Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 2014, pp. 1–22
Downloaded by [Lisa Kiyomi Hanasono] at 20:43 05 July 2014
Identifying Communities in Need: Examining the Impact of Acculturation on Perceived Discrimination, Social Support, and Coping amongst Racial Minority Members in the United States Lisa K. Hanasono, Lanming Chen & Steven R. Wilson
Utilizing a cognitive appraisal approach, this study examines how acculturation affects racial minority members’ appraisals of and responses to racial discrimination. Racial minority members (N = 345) completed questionnaires about their prior experiences with racial discrimination and coping responses. Controlling for participants’ prior experiences with racial discrimination and primary appraisals, the results revealed that acculturation helped explain individuals’ need for social support, support message evaluations, and the pursuit of disengagement coping strategies. Findings from this study provide helpful information for the development of intervention and outreach programs for individuals in our communities who are coping with racial discrimination. Keywords: Acculturation; Discrimination; Social Support; Coping
Interpersonal racial discrimination continues to be a serious problem in the United States (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 of stigmatized people (Miller & Kaiser, 2001). Instead of targeting a person’s behaviors or attitudes, acts of interpersonal discrimination attack an immutable part of an
Lisa K. Hanasono & Lanming Chen are at Department of Communication, School of Media and Communication, Bowling Green State University. Steven R. Wilson is at the Brian Lamb School of Communication 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] ISSN 1751-3057 (print)/ISSN 1751-3065 (online) © 2014 National Communication Association http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2014.929201
Downloaded by [Lisa Kiyomi Hanasono] at 20:43 05 July 2014
2
L. K. Hanasono et al.
individual: his or her race. Moreover, these acts tend to have injurious effects on targets’ physical, psychological, and relational well-being. Extant research has documented the ways that racial discrimination is associated with higher rates of cardiovascular 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 many racial minority members. Although a wide variety of coping strategies exist (e.g., problem-solving, denial, avoidance, passive acceptance, reporting the incident, and venting), many options present serious drawbacks. For instance, while confrontation may seem like an empowering coping strategy, it can yield some highly problematic consequences. In a lab experiment, Czopp, Monteith, and Mark (2006) found that racial minority members who used confrontation as a coping strategy were less liked and engendered feelings of anger and hostility from their perpetrators. In reality, confrontation could put a racial minority member in serious danger, resulting in antagonistic verbal exchanges, threats, and even physical violence. In addition to confrontation, other coping strategies can be problematic. Kaiser and Miller (2001) found that targets who report acts of discrimination to others are often viewed as complainers, and Noh and Kaspar (2003) concluded that targets who use more passive, emotion-focused coping strategies (e.g., passively accepting discrimination as a fact of life, pretending to not be offended, and denial) experienced higher rates of depression and reduced levels of psychological well-being. Seeking support represents a very promising way to cope with racial discrimination. Studies have found that many targets of racial discrimination express a desire to talk about their experiences with member in their support network (e.g., Krieger & Sidney, 1996). A small but promising amount of research indicates that social support can help racial minority members be more resilient to future acts of discrimination (Finch & Vega, 2003), and it can improve their overall physical and psychological well-being (Clark & Gochett, 2006; McNeilly et al., 1995; Noh & Kaspar, 2003). Unfortunately, scholars have not yet examined how individual and situational factors influence a racial minority member to seek support and their corresponding coping outcomes (Pascoe & Richman, 2009). Acculturation Acculturation may explain why some targets of discrimination decide to seek support while others do not. Redfield, Linton, and Herskovits (1936) explained that “acculturation comprehends those phenomena which result when groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact with subsequent changes in the original culture patterns of either or both groups” (p. 149). Originally, acculturation was conceptualized as a unidimensional phenomenon,
Downloaded by [Lisa Kiyomi Hanasono] at 20:43 05 July 2014
Journal of International and Intercultural Communication
3
where immigrants and minority members progressively adapted to a dominant culture (Gordon, 1964). This perspective assumed that the longer a minority member lived within a dominant culture, the more he or she would be acculturated. In other words, proponents of the unidimensional model equated acculturation with assimilation. However, in more recent years, many scholars have advocated for a bidimensional approach, where acculturation is conceptualized in terms of the degree to which a minority member adapts to a dominant culture (i.e., cultural adaptation) and the extent to which that person maintains his or her native culture (i.e., cultural maintenance; Berry & Sam, 1997; Van de Vijver & Phalet, 2004). These scholars contend that acculturation and assimilation are not inevitable processes; therefore acculturation should not be defined by how long a person has lived in a foreign culture. Rather, scholars use the bidimensional approach to examine the ways that individuals adapt to new cultures and maintain their cultural heritage (Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006). Therefore, instead of simply measuring the length of time spent in a foreign culture, bidimensional scales examine how people identify with their heritage and host cultures by measuring their traditions, language preferences, relationships, social activities, and media consumption patterns (e.g., Stephenson, 2000). Berry (1997) employed the bidimensional approach to present four acculturation strategies: integration, assimilation, separation, and marginalization. Individuals who use integration strategies actively adapt to a dominant culture (i.e., “host culture”) while simultaneously maintaining their heritage culture. For example, an international student in from Beijing could cultivate new friendships with American students and stay in touch with his or her friends in China. Alternatively, individuals who engage in assimilation identify with a dominant culture instead of their heritage culture. For example, a Chinese international student in the United States could elect to speak, write, and think in English instead of Chinese. On the other hand, people who decide to maintain their heritage culture instead of their host culture use separation strategies. For example, the same international student could read magazines, watch movies, and listen to music from his or her heritage culture instead of selecting popular media from the United States. Finally, people who engage in marginalization do not strongly identify with either their heritage or host culture. For example, that same person may withdraw socially from both American and Chinese friends, or he or she may pursue social or romantic relationships with people from a third culture (e.g., a group of international students from Belgium). While some research has examined the impact of acculturation on racial minority members’ perceptions of discrimination and their well-being, most studies in this area have explored acculturation from a unidimensional approach (e.g., Goto, Gee, & Takeuchi, 2002; Pérez, Fortuna, & Alegría, 2008). Therefore, instead of measuring how targets adapt to new cultures and maintain their heritage cultures through their behaviors, language use, relationships, and social activities, most studies simply compared the amount of time a minority member had spent in the United States to various predictors and outcome variables. Operationalizing acculturation as an overly simplistic, unidimensional, and linear process calls into question the validity of
Downloaded by [Lisa Kiyomi Hanasono] at 20:43 05 July 2014
4
L. K. Hanasono et al.
previous research findings. This study will utilize a bidimensional approach to examine how acculturation affects the ways that minority members perceive and respond to racial discrimination. It is possible that certain cultural beliefs and practices may facilitate or inhibit minority members’ decision to seek support in response to racial discrimination. This study aims to investigate how acculturation affects the support needs, decision to seek support, and related coping behaviors of individuals who have experienced racial discrimination. To date, we do not know of any existing studies that have examined how all of these factors interrelate. Findings from this study will extend the literature on culture, supportive communication, and coping. Moreover, findings from this study may help scholars and local community leaders identify individuals in need and design intervention programs to provide better support to racial minority members 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 framework to understand how racial minority members experience, interpret, and cope with discrimination. The theory posits that the ways that individuals cognitively appraise and reappraise stressors can affect their corresponding emotions, coping behaviors, and well-being. First, an individual experiences a potential stressor, such as an act of perceived discrimination. Second, that person will quickly make a primary appraisal to determine if the act was serious and problematic. Third, if the individual deems the stressor to be threatening, that person will then make a secondary appraisal to determine his or her coping resources and behavioral options. The following sections explicate how primary and secondary appraisals may operate in the context of coping with racial discrimination. Making primary appraisals. Ranging from physical and verbal assaults to poor service and 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 make cognitive appraisals about the severity of their situations (Barrett & Swim, 1998). In other words, to what degree was the act offensive, problematic, and relevant to the targets’ well-being? Acts that are initially appraised as more severe are typically accompanied by feelings of distress and other negative emotions like fear or anger (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). The literature indicates that targets’ prior experiences with racial discrimination may 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
Journal of International and Intercultural Communication
5
Downloaded by [Lisa Kiyomi Hanasono] at 20:43 05 July 2014
chronically targeted owing to their race may become hyper-vigilant and more sensitive in identifying acts of perceived discrimination (Major & Vick, 2005). After experiencing numerous acts of racial discrimination across the lifespan, some minority members may become more inclined to perceive acts of discrimination as more severe. Making secondary appraisals and deciding to seek support. Cognitive appraisal theory indicates that if a person perceives a stressor to be problematic or threatening, he or she will need to formulate a secondary appraisal. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) explain that secondary appraisals consist of “a complex evaluative process that takes into account which coping options are available, the likelihood that a given coping option will accomplish what it is supposed to, and the likelihood that one can apply a particular strategy or set of strategies effectively” (p. 35). Ultimately, people develop secondary appraisals in an effort to identify and select appropriate coping strategies. As discussed earlier, seeking support represents a promising way to cope with racial discrimination. However, what factors influence a target’s likelihood to seek support over other coping behaviors? We argue that support needs can influence minority members’ decision to seek support in response to racial discrimination. Support needs are targets’ unique requirements for assistance from others in response to a perceived stressor. When dealing with perceived discrimination, targets may experience many different types of support needs (Cutrona & Suhr, 1992). They may require emotional support, advice, information about institutional resources, esteem support, and/or a restored sense of security (Cutrona & Russell, 1990). Acculturation may impact targets’ support needs. Specifically, racial minority members 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 people cope with discrimination. They may also have language barriers that would prevent them from easily pursuing some alternative coping strategies, such as confrontation or reporting the incident. Therefore, it is possible that they may have a greater need for social support when faced with racial discrimination. However, there are two other factors that should be taken into account: prior racial discrimination experiences and perceived severity. Specifically, studies have found that individuals who are more acculturated to a dominant culture tend to perceive acts of racial discrimination 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 and perceived severity, lower levels of cultural adaptation should account for higher support needs. H1b: Controlling for targets’ prior experiences with racial discrimination and perceived severity, lower levels of cultural maintenance should account for higher support needs.
Following the logic of appraisal theory, once targets have considered their support needs, they must decide whether or not they will seek support from friends, family
Downloaded by [Lisa Kiyomi Hanasono] at 20:43 05 July 2014
6
L. K. Hanasono et al.
members, and individuals in their social networks. Prior research has found that approximately 68% of minority members talk to people in their support network about their experiences with racial discrimination (Krieger & Sidney, 1996). Constantine, Wilton, and Caldwell (2003) explained that among the main reasons why Latino college students are likely to seek support from family and members in their informal support networks are the cultural values emphasizing family and social relationships. Researchers have found that certain types of cultural values can influence support-seeking behaviors in other cultures, too. Examining how collectivistic cultural values may encourage Asian and Asian American targets of racial discrimination 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 is deemed as a vital supportive system” (p. 146). Thus, the following hypothesis is posed: H2a:
Controlling for targets’ prior experiences with racial discrimination, perceived severity, and support needs, lower levels of cultural adaptation should 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 maintenance should account for a higher propensity to seek support.
Beyond Appraisals: Examining the Effectiveness of Supportive Communication to Targets of Racial Discrimination. Consistent with appraisal theory, once individuals complete primary and secondary appraisals, they should select a particular coping strategy. Targets who seek support actively talk about their experiences with individuals in their support networks (Leets, 2002). In general, support messages aim to alleviate levels of distress in their recipients 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 “can exacerbate another person’s stress and upset, undermine independent coping efforts, result in negative perceptions of the [support] giver, and damage the relationship between the two parties” (p. 145). Underscoring this idea, Hample (2010) wrote about anticomforting messages, which are well-intentioned but highly ineffective support messages. In an attempt to help a loved one, a support provider who uses anticomforting messages tries to provide words of comfort and care, but the messages lack sensitivity and appropriateness. For example, a friend or family member may tell a target of racial discrimination to “get over it” or attempt to upstage the target by saying, “Oh that’s nothing. Did you hear about the time I was fired because of my race?” Clearly, the quantity and quality of received support messages should be taken into consideration when evaluating their effectiveness. Examining the effectiveness of received support. Typically, support messages are evaluated in terms of their (a) overall quality, (b) sufficiency, and (c) the degree to
Downloaded by [Lisa Kiyomi Hanasono] at 20:43 05 July 2014
Journal of International and Intercultural Communication
7
which they facilitate emotion-focused and problem-focused coping (Burleson & MacGeorge, 2002). Overall quality refers to the degree to which recipients perceive supportive messages to be appropriate, effective, sensitive, supportive, and helpful (e.g., Burleson et al., 2009). Together, these five dimensions create an index of support message quality. Second, some studies evaluate support messages in terms of their sufficiency (e.g., MacGeorge, Feng, Butler, & Budarz, 2004). When messages are sufficient, targets feel satisfied with the amount of support they received and no longer desire to see additional help. Third, some researchers study the ways that support messages facilitate emotion-focused and problem-focused coping (e.g., Feng & Burleson, 2008). Messages that facilitate emotion-focused and problem-focused coping help targets identify ways to more effectively manage negative emotions and deal with discrimination. In sum, support messages can be evaluated in terms of their quality, sufficiency, and ability to facilitate emotion-focused and problem-focused coping. Generally speaking, individuals who receive support messages that are high quality and sufficient, and effectively facilitate coping are better positioned to cope with a stressor than those who receive support messages that are poor in quality or insufficient, or do not effectively facilitate coping. Unfortunately, this phenomenon has not been investigated in the context of responding to racial discrimination. Moreover, we are not aware of any studies that have systematically examined how acculturation affects the assessment of support messages by targets of racial discrimination. Previous scholarship has documented cultural differences in the ways that people evaluate supportive message features. For example, Burleson and Mortenson (2003) investigated how American and Chinese 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 be more sensitive than Chinese participants. Although this study identified some cultural differences in support message evaluations, it did not focus on the specialized coping context of responding to racial discrimination. Also, acculturation was not explicitly examined in the analyses; instead of examining how participants’ psychologically, relationally, and behaviorally identified with American and Chinese cultures, the study made broad comparisons between participants from the United States and those from China. Instead of comparing how members of different cultural groups evaluate support messages, this study explores how levels of acculturation could influence targets’ perceptions about support messages’ quality, sufficiency, and helpfulness. Exploring this line of inquiry can help scholars identify individuals who may have a greater need 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 following research question is posed: RQ1: How does acculturation affect targets’ evaluations about their received support messages’ (a) quality, (b) sufficiency, and (c) helpfulness?
Downloaded by [Lisa Kiyomi Hanasono] at 20:43 05 July 2014
8
L. K. Hanasono et al.
Examining other coping strategies. Targets who do not seek support can pursue a variety of alternative coping strategies. Miller and Kaiser (2001) explained that racial minority members who experience racial discrimination may enact engagement or disengagement coping behaviors. Engagement behaviors actively seek to challenge the stressor and its corresponding negative emotions. Examples of engagement coping strategies include problem-solving, emotional regulation, cognitive restructuring, and confrontation. On the other hand, disengagement coping behaviors seek to avoid or passively accept the stressor. Examples include withdrawal, denial, and wishful thinking. Miller and Kaiser (2001) explain that engagement coping strategies were derived from “fight” responses while disengagement coping strategies were derived from “flight” responses. Research indicates that engagement coping strategies tend to produce more positive effects in individuals’ subsequent well-being than do disengagement coping strategies (Pascoe & Richman, 2009). However, little is known about acculturation’s effect on individuals’ specific coping behaviors in response to racial discrimination. Therefore, a final research question is posed: RQ2: How does acculturation affect targets’ propensity to utilize engagement and disengagement coping strategies?
Method Participants The sample consisted of 345 racial minority undergraduate and graduate students who were enrolled at a large Midwestern University. Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 60 years (M = 22.78, SD = 4.71), and 54% of the sample was female. Students were recruited through three main methods. First, students enrolled in communication classes were invited to participate in this study; the lead author visited each class and made a brief announcement about the opportunity to become a research participant. Second, we worked with the university to send an email invitation to all students who self-identified as racial minority members (N ≈ 4000); students were emailed information about the study and link to the online survey. Finally, flyers and announcements were posted on message boards around campus and on the university’s news site. All students, regardless of their racial identity, were allowed to participate in this study. Given this project’s focus and scope, we decided to only include the responses of individuals who self-identified as racial minority members. Approximately half of the sample were international students (n = 173), while the other half were U.S. citizens (n = 172). Individuals who were not U.S. citizens reported a wide range of nationalities (e.g., Bahamian, Chinese, Ethiopian, Indian, Kenyan, Korean, Guatemalan, Columbian, Thai, and Peruvian). Sixty-six participants self-identified as black (57 U.S. citizens, 9 non-U.S. citizens); 205 participants selfidentified as Asian (60 U.S. citizens, 144 non-U.S. citizens, 1 missing). Forty-seven participants self-identified as Latina/o (36 U.S. citizens, 11 non-U.S. citizens). A small number of participants self-identified as multiracial (n = 16) or a member of other
Journal of International and Intercultural Communication
9
Downloaded by [Lisa Kiyomi Hanasono] at 20:43 05 July 2014
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 of 11.56 years (SD = 9.53). Most self-identified as first generation (n = 167) or second generation (n = 87); however, third generation (n = 24), fourth generation (n = 8), fifth generation (n = 8), sixth generation, and beyond (n = 38) were also included in the sample. Thirteen people did not report their generation. All participants who completed the study were entered into a drawing for Visa gift cards; students who were enrolled in eligible communication courses received 1% extra credit for participating in this study. Procedures All materials and procedures used in this study were approved by the Institutional Review Board. The entire study was administered through a secure online survey. Participation took approximately 45–60 minutes. After indicating their consent to participate, students first completed a set of questionnaires that measured their demographic information (e.g., gender, race, age, citizenship, years lived in the United States, and generation), prior experiences with racial discrimination, racial identity, and acculturation. Next, participants were prompted to recall and describe a recent incident where they felt they were the target of a specific act of interpersonal racial discrimination. Individuals reported a wide range of experiences, ranging from incidents in which they were threatened, physically attacked, or had damaged property—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 by their peers. Participants then completed a few questionnaires that assessed their perceptions 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 person about the incident?”). Individuals who indicated that they did seek support were asked to describe and assess the support they received; individuals who did not seek support were given a questionnaire on alternative coping behaviors. Upon the completion of the online survey, participants were thanked and given an opportunity to enter the Visa gift card drawing. Measures Acculturation. The Stephenson Multigroup Acculturation Scale (SMAS) was used to measure participants’ acculturation into the dominant ethnic culture in the United States (Stephenson, 2000). Unlike other established acculturation scales that examine specific ethnic minority groups (e.g., Marín, Sabogal, Marín, Otero-Sabogal, & PerezStable, 1987), SMAS was originally designed for samples that include participants with a variety of ethnic backgrounds. The scale includes 34 items on 4-point Likertstyle 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
Downloaded by [Lisa Kiyomi Hanasono] at 20:43 05 July 2014
10
L. K. Hanasono et al.
language), this scale measures four behavioral and psychological indicators of acculturation: language, social interaction, food, and media preferences (e.g., “I speak English at home” and “I like to listen to music of my ethnic group”). Furthermore, it goes beyond a unidimensional conceptualization of acculturation by measuring the ways that individuals adapt to and resist the dominant culture. Half of the scale’s items focused on participants’ adaptation to the dominant ethnic culture in the United States (e.g., “I like to eat American foods” and “I speak English with my spouse or partner”), and the other half focused on participants resistance to the dominant culture (e.g., “I eat traditional foods from my native culture” and “I speak my native language with my spouse or partner”). A mean score was calculated for all items related to the adaptation to American culture, and then a mean score was calculated for all items related to the maintenance of one’s heritage culture. The reliability of the cultural adaptation dimension (α = .90, M = 4.14, SD = .64) and cultural maintenance dimension (α = .91, M = 2.09, SD = .79) was excellent. Prior experiences with racial discrimination. Participants completed a modified version of Brondolo et al.’s (2005) Brief Perceived Ethnic Discrimination Questionnaire-Community Version (Brief PEDQ-CV). The first 34 items, arranged on a 5point Likert-style scale (1 = never happened, 5 = happened very often) asked participants 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 asked participants to indicate how often they experienced racism within the past 7 days in terms of a 4-point Likert-style scale (0 = never in the past week, 3 = 3 or more time in the 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 reported act of discrimination was serious and problematic, this scale featured four items on a 5-point Likert-style scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Sample items included, “The act was severe,” and “the act was threatening.” The reliability of this scale 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 Severity 1. The 2. The 3. The 4. The
Regression weights act act act act
was was was was
severe harmful problematic threatening
.81 .84 .67 .71
Downloaded by [Lisa Kiyomi Hanasono] at 20:43 05 July 2014
Journal of International and Intercultural Communication
11
Support needs. The Support Needs Questionnaire was developed to measure individuals’ immediate needs for emotional (e.g., “I needed someone to comfort me”), informational (e.g., “I needed someone to help me make sense of the situation”), instrumental (e.g., “I needed someone to give me advice about the incident”), tangible (e.g., “I needed to receive protection”), self-esteem (e.g.,“I needed someone 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 moderately good fit, x2 (237) = 654.10, p < .001, CFI = .952, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .07, 90% CI of RMSEA = .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 Items Informational Support 1. Someone to help me make sense of the situation 2. To talk with another person to determine if it was an act of discrimination 3. Someone to help me understand if the act was offensive 4. Someone to help me identify different ways to cope with the incident 5. Someone to help me understand if the act was problematic Advice 1. Someone to help me determine what I should do in response to the act 2. Someone to tell me what to do 3. Someone to give me advice about the incident Emotional Support 1. Someone to comfort me 2. Someone to listen to my emotions 3. Someone to validate my feelings 4. Someone to help me cope with my emotional distress Tangible Support 1. To receive protection from another person 2. To receive reparations 3. Help finding a safe place to stay Self-Esteem Support 1. To tell me that I am okay just the way I am 2. To tell me that they are there for me 3. To tell me that he/she feels very close to me 4. To express respect for me Group Esteem Support 1. To say something positive about my racial group 2. To dismiss negative stereotypes or hateful things about my racial group 3. To help me feel good about being a part of my racial group 4. To express positive regard for my racial group 5. To remind me that my racial group is just as good as other racial groups
Regression weights .83 .79 .82 .85 .84 .87 .83 .88 .92 .82 .77 .89 .90 .77 .84 .84 .89 .85 .85 .89 .84 .90 .91 .89
Downloaded by [Lisa Kiyomi Hanasono] at 20:43 05 July 2014
12
L. K. Hanasono et al.
Support message evaluations. Traditionally, support messages are evaluated in terms of their overall quality, sufficiency, and the degree to which they facilitate emotionfocused and problem-focused coping (Burleson & MacGeorge, 2002). Support message 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 to which the received support messages were helpful, appropriate, sensitive, supportive, and effective. This scale has been used frequently in supportive communication research studies (e.g., Burleson et al., 2009; Hanasono et al., 2011). Reliability levels were good (α = .83, M = 3.93, SD = .88). Sufficiency of support was measured with a scale developed by MacGeorge et al. (2004). Featuring seven items on a 5-point Likert-style scale (1= strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), the questionnaire prompted 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 coping was 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 the problem.” This scale had great reliability (α = .93, M = 3.39, SD = .80.) Coping. Participants who did not seek support were asked to complete a modified version of Carver’s (1997) COPE scale. Using a 4-point Likert-style scale (1= I did not do this at all, 4 = I did this a lot), this questionnaire measured the degree to which individuals engaged in 18 different coping strategies (i.e., active coping, planning, seeking instrumental social support, seeking emotional support, suppressing competing activities, religion, positive reinterpretation and growth, restrain coping, acceptance, venting of emotions, denial, mental disengagement, behavioral disengagement, alcohol/drug use, humor, withdrawal, confrontation, and reporting). Within each type of coping strategy, the internal reliability was acceptable (α > .75). Results Support Needs The first hypothesis predicted that when controlling for perceived severity and prior experiences with racial discrimination, lower levels of cultural adaptation and cultural maintenance would account for higher support needs. A hierarchical regression was conducted to test this prediction. Perceived severity and prior experiences with racial discrimination 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 regression are reported in Table 4. Tests indicated that multicollinearity did not adversely affect the 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 overall model was statistically significant, F(4, 336) = 24.05, p < .001. Primary appraisal factors (i.e., prior experiences with racial discrimination and perceived severity)
Downloaded by [Lisa Kiyomi Hanasono] at 20:43 05 July 2014
Support Needs Prior Experiences with Racial Discrimination Perceived Severity Cultural Adaptation Cultural Maintenance Message Quality Support Sufficiency Facilitation of Coping M SD †
Prior Experiences
Perceived Severity
Cultural Adaptation
Cultural Maintenance
Message Quality
Support Sufficiency
Facil. Of Coping
.15** .43*** −.19*** −.19*** −.13† −.52*** .21** 2.69 1.14
p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
.19*** −.13* .03 −.09 −.25*** −.07 1.91 .64
−.08 −.15** .01 −.30*** .16* 2.85 .99
.35*** .18** .27*** .03 3.14 .64
.00 .08 −.14* 2.09 .79
.22** .47*** 3.92 .88
−.05 3.36 1.02
3.39 .80
Journal of International and Intercultural Communication
Table 3 Zero-order Correlations and Descriptive Statistics
13
14
L. K. Hanasono et al.
Table 4 Hierarchical Regression Results to Predict Support Needs from Acculturation while Controlling for Perceived Severity and Prior Experiences with Racial Discrimination b
β
sr2
.45*** .13 −.22* −.12
.40 .07 −.12 −.09
.148 .005 .012 .007
Predictors included
R
R2
F
R2 change
F for R2 change
1. Prior Experiences, Perceived Severity 2. Prior Experiences, Perceived Severity, Cultural Adaptation, Cultural Maintenance
.44
.195
.195
.47
.22
F(2, 338) = 41.052*** FI (4, 336) = 24.28***
F(2, 338) = 41.05*** F(4, 336) = 6.23**
Downloaded by [Lisa Kiyomi Hanasono] at 20:43 05 July 2014
Perceived Severity Prior Experiences Cultural Adaptation Cultural Maintenance
.029
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
accounted for 20% of the variance in targets’ support needs (R = .44, R2 = .20). However, when controlling for prior experiences and perceived severity, acculturation was able to explain an additional 2.9% of the variance in support needs. A closer look at the regression coefficients indicated a significant inverse relationship between the cultural adaptation dimension of acculturation and support needs, b = −.22, β = −.12, t(336) = −2.35, p = .02. Therefore, H1a was confirmed. However, the cultural maintenance dimension of acculturation was not systematically predictive of support needs, 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’ decision to 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 seek support. A total of 207 participants decided to seek support, and 131 did not. Seven participants did not indicate whether or not they sought support; their responses were omitted from this hypothesis’ analyses. To test H2, a hierarchical binary logistic regression analysis was performed (individuals who did not seek support were coded as 1; individuals who sought support were coded as 2). Perceived severity prior experiences, and support needs were entered in the first step; cultural adaptation and cultural maintenance were entered in the second step. The overall model was statistically 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
Downloaded by [Lisa Kiyomi Hanasono] at 20:43 05 July 2014
Journal of International and Intercultural Communication
15
total average of 63.6%. A closer look at the model, however, revealed that perceived severity was the only marginally significant predictor in participant’s decision to seek support, Wald statistic = 3.65, p = .06. The regression coefficient (β = .25) indicated a positive relationship between perceived severity and targets’ propensity to seek support. Interestingly, neither dimension of acculturation was predictive of individuals’ decision to seek support. Cultural adaptation, Wald statistic = 1.11, p = .29, and cultural maintenance, Wald statistic = .17, p = .68, did not systematically account for participants’ support seeking behaviors. Also, prior experiences with racial discrimination was not a significant predictor, Wald statistic = .23, p = .22, nor were support needs, Wald statistic = .1.51, p = .22. With a sample size of 338, the power to detect small 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. To answer this question, three hierarchical regression analyses were performed. Prior experiences with racial discrimination and severity were entered into the first step of the model, and both dimensions of acculturation (i.e., adaptation and maintenance) were entered into the second step. Each regression analysis examined the relationship between the predictor variables and each outcome variable (i.e., message quality, sufficiency, and facilitation of coping). Correlations among the variables are reported in Table 3. The first hierarchical regression analysis examined the relationship between acculturation and overall message quality (i.e., the degree to which targets viewed their received support as sensitive, appropriate, helpful, effective, and supportive). The results produced a marginally significant model, F(4, 195) = 1.74, p = .06. A closer examination of the data revealed that prior experiences with racial discrimination, 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 systematically influence 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 and large effects (f2= .15 and f2= .35 respectively) was in excess of .99. However, the cultural adaptation dimension of acculturation was a significant predictor of support message quality, b = .29, β = .21, t(195) = 2.76, p = .01, sr2 = .04. The second hierarchical regression analysis examined the relationship between acculturation and support sufficiency. The model (including prior experiences with discrimination, perceived severity, and both dimensions of acculturation as predictor variables) was statistically significant, R = .45, F(4, 191) = 12.26, p < .001, indicating that the four factors collectively predicted 20% of the variance in support sufficiency. Controlling for prior experiences and perceived severity, the adaptation dimension of acculturation was a statistically significant predictor of support sufficiency, b = .45,
Downloaded by [Lisa Kiyomi Hanasono] at 20:43 05 July 2014
16
L. K. Hanasono et al.
β = .29, t(4, 191) = 4.06, p
