Ethnic Identity and Psych Well Being

7/25/2019 Ethnic Identity and Psych Well Being

1/149

INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript h as been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films

the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, s om e thesis and

dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of

computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

co py su bm itted . Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations

and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper

alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript

and there are missing pages, thes e will be noted. Also, if unauthorized

copyright material h ad to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing

from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6 x 9 black and white

photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing

in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

ProQ uest Information and Learning300 North Ze eb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA

800-521-0600

produced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.


2/149



3/149

IMPACT OF ETHNIC IDENTITY

ON PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING

AMONG KOREAN AMERICANS IN THE UNITED STATES

By

Shinyoung Lee

A Dissertation

Submitted to the State University of New York at Albany

in Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor o f Philosophy

School of Social Welfare

Social Welfare

2001

produced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.


4/149

UMI Number: 3039717

___

UMIUMI Microform 3039717

Copyright 2002 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company300 North Zeeb Road

P.O. Box 1346Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346



5/149

ABSTRACT

Impact of Ethnic Identity on Psychological Well-Being

among Korean Americans in the United States

Shinyoung Lee

The purposes of the study are (1) to identity the overall level o f ethnic identity

and psychological well-being; (2) to explore the differences in ethnic identity,

acculturation, self-esteem, and depression across the background variables; (3) to explore

the relationship among ethnic identity, acculturation, and psychological well-being;

finally, (4) to find predictors o f self-esteem and depression.

The quantitative methodology using a questionnaire package was adopted. The

partic ipants were 217 Korean American adults living in the Albany, New York area and

New York City. The measurements used were Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measurement,

Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II, Rosenberg Self-esteem scale, and

Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale.

The findings are as follows:

1. Females had stronger ethnic identity than males. Frequency o f Korean church

attendance was significantly related to ethnic identity.

2. The second generation was far more likely to fall into the Integration and

Assimilation modes than the first generation. Length of residence and the

frequency of Korean church attendance were significantly related to acculturation

modes.

3. Ethnic identity was positively related to self-esteem ad negatively related to

depression.

ii

produced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited withou t permission.


6/149

4. The variables at the final step of the regression equation accounted for 29% of

variance for self-esteem. Education, visits to Korea, length of residence,

Integration, Assimilation, and ethnic identity were significant predictors o f self

esteem. Ethnic identity had the strongest effect on self-esteem.

5. The variables at the final step o f the regression equation accounted for 16% of

variance for depression. Perceived discrimination and ethnic identity were

significant predictors o f depression.

The findings can be applied to multicultural social work practice. Further insight

into ethnic identity and mental health issues will promote the development o f prevention

and intervention programs to strengthen mental health among culturally diverse clients,

especially Korean Americans. The social policies should focus on not only the

preservation of ethnic culture, but also helping immigrants adopt the mainstream culture.

Moreover, the provision for higher education for culturally diverse groups and programs

to lessen racial discrimination will enable better psychological well-being.

iii

produced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited witho ut permission.


7/149

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract....................................................................................................................................... ii

Table o f contents....................................................................................................................... iv

List o f tables.............................................................................................................................

viiList o f figures.......................................................................................................................... viii

Acknowledgements................................................................................................................... ix

I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1

Statement o f problems ................................................................................................... 1

Purpose of the study ...................................................................................................... 4

Significance of the study............................................................................................... 5

H. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................... 7

Theoretical framework of ethnic identity.................................................................... 7

Definition........................................................................................................... 7

Conceptual frameworks for the study of ethnic identity............................. 10

Ethnic identification among diverse groups................................................. 18

Factors associated with ethnic identity...................................................................... 19

Relationship between ethnic identity and psychological well-being ......................27

Profile of Korean Americans...................................................................................... 32

Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics........................................ 32

Ethnic identification among Korean Americans.......................................... 35

Mental health status........................................................................................ 37

ffl. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES............................................... 41

IV. METHOD......................................................................................................................... 45

Research design........................................................................................................ 45

Sample....................................................................................................................... 45

Data collection.......................................................................................................... 46iv



8/149

Human subjects concerns and ethics.........................................................................48

Measurements.............................................................................................................49

Data analysis plan.......................................................................................................54

V. RESULTS.........................................................................................................................

56Reliability of the measures........................................................................................56

Demographic characteristics of the participants......................................................61

Comparison of characteristics between the first and second generation...............65

Interrelationships among the demographics............................................................ 68

Ethnic identity, acculturation, self-esteem, depression according to background

variables.....................................................................................................................70

Ethnic identity................................................................................................ 70

Acculturation...................................................................................................74

Self-esteem......................................................................................................78

Depression.......................................................................................................79

Relationship between ethnic identity and psychological well-being.....................82

Relationship between acculturation modes and psychological well-being............84

Relationship among ethnic identity, acculturation, and psychological well-being

based on multiple regression analyses......................................................................87

VI. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS........................................................................92

Factors related to ethnic identity............................................................................... 92

Factors related to acculturation................................................................................. 95

Relationship among ethnic identity, acculturation, and self-esteem...................... 97

Relationship among ethnic identity, acculturation, and depression.......................99

Limitations................................................................................................................ 103

Implications for social work....................................................................................104

Direct social work practice.........................................................................

104Policy............................................................................................................ 106

Research........................................................................................................107

Conclusion................................................................................................................108v



9/149

REFERENCES...................................................................................................................... 110

APPENDICES

Appendix A: English Version o f the Questionnaire...............................................121

Appendix B: Korean Version of the Questionnaire............................................... 129

Appendix C: Questionnaire Administration Instructions......................................

137

vi



10/149

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1: Terms used for four organizations......................................................................... 13

Table 2: Ethnic/racial identity development models ........................................................... 15

Table 3: Summary of variables and measurements............................................................. 53

Table 4: Internal consistency reliability coefficients of the measures................................57

Table 5: Factor loadings by American Orientation Subscale items.................................... 59

Table 6: Factor loadings by Korean Orientation Subscale items........................................ 60

Tab le 7: Demographic characteristics of participants.......................................................... 63

Table 8: Comparison of characteristics between first and second generation................... 66

Table 9: T-test by generation.................................................................................................. 67

Table 10: Pearson correlations of key demographic characteristics.................................. 69

Table 11: ANOVA of ethnic identity and generation.........................................................

72

Table 12: ANOVA of ethnic identity and gender................................................................ 72

Table 13: Pearson correlations between ethnic identity and continuous demographic

variables.................................................................................................................. 73

Table 14: Criteria and frequency of acculturation modes.................................................. 74

Table 15: Acculturation modes by generation ..................................................................... 76

Table 16: Acculturation modes by gender............................................................................ 76

Table 17: ANOVA among acculturation modes and continuous demographic variables.77

Table 18: ANOVA among generation, gender, self-esteem, and depression.....................80

Table 19: Pearson correlation among continuous variables, self-esteem,

and depression......................................................................................................... 80

Table 20: Summary of correlations among variables.......................................................... 81

Table 21: Pearson correlation among ethnic identity, self-esteem, and depression ......... 83

Table 22: Pearson correlation between ethnic identity and psychological well-being

according to generation and gender...................................................................... 84

Table 23: ANOVA among acculturation modes, ethnic identity, self-esteem,

and depression........................................................................................................ 86

Table 24: Hierarchical multiple regression of self-esteem ................................................. 90

Table 25: Hierarchical multiple regression of depression................................................... 91vii

produced with permission of the copyright owner. Furthe r reproduction prohibited without permission.


11/149

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1: General conceptual model...................................................................................... 41

Figure 2: Relationship between ethnic identity and acculturation ...................................... 42



12/149

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge Anne Fortune, the chairperson in the doctoral

committee. I developed the dissertation topic through independent studies with her. She

guided me in narrowing down the topic. During each stage o f the dissertation, she gave

me direction regarding the literature review, methodology, and analysis through

reviewing the draft and providing valuable comments. I also thank the committee

members, Blanca Ramos and Vivian Ng. They encouraged me a great deal and helped to

clarify and enrich the contents by providing different points o f view.

I would also like to thank all the Korean Americans who participated in the

survey. Without their participation, this dissertation could not have been written. In

particular, I appreciate many supporters including the pastors in Korean churches, church

members, friends, and Korean students in the school of social welfare. They were always

willing to help me in data collection and review of the Korean version o f the

questionnaire.

I wish to acknowledge the love from my family and friends living in Korea. Even

though they are far away from me, they pray for me, encourage me, and support me. I

dedicate this dissertation to the memory o f my mother who passed away last year and

who was eager for me to complete my doctoral study in the United States.

ix



13/149

I. INTRODUCTION

Statement of problems

As the U.S. society becomes pluralized, an interest in ethnic identity is increasing

in research. Ethnic identity refers both to the sense o f belonging to an ethnic group and

the part o f a persons thinking, perception, feelings, and behavior that is related to ethnic

group membership (Phinney & Rosenthal, 1992).

There are large individual differences in the degree to which aspects o f ethnic

identity are adopted. Some individuals will strongly identify with many aspects o f the

majority culture; some will only acknowledge their group; some will deny it. Since ethnic

groups differ in their history, cultural background, and current situation, ethnic identity is

predicted to vary with ethnicity. The minority group members showed greater ethnic

identity than whites (Martinez & Dukes, 1997). In addition, Asian Americans showed

lower ethnic identity scores than African and Hispanic Americans (Phinney & Alipuria,

1990).

The level of ethnic identify varies according to factors such as age, gender,

income, education, language ability, church involvement, length of residence and so

forth. These factors are important to better understand the nature o f ethnic identify.

However, there is little research examining all o f these factors. Researchers focused on

one or two variables, such as parenting behavior (Rosenthal & Feldman, 1992b), religion

(Bankston & Zhou, 1995), gender (Martinez & Dukes, 1997), age and gender (Rotheram-

Borus & Lighthoot, 1998), school environment (Lysne & Levy, 1997), and generation

(Portes & MacLeod, 1996).

l



14/149

There is a fair ly large body o f research regarding gender and generational

differences. Wooden, Leon, and Toshima (1988) found that there was no difference in

ethnic identity between boys and girls. However, Lysne and Levy (1997) found that

females identified more with their ethnic group than males. Nesdale & Rooney (1997)

and Rotheram-Borus & Lightfoot (1998) reported the opposite outcome that males had

stronger ethnic identity than females. With regard to generational difference, two studies

showed that the first generation immigrants had stronger ethnic identity than the second

generation (Rosenthal & Feldman, 1992a; Liebkind, 1993). However, Wooden et al.

(1988) found no difference in ethnic identity between generations. In addition, there are

differences in ethnic identity among the second generations depending on length o f stay

in the new culture, parenting styles, school environment, nativity, and so on. Therefore,

the significant factors influencing ethnic identity remain to be specified and assessed.

Research on the impact o f ethnic identity demonstrated that ethnic identity was

related to a sense o f belonging on campus (Lee & Davis, 2000), vocational behavior

(Leong & Chou, 1994), school grades (Phinney, 1992), substance abuse (Moran &

Fleming, 1999), and friendship preference (Ting-Toomey, 1981). More research has

reported the relationship between ethnic identity and self-esteem. Greater ethnic identity

is related to higher self-esteem (Carson, Uppal, &Prosser, 2000; Lemon & Waehler,

1996; Matinez & Dukes,1997; Phinney & Chavira, 1993; Park-Adams, 1997). In

addition, higher self-esteem is associated with a proactive coping style against

discrimination (Phinney & Chavira, 1995), and higher grades in school (Phinney, Cantu,

& Kurtz, 1997).

2



15/149

Other research revealed that ethnic identity provided immigrants with personal

and external resources that enabled them to cope with acculturative stress, and thus

minimized psychological distress (Nesdale & Rooney, 1997). Liebkind (1996) found that

strong ethnic identity was significantly related to less anxiety and depression in

Vietnamese refugees and their children in Finland. Nesdale and Rooney (1997) found

that ethnic identity provided an individual with inner resources for handling prejudice and

discrimination. Chavira and Phinney (1991) reported that Hispanic adolescents with a

strong sense o f ethnic identity used more active strategies for dealing with discrimination

than adolescents with a weaker ethnic identity.

On the other hand, several researchers have investigated psychological well-being

based on both the level o f ethnic identity and acculturation. Integration (strong ethnic

identity and strong acculturation) and assimilation (weak ethnic identity and strong

acculturation) modes were correlated with a higher level o f psychological adjustment

than the separation (strong ethnic identity and weak acculturation) and marginalization

(weak ethnic identity and weak acculturation) modes (Nguyen, Messe, & Stollak, 1999;

Sanchez & Fernandez, 1993).

The Asian American group includes several diverse ethnic subgroups. Korean

Americans, who come to the United States as voluntary immigrants, are one o f the most

rapidly increasing immigrant groups in the United States (Min, 1995). As they realize the

differences in physical appearance, language, and cultural values, they struggle to define

themselves as well as to adjust to a new environment. Korean immigrants appear to have

a higher level o f depressive symptomatology. Hurh and Kim (1990) and Choi (1997)

found that Korean immigrants showed greater depression than other Asian American

3



16/149

groups. Korean college students also tend to have more depression than white students

(Aldwin & Greenberger, 1987; Greenberger & Chen, 1996; Okazaki, 1997).

Regarding ethnic identification, Moon (1998) found that adult Korean Americans

regarded their identity as Koreans as more important than that of Korean Americans,

while Hong and Min (1999) found that the majority of the second generation chose to

self-identity as Korean Americans. As Korean immigrants were immersed in Korean

culture prior to their migration, the older generation was likely to have stronger ethnic

identity than the younger generation (Kim & Kim, 1998; Min, 1995). However, Lee

(1995) found that the younger generation had stronger Korean cultural identification than

the older generation.

There were also different findings about the impact of ethnic identity on

psychological well-being among Korean Americans. Park-Adams (1997) found that

ethnic identity was significantly related to the psychological adjustment among Korean

American college students. In Shrake's study (1996), the ethnic identity level of Korean

American adolescents had an inverse relationships with problem behaviors. However,

Kim and Pew's study (1994) demonstrated that ethnic identity was not related to quality

of life and depression among Korean American women.

Purpose of the study

The purpose of this study are to examine the impact of ethnic identity on

psychological well-being among Korean Americans. Specifically, the study will (1)

identify the overall level o f ethnic identify, acculturation, and psychological well-being;

(2) explore the differences in ethnic identify, acculturation, self-esteem, and depression

4



17/149

across the background variables (e.g, generation, gender, income, education); (3)

discover certain significant factors that influence ethnic identity, acculturation, self

esteem, and depression; (4) explore the relationship among ethnic identity, acculturation,

self-esteem, and depression; finally (5) find predictors that account for self-esteem and

depression.

Significance of the study

Previous research reported differences in ethnic identity depending on age,

gender, marital status, geographical region, income, education, religious involvement,

length of residence, language ability, and so forth. The majority of research has used

nonprobability sampling methods, which have limitations for generalization. This

suggests further study to better understand the nature o f ethnic identity. Therefore, this

study is necessary in order to better understand the relationship among ethnic identity,

acculturation, and psychological well-being among diverse cultural groups, particularly

Korean Americans.

Strong ethnic identity does not necessarily imply a weak relationship or low

involvement with the mainstream culture. There are four possible relationships between

ethnic identity and acculturation. More studies using a two-dimensional model are needed

to examine the relationship between ethnic identity and acculturation. Furthermore,

research reports that bicultural identity is related to the best mental health. This research

is necessary to determine whether Korean Americans show the same results as other

ethnic groups.

5

produced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited witho ut permission.


18/149

Research shows that Korean Americans experience higher levels o f depression

than other Asian groups. Despite the rapid increase in the number of Korean Americans,

research on their mental health is still in the exploratory stage. Furthermore, there is little

research about the impact of ethnic identity on psychological well-being among Korean

Americans. The lack of empirical studies on Korean Americans raises the need for more

research. Therefore, this study will provide valuable information in order to better

understand mental health among Korean Americans.

As the social work profession is challenged to gain a better understanding o f

diversity, social workers will be required to be more culturally sensitive and competent.

When clinical social workers encounter culturally diverse clients, this research will help

them to work more effectively. If strong identification with the clients' own ethnic group

brings about good mental health, interventions should include enhancing ethnic identity.

Further insight into ethnic identity and mental health issues among Korean Americans

will provide social workers a direction for engagement, multicultural assessment, and

effective intervention strategies, thus increasing mental health service utilization. It will

also help policy makers expand mental health services and policies.

6



19/149

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

Theoretical framework of ethnic identity

A. Definition

According to the social work dictionary, ethnicity is defined as "an orientation

toward the shared national origin, religion, race, or language o f a people"(Barker, 1999,

p. 160). However, ethnic identity is not defined in the dictionary.

According to Phinney and Kohatsu (1997), ethnic identity has been examined

primarily among European immigrants and extended to Hispanics, Asians, and more

recently, African Americans. Helms (1994) regards ethnic identity as ones attachment to,

sense o f belonging to, and identification with ones ethnic group members. Rogler,

Cooney, and Ortiz (1980) consider the concept o f ethnic identity in terms o f language

use, ability in affiliation with particular cultural values, and attitudinal preference for the

given culture. According to Rotheram and Phinney (1986), ethnic identity refers to the

individuals acquisition of group patterns, including ones sense of belonging to an ethnic

group, the part of ones thinking, perceptions, feelings, and behaviors toward an ethnic

group.

Other scholars break down ethnic identity into its various dimensions or

components in order to understand the concept of it more clearly. These components

serve as the basis o f a measure for ethnic identity. According to Isajiw (1990), ethnic

identity consists of internal and external ethnic identity. Internal ethnic identity includes

cognitive, moral, affective or cathetic dimensions, whereas external ethnic identity refers

to language usage, ethnic-group friendship, participation in ethnic-group activities, ethnic

media preference, and maintenance of ethnic traditions. Sue, Mak, and Sue (1998)

7



20/149

discuss affective, cognitive, and behavioral components of ethnic identity. O n the other

hand, Phinney (1998) regards components o f ethnic identity as self-identification, sense

of belonging, positive and negative attitudes towards one's ethnic group, and ethnic

involvement.

The cognitive dimension includes self-image, knowledge o f the ethnic group's

heritage and history, and interest in ones group/cultural awareness or ethnic

consciousness. The affective dimension includes sense of belonging, and positive and

negative attitudes toward one's ethnic group. Positive attitudes include pride in,

satisfaction, and contentment with ones own group. Acceptance refers to positive

attitudes. Negative attitudes can be seen as a denial o f ones ethnic group, including

displeasure, dissatisfaction, discontentment with ones ethnicity, feelings o f inferiority, or

a desire to hide ones cultural identity. In the studies with African American subjects, the

negative attitudes are phrased both as denial o f "Blackness" and as preference for white

culture (Phinney, 1989).

The moral dimension includes obligation to their ethnic groups, such as a strong

sense o f duty to the family, protection o f honor and face of the family, and marriage

within the ethnic group. The behavioral dimension is the most widely used indicator of

ethnic identity. It includes ethnic language usage, ethnic-group friendship, and

participation in ethnic-group activities, ethnic media preference, and maintenance o f

ethnic traditions (e.g., ethnic foods, celebration of ethnic holidays, customs, and religious

practices). Strong identification with a particular culture is related to an increase in

culture-linked behaviors or activities. The research found that Chinese Americans and

8



21/149

Chinese Australians, who identified themselves as Chinese, participated in the most

ethnic practices and preferred in-group friendships (Rosenthal & Feldman, 1992a).

Phinney (1998) reported that about two-thirds of seventy studies o f ethnic identity

in journals since 1972 did not provide a clear definition o f ethnic identity. Moran and

Fleming (1999) also discussed that little empirical work has been carried out regarding

the operationalization o f ethnic identity in general. On the other hand, Helms (1994)

distinguishes racial identity from ethnic identity. That is, racial identity is based on a

sociopolitical model o f oppression and is concerned with how individuals develop

respectful attitudes toward their racial group. However, ethnic identity does not have a

theoretical emphasis on oppression/racism, but may include the prejudices and cultural

pressures that ethnic individuals experience conflicts with those of the dominant group.

However, Resnicow, Soler, Braithwaite, Selassie, and Smith (1999) explained that

distinctions between racial and ethnic identity were not universally accepted in theory or

applied in practice.

In summary, ethnic identity has multiple aspects including a sense o f belonging

and commitment, positive and negative attitudes toward one's ethnic group, interest in

and knowledge about one's group, cultural awareness or ethnic consciousness, and

participation in cultural activities. Differences in understanding o f ethnic identity are

related to the diversity in how researchers have conceptualized it and in the questions

they have sought to answer. Therefore, there is a need for empirical work to clarify

concept o f ethnic identity. Even though race and ethnicity are not synonymous, the terms

racial and ethnic identity have been used interchangeably in the research o f ethnic

identity. Sue and Sue (1990) proposed a racial/cultural identity development model to

9



22/149

emphasize the impact of minority and racist experiences on the identity of ethnic

minorities. Cross (1991) and Helms (1990) call their model a racial identity development

model. Resnicow and colleagues (1999) choose the aggregate term, racial/ethnic identity.

In the present study, the term ethnic identity was chose because ethnic identity seems to

be a broader concept including racial classification and cultural factors.

B. Conceptual frameworks for the study of ethnic identity

This part will be discussed in three distinctive frameworks for studying ethnic identity.

I. Social identity theory

Lewin (1948, cited in Phinney, 1998) asserted that individuals need a strong sense

o f group identification in order to maintain a sense of well-being. This idea was

developed in the social identity theory by Tajfel and Turner. According to Tajfel and

Turner (1986), the social identity theory posits that there is an underlying need to

maintain self-esteem and this need is linked to group identity. Group members

differentiate their own group from other groups and evaluate their own group more

favorably to enhance the self-concept. If their group is viewed negatively by society, they

may view themselves negatively. On the basis of social identity theory, ethnic identity

would include attitudes towards an ethnic group and a sense o f belonging to their own

group (Roberts & Phinney, 1999).

An implication of the theory is that a favorable view of the personal group would

be associated with higher self-esteem and an unfavorable view, lower social status, or

negative stereotypes would be associated with lower self-esteem. However, this

assumption is controversial. In Grossman, Wirt, and Davids' study (1985), Anglo

10



23/149

adolescents scored higher on self-esteem than Chicanos. Martinez and Dukes (1997)

found that self-esteem scores o f Latino adolescents are equal to Blacks or higher than

White and Asian adolescents. Phinney, Cantu, and Kurtz (1997) found that African

Americans scored higher in self-esteem than Latino and White adolescents. These

empirical findings demonstrate that there are other factors influencing self-esteem rather

than group membership per se. Phinney (1993) demonstrated that a positive sense of

belonging to one's group enhanced self-esteem, while negative attitudes reduced it.

2. Acculturation framework

Acculturation refers to "the process of conditioning an individual or group to the

social patterns, behavior, values, and mores of others"(Barker, 1999, p.3). Acculturation

focuses on how minority or immigrant groups relate to the dominant o r host society,

whereas ethnic identity focuses on how they relate to their own ethnic groups as

subgroups o f the larger society (Phinney, 1998). Furthermore, ethnic identity reflects the

degree o f identification members of an ethnic group have toward their ethnic group,

while acculturation emphasizes the extent of attitude they have toward a dominant group

(Sue, Mak, & Sue, 1998). Acculturation is often confused with assimilation. Assimilation

refers not only to cultural and behavioral changes, but also to full socioeconomic

integration into another culture (Ramos, 1997, p.31).

There are two dis tinct models to explain the relationship between ethnic identity

and acculturation: a linear/ unidimensional/ bipolar model and a bidimensional/ two-

dimensional model. In the linear model, ethnic identity is conceptualized along a

continuum from strong ethnic ties at one extreme to strong mainstream ties at the other.

11

produced with permission of the copyright owner. Furthe r reproduction prohibited without permission.


24/149

Acculturation is accompanied by a weakening of ethnic identity. This approach is based

on the assimilationist perspective. There are three problems with a linear model. The first

problem is the assumption o f mutual exclusion. One culture is against another and it

assumes an inverse relationship between the ethnic and host culture. That is, high

involvement in one culture requires low involvement in the other. Second, there is a

possibility that one ethnic group may be more socially desirable than another group,

making difficult to measure true self-identification. Third, it is difficult to identify a true

bicultural person (Nguyen, Messe, & Stollak, 1999).

In contrast, the bidimensional approach assumes that cultural involvement is not

necessarily bipolar. Ethnic group members can have either strong or weak identifications

with both their own and the mainstream cultures. The bidimensional perspective is based

on two assumptions. First, the model presupposes that individuals differ to the ex tent to

which self-identity includes culturally based values, attitudes, and behaviors. Culture may

play a large role in the identities o f some individuals, whereas others may base the ir self-

identity on factors such as occupation or religion. Second, individuals are capable o f

having multiple cultural identities, each o f which may independently vary in strength

(Ryder, Alden, & Paulhus, 2000).

In the two-dimensional model, there are not only two acculturative extremes o f

assimilation or pluralism but at least four possible ways o f dealing with ethnic group

membership in a diverse society. As Table 1 shows, Phinney (1998) illustrates some o f

terms that have been used for each o f the four possibilities in research. The first group

has a strong sense o f ethnic identity and high degree of acculturation. Individuals are

considered acculturated, or integrated, or bicultural. They are able to move comfortably

12



25/149

in both cultures. The second group has a weak sense of ethnic identity and high degree o f

acculturation. These individuals have a limited sense of belonging to their ethnic group o f

origin and identify most with the dominant culture. The third group has a strong sense of

ethnic identity and low degree o f acculturation. People in this group have little or no

interest in the dominant culture and identify most with their ethnic group. The terms

ethnically identified or embedded, or separa ted or dissociated from mainstream culture

are used to describe a person in this group. The fourth group has a weak sense o f ethnic

identity and low degree o f acculturation. They are marginal to both their ethnic group and

the dominant culture. In conclusion, minority members can have ei ther strong or weak

identifications with both their own and the mainstream cultures. Strong ethnic identity

does not necessarily imply a weak relationship or low involvement with the dominant

culture.

Table 1. Terms used for four organizations, based on degree o f identificationwith both ones own ethnic group and the majority group

Identification withM ajority Group

Identification with Ethnic Gro upStrong Weak

Strong (1) AcculturatedIntegratedBicultural

(2) Assimilated

W eak (3) Ethnically identifiedEthnically embeddedSeparatedDissociated

(4) Marginal

Source: Phinney (1998), p.78.

Research demonstrates the theoretical superiority o f the two-dimensional model.

Sanchez and Fernandez (1993) applied this framework to the study o f ethnic

13



26/149

identification. They found that identification with the Hispanic culture was unrelated to

the U.S. culture and that the identifications were differently related to indices o f

adjustment. Nguyen, Messe, and Stollak (1999) examined the two-dimensional model

with Vietnamese adolescents in the U.S. In their study, the validity o f the bidimensional

model was demonstrated through the emergence of two culturally orthogonal factors in

the factor analysis, the moderately inverse correlation between Vietnamese culture and

U.S. culture composite scores, and the two cultures divergent relationships with the

adjustment indices. These surveys yield evidence that ethnic identity and acculturation

can and should be measured separately. The exact nature of the relationship remains to be

specified and assessed.

3. Developmental framework

A developmental framework was provided by the Erickson theory o f ego identity

formation. According to Erickson (1968), identity formation takes place through a

process o f exploration that typically occurs during adolescence and that leads to a

commitment in identity domains. Based on the Erickson model, a number o f researchers

have developed models o f ethnic or racial identity development.

Table 2 depicts the relationship between different identity development models

and specific terminology used for each model. Each model assumes a process that begins

with a lack o f awareness or understanding o f the person's ethnicity. The initial stage ends

when adolescents engage in exploration to learn more about their group. The final phase

leads to an achieved ethnic identity characterized by a commitment to their group.

14



27/149

Table 2. Ethnic/Racial Identity Development Models

Racial/CulturalIdentity(Sue&Sue, 1990)

Conformity Dissonance Resistance andimmersion

Introspection Integrativeawareness

Minority

Identity(Atkinson eta t, 1989)

Conformity Dissonance Resistance and

immersion

Introspection Synergetic

articulation andawareness

Ego Identity(Marcia et aL,1994)

Diffusion/Foreclosure

Moratorium Identityachievement

RacialIdentity(Cross, 1991;Helms, 1990)

Preencounter Encounter Immersion/emmersion

Internalization Commitment

EthnicIdentity(Phinney,1989,1993)

Unexamined Exploration Achievement

Source: Sue, Mak, & Sue (1998), p.299.

According to Phinney and Kohatsu (1997), the unexamined ethnic identity stage

is accompanied by low self-regard and feelings o f inadequacy, whereas the achievement

stage is associated with a positive se lf-concept and lack of psychological distress.

Cross (1978) developed a four-stage model of black identity that contributes to

the formation of specific racial identity attitudes and is a precursor of many of the more

recent models. Crosss four stages are: (1) preencounter, in which blacks deny their

culture and value the dominant society; (2) encounter, in which a situation occurs that

pushes the individual to question and reexamine old ways of thinking and behavior

accompanied with feelings o f guilt and anger with the dominant society; (3)

immersion/emersion, in which there is full commitment to black culture; and (4)

internalization, viewed as the final stage o f development, involving the resolution o f

conflicts with the dominant culture. These four themes describe self-concept issues

15



28/149

concerning race and parallel attitudes that the individual holds about Blacks and Whites

as a reference group. Cross' model o f nigrescence represents a comprehensive statement

o f Black racial identity development and offers a framework for understanding

adolescent racial identity development. Based on Cross' model, Parham and Helms

(1985) developed the Racial Identity Attitude Scale (RIAS) that measures racial identity

attitudes reflective o f the four stages o f Cross.

In the mid-1980s, Helms (1984) introduced a white racial identity development

theory. There are two basic assumptions in her theory. One assumption is that Whites are

socialized to feel superior to ethnic groups by virtue o f their white skin alone. The second

assumption is that Whites can avoid, deny, or ignore dealing with their whiteness (Carter,

1995). Later, Helms (1990) revised and extended her 1984 model and developed a six-

stage racial identity model for whites: contact, disintegration, reintegration, pseudo

independence, immersion-emersion, and autonomy. The White Racial Identity Attitude

Scale (WRIAS) assesses these six stages.

Ruiz (1990) presented a Chicano/Latino ethnic identity development model. The

model presents five stages (causal, cognitive, consequence, working through, and

successful resolution) in relationship to ethnic identity conflicts, interventions, and

resolution. On the other hand, Atkinson, Morten, and Sue (1989), and Phinney (1989)

developed different models that can be applied to diverse groups including white, black,

Hispanic, Native, and Asian American.

Atkinson, Morton, and Sue (1989) integrated the various perspectives and

proposed a Minority Identity Development (MID) model that can be applicable to all

people o f color. This model consists o f five stages: conformity, dissonance, resistance

16



29/149

and immersion, introspection, and integrative awareness. Sue and Sue (1990) expanded

the MID model and referred to their model as the Racial/Cultural Identity Development

(R/CID) model.

Phinneys model is a three-stage process based on Ericksons theory. In the first

stage, called unexamined ethnic identity, an individual unquestionably accepts the values

and attitudes o f the dominant culture. In the second stage of ethnic identity,

search/moratorium, people become aware o f themselves as members o f a minority group,

explore their ethnicity including involvement in learning about their culture, but show

anger or outrage toward white society. In the third stage, ethnic identity achievement,

people accept their ethnicity and are proud o f their own ethnicity. Phinney (1989)

developed the Muitigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM) to measure the extent of

ethnic identity among diverse ethnic groups. The MEIM includes the stages of ethnic

identity development, self-identification, ethnic behaviors and practices, and belonging to

an ethnic group. In addition, Phinney (1992) added six items to assess other-group

orientation or attitudes toward interacting with out-group members. Therefore, the MEIM

reflects both social identity theory and developmental theory.

There are limitations when researchers use a developmental framework. Everyone

may not go through the stages in the same way. It is not clear whether or not ethnic

identity development is a linear process (Sue & Sue, 1990). The stage model does not

necessarily assume unidirectionality. Individuals may begin at any poin t on the

continuum and it is possible to recycle through stages (Resnicow et al., 1999). Recent

Asian immigrants who already have strong ethnic identity and then encounter cultural

biases in the United States may differ in identity formation. Asian Americans in the

17



30/149

United States include diverse ethnic groups with different backgrounds. Any single

theory o f Asian American identity development would be inadequate. Furthermore, there

is no research about a cultural specific model in ethnic identity development stage for

Asian Americans and Native Americans. Therefore, instruments reflective of the stages

must be developed and validated empirically among various ethnic groups.

C. Ethnic identification among diverse groups

Scholars explain unawareness of ethnicity among Whites. Phinney (1992) found

that the white adolescents had not given much thought about who they are. Rotheram-

Borus and Lightfoot (1998) reported that Anglo students were less aware o f differences

in ethnic groups. According to Martinez and Dukes (1997), whites do not recognize

themselves as members of an ethnic group. In the study o f Andrews and Lochner (1989),

many White adolescents assumed that the term ethnic group referred only to minority

group members, not to themselves. This unawareness or unconcern about ethnic identity

among whites seems to resu lt in a lower score in ethnic identity than minority groups.

Martinez and Dukes (1997) conducted the survey including all five groups: Whites,

Native Americans, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asian Americans. The outcomes were that

Whites and Native Americans had lower ethnic identity, Blacks and Hispanics had higher

ethnic identity, and Asians had an intermediate level o f ethnic identity.

Roberts and Phinney (1999) found that Indian and Pakistani adolescents had

higher scores than African American middle school students. However, other studies

demonstrate Asian Americans had a lower score than African and Hispanic Americans.

Phinney and Alipuria (1990) compared ethnic identity among three minority groups

18



31/149

(African, Hispanic, and Asian Americans). The outcomes were that Blacks scored the

highest in ethnic identity search, whereas Asian Americans showed the lowest ethnic

identity search scores and the lowest correlation between search scores and self-esteem.

Rotheram-Borus and Lightfoot (1998) also found that Asian Americans report less ethnic

pride than African and Latino Americans. Phinney's study (1989) demonstrated that

ethnic consciousness of Asian Americans was more negative than B lack and Hispanic

peers. Furthermore, Asian students were more likely to express the desire to belong to

dominant ethnic groups i f they had the choice.

In summary, research reported that ethnic identity is more salient among ethnic

minority groups than whites. In addition, Asian Americans showed the lowest ethnic

identity among minority groups. However, this result cannot be generalized, because

there are a few studies comparing ethnic identity across diverse ethnic groups, but also,

Asian Americans include diverse ethnic groups. Since ethnic groups differ in their

history, cultural background, and current situation, ethnic identity will show variety

across ethnic groups or within the same group.

Factors associated with ethnic identity

This part will discuss the variables that have been examined in research related to

ethnic identity in order to find important factors which generate differen t ethnic identity.

A. Gender

There were mixed outcomes regarding gender difference in ethnic identity.

Masuda et al. (1970), Phinney (1992), and Wooden et al. (1988) found that there was no

difference in level of identification with their ethnic group between boys and girls.

19



32/149

However, Lysne & Levy (1997) and Rotheram-Borus & Lightfoot (1998) found that

females showed greater ethn ic identity than males. In contrast, Nesdale and Rooney

(1997) and Rumbaut (1996) showed the opposite results. Females were more likely to

identify with the mainstream culture than males.

On the other hand, Martinez and Dukes (1997) found that Black and Asian

females had greater levels o f ethnic identity than males. However, Hispanics had no

difference between genders and Native Americans had small difference.

Based on these studies, gender difference in ethnic identity remains questionable.

Due to the diversity of ethnic groups, it should not be assumed that gender difference in

ethnic identity is applicable or constant across ethnic groups.

B. Generation

According to Hansen (1952, as cited in Newton, Buck, Kunimura, Colfer, and

Scholsberg, 1988), the second generation denied their ethnic heritage and adopted the

American culture, whereas the third generation became interested in rediscovering their

ethnic past and formed historical societies to recapture their ethnicity. With Hansens

view, Newton and colleagues (1988) conducted a survey among 30 Nisei (second

generation) and 30 Sansei (third generation) male Japanese-Americans. The outcomes

were that the Sansei showed a lower ethnic identify score and were more Americanized

than the Nisei. Furthermore, Wooden, Leon, and Toshima (1988) compared ethnic

identify among Sansei and Yonsei (fourth generation) Japanese Americans. The

outcomes demonstrated that there was not a big difference in Japanese American ethnic

20



33/149

identity between generations. Therefore, both research outcomes did not support

Hansens view.

Even though the first generation already had strong ethnic identity before

immigration, the process o f acculturation may weaken or strengthen their ethnic identity.

Rosenthal & Feldman (1992a) and Masuda et al. (1970) compared ethnic identity among

the first and second generation Asian Americans. The results showed that the first

generation had stronger ethnic identity than the second generation. In Liebkind's study

(1993) among Vietnamese refugees in Finland, the first generation Vietnamese identified

themselves more as Vietnamese than the second generation adolescents.

Several studies demonstrate that the second generations prefer to choose

binational identity rather than solely American or ethnic group identity. Portes and

MacLeod (1996) conducted a survey among second generation Hispanics residing in

Florida and California. The results showed that they identified more as hyphenated

Americans (35%), rather than plain Americans (17%) and Hispanics (25%). Waters

(1994) examined ethnic identity among the second generation West Indian and Haitian

Americans residing in New York City. Three types of identities o f second generations

were revealed: black American identity (42%), ethnic or hyphenated national origin

identity (30%), and immigration identity (28%). Rumbaut (1996) conducted a survey

among 5,127 children o f immigrants (eighth and ninth graders) from Asia, Latin

America, and the Caribbean in southern California and south Florida. The Asian-origin

groups, especially Vietnamese and Filipinos, are more likely to develop binational

identities. In contrast, Latin America and Caribbean groups identified themselves as

Hispanic, whereas Mexican-origin youths identified themselves as Chicano.

21



34/149

Rogler, Cooney, and Ortiz (1980) examined the factors producing

intergenerational differences in ethnic identity among Puerto Rican families. Education

and age at arrival were significantly related to ethnic identity across generations.

However, Rumbaut (1996) suggested that nativity and citizenship have stronger effects

on ethnic identification than length of stay in the United States because of the nature of

ones sociopolitical membership. Being bom in the U.S. (second generation status)

increases the possibility of assimilative self-definition, as does naturalized U.S.

citizenship and a fluent use of English. In contrast, those being foreign-born (1.5

generation), not a U.S. citizen, and having preference for and fluency in the parental

native language are more likely to associate with national origin identity. In Rumbaut s

study (1996), foreign-born youth (43%) identify themselves more with their own national

origin than the U.S.-born youth (11%). In Buriel and Cardoza' study (1993), Mexican

American adolescents bom in Mexico preferred calling themselves Mexican, whereas

those bom in the U.S. preferred the term Mexican American. The importance o f nativity

was suggested by other research conducted in Canada and Australia. According to Lay

and Verkuyten (1999), foreign-bom Chinese adolescents were more likely to label

themselves Chinese rather than Chinese Canadian in comparison with their Canadian-

born counterparts. Rosenthal and Feldman (1992a) found that Australian-born Chinese

considered themselves to be less Chinese than foreign-bom Chinese.

C. Family context

The children's ethnic identify tends to mirror the perceptions o f the ir parents own

ethnic identify. Buriel and Cardoza (1993) examined the continuity of intrafamilial ethnic

22



35/149

labeling among Mexican Americans. The outcomes were that students calling themselves

Mexican had parents who were also called themselves Mexican. Children who feel

embarrassed by their parents identify themselves as unhyphenated Americans, whereas

those who have higher status professional parents identify with their parents national

origin (Rumbaut, 1996). Parents who were involved in ethnic organizations influenced a

sense o f ethnic identity in their children (Bankston & Zhou, 1995).

The second generation may have conflicts between two cultures, their parents

culture and mainstream culture. Intergenerational conflict is more likely to influence

ethnic identity choices among second generation. Positive ethnic identity is nurtured in

the context o f a supportive family. Perception of parental warmth was related to

childrens desire to embrace their paren ts beliefs (Okagaki &Moore, 2000). Rosenthal

and Feldman (1992b) found that parenting behaviors, such as warmth, control, and

autonomy promoting, contributed to the youths positive evaluation o f their ethnicity.

The family structure was related to ethnic identity. In Waters study (1994), African

American children who come from a single-mother family identified themselves as

Americans because of lack of support from mother and parent-child conflict; thus

children differentiated themselves from parents.

D. Community/School context

Ethnic identity exploration and commitment might be heightened when the

community provides a subculture that affords cohesive ethnic group identification

(Phinney & Rosenthal, 1992). One social context of significance during adolescence is

school. Varied school environments are related to ethnic identity exploration and

23



36/149

commitment among ethnic minority adolescents. Lysne and Levy (1997) conducted a

survey among 101 Native American adolescents attending a school located on an Indian

reservation, and two public schools outside a reservation. The results identified that

adolescents with a dominantly Native American student body in h igh school had greater

ethnic identity exploration than those with a predominantly white student body. The

reason was that the Native American school had a greater chance to make contact with

Native American culture. In Rumbauts study (1996), youths attending inner-city schools

where most students are racial/ethnic minorities identify with their ethnic groups,

whereas those in upper-middle-class private schools identify with the mainstream culture.

On the other hand, some research examines impacts of ethn ic identity on school

activities. In Chavouss study (2000), African American students from a predominantly

white university who felt less fit in the school environment participated in more ethnic

group-dominated organizations than mainstream (non-African American) organizations.

In Mitchell and Dells study (1992), black students in reencounter, encounter, and

immersion stages participated in more cultural (black-oriented) activit ies than non-

cultural (non-black-oriented) activities. However, as they become more comfortable with

their racial identity (internalization stage), they are more likely to disp lay interest and

openness in both cultural and non-cultural activities.

E. Socioeconomic status

Regarding socioeconomic variables, research shows different outcomes.

Phinneys findings (1992) showed that there was not a significant relationship between

socioeconomic status and ethnic identity. However, Portes and MacLeods study (1996)

24



37/149

identified that higher social-economic status contributed to lower Hispanic identity. In

Waters study (1994), youngsters who came from a middle-class background identified

with their ethnic groups, but the poorest students identified themselves as immigrant or

American.

F. Religion

Minority religious groups serve to integrate people into the dominant society by

teaching norms o f the dominant society and increasing minority solidarity (Bankston &

Zhou, 1995). Korean ethnic churches play important roles in maintaining ethnic identity

across generations and in providing psychological support among Korean immigrants

(Hurh & Kim, 1990). Bankston and Zhou (1995) examined religious participation, ethnic

identification, and adaptation among Vietnamese adolescents. The outcomes showed that

church attendance has a strong effect on ethnic identification. Moreover, ethnic religious

participation facilitated reaching high levels of academic achievement and avoiding

substance abuse. However, it remains unclear whether ethnic religions promote or inhibit

the assimilation to the main culture.

G. Perceived racial discrimination

Perceived racial discrimination refers to a minority group members' subjective

perception o f unfair treatment of racial/ethnic groups based on prejudice and

ethnocentrism (Jackson, Brown, & Kirby, 1998).

Many studies have demonstrated the relationship between perceived

discrimination and psychological well-being, indicating that those who had perceived

25



38/149

racial discrimination had higher depression levels (Finch, Kolody, & Vega, 2000;

Kessler, Mickelson, & Williams, 1999; Liebkind & Jasinkaja-Lahti, 2000; Noh, Beiser,

Kaspar, Hou, & Rummems. 1999).

There is little research examining the relationship between discrimination and

ethnic identity. In Rumbaut's study (1996), perceptions of discrimination affected

immigrant children in ethnic identity, indicating those who perceived discrimination were

more likely to remain loyal to a national-origin identity.

H. Length of residence

One study demonstrated that as people stay longer, they become more assimilated

(Kim and Rew, 1994). Another study found that as people stay longer, they adopt both

their ethnic culture and mainstream culture. In the study of Kim and Hurh (1993),

regardless of the length o f residence, Korean Americans have retained close social ties

with members of their ethnic group. At the same time, as time passes, they associated

with Americans friends and accepted the American ways of life. Liebkind (1993) also

found that length of stay had no effect on ethnic self-perception among older Vietnamese

refugees in Finland, whereas the longer the young refugees stayed, the more they felt

themselves to be not only Vietnamese, but also Finnish.

Interestingly, Tsai, Ying, and Lee (2000) found that the relations between being

American and being Chinese among Chinese immigrants were influenced by age of

migration more than length of residence in the United States. Yuh (1996) also reported

that age at immigration was a significant factor in ethnic identity. In the study o f Park-

Adams (1997) among Korean American college students, years in Korea were

26



39/149

significantly related to ethnic identity, whereas years in the United States were not

significantly related to ethnic identity. Therefore, future studies should include

individuals who migrated to the United States at different stages of identity development.

In summary, the factors associated with ethnic identity were discussed. Due to the

diversity o f ethnic groups, the research shows the mixed outcomes across ethnic groups

and even within groups. Gender difference in ethnic identity remains unexplained. Even

though the first generation and foreign-bom youths are more likely to identify with their

ethnic groups, the second generation may have a different level o f ethnic identity

depending on intergenerational conflict, parental ethnic socialization, peer groups,

nativity, and community context. An ethnic community provides an opportunity to have

contact with ethnic culture. A multi-ethnic community provides more interracial contact

that may lead to participation in more mainstream or multi-ethnic organizations.

Relationship between ethnic identity and psychological well-being

Self-esteem is considered an indicator o f mental health status or psychological

resilience in minority group members (Berry & Kim, 1988). High self-esteem is

associated with a proactive coping style against discrimination (Phinney & Chavira,

1995), high level of acculturation (Flaskerud & Uman, 1996), and high grades in school

(Phinney, Cantu, & Kurtz, 1997).

Studies examining the relationship between ethnic identity and self-esteem have

been inconsistent, with some showing a positive relationship (Carlson et al., 2000;

Lemon &Waehler, 1996; Matinez & Dukes, 1997; Phinney & Chavira, 1993; Resnicow

et al., 1999), and some showing no association (Lay & Verkuyten, 1999; Phinney, 1992).

27



40/149

These discrepancies may be due in part to the differing methods used to assess ethnic

identity (Phinney & Chavira, 1992). Furthermore, these differences may arise from

historical and cultural differences among ethnic groups (Phinney, Cantu, & Kurtz, 1997).

Rosenthal and Cichello (1986) found that ethnic identity was relatively

unimportant in predicting psychosocial adjustment in Italian Australian adolescents.

However, other research has shown that higher ethnic identity is related to higher

psychological well-being. Liebkind (1993) found that strong ethnic identity was

significantly related to less anxiety and depression in Vietnamese refugees and their

children in Finland. Martinez and Dukes (1997) assessed the effects of ethnic identity on

adolescents well-being among White, Asian, Hispanic, African, and Native Americans.

The dependent variables measuring well-being were self-esteem, academic self-

confidence, and purpose in life. They found that greater ethnic identity was related to

higher self-esteem, purpose in life, and self-confidence. Bankston and Zhou (1995)

measured adaptation of Vietnamese adolescents in New Orleans by school grades and

substance abuse. They found that strong ethnic identity is related to high school grades

and less abuse of alcohol and drugs. Roberts and Phinney (1999) found that ethnic

identity was positively related to psychological well-being, such as coping ability,

mastery, self-esteem and optimism, and negatively to loneliness and depression among

adolescents from diverse ethnic groups. Furthermore, a strong ethnic identity provides an

individual with inner resources for handling prejudice and discrimination. Chavira and

Phinney (1991) found that Hispanic adolescents with a strong sense of ethnic identity

used more proactive strategies for dealing with discrimination, whereas adolescents with

a weaker ethnic identity used passive and aggressive strategies.

28



41/149

The importance o f ethnic identity is that it provides immigrants with resources

that enable them to cope with the acculturative stress, and thus minimise psychological

distress. Nesdale and Rooney (1997) conducted a survey among Vietnamese immigrants.

They demonstrated that ethnic identity provides personal resources (e.g., self-esteem,

sense of self-mastery or self-efficacy, sense of trust in other individuals and the

community) and external resources (e.g., appraisal support, belonging support, tangible

support). The outcomes support a causal model in which migrant ethnic identity was an

indirect rather than direct predictor of psychological distress.

As reviewed above, a person with strong ethnic identity generally experiences less

stress than a person with weak ethnic identity. However, Libkind (1993) found that the

first generation with strong ethnic identity had more depression than the second

generation with weak ethnic identity. Kaplan and Marks (1990) found that the younger

generation had a higher stress level than the older generation. There is little research

about how ethnic identity, psychological well-being, and generation interrelate and

influence each other. Further studies should be conducted that ask the questions: (1) Are

there differences in e thnic identity and psychological well-being according to generation?

(2) If yes, what factors bring about the differences?

Some research revealed different outcomes when they measured both the ethnic

culture and the mainstream culture. Sanchez and Fernandez (1993) conducted a survey

among Hispanic College students in the metropolitan Miami area. They found that the

American culture identification was related to less acculturative stress and less perceived

discrimination, whereas the Hispanic identification was related to neither. In addition,

among individuals with a high level o f ethnic identification, poor identification with the

29



42/149

mainstream resulted in more stress than high mainstream identification. Portes and

MacLeod (1996) examined Hispanic identity and its potential consequences among

second generation adolescents in Florida and California. The findings identified that

adolescents who identify themselves as Hispanic had lower college expectations, lower

self-esteem, and experienced greater discrimination than adolescents calling themselves

American. Nguyen and colleagues (1999) examined the relationship between

acculturation and adjustment among Vietnamese youths living in a primarily Anglo-

American community in Michigan. They found that involvement in the mainstream

culture was related to better outcomes for adjustment, whereas involvement in the

Vietnamese culture was related to more psychological distress, lower self-esteem, and

higher depression.

The above studies demonstrated that individuals with American cultural

identification had more psychological well-being than individuals with ethnic

identification. However, they did not suggest that increases in acculturation alienate the

individuals from their ethnic identity (Rogler, Cortes, & Malgady, 1991). According to

Nguyen, Messe, and Stollak (1999), this may be due to differences in the contexts in

which the study was conducted. In a predominantly American context, American culture

involvem ent may be important to function adaptively. Perhaps it is difficult to be

Vietnamese in the primarily American context o f Michigan and thus, distressing for those

interested in maintaining their ethnic roots. Conversely, distressed adolescents may be

more likely to cling to the traditional values and behaviors in which they feel most

familiar and secure. They further discussed that in other contexts where there is a

30



43/149

substantial population of ethnic minorities, involvement o f American culture may not be

as essential.

Another possible explanation is an orthogonal model o f cultural identification

proposed by Oetting and Beauvais (1991), which is the belief that people can

simultaneously identify with more than one culture and that identification with any

culture has a positive impact on psychological well-being. According to Moran and

Fleming (1999), American Indian adolescents who identified with both Indian and white

cultures showed the highest psychological well-being scores. Bautista de Dominico,

Crawford, and De Wolfe (1994) studied Mexican American high school students in a

large midwestem city. The results indicated that identification with both Mexican and

U.S. cultures was related to greater self-esteem and better psychological well-being than

Mexican or U.S. cultural identity.

In summary, there are mixed outcomes concerning the possible impact o f ethnic

identity on psychological distress. In the research using the unidimensional model, strong

ethnic identity is related to better mental health. However, in the research using the two-

dimensional model, American culture identity is related to better adjustment, whereas

ethnic culture identify is related to more psychological distress. Therefore, they do not

seem to conclude that strong ethnic identify is related to better psychological well-being.

In addition, ethnic identify does not seem to be related to the actual degree of

acculturation. Although the immigrants said that they would prefer to keep their culture,

they actually acculturated to the mainstream culture (Jainskaja-Lahti and Liebkind,

2000). At the same tine, ethnic groups favor preserving heritage culture and language as

they adapt to the host culture (Laroche, Kim, Hui, Joy, 1996). According to Rosenthal

31

produced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited withou t permission.


44/149

and Feldman (1992a), core elements of ethnic identity, such as attitudes towards ethnic

memberships, may be less changeable than the other elements, such as the behavior and

knowledge aspect, over time.

Profile of Korean Americans

A. Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics

Koreans are one o f the most rapidly increasing immigrant groups in the United

States. The number of Korean immigrants increased from 69,150 in 1970 to 354, 593 in

1980. This shows an increase of over 400%. From 1980 to 1990, the number of Korean

immigrants increased 125% (Min, 1995).

There have been three waves of immigration of Koreans to the United States. The

first wave of Korean immigration started in 1903. About 7,800 Korean immigrants came

to Hawaii and worked in plantations to earn money and live a better life. During 1950 to

1964, the second wave o f Korean immigration, the number o f Korean immigrants w as

15,050. The immigrants consisted o f the wives o f Americans who had gone to the Korean

War, Korean orphans who were adopted by American families, and students. The largest

and third wave o f Korean immigration followed the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization

Act (Min and Song, 1998). Almost 73% o f Korean Americans were bom in Korea, and

among those foreign bom, over 56% of Korean Americans came to the United States in

the 1980s (Min, 1995).

Sixty-nine percent o f Korean Americans were adults (18 years old and over) and

26.5% were children and adolescents. Persons 65 years old or older composed only 4 .4%

of the total Korean American population. The ratio of males to females is remarkable.

32



45/149

There were only 80 males pe r 100 females within the Korean American population. The

average Korean American family had 3.6 persons in 1990 (Min, 1995)

Forty-four percent o f Korean immigrants settled in the West, 23% in the

Northeast, 19% in the South, and 14% in the M idwest Fifty five percent o f Korean

Americans live in four states: California 32.5%, Illinois 5.2%, New York 12%, and New

Jersey 4.8%. In the 1970s an d 1980s, Illinois was the third most common destination for

Korean Americans. However, New Jersey attracted more Korean immigrants than Illinois

in the 1990s. Hawaii, the center of pioneer Korean immigrants, is no longer an important

Korean center. Only 3% settled in Hawaii in 1990 (Min, 1995).

The average educational level of Korean Americans is relatively high. Eighty

percent o f those 25 years old and above were at least high school graduates, 35% held a

bachelors or higher degree by 1990. Korean Americans had a lower income than Asian

and Pacific Islanders (APIs). In 1989, their per capita income was $11,177 compared

with APIs $13,683. Their median family income o f $33,909 was lower than $40,360 for

all API families. In the same year, 15% of Korean American families lived in poverty.

Thirty-seven percent of Korean Americans were employed in technical, sales, and

administrative positions, and 26% were employed in managerial and professional jobs.

Only one out o f four Korean workers was employed in non-Korean firms (Min, 1995).

On the other hand, Korean immigrants are heavily concentrated in ethnic enclaves. After

immigration, due to unfamiliarity with the American system and the failure o f American

firms to recognize professional certificates acquired in Korea, many Korean immigrants

go into small business, such as grocery, liquor, or laundry. There were 3,000 Korean-

owned businesses in Los Angeles and 1,800 in New York City (Min, 1995).

33



46/149

Koreans speak one native language, while Chinese, Indian, and Filipino

immigrants include several language groups. The majority o f Korean immigrants (81%)

spoke their native language, Korean, a t home, compared to 63% of other Asian

Americans (Moon, 1998). Kim and Hurh (1993) examined the bilingual situation among

Korean immigrants. The results indicated that 88% never or occasionally used English

with their spouse, and about 60% did not speak English with their children or with

siblings. This frequent use o f Korean language may cause difficulties in learning English

among the first generation. According to the Bureau of Census (1990), 52% of Korean

Americans did not speak English very well and 35% were linguistically isolated. These

figures were higher than other Asian Americans (38% and 24%, respectively) (Moon,

1998). However, the second generation Korean adolescents prefer English as their

everyday language. According to Hong and Min (1999), the second generation used

English most o f the time or more often (29%), English and Korean half-and-half (43%),

and Korean most of the time (15%).

Korean immigrants show high affiliation with Korean ethnic churches. There

were more than 2,000 Korean ethnic churches in the United States in 1992. 75% of

Korean immigrants are affiliated with Korean ethnic churches (Min, 1995). A church

provides not only meaning, but also a sense o f belonging and comfort. Korean churches

help to maintain the Korean cultural tradition through cultural programs. In addition, they

play a role as a social center by providing frequent meetings and sharing o f information

for Korean immigrants. The churches also provide an educational function by teaching

the Korean language to American-born Koreans (Hurh & Kim, 1990).

34



47/149

In summary, Korean immigrants to the U.S. increased rapidly in the last three

decades. The majority of post-1965 Korean immigrants are economic migrants who

sought a higher standard of living in the U.S. Unlike Indochinese refugees, Korean

Americans came to America as voluntary immigrants (Min & Song, 1998). Even though

Korean immigrants received higher education, they are concentrated in ethnic enclaves in

Los An

Documents

Ethnic Identity and Psych Well Being