International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 47–57
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Intercultural Relations
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel
Acculturative stress in Asian immigrants: The impact of social
and linguistic factors
Kerstin Lueck a,*, Machelle Wilson b
a
b
Department of Sociology, University of California, Davis One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616, USA
Universidad del Norte, Barranquilla, Colombia
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history:
Accepted 25 October 2009
The purpose of this study was to investigate which linguistic and social constructs predict
acculturative stress in a nationally representative sample of Asian immigrants and Asian
Americans. The participants in this study were 2095 Asians who were recruited between
May 2002 and November 2003 as part of the larger NLAAS survey. The participants took
part in face-to-face interviews, which were conducted with computer-assisted
interviewing software in Mandarin, Cantonese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, and English. Data
were analyzed using a logistic regression model. Prior to analysis missing variables were
imputed. The results show that English language proficiency, native language proficiency,
discrimination, family cohesion and the context of migration exit are the strongest
predictors of acculturative stress.
Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Keywords:
Acculturation
Acculturative stress
Social predictors
Linguistic predictors
Asian immigrants, Asian Americans
1. Introduction
A variety of scholars have attempted to identify predictive factors of acculturative stress in Asian immigrants (Berry, Kim,
Minde, & Mok, 1987; Constantine, Okazaki, & Utsey, 2004). These factors can be divided into two main groups: psychological
predictors such as depression (Constantine et al., 2004) and psychological distress (Salant & Lauderdale, 2003) and social and
linguistic predictors such as family cohesion, social networks, and language proficiency (Berry et al., 1987). Most research has
focused on psychological predictors of acculturative stress (Oh, Koeske, & Sales, 2002; Salant & Lauderdale, 2003). However,
while social and linguistic factors have received some attention in the literature, previous studies (Sodowsky & Lai, 1997) have
mostly sampled local university students, staff, and faculty. It is inappropriate to draw inferences from such samples for the
population of Asian immigrants because they cannot be considered representative. Yet inferences are necessary because Asian
immigrants are among the fastest growing and most diverse immigrant populations in the US. Understanding the processes and
difficulties of acculturation could prove to be an important aspect of understanding intercultural relations. Inferences are
needed for policy recommendations that ease the process of acculturative adaptation but also for interventions that aim to
reduce acculturative stress. Therefore, it is the purpose of this study to investigate which social and linguistic factors predict
acculturative stress in a nationally representative sample of Asian immigrants in the United States.
1.1. Acculturation and acculturative stress
The term acculturation refers to cultural changes resulting from primary contact between distinct ethnic groups (Redfield,
Linton, & Herskovits, 1936; Ward, 2006), influenced by dominating social norms in society on the one hand (Fuligni, 2001;
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 530 752 4082; fax: +1 530 752 0783.
E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Lueck).
0147-1767/$ – see front matter . Published by Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.10.004
48
K. Lueck, M. Wilson / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 47–57
Kim & Abreu, 2001; Montreuil & Bourhis, 2001; Sam, Vedder, Ward, & Hoarenczyk, 2006) and by an assertation of ethnic
traits on the other (Berry, 2005; Choi, 1997; Kim & Abreu, 2001; Kim & Omizo, 2006). Acculturation has been further defined
as the process by which individuals incorporate beliefs, behaviors and values from the new host culture into the context of
beliefs, behaviors and values of the native culture (Constantine et al., 2004 in reference to Berry, 1980, 2003, 2008; Noh &
Kaspar, 2003). The acculturation process involves different levels of modification, survival, adaptation, domination,
resistance, and stress (Berry, 2006; Nwadiora & McAdoo, 1996).
Acculturative stress is a reduction in mental health and wellbeing of ethnic minorities that occurs during the process of
adaptation to a new culture. Acculturative stress can lead to adjustment-related difficulties, expressed in negative reactions
to the tensions between two cultures (Berry, 1998; Smart & Smart, 1995; Thomas, 2006). Sodowsky and Lai (1997) further
argue that acculturative stress can vary, depending on the level of differences between the ethnic and the new host culture.
They conducted a cross-cultural study of Asian migrants and identified acculturative stress symptoms and variables. These
variables included preferences for social customs and language preference, the age at the time of migration, the current age
of the participants, years of residence in the US, income levels, ethnic networks, family extendedness, and perceptions of
prejudice. However, the respondents of their survey were not a large, representative sample of Asian immigrants but rather a
very particular sample of migrant students, faculty, staff, and officials from the University of Nebraska at Lincoln. Among the
students was a large number of non-immigrant Asian students (with F1 visas) and most of them were sojourners who stayed
in the US for a legally assigned period of time. Unlike immigrants, sojourners have the desire to return to their homeland and
often remain culturally, religiously, and geopolitically isolated from American culture while maintaining close ties to their
native country (Kuo & Roysircar, 2006; Yang, 1999). Thus, their experience with acculturative stress is often much different
from the experience of immigrants (Berry et al., 1987).
The results of Sodowsky and Lai’s study (1997) indicated that migrants with low levels of acculturation had higher levels
of acculturative stress. They showed that migration at a younger age and a longer residence in the US contributed to higher
acculturation and to lower levels of acculturative stress. It was further shown that lower family extendedness led to more
intercultural competence concerns and that cultural competence concerns were higher for younger study participants.
Drawing on a series of studies on acculturative stress in the Canadian context, Berry et al. (1987) found that a variety of
social and demographic factors can influence the acculturation–stress relationship. They point out that some migrants use
coping strategies that allow them to acculturate more successfully while others encounter difficulties and face high levels of
acculturative stress. Some of the factors that influence the acculturation–stress relationship include age, gender, level of
education, language proficiency, cognitive styles and prior intercultural experiences. Berry et al. (1987) further argue that
the process of acculturation is influenced by the nature of the host society (based on pluralism, assimilation or exclusion), the
nature of the acculturating group (for example, sojourner versus immigrant), and the mode of acculturation.
There is a discrepancy in the literature regarding the gender–acculturative stress relationship. While some scholars (Choi,
1997; Thomas, 2006) reported no significant results, other researchers (Berry et al., 1987) reported significant relationships.
Berry et al. (1987) found greater stress levels for female migrants in all analyzed samples but one. However, they also point
out that it was not evident from the studies they cross-compared and also from previous research whether there actually is
greater acculturative stress for women and girls, or whether this is influenced by other social aspects and situations which
are more complex such as inequalities or simply by a ‘‘greater tendency for females to subscribe to or agree with personal
statements’’ (p. 503).
Education was a consistent predictor of low acculturative stress levels (Berry et al., 1987). First, it can be argued that
education in the US and Canada comprises a white Anglo-oriented approach and this contributes to acculturation. Second,
immigrants with higher education have more intellectual resources that help them to cope with problems and changes.
Besides education, linguistic factors had a significant impact on acculturative stress. For example, Kim (1984) found
significantly higher acculturative stress levels among younger immigrants who could not speak their native language
fluently. Berry and Kostovcik (1983) showed that previous contact with the host country, multilingualism, and the prior
experience of an urban, culturally pluralistic setting correlated with lower acculturative stress. Berry and Bondel’s (1982)
findings for Vietnamese refugees were very similar.
Lastly, Murphy (1965) stated that societies with assimilationist policies cause higher acculturative stress levels than
pluralistic societies. On the other hand, as pointed out by Berry et al. (1987), those who are able to integrate (i.e. bicultural
and bilingual or even multilingual) have significantly lower stress levels than those who are separated from the new culture
or their ethnic culture. Especially among the Korean sample Berry et al. (1987) found that separation but also
marginalization (based on discrimination, prejudice, etc.) and high stress levels are positively related. Other international
scholars confirm the negative effects of marginalization (Ward & Kennedy, 1994) and of discrimination (Mak & Nesdale,
2001) on the wellbeing of migrants.
Informed by the review of previous research, it is the aim of this study to discover which social and linguistic variables
predict acculturative stress in a nationally representative sample of Asian immigrants. We hypothesize that acculturative
stress among current Asian Americans is predicted by native language proficiency, English language proficiency, language
preference, discrimination, family cohesion, and the context of exit. We further hypothesize that language preference and
language proficiency will have the largest effect on acculturative stress. Building on previous literature that did not use a
nationally representative sample of Asian immigrants, we also test whether gender, the age at the time of migration,
socioeconomic status and social networks have a significant impact on acculturative stress, once the previously mentioned
variables have been accounted for.
K. Lueck, M. Wilson / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 47–57
49
2. Methods
Data were derived from the National Latino and Asian American Study (NLAAS). The NLAAS core sampling procedure
included a nationally representative sample of Asian Americans. A detailed description of the NLAAS protocol and methods of
data collection have been previously documented (Alegrı́a et al., 2004; Heeringa et al., 2004). Below is a brief description of
the sampling design and procedures, the sample, and the measures of this study.
2.1. Sampling design
The sampling procedures included three main stages. First, core sampling and secondary sampling units were selected
according to probability proportionate to size, from which household members were sampled. Primary sampling units were
defined as metropolitan statistical areas and secondary sampling units were formed from contiguous groupings of census
blocks. Second, high-density supplemental sampling was used, applying a greater than 5% density criterion, in which Asian
ancestry groups were oversampled. Asian individuals who did not belong to the target groups under which these
geographical areas were classified were still eligible to take part in NLAAS. For instance, Filipino individuals living in a
Chinese high-density Census block were eligible. Thus, individuals living in high-density areas had the opportunity for
NLAAS recruitment through the core sampling strategy and the high-density sampling strategy. Third, secondary
respondents were recruited from households in which one eligible participant had already been interviewed. Secondary
respondents sampling was used to further increase the number of participants. In all three sampling procedures mentioned
above weighting corrections were applied to take into account joint probabilities of selection.
2.2. Procedures
The NLAAS instruments for Asian Americans were available in Mandarin, Cantonese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, and English.
They were translated using standard translation as well as back-translation techniques.
All participants received the study brochure and an introductory letter in English, Mandarin, Cantonese or Tagalog, or
Vietnamese. Those who gave their consent to take part in the study were screened and interviewed by professionals who
underwent intense training and were tested by an independent service to access bilingual language proficiency with regards
to all NLAAS materials. The interviewers had cultural and linguistic backgrounds similar to those of the sample population.
Interviews were conducted with computer-assisted interviewing software in the preferred language of the respondent. Faceto-face interviews with the participants were administered in the core and high-density samples. Exceptions were made
when respondents specifically requested a telephone interview or when face-to-face interviewing was prohibitive. The
average length of each interview was 2.4 h. As a measure of quality control in this study, a randomly selected sample of
participants with completed interviews was contacted to validate the data.
Written consent was obtained for all participants, study protocols and procedures. The University of Washington,
Cambridge Health Alliance, Harvard University, and the University of Michigan gave human subject approval.
2.3. Sample
Participants in the current study were 2095 Asian Americans. Among them were 1271 first generation-immigrants, who
were 18 years and older when they came to the US. In particular, the sample consisted of 600 Chinese, 508 Filipino, 520
Vietnamese, and 467 other Asians. They were recruited between May 2002 and November 2003 as part of the larger survey.
Weighted response rates were 69.3% for primary and 73.6% for secondary respondents.
2.4. Measures and framework for the theoretical model of acculturative stress
The variables used to measure the acculturative stress construct are shown in Table 1. If a respondent had an
acculturative stress score of greater than 10, s/he was classified as having acculturation stress. In order to take the qualitative
and quantitative contribution to acculturative stress into consideration, appropriate weightings were assigned to the
variables. AS3 was set equivalent with the score 10, AS1 and AS2 with the score 20, AS4 with the score 30, and AS5, AS7, AS8,
AS9 and AS10 with the score 40. Thus, the highest score was given to those variables that made the highest qualitative and
quantitative contribution to the overall construct of acculturative stress.
We measured the impact of language proficiency, language preference, discrimination, social networks, family cohesion,
the context of exit, the socioeconomic status, the age at the time of migration and gender on acculturative stress. The
interview questions, the ranked responses and the measured constructs are presented below (Table 1).
With the exception of age at the time of migration and gender we used constructs rather than single variables to allow
for a qualitatively and quantitatively integrated representation of acculturative stress and its predictors. This was
necessary for comprehensive predictors such as the socioeconomic status, language proficiency and language preference.
Previous studies did not take such an approach and linguistic predictors usually only accessed spoken linguistic abilities of
Asian immigrants. Thus, comprehensive receptive and productive language skills such as reading and writing were not
included in previous research.
50
K. Lueck, M. Wilson / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 47–57
Table 1
Constructs, survey questions and coding.
Construct
Interview questions
Coding/ranked responses
Acculturative stress (ACC)
AS1: Do you feel guilty for leaving your family
and friends in your country
of origin?
AS3: Do you feel that living out of your country
of origin has limited your contact with
family or friends?
AS4: Do you find it hard interacting with others
because of difficulties you have with the
English language?
AS5: Do people treat you badly because they
think you do not speak English?
AS7: Do you find it difficult to find the work
you want because you are of Asian descent?
AS8: Have you been questioned about your legal
status?
AS9: Do you think you will be deported if you go
to a social or government agency?
AS10: Do you avoid seeking health services due
to fear of immigration officials?
Stress: answer yes
ACC = 10 AS3 + 20 (AS1 AS2)
+ 30 AS4 + 40 (AS5 + AS7 + AS8
+ AS9 + AS10)
AS2: Do you feel that in the United States you
have the respect you had in your country of origin?
No stress: answer no
Stress: answer no
No stress: answer yes
Native language proficiency (NLP)
NLP = LP5a + LP5b + LP5c
LP5a: How well do you speak in your native language?
LP5b: How well do you read in your native language?
LP5c: How well do you write in your native language?
1:
2:
3:
4:
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
English language proficiency (ELP)
ELP = LP5d + LP5e + LP5f
LP5a: How well do you speak in English?
LP5b: How well do you read in English?
LP5c: How well do you write in English?
1:
2:
3:
4:
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
Language preference (LPF)
LPF = LP7a + LP7b + LP7c
LP7a: What language do you speak with most of your friends?
LP7b: What language do you speak with most of your family?
LP7c: In what language do you think?
1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
English all the time
English most of the time
Native all the time
Native most of the time
Native and English equal
Discrimination (DSC) DSC = DS4
+ DS5 + DS1a + DS1b + DS1c
+ DS1d + DS1e + DS1f + DS1g
+ DS1h + DS1i
DS4: How often do people dislike you because of your ethnicity?
DS5: How often do people treat you unfairly because of your ethnicity?
DS1a: How often are treated with less courtesy than other people?
DS1b: How often are treated with less respect than other people?
DS1c: How often do you receive poorer service than other people
at restaurants or stores? DS1d: How often are you treated
as if you are not smart?
DS1e: How often do people act as if they are afraid of you?
DS1f: How often do people act as if they think you are dishonest?
DS1g: How often do people act as if you are not as good as they are?
DS1h: How often have been called names or insulted?
DS1i: How often have you been threatened or harassed?
1:
3:
1:
2:
3:
Never, 2: rarely
Sometimes, 4: often
Never
Less than once a year
A few times a year
FC1: Family members respect each other.
FC2: We share similar values and beliefs as a family.
FC4: We really do trust and confide in each other.
FC9: Family members feel very close to each other.
FC10: Family togetherness is very important
FC11a: Does being too close to your family interfere with
your own goals?
FC11c: Do you have arguments with other members of your
family because of different customs?
F11d: Do you feel lonely and isolated because of the lack
of family unity?
FC11f: Are family relations becoming less important for
people that you are close to?
FC11g: Are your personal goals in conflict with your family?
1:
2:
3:
4:
Family cohesion (FCN)
FCN = FC1 + FC2 + FC4 + FC9
+ FC10 + FC11a + FC11c + F11d
+ FC11f + FC11g
Socioeconomic status (SES)
SES = FN12 + FN13d + FN14
+ DM1_14 + [(DM1_12a
+ DM1_13a)/2] + EM2
FN12: Suppose you (and your spouse or partner) sell everything
you own (car, houses, land, etc.) and you use the money to
pay all your debts (credit cards, mortgage, etc.). Would you
still have any money left
over after paying your debts?
4: A few times a month
5: At least once a week
6: Almost every day
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
1: Often
2: Sometimes
3: Hardly ever or never
1: Do not own anything
K. Lueck, M. Wilson / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 47–57
51
Table 1 (Continued )
Construct
Interview questions
Coding/ranked responses
FN13d: Suppose you (and your spouse or partner) sell everything
you own in your country of origin and you use the money
to pay all your debts. Would you still have any money left
over after paying your debts?
FN 14: In general, would you say you have/your family living here
has more money than you need, just enough for your needs,
or not enough to meet your needs?
DM1_14: How many years of school and college did you complete?
DM1_12a: How many years of school did your father/the male head
of the family complete?
DM1_13a: How many years of school and college did your mother/the
female head of the family complete?
EM2: Starting from the year you first worked for six months or more, and
continuing up to the present, how many years were you employed
at least six months out of the year (part-time or full-time)?
2: Would still owe money
3: Debts would just about
equal assets
4: I would have money
left over
1: Not enough
2: Just enough
3: More than needed
In years: 0: none, 1: one
17: Seventeen or more
Context of exit (COE)
COE = 100 (DM1_6
+ DM1_7 + DE20_8b + CE7)
10 CE5
DM1_6: In what country were you born?
Social networks (SNT)
SNT = SN1 + SN2 + SN3 + SN4
+ SN5 + SN6 + SN7 + SN8
+ SN9 + SN10 + SN12 + SN13
SN1: How often do you talk on the phone or get together with
family or relatives who do not live with you?
SN6: How often do you talk on the phone or get together with friends?
SN2: How much can you rely on relatives who do not live with you for
help if you have a serious problem?
SN3: How much can you open up to relatives who do not live with you
if you need to talk about your worries
SN7: Much can you rely on your friends for help if you have a serious
problem?
SN8: How much can you open up to your friends if you need to talk
about your worries?
SN4: How often do your relatives or children make too many demands
on you?
SN5: How often do your family or relatives argue with you?
SN9: How often do your friends make too many demands on you?
SN10: How often do your friends argue with you?
SN12: When you have a problem or worry, how often do you let your
(husband/wife/partner) know about it?
SN13: When you have a problem or worry, how often do you let
someone (else) know about it?
DM1_7: How many of your parents were born in the US?
DE20_8b: In what country did you receive most of your education
before age 16?
CE7: How do you feel about the economic opportunity you have
had in the US?
CE5: If you had to make the decision today, would you still move
to the US?
1: Developing country
2: Developed country
1: None, 2: One, 3: Two
1: Other
2: US
1: Very dissatisfied
2: Dissatisfied
3: Neither satisfied
nor dissatisfied
4: Satisfied
5: Very satisfied
1: No
2: Yes
1: Less than once a month
2:
3:
4:
5:
1:
2:
3:
4:
Once a month
A few times a month
A few times a week
Most every day
Not at all
A little
Some
A lot
1: Often
2:
3:
4:
1:
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Never
2: Rarely
3: Sometimes
4: Most of the time
5: Always
Age at the time of
migration (AGE): dm1_6a
Gender (GEN): SC1_1
DM1_6a: How old were you when you first came
to this country?
SC1_1: Gender identity of the participant
Age
Male or female
2.5. Statistical methods
2.5.1. Imputation of missing variables
The data set contained missing values. Indeed, of the 65 variables of interest for this study, nearly every observation was
missing several. Hence, no model fitting could be performed in SAS, which removes observations with missing values.
Additionally, the removal of observations with missing variables will result in biased estimation if the missing values are not
missing completely at random (MCAR).
For the NLAAS data we cannot assume that the missing data are missing completely at random. Some respondents may be
more likely to refuse to answer certain questions, depending on their understanding of the question (language proficiency),
their income level or some other characteristic. However, it can be argued that the missing data in the NLAAS study are
52
K. Lueck, M. Wilson / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 47–57
missing at random (MAR). A missing value is said to be missing at random when the missing values of one variable, say Y,
depend on the value of another variable, say X, but not on the Y values themselves. In this case, the observed Y values are a
random sample of the population of Y at a given level of X, but are not a random sample of the population of all possible Y. If
this holds true, then the observations at the different levels of X can be used to model the missing responses for Y.
When data are missing at random, any remedy (including removal of the observation) other than valid modeling will
still reflect the missing data process, and hence will not eliminate bias. The NLAAS data are a random and representative
sample of the population of interest. The missing data patterns did not indicate any reason to doubt that the data were at
least MAR, though it is perhaps stretching the point a bit to assume that they are MCAR. A new procedure in SAS, proc MI,
uses sophisticated modeling to impute missing values and should reduce any bias due to the missing data process, a
superior option to removal of observations with missing values even in the case where the extent of the missing data is
not severe. In the case of the NLAAS data, we have a large number of variables at our disposal to build a model for
imputing missing data.
2.5.2. Imputation of missing data using proc MI
The SAS procedure proc MI was developed for multiple imputation of missing data with the goal of using multiple
imputations to estimate more accurately the variance of parameters estimates in a regression model, or other similar
models. Because we have a somewhat complicated missing data process and a complicated model selection procedure, we
cannot fully exploit the abilities of proc MI and its companion procedure proc MIanalyze. Proc MI works best for data that are
approximately normal. The NLAAS data are mostly binary or categorical. Proc MI can be used for binary and categorical data
by using a logistic regression to impute the binary or categorical outcomes. This is still experimental in the current version of
SAS. Furthermore, proc MI requires that the missing data pattern be monotone when using a logistic regression for
imputation. A monotone missing data pattern is one where the data can be organized in a list such that the first variable in
the list is missing fewer observations than the second variable in the list which is missing fewer than the third, etc., until the
last variable which is missing the most observations. To achieve a monotone missing data pattern, we first imputed the
missing values for the approximately normal variables, which imputes the missing values simultaneously and does not
require a monotone missing data pattern. The variable EM2 required square root transformation to achieve approximately
normal histograms.
Once we had imputed the approximately normal variables we could construct monotone missing data patterns for the
binary and categorical variables. One at a time, the binary or categorical values were imputed using the logistic regression
model available in proc MI. The missing variable was placed at the end of the list and the complete normal variables placed at
the beginning, along with any variables that were not missing observations, so that we had a monotone missing data pattern.
Once the binary or categorical variable was complete (i.e. all missing values imputed), this variable could now be included at
the beginning of the list along with the other complete variables. They were used to impute another binary or categorical
variable. This procedure was repeated step by step for all binary and categorical variables until the full data set was complete.
Because we needed a complete data set to perform model selection we used the superior modeling capabilities of proc MI to
impute the missing data. However, we could not exploit the ‘‘multiple’’ aspects of multiple imputation. The main drawback
to single imputation is a diminution in the variance estimates. Hence confidence intervals and P-values will be affected
downwards. However, with such a large sample size, this concern was not deemed of great importance for this study. Indeed,
the variance inflation factors reported by proc MI were very small.
2.5.3. Model selection for the logistic regression
For the logistic regression model, a new variable was created where the respondent was assigned the value 1 if his or her
ACC was greater than 10 and a 0 if not. We tested the significance of each index using backward elimination step-wise
regression of a logistic regression model to predict acculturative stress.
3. Findings: predictors of acculturative stress
Of the 2095 observations, 1433 were found to have acculturative stress according to their acculturative stress score. That
is, 70% of the participants experienced acculturative stress. This high number further contributes to the importance of our
study. More so because research by Uppaluri, Schumm, and Lauderdale (2001) has shown that Asian immigrants have a
tendency of underreporting with regards to acculturative stress.
Our working model consisted of the constructs English language proficiency (ELP), native language proficiency (NLP),
language preference (LPF), discrimination (DCS), family cohesion (FCN), and the context of exit (COE). The non-significant
constructs and variables were eliminated. In particular, the socioeconomic status was eliminated in the first step of model
selection (P-value = 0.6573), followed by gender (2nd step, P-value = 0.5262), social networks (3rd step, P-value = 0.3485),
and age at the time of migration (4th step, P-value = 0.0847) through backwards elimination. All remaining constructs were
significant at the 0.05 level. Summary statistics of the significant constructs are shown in Table 2 and the parameter
estimates and their associated P-values for this working model are shown in Table 3.
The odds ratios for each construct are shown in Table 4. Odds ratios are interpreted as follows: assuming that all other
constructs are held constant, the odds ratio is the factor by which ACC changes for every unit increase in the construct under
consideration.
K. Lueck, M. Wilson / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 47–57
53
Table 2
Constructs and variables with observed values.
Variable
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
ELP
NLP
LPF
DCS
FCN
COE
8.3823389
8.8830549
7.8429594
11.7346062
12.9174224
294.0275662
3.0000000
3.0000000
3.0000000
4.0000000
10.0000000
87.4589826
12.0000000
12.0000000
15.0000000
48.0000000
33.0000000
476.0000000
For example, examination of the odds ratios for English language proficiency shows that for every unit increase in the ELP
score, the odds of acculturative stress are estimated to decrease by 13% (a factor of 0.887) on average and to decrease
between 7.3% and 15% with 95% confidence. The English language proficiency index ranged from 3 to 12, or a 9-unit span in
this data set. With all other predictor indices in common, a person whose English language proficiency index was 3 was 2.93
times more likely to have acculturative stress than an individual whose ELP index was 12.
For every unit increase in the native language proficiency score, the odds of acculturative stress were estimated to
decrease by 5.6% and to decrease between 1.9% and 9.3% with 95% confidence. All else being equal, a person whose NLP was 3
was 1.68 times more likely to be affected by acculturative stress than an individual whose index was 12. Thus, Asian
Americans who had low levels of English or native language proficiency had higher acculturative stress. On the other hand,
those who spoke both the native language and English well (i.e. fully bilingual participants) had a significantly lower
probability to be affected by acculturative stress.
Regarding language preference, the results were similar. The LPF index ranged from 3 to 15, or a 12-unit span. A person
whose language preference index was 3 was twice as likely to have acculturative stress than an individual whose language
proficiency index was 15. The lowest probability to face acculturative stress was among Asian Americans whose language
preference was bilingual, speaking both languages equally with friends and family and thinking in both languages. On the
other hand, those who spoke English all the time with friends and family and those who thought in English only experienced
higher acculturative stress.
Our study clearly shows that a bilingual language preference contributed to lower acculturative stress. Asians who are
able to use both languages equally with their friends are able to build up networks of support within and outside their
community. These wider, more complex networks enhance their social capital, which can act as a resource for handling
conflicts. Bilingualism had a significant impact on lower acculturative stress at home. The use of the native language and
bilingual approaches make it possible to discuss identity related topics. Bilinguals, for example, are able to use different
languages in different situations to accelerate enhanced understanding and to avoid miscommunication. Stress may arise
when Asian Americans do not know the native language well enough to discuss sensitive issues with family members at
home or in the native country who may have limited or no abilities in English. This in turn contributes to a profound
linguistic and cultural separation and acculturative stress.
Table 3
The logistic procedure.
Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates
Parameter
DF
Intercept
ELP
NLP
LPF
DCS
FCN
COE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Estimate
4.6752
0.1194
0.0580
0.0618
0.0605
0.0496
0.00412
Standard error
Wald Chi-square
Pr > Chi-square
0.5698
0.0222
0.0200
0.0209
0.00895
0.0159
0.000976
67.3252
28.9706
8.3796
8.7419
45.7066
9.7880
17.7790
<.0001
<.0001
0.0038
0.0031
<.0001
0.0018
<.0001
Table 4
Odds ratio estimates.
Effect
Point estimate
ELP
NLP
LPF
DCS
FCN
COE
0.887
0.944
0.940
1.062
0.952
0.996
95% Wald
Confidence
Limits
0.850
0.907
0.902
1.044
0.923
0.994
0.927
0.981
0.979
1.081
0.982
0.998
K. Lueck, M. Wilson / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 47–57
54
Table 5
Model fit statistics.
Model fit statistics
Criterion
Intercept only
Intercept and covariates
AIC
SC
2log L
2615.765
2621.412
2613.765
2487.379
2526.910
2473.379
Association of predicted probabilities and observed responses
Percent concordant
Percent discordant
Percent tied
65.6
34.0
0.4
Somers’ D
Gamma
Tau-a
0.316
0.318
0.137
It is also important to note that while bilinguals have advantages over their monolingual peers when it comes to
acculturative stress, the meaning of language proficiency and language preference is quite different. Language proficiency
measured the degree of linguistic performance in English and in the native language while language preference was
influenced by socialization practices but may also be influenced by choice. The results show that English language
proficiency and native language proficiency as individual constructs are predictive of lower acculturative stress. Regarding
language preference, bilingualism is a predictor of low acculturative stress whereas the preference of or socialization in
English only is a predictor of high acculturative stress.
The findings on perceived ethnic discrimination revealed that negative treatment (for example in stores and restaurants),
prejudice (i.e. when immigrants were perceived as dishonest or they were perceived as being of lower ethnic and social
status), Xenophobia (i.e. when people acted as if they were afraid of Asian immigrants or Asian Americans), harassment and
threats significantly contributed to higher acculturative stress. The discrimination index ranged from 4 to 48, or a 40-unit
span. A person whose discrimination index was 48 was 14.32 times more likely to have acculturative stress than an
individual whose discrimination index was 4, again with all other indices being equal.
The discrimination index did not predominantly access de jure forms of discrimination as it could be observed in the
past. Historically, Asian Americans have suffered from blatant forms of discrimination such as exclusion. Rather the data
shows de facto forms of discrimination, which are socialized within today’s society. This means that the everyday
discrimination Asian immigrants and Asian Americans are facing is very subtle, nuanced, hidden and normalized as
‘acceptable behavior’ and very difficult to contest. It is reflected in negative service treatment, prejudice and xenophobic
behaviors against immigrants and ethnic minorities without providing the reason for mistreatments (for example,
immigrant status, ethnicity, race, etc. are not openly provided as a reason for discrimination). However, although it was not
directly assessed by most of the variables, forms of de jure discrimination still exist, for example in form of monolingual
prepositions and anti-immigration legislations. These legal measures openly enact discrimination and of course influence
the everyday experiences.
The family cohesion index ranged from 10 to 33, or a 23-unit span. A person whose family cohesion index is 10 is 3.13
times more likely to face acculturative stress than a person whose FCN index is 33, with all other indices held constant. Thus,
sharing similar values and beliefs as a family, trust, closeness and togetherness as a family on the one side and low family
dispute levels (e.g. arguments with family members because of different customs and conflicting personal goals)
significantly contributed to lower acculturative stress.
The context of exit index ranged from 87.46 to 476. With all other variables held constant, a person whose COE index was
87.46 was 495% more likely to have acculturative stress than a person whose COE index was 476. Acculturative stress was
lowest for Asians who were born in a developed country (e.g. in the US) or whose parents were born in the US and for Asians
who received most of their primary and secondary education in the US. In addition, acculturative stress was significantly
lower among those who were very satisfied with their economic opportunities in the US and also among immigrants who, if
they would have to make the decision again, would still move to the United States. Thus, unlike the results on the
socioeconomic status, the context of exit findings show that educational and economic variables have a significant effect on
acculturative stress. The schooling in a developed country such as the US, economic opportunities and satisfaction are
associated with low stress.
The final model on the predictors of acculturative stress was 65.6% concordant with the observed data (Table 5). This
means that in a logistic discrimination, where if an individual’s probability of experiencing acculturative stress was greater
than 50% he or she was classified by the model as having acculturative stress and if the probability was less than 50% that
individual was classified as not having acculturative stress, the classifications were correct 65.8% of the time.
4. Discussion
No previous studies have addressed social and linguistic predictors of acculturative stress in a nationally representative
sample of current Asian immigrants and Asian Americans. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine which social
and linguistic factors predict acculturative stress within this sample. Results showed that high levels of English and native
K. Lueck, M. Wilson / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 47–57
55
language proficiencies, a bilingual language preference, high levels of family cohesion and a high context of exit score
were predictive of low acculturative stress. On the other hand, high levels of discrimination led to high acculturative
stress.
Study findings indicated that the language proficiency constructs had the largest effects on acculturative stress. Previous
studies also found that language proficiency is a strong predictor of acculturative stress. However, previous research in the
US mainly focused on the importance of English skills and their contribution to lower acculturative stress levels. The findings
in this study were quite different. Not only English skills but also native language skills and bilingual language preferences
significantly decreased the likelihood of acculturative stress. The loss of the native language on the other hand contributed to
higher acculturative stress. Differences with regards to previous studies can be associated to policies and research interests
that mostly focused on English language proficiency. They therefore interpreted language barriers mostly as a lack of English
fluency but not as a lack of bilingual options. In particular, previous research shows that the inability to speak English can
negatively affect the adjustment of Asian immigrants, which leads to higher levels of acculturative stress. However, since
acculturation is defined as a process by which individuals incorporate beliefs, behaviors, identities (including linguistic
identities) and values from the new host culture into the context of beliefs, behaviors, identities and values from the native
culture, it is important to also pay attention to the languages that are associated with these cultures. With a focus on English
only, linguistic assimilation is measured rather than integration.
While our findings with regards to the impact of the native language and bilingualism on acculturative stress are not
supported by previous studies in the US, they are consistent with previous research conducted in Canada that reported high
native and English language proficiencies as predictors of low acculturative stress and native language attrition as a predictor
of high acculturative stress (Kim, 1984). More than two decades ago the Canadian researchers Berry and Kostovcik (1983)
also reported bilingualism but more importantly multilingualism as predictors of low acculturative stress. However,
influenced by monolingual laws and approaches in US society, hardly any study has built on their research whereas the use of
English only as a linguistic predictor is still very popular.
However, as pointed out by previous research (Hames & Blanc, 2000) bilingualism not only increases linguistic
abilities and meta-linguistic awareness but also cognitive flexibility, such as, divergent thinking, general reasoning and
problem solving skills. Cognitive flexibility is an enhanced awareness that in any problem situation there are several
alternative options available to solve the problem. This also includes the willingness to adapt to a situation, taking into
consideration linguistic and cultural differences (Martin & Rubin, 1995; Kim & Omizo, 2006). This means that bilinguals
are more likely to solve difficult problems than their monolingual peers, which may reduce stress. In addition, bilinguals
are therefore also not as likely to perceive a problematic situation as stressful. This relates to Lazarus and Folkman’s
(1984) cognitive appraisal process where stress is not always seen as such but it is rather seen as temporary challenge
immigrants can overcome. The flexibility to interact and live with two languages increases the capital to cope with
problems and stress.
The results on the impact of English, native language proficiencies and a bilingual language preference indicate that
providing immigrants and ethnic minorities with bilingual options and opportunities may help them to more effectively
cope with acculturative stress and to reduce stress levels. Without strong socio-structural support, however, the chances of
sustaining fluency in the native language and bilingual competence are slim. Thus, bilingual policies have to be developed
that support bilingual language use. These policies should be applied in broad socio-structural areas and should be
manifested within social institutions and other areas of society. Besides societal support, social interactions should also be an
area of concern. It is important to allow the usage of diverse languages besides English but it is also important to deconstruct
power relations and prestige in discourse. For example, the publication of bilingual learning materials, books and
newspapers enables contact with a more academic and formal language style in the native language and in English, which
may enhance the prestige of a minority language and also behaviors about using this language. The promotion of ethnic
languages does not endanger the English language in the US but rather allows for linguistic integration and an increased
wellbeing of ethnic minorities because of lower stress rates.
Given the importance of the family in many Asian cultures, it was not surprising that high levels of family cohesion were
linked to lower acculturative stress. Previous studies support our findings. Researchers (Gore & Aseltine, 1995; Kang, 1996;
Liang & Bogat, 1994) reported that high levels of family cohesion reduced acculturative and emotional stress and had a
positive impact on the overall psychological wellbeing. Thomas (2006) found that the majority of the Korean and Indian
study participants (87.3%) rated their parents as a major source of support to cope with acculturative stress and stated that
parental support was more important than the support through social organizations.
Thus, our study results reiterate the importance of social and cultural support within Asian American families. However,
without needed family support providing stability and acting as a buffer in the acculturative process, greater stress does
appear likely.
Results also showed that increased levels of discrimination led to increased acculturative stress. Other researchers (AlIssa & Tousignant, 1997; Moritsugu & Sue, 1983) have also linked discrimination to higher levels of stress but also to
depression. These studies come to the conclusion that discrimination could have both psychological and physical effects on
its victims (Al-Issa, 1997, p. 27). Al-Issa and Tousignant (1997) specifically support the argument that discrimination is a
major source of acculturative stress in immigrants and ethnic minorities. Mak and Nesdale (2001) also found the immigrants’
perceptions of discrimination were associated with higher psychological distress, even after coping resources and gender
had been controlled for. But they also argue that victims of ‘‘discrimination receive little support or counseling and are often
56
K. Lueck, M. Wilson / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 47–57
unaware of the avenues available for reporting . . . vilification’’ (p. 2641). Thus, it is imperative to intervene with
discrimination at all levels in order to reduce and avoid stress.
Even though the linkages and mechanisms are generally underresearched, our study finds a clear association between
high context of migration exit scores and low acculturative stress. However, research on the stress consequences of the
context of exit status is only beginning to garner the attention it deserves. We recommend that future research should not
only look at current conditions in the US in its relationship to acculturative stress, but also at the context of exit and its longterm effects.
Within the context of exit, education in the US had a significant impact on lower acculturative stress. The results on
education are consistent with Berry et al.’s (1987) findings in which westernization and a previous encounter with a white
Anglo-approach were predictive of lower acculturative stress. Nevertheless, it would be a significant shortcoming to aim for
this westernization. Rather schools should incorporate diversity and increased intercultural opportunities to effectively
reduce acculturative stress in all Asian immigrants and Asian Americans.
While the constructs mentioned above are very important predictors of acculturative stress, a shortcoming of the NLAAS
dataset is the lack of identity variables that help to evaluate the relationship between US culture and Asian cultures, between
voice versus silence, indirectness versus directness, relationship versus rationality, culture-sensitive knowledge versus
Western knowledge, and losing face versus saving face in cross-cultural encounters. While there are strong sets of linguistic
variables and social constructs, bicultural and intercultural constructs are not part of the NLAAS dataset. Especially an
intercultural personhood construct informed by Kim’s (2008) research combined with intercultural facework dimensions
and themes as presented and applied in Ting-Toomey and Kurogi (1998) would present an important intercultural construct
that impacts acculturative stress. It would also be possible to gain a deeper cultural understanding of minority identities. The
former study (Kim, 2008) also analyzes the interplay between acculturation and deculturation and the ‘‘stress in the
individual psyche—a kind of identity conflict rooted in resistance to change, the desire to retain old customs in keeping with
the original identity, on the one hand, and the desire to change behavior in seeking harmony with the new milieu, on the
other’’ (Kim, 2008, p. 363). Despite this limitation, this study makes a useful contribution to the study of acculturative stress.
While intercultural variables have indeed received attention in previous studies, there is a lack of research that implements
the native language and migration exit variables. In addition, the focus of this study are linguistic and social factors that
impact acculturative stress.
The methods of data collection and analysis contributed to the strength of this study. Methodological differences to
previous research can be associated with the specific sampling design and the procedures of this NLAAS study. The sampling
procedures in this study were more representative for the Asian American adult population, specifically for Vietnamese,
Chinese, and Filipino populations than those applied in other studies. In addition, the use of ethnic language instruments
enhanced the validity of our data and findings compared to previous studies that used English only.
Besides the data collection, the imputation of the missing variables was another strength. The NLAAS study has variables
that are missing at random and any remedy other than valid modeling will lead to some bias in the results of the subsequent
analysis. Hence, imputations served mostly as remedies without concern for bias.
Future quantitative but also qualitative research on social and linguistic predictors of acculturative stress can build on
this study. It is crucial to provide a better understanding of the current Asian immigrant population and their experiences
with acculturative stress. Future studies could also compare predictors of acculturative stress between the different
nationally sampled Asian immigrant groups. It is also crucial that like in Canada more US studies should especially focus on
bilingualism in its relationship to acculturation and acculturative stress.
References
Alegrı́a, M., Takeuchi, D., Canino, G., et al. (2004). Considering context, place and culture: the National Latino and Asian American Study. International Journal of
Methods in Psychiatric Research, 13(4), 208–220.
Al-Issa, I. (1997). The psychology of prejudice and discrimination. In I. Al-Issa & M. Tousignant (Eds.), Ethnicity, Immigration, and Psychopathology (pp. 17–34). New
York: Springer.
Al-Issa, I., & Tousignant, M. (1997). Ethnicity, immigration and psychopathology. London: Plenum Press.
Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. M. Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, models and some new findings (pp. 9–25). Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Berry, J. W. (1998). Acculturative stress. In P. B. Organista & K. M. Chun (Eds.), Readings in ethnic psychology. New York: Routledge.
Berry, J. W. (2003). Conceptual approaches to acculturation. In K. M. Chun, P. B. Organista, & G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and
applied research (pp. 17–37). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 697–712.
Berry, J. W. (2006). Acculturative stress. In P. Wong & L. Wong (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural perspectives on stress and coping (pp. 283–294). New York: Springer.
Berry, J. W. (2008). Globalization and acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(4), 328–336.
Berry, J. W., & Bondel, T. (1982). Psychological adaptation of Vietnamese refugees in Canada. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 1, 81–88.
Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Minde, T., & Mok, D. (1987). Comparative studies of acculturative stress. International Migration Review, 21, 491–511.
Berry, J. W., & Kostovcik, N. (1983). Psychological adaptation of Malay students in Canada. Paper from the Third Asian Regional conference of IACCP.
Choi, G. (1997). Acculturative stress, social support, and depression in Korean American families. Journal of Family and Social Work, 2(1), 81–97.
Constantine, M., Okazaki, S., & Utsey, S. (2004). Self-concealment, social self efficacy, acculturative stress, and depression in African, Asian, and Latin American
International College students. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 74(3), 230–241.
Fuligni, A. J. (2001). A comparative longitudinal approach to acculturation among children from immigrant families. Harvard Educational Review, 71(3), 66–78.
Gore, S., & Aseltine, R. H. (1995). Protective processes in adolescence: Matching stressors with social resources. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(3),
301–327.
Hames, J. F., & Blanc, M. H. A. (2000). Bilinguality and bilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
K. Lueck, M. Wilson / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 47–57
57
Heeringa, S. G., Wagner, J., Torres, M., Duan, N., Adams, T., & Berglund, P. (2004). Sample designs and sampling methods of the Collaborative Psychiatric
Epidemology Studies (CPES). International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 13(4), 221–240.
Kang, C. (1996). Acculturative stress, family environment, and psychological adjustment of Korean American adolescents. Los Angeles: California School of Professional
Psychology.
Kim, U. (1984). Psychological Acculturation of Korean Immigrants in Toronto: A Study of Modes of Acculturation, Identity, Language and Acculturative Stress.
Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Kim, Y. (2008). Intercultural personhood: Globalization and a way of being. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(4), 359–368.
Kim, B., & Abreu, J. M. (2001). Acculturation measurement: Theory, current instruments, and future directions. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M.
Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (2nd ed., pp. 394–424). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kim, B., & Omizo, M. (2006). Behavioral acculturation and enculturation and psychological functioning among Asian American college students. Cultural Diversity
and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12(2), 245–258.
Kuo, B., & Roysircar, G. (2006). An exploratory study of cross-cultural adaptation of adolescent Taiwanese unaccompanied sojourners in Canada. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(2), 159–183.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.
Liang, B., & Bogat, G. A. (1994). Culture, control, and coping: New perspectives on social support. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22(1), 123–147.
Mak, A., & Nesdale, D. (2001). Migrant distress: The role of perceived racial discrimination and coping resources. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(12), 2632–
2647.
Martin, M., & Rubin, R. B. (1995). A new measure of cognitive flexibility. Psychological Reports, 76, 623–626.
Montreuil, A., & Bourhis, R. (2001). Majority acculturation orientation toward ‘‘valued’’ and ‘‘devalued’’ immigrants. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 698–
719.
Moritsugu, J., & Sue, S. (1983). Preventive psychology: Theory, research and practice. New York: Pergamon.
Murphy, H. B. (1965). Mobility and mental health. Springfield, MA: Thomas.
Noh, S., & Kaspar, V. (2003). Perceived discrimination and depression: Moderating effects of coping, acculturation, and ethnic support. American Journal of Public
Health, 232–238.
Nwadiora, E., & McAdoo, H. (1996). Acculturative stress among Amerasian refugees: Gender and racial differences. Adolescence, 31, 477–486.
Oh, Y., Koeske, G. F., & Sales, E. (2002). Acculturation, stress and depressive symptoms among Korean immigrants in the United States. Social Psychology, 142(4),
511–526.
Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. J. (1936). Memorandum on the study of acculturation. American Anthropologist, 38, 149–152.
Salant, T., & Lauderdale, D. (2003). Measuring culture: A critical review of acculturation and health in Asian immigrant populations. Social Science and Medicine,
57(1), 71–90.
Sam, D. L., Vedder, P., Ward, C., & Hoarenczyk, G. (2006). Psychological and sociocultural adaptation of immigrant youth. In J. W. Berry, J. S. Phinney, D. L. Sam, & P.
Vedder (Eds.), Immigrant Youth in cultural transition: Acculturation, identity and adaptation across national contexts (pp. 117–141). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Smart, J. F., & Smart, D. W. (1995). Acculturative stress: The experience of the Hispanic immigrant. Counseling Psychology, 23, 25–42.
Sodowsky, G. R., & Lai, E. M. (1997). Asian immigrant variables and structural models of cross-cultural distress. In A. Booth, A. C. Crouter, & N. Landale (Eds.),
Immigration and family: Research and policy on U.S. immigrants (pp. 211–234). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thomas, M. (2006). Acculturative stress and social support among Korean and Indian immigrant adolescents in the United States. Journal of Sociology and Social
Welfare, 23, 123–143.
Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: an updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 22(2), 187–225.
Uppaluri, C., Schumm, P., & Lauderdale, D. (2001). Self-reports of stress in Asian immigrants: Effects of ethnicity and acculturation. Ethnicity and Disease, 107–114.
Ward, C. (2006). Acculturation, identity and adaptation in dual heritage adolescents. International Journal of intercultural Relations, 30(2), 243–259.
Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1994). Acculturation strategies, psychological adjustment, and sociocultural competence during cross-cultural transitions. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18(3), 329–343.
Yang, P. (1999). Sojourners or settlers: Post-1965 Chinese immigrants. Journal of Asian American Studies, 2(1), 61–91.