Identifying Communities in Need:Examining the Impact of Acculturation onPerceived Discrimination, Social Support,and Coping amongst Racial MinorityMembers in the United StatesLisa K. Hanasono, Lanming Chen & Steven R. Wilson
Utilizing a cognitive appraisal approach, this study examines how acculturation affectsracial minority members’ appraisals of and responses to racial discrimination. Racialminority members (N = 345) completed questionnaires about their prior experienceswith racial discrimination and coping responses. Controlling for participants’ priorexperiences with racial discrimination and primary appraisals, the results revealed thatacculturation helped explain individuals’ need for social support, support messageevaluations, and the pursuit of disengagement coping strategies. Findings from thisstudy provide helpful information for the development of intervention and outreachprograms for individuals in our communities who are coping with racialdiscrimination.
Keywords: Acculturation; Discrimination; Social Support; Coping
Interpersonal racial discrimination continues to be a serious problem in the UnitedStates (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2011; Lewis, Yang, Jacobs, & Fitchett, 2012;Sue, 2010). From hate crimes and racial epithets to offensive jokes and poor service,acts of interpersonal racial discrimination are a special type of stressor in the lives ofstigmatized people (Miller & Kaiser, 2001). Instead of targeting a person’s behaviorsor attitudes, acts of interpersonal discrimination attack an immutable part of an
Lisa K. Hanasono & Lanming Chen are at Department of Communication, School of Media andCommunication, Bowling Green State University. Steven R. Wilson is at the Brian Lamb School ofCommunication at Purdue University. Correspondence to: Lisa K. Hanasono, Department of Communication,302 West Hall, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403, USA. Email: [email protected]
Journal of International and Intercultural Communication2014, pp. 1–22
individual: his or her race. Moreover, these acts tend to have injurious effects ontargets’ physical, psychological, and relational well-being. Extant research hasdocumented the ways that racial discrimination is associated with higher rates ofcardiovascular health issues (Allison, 1998), chronic pain (Gee, Spencer, Chen, &Takeuchi, 2007), smoking (Harris et al., 2006), depression (Greene, Way, & Pahl,2006), stress (Miller & Kaiser, 2001), and hypervigilance (Major & Vick, 2005).In addition, targets of racial discrimination have experienced lowered self-esteem(Major, Kaiser, O’Brien, & McCoy, 2007) and reduced self-control (Inzlicht, McKay, &Aronson, 2006).
Coping with racial discrimination can be a challenging and complex feat for manyracial minority members. Although a wide variety of coping strategies exist (e.g.,problem-solving, denial, avoidance, passive acceptance, reporting the incident, andventing), many options present serious drawbacks. For instance, while confrontationmay seem like an empowering coping strategy, it can yield some highly problematicconsequences. In a lab experiment, Czopp, Monteith, and Mark (2006) found thatracial minority members who used confrontation as a coping strategy were less likedand engendered feelings of anger and hostility from their perpetrators. In reality,confrontation could put a racial minority member in serious danger, resulting inantagonistic verbal exchanges, threats, and even physical violence. In addition toconfrontation, other coping strategies can be problematic. Kaiser and Miller (2001)found that targets who report acts of discrimination to others are often viewed ascomplainers, and Noh and Kaspar (2003) concluded that targets who use morepassive, emotion-focused coping strategies (e.g., passively accepting discrimination asa fact of life, pretending to not be offended, and denial) experienced higher rates ofdepression and reduced levels of psychological well-being.
Seeking support represents a very promising way to cope with racial discrimina-tion. Studies have found that many targets of racial discrimination express a desire totalk about their experiences with member in their support network (e.g., Krieger &Sidney, 1996). A small but promising amount of research indicates that social supportcan help racial minority members be more resilient to future acts of discrimination(Finch & Vega, 2003), and it can improve their overall physical and psychologicalwell-being (Clark & Gochett, 2006; McNeilly et al., 1995; Noh & Kaspar, 2003).Unfortunately, scholars have not yet examined how individual and situational factorsinfluence a racial minority member to seek support and their corresponding copingoutcomes (Pascoe & Richman, 2009).
Acculturation
Acculturation may explain why some targets of discrimination decide to seeksupport while others do not. Redfield, Linton, and Herskovits (1936) explainedthat “acculturation comprehends those phenomena which result when groups ofindividuals having different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact withsubsequent changes in the original culture patterns of either or both groups” (p. 149).Originally, acculturation was conceptualized as a unidimensional phenomenon,
2 L. K. Hanasono et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lis
a K
iyom
i Han
ason
o] a
t 20:
43 0
5 Ju
ly 2
014
where immigrants and minority members progressively adapted to a dominantculture (Gordon, 1964). This perspective assumed that the longer a minority memberlived within a dominant culture, the more he or she would be acculturated. In otherwords, proponents of the unidimensional model equated acculturation with assimilation.
However, in more recent years, many scholars have advocated for a bidimensionalapproach, where acculturation is conceptualized in terms of the degree to which aminority member adapts to a dominant culture (i.e., cultural adaptation) and theextent to which that person maintains his or her native culture (i.e., culturalmaintenance; Berry & Sam, 1997; Van de Vijver & Phalet, 2004). These scholarscontend that acculturation and assimilation are not inevitable processes; thereforeacculturation should not be defined by how long a person has lived in a foreignculture. Rather, scholars use the bidimensional approach to examine the ways thatindividuals adapt to new cultures and maintain their cultural heritage (Berry,Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006). Therefore, instead of simply measuring the length oftime spent in a foreign culture, bidimensional scales examine how people identifywith their heritage and host cultures by measuring their traditions, languagepreferences, relationships, social activities, and media consumption patterns (e.g.,Stephenson, 2000).
Berry (1997) employed the bidimensional approach to present four acculturationstrategies: integration, assimilation, separation, and marginalization. Individuals whouse integration strategies actively adapt to a dominant culture (i.e., “host culture”)while simultaneously maintaining their heritage culture. For example, an interna-tional student in from Beijing could cultivate new friendships with American studentsand stay in touch with his or her friends in China. Alternatively, individuals whoengage in assimilation identify with a dominant culture instead of their heritageculture. For example, a Chinese international student in the United States could electto speak, write, and think in English instead of Chinese. On the other hand, peoplewho decide to maintain their heritage culture instead of their host culture useseparation strategies. For example, the same international student could readmagazines, watch movies, and listen to music from his or her heritage cultureinstead of selecting popular media from the United States. Finally, people who engagein marginalization do not strongly identify with either their heritage or host culture.For example, that same person may withdraw socially from both American andChinese friends, or he or she may pursue social or romantic relationships with peoplefrom a third culture (e.g., a group of international students from Belgium).
While some research has examined the impact of acculturation on racial minoritymembers’ perceptions of discrimination and their well-being, most studies in this areahave explored acculturation from a unidimensional approach (e.g., Goto, Gee, &Takeuchi, 2002; Pérez, Fortuna, & Alegría, 2008). Therefore, instead of measuringhow targets adapt to new cultures and maintain their heritage cultures through theirbehaviors, language use, relationships, and social activities, most studies simplycompared the amount of time a minority member had spent in the United States tovarious predictors and outcome variables. Operationalizing acculturation as an overlysimplistic, unidimensional, and linear process calls into question the validity of
Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 3
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lis
a K
iyom
i Han
ason
o] a
t 20:
43 0
5 Ju
ly 2
014
previous research findings. This study will utilize a bidimensional approach toexamine how acculturation affects the ways that minority members perceive andrespond to racial discrimination. It is possible that certain cultural beliefs andpractices may facilitate or inhibit minority members’ decision to seek support inresponse to racial discrimination.
This study aims to investigate how acculturation affects the support needs, decisionto seek support, and related coping behaviors of individuals who have experiencedracial discrimination. To date, we do not know of any existing studies that haveexamined how all of these factors interrelate. Findings from this study will extend theliterature on culture, supportive communication, and coping. Moreover, findingsfrom this study may help scholars and local community leaders identify individuals inneed and design intervention programs to provide better support to racial minoritymembers who must cope with discrimination.
Literature Review
A Cognitive Appraisal Approach
Originally designed to explain how people cope with a diverse array of life stressors,Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) cognitive appraisal theory provides a viable frameworkto understand how racial minority members experience, interpret, and cope withdiscrimination. The theory posits that the ways that individuals cognitively appraiseand reappraise stressors can affect their corresponding emotions, coping behaviors,and well-being. First, an individual experiences a potential stressor, such as an act ofperceived discrimination. Second, that person will quickly make a primary appraisalto determine if the act was serious and problematic. Third, if the individual deems thestressor to be threatening, that person will then make a secondary appraisal todetermine his or her coping resources and behavioral options. The following sectionsexplicate how primary and secondary appraisals may operate in the context of copingwith racial discrimination.
Making primary appraisals. Ranging from physical and verbal assaults to poor serviceand inappropriate jokes, acts of interpersonal racial discrimination can vary widely(Miller & Kaiser, 2001; Sue, 2010; Swim, Hyers, Cohen, Fitzgerald, & Bylsma, 2003).After experiencing an act of perceived discrimination, targets must first makecognitive appraisals about the severity of their situations (Barrett & Swim, 1998). Inother words, to what degree was the act offensive, problematic, and relevant to thetargets’ well-being? Acts that are initially appraised as more severe are typicallyaccompanied by feelings of distress and other negative emotions like fear or anger(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
The literature indicates that targets’ prior experiences with racial discriminationmay influence their primary appraisals. Myers, Lewis, and Parker-Dominguez (2003)wrote that “minorities may differ in the degree to which they have developed ‘racial’filters, cognitive schemas, or scripts that mediate how they interpret and respond to[potentially discriminatory] experiences” (p. 387). Racial minority members who are
4 L. K. Hanasono et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lis
a K
iyom
i Han
ason
o] a
t 20:
43 0
5 Ju
ly 2
014
chronically targeted owing to their race may become hyper-vigilant and moresensitive in identifying acts of perceived discrimination (Major & Vick, 2005). Afterexperiencing numerous acts of racial discrimination across the lifespan, someminority members may become more inclined to perceive acts of discrimination asmore severe.
Making secondary appraisals and deciding to seek support. Cognitive appraisal theoryindicates that if a person perceives a stressor to be problematic or threatening, he orshe will need to formulate a secondary appraisal. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) explainthat secondary appraisals consist of “a complex evaluative process that takes intoaccount which coping options are available, the likelihood that a given coping optionwill accomplish what it is supposed to, and the likelihood that one can apply aparticular strategy or set of strategies effectively” (p. 35). Ultimately, people developsecondary appraisals in an effort to identify and select appropriate coping strategies.
As discussed earlier, seeking support represents a promising way to cope withracial discrimination. However, what factors influence a target’s likelihood to seeksupport over other coping behaviors? We argue that support needs can influenceminority members’ decision to seek support in response to racial discrimination.Support needs are targets’ unique requirements for assistance from others in responseto a perceived stressor. When dealing with perceived discrimination, targets mayexperience many different types of support needs (Cutrona & Suhr, 1992). They mayrequire emotional support, advice, information about institutional resources, esteemsupport, and/or a restored sense of security (Cutrona & Russell, 1990).
Acculturation may impact targets’ support needs. Specifically, racial minoritymembers who are less acculturated into the United States’ mainstream culture (e.g.,people who prefer separation or marginalization over assimilation or integration)may have less access to institutional services and programs that aim to help peoplecope with discrimination. They may also have language barriers that would preventthem from easily pursuing some alternative coping strategies, such as confrontationor reporting the incident. Therefore, it is possible that they may have a greater needfor social support when faced with racial discrimination. However, there are twoother factors that should be taken into account: prior racial discriminationexperiences and perceived severity. Specifically, studies have found that individualswho are more acculturated to a dominant culture tend to perceive acts of racialdiscrimination as less severe (e.g., Richman, Gaviria, Flaherty, Birz, & Wintrob, 1987).Given this information, the following hypothesis is posed:
H1a: Controlling for targets’ prior experiences with racial discrimination andperceived severity, lower levels of cultural adaptation should account forhigher support needs.
H1b: Controlling for targets’ prior experiences with racial discrimination andperceived severity, lower levels of cultural maintenance should account forhigher support needs.
Following the logic of appraisal theory, once targets have considered their supportneeds, they must decide whether or not they will seek support from friends, family
Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 5
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lis
a K
iyom
i Han
ason
o] a
t 20:
43 0
5 Ju
ly 2
014
members, and individuals in their social networks. Prior research has found thatapproximately 68% of minority members talk to people in their support networkabout their experiences with racial discrimination (Krieger & Sidney, 1996).Constantine, Wilton, and Caldwell (2003) explained that among the main reasonswhy Latino college students are likely to seek support from family and members intheir informal support networks are the cultural values emphasizing family and socialrelationships. Researchers have found that certain types of cultural values caninfluence support-seeking behaviors in other cultures, too. Examining how collecti-vistic cultural values may encourage Asian and Asian American targets of racialdiscrimination to seek support from family members, Wei, Heppner, Ku, and Liao(2010) concluded that “the family in Asian cultures plays a central cultural role and isdeemed as a vital supportive system” (p. 146). Thus, the following hypothesis isposed:
H2a: Controlling for targets’ prior experiences with racial discrimination,perceived severity, and support needs, lower levels of cultural adaptationshould account for a higher propensity to seek support.
H2b: Controlling for targets’ prior experiences with racial discrimination,perceived severity, and support needs, higher levels of cultural maintenanceshould account for a higher propensity to seek support.
Beyond Appraisals: Examining the Effectiveness of Supportive Communication toTargets of Racial Discrimination.
Consistent with appraisal theory, once individuals complete primary and secondaryappraisals, they should select a particular coping strategy. Targets who seek supportactively talk about their experiences with individuals in their support networks (Leets,2002). In general, support messages aim to alleviate levels of distress in theirrecipients and help individuals cope more effectively with their problems (Burleson &MacGeorge, 2002). Unfortunately, not all attempts to provide support are successful.MacGeorge, Feng, and Thompson (2008) explained that some support messages “canexacerbate another person’s stress and upset, undermine independent coping efforts,result in negative perceptions of the [support] giver, and damage the relationshipbetween the two parties” (p. 145). Underscoring this idea, Hample (2010) wrote aboutanticomforting messages, which are well-intentioned but highly ineffective supportmessages. In an attempt to help a loved one, a support provider who usesanticomforting messages tries to provide words of comfort and care, but the messageslack sensitivity and appropriateness. For example, a friend or family member may tella target of racial discrimination to “get over it” or attempt to upstage the target bysaying, “Oh that’s nothing. Did you hear about the time I was fired because of myrace?” Clearly, the quantity and quality of received support messages should be takeninto consideration when evaluating their effectiveness.
Examining the effectiveness of received support. Typically, support messages areevaluated in terms of their (a) overall quality, (b) sufficiency, and (c) the degree to
6 L. K. Hanasono et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lis
a K
iyom
i Han
ason
o] a
t 20:
43 0
5 Ju
ly 2
014
which they facilitate emotion-focused and problem-focused coping (Burleson &MacGeorge, 2002). Overall quality refers to the degree to which recipients perceivesupportive messages to be appropriate, effective, sensitive, supportive, and helpful(e.g., Burleson et al., 2009). Together, these five dimensions create an index ofsupport message quality. Second, some studies evaluate support messages in terms oftheir sufficiency (e.g., MacGeorge, Feng, Butler, & Budarz, 2004). When messages aresufficient, targets feel satisfied with the amount of support they received and no longerdesire to see additional help. Third, some researchers study the ways that supportmessages facilitate emotion-focused and problem-focused coping (e.g., Feng &Burleson, 2008). Messages that facilitate emotion-focused and problem-focused copinghelp targets identify ways to more effectively manage negative emotions and dealwith discrimination.
In sum, support messages can be evaluated in terms of their quality, sufficiency, andability to facilitate emotion-focused and problem-focused coping. Generally speaking,individuals who receive support messages that are high quality and sufficient, andeffectively facilitate coping are better positioned to cope with a stressor than those whoreceive support messages that are poor in quality or insufficient, or do not effectivelyfacilitate coping. Unfortunately, this phenomenon has not been investigated in thecontext of responding to racial discrimination. Moreover, we are not aware of anystudies that have systematically examined how acculturation affects the assessment ofsupport messages by targets of racial discrimination. Previous scholarship hasdocumented cultural differences in the ways that people evaluate supportive messagefeatures. For example, Burleson and Mortenson (2003) investigated how American andChinese college students evaluate coping behaviors and supportive message features.They found a small but statistically significant cultural difference (η2 = .027);specifically, American participants perceived highly person-centered messages to bemore sensitive than Chinese participants. Although this study identified somecultural differences in support message evaluations, it did not focus on the specializedcoping context of responding to racial discrimination. Also, acculturation was notexplicitly examined in the analyses; instead of examining how participants’ psycholo-gically, relationally, and behaviorally identified with American and Chinese cultures,the study made broad comparisons between participants from the United Statesand those from China.
Instead of comparing how members of different cultural groups evaluate supportmessages, this study explores how levels of acculturation could influence targets’perceptions about support messages’ quality, sufficiency, and helpfulness. Exploringthis line of inquiry can help scholars identify individuals who may have a greaterneed for social support (i.e., because they perceive their support to be of lower quality,insufficient, or unhelpful). Given the dearth of research in this area, the followingresearch question is posed:
RQ1: How does acculturation affect targets’ evaluations about their receivedsupport messages’ (a) quality, (b) sufficiency, and (c) helpfulness?
Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 7
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lis
a K
iyom
i Han
ason
o] a
t 20:
43 0
5 Ju
ly 2
014
Examining other coping strategies. Targets who do not seek support can pursue avariety of alternative coping strategies. Miller and Kaiser (2001) explained that racialminority members who experience racial discrimination may enact engagement ordisengagement coping behaviors. Engagement behaviors actively seek to challenge thestressor and its corresponding negative emotions. Examples of engagement copingstrategies include problem-solving, emotional regulation, cognitive restructuring, andconfrontation. On the other hand, disengagement coping behaviors seek to avoid orpassively accept the stressor. Examples include withdrawal, denial, and wishfulthinking. Miller and Kaiser (2001) explain that engagement coping strategies werederived from “fight” responses while disengagement coping strategies were derivedfrom “flight” responses. Research indicates that engagement coping strategies tend toproduce more positive effects in individuals’ subsequent well-being than dodisengagement coping strategies (Pascoe & Richman, 2009). However, little is knownabout acculturation’s effect on individuals’ specific coping behaviors in response toracial discrimination. Therefore, a final research question is posed:
RQ2: How does acculturation affect targets’ propensity to utilize engagement anddisengagement coping strategies?
Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 345 racial minority undergraduate and graduate studentswho were enrolled at a large Midwestern University. Participants’ ages ranged from18 to 60 years (M = 22.78, SD = 4.71), and 54% of the sample was female. Studentswere recruited through three main methods. First, students enrolled in communica-tion classes were invited to participate in this study; the lead author visited each classand made a brief announcement about the opportunity to become a researchparticipant. Second, we worked with the university to send an email invitation to allstudents who self-identified as racial minority members (N ≈ 4000); students wereemailed information about the study and link to the online survey. Finally, flyers andannouncements were posted on message boards around campus and on theuniversity’s news site. All students, regardless of their racial identity, were allowedto participate in this study. Given this project’s focus and scope, we decided to onlyinclude the responses of individuals who self-identified as racial minority members.
Approximately half of the sample were international students (n = 173), while theother half were U.S. citizens (n = 172). Individuals who were not U.S. citizensreported a wide range of nationalities (e.g., Bahamian, Chinese, Ethiopian, Indian,Kenyan, Korean, Guatemalan, Columbian, Thai, and Peruvian). Sixty-six participantsself-identified as black (57 U.S. citizens, 9 non-U.S. citizens); 205 participants self-identified as Asian (60 U.S. citizens, 144 non-U.S. citizens, 1 missing). Forty-sevenparticipants self-identified as Latina/o (36 U.S. citizens, 11 non-U.S. citizens). A smallnumber of participants self-identified as multiracial (n = 16) or a member of other
8 L. K. Hanasono et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lis
a K
iyom
i Han
ason
o] a
t 20:
43 0
5 Ju
ly 2
014
racial minority groups (e.g., Native American, Arab; n = 11); among this subsample,18 were U.S. citizens, and 9 were not U.S. citizens.
On average, participants had been living in the United States for an average of11.56 years (SD = 9.53). Most self-identified as first generation (n = 167) or secondgeneration (n = 87); however, third generation (n = 24), fourth generation (n = 8),fifth generation (n = 8), sixth generation, and beyond (n = 38) were also included inthe sample. Thirteen people did not report their generation. All participants whocompleted the study were entered into a drawing for Visa gift cards; students whowere enrolled in eligible communication courses received 1% extra credit forparticipating in this study.
Procedures
All materials and procedures used in this study were approved by the InstitutionalReview Board. The entire study was administered through a secure online survey.Participation took approximately 45–60 minutes. After indicating their consent toparticipate, students first completed a set of questionnaires that measured theirdemographic information (e.g., gender, race, age, citizenship, years lived in the UnitedStates, and generation), prior experiences with racial discrimination, racial identity,and acculturation. Next, participants were prompted to recall and describe a recentincident where they felt they were the target of a specific act of interpersonal racialdiscrimination. Individuals reported a wide range of experiences, ranging fromincidents in which they were threatened, physically attacked, or had damagedproperty—to more subtle incidents in which they received poor service at restaurants,were shadowed by security officers at stores, or were excluded from social activities bytheir peers. Participants then completed a few questionnaires that assessed theirperceptions about the act of discrimination and their corresponding support needs.They were also asked if they sought support (i.e., “did you talk with another personabout the incident?”). Individuals who indicated that they did seek support wereasked to describe and assess the support they received; individuals who did not seeksupport were given a questionnaire on alternative coping behaviors. Upon thecompletion of the online survey, participants were thanked and given an opportunityto enter the Visa gift card drawing.
Measures
Acculturation. The Stephenson Multigroup Acculturation Scale (SMAS) was used tomeasure participants’ acculturation into the dominant ethnic culture in the UnitedStates (Stephenson, 2000). Unlike other established acculturation scales that examinespecific ethnic minority groups (e.g., Marín, Sabogal, Marín, Otero-Sabogal, & Perez-Stable, 1987), SMAS was originally designed for samples that include participantswith a variety of ethnic backgrounds. The scale includes 34 items on 4-point Likert-style scales (1 = false, 2 = partly false, 3 = partly true, 4 = true) about participants.Instead of focusing on only one indicator of acculturation (e.g., a person’s preferred
Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lis
a K
iyom
i Han
ason
o] a
t 20:
43 0
5 Ju
ly 2
014
language), this scale measures four behavioral and psychological indicators ofacculturation: language, social interaction, food, and media preferences (e.g., “I speakEnglish at home” and “I like to listen to music of my ethnic group”). Furthermore, itgoes beyond a unidimensional conceptualization of acculturation by measuring theways that individuals adapt to and resist the dominant culture. Half of the scale’sitems focused on participants’ adaptation to the dominant ethnic culture in theUnited States (e.g., “I like to eat American foods” and “I speak English with myspouse or partner”), and the other half focused on participants resistance to thedominant culture (e.g., “I eat traditional foods from my native culture” and “I speakmy native language with my spouse or partner”). A mean score was calculated for allitems related to the adaptation to American culture, and then a mean score wascalculated for all items related to the maintenance of one’s heritage culture. Thereliability of the cultural adaptation dimension (α = .90, M = 4.14, SD = .64) andcultural maintenance dimension (α = .91, M = 2.09, SD = .79) was excellent.
Prior experiences with racial discrimination. Participants completed a modifiedversion of Brondolo et al.’s (2005) Brief Perceived Ethnic Discrimination Question-naire-Community Version (Brief PEDQ-CV). The first 34 items, arranged on a 5-point Likert-style scale (1 = never happened, 5 = happened very often) askedparticipants to indicate how often they experienced racism throughout their lives(e.g., “Because of my race, a clerk or waiter ignored me” and “Because of my race,people have called me bad names”). The second set featured 10 items that askedparticipants to indicate how often they experienced racism within the past 7 days interms of a 4-point Likert-style scale (0 = never in the past week, 3 = 3 or more time inthe past week). The reliability of this scale was strong (α = .93, M = 1.91, SD = .64).
Perceived severity. Measuring the degree to which participants believed their reportedact of discrimination was serious and problematic, this scale featured four items on a5-point Likert-style scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Sample itemsincluded, “The act was severe,” and “the act was threatening.” The reliability of thisscale was good (α = .84, M = 2.85, SD = .99). Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)was conducted on this new scale; the results indicated a moderately good fit, x2 (2) =6.97, p = .03, CFI = .99, TLI = .96, RMSEA = .09, 90% CI of RMSEA = .02 to .16, x2 / df =3.49. See Table 1 for items and factor loadings.
Table 1 Items and Standardized Regression Weights for the Severity Scale
Items Regression weights
Severity1. The act was severe .812. The act was harmful .843. The act was problematic .674. The act was threatening .71
10 L. K. Hanasono et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lis
a K
iyom
i Han
ason
o] a
t 20:
43 0
5 Ju
ly 2
014
Support needs. The Support Needs Questionnaire was developed to measureindividuals’ immediate needs for emotional (e.g., “I needed someone to comfortme”), informational (e.g., “I needed someone to help me make sense of thesituation”), instrumental (e.g., “I needed someone to give me advice about theincident”), tangible (e.g., “I needed to receive protection”), self-esteem (e.g.,“I neededsomeone to tell me that I am okay just the way I am”), and group esteem support(e.g., “I needed someone to help me feel good about being part of my racial group”).Consisting of 24 items on a 5-point Likert-style scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 =strongly agree), the reliability of this questionnaire was excellent (α = .98, M = 2.69,SD = 1.14). CFA was conducted on this new scale; the results indicated a moderatelygood fit, x2 (237) = 654.10, p < .001, CFI = .952, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .07, 90% CI ofRMSEA = .065–.078, x2 / df = 2.76. See Table 2 for items and factor loadings.
Table 2 Items and Standardized Regression Weights for the Support Needs Questionnaire
ItemsRegressionweights
Informational Support1. Someone to help me make sense of the situation .832. To talk with another person to determine if it was an act ofdiscrimination
.79
3. Someone to help me understand if the act was offensive .824. Someone to help me identify different ways to cope with the incident .855. Someone to help me understand if the act was problematic .84
Advice1. Someone to help me determine what I should do in response to the act .872. Someone to tell me what to do .833. Someone to give me advice about the incident .88
Emotional Support1. Someone to comfort me .922. Someone to listen to my emotions .823. Someone to validate my feelings .774. Someone to help me cope with my emotional distress .89
Tangible Support1. To receive protection from another person .902. To receive reparations .773. Help finding a safe place to stay .84
Self-Esteem Support1. To tell me that I am okay just the way I am .842. To tell me that they are there for me .893. To tell me that he/she feels very close to me .854. To express respect for me .85
Group Esteem Support1. To say something positive about my racial group .892. To dismiss negative stereotypes or hateful things about my racial group .843. To help me feel good about being a part of my racial group .904. To express positive regard for my racial group .915. To remind me that my racial group is just as good as other racial groups .89
Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 11
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lis
a K
iyom
i Han
ason
o] a
t 20:
43 0
5 Ju
ly 2
014
Support message evaluations. Traditionally, support messages are evaluated in termsof their overall quality, sufficiency, and the degree to which they facilitate emotion-focused and problem-focused coping (Burleson & MacGeorge, 2002). Supportmessage quality was measured with five items on a 5-point Likert-style scale (1=strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree); participants were asked to indicate the degree towhich the received support messages were helpful, appropriate, sensitive, supportive,and effective. This scale has been used frequently in supportive communicationresearch studies (e.g., Burleson et al., 2009; Hanasono et al., 2011). Reliability levelswere good (α = .83, M = 3.93, SD = .88). Sufficiency of support was measured with ascale developed by MacGeorge et al. (2004). Featuring seven items on a 5-pointLikert-style scale (1= strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), the questionnaireprompted participants to determine how sufficient the support messages were (e.g.,“After receiving support, I wanted to seek support from others [reverse-coded]”).Reliability levels were strong (α = .93, M = 3.36, SD = 1.02). Facilitation of copingwas measured with a scale developed by MacGeorge et al. (2004). The eight item scale(1= strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) included items like “After the conversation[with my support provider], I was more confident about my ability to resolve theproblem.” This scale had great reliability (α = .93, M = 3.39, SD = .80.)
Coping. Participants who did not seek support were asked to complete a modifiedversion of Carver’s (1997) COPE scale. Using a 4-point Likert-style scale (1= I did notdo this at all, 4 = I did this a lot), this questionnaire measured the degree to whichindividuals engaged in 18 different coping strategies (i.e., active coping, planning,seeking instrumental social support, seeking emotional support, suppressing compet-ing activities, religion, positive reinterpretation and growth, restrain coping, accept-ance, venting of emotions, denial, mental disengagement, behavioral disengagement,alcohol/drug use, humor, withdrawal, confrontation, and reporting). Within eachtype of coping strategy, the internal reliability was acceptable (α > .75).
Results
Support Needs
The first hypothesis predicted that when controlling for perceived severity and priorexperiences with racial discrimination, lower levels of cultural adaptation and culturalmaintenance would account for higher support needs. A hierarchical regression wasconducted to test this prediction. Perceived severity and prior experiences with racialdiscrimination were entered in the first step; the two dimensions of acculturation (i.e.,cultural adaptation and cultural maintenance) were entered in the second step.Intercorrelations are reported in Table 3, and results from the hierarchical regressionare reported in Table 4. Tests indicated that multicollinearity did not adversely affectthe analyses (VIF = 1.07 for prior experiences, VIF = for perceived severity, VIF =1.16 for cultural adaptation, and VIF = 1.17 for cultural maintenance). The overallmodel was statistically significant, F(4, 336) = 24.05, p < .001. Primary appraisalfactors (i.e., prior experiences with racial discrimination and perceived severity)
12 L. K. Hanasono et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lis
a K
iyom
i Han
ason
o] a
t 20:
43 0
5 Ju
ly 2
014
Table 3 Zero-order Correlations and Descriptive Statistics
accounted for 20% of the variance in targets’ support needs (R = .44, R2 = .20).However, when controlling for prior experiences and perceived severity, acculturationwas able to explain an additional 2.9% of the variance in support needs. A closer lookat the regression coefficients indicated a significant inverse relationship between thecultural adaptation dimension of acculturation and support needs, b = −.22, β = −.12,t(336) = −2.35, p = .02. Therefore, H1a was confirmed. However, the culturalmaintenance dimension of acculturation was not systematically predictive of supportneeds, b = −.12, β = −.09, t(336) = −1.64, p=.10. The power to detect small effects(f2= .02) was .51; the power to detect medium effects (f2= .15) and large effects (f2=.35) exceeded .99. Therefore, H1b was not supported.
Seeking Support
The second hypothesis predicted that acculturation would influence targets’ decisionto seek support after experiencing an act of racial discrimination. Specifically, H2
predicted that, controlling for targets’ prior experiences with racial discrimination,perceived severity, and support needs, (a) lower levels of cultural adaptation and (b)higher levels of cultural maintenance should account for a higher propensity to seeksupport. A total of 207 participants decided to seek support, and 131 did not. Sevenparticipants did not indicate whether or not they sought support; their responseswere omitted from this hypothesis’ analyses. To test H2, a hierarchical binary logisticregression analysis was performed (individuals who did not seek support were codedas 1; individuals who sought support were coded as 2). Perceived severity priorexperiences, and support needs were entered in the first step; cultural adaptation andcultural maintenance were entered in the second step. The overall model wasstatistically significant, χ2(2,5) = 12.72, p = .03. The model correctly predicted 90.8%of the cases that sought support and 20.6% of the cases that did not seek support for a
Table 4 Hierarchical Regression Results to Predict Support Needs from Acculturationwhile Controlling for Perceived Severity and Prior Experiences with Racial Discrimination
total average of 63.6%. A closer look at the model, however, revealed that perceivedseverity was the only marginally significant predictor in participant’s decision to seeksupport, Wald statistic = 3.65, p = .06. The regression coefficient (β = .25) indicated apositive relationship between perceived severity and targets’ propensity to seeksupport.
Interestingly, neither dimension of acculturation was predictive of individuals’decision to seek support. Cultural adaptation, Wald statistic = 1.11, p = .29, andcultural maintenance, Wald statistic = .17, p = .68, did not systematically account forparticipants’ support seeking behaviors. Also, prior experiences with racial discrim-ination was not a significant predictor, Wald statistic = .23, p = .22, nor were supportneeds, Wald statistic = .1.51, p = .22. With a sample size of 338, the power to detectsmall effects (w = .10) was .27, and the power to detect medium (w = .30) and large(w = .50) effects was in excess of .99. In sum, H2 was not supported.
Support Message Evaluations and Coping
RQ1 asked how acculturation would affect targets’ support message evaluations. Toanswer this question, three hierarchical regression analyses were performed. Priorexperiences with racial discrimination and severity were entered into the first step ofthe model, and both dimensions of acculturation (i.e., adaptation and maintenance)were entered into the second step. Each regression analysis examined the relationshipbetween the predictor variables and each outcome variable (i.e., message quality,sufficiency, and facilitation of coping). Correlations among the variables are reportedin Table 3.
The first hierarchical regression analysis examined the relationship betweenacculturation and overall message quality (i.e., the degree to which targets viewedtheir received support as sensitive, appropriate, helpful, effective, and supportive).The results produced a marginally significant model, F(4, 195) = 1.74, p = .06. Acloser examination of the data revealed that prior experiences with racial discrim-ination, b = −.12, β = −.09, t(197) = −1.25, p = .22, and perceived severity, b = .02,β = .02, t(197) = 0.30, p = .77, were not predictive of support message evaluations.Similarly, the cultural maintenance dimension of acculturation did not systematicallyinfluence support message evaluations, b = −.09 β = −.08, t(195) = −1.04, p = .30.The power to detect small effects (f2 = .02) was .31; the power to detect medium andlarge effects (f2= .15 and f2= .35 respectively) was in excess of .99. However, thecultural adaptation dimension of acculturation was a significant predictor of supportmessage quality, b = .29, β = .21, t(195) = 2.76, p = .01, sr2 = .04.
The second hierarchical regression analysis examined the relationship betweenacculturation and support sufficiency. The model (including prior experiences withdiscrimination, perceived severity, and both dimensions of acculturation as predictorvariables) was statistically significant, R = .45, F(4, 191) = 12.26, p < .001, indicatingthat the four factors collectively predicted 20% of the variance in support sufficiency.Controlling for prior experiences and perceived severity, the adaptation dimension ofacculturation was a statistically significant predictor of support sufficiency, b = .45,
Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 15
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lis
a K
iyom
i Han
ason
o] a
t 20:
43 0
5 Ju
ly 2
014
β = .29, t(4, 191) = 4.06, p <.001; this factor accounted for approximately 7% of thevariance in support sufficiency. However, the cultural maintenance dimension ofacculturation did not account for support sufficiency, b = −.10, β = −.08, t (191) =−1.13, p = .26. The power to detect small effects (f2 = .02) was .31, while the power todetect medium and large effects (f2= .15 and f2= .35 respectively) was in excess of .99.Both prior experiences with racial discrimination, b = −.30, β = −.12, t (191) = −2.88,p <.01, sr2 = .03, and perceived severity, b = −.30, β = −.28, t (191) = −4.22, p <.001,sr2 = .07, were predictive of support sufficiency. It is important to note the negativecoefficient sign, which indicated people who have more experiences with racialdiscrimination and perceived their act of discrimination to be more severe reportedlower levels of support sufficiency.
The third hierarchical regression analysis examined the relationship betweenacculturation and the degree to which support messages facilitated coping. Althoughthe model was statistically significant, F(4, 194) = 2.70, p = .03, cultural adaptationand maintenance were not predictive of support messages’ facilitation of coping. Thecultural adaptation dimension, b = .11, β = .09, t (194) = 1.18, p = .24, and culturalmaintenance dimension, b = −.15, β = −.15, t(194) = −1.92, p = .06, and participants’prior experiences with racial discrimination, b = −.10, β = −.08, t (194) = −1.14, p =.25, were outperformed by perceived severity, b = .12, β = .15, t(194) = 2.05, p = .04.The power to detect small effects (f2 = .02) was .31; the power to detect medium andlarge effects (f2 = .15 and f2 = .35 respectively) was in excess of .99.
Collectively, the analyses provide mixed results for RQ1. The cultural adaptationdimension of acculturation was associated with targets’ perceptions about the qualityand sufficiency of received support but not facilitation of coping. The positivecoefficients indicated that higher levels of cultural adaptation resulted in higher levelsof satisfaction about the quality and sufficiency of received support. Perhaps moreimportantly, it also means that targets who did not adapt to the dominant U.S.culture found their support messages to be less sufficient and of poorer quality. Onthe other hand, cultural maintenance was not found to be predictive of supportmessage quality, support sufficiency, or the facilitation of coping.
Finally, RQ2 asked if acculturation was related to the propensity to pursuedisengagement coping strategies. An index of disengagement coping was created byaveraging participants’ scores on the disengagement subscales of Carver’s (1997)COPE scale; an index of engagement coping was created by averaging participants’scores on the engagement subscales of the same questionnaire. Two linear regressionanalyses were then performed to determine the relationship between the twodimensions of acculturation and coping. The first regression analysis examined thepredictive potential of cultural adaptation and cultural maintenance on engagementcoping. The overall regression model was not statistically significant, R = .12, R2 = .02,F(2, 128) = 1.00, p = .37. Neither cultural adaptation, b = −.09, β = −.11, t(129) =−1.15, p = .26, nor cultural maintenance, b = −.03, β = −.04, t(129) = −.49, p = .63,was predictive of engagement coping strategies. The second regression analysisexamined the predictive potential of cultural adaptation and cultural maintenance ondisengagement coping, R = .21, R2 = .05, F(2, 128) = 2.99, p = .05. Cultural adaptation
16 L. K. Hanasono et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lis
a K
iyom
i Han
ason
o] a
t 20:
43 0
5 Ju
ly 2
014
explained approximately 3.4% of the variance in disengagement coping behaviors, b =−.16, β = −.19, t(129) = −2.13, p = .04, but cultural maintenance was not predictive,b = −.04, β = −.05, t(129) = −1.15.60, p = .55. The power to detect small effects (f2=.02) was .27, while the power to detect medium effects (f2 = .15) was .98 and thepower to detect large effects (f2 = .35) was in excess of .99. The results indicate thatlower levels of cultural adaptation were associated with a higher likelihood ofenacting disengagement coping strategies to cope with racial discrimination.
Discussion
Key Findings and Implications
Using Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) cognitive appraisal theory, this study aimed toexplain how acculturation affects college students’ primary appraisals, secondaryappraisals, and coping responses to acts of perceived racial discrimination. Specific-ally, this study investigated racial minority members’ prior experiences with racialdiscrimination, support needs, decision to seek support, and support messageevaluations. Several key findings emerged from the analyses. First, the culturaladaptation dimension of acculturation was predictive of participants’ support needs.When controlling for targets’ prior experiences with racial discrimination andperceived severity, cultural adaptation was negatively associated with support needs.In other words, individuals with lower levels of acculturation expressed a higher needfor social support than those who were more acculturated. Collectively, priorexperiences, perceived severity, and acculturation accounted for approximately22.4% of the variance in support needs. This finding suggests that racial minoritymembers—especially those attending college in the United States— who are lessacculturated may need more help in dealing with the detrimental effects of racialdiscrimination. Linking back to appraisal theory, it is possible that acculturation mayserve as a type of cognitive lens through which individuals perceive, interpret, andreappraise acts of discrimination and corresponding support needs. Given therelatively small effect size, however, it is important to note that other factorsinfluence targets’ support needs. For example, targets’ attachment styles (Bowlby,1969; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2009), emotional distress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), orperceived support availability (Lakey & Lutz, 1996; Ptacek, Pierce, & Ptacek, 2002)could affect their need for social support. Interestingly, the degree to whichparticipants maintained their heritage culture did not affect their support needs.This could be partly due to this study’s diverse sample. Instead of focusing onindividuals from a particular culture, we included participants from many differentethnic groups. Recognizing that each culture may maintain different norms andbeliefs about seeking support in response to discrimination, we believe that thecultural maintenance dimension becomes less meaningful when studying extremelydiverse populations. For example, a research study that uses the bidimensional modelof acculturation to study 200 Chinese immigrants’ support needs would be moreappropriate than a research study that uses the bidimensional approach to
Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 17
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lis
a K
iyom
i Han
ason
o] a
t 20:
43 0
5 Ju
ly 2
014
simultaneously examine the support needs of a group of 200 immigrants from 30different countries. Interestingly, although minority members who engaged in lowerlevels of cultural adaptation expressed a higher need for support, the resultsindicated that they were not more likely to seek support than those who engaged inhigher levels of cultural adaptation. Thus, acculturation was not predictive ofsupport seeking behaviors. These surprising results could be explained in a varietyof ways. First, language barriers may have prevented targets from seeking supportand talking with others in English about their experiences with racial discrimination.Second, less acculturated individuals might have been less aware of—or have hadreduced access to—support resources in their local communities. For example, someuniversities and local communities have special programs, offices, and peerfacilitator services to help targets cope with discrimination. It is possible thatindividuals with lower levels of acculturation might not have known about theselocal resources; also, they might not have had the time or means to take advantageof the established services.
Third, less acculturated individuals might subscribe to different cultural beliefs andscripts about the process of responding to racial discrimination. For example, theUnited States government and military forcibly removed approximately 120,000individuals of Japanese descent from their homes during World War II andimprisoned them without trial in internment camps (Murray, 2000). After experien-cing harsh forms of racial discrimination, many Japanese and Japanese Americanscoped through the cultural principle of Gaman, which means “enduring theseemingly unbearable with patience and dignity” (Hirasuna, 2005, p. 1). Instead ofrebelling against their oppressors, most Japanese and Japanese Americans quietly andpeacefully endured numerous acts of institutional and interpersonal racial discrim-ination during World War II (Spickard, 1996; Takaki 1989). Their cultural belief ingaman influenced the ways they responded to racial discrimination.
Fourth, individuals who are less acculturated may subscribe to different culturalvalues that affect their decision to seek support and corresponding behaviors. Forexample, members of more conflict-avoidant cultures might be less likely to talkabout potentially upsetting topics like racial discrimination. Also, members of highcontext cultures may seek support in more indirect ways (e.g., instead of directlyasking for advice, an individual may hint about the difficulties of responding to racialdiscrimination). Finally, given the taboo topic of racial discrimination, it is possiblethat all targets (regardless of their acculturation levels) may be hesitant to talk withothers about their experiences. Future research should strive to identify theunderlying reasons why both dimensions of acculturation were not associated witha higher likelihood of seeking support.
Taken together, the key findings from this study reveal that although some racialminority members may have a higher need for support, they are not more likely toseek help from friends and family members. Researchers, college student affairs staff,and community leaders should develop intervention programs and communicationskills workshops that will help less acculturated individuals find, seek, and receive thesupport they need in response to racial discrimination. Since this group of individuals
18 L. K. Hanasono et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lis
a K
iyom
i Han
ason
o] a
t 20:
43 0
5 Ju
ly 2
014
tends to have higher support needs—but are not more likely to seek support—universities and communities could develop support groups, outreach programs,online support forums, and services that actively offer support to those in need.
As expected, not all support messages were equally effective, sufficient, or helpful.Some targets of racial discrimination who sought support indicated that they weresatisfied with the assistance they received. However, others were not. Most notably,the results from this study found the adaptation dimension of acculturation to besystematically associated support message quality and sufficiency. Specifically,individuals who were more highly adapted to the dominant U.S. culture were moresatisfied with the quality and sufficiency of received support. Perhaps moreimportantly, this finding revealed that individuals who were not well adapted to thedominant U.S. culture were less satisfied with the support they received. Again, thisfinding reinforces the need to develop campus and community programs, workshops,and resources to ensure the provision of more sufficient and effective forms ofsupport to racial minority members with lower cultural adaptation levels.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Several methodological limitations should be considered. First, this study featured theretrospective reports and assessments of racial minority members. We employed thismethod so we could examine individuals’ real experiences with racial discrimination(instead of hypothetical examples or interactions in laboratory settings). However, weacknowledge that the retrospective design limits our predictive power, and weunderstand that participants’ memories can be malleable. Future research shouldemploy alternative research designs, such as experimental procedures or diary studies.
Second, our sample consisted of undergraduate and graduate students at a largeuniversity. Although we were able to feature the perspectives of racial minoritymembers and study their experiences with racial discrimination, they remain arelatively homogeneous sample in terms of class, education level, and age.Admittedly, college students are relatively privileged and educated group of people.Future research should examine how children and adults in specific communitiesoutside of academia experience and cope with racial discrimination.
In closing, this study reveals that, when experiencing racial discrimination,minority members with lower acculturation levels have a greater need for socialsupport, but are not more likely to seek assistance from friends and family members.In addition, these individuals tend to be less satisfied with the support that theyreceive from other. These results together suggest the need for communities todevelop programs or workshops to help less acculturated members seek moresufficient and effective forms of social support to deal with racial discrimination.Programs could also be developed to help community members provide moresensitive and helpful messages of support to those in need.
Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 19
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lis
a K
iyom
i Han
ason
o] a
t 20:
43 0
5 Ju
ly 2
014
References
Allison, K.W. (1998). Stress and oppressed social category membership. In J.K. Swim & C. Stangor(Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 145–169). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Barrett, L.F., & Swim, J.K. (1998). Appraisals of prejudice and discrimination. In J.K. Swim &C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 11–36). San Diego, CA: AcademicPress.
Berry, J.W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An Interna-tional Review, 36, 5–68. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.x
Berry, J.W., Phinney, J.S., Sam, D.L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth: Acculturation, identity,and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55, 303–332. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00256.x
Berry, J.W., & Sam, D.L. (1997). Acculturation and adaptation. In J.W. Berry, M.H. Segall, & C.Kagitcibasi (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, Vol. 3: Social behavior andapplications (2nd ed., pp. 291–326). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. New York, NY: Basic Books.Brondolo, E., Kelly, K.P., Coakley, V., Gordon, T., Thompson, S., Levy, E., … Contrada, R.J. (2005).
The perceived ethnic discrimination questionnaire: Development and preliminary validationof a community version. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 335–365. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02124.x
Burleson, B.R., Hanasono, L.K., Bodie, G.D., Holmstrom, A.J., Rack, J.J., Rosier, J.G., &McCullough, J.D. (2009). Explaining gender differences in responses to supportivemessages: Two tests of a dual-process approach. Sex Roles, 61, 265–280. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9623-7
Burleson, B.R., & MacGeorge, E.L. (2002). Supportive communication. In M.L. Knapp, J.A. Daly, &G.R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.
Burleson, B.R., & Mortenson, S.R. (2003). Explaining cultural differences in evaluations ofemotional support behaviors: Exploring the mediating influences of value systems andinteraction goals. Communication Research, 30, 113–146. doi:10.1177/0093650202250873
Carver, C.S. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol’s too long: Consider the BriefCOPE. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 92–100. doi:10.1207/s15327558ijbm0401_6
Clark, R., & Gochett, P. (2006). Interactive effects of perceived racism and coping responses predicta school-based assessment of blood pressure in black youth. Annals of Behavioral Medicine,21, 1–9. doi:10.1207/s15324796abm3201_1
Constantine, M.B., Wilton, L., & Caldwell, L.D. (2003). The role of social support in moderating therelationship between psychological distress and willingness to seek psychological help amongBack and Latino college students. Journal of College Counseling, 6, 155–165. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1882.2003.tb00236.x
Cutrona, C.E., & Russell, D.W. (1990). Type of social support and specific stress: Toward a theoryof optimal matching. In B.R. Sarason, I.G. Sarason, & G.R. Pierce (Eds.), Social support: Aninteractional view (pp. 319–366). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Cutrona, C.E., & Suhr, J.A. (1992). Controllability of stressful events and satisfaction with spousesupport behaviors. Communication Research, 19, 154–174. doi:10.1177/009365092019002002
Czopp, A.M., Monteith, M.J., & Mark, A.Y. (2006). Standing up for a change: Reducing biasthrough interpersonal confrontation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 784–803. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.784
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2011). Hate crimes statistics: Incidents and offenses. Retrievedfrom http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.pdf.
Feng, B., & Burleson, B.R. (2008). The effects of argument explicitness on responses to advice insupportive interactions. Communication Research, 35, 849–874. doi:10.1177/0093650208324274
Finch, B.K., & Vega, W.A. (2003). Acculturation stress, social support, and self-rated health amongLatinos in California. Journal of Immigrant Health, 5, 109–117. doi:10.1023/A:1023987717921
Gee, G.C., Spencer, M.S., Chen, J., & Takeuchi, D. (2007). A nationwide study of discrimination andchronic health conditions among Asian Americans. American Journal of Public Health, 97(7),1275–1282. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2006.091827
Gordon, M.M. (1964). Assimilation in American life: The role of race, religion, and national origins.New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Goto, S.G., Gee, G.C., & Takeuchi, D.T. (2002). Strangers still? The experience of discriminationamong Chinese Americans. Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2), 211–224. doi:10.1002/jcop.9998
Greene, M.L., Way, N., & Pahl, K. (2006). Trajectories of perceived adult and peer discriminationamong Black, Latino, and Asian American adolescents: Patterns and psychological correlates.Developmental Psychology, 42(2), 218–238. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.2.218
Hample, D. (2010). Anti-comforting messages. In K.M. Galvin (Ed.), Making connections: Readingsin relational communication (5th ed., pp. 248–254). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hanasono, L.K., Burleson, B.R., Bodie, G.B., Holmstrom, A.J., Rack, J.J., McCullough, J.D., & Rosier,J.G. (2011). Explaining gender differences in the perception of support availability: Themediating effects of construct availability and accessibility. Communication Research Reports,28, 254–265. doi:10.1080/08824096.2011.588580
Harris, R., Tobias, M., Jeffreys, M., Waldegrave, K., Karleson, S., & Nazroo, J. (2006). Racism andhealth: The relationship between experience of racial discrimination and health in NewZealand. Social Science and Medicine, 63, 1428–1441. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.04.009
Hirasuna, D. (2005). The art of gaman: Arts and crafts from the Japanese American internmentcamps, 1942–1946. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.
Inzlicht, M., McKay, L., & Aronson, J. (2006). Stigma as ego depletion: How being the target ofprejudice affects self-control. Psychological Science, 17, 262–269. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01695.x
Kaiser, C.R., & Miller, C.T. (2001). Stop complaining! The social costs of making attributions todiscrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(2), 254–263. doi:10.1177/0146167201272010
Krieger, N., & Sidney, S. (1996). Racial discrimination and blood pressure: The CARDIA studyof young black and white adults. American Journal of Public Health, 86, 1370–1378.doi:10.2105/AJPH.86.10.1370
Lakey, B., & Lutz, C.J. (1996). Social support and preventative and therapeutic interventions. In G.R.Pierce, B.R. Sarason, & I.G. Sarason (Eds.), Handbook of social support and the family (pp.435–465). New York, NY: Plenum.
Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Spring PublishingCompany.
Leets, L. (2002). Experiencing hate speech: Perceptions and responses to anti-Semitism and antigayspeech. Journal of Social Issues 58(2), 341–361. doi:10.1111/1540-4560.00264
Lewis, T.T., Yang, F.M., Jacobs, E.A., & Fitchett, G. (2012). Racial/ethnic differences in response toeveryday discrimination scale: A differential item functioning analysis. American Journal ofEpidemiology, 175, 391–401. doi:10.1093/aje/kwr287
MacGeorge, E.L., Feng, B., Butler, G.L., & Budarz, S.K. (2004). Understanding advice in supportiveinteractions: Beyond the facework and message evaluation paradigm. Human Communica-tion Research, 30, 42–70. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00724.x
MacGeorge, E.L., Feng, B., & Thompson, E.R. (2008). “Good” and “bad” advice: How to advisemore effectively. In M. Motley (Ed.), Applied interpersonal communication: Behaviors thataffect outcomes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Major, B., Kaiser, C.R., O’Brien, L.T., & McCoy, S.K. (2007). Perceived discrimination as worldviewthreat or worldview confirmation: Implications for self-esteem. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 92, 1068–1086. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1068
Major, B., & Vick, S.B. (2005). The psychological impact of prejudice. In J.F. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L.A. Rudman (Eds.), (pp.139–154). On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport. Malden,MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Marín, G., Sabogal, F., Marín, B.V., Otero-Sabogal, F., & Perez-Stable, E.J. (1987). Development of ashort acculturation scale for Hispanics. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9, 183–205.doi:10.1177/07399863870092005
Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 21
McNeilly, M.D., Robinson, E.L., Anderson, N.B., Pieper, C.F., Shah, A., Toth, P.S., … Gerin, W.(1995). Effects of racist provocation and social support on cardiovascular reactivity inAfrican American women. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 2, 321–338.doi:10.1207/s15327558ijbm0204_3
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P.R. (2009). An attachment and behavioral systems perspective onsocial support. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 7–19. doi:10.1177/0265407509105518
Miller, C.T., & Kaiser, C.R. (2001). Implications of mental models of self and others for the targetsof stigmatization. In M.R. Leary (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (pp. 189–212). New York, NY:Oxford University Press.
Murray, A.Y. (2000). What did the internment of Japanese Americans mean? Boston, MA: BedfordSt. Martin.
Myers, H.F., Lewis, T.T., & Parker-Dominguez, T. (2003). Stress, coping, and minority health:Biopsychosocial perspective on ethnic health disparities. In G. Bernal, J.E. Trimble, A.K.Burlew, & F.T.L. Leong (Eds.), Handbook of racial and ethnic minority psychology (pp. 377–400). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Noh, S., & Kaspar, V. (2003). Coping with perceived discrimination: Does ethnic identity protectmental health? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 40, 193–207. doi:10.2307/2676348
Pascoe, E.A., & Richman, L.S. (2009). Perceived discrimination and health: A meta-analytic review.Psychological Bulletin, 135, 531–554. doi:10.1037/a0016059
Pérez, D., Fortuna, L., & Alegría, M. (2008). Prevalence and correlates of everyday discriminationamong U.S. Latinos. Journal of Community Psychology, 36(4), 421–433. doi:10.1002/jcop.20221
Ptacek, J.T., Pierce, G.R., & Ptacek, J.J. (2002). The social context of coping with prostate cancer.Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, 20, 61–80. doi:10.1300/J077v20n01_04
Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. (1936). Memorandum on the study of acculturation.American Anthropologist, 28, 149–152. doi:10.1525/aa.1936.38.1.02a00330
Richman, J.A., Gaviria, M., Flaherty, J.A., Birz, S., & Wintrob, R.M. (1987). The process ofacculturation: Theoretical perspectives and an empirical investigation in Peru. Social Scienceand Medicine, 25, 839–847. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(87)90042-6
Spickard, P.R. (1996). Japanese Americans: The formation and transformation of an ethnic group.London, UK: Twayne Publishers.
Stephenson, M. (2000). Development and validation of the Stephenson Multigroup AcculturationScale (SMAS). Psychological Assessment, 82, 77–88. doi:10.1037//1040-3590.12.1.77
Sue, D.W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. Hoboken,NJ: Wiley.
Swim, J.K., Hyers, L.L., Cohen, L.L., Fitzgerald, D.C., & Bylsma, W.H. (2003). African Americancollege students’ experiences with everyday racism: Characteristics of and responses to theseincidents. The Journal of Black Psychology, 29, 38–57. doi:10.1177/0095798402239228
Takaki, R. (1989). Strangers from a different shore: A history of Asian Americans. New York, NY:Back Bay Books.
Van de Vijver, F.J., & Phalet, K. (2004). Assessment in multicultural groups: The role ofacculturation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 215–236. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00169.x
Wei, M., Heppner, P.P., Ku, T., & Liao, K.Y. (2010). Racial discrimination stress, coping, anddepressive symptoms among Asian Americans: A moderation analysis. Asian AmericanJournal of Psychology, 1, 136–150. doi:10.1037/a0020157
![[2014] Understanding Emerging Markets through Consumer Acculturation](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/634e96e20d6acb880b02e1ac/2014-understanding-emerging-markets-through-consumer-acculturation.jpg)
