Development of a New Scale for Measuring Acculturation: The East Asian Acculturation Measure (EAAM)

P1: GYQ/GAY P2: GFU

Journal of Immigrant Health PP251-344759 August 29, 2001 9:34 Style file version Oct. 20, 2000

Journal of Immigrant Health, Vol. 3, No. 4, October 2001 ( c© 2001)

Development of a New Scale for Measuring Acculturation:The East Asian Acculturation Measure (EAAM)

Declan T. Barry1

Given the paucity of appropriate measures to assess the acculturation patterns of East Asianimmigrants in the United States, a new acculturation instrument was developed and evalu-ated. One-hundred and fifty nonclinical East Asian immigrants (75 males and 75 females)were administered the East Asian Acculturation Measure (EAAM) and provided demo-graphic information concerning length of stay in the United States and gender. Satisfactoryreliability is reported for the four acculturation scales: assimilation, separation, integration,and marginalization. Length of stay was not associated with separation but was significantlypositively associated with assimilation and integration and significantly negatively associatedwith marginalization. Gender was not associated with any of the acculturation scales. The find-ings suggest that the EAAM may be a useful tool for researchers and clinicians to investigatethe acculturation patterns of East Asian immigrants.

KEY WORDS: acculturation; East Asian; immigrant.

INTRODUCTION

Acculturation may be defined as social interac-tion and communication response styles (both com-petency and ease/comfort in communicating) that in-dividuals adopt when interacting with individuals andgroups from another culture (1). The assessment ofacculturation is an important component in the deliv-ery of culturally sensitive clinical services (2, 3). Com-munication difficulty resulting from cultural differ-ences between English-proficient Asian Americansand their American treaters has been associated withunderutilization of health care services (4). The pro-cess and outcome of acculturation may also influencehow symptoms are expressed and, in turn, subsequententry into or use of the health care system (5). How-ever, there has been a relative dearth of research thatexamines the acculturation patterns of East Asian(i.e., Chinese, Japanese, and Korean) and other Asianethnic groups in the United States (4). This paucity is

1Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine,P.O. Box 208098, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8098; e-mail:[email protected].

somewhat surprising given that East Asian Americanscomprise many foreign-born individuals (6) whosehost and native cultures differ significantly.

The Suinn-Lew Asian Self-Identity Accultura-tion scale (SL-ASIA; 7) is the most widely usedmeasure of acculturation among Asian Americans. Itassesses language, identity, friendship choice, behav-iors, generation status, and attitudes, and is premisedon the assumption that acculturation is a unidimen-sional construct that ranges from “low acculturation,”indicating an Asian identification, to “high accultura-tion,” indicating a Western identification, and includesa midpoint, which represents a “bicultural” identifi-cation. Although the SL-ASIA has garnered increas-ing empirical attention (e.g., 8, 9) and shows muchpromise as a research instrument, it has been criti-cized because it does not distinguish between differ-ent Asian ethnic groups and does not assess a range ofacculturation behaviors and situations (8, 10). More-over, it does not adequately recognize that individualsmay display varying patterns of acculturation in dif-ferent situations (11). Acculturation may be betterdescribed as a composite profile rather than a uni-tary phenomenon or single-scale score (12). From a

193

1096-4045/01/1000-0193$19.50/0 C© 2001 Plenum Publishing Corporation

P1: GYQ/GAY P2: GFU


194 Barry

clinical perspective, the SL-ASIA may be limited be-cause it does not flag marginalized immigrant or eth-nic minority individuals (i.e., individuals who havedifficulty fitting into host and native cultures) whomay be particularly vulnerable to psychological dis-tress because of an absence of social supports.

In contrast to the unidimensional nature of theSL-ASIA (7), Berry (13) argued that immigrants inmulticultural societies, such as the United States, tendto utilize one of four acculturation strategies: assim-ilation, separation, integration, or marginalization.Assimilation involves giving up one’s cultural iden-tity and moving into the larger society. Separationconstitutes maintenance of ethnic identity and tradi-tions and a simultaneous absence of relations withthe larger society. Integration involves the mainte-nance of a group’s “cultural integrity” while simul-taneously becoming an integral part of the larger so-ciety. Marginalization occurs when individuals haveno cultural or psychological contact with their tra-ditional culture or the larger society. While Berry’smodel is conceptually rich, his measures appear tohave only limited utility with East Asian immigrants.None of his measures specifically assess East Asianacculturation. Although Berry reports on accultur-ation measures employed with Chinese and Koreanstudents living in Canada (14, 15), small sample sizeswere used, communication response styles were notadequately assessed, and many of the items violatedstandard guidelines for clear measure item construc-tion (16). For example, one assimilation item reads:“Most of my friends are Canadians because they areenjoyable and I feel comfortable around them but Idon’t feel the same way with Koreans!”

Given the paucity of adequate empirical mea-sures to assess East Asian acculturation, the EastAsian Acculturation Measure (EAAM) was devel-oped and evaluated. This study examined whetherthe EAAM was associated with length of residencein the United States, which was previously noted tobe conceptually and empirically associated with accul-turation (2, 7). Possible relationships between genderand acculturation were explored.

METHODS

Instrument

The EAAM is a 29-item self-report inventory,which measures four dimensions of acculturation out-lined by Berry (13): assimilation (8 items), separation

(7 items), integration (5 items), and marginalization(9 items) (see Table I). Attitudinal and behavioralfacets of social interaction and communication styles(both competency and ease/comfort in communicat-ing) in various settings were assessed (1). Items arescored using a 7-point Likert-type scale (strongly dis-agree, disagree, disagree somewhat, neutral, agreesomewhat, agree, agree strongly). The total scoreis derived by summing reverse- and positive-scoreditems.

Items for the EAAM were generated from indi-vidual in-depth semistructured interviews carried outby the author (17) with 18 East Asian students andfaculty at a midwestern state university: six Chinese(3 male and 3 female), six Japanese (3 male and3 female), and six Korean (3 male and 3 female).Participants were asked about their social interactionand communication styles with Americans and ethnicpeers, in a variety of different settings. After generat-ing the EAAM items, the author met with pilot studyparticipants in two groups of nine to ascertain feed-back and to check the draft EAAM items for meaningand clarity, which resulted in further modifications.

Subjects

Subjects in this study participated in an empiricalinvestigation of the relationships between ethnic iden-tity, self-construal, acculturation patterns, and mentalhealth in East Asian immigrants in the United States(17). The study described here utilized acculturationdata from 150 East Asian immigrants (mean age 28.7,SD 6.40) who participated in the measure evaluationinvestigations: 50 Chinese (25 males and 25 females),50 Japanese (25 males and 25 females), and 50 Korean(25 males and 25 females). Participants had lived, onaverage, 7.4 years (SD = 6.4) in the United States. Asample of convenience was self-selected in responseto widespread advertisement through electronic me-dia, fliers, assistance from the international studentoffice at the University of Toledo, networking, andpersonal contacts. The first 25 male and female re-spondents from each ethnic subgroup were used inthe study.

The subjects were well educated. Approximatelyone-third of the participants had completed or werecurrently enrolled in undergraduate education; theremaining two-thirds had completed or were cur-rently enrolled in postgraduate programs. All subjectsreported average or fluent English and native lan-guage levels. Eleven percent of the sample described

P1: GYQ/GAY P2: GFU


East Asian Immigrant Acculturation 195

Table I. Means and Standard Deviations of the East Asian Ethnic Acculturation Measure Items

Acculturation item M SD

Scale 1: Assimilation1 I write better in English than in my native language (for example, Chinese, Japanese, Korean) 2.74 1.785 When I am in my apartment/house, I typically speak English 3.25 1.989 If I were asked to write poetry, I would prefer to write it in English 2.81 1.78

13 I get along better with Americans than Asiansa 3.14 1.3817 I feel that Americans understand me better than Asians do 2.74 1.2221 I find it easier to communicate my feelings to Americans than to Asians 2.83 1.3224 I feel more comfortable socializing with Americans than I do with Asians 3.09 1.1227 Most of my friends at work/school are American 3.46 1.80Scale 2: Separation

2 Most of the music I listen to is Asian 2.87 1.586 My closest friends are Asian 5.53 1.74

10 I prefer going to social gatherings where most of the people are Asian 4.22 1.4714 I feel that Asians treat me as an equal more so than Americans do 4.09 1.5118 I would prefer to go out on a date with an Asian than with an American 4.44 1.5722 I feel more relaxed when I am with an Asian than when I am with an American 4.60 1.4925 Asians should not date non-Asians 1.69 1.05Scale 3: Integration

3 I tell jokes both in English and in my native language (for example, Chinese, Japanese, Korean) 4.63 1.727 I think as well in English as I do in my native language (for example, Chinese, Japanese, Korean) 4.19 1.79

11 I have both American and Asian friends 5.55 1.3215 I feel that both Asians and Americans value me 5.13 1.2219 I feel very comfortable around both Americans and Asians 4.88 1.34Scale 4: Marginalization

4 Generally, I find it difficult to socialize with anybody, Asian or American 2.31 1.348 I sometimes feel that neither Americans nor Asians like me 2.16 1.32

12 There are times when I think no one understands me 3.73 1.8416 I sometimes find it hard to communicate with people 4.07 1.6220 I sometimes find it hard to make friends 3.64 1.2123 Sometimes I feel that Asians and Americans do not accept me 2.38 1.2126 Sometimes I find it hard to trust both Americans and Asians 3.17 1.4828 I find that both Asians and Americans often have difficulty understanding me 3.26 1.5529 I find that I do not feel comfortable when I am with other people 2.81 1.52

Note. n = 150 East Asian immigrants. M = mean, SD = standard deviation.aParticipants were informed that for the purpose of this study ‘Asian’ pertained to people from China, Japan, and Korea.

themselves as Buddhist, 20% as Atheist, 33% asChristian, and the remainder (36%) endorsed the“other” category.

RESULTS

Reliability was calculated using Cronbach’s al-pha, which led to coefficients of 0.77, 0.76, 0.74,and 0.85 for assimilation, separation, integration,and marginalization scales, respectively. Assimilationitem-total correlations ranged from 0.41 to 0.62. Theaverage item-total correlation was 0.49. Separationitem-total correlations ranged from 0.34 to 0.63. Theaverage item-total correlation was 0.48. Integrationitem-total correlations ranged from 0.42 to 0.59. Theaverage item-total correlation was 0.51. Marginaliza-tion item-total correlations ranged from 0.49 to 0.63.

The average item-total correlation was 0.57. Thesealpha coefficients demonstrated adequate interitemconsistency for each of the four scales.

The interscale correlations between the fourEAAM scales are shown in Table II. Significant nega-tive correlations were found between assimilation andseparation (r = −0.39, p = 0.000) and integration

Table II. Correlations Between East Asian AcculturationSubscales

EAAM subscales (2) (3) (4)

Assimilation −0.39∗ 0.46∗ −0.06Separation — −0.48∗ 0.11Integration — — −0.40∗Marginalization — — —

Note. n = 150 East Asian immigrants.∗ p = 0.000.

P1: GYQ/GAY P2: GFU


196 Barry

and marginalization (r = −0.40, p = 0.000). Whilemarginalization was not associated with assimilationor separation, integration was significantly positivelycorrelated with assimilation (r = 0.46, p = 0.000).

Length of stay in the United States was not as-sociated with separation. In contrast, length of stay inthe United States was significantly positively corre-lated with assimilation (r = 0.50, p < 0.001) and in-tegration (r = 0.29, p < 0.05) but significantly neg-atively correlated with marginalization (r = −0.19,p < 0.05). Thus, the longer participants remained inthe United States, the more likely they were to assim-ilate and integrate, and the less likely they were tobecome marginalized. Gender was not significantlycorrelated with assimilation, separation, integration,or marginalization.

DISCUSSION

The goal of this study was to develop and eval-uate a new empirical self-report instrument, whichexamined the acculturation patterns of East Asianimmigrants in the United States. The EAAM scaleswere based on the four dimensions of acculturationoutlined by Berry (13), namely, assimilation, sepa-ration, integration, and marginalization. Specifically,the scales view acculturation as social interactionand communication response styles (both compe-tency and ease/comfort in communicating) that in-dividuals adopt when interacting with individuals andgroups from another culture (1). Unlike the SL-ASIA(7) the EAAM conceptualizes acculturation as a mul-tidimensional phenomenon, which occurs at differentlevels, and assesses attitudes and behaviors in a varietyof situations (8, 11). Each EAAM item probes a dis-creet idea; scales do not include any double-barreledor triple-barreled items (14).

The internal reliability levels for the four EAAMscales, which ranged from 0.74 to 0.85, appear to pro-vide content validation for the EAAM. A Cronbach’salpha of 0.65 is generally considered to be an adequatecutoff level. The patterns of significant negative as-sociations between assimilation and separation, andintegration and marginalization were consistent con-ceptually with Berry’s (13) model and appear to pro-vide construct validity for the EAAM.

East Asians who had elevated assimilation scoresalso tended to have elevated integration scores. Thus,assimilation and integration scales were not indepen-dent. This is an interesting theoretical finding. Ac-cording to Berry et al. (18), empirical relationships

between acculturation scales vary as a function of theimmigrant or ethnic group’s social standing within thewider population and their opportunity to enter intothe majority culture. Perhaps, given their ethnic dis-tinctiveness and relatively low social standing in theUnited States (19), integration for East Asian par-ticipants may be characterized by a desire to fit inrather than an attempt to socialize and communicateas much with East Asians as with Americans. Thisfinding needs to be replicated with other East Asianimmigrants.

Separation was not associated with length of stayin the United States. In contrast, the longer partici-pants remained in the United States, the more likelythey were to assimilate and integrate, and the lesslikely they were to be marginalized. The finding thatassimilation and length of stay in the United Stateswere positively associated replicate those previouslyreported by Suinn et al. (7). Since most studies of EastAsian acculturation have not employed multidimen-sional scales, the finding that length of stay was asso-ciated with decreased marginalization and increasedintegration may be important in understanding thecomplex process of acculturation (11) and highlightsthe need for researchers and clinicians to employ mul-tidimensional rather than unidimensional accultura-tion scales.

In terms of gender, men and women did not dif-fer on current levels of assimilation, separation, inte-gration, or marginalization. These findings replicatethose previously reported by Anderson et al. (20) withSoutheast Asians.

Effective health care interventions with immi-grants should address acculturation. Patients’ views ofmental and physical illness and associated health prac-tices should help inform clinical interventions. Tradi-tional psychotherapy, which is predicated on Westerncultural values, including individuality (21) may notbe an effective tool with separated or marginalizedAsian immigrant patients. Similarly, the applicationof Western medicine to immigrant patients from non-Western cultural backgrounds, accompanied by theassumption that they will change their ways and ad-here to a treatment plan, may have a deleterious im-pact on their health (22). Information about Asianimmigrant patients’ communication and socializationpatterns with ethnic and non-Asian American peersmay allow the clinician to gain a better insight intotheir world and minimize potential ethnocentrismand therapeutic ruptures (23). An assessment of ac-culturation may provide information about impor-tant within-group differences and potentially reduce

P1: GYQ/GAY P2: GFU


East Asian Immigrant Acculturation 197

schematic thinking, which contributes to stereotyp-ing (24). Thus, clinical interventions with East Asianimmigrants should be tailored to their acculturationstatus, which in turn may be assessed by the EAAM.

Several potential limitations should be noted.The sample size of 150, given a 40-item questionnaire,is below that generally recommended for factor anal-ysis. A cross-validation study with a larger sample isneeded. However, given the difficulties recruiting ad-equate numbers from this population, the theoreti-cal coherence of the four scales, and the relationshipbetween assimilation and length of residence in theUnited States, the EAAM may be theoretically andclinically useful. Participants were well educated. Al-though many East Asian immigrants are well edu-cated, some are not. Indeed, there appears to be abimodal distribution, comprising well-educated andpoorly educated individuals (25). Consequently, thesample may not be representative of the overall EastAsian immigrant population in the United States. Theuse of the electronic media to solicit participants isstill somewhat unorthodox. The Internet was used be-cause of the small number of East Asians completingthe questionnaires in the Northwest Ohio area. How-ever, the Northwest Ohio and Internet samples werecomparable on all measures. Moreover, the use of theInternet may afford participants a greater sense ofanonymity than traditional survey methods and thusmay be a useful data collection (26).

Overall, as an initial investigation of the EAAM,the results were encouraging. Although further re-search is required with a larger sample of varyingsocioeconomic backgrounds and ages, initial findingssuggest that the EAAM may demonstrate adequatevalidity and reliability, and shows promise as a usefultool for clinicians and researchers working with EastAsian immigrants in the United States.

REFERENCES

1. Barry DT, Garner DM: Eating concerns in East Asian immi-grants. Eat Weight Disord 2001; 6:90–98

2. Nagata DK: Assessing Asian American acculturation and eth-nic identity: The need for a multidimensional framework.Asian Am Pac Islander J Health 1994; 2:108–124

3. Puente AE, Garcia MP: Psychological measurement of ethnicminorities: In: Goldstein G, Hersen M, eds. Handbook of Psy-chological Assessment. New York: Pergamon; 2000:527–551

4. Ma GX: Access to health care by Asian Americans: In: Ma GX,Henderson G, eds. Ethnicity and Health Care: A SocioculturalApproach. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas; 1999:99–121

5. Aponte JF, Barnes JM: Impact of acculturation and moderatorvariables on the intervention and treatment of ethnic groups:

In: Aponte JFR, Rivers Y, Wohl J, eds. Psychological Interven-tions and Cultural Diversity. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon;1995:19–39

6. U.S. Bureau of the Census: Current Population Reports.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1990

7. Suinn RM, Rickard-Figueroa K, Lew S, Vigil P: The Suinn-Lew Asian Self-Identity Acculturation Scale: An initial report.Educ Psychol Meas 1987; 47:401–407

8. Iwamasa GY: Acculturation of Asian American university stu-dents. Assessment 1996; 1:99–102

9. Ponterotto JG, Baluch S, Carielli D: The Suinn-Lew AsianSelf-Identity Acculturation Scale (SL-ASIA): Critique andresearch recommendations. Meas Eval Counsel Dev 1998;31:109–124

10. Leong TL, Chou EL: The role of ethnic identity and accul-turation in the vocational behavior of Asian Americans: Anintegrative review. J Vocational Behav 1994; 44:155–172

11. Mendoza RH: Acculturation and sociocultural variability: In:Martinez JL, Mendoza RH, eds. Chicano Psychology 2nd edn.Orlando, FL: Academic Press; 1984

12. Sodowsky GR, Lai EWM, Plake BS: Moderating effects ofsociocultural variables on acculturation attitudes of Hispanicsand Asian Americans. J Counsel Dev 1991; 70:194–204

13. Berry JW: Acculturation as varieties of adaptation: In: PadillaA, ed. Acculturation: Theory, Models and Some New Findings.Boulder, CO: Westview; 1980:9–25

14. Chataway CJ, Berry JW: Acculturation experiences, appraisal,coping and adaptation: A comparison of Hong Kong Chinese,French, and English students in Canada. Can J Behav Sci 1989;21:295–309

15. Zheng Z, Berry JW: Psychological adaptation of Chinesesojourners in Canada. Int J Psychol 1991; 4:451–470

16. Dawis RV: Scale construction. J Counsel Psychol 1987; 34:481–489

17. Barry DT: East Asians in America: Relationships between ac-culturation, ethnic identity, self-construal, and mental healthof East Asian immigrants, doctoral dissertation, University ofToledo, Toledo, Ohio; 1999

18. Berry JW, Kim U, Power S, Young M, Bujaki M: Acculturationattitudes in plural societies. Appl Psychol Int Rev 1989; 38:185–206

19. Sue DW: The impact of two cultures on the psychological de-velopment of Asians in America: In: Atkinson DR, Morten G,Sue DW, eds. Counseling American Minorities. Dubuque, IA:W. C. Brown; 1989:103–115

20. Anderson J, Moeschberger M, Chen MS, Kunn P, Wewers ME,Guthrie R: An acculturation scale for Southeast Asians. SocPsychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 1993; 28:134–141

21. Ivey AE: Counseling and psychotherapy: Toward a new per-spective: In: Marsella AJ, Pedersen EJ, eds. Cross-CulturalCounseling and Psychotherapy. New York: Pergamon; 1981:297–311

22. Ma GX, Henderson G: Ethnicity and health care: In: Ma GX,Henderson G, eds. Ethnicity and Health Care: A SocioculturalApproach. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas; 1999:5–22

23. Barry DT, Elliott R, Evans EM: Foreigners in a strange land:Self-construal and ethnic identity in male Arabic immigrants.J Immigrant Health 2000; 2:133–144

24. Kwon P: Application of social cognition principles to treat-ment recommendations for ethnic minority clients: Thecase of Asian Americans. Clin Psychol Rev 1995; 15, 613–629.

25. Uba L: Asian Americans: Personality Patterns, Identity, andMental Health. New York: Guilford Press; 1994

26. Barry DT: Assessing culture via the Internet: Methods andtechniques for psychological research. J CyberPsychol Behav2001; 4:17–21.

Documents

Development of a New Scale for Measuring Acculturation: The East Asian Acculturation Measure (EAAM)