Content uploaded by Minji Yang
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Minji Yang on Mar 27, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
A Test of the Domain-Specific Acculturation Strategy Hypothesis
Matthew J. Miller, Minji Yang, Robert H. Lim,
Kayi Hui, and Na-Yeun Choi
University of Maryland
Xiaoyan Fan
Loyola University Chicago
Li-Ling Lin, Rebekah E. Grome, and
Jerome A. Farrell
University at Albany, State University of New York
Sha’kema Blackmon
University of Memphis
Acculturation literature has evolved over the past several decades and has highlighted the dynamic ways
in which individuals negotiate experiences in multiple cultural contexts. The present study extends this
literature by testing M. J. Miller and R. H. Lim’s (2010) domain-specific acculturation strategy
hypothesis—that individuals might use different acculturation strategies (i.e., assimilated, bicultural,
separated, and marginalized strategies; J. W. Berry, 2003) across behavioral and values domains—in 3
independent cluster analyses with Asian American participants. Present findings supported the domain-
specific acculturation strategy hypothesis as 67% to 72% of participants from 3 independent samples
using different strategies across behavioral and values domains. Consistent with theory, a number of
acculturation strategy cluster group differences emerged across generational status, acculturative stress,
mental health symptoms, and attitudes toward seeking professional psychological help. Study limitations
and future directions for research are discussed.
Keywords: acculturation, Asian Americans, mental health, acculturative stress
A substantial body of research highlights the salience of accul-
turation, “those phenomena which result when groups of individ-
uals having different cultures come into continuous first-hand
contact, with subsequent changes in the original cultural patterns
of either or both groups,” (Redfield, Linton, & Herskovits, 1937,
p. 149) in the psychological experiences of Asian immigrants and
their offspring in the U.S. In fact, recent studies have linked
acculturation to outcomes such as mental health, attitudes toward
seeking psychological help, acculturative stress, suicidal behav-
iors, acculturation gap family conflict, and substance abuse in
Asian American populations (J. S. Hong, Huang, Sabri, & Kim,
2011; Kim & Omizo, 2006; Kumar & Nevid, 2010; Lau,
Jernewall, Zane, & Myers, 2002; Lee, Choe, Kim, & Ngo, 2000;
Miller, Yang, Farrell, et al., 2011; Suinn, 2010; Yeh, 2003; Yoon,
Langrehr, & Ong, 2011). Given the importance of this construct,
scholars have expressed the need for reassessing and expanding
our understanding of acculturation (Schwartz, Unger, Zamboanga,
& Szapocznik, 2010). Therefore, this study sought to extend the
literature by testing the dynamic and domain-specific nature of
acculturation.
As interest in acculturation processes has increased, conceptu-
alizations of the construct have evolved in complexity and speci-
ficity. For example, scholars have defined acculturation both as a
broad psychological process resulting from continuous contact
with multiple cultural contexts and as a specific outcome (typically
referring to engagement in the second culture) of exposure to
multiple cultures (Miller, 2007; Segall, Dasen, Berry, & Poortinga,
1999). In addition, conceptualizations of acculturation have
evolved from a unilinear model—which presupposes that engage-
ment in a new culture results in a diminished engagement in one’s
culture of origin—to a bilinear model, which assumes that engage-
ment in a new culture does not necessarily result in a diminished
engagement in one’s culture of origin (Kim, 2007; Miller, 2007;
Ryder, Alden, & Paulhus, 2000). Berry’s (2003) fourfold theory is
the most widely used bilinear model in acculturation psychology
and has received empirical support in numerous studies (e.g.,
Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006b; Schwartz et al., 2010;
Schwartz & Zamboanga, 2008). Berry’s theory hypothesizes four
acculturation outcomes, or general strategies of cultural engage-
ment, that emerge in the context of living in two cultural contexts:
This article was published Online First November 12, 2012.
Matthew J. Miller, Minji Yang, Robert H. Lim, Kayi Hui, and Na-Yeun
Choi, Department of Counseling, Higher Education, and Special Educa-
tion, University of Maryland; Xiaoyan Fan, School of Education, Loyola
University Chicago; Li-Ling Lin, Rebekah E. Grome, and Jerome A.
Farrell, Division of Counseling Psychology, University at Albany, State
University of New York; Sha’kema Blackmon, Department of Counseling,
Educational Psychology and Research, University of Memphis.
This research was supported in part by a Loan Repayment Grant from
the National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities, National
Institutes of Health, and a Support Program for Advancing Research and
Collaboration Pre-Tenure Faculty Award through the College of Educa-
tion, University of Maryland, received by Matthew J. Miller.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Matthew
J. Miller, 3214 Benjamin Building, Department of Counseling, Higher
Education, and Special Education, University of Maryland, College Park,
MD 20742. E-mail: mmille27@umd.edu
Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology © 2012 American Psychological Association
2013, Vol. 19, No. 1, 1–12 1099-9809/13/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0030499
1
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
bicultural (also referred to as integrated), assimilated, separated,
and marginalized. The bicultural strategy refers to adherence to
one’s culture of origin (typically referred to as enculturation in the
bilinear model) and a second culture (typically referred to as
acculturation in the bilinear model). The assimilated strategy refers
to adherence to a second culture and lack of adherence to one’s
culture of origin. The separated strategy refers to adherence to
one’s culture of origin and lack of adherence to a second culture.
The marginalized strategy refers to lack of adherence to one’s
culture of origin and a second culture.
Research has linked Berry’s (2003) acculturation strategies to
outcomes such as acculturative stress, mental health, and attitudes
toward seeking psychological help. For example, acculturative
stress—or the physiological and psychological condition resulting
from culture-specific stressors (e.g., learning a new language and
social norms) rooted in the process of acculturation (Berry, Kim,
Minde, & Mok, 1987)—has been linked to marginalized and
separated acculturation strategies, whereas the assimilated and
bicultural strategies have been associated with moderate and low
levels of acculturative stress, respectively (Berry et al., 1987;
Williams & Berry, 1991). Studies have also shown that individuals
who use the bicultural strategy tend to have better mental health
compared to those who use other acculturation strategies (Chen,
Benet-Martínez & Bond, 2008; David, Okazaki, & Saw, 2009;
Schwartz, Zamboanga, & Jarvis, 2007). Finally, research has iden-
tified an association between the assimilated strategy and more
positive attitudes toward seeking professional psychological help
(e.g., Kim & Omizo, 2003; Zhang & Dixon, 2003).
Scholars have also focused on the domain-specific nature of
acculturation, and research has shown that the acculturation pro-
cess occurs across distinct behavioral and values domains (Kim,
Atkinson, & Yang, 1999; Miller, 2007; Yoon et al., 2011). Behav-
ioral domains include language and communication (e.g., one’s
preference and ability to read, write, and speak), social interactions
(e.g., understanding social norms, protocols and institutions, fam-
ily, and peer relationships), and daily living habits (e.g., prefer-
ences for food, entertainment, recreational activities, health prac-
tices, and customs); values domains include belief systems,
worldviews, and political ideologies (Arends-Tóth & van de Vi-
jver, 2006; Kim, 2007; Miller, 2010).
Recent studies have found differences in behavioral and values
acculturation processes and outcomes (Yoon et al., 2011). For
example, Kim et al.’s (1999) study with 300 Asian American
college students found that behavioral acculturation occurred at a
faster rate than values acculturation; statistically significant mean
score differences emerged across generation status groups for
behavioral acculturation scores but not for values acculturation
scores. Miller, Yang, Hui, et al. (2011) found that behavioral
enculturation and values acculturation were both associated with
better mental health, whereas behavioral acculturation and values
enculturation were not related in a sample of 296 Asian American
college students. Miller et al. also found that values acculturation
was associated with more positive attitudes toward seeking pro-
fessional psychological help and values enculturation was associ-
ated with less positive attitudes. Liao, Rounds, and Klein’s (2005)
study of 202 Asian American college students found that behav-
ioral acculturation was positively related (through attitudes) to
willingness to seek counseling, whereas values enculturation was
negatively related (through attitudes) to willingness. Ruzek,
Nguyen, and Herzog (2011) study of 601 Asian American college
student found that values acculturation was inversely related to
psychological distress whereas behavioral enculturation was pos-
itively associated with psychological distress; behavioral accultur-
ation and values enculturation were not related to distress.
Although studies have demonstrated the utility of the domain-
specific approach to studying the acculturation process, few if any
have tested directly whether Asian Americans actually use differ-
ent acculturation strategies across behavioral and values domains.
This might reflect an assumption underlying much of the extant
research that Asian American acculturation is a domain-generic
process; that it is a static and trait-like process in which individuals
use the same acculturation strategy across behavioral and values
domains (cf. Y. Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martínez, 2000).
Recently, however, Miller and Lim (2010) proposed a domain-
specific acculturation strategy hypothesis that asserts that one can
use different acculturation strategies across behavioral and values
domains. For example, an individual might use the separated
strategy within the values domain (e.g., espousing an Asian value
of deference to authority), yet use the assimilated strategy in the
behavioral domain (e.g., preference for English language commu-
nication at home). If this hypothesis is correct, then failing to
account for within-person variability in acculturation strategies
used across different domains (e.g., failing to measure more than
one acculturation domain or analyzing an aggregate acculturation
score instead of using individual acculturation domain scores)
might provide an incomplete understanding of basic acculturation
processes and how behavioral and values acculturation domains
differentially relate to relevant outcomes such as mental and phys-
ical health. To date, however, the domain-specific acculturation
strategy hypothesis has not been put to the empirical test.
Overall Purpose and Analytic Strategy
Our primary purpose was to test the domain-specific accultur-
ation strategy hypothesis using Berry’s (1979, 2003) acculturation
theory in order to examine whether Asian Americans used the
same or different strategies across behavioral and values domains.
In addition, we were interested in examining whether (a) genera-
tional status representation within cluster groups emerged in a way
consistent with theory (e.g., U.S.-born individuals would be over-
represented in assimilated clusters and foreign-born individuals
would be overrepresented in separated clusters); (b) theory-
consistent differences in acculturative stress, mental health, and
attitudes toward seeking professional help would emerge
across assimilated, bicultural, separated, and marginalized cluster
groups; and (c) Berry’s bicultural, assimilated, separated, and
marginalized acculturation strategies would emerge when a four-
cluster solution was imposed on behavioral and values data.
To test our research hypotheses and questions, we used cluster
analysis and assessed self-reported behavioral and values accul-
turation and enculturation with nonipsative scales. We selected
cluster analysis given its utility in testing hypothesized typologies
(Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984; Chen et al., 2006; Hair & Black,
2000) and recent calls for diverse analytic approaches to studying
acculturation processes (Schwartz et al., 2010). We selected a
k-means cluster analysis because it produces relatively homoge-
neous clusters (i.e., minimizing within-cluster variance). We used
the following recommended practices to determine the appropri-
2MILLER ET AL.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ateness of cluster solutions: (a) prior theory and empirical findings,
(b) conceptual interpretability, (c) theory-consistent mean score
differences on relevant variables across clusters, (d) lack of redun-
dant clusters, and (e) validation of initial solutions in independent
samples (Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984; Hair & Black, 2000).
Using three preexisting data sets (Miller, 2007, 2010; Miller,
Yang, Hui, et al., 2011), we used a confirmatory approach to
cluster analysis; that is, rather than examining multiple competing
cluster solutions in a single sample—and running the risk of
obtaining sample-specific findings—we imposed a theory-driven
number of clusters (n⫽4) on the data to test directly whether
Berry’s (1979, 2003) assimilated, bicultural, marginalized, and
separated strategies would emerge and replicate in independent
samples. We conducted data analysis in three separate steps.
In Step 1, using the Miller (2007) sample (N⫽288) we first
tested whether Berry’s (1979, 2003) four acculturation strategies
would emerge when a four-cluster solution was imposed on the
behavioral data. Next, we followed the same procedure using the
values data. Finally, to directly test the domain-specific accultur-
ation strategy hypothesis, we examined the consistency between
behavioral acculturation strategies and values acculturation strat-
egies for the entire sample. While Step 1 provided an initial test of
the domain-specific acculturation strategy hypothesis, the lack of a
cross-validation test in an independent sample represented a sub-
stantial limitation because it was not possible to determine whether
these findings were sample specific. In addition, further support
for the validity of the cluster solutions could have been strength-
ened by testing whether cluster group mean score differences in
relevant variables emerged in a theory-consistent manner (Al-
denderfer & Blashfield, 1984; Hair & Black, 2000).
Therefore, in Step 2 we conducted a k-means cluster analysis in
an independent sample (Miller, 2010; N⫽326) to cross-validate
the findings from Step 1. We also examined further validity
support for the cluster solution by testing for theory-consistent
mean score differences in acculturative stress across acculturation
strategy cluster groups.
Finally, in Step 3, we provided additional cross-validation sup-
port by testing the domain-specific acculturation strategy hypoth-
esis in another independent sample (Miller, Yang, Hui, et al., 2011;
N⫽296). We also tested for theory-consistent cluster group
differences in acculturative stress, mental health, and attitudes
toward seeking professional psychological help. In addition, we
tested the external validity of Step 1 and Step 2 findings by using
different measures of values enculturation, acculturation, and ac-
culturative stress; that is, we tested whether prior findings were
measure specific (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002).
Method
Procedures
This study used three preexisting data sets comprised of Asian
American college students. Step 1 and Step 2 used data collected
in person from numerous Asian American student associations
from universities in the Midwest (Miller, 2007, 2010). Step 3 used
data collected online from Asian American college students from
a large mid-Atlantic university (Miller, Yang, Hui, et al., 2011).
Participants
Step 1 participants. The Miller (2007) data set used in Step
1 consisted of participants (N⫽288) from Midwestern universi-
ties. Participants self-identified ethnically as Korean (n⫽143),
Chinese (n⫽49), Filipino (n⫽23), Asian Indian (n⫽16),
Taiwanese (n⫽16), Hmong (n⫽13), Japanese (n⫽10), Pacific
Islander (n⫽3), Cambodian (n⫽2), Thai (n⫽2), and biracial
Japanese (n⫽1) individuals. Overall, the sample comprised 169
women and 119 men. Of these individuals, 87 identified them-
selves as first generation (born in an Asian country and immigrated
to the U.S. as an adult), 71 as 1.5 generation (born in an Asian
country and immigrated to the U.S. as a child or adolescent), 111
as second generation (born in the U.S.), 6 as third generation, 1 as
fourth generation, 9 as unknown, and 3 as other. The median years
lived in the United States was 18.00 (SD ⫽7.19). The mean age
of the sample was 20.55 (SD ⫽3.41). At the time of data
collection, 256 of the participants were enrolled in undergraduate
studies, 30 were enrolled in graduate studies, and 2 individuals did
not indicate their status.
Step 2 participants. The Miller (2010) data set used in Step
2 comprised 326 Asian American students (172 women) enrolled
in Midwestern universities. Participants’ ethnic self-identification
was as Korean (n⫽156), Chinese (n⫽78), Indian (n⫽24),
Vietnamese (n⫽22), Filipino (n⫽15), Japanese (n⫽4),
Taiwanese (n⫽3), Cambodian (n⫽1), multiethnic (n⫽11), and
other (n⫽12). The total sample represented first generation (n⫽
106), 1.5 generation (n⫽10), second generation (n⫽202), third
generation (n⫽5), fourth generation (n⫽1), fifth generation
(n⫽1), and other (n⫽1) individuals. Sample mean age was 20.99
(SD ⫽3.52) and mean years in the U.S. was 16.91 (SD ⫽6.43).
Participants were predominantly enrolled in undergraduate (n⫽
309) with some enrolled in graduate studies (n⫽17).
Step 3 participants. The Miller, Yang, Hui, et al. (2011) data
set used in Step 3 consisted of 296 Asian American university
students (132 women). Mean age for the sample was 20.83 (SD ⫽
3.74). Participants’ ethnic self-identification included Chinese
(n⫽73), Asian Indian (n⫽66), Korean (n⫽62),
Taiwanese (n⫽19), Vietnamese (n⫽15), Filipino (n⫽13),
Pakistani (n⫽12), Thai (n⫽5), Bangladeshi (n⫽4), Sri Lankan
(n⫽4), Cambodian (n⫽3), Japanese (n⫽2), Burmese (n⫽1),
Laotian (n⫽1), Nepali (n⫽1), Pacific Islander (n⫽1), and other
(n⫽14). Fifteen participants self-identified as first generation, 92
as 1.5 generation, 182 as second generation, 1 as third generation,
2 as fourth generation, and 4 as other. Mean years lived in the U.S.
was 17.23 (SD ⫽5.45). Over 20 academic majors were repre-
sented in the sample.
Measures
Step 1 measures. Participants completed a self-report ques-
tionnaire containing items regarding sex, ethnicity, age, place of
birth, and years lived in the United States. To assess generational
status, we presented participants with a list of descriptors (i.e., 1st
generation, 1.5 generation, 2nd generation, 3rd generation, 4th
generation, 5th generation, don’t know due to lack of information,
or other) and brief definitions (i.e., 1st generation ⫽I was born in
an Asian country and came to the U.S. as an adult; 1.5 gener-
ation ⫽I was born in an Asian country and came to the U.S. as a
child or adolescent; 2nd generation ⫽I was born in the U.S.,
3
DOMAIN SPECIFIC ACCULTURATION
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
parents were born in an Asian country; 3rd generation ⫽I was
born in the U.S., parents were born in the U.S., and grandparents
were born in an Asian country; 4th generation ⫽I was born in the
U.S., parents and at least one grandparent was born in the U.S.; 5th
generation ⫽I was born in the U.S., parents and grandparents were
also born in the U.S.). Participants also completed the Accultura-
tion Rating Scale for Mexican Americans (ARSMA–II) modified
(Asian Americans), the Asian Values Scale, and the European
American Values Scale for Asian Americans.
Modified Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Ameri-
cans—Revised (ARSMA–II). The modified (for Asian Ameri-
cans) ARSMA–II (Cuellar, Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995) is a
bilinear 30-item measure that primarily assesses engagement in
Asian and Western cultural behaviors but also includes items that
assess ethnic identification (Lee et al., 2000; Miller, 2007). It is
worth noting that the measure might also reflect behavioral (e.g.,
social) preferences. Examples of modified ARSMA–II items in-
clude, “I speak an Asian language,” and “My friends now are of
Asian origin.” All items are rated on a 5-point scale (1 ⫽not at all;
5⫽extremely often) where higher scores indicate a higher adher-
ence to the indicated culture. The two subscales of the modified
ARSMA–II are the Anglo Orientation Scale (AOS) and the Asian
Orientation Scale (AAOS). Criterion-related evidence for scores
was shown when scores from the modified version differentiated
Asian Americans by generational status, family conflict, and psy-
chological adjustment in a way consistent with acculturation the-
ory (Lee, Yoon, & Liu-Tom, 2006). Lee et al. (2006) also provided
construct validity evidence by demonstrating theory-consistent
factor structure of modified ARSMA–II scores. Because the mod-
ified ARSMA–II was used to assess behavioral aspects of accul-
turation and enculturation, items that reflected ethnic identification
were excluded. Previous research has provided alpha coefficients
of .84 and .86 for AAOS and .74 and .83 for AOS scores,
respectively (Lee et al., 2000; Miller, 2007). This investigation
produced Cronbach’s alphas of .84 and .73 for AAOS and AOS
scores, respectively.
Asian Values Scale (AVS). The AVS assesses the degree to
which Asian Americans have maintained their (traditional) Asian
cultural values such as conformity to norms, collectivism, and
filial piety (Kim et al., 1999). Examples of AVS items include,
“Educational failure does not bring shame to the family,” and “One
need not follow the role expectations (gender, family, hierarchy) of
one’s family.” The 36 items, listed in random order, are answered
with a 7-point rating scale (1 ⫽strongly disagree;7⫽strongly
agree) in which the participant rates the extent to which he or she
agrees or disagrees with the item. The total score is obtained by
summing and averaging item scores. Scores on the AVS range
from 1 to 7 (with 1 indicating the least adherence and 7 indicating
the greatest adherence to Asian values). Kim et al. provided
criterion-related, discriminant, and factorial evidence for the con-
struct validity of AVS scores. The AVS has produced scores with
adequate coefficient alphas of .81 and .82 in two separate studies
(Kim et al., 1999). AVS scores produced a 2-week test–retest
reliability estimate of .83. AVS scores provided a Cronbach’s
alpha of .82 for this investigation.
European American Values Scale for Asian Americans
(EAVS). The EAVS (Wolfe, Yang, Wong, & Atkinson, 2001)
assesses the degree to which Asian Americans have internalized
European American values regarding marital behavior, child rear-
ing practices, autonomy, and sexual freedom. It was developed to
complement the AVS in assessing values acculturation in Asian
American populations. The EAVS is an 18-item measure with each
item rated on a 7-point scale (1 ⫽strongly disagree;7⫽strongly
agree). Construct validity evidence was provided by creating items
based on a comprehensive theoretical and empirical literature
review of European American values (Wolfe et al., 2001). Exam-
ples of EAVS items are, “The idea that one spouse does all the
housework is outdated,” “Having the chance to achieve is not
important for me.” The higher the overall scale score, the more the
individual has internalized European values. Criterion-related ev-
idence was established by the ability of EAVS items to differen-
tiate European Americans from first-generation Asian Americans
(Wolfe et al., 2001). Previously, EAVS scores have produced
coefficient alphas of .69 and .70 (Miller, 2007; Wolfe et al., 2001).
EAVS scores produced a Cronbach’s alpha of .67 in this sample.
Step 2 measures. Participants in Step 2 completed the same
demographic questionnaire and self-report measures as reported in
Step 1. Reliability of ARSMA–II scores was .84 (AAOS) and
.73 (AOS). AVS and EAVS score reliabilities were .82 and .67,
respectively. In addition, participants completed the modified
(Asian American) Multidimensional Acculturative Stress In-
ventory.
Acculturative stress was measured by the modified (Asian
American) Multidimensional Acculturative Stress Inventory
(MASI; Rodriguez, Myers, Bingham Mira, Flores, & Garcia-
Hernandez, 2002). The MASI consists of 36 items representing
acculturation pressures such as English language competence (e.g.,
“It bothers me that I speak English with an accent”) and encul-
turation pressures such as Asian language competence (“I feel
pressure to learn an Asian language”). MASI items are rated on a
6-point scale (0 ⫽does not apply; 1⫽not at all stressful;5⫽
extremely stressful) with higher total scores indicating higher
levels of acculturative stress. MASI scores produced an internal
consistency estimate of .93 in this sample.
Step 3 measures. Participants in Step 3 completed a demo-
graphic questionnaire and the behavioral items from the ARSMA–
II. Reliability of ARSMA–II score was .90 and .79 for the 13-item
AAOS and 11-item AOS behavioral items, respectively. In addi-
tion, participants also completed the Asian Values Scale—Re-
vised, European American Values Scale for Asian Americans—
Revised, Riverside Acculturation Stress Inventory, the Mental
Health Inventory, and the Attitudes Toward Seeking Professional
Psychological Help scales.
Asian Values Scale—revised (AVS–R). The AVS–R (Kim &
Hong, 2004) is an item-response theory–generated 25-item revised
version of the AVS (Kim et al., 1999), which assesses an individ-
ual’s espousal of Asian values. AVS–R items reflect various
domains of Asian cultural values, including conformity to norms,
collectivism, family recognition through achievement, emotional
self-control, humility, and filial piety. Sample items include, “one
should consider the needs of others before considering one’s own
needs” and “one need not achieve academically in order to make
one’s parents proud.” AVS–R items are rated on a 4-point rating
scale (1 ⫽strongly disagree;4⫽strongly agree). Higher scale
scores indicate stronger adherence to Asian cultural values. Kim
and Hong provided convergent evidence by showing that AVS–R
scores correlated with AVS scores (r⫽.93). Criterion-related
evidence was established with a theory-consistent relationship
4MILLER ET AL.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
between AVS–R scores and immersion–emersion racial identity
scores (Iwamoto & Liu, 2010). AVS–R scores have produced
internal consistency estimates ranging from .73 to .80 (Iwamoto &
Liu, 2010; Kim & Hong, 2004). The reliability coefficient for
AVS–R scores was .77 in this sample.
The European Values Scale for Asian Americans—Revised
(EAVS–R). The EAVS–R (S. Hong, Kim, & Wolfe, 2005) is a
25-item self-report measure that assesses values acculturation
across numerous domains. EAVS–R items are rated on a 4-point
scale (1 ⫽strongly disagree,4⫽strongly agree) and represent
marital behavior, child-rearing practices, autonomy, and sexual
freedom. Sample items include, “Faithfulness is very important for
a successful marriage” and “A woman should not have a child
unless she is in a long-term relationship.” Higher-scale scores
indicate high levels of values acculturation. Prior internal consis-
tency estimates range from .64 to .78 (S. Hong et al., 2005; Park
& Kim, 2008). EAVS–R scores produced an internal consistency
estimate of .67 in this sample. Criterion-related evidence for
EAVS–R scores was demonstrated with theory consistent relations
between EAVS–R scores and collective self-esteem, cognitive
flexibility, and indirect communication scores (Kim & Omizo,
2006; Park & Kim, 2008).
Riverside Acculturation Stress Inventory (RASI). The RASI
(Benet-Martinez & Haritatos, 2005) is a 15-item measure that
represents acculturative stressors in the following five domains:
language skills (e.g., being misunderstood because of one’s ac-
cent), work (e.g., having to work harder than nonimmigrant/mi-
nority peers), intercultural relations (e.g., having disagreements
with others for behaving in ways that are “too American” or “too
ethnic”), discrimination (e.g., being mistreated because of one’s
ethnicity), and cultural makeup of the community (e.g., living in an
environment that is not culturally diverse). Each item is rated from
1(strongly disagree)to5(strongly agree), and higher scores
suggest higher levels of acculturative stress. Prior internal consis-
tency estimates for the RASI total and subscale scores range from
.68 to .87 (Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005). RASI scores have
demonstrated theory-consistent relationships with bicultural iden-
tity integration and psychological adjustment scores and the hy-
pothesized RASI factor structure has been supported across gen-
erational status (Miller, Kim, & Benet-Martínez, 2011). RASI total
and subscale score internal consistency estimates ranged from .67
to .88 in this sample.
Mental Health Inventory (MHI). The MHI (Veit & Ware,
1983) is a 38-item measure consisting of Psychological Distress
and Psychological Well-Being subscales. We used the Psycholog-
ical Distress scale (i.e., Depression, Anxiety, and Behavioral Con-
trol subscales) of the MHI to operationalize mental health. Exam-
ples of the MHI Psychological Distress items include “during the
past month, have you felt downhearted and blue?”; “during the
past month, have you felt restless, fidgety, or impatient?”; and
“during the past month, have you felt emotionally stable?” Re-
spondents are asked to report psychological symptoms during the
past month using a 4-point scale (1 ⫽not at all true;4⫽
completely true) such that higher scores represented poorer mental
health (after reverse-scoring two items). Prior internal consistency
estimates for MHI scores in a sample of 296 Asian American
sample ranged from .83 to .91; criterion related evidence was
established with theory-consistent relationships with MHI scores
and acculturative stress and racism-related stress scores with Asian
Americans (Miller, Yang, Farrell, & Lin, 2011). In addition, fac-
torial evidence for construct validity was established in a sample of
1194 Chinese students (Liang, Wu, Krause, Chiang, & Wu, 1992).
Reliability estimates for total and subscale scores ranged from .84
to .95 in this sample.
Attitudes Toward Seeking Professional Psychological Help—
Short Form (ATSPPH–SF). The ATSPPH–SF (Fischer & Fa-
rina, 1995) is a 10-item unidimensional measure of professional
help-seeking attitudes. Participants rate each item (e.g., “If I be-
lieved I was having a mental breakdown, my first inclination
would be to get professional attention” and “Considering the time
and expense involved in psychotherapy, it would have doubtful
value for a person like me”) on a 4-point scale ranging from 1
(disagree)to4(agree); after reverse scoring four items, higher
scores reflect a more positive attitude toward seeking professional
psychological help. ATSPPH–SF scores have produced an internal
consistency estimate of .84 and a 1-month test–retest reliability
coefficient of .80 (Fischer & Farina, 1995). The ATSPPH–SF
scores exhibited a strong relationship with the full-length ATSPPH
scores (r⫽.87); criterion-related evidence was demonstrated by
the ability of ATSPPH–SF scores to differentiate between those
with prior counseling experience and those without such experi-
ence (Fischer & Farina, 1995). ATSPPH–SF scores have produced
internal consistency estimates of .85 and a theory-consistent rela-
tionship with enculturation scores in a sample of Asian American
college students (Kim & Omizo, 2003). ATSPPH–SF scores pro-
duced an internal consistency estimate of .76 in this sample.
Results and Discussion
Step 1 Results and Discussion
Consistent with Berry’s (1979, 2003) acculturation theory, as-
similated, separated, bicultural, and marginalized strategies
emerged when a four-cluster solution was imposed on the behav-
ioral and values data (see Figures 1 and 2 and Table 1). The
majority of Step 1 participants (72.2%) used different behavioral
and values acculturation strategies—a finding that provides initial
support for the domain-specific acculturation strategy hypothesis
(see Table 2).
A significant behavioral cluster group difference by genera-
tional status emerged,
2
(3, N⫽288) ⫽24.998, p⬍.001.
Cross-tabulation analysis revealed that foreign-born individuals
were overrepresented in the separated–behavioral cluster (ex-
pected count ⫽29.6; actual count ⫽45) and underrepresented in
the assimilated–behavioral cluster (expected count ⫽40; actual
count ⫽31). U.S.-born individuals were overrepresented in the
assimilated–behavioral cluster (expected count ⫽33; actual
count ⫽42) and were underrepresented in the separated–
behavioral cluster (expected count ⫽24.4; actual count ⫽9).
A significant values cluster group difference by generational
status also emerged,
2
(3, N⫽288) ⫽17.267, p⬍.001. Foreign-
born individuals were overrepresented in the marginalized–values
cluster (expected count ⫽58.2; actual count ⫽69) and underrep-
resented in the assimilated–values cluster (expected count ⫽46.6;
actual count ⫽31). U.S.-born individuals were overrepresented in
the assimilated–values cluster (expected count ⫽38.4; actual
count ⫽54) and were underrepresented in the marginalized–
values cluster (expected count ⫽47.8; actual count ⫽37).
5
DOMAIN SPECIFIC ACCULTURATION
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
The primary purpose of Step 1 was to test whether partici-
pants used different acculturation strategies across behavioral
and values acculturation domains. Present findings provided
initial support for the domain-specific acculturation strategies
hypothesis. Generational differences in cluster group member-
ship were, for the most part, present in a way consistent with
theory (e.g., foreign-born participants were more likely to use
separated–behavioral strategies and less likely to use
assimilated–values strategies).
Step 2 Results and Discussion
Similar to Step 1 findings, Berry’s (1979, 2003) four accul-
turation strategies emerged when we imposed a four-cluster
k-means solution to the behavioral and values data (see Figures
1 and 2 and Table 1). Overall, approximately 67% of the
participants used different behavioral and values acculturation
strategies (see Table 2)—a finding that validates Step 1 results
and provides further support for the domain-specific accultur-
ation strategy hypothesis.
A significant behavioral cluster group difference by genera-
tional status was identified,
2
(3, N⫽326) ⫽34.260, p⬍.001.
Foreign-born individuals were most clearly overrepresented in
the bicultural–behavioral cluster (expected count ⫽38.2; actual
count ⫽52) and underrepresented in the assimilated–behavioral
cluster (expected count ⫽37.2; actual count ⫽15). U.S.-born
individuals were most clearly overrepresented in the assimilated–
behavioral cluster (expected count ⫽73.8; actual count ⫽98) and
were underrepresented in the bicultural–behavioral cluster (ex-
pected count ⫽75.8; actual count ⫽62). Significant values cluster
group difference by generational status did not emerge,
2
(3, N⫽
326) ⫽4.109, p⫽.250.
Support for the four cluster solutions was evidenced by theory-
consistent mean differences in acculturative stress that emerged across
acculturation strategy clusters, F(3) ⫽4.191, p⫽.006; post hoc
Figure 1. Behavioral clusters for Steps 1, 2, and 3. Clusters are based on
standard scores.
Figure 2. Values clusters for Steps 1, 2, and 3. Clusters are based on
standard scores.
6MILLER ET AL.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Scheffé comparisons revealed that participants in the marginalized–
behavioral cluster reported moderately higher levels of acculturative
stress (p⫽.012, d⫽.49) than those in the bicultural–behavioral
cluster. Statistically significant mean score differences in acculturative
stress did not emerge for values cluster groups.
The primary purposes of Step 2 were to cross-validate Step 1
findings in an independent sample and to test for theory-consistent
differences in acculturative stress across cluster groups. Step 2 find-
ings provided further support for the domain-specific acculturation
strategy hypothesis as a majority of participants used different accul-
turation strategies across behavioral and values domains. In addition,
theory consistent differences in acculturative stress emerged across
clusters (i.e., marginalized–behavioral cluster reported higher levels
of acculturative stress than bicultural–behavioral cluster).
Step 3 Results and Discussion
Consistent with findings in Steps 1 and 2, Berry’s (1979, 2003)
four acculturation strategies emerged when we imposed a four-cluster
k-means solution to the data (see Figures 1 and 2 and Table 2). As in
Studies 1 and 2, the majority of participants (67%) used different
acculturation strategies across behavioral and values domains (see
Table 2), a finding that provides further support for the domain-
specific acculturation strategy hypothesis.
A significant Behavioral cluster group difference ⫻Generational
status emerged,
2
(3, N⫽296) ⫽32.312, p⬍.000. Foreign-born
individuals were overrepresented in the bicultural–behavioral cluster
(expected count ⫽32.5; actual count ⫽43) and in the separated–
behavioral cluster (expected count ⫽18.8; actual count ⫽31) and
underrepresented in the assimilated–behavioral cluster (expected
count ⫽39; actual count ⫽22). U.S.-born individuals were overrep-
resented in the assimilated–behavioral cluster (expected count ⫽69;
actual count ⫽86) and were underrepresented in the bicultural–
behavioral cluster (expected count ⫽57.5; actual count ⫽47) and in
the separated–behavioral cluster (expected count ⫽33.2; actual count
⫽21). Significant Values cluster group difference ⫻Generational
status did not emerge,
2
(3, N⫽296) ⫽.525, p⫽.913.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Behavioral and Values Clusters
Assimilated clusters Bicultural clusters Marginalized clusters Separated clusters
Descriptor Behavior
a
Values
b
Behavior
c
Values
d
Behavior
e
Values
f
Behavior
g
Values
h
Step 1
AAOS 3.00 (.40) 3.67 (.58) 4.22 (.34) 3.68 (.67) 3.63 (.25) 3.83 (.65) 4.30 (.44) 3.95 (.55)
AOS 4.25 (.24) 4.13 (.39) 4.25 (.27) 4.12 (.34) 3.80 (.24) 3.58 (.61) 3.03 (.43) 3.91 (.44)
AVS 4.19 (.54) 3.77 (.29) 4.27 (.59) 4.57 (.25) 4.30 (.48) 4.26 (.34) 4.43 (.44) 5.10 (.35)
EAVS 5.31 (.63) 5.60 (.45) 5.35 (.57) 5.68 (.34) 5.10 (.62) 4.52 (.34) 4.73 (.55) 5.10 (.39)
Generation 31 F born 31 F born 47 F born 37 F born 35 F born 69 F born 45 F born 21 F born
Years in U.S. 19.60 (3.79) 15.95 (6.15) 14.57 (6.42) 16.43 (5.31) 14.81 (6.55) 11.92 (8.41) 6.69 (5.99) 14.86 (6.36)
Age 20.60 (2.99) 19.98 (1.41) 19.73 (1.24) 19.93 (1.94) 20.03 (2.22) 21.23 (3.69) 22.50 (6.0) 20.92 (6.27)
Gender 39 women 59 women 59 women 40 women 48 women 52 women 23 women 18 women
Step 2
AAOS 2.71 (.41) 3.08 (.64) 4.00 (.35) 3.54 (.61) 3.16 (.43) 3.30 (.73) 4.19 (.41) 3.46 (.70)
AOS 4.50 (.22) 4.29 (.44) 4.33 (.27) 4.28 (.46) 3.90 (.21) 4.16 (.43) 3.07 (.32) 4.14 (.37)
AVS 4.10 (.59) 3.52 (.33) 4.37 (.50) 4.45 (.27) 4.27 (.69) 4.07 (.28) 4.29 (.53) 5.01 (.40)
EAVS 5.16 (.74) 5.65 (.41) 5.15 (.68) 5.68 (.46) 4.89 (.65) 4.46 (.48) 4.83 (.76) 4.73 (.38)
MASI 1.07 (.66) .88 (.53) .85 (.56) 1.03 (.62) 1.17 (.72) 1.06 (.75) .97 (.46) .97 (.54)
Generation 15 F born 14 F born 52 F born 31 F born 31 F born 36 F born 10 F born 24 F born
Years in U.S. 20.28 (5.02) 17.78 (6.97) 15.28 (5.73) 16.59 (6.42) 16.54 (6.44) 17.27 (6.23) 6.97 (4.98) 16.59 (6.42)
Age 21.53 (3.43) 21.63 (3.60) 20.42 (3.06) 20.69 (3.58) 20.88 (3.59) 21.29 (3.91) 22.12 (5.85) 20.26 (2.57)
Gender 58 women 37 women 73 women 48 women 31 women 51 women 8 women 25 women
Step 3
AAOS 2.46 (.45) 2.77 (.81) 3.82 (.49) 3.28 (.75) 2.71 (.46) 2.96 (.78) 3.87 (.54) 3.48 (.78)
AOS 4.63 (.20) 4.51 (.43) 4.44 (.22) 4.28 (.48) 3.86 (.59) 4.34 (.49) 3.67 (.29) 4.09 (.49)
AVS–R 2.46 (.34) 2.09 (.20) 2.59 (.31) 2.75 (.20) 2.50 (.26) 2.37 (.15) 2.66 (.31) 2.74 (.27)
EAVS–R 2.94 (.24) 3.19 (.18) 2.85 (.28) 3.03 (.15) 2.83 (.26) 2.80 (.13) 2.70 (.33) 2.52 (.19)
RASI 2.37 (.68) 2.42 (.74) 2.66 (.73) 2.49 (.76) 2.52 (.78) 2.47 (.71) 2.97 (.84) 2.95 (.76)
MHI 1.99 (.68) 1.80 (.70) 1.93 (.71) 1.84 (.59) 2.01 (.65) 2.00 (.64) 2.13 (.70) 2.29 (.75)
ATSPPH–SF 2.42 (.43) 2.62 (.51) 2.33 (.54) 2.31 (.45) 2.33 (.44) 2.38 (.45) 2.26 (.45) 2.21 (.43)
Generation 22 F born 16 F born 43 F born 31 F born 11 F born 31 F born 31 F born 29 F born
Years in U.S. 19.43 (4.45) 18.44 (5.19) 16.23 (5.38) 17.01 (5.46) 18.40 (4.10) 17.86 (5.16) 13.34 (6.03) 16.05 (5.76)
Age 20.85 (3.33) 21.67 (.51) 21.07 (4.67) 20.92 (3.61) 20.20 (2.83) 20.55 (2.93) 20.90 (3.44) 20.59 (4.31)
Gender 48 women 22 women 49 women 49 women 17 women 37 women 18 women 24 women
Note. Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations. AAOS ⫽Asian American Orientation subscale; AOS ⫽Anglo Orientation subscale; AVS ⫽Asian
Values Scale; EAVS ⫽European American Values Scale for Asian Americans; MASI ⫽Multidimensional Acculturative Stress Inventory; AVS–R ⫽
Asian Values Scale—Revised; EAVS–R ⫽European American Values Scale for Asian Americans—Revised; RASI ⫽Riverside Acculturation Stress
Index; MHI ⫽Mental Health Inventory; ATSPPH–SF ⫽Attitudes Toward Seeking Professional Psychological Help Scale—Short Form; F born ⫽
foreign-born participants.
a
For Step 1, n⫽73; Step 2, n⫽113, Step 3, n⫽108.
b
For Step 1, n⫽85; Step 2, n⫽62; Step 3, n⫽42.
c
For Step 1, n⫽84; Step 2, n⫽114;
Step 3, n⫽90.
d
For Step 1, n⫽60; Step 2, n⫽81; Step 3, n⫽87.
e
For Step 1, n⫽77; Step 2, n⫽81; Step 3, n⫽46.
f
For Step 1, n⫽106;
Step 2, n⫽102; Step 3, n⫽92.
g
For Step 1, n⫽54; Step 2, n⫽16; Step 3, n⫽52.
h
For Step 1, n⫽37; Step 2, n⫽64; Step 3, n⫽75.
7
DOMAIN SPECIFIC ACCULTURATION
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Cluster Group Differences in Acculturative Stress,
Mental Health, and Attitudes
Significant observed mean score differences emerged across
behavioral clusters for acculturative stress, F(3, 296) ⫽7.946, p⬍
.000; post hoc comparisons using the Scheffé test revealed that
participants in the separated–behavioral cluster reported signifi-
cantly higher levels of acculturative stress than those in the
assimilated–behavioral cluster (p⬍.000, d⫽.81) and those in the
marginalized–behavioral cluster (p⫽.034, d⫽.55). Mean scores
for mental health, F(3, 296) ⫽.920, p⫽.431, and attitudes toward
seeking professional psychological help, F(3, 296) ⫽1.530, p⫽
.207, were not significantly different across behavioral accultura-
tion strategy clusters.
Significant observed mean score differences emerged across
values clusters for acculturative stress, F(3, 296) ⫽8.082, p⬍
.000, mental health, F(3, 296) ⫽7.478, p⬍.000, and attitudes
toward seeking professional psychological help, F(3, 296) ⫽
7.604, p⬍.000. Post hoc Scheffé tests revealed that participants
in the separated–values cluster reported statistically significant and
substantially higher levels of acculturative stress than those in
bicultural–values (p⫽.002, d⫽.61), marginalized–values (p⫽
.001, d⫽.66), and assimilated–values (p⫽.004, d⫽.71)
clusters. Participants in the assimilated–values cluster reported
statistically significant higher levels of attitudes toward seeking
psychological help than those in the separated–values (p⬍.000,
d⫽.89), bicultural–values (p⫽.005, d⫽.65), and marginalized–
values (p⫽.045, d⫽.52) clusters. Participants in the separated–
values cluster reported significantly poorer mental health levels
than those in the bicultural–values (p⫽.001, d⫽.66) and
assimilated–values (p⫽.003, d⫽.66) clusters.
As in Steps 1 and 2, these results further support the domain-
specific acculturation strategy hypothesis because a majority of
participants used different strategies across behavioral and values
domains; they also provide support for the external validity of
study findings given that the same pattern of findings emerged
when using different acculturation measures. Theory-consistent
behavioral and values cluster group differences across accultura-
tive stress, mental health, and attitudes toward seeking profes-
sional psychological help provided further support for the validity
of the cluster solution.
General Discussion
This study extends the acculturation literature by testing the
domain-specific acculturation strategy hypothesis—that Asian
Americans use different strategies across behavioral and values
acculturation domains. Present findings based on three indepen-
dent data analyses and different acculturation measures provide
consistent support for the domain-specific acculturation strategy
hypothesis with 67% to 72% of all participants across three inde-
pendent samples using a different acculturation strategy across
behavioral and values domains—though it is important to note that
approximately one third of all participants did use the same strat-
egy.
One possible explanation for why some individuals use the same
acculturation strategy and others do not might be bicultural iden-
tity integration (Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005). Bicultural
identity integration refers to the degree to which individuals per-
ceive their culture of origin and their second culture as compatible
or incompatible. Those with higher bicultural identity integration
(i.e., perceive cultures as compatible) are able to integrate both
Table 2
Number of Participants Who Used Domain-Specific Acculturation Strategies
Acculturation strategy Step 1
(N⫽288) Step 2
(N⫽307
a
)Step 3
(N⫽296)Behavioral domain Values domain
Assimilated Assimilated 25 33 24
Assimilated Bicultural 20 26 29
Assimilated Marginalized 23 37 41
Assimilated Separated 16 12 14
Bicultural Assimilated 32 13 13
Bicultural Bicultural 21 39 28
Bicultural Marginalized 18 31 23
Bicultural Separated 13 26 26
Marginalized Assimilated 23 15 5
Marginalized Bicultural 17 10 13
Marginalized Marginalized 26 26 19
Marginalized Separated 023 9
Separated Assimilated 513
Separated Bicultural 2517
Separated Marginalized 39 7 6
Separated Separated 8 3 26
Same acculturation strategy across domains n⫽80
(28%)
n⫽101
(33%)
n⫽97
(33%)
Different acculturation strategies across domains n⫽208
(72%)
n⫽206
(67%)
n⫽199
(67%)
Note. Boldface numerals represent participants who used different acculturation strategies across behavioral
and values domains and constitute evidence supporting the domain-specific acculturation strategy hypothesis.
a
Of the 326 participants in Step 2, 324 completed the Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans
(ARSMA–II) and 309 completed the Asian Values Scale (AVS). Data presented in the Step 2 column represent
the 307 participants who completed both the ARSMA–II and the AVS.
8MILLER ET AL.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
cultures into their daily lives effortlessly and therefore may be
more comfortable and likely to shift between different accultura-
tion strategies depending on external or internal cues, whereas
those with lower bicultural identity integration may feel more
comfortable maintaining the same strategy. Similarly, individuals
who embody alternation (e.g., possess knowledge of two cultures
and an ability to alternate behavior to fit culturally based social
cues) or multicultural (e.g., the ability to simultaneously maintain
positive attachment to culture of origin and the second culture)
approaches to living within multicultural contexts (LaFromboise,
Coleman, & Gerton, 1993) might develop a repertoire of accultur-
ation strategies and might use different strategies across behavioral
and values domains.
Ultimately, these findings highlight the complexity of Asian
Americans acculturation processes and speak to the importance of
attending to the within-person variability in acculturation strate-
gies across behavioral and values domains. Present findings also
demonstrate the utility of domain-specific measurements of accul-
turation/enculturation and analysis of domains scores; domain-
generic approaches to acculturation and enculturation assessment
(e.g., aggregating behavioral and values acculturation scores to
form a domain generic total acculturation score or measuring only
one domain) may provide an incomplete understanding of Asian
American acculturation.
A number of theory-consistent differences in cluster group
membership emerged across generational status—though they
were most consistently evidenced in the behavioral domain. For
example, in all three data analytic steps, foreign-born participants
were underrepresented in the assimilated–behavioral clusters and
U.S. born participants were overrepresented in assimilated–
behavioral clusters. In addition, in Steps 1 and 3, foreign-born
participants were overrepresented in separated–behavioral clusters
and U.S.-born participants were underrepresented in separated–
behavioral clusters. Overall, these findings are consistent with
recent tests of generational differences in acculturation (e.g.,
Chang, Tracey, & Moore, 2005), which also link generational
status and use acculturation strategy (i.e., foreign-born individuals
tend to use the separation strategy and U.S.-born individuals tend
to engage in the assimilated strategy); though it should be noted
that there was within-group (i.e., generational status) variation in
employed acculturation strategy in each sample in the study. We
found significant generational status differences across the behav-
ioral domain but non-significant differences across the values
domain, which is consistent with recent evidence regarding the
differential rate of behavioral versus values acculturation across
different generations (Kim et al., 1999; Yoon et al., 2011).
We also examined acculturation strategy cluster group dif-
ferences across acculturative stress (Steps 2 and 3), mental
health (Step 3), and attitudes toward seeking professional psy-
chological help (Step 3). Differences in behavioral clusters
emerged in acculturative stress in Steps 2 and 3. Separated–
behavioral participants reported higher levels of acculturative
stress than marginalized–behavioral participants; marginalized–
behavioral participants reported higher levels of acculturative
stress than bicultural–behavioral participants (Step 2). Separated–
values participants reported higher levels of acculturative stress
than all other values clusters (Step 3). In Step 3, assimilated–
values participants reported more positive attitudes toward seeking
professional psychological help than all other values clusters;
separated–values participants reported poorer mental health than
bicultural–values and assimilated–values participants. These find-
ings are consistent with prior research (e.g., Liao et al., 2005;
Ruzek et al., 2011) in that they highlight differences in the pattern
of significant relationships across behavioral and values accultur-
ation and enculturation domains.
There were, however, a number of unexpected findings in our
study. For example, contrary to our expectations foreign-born
participants were overrepresented in the marginalized–values
cluster; this was especially surprising given that values tend to
change at a slower rate than behavior (Kim et al., 1999). Also,
foreign-born participants were overrepresented in the
bicultural–behavioral cluster and U.S.-born participants were
underrepresented in Steps 2 and 3. Finally, participants in the
separation–behavioral cluster reported higher levels of accul-
turative stress than those in the marginalized–behavior cluster
in Step 3. Although it is possible that these findings reflect
population-level phenomena and suggest that theory revision is
perhaps needed, it is also possible that these findings represent
sample specific characteristics or associated measurement artifacts
such as the way in which generational status was operationalized
(i.e., asking people to determine their generational status based on
a list of descriptors).
One finding worthy of mention is that participants who used the
separated acculturation strategy in behavioral and values domains
reported poorer mental health, more acculturative stress, and less
positive attitudes toward seeking psychological help, a finding
consistent with prior acculturation research (e.g., Kim & Omizo,
2003; Yeh, 2003). We are hesitant to interpret this finding as
evidence for the problematic nature of the separation strategy—
that this strategy is inherently flawed and should therefore be
avoided. Rather we suggest that this finding might reflect the
socio-cultural-political experiences of living in the U.S.; that is,
Asian Americans who use separated acculturation strategies might
experience greater stress (and ultimately poorer mental health) at
least in part due to the experiences of living in a cultural context
that is in many ways very different from their culture of origin
(Miller, Kim, et al., 2011) and in a society that might be experi-
enced as less accepting of cultural diverse individuals (Berry,
2003).
Although the primary intent was to test the domain-specific
acculturation strategy hypothesis, our findings also provide further
support for Berry’s (1979, 2003) acculturation theory. However,
we would like to highlight and clarify what we and others (e.g.,
Schwartz et al., 2010) think are a few important issues regarding
Berry’s theory and its interpretation and application to Asian
American populations. First, it is important to consider that it is
unlikely that a rigid distinction or compartmentalization between
strategies exists in the real world; it is likely that the acculturation
process is more dynamic and nuanced—an issue acknowledged by
Berry and Sam (2003). Second, it is likely that the four accultur-
ation strategies merely reflect a propensity to engage in a particular
pattern of cultural engagement that may differ across setting,
context, or time. For example, acculturation is a dynamic process
in which an individual’s pattern of cultural engagement (e.g.,
acculturation strategies) might change over time (e.g., Berry,
2006a; Berry, 2006b; Ho, 1995; Tsai, Ying, & Lee, 2000; Ying,
1995). Thus, a recent immigrant might engage initially in the
9
DOMAIN SPECIFIC ACCULTURATION
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
separated strategy but over time might use the bicultural strategy
(Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006a).
Third, it is likely that assimilated, separated, and marginalized
acculturation strategies do not represent an actual zero point (com-
plete absence) of cultural engagement (Berry, 2003). For example,
although participants in our study were assigned to, for example,
the assimilated–behavioral cluster, it did not mean that they did
not engage in the behaviors of their culture of origin; these indi-
viduals simply exhibited a propensity to engage in the behaviors of
the second culture. In fact, present findings revealed that partici-
pants in each of the four acculturation strategies exhibited some
degree of engagement in behavioral and values acculturation and
enculturation—there was not one case in which a participant
reported a complete lack of behavioral or values cultural engage-
ment. Therefore, it might be helpful to conceptualize the differ-
ences between acculturation strategies in terms of above or below
average rather than a complete absence. In fact, Berry’s accultur-
ation theory simply indicates higher (⫹) and lower (⫺) levels of
cultural engagement and does not actually provide a zero point of
cultural engagement. This might be most meaningful for the mar-
ginalized strategy, which is perhaps incorrectly conceptualized as
a lack of engagement in either of the two cultures (cf. Tadmor,
Tetlock, & Peng, 2009). However, present findings highlight the
fact that individuals who use the marginalized strategy still engage
in both cultures but do so to a lesser degree than individuals who
espouse a different strategy. Although individuals who use mar-
ginalized and bicultural strategies differ in the degree to which
they engage in both cultures, they are similar in that they both have
a relatively equal preference for both cultures (Tadmor et al.,
2009). It might therefore be possible to conceptualize marginalized
and bicultural strategies at opposite ends of the same continuum.
The present study is not without its limitations. First, we rec-
ognize the vast diversity within the Asian American population
and across Asian ethnic groups. Therefore, we acknowledge that a
major study limitation relates to our samples. For example, the use
of college student participants limits the generalizability of present
findings across other Asian American populations including adults
and elders in the community. Additionally, although a number of
Asian subgroups were represented in the study, the predominance
of East Asian individuals may limit the generalizability of the
findings across other Asian subgroups, as vast within-group vari-
ation exists in the Asian population. Another methodological lim-
itation is that data used in this study were obtained from cross-
sectional research designs and therefore did not allow us to
examine the dynamic nature of acculturation over time. Clearly,
there is a need for longitudinal research that examines accultura-
tion processes over time. Finally, the lower internal consistency
estimate for EAVS–R scores and potential confounds associated
with the measurement of Asian or American values (cf. Okazaki,
Lee, & Sue, 2007) represent potential limitations that might limit
confidence in study findings. Future research could address this
specifically by testing whether the domain-specific acculturation
hypothesis is supported when different acculturation measure-
ments or assessment approaches are used or when tested in later-
generation (e.g., 4th) populations.
In addition, future research might examine more nuanced (e.g.,
differentiating between language and ethnic affiliation) accultura-
tion domains (see Arends-Tóth & van de Vijver, 2006; Kim &
Abreu, 2001; Tsai et al., 2000) and other domains such as ethnic
identification. Finally, future research could examine person (e.g.,
social class; Liu et al., 2004) or contextual factors (e.g., geographic
location and context and preimmigration factors; Ying & Han,
2008) that might impact the acculturation strategies used by dif-
ferent Asian ethnic groups and subpopulations. For example, be-
cause of the varying circumstances regarding immigration to the
U.S., we recognize that the issue of choice in acculturation strategy
selection likely varies as a function of intrapersonal, interpersonal,
and contextual factors such as geographic location and demo-
graphic characteristics of communities (Berry et al., 1987). We
hope future research would investigate factors that facilitate or
hinder acculturation strategy choice and how choice might mod-
erate acculturation processes. Finally, future research might exam-
ine alternative approaches to conceptualizing and measuring gen-
erational status. For example, researchers might reconceptualize
one’s generation as an identity rather than a status. Measuring
generational identity could provide researchers an index of the
degree to which an individual indentifies as an immigrant or the
salience of her is his generational status. Such nuanced information
might help further our understanding of how generational status
experiences relate to acculturation and enculturation processes.
References
Aldenderfer, M. S., & Blashfield, R. K. (1984). Cluster analysis. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Arends-T´
oth, J., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2006). Assessment of psycho-
logical acculturation. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge
handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 142–162). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Benet-Martínez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural identity integration
(BII): Components and psychological antecedents. Journal of Person-
ality, 73, 1015–1050.
Berry, J. W. (1979). Research in multicultural societies: Implications of
cross-cultural methods. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 10, 415–
434.
Berry, J. W. (2003). Conceptual approaches to acculturation. In K. M.
Chun, P. B. Organista, & G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in
theory, measurement, and applied research (pp. 17–37). American Psy-
chological Association. Washington, DC.
Berry, J. W. (2006a). Contexts of acculturation. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry
(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 27–
42). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Berry, J. W. (2006b). Design of acculturation studies. In D. L. Sam & J. W.
Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp.
129–141). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Berry, J. W., Kim., U., Minde, T., & Mok, D. (1987). Comparative studies
of acculturative stress. International Migration Review, 21, 491–511.
Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006a). Immigrant
youth: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 55, 303–332.
Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006b). Immigrant
youth in cultural transition: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation
across national contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Berry, J. W., & Sam, D. L. (2003). Accuracy in scientific discourse.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 44, 65–68.
Chang, T., Tracey, T. J. G., & Moore, T. L. (2005). The dimensional
structure of Asian American acculturation: An examination of proto-
types. Self and Identity, 4, 25–43.
Chen, G. A., LePhuoc, P., Guzman, M. R., Rude, S. S., & Dodd, B. G.
(2006). Exploring Asian American racial identity. Cultural Diversity &
Ethnic Minority Psychology, 3, 461–476.
10 MILLER ET AL.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Chen, S. X., Benet-Martínez, V., & Bond, M. H. (2008). Bicultural
identity, bilingualism, and psychological adjustment in multicultural
societies: Immigration-based and globalization-based acculturation.
Journal of Personality, 76, 803–838.
Cuellar, 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, 245–304.
David, E. J. 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.
Fischer, E. H., & Farina, A. (1995). Attitudes toward seeking professional
psychological help: A shortened form and considerations for research.
Journal of College Student Development, 36, 368.
Hair, J. F., & Black, W. C. (2000). Cluster analysis. In L. G. Grimm &
P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding more multivariate
statistics (pp. 147–206). Washington, DC: American Psychological As-
sociation.
Ho, E. S. (1995). Chinese or New Zealander? Differential paths of adap-
tation of Hong Kong Chinese adolescent immigrants in New Zealand.
New Zealand Population Review, 21, 27–49.
Hong, J. S., Huang, H., Sabri, B., & Kim, J. S. (2011). Substance abuse
among Asian American youth: An ecological review of the literature.
Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 669–677.
Hong, S., Kim, B., & Wolfe, M. (2005). 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.
Hong, Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2000). Multi-
cultural minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cog-
nition. American Psychologist, 55, 709–720.
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 students’ psychological well-being. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 57, 79–91.
Kim, B. S. K. (2007). Acculturation and enculturation. In F. T. L. Leong,
A. G. Inman, A. Ebreo, L. H. Yang, L. Kinoshita, & M. Fu (Eds.),
Handbook of Asian American psychology (2nd ed., pp. 141–158). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kim, B. S. K., & Abreu, J. M. (2001). Acculturation measurement: Theory,
current instruments, and future directions. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M.
Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicul-
tural counseling (2nd ed., pp. 394–424). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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.
Kim, B., & Hong, S. (2004). A psychometric revision of the Asian Values
Scale using the Rasch model. Measurement and Evaluation in Counsel-
ing and Development, 37, 15–27.
Kim, B. S. K., & Omizo, M. M. (2003). Asian cultural values, attitudes
toward seeking professional psychological help, and willingness to see a
counselor. Counseling Psychologist, 31, 343–361. doi:10.1177/
0011000003031003008
Kim, B. S. K., & Omizo, M. M. (2006). Behavioral acculturation and
enculturation and psychological functioning among Asian American
college students. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12,
245–258.
Kumar, A., & Nevid, J. S. (2010). Acculturation, enculturation, and per-
ceptions of mental disorders in Asian Indian immigrants. Cultural Di-
versity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 274–283.
LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H. L. K., & Gerton, J. (1993). The psycholog-
ical impact of biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulle-
tin, 114, 395–412.
Lau, A. S., Jernewall, N. M., Zane, N., & Myers, H. F. (2002). Correlates
of suicidal behaviors among Asian American outpatient youths. Cultural
Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8, 199–213.
Lee, R. M., Choe, J., Kim, G., & Ngo, V. (2000). Construction of the Asian
American family conflicts scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47,
211–222.
Lee, R. M., Yoon, E., & Liu-Tom, H. T. (2006). Structure and measure-
ment of acculturation/enculturation for Asian Americans using the
ARSMA–II. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Develop-
ment, 39, 42–55.
Liang, J., Wu, S. C., Krause, N. M., Chiang, T. L., & Wu, H. Y. (1992).
The structure of the Mental Health Inventory among Chinese in Taiwan.
Medical Care, 30, 659–767.
Liao, H., 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.
Liu, W. M., Ali, S. R., Soleck, G., Hopps, J., Dunston, K., & Pickett, T.
(2004). Using social class in counseling psychology research. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 51, 3–18.
Miller, M. J. (2007). A bilinear multidimensional measurement model of
Asian American acculturation and enculturation: Implications for coun-
seling 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 accul-
turation and enculturation across generational status. Journal of Coun-
seling Psychology, 57, 179–186. doi:10.1037/a0019089
Miller, M. J., Kim, J., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2011). Validating the Riv-
erside Acculturation Stress Index with Asian Americans. Psychological
Assessment, 23, 300–310.
Miller, M. J., & Lim, R. H. (2010). The importance of acculturation and
cultural values in counseling Asian American men. In W. Liu, M. H.
Chae, & D. Iwamoto (Eds.), Culturally responsive counseling with Asian
American men (pp. 39–62). New York, NY: Routledge.
Miller, M. J., Yang, M., Farrell, J. A., & Lin, L. (2011). Racial and cultural
factors impacting the mental health of Asian Americans. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 81, 489–497.
Miller, M. J., Yang, M., Hui, K., Choi, N., & Lim, R. H. (2011). Accul-
turation, enculturation, and Asian American college students’ mental
health and attitudes toward seeking professional psychological help.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 346–358.
Okazaki, S., Lee, R. M., & Sue, S. (2007). Theoretical and conceptual
models: Toward Asian American psychology. In F. T. L. Leong, A. G.
Inman, A. Ebreo, L. Yang, L. Kinoshita, & M. Fu (Eds.), Handbook of
Asian American psychology (2nd ed., pp. 29–46). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
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 & Ethnic Minority Psy-
chology, 14, 47–56.
Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. J. (1936). Memorandum for the
study of acculturation. American Anthropologist, 38, 149–152.
Rodriguez, N., Myers, H. F., Bingham Mira, C., Flores, T., & Garcia-
Hernandez, L. (2002). Development of the Multidimensional Accultura-
tive Stress Inventory for adults of Mexican origin. Psychological As-
sessment, 4, 451–461.
Ruzek, N. A., Nguyen, D. Q., & Herzog, D. C. (2011). Acculturation,
enculturation, psychological distress and help-seeking preferences
among Asian American college students. Asian American Journal of
Psychology, 2, 181–196.
Ryder, A. G., Alden, L. E., & Paulhus, D. L. (2000). Is acculturation
unidimensional or bidimensional? A head-to-head comparison in the
prediction of personality, self-identity, and adjustment. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 79, 49–65.
11
DOMAIN SPECIFIC ACCULTURATION
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Schwartz, S. J., Unger, J. B., Zamboanga, B. L., & Szapocznik, J. (2010).
Rethinking the concept of acculturation: Implications for theory and
research. American Psychologist, 65, 237–251.
Schwartz, S. J., & Zamboanga, B. L. (2008). Testing Berry’s model of
acculturation: A confirmatory latent class approach. Cultural Diversity
& Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14, 275–285. doi:10.1037/a0012818
Schwartz, S., Zamboanga, B., & Jarvis, L. H. (2007). Ethnic identity and
acculturation in Hispanic early adolescents: Mediated relationships to
academic grades, prosocial behavior, and externalizing symptoms. Cul-
tural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13, 364–373.
Segall, M. H., Dasen, P. R., Berry, J. W., & Poortinga, Y. H. (1999).
Human behavior in global perspective: An introduction to cross-cultural
psychology (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and
quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. New York,
NY: Houghton Mifflin.
Suinn, R. M. (2010). Reviewing acculturation and Asian Americans: How
acculturation affects health, adjustment, school achievement, and coun-
seling. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 1, 5–17.
Tadmor, C. T., Tetlock, P. E., & Peng, K. (2009). Acculturation strategies
and integrative complexity: The cognitive implications of biculturalism.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40, 105–139.
Tsai, J. L., Ying, Y., & Lee, P. A. (2000). The meaning of “being Chinese”
and “being Amerian”: Variation among Chinese American young adults.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 302–332.
Veit, C. T., & Ware, J. E. (1983). The structure of psychological distress
and well-being in general populations. Journal of Consulting and Clin-
ical Psychology, 51, 730–742. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.51.5.730
Williams, C. L., & Berry, J. W. (1991). Primary prevention of acculturative
stress among refugees: Application of psychological theory and practice.
American Psychologist, 46, 632–641.
Wolfe, M. M., Yang, P. H., Wong, E. C., & Atkinson, D. R. (2001). Design
and development of the European American Values Scale for Asian
Americans. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 7, 274–
283.
Yeh, C. J. (2003). Age, acculturation, cultural adjustment, and mental
health symptoms of Chinese, Korean, and Japanese immigrant youth.
Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9, 34–48.
Ying, Y. (1995). Cultural orientation and psychological well-being in
Chinese Americans. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23,
893–911.
Ying, Y., & Han, M. (2008). Cultural orientation in Southeast Asian
American young adults. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychol-
ogy, 14, 29–37.
Yoon, E., Langrehr, K., & Ong, L. A. (2011). Content analysis of accul-
turation research in counseling and counseling psychology: A 22-year
review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 83–96.
Zhang, N., & Dixon, D. (2003). Acculturation and attitudes of Asian
international students toward seeking psychological help. Journal of
Multicultural Counseling and Development, 31, 205–222.
E-Mail Notification of Your Latest Issue Online!
Would you like to know when the next issue of your favorite APA journal will be available
online? This service is now available to you. Sign up at http://notify.apa.org/ and you will be
notified by e-mail when issues of interest to you become available!
12 MILLER ET AL.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.