. doi:10.1177/0013164492052004028 Suinn, R. M., Rickard Figueroa, K., Lew, S., & Vigil, P. (1987). The Suinn Lew Asian Self Identity Acculturation Scale: An initial report. Educational and Psychological Measurement 4 7 401 407. doi:10.1177/0013164487472012 Tajima, E. A., & Harachi, T. W. (2010). Parenting beliefs and physical discipline practices among Southeast Asian immigrants: Parenting in the context of cultural adaptation to the United States. Journal of Cross Cu ltural Psychology 41 212 235. doi:10.1177/0022022109354469

PAGE 84

84 to examine factors influencing their career choices. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 142 157. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1998.1651 Ting, J. Y., & Hwang, W. C. (2009). Cultural influences on help seeking attitudes in Asian American students. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 79, 125 132. doi:10.1037/a0015394 Tsai, J. L., Ying, Y., & Lee, P. A. (2000). The mea American: Variation among Chinese American young adults. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 31, 302 332. doi:10.1177/0022022100031003002 U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). 2010 Census Shows Asians are Fastest Growing Race Gro up: March 2012. Retrieved from http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb12 cn22.html Wang, S., & Kim, B. S. K. (2010). Therapist multicultural competence, Asian American participants' cultural values, and counseling process. Journal of Counseling Psychology 57, 394 401. doi:10.1037/a0020359 Wei, M., Liao, K. Y. H., Chao, R. C. L., Mallinckrodt, B., Tsai, P. C., & Botello Zamarron, R. (2010). Minority stress, perceived bicultural competence, and depressive symptoms among ethnic minority college st udents. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 411 422. doi:10.1037/a0020790 Weinreich, P. (2009). 'Enculturation', not 'acculturation': Conceptualising and assessing identity processes in migrant communities. International Journal of Intercultural Relati ons, 33, 124 139. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.12.006 Weston, R., & Gore, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 719 751. doi : 10.1177/0011000006286345 Wolfe, M. M., Yang, P. H., Wong, E. C., & Atkinso n, D. R. (2001). Design and development of the European American values scale for Asian Americans. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 7 274 283. doi:10.1037/1099 9809.7.3.274 Wong, Y. J., Tran, K. K., & Lai, A. (2009). Associations among A sian Americans' enculturation, emotional experiences, and depressive symptoms. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development 37 105 116. Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendatio ns for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist 34 806 838. doi:10.1177/0011000006288127 Yakunina, E. S., & Weigold, I. K. (2011). Asian international students' intentions to seek counseling: Integrating cognitive and cultural predictors. Asian Americ an Journal of Psychology, 2, 219 224. doi:10.1037/a0024821

PAGE 85

85 Yoon, E., Hacker, J., Hewitt, A., Abrams, M., & Cleary, S. (2012). Social connectedness, discrimination, and social status as mediators of acculturation/enculturation and well being. Journal of C ounseling Psychology, 59, 86 96. doi:10.1037/a0025366 Yoon, E., Langrehr, K., & Ong, L. Z. (2011). Content analysis of acculturation research in counseling and counseling psychology: A 22 year review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 83 96. doi:10.1037/a0021128 Zane, N., & Mak, W. (2003). Major approaches to the measurement of acculturation among ethnic minority populations: A content analysis and an alternative empirical strategy. In K. M. Chun, P. Balls Organista, & G. Marn (Eds.), Ac culturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research (pp. 39 60). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10472 005 Zea, M.C., Asner Self, K. K., Birman, D., & Buki, L. P. (2003). The Abbreviated Multidimentional Accul turation Scale: Empirical validation with two Latino/Latina samples. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 9 107 126. doi:10.1037/1099 9809.9.2.107 Zhang, S., & Moradi, B. (2013 ). Asian American acculturation and enculturation: Construct clar ification and measurement consolidation. The Counseling Psychologist 41, 750 790. doi:10.1177/0011000012456882

PAGE 86

86 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Shengying Zhang was born and raised in Singapore. She graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in psychology from the National Un iversity of Singapore in 2004, and received a Master of Education in counseling psychology from the University of Missouri Columbia in 2007. She received her Doctor of Philosophy in counseling psychology from the University of Florida in the summer of 2013 and will subsequently begin a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of Delaware Center for Counseling and Student Development.