University of California
Postprints
Year 2005 Paper 967
Bicultural identity integration (BII):
Components and psychosocial
antecedents
저자: Benet-Martinez J Haritatos
Benet-Martinez and J Haritatos,
“Bicultural identity integration (BII): Components and
psychosocial antecedents” (2005). Journal of Personality. 73 (4), pp. 1015-1049. Postprint
available free at: http://repositories.cdlib.org/postprints/967
Posted at the eScholarship Repository, University of California.
http://repositories.cdlib.org/postprints/967
Bicultural identity integration (BII):
Components and psychosocial
antecedents
Abstract
The present study examines the underresearched topic of bicultural identity;
specifically, we: (1) unpack the construct of Bicultural Identity Integration
(BII), or the degree to which a bicultural individual perceives his/her two
cultural identities as “compatible” versus ”oppositional,” and (2) identify the
personality (Big Five) and acculturation (acculturation stress, acculturation
attitudes, bicultural competence) predictors of BII. Differences in BII, acculturation
stress, and bicultural competence were measured with new instruments
developed for the purposes of the study. Using a sample of Chinese American biculturals,
we found that variations in BII do not define a uniform phenomenon,
as commonly implied in the literature, but instead encompass two separate independent
constructs: perceptions of distance (vs. overlap) and perceptions
of conflict (vs. harmony) between one’s two cultural identities or orientations.
Results also indicated that cultural conflict and cultural distance have distinct
personality, acculturation, and sociodemographic antecedents.
Bicultural Identity Integration (BII):
Components and Psychosocial Antecedents
Vero´nica Benet-Martı´nez
University of California at Riverside
Jana Haritatos
University of Michigan
ABSTRACT
The present study examines the underresearched topic of bicultural identity; specifically, we: (1) unpack the construct of Bicultural Identity Integration (BII), or the degree to which a bicultural individual perceives his/her two cultural identities as ‘‘compatible’’ versus ‘‘oppositional,’’ and (2) identify the personality (Big Five) and acculturation (acculturation stress, acculturation attitudes, bicultural competence) predictors of BII. Differences in BII, acculturation stress, and bicultural
competence were measured with new instruments developed for the purposes of the study. Using a sample of Chinese American biculturals, we found that variations in BII do not define a uniform phenomenon, as commonly implied in the literature, but instead encompass two separate
independent constructs: perceptions of distance (vs. overlap) and perceptions of conflict (vs. harmony) between one’s two cultural identities or orientations. Results also indicated that cultural conflict and cultural distance have distinct personality, acculturation, and sociodemographic antecedents.
We are grateful to Janxin Leu for her help in collecting the data for the study. Early
versions of this manuscript benefited greatly from the comments provided by Fiona
Lee, Ole-Kristian Setnes, Nicole Berry, Amara Brook, Chi-Ying Cheng, and Julie
Garcia. We also thank three anonymous reviewers who provided very valuable comments
on this work. The following individuals provided assistance with the data collection,
coding, and data entry: Curt Brewer, Hiu Ying Chen, Ashley Ho, Martin
Kandes, Mary Money, and Erin Weber. Finally, we thank Laura Klem for her valuable
statistical assistance with the path analyses. Correspondence concerning this
article can be addressed to Vero´ nica Benet-Martı´ nez (veronbm@ucr.edu).
Journal of Personality 73:4, August 2005
r Blackwell Publishing 2005
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00337.x
Being bicultural makes me feel special and confused. Special because
it adds to my identity: I enjoy my Indian culture, I feel that
it is rich in tradition, morality, and beauty; Confused because I
have been in many situations where I feel being both cultures isn’t
an option. My cultures have very different views on things
like dating and marriage. I feel like you have to choose one or
the other.
—19-year-old second-generation Indian American
Biculturalism seems to me to be a dichotomy and a paradox; you
are both cultures and at the same time, you are neither.
—19-year-old first-generation Chinese American
In today’s increasingly diverse and mobile world, growing numbers of
individuals have internalizedmore than one culture and can be described
as bicultural or multicultural. In fact, one out of every four individuals
residing in the United States has lived in another country before moving
to the United States and presumably has internalized more than
one culture (U.S. Census, 2002). These impressive statistics do not include
U.S.-born ethnic and cultural minorities (e.g., descendants of immigrants)
for whom identification and involvement with their ethnic
cultures in addition to mainstream culture is also the norm (Phinney,
1996).
The prevalence and importance of multiculturalism or biculturalism
has been recently acknowledged by some psychologists (e.g., Hermans
& Kempen, 1998; LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993), but
the phenomenon has rarely been investigated empirically.1 However,
the study of multicultural identities has exciting implications
1. We examined the psychological literature on biculturalism (or related topics
such as multiculturalism) from 1954 to the present. This review yielded 55 publications,
of which only 28 were actual studies (vs. theoretical pieces such as book
chapters and technical reports). Out of these 28, only 20 were empirical studies
(the other 8 were case studies or ethnographies). Eight of these 20 studies were
published in social-personality or general audience journals (e.g., Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology Review, Hispanic Journal
of Behavioral Sciences), with the majority of the work appearing in clinical, community,
or educational journals. Given the size of the identity literature (>1,000
papers), these low numbers indicate a huge knowledge gap in the understanding of
bicultural identity formation and maintenance, and cultural identity in general.
1016 Benet-Martı´nez & Haritatos
for the field of psychology, and for social and personality psychology
in particular, as the issue of how individuals develop a
sense of community around national, cultural, ethnic, and racial
group membership becomes particularly meaningful in situations
of cultural clashing, mixing, and integration (Baumeister, 1986;
Phinney, 1999). Furthermore, the social and individual relevance
of bicultural identity negotiation provides personality
researchers with another window to study individual variations
in self-concept dynamics. In fact, as eloquently stated by
Phinney (1999), ‘‘increasing numbers of people find that the
conflicts are not between different groups but between different
cultural values, attitudes, and expectations within themselves’’ (p. 27;
italics added).
The process of negotiating multiple cultural identities is complex
and multifaceted. A careful review of the (mostly qualitative)
work on this topic in the acculturation literature (e.g., Padilla,
1994; Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997) and in ethnic and cultural
studies (e.g., Durczak, 1997; O’Hearn, 1998) reveals that bicultural
individuals often talk about their dual cultural heritage in complicated
ways and in both positive and negative terms. As the opening
quotations in this article illustrate, biculturalism can be associated
with feelings of pride, uniqueness, and a rich sense of community
and history, while also bringing to mind identity confusion, dual
expectations, and value clashes (Haritatos & Benet-Martı´ nez, 2003).
Further, biculturals often report dealing with the implications of
multiple racial stereotypes and pressures from different communities
for loyalties and behaviors (LaFromboise et al., 1993). An important
issue, then, is how individuals who have internalized more than one
culture negotiate their different, and often opposing, cultural
orientations, as well as the role external and internal factors play
in this process.
The aim of this article is to examine individual differences
in the construction and integration of dual cultural identities
and to understand how these differences relate to particular personality
dispositions, contextual pressures, and acculturation
and demographic variables. Given the lack of empirical literature
on this topic, this article represents an important first attempt
at understanding the sociopsychological processes involved in
biculturalism.
Bicultural Identity Integration 1017
Biculturalism: Integrating Two Cultural Orientations
According to a widely accepted framework proposed by Berry
(1990), acculturating immigrants and ethnic minorities has to deal
with two central issues: (1) the extent to which they are motivated or
allowed to retain identification with the culture of origin, now the
nonmajority culture (what we’ll refer to in this article as the ethnic
culture); and (2) the extent to which they are motivated or allowed to
identify with the mainstream, dominant culture. According to Berry
(1990), the negotiation of these two central issues results in four
distinct acculturation positions: assimilation (identification mostly
with the dominant culture), integration (high identification with both
cultures), separation (identification largely with the ethnic culture),
or marginalization (low identification with both). For example, ‘‘integrated’’
immigrant and U.S.-born ethnic minorities living in the
United States would identify with both the ethnic culture (e.g.,
Asian, Latin, etc.) and the mainstream American culture—which, in
the United States, continues to be largely defined in terms of the
Northern European cultural tradition and the primacy of the English
language (Sullivan & Schatz, 1999).
Berry’s taxonomy supports the argument that ‘‘acculturation is not a
linear process, with individuals ranging from unacculturated to assimilated,
but rather a multidimensional process that includes one’s orientation
to both one’s ethnic culture and the larger society’’ (Phinney,
1996, p. 922). There is now robust evidence supporting the psychometric
validity of this bidirectional model of acculturation and its advantages
over unidimensional models in predicting a wide array of outcomes
(Flannery, 1998; Ryder, Allen, & Paulhus, 2000; Tsai, Ying, & Lee,
2000). Further evidence for the idea that individuals can simultaneously
hold two or more cultural orientations is provided by recent sociocognitive
experimental work showing that biculturals move between their
two cultural orientations by engaging in cultural frame switching (Hong,
Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martı´ nez, 2000), or shifting between different
culturally based interpretative lenses in response to cultural cues.
While the above literature has been instrumental in advancing the
notion of bicultural identity, there are also important gaps in these
conceptions. First, Berry’s concept of integration (identification with
both cultures) fails to describe how people go about integrating and
maintaining the dual cultures and does little to pinpoint individual
or sociocultural antecedents that would explain why a given indi-
1018 Benet-Martı´nez & Haritatos
vidual experiences biculturalism as ‘‘a dichotomy and paradox’’’
and/or something that makes him or her feel both ‘‘special and confused’’
(see earlier quotations).
In conclusion, most traditional acculturation studies have operationalized
biculturalism largely as a uniform construct, overlooking individual
variations in the way bicultural identity is negotiated and organized
(see qualitative studies by Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997, and Vivero
& Jenkins, 1999, for exceptions). Specifically, the customary assessment
of biculturalism in terms of a single score (or set of scores) on traditional
acculturation scales seems insufficient for capturing fundamental individual
differences in the experiences and meanings associated with bicultural
identity. For example, even among acculturating individuals who
identify with both mainstream and ethnic cultures, variations in sociocultural
(e.g., generational status, cultural makeup of the community),
sociocognitive (e.g., personality, attitudes) and socioemotional factors
(stress due to discrimination or in-group pressures) leave room for significant
individual differences in the process of bicultural identity formation
and the meanings associated with this experience.
Bicultural Identity Integration (BII): An Individual Difference
Approach
Based on this gap in biculturalism research, one important goal of this
paper is empirically to explore and organize individual variations in
the experience of biculturalism. In this regard, Benet-Martı´ nez, Leu,
Lee, & Morris (2002) recently proposed the theoretical construct of
Bicultural Identity Integration (BII) as a framework for investigating
individual differences in bicultural identity organization, focusing on
biculturals’ subjective perceptions of how much their dual cultural
identities intersect or overlap. BII, which was drawn from an extensive
review of the empirical and qualitative acculturation and biculturalism
literature, captures the degree to which ‘‘biculturals perceive
their mainstream and ethnic cultural identities as compatible and integrated
vs. oppositional and difficult to integrate’’ (Benet-Martı´ nez
et al., 2002, p. 9). Individuals high on BII tend to see themselves as
part of a ‘‘hyphenated culture’’ (or even part of a combined, ‘‘third,’’
emerging culture) and find it easy to integrate both cultures in their
everyday lives. These high BII biculturals are described as having developed
compatible bicultural identities (Padilla, 1994; Phinney &
Devich-Navarro, 1997; Rotheram-Borus, 1993), meaning that they do
Bicultural Identity Integration 1019
not perceive the two cultures to be mutually exclusive, oppositional,
or conflicting. Biculturals low on BII, on the other hand, report difficulty
in incorporating both cultures into a cohesive sense of identity
(Gil, Vega, & Dimas, 1994; Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997; Vivero
& Jenkins, 1999). Although low BII biculturals also identify with both
cultures, they are particularly sensitive to specific tensions between the
two cultural orientations and see this incompatibility as a source of
internal conflict. Moreover, low BIIs often feel as if they should just
choose one culture (e.g., they often report that it is easier to take on
either culture or none, but not both at the same time).2
BII and Cultural Frame-Switching
In their first study of BII, Benet-Martı´ nez and her colleagues (Benet-
Martı´ nez et al., 2002) demonstrated the psychological relevance of
this individual difference variable by showing that variations in BII
moderate the process of cultural frame switching. Specifically, Chinese
American biculturals high on BII (those who perceive their cultural
identities as compatible) exhibited culturally congruent behavior
when presented with external cues associated with one of their cultural
backgrounds (e.g., made external attributions to an ambiguous
social event after being primed with Chinese icons and made internal
attributions to the same event after seeing American icons). on the
other hand, Chinese American biculturals low on BII (those who
perceive their cultural identities to be in opposition), behaved in nonculturally
congruent ways when exposed to these same cues. Namely,
low BIIs exhibited Chinese-congruent behaviors (i.e., external attributions)
in response to American cues and American-congruent behaviors
(internal attributions) in response to Chinese cues. In
summary, low BIIs exhibited a type of ‘‘behavioral reactance’’ that
the sociocognitive literature describes as a contrast or reverse priming
2. Although no construct in the existing literature captures all the nuances of BII,
a few acculturation and ethnic minority theorists have discussed particular acculturation
experiences and outcomes that seem to relate (if only partially) to the
identity integration vs. opposition continuum defined by BII. Examples of these
constructs are: ‘‘fusion’’ (Chuang, 1999), ‘‘blendedness’’ (Padilla, 1994; Phinney &
Devich-Navarro, 1997), ‘‘cultural hybridity’’ (Oyserman, Sakamoto, & Lauffer;
1998), ‘‘bicultural competence’’ (LaFromboise & Rowe, 1983) vs. ‘‘cultural homelessness’’
(Vivero & Jenkins, 1999), ‘‘alternating’’ biculturalism (Phinney & Devich-
Navarro, 1997), and ‘‘oppositional identities’’ (Cross, 1995; Ogbu, 1993).
1020 Benet-Martı´nez & Haritatos
effect (Stapel & Winkielman, 1998). As discussed in Benet-Martı´ nez
et al. (2002), the prime inconsistent behavior of low BIIs is supported
by popular media and literature’s depictions of cultural clash (e.g.,
Chavez, 1994; O’Hearn, 1998; Mehta, 1996; Roth, 1969) where inner
cultural conflict is often described as leading to behavioral and/or
affective ‘‘reactance’’ against the cultural expectations embedded in
particular situations. For instance, in Roth’s novel, the conflicted
bicultural protagonist finds himself feeling and acting particularly
Jewish when traveling to the Midwest and feeling and acting conspicuously
American when visiting Israel. In short, Benet-Martı´ nez
et al.’s (2002) study provided evidence that variations in BII play an
important role in biculturals’ behavioral and cognitive functioning.
Furthering BII: Conceptual and Methodological Gaps
Although Benet-Martı´ nez et al’s (2002) study is the first effort at
empirically identifying individual differences in BII and modeling the
impact of BII on biculturals’ sociocognitive processes, further research
is needed to develop a more formal measure of BII, explore its
possible components, and identify BII’s personality and contextual
antecedents. Specifically, in Benet-Martı´ nez et al.’s (2002) study,
variations in BII were measured with a preliminary, short measure
(Bicultural Identity Integration Scale –Preliminary; BIIS-P). This
instrument assessed perceived opposition between Chinese and
American cultural identities in a multistatement vignette that was
rated as a single item (see Benet-Martı´ nez et al., 2002, for more specific
information about this measure) and read as follows:
I am a bicultural who keeps American and Chinese cultures separate
and feels conflicted about these two cultures. I am mostly
just a Chinese who lives in America (vs. a Chinese American), and
I feel as someone who is caught between two cultures.3
3. As explained in Benet-Martı´ nez et al. (2002), this vignette measuring opposition
between Chinese and American cultures was tested in conjunction with another
vignette capturing compatibility between the cultures. Ratings on these two
vignettes were highly (negatively) correlated, indicating that the two vignettes
were largely interchangeable. However, scores on the vignette measuring opposition
were normally distributed, while scores on the vignette measuring compatibility
were skewed to the right (perhaps because of the higher social desirability of
the statements tapping compatibility). Thus, the vignette measuring opposition
was used to measure BII in Benet-Martı´ nez et al.’s (2002) study.
Bicultural Identity Integration 1021
This single-item measure of BII, although useful in identifying some
of the possible variables that define BII’s nomological network (e.g.,
see Table 3 in the Benet-Martı´ nez et al., 2002, study), provides only a
limited and perhaps unreliable assessment of the various psychological
processes that may underlie BII. Specifically, note that the above
operationalization of BII seems to mix perceptions of distance or
compartmentalization between one’s two cultural identities (e.g.,
keeps American and Chinese cultures separate . . . mostly just a Chinese
who lives in America) and conflict or clash between one’s two
cultural identities (e.g., feels conflicted about these two cultures . . .
caught between two cultures). There are some reasons to believe that
these two kinds of perceptions (which are not explicitly differentiated
in the acculturation literature) may capture empirically different
components of bicultural identity dynamics. Cultural identity distance
or compartmentalization (vs. hyphenation or blending) seems
related to existing theoretical notions of cultural identity alternation
versus fusion (LaFromboise et al., 1993; Phinney & Devich-Navarro,
1997). In contrast, the experience of cultural conflict (i.e., feeling
caught or trapped between one’s two cultural orientations) has not
been explicitly acknowledged in the acculturation literature, even
though this component may be similar to identity confusion (Baumister,
1986) or role conflict (Goode, 1960). The extent to which
cultural conflict and cultural distance represent two different facets
of a larger construct (BII) or largely independent elements of bicultural
identity dynamics is an empirical question that deserves attention.
Furthermore, based on evidence that certain dispositional characteristics
can affect the meaning and impact of cultural processes
(e.g., Chiu, Morris, Hong, & Menon, 2000), differences in BII may
also be linked to particular personality characteristics relevant to the
acculturation process. While much research has linked the Big Five
personality traits ( John, 1990) to a variety of important psychosocial
outcomes, surprisingly little work has examined the relationship
between these dispositions and the acculturation process (but see
Ryder et al., 2000). However, several important links may exist. For
example, it is likely that a compatible and nonconflicting integrated
bicultural identity is facilitated by the cognitive and affective traits of
openness (i.e., tolerance of and interest in new values and lifestyles)
and emotional stability (i.e., resilience, flexibility). Given the social
dynamics of learning from and interacting with different cultural
1022 Benet-Martı´nez & Haritatos
groups, interpersonal traits such as extraversion (i.e., sociability and
expressiveness) and agreeableness (i.e., empathy and warmth) are
likely to also play a role in bicultural dynamics, although their possible
impact on BII is less clear.
In addition, in Benet-Martı´ nez et al.’s (2002) study, high and low
BIIs were consistently similar in their endorsement of Berry’s integrative
acculturation strategy (Berry, 1990) and in basic demographic
variables such as years spent in the United States and age of
migration; however, the study also found that, compared with high
BIIs, low BIIs tended to be less proficient in English and less identified
with American culture. This pattern underscores competence in
the host, majority culture as a key component of BII, although further
research is necessary to clarify and replicate this finding.
Finally, it is likely that variations in BII are related to particular
identity-relevant contextual stressors (Berry, 1990; Thoits, 1991), although
this issue has not yet been explored. Specifically, difficulties
in integrating one’s two cultures into a cohesive bicultural identity
may be driven by acculturation stressors such as cultural or ethnic
prejudice and stereotyping (Crocker & Major, 1989), feelings of cultural
isolation (Berry, 1990), or strained intercultural relations
(Tzeng & Jackson, 1994).
Study Goals
In sum, much of the previous work on biculturalism has focused on
unitary definitions of biculturalism and has been primarily descriptive
in nature. Furthermore, the few existing studies on individual
differences in bicultural identity (e.g., Benet-Martı´ nez et al., 2002;
Devich-Navarro & Phinney, 1997) are limited in that significant
variables are often not included (e.g., personality traits, acculturation
stressors) or in that variations in BII are imperfectly measured
or simply inferred. This article attempts to address these gaps by
‘‘unpacking’’ the individual difference variable of BII, which captures
both subjective organization and phenomenology of dual cultural
identities, and delineating an initial network of psychosocial
antecedents relevant to the personality, acculturation, and sociodemographic
domains. The present study, like previous biculturalism
studies by Benet-Martı´ nez and her colleagues (Benet-Martı´ nez et al.,
2002; Hong et al., 2000), focuses on the bicultural experience of firstgeneration
Chinese American biculturals.
Bicultural Identity Integration 1023
METHOD
Participants and Procedure
Our participants were 133 first-generation Chinese American individuals
(58 males, 75 females, mean age524.5, SD57.3) residing in a large college
town in the Upper Midwest of the United States. This sample included
undergraduate students and older members of the university
community such as graduate students, visiting scholars, and their spouses.
Following procedures similar to those used by Benet-Martı´ nez and her
colleagues in previous studies (e.g., Benet-Martı´ nez et al., 2002; Hong
et al., 2000), participants were selected for the study if they fulfilled all the
following criteria: (a) were born in a Chinese country (People’s Republic
of China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao, or Singapore), (b) had lived in a
Chinese country for at least 5 years, (c) had lived in the United States for
at least 5 years, and (d) considered themselves bicultural. We should note
that the somewhat small size of our sample reflects the difficulty of finding
ethnically diverse samples of participants in the Midwest who not only
described themselves as ‘‘bicultural’’ but also fulfilled all of our other demographic
criteria.
Procedure and Instruments
Participants were recruited through campus and city fliers and paid $12
for their participation. Participants were invited into the lab where they
individually completed an anonymous questionnaire. This questionnaire,
which was administered in English, included basic demographic questions
(i.e., sex, age, country of birth, years lived in the United States and in a
Chinese country) and the following measures:
Acculturation Measures:
English and Chinese language proficiency and usage. We created two 7-
item scales that independently assessed self-reported English and Chinese
language levels on the following domains: (a) language ability (e.g., ‘‘Rate
your Chinese speaking ability’’), 1 item; (b) past and present language
usage (e.g., ‘‘How much do you use/have you used English to speak with
your parents?’’), 4 items; and (c) media exposure (e.g., ‘‘How often do you
read Chinese newspapers?’’), 2 items. The two language ability items were
answered on 6-point scales ranging from 1 (very little ability) to 6 (very
high ability); the rest of the items were answered on 6-point scales ranging
from 1 (almost never) to 6 (very often). Factor analyses yielded two separate
English and Chinese language factors; accordingly, English and
Chinese language composite scores were created by aggregating the items
1024 Benet-Martı´nez & Haritatos
on each factor. The alpha reliabilities for the English and Chinese language
proficiency and use scales were .82 and .85, respectively.
Chinese and U.S. cultural identification. Participants rated the strength
of their identification with Chinese and American cultures with two separate
items that asked, ‘‘How much do you identify with U.S. (Chinese)
culture?’’ Reponses were measured on a 6-point scale and ranged from 1
(very weakly identified) to 6 (highly identified).
Bicultural competence (LaFromboise et al., 1993). We wondered if variations
in BII would be related to different degrees of ‘‘bicultural competence’’
(LaFromboise et al., 1993), where high competence is defined as
being strongly and equally involved with, and comfortable in, both
American and Chinese cultures in terms of both identification and behavioral
skills. Low bicultural competence, on the other hand, would
signify either being relatively more involved with one of the two cultures
(American or Chinese) or having similarly moderate-low levels of involvement
with both cultures. We created a dichotomous (high vs. low)
bicultural competency score by first computing two separate American
and Chinese cultural orientation subscores, each representing a composite
of cultural (American or Chinese) identification and (English or Chinese)
language scores. Individuals for whom both the American and Chinese
cultural orientations fell at or above each of these two variables’ median
splits were categorized as high on bicultural competence (N577), and the
rest were categorized as low on bicultural competence (N555).4
Acculturation attitudes (Berry,Kim, Power, & Bujaki, 1989). Berry et al.’s
20-item questionnaire is the most widely used measure of acculturation
strategies. It comprises four scales measuring individuals’ attitudes
(but not behaviors) towards the four acculturation strategies proposed
in Berry’s model: assimilation, integration (or biculturalism), separation,
and marginalization. Items were adapted to assess attitudes specifically
towards American and ethnic (e.g., Chinese) cultures. Endorsement of
4. Note that our conceptualization of low bicultural competence does not differentiate
between (1) individuals with strong competence in one culture (American
or Chinese) only, and (2) individuals with medium-weak competence in both cultures.
We believe this conceptualization is justified. Recall that we are not measuring
the broader construct of ‘‘cultural competence’’ (i.e., being able to
adequately function in ‘‘some’’ culture or cultures, which could perhaps be measured
as a continuum); rather, we are interested in differentiating between individuals
who display significant and comparable levels of involvement with their
two cultures from those who do not.
Bicultural Identity Integration 1025
each strategy is measured across five domains: marriage (e.g., ‘‘I would
rather marry a Chinese than an American’’ [separation]), cultural traditions
(e.g., ‘‘I feel that Chinese should adapt to American cultural traditions
and not maintain their own’’ [assimilation]), language (e.g., ‘‘It’s
important to me to be fluent in both Chinese and English’’ [integration]),
social activities (e.g., ‘‘I prefer social activities that involve neither Americans
nor Chinese’’ [marginalization]), and friends (e.g., ‘‘I prefer to have
both Chinese and American friends’’ [integration]). Each item is rated
using a scale that ranges from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
In the present study, the alpha reliabilities for the assimilation, separation,
integration, and marginalization scales were .63, .55, .55, and .53,
respectively. These relatively low levels of reliability are somewhat problematic
and suggest that scores on the four acculturation strategies should
be interpreted with caution (see Flannery, 1998, and Rudmin, 1996, for a
review of some of the conceptual and methodological problems attributed
to Berry’s instrument). Interscale correlations for this measure and all the
other measures in this study are reported in Appendix A.
Bicultural Identity Measures
Bicultural Identity Integration Scale – Version 1 (BIIS-1; Benet-Martı´ nez,
2003a). This new, multi-item measure of BII was developed to incorporate
the notion of cultural conflict (i.e., feeling torn between one’s two
cultural identities vs. feeling that they are compatible), and cultural distance
(i.e., perceiving one’s two cultural identities as separate and dissociated
vs. hyphenated or fused) as possible components of BII (see Benet-
Martı´ nez, 2003a, for detailed information about the development and
refinement of this instrument). The eight items comprising the two scales,
which are shown in Table 2, expand on the preliminary BII measure (Benet-
Martı´ nez et al., 2002) while incorporating the experiential, phenomenological
aspects of negotiating dual identities described in past
qualitative literature (Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997; Vivero & Jenkins,
1999). Because all the items developed for this measure have a common
theme (biculturals’ own perceptions of how their Chinese and
American cultural identities are organized and how they intersect with
each other), we suspect that the cultural conflict and distance items will
define different but interrelated factors. Instructions for this measure are
similar to those used in Benet-Martı´ nez et al. (2002). Respondents rate
their agreement with each item on a scale that ranged from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
When a factor analysis with Varimax rotation was performed on the
current sample’s responses to the BIIS-1, the two hypothesized factors
representing cultural distance and cultural conflict emerged (see Table 2).
1026 Benet-Martı´nez & Haritatos
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Between BII Components
(Cultural Conflict and Distance) and Other Variables
M SD Scale Range Conflict Distance
Demographics/Acculturation
Age 24.5 7.3 — .04 .18n
Sex1 — — — .14 .13
Years lived in U.S. 10.8 4.4 — .13 .29nn
Years lived in Chinese
culture2
14.0 7.8 — .09 .36nn
English proficiency/use 4.3 .9 1–6 .02 .55nn
Chinese proficiency/use 4.1 1 1–6 .13 .32nn
U.S. identification 3.7 1.3 1–6 .08 .52nn
Chinese identification 4.6 1.2 1–6 .02 .11
Bicultural competence — — — .14 .39nn
Acculturation Attitudes
Assimilation 2.2 .7 1–5 .04 .16
Separation 2.2 .6 1–5 .09 .37nn
Integration 4.0 .5 1–5 .06 .10
Marginalization 1.5 .5 1–5 .00 .17
Bicultural Identity Integration
BIIS-P 3.2 1.2 1–5 .35nn .48nn
Cultural Conflict 2.6 .8 1–5 — .07
Cultural Distance 2.5 .8 1–5 .07 —
Acculturative Stress
Work 3.5 .9 1–5 .19 .09
Linguistic 2.1 1.1 1–5 .21 .30nn
Intercultural Relations 2.6 1 1–5 .31nn .03
Discrimination 3.1 1 1–5 .24n .02
Cultural Isolation 2.4 .8 1–5 .28n .29n
Personality
Extraversion 3.6 .8 1–5 .09 .22
Agreeableness 3.7 .6 1–5 .13 .22
Conscientiousness 3.6 .7 1–5 .04 .05
Neuroticism 3.0 .7 1–5 .34nn .02
Openness 3.7 .7 1–5 .01 .34nn
Note. Participants were 133 first-generation, Chinese American biculturals.
1Coded as 1 (male) and 2 (female).
2For most participants, this variable also represented age of migration to the United
States. BIIS-P5Bicultural Identity Integration Scale (preliminary measure).
Bicultural Identity Integration 1027
The alphas for the conflict and distance scales were .74 and .69, respectively.
Surprisingly, and contrary to our expectations, the correlation between
scores on these two scales was close to zero (.02).5 These results
indicate that a bicultural individual can perceive his or her ethnic and
mainstream cultural orientations to be relatively dissociated (e.g., ‘‘I keep
Chinese and American cultures separate’’) while not feeling that they
conflict with each other (e.g., ‘‘I don’t feel trapped between the Chinese
and American cultures’’). Similarly, a bicultural can see herself or himself
as having a combined identity (e.g., ‘‘I feel Chinese American’’) while simultaneously
perceiving the two cultural orientations as being in conflict
with each other (e.g., ‘‘I feel caught between the two cultures’’). The independence
of cultural distance and conflict found here may suggest a
modification of the original conceptualization of the BII construct. This
important issue will be addressed more fully later in the article. It should
be noted, however, that, for the purposes of simplicity and consistency,
throughout the article we will sometimes use the terms low and high BII
Table 2
Factorial Structure of the Bicultural Identity Integration Scale (BIIS-1)
Cultural
Distance Conflict
I am simply a Chinese who lives in North America .72 .03
I keep Chinese and American cultures separate .58 .13
I feel Chinese American .73 .04
I feel part of a combined culture .79 .03
I am conflicted between the American and Chinese
ways of doing things
.04 .66
I feel like someone moving between two cultures .18 .64
I feel caught between the Chinese and American
cultures
.00 .76
I don’t feel trapped between the Chinese and
American cultures
.09 .78
Note. N5133 first-generation, Chinese American biculturals.
5. Results from a factor analysis of the BIIS-1 items using an oblique rotation
yielded a two- factor structure virtually similar to the one reported in Table 2. In
the oblique solution, the correlation between the cultural conflict and distance
dimensions was .025.
1028 Benet-Martı´nez & Haritatos
(instead of cultural distance and conflict) when discussing the more global
and abstract concept of dual cultural identity integration.
Bicultural Identity Integration Scale–Preliminary (BIIS-P; Benet-Martı´ -
nez, et al., 2002). This vignette BII measure, used in Benet-Martı´ nez
et al.’s (2002) study, was also included in the present study for comparative
purposes. BII-P ratings were reversed so that high scores would
reflect high levels of BII.
Acculturation Stress
Riverside Acculturation Stress Inventory (RASI; Benet-Martı´ nez,
2003b). According to the acculturation and ethnic minority literature
(e.g., Gil, Vega, & Dimas, 1994; Mena, Padilla, & Maldonado, 1987;
Saldan˜ a, 1994), stress associated with the acculturation process is a multifaceted
experience related to interpersonal, intellectual/professional,
and structural pressures. The RASI was developed because none of the
few existing acculturation stress measures systematically and evenly covered
all the domains identified (see Benet-Martı´ nez, 2003b, for detailed
information about RASI’s development and refinement). The RASI includes
15 items taping culture-related challenges in the following five life
domains: language skills (e.g., being misunderstood because of one’s accent),
work (e.g., having to work harder than nonimmigrant/minority
peers), intercultural relations (e.g., having disagreements with others for
behaving in ways that are ‘‘too American’’ or ‘‘too ethnic’’), discrimination
(e.g., being mistreated because of one’s ethnicity), and cultural/ethnic
makeup of the community (e.g., living in an environment that is not culturally
diverse). Each item is answered using a scale that ranges from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
A factor analysis with Varimax rotation of the current sample’s responses
on this measure yielded five factors representing each of the five
hypothesized domains (see Table 3). Alphas for the Language, Discrimination,
Intercultural Relations, Cultural Isolation, and Work scales were
.84, .80, .75, .68, and .68, respectively.6 The average interscale correlation
for this measure was .23 (range: .04–.52; see Appendix A), indicating that
6. Note that the item ‘‘When I am in a place or room where I am the only person
of my ethnic/cultural group, I often feel different or isolated’’ (Cultural Isolation
factor) has sizable cross-loadings on the Language and Discrimination factors;
this suggests that the ‘‘solo’’ experience may be often be associated with self-consciousness
regarding one’s English skills and/or the experience of racial/cultural
social rejection (Pollak & Niemann, 1998).
Bicultural Identity Integration 1029
our proposed acculturation stress domains are, for the most part, interrelated
components of a broader construct (acculturation stress).
Personality
Big Five Inventory (BFI; Benet-Martı´ nez & John, 1998). This measure
uses 44 short phrases to assess the most prototypical traits associated with
each of the Big Five basic personality dimensions ( John, 1990): Extraversion,
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness.
Respondents rated each of the 44 short phrases on a 5-point scale ranging
from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly). The reliability and convergent/
discriminant validity of this measure has been established in both
European American and ethnic minority samples, including Asian Americans
(Benet-Martı´ nez & John, 1998; Gross & John, 1998). In the present
study, alpha reliabilities for the Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness,
Neuroticism, and Openness scales were .78, .73, .82, .84, and
.80, respectively.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Descriptive Statistics
The first two columns in Table 1 show the means and standard deviations
for all our study variables. For the purposes of clarity, variables
are organized in five domains: Demographic/Acculturation,
Acculturation Attitudes, Bicultural Identity Integration, Acculturation
Stress, and Personality. With regard to the demographic/acculturation
variables, note that our sample is overall highly bicultural:
participants have been significantly exposed to both American and
Chinese cultures (i.e., participants had lived an average of 10.8 and
14 years in each of these cultures, respectively), report comparable
levels of use and fluency in both English and Chinese languages, and
identify with both cultures (although Chinese identification is higher).
With regard to Berry’s acculturation attitudes and the BII measures,
note that our sample clearly supports an integration (i.e.,
biculturalism) strategy and has scores on cultural conflict and distance
(as well as on BII-P) that are centered around the middle of the
scale. Note also that the sample reports the highest levels of acculturation
stress in the work and discrimination domains and the least
in the linguistic domain. Lastly, the sample reports levels on the Big
1030 Benet-Martı´nez & Haritatos
Table 3
Factorial Structure of the Riverside Acculturation Stress Inventory (RASI)
Language Discrimin. Relations Isolation Work
Language Skills
It’s hard for me to perform well at work because of my English skills. .85 .03 .09 .07 .22
I often feel misunderstood or limited in daily situations because of
my English skills.
.84 .16 .05 .07 .20
It bothers me that I have an accent. .81 .08 .11 .02 .08
Discrimination/Prejudice
I feel discriminated against by mainstream Americans because of my
cultural/ethnic background.
.00 .87 .20 .04 .11
I have been treated rudely or unfairly because of my cultural/ethnic
background.
.03 .81 .19 .00 .18
I feel that people very often interpret my behavior based on their
stereotypes of what people of my cultural/ethnic background are like.
.02 .67 .00 .11 .12
Intercultural Relations
I have had disagreements with people of my own cultural/ethnic
group (e.g., friends or family) for liking American ways of doing
things.
.11 .09 .81 .09 .07
I feel that my particular cultural/ethnic practices have caused conflict
in my relationships.
.13 .09 .73 .23 .03
I have had disagreements with Americans for having or preferring
the costumes of my own ethnic/cultural group.
.24 .10 .69 .04 .05
Language Discrimin. Relations Isolation Work
Cultural Isolation
I feel that there are not enough people of my own ethnic/cultural
group in my living environment.
.05 .00 .07 .86 .13
I feel that the environment where I live is not multicultural enough; it
doesn’t have enough cultural richness.
.18 .20 .08 .75 .12
When I am in a place or room where I am the only person of my
ethnic/cultural group, I often feel different or isolated.
.35 .50 .12 .36 .22
Work Challenges
Because of my particular ethnic/cultural status, I have to work
harder than most Americans.
.10 .00 .01 .27 .75
I feel the pressure that what ‘‘I’’ do is representative of my ethnic/
cultural group’s abilities.
.17 .23 .03 .12 .65
In looking for a job, I sometimes feel that my cultural/ethnic status is
a limitation.
.33 .22 .04 .22 .54
Note. N5133 first-generation, Chinese American biculturals.
Table 3 (cont.)
Five personality scales that are comparable to these reported with
other Asian samples (e.g., Benet-Martı´ nez & Karakitapoglu, 2003;
Ryder et al., 2000).
Correlational Analyses
Table 1 also presents the correlations between cultural conflict and
cultural distance and all the other variables in our study (see Appendix
A for the complete correlation matrix). A detailed discussion
of all the significant correlations in each domain (25 in total) is beyond
the scope of this article and would add unnecessary redundancy
since most of these associations are captured by the path analyses
we report later. However, a few patterns are worth noting. First, not
surprisingly, BIIS-P correlates with both our newly developed cultural
conflict and distance scales. A quick inspection of the right two
columns reveals numerous significant associations for cultural distance
in all five domains. Cultural conflict has fewer associations
across domains (and very few with demographics/acculturation variables).
Before turning to the path analyses, in the next section, we
discuss in detail the correlations in the demographic/acculturation
domain, which, for the most part, are not included in the path analyses
to avoid models of excessive complexity.
Note that there are no gender effects and virtually no age effects
for either conflict or distance. However, both years lived in the
United States and in a Chinese culture are inversely related to cultural
distance. This pattern suggests that the older an individual is
when coming to the United States (or the less exposed to American
culture he or she is), the more cultural distance the individual
perceives between his or her cultural identities. Note also that cultural
distance is negatively associated with both English proficiency/
use and American identification, but is independent from Chinese
identification. This suggests that, at least for first-generation biculturals,
competence in mainstream American culture may play a major
role in the development of a ‘‘hyphenated’’ bicultural identity.
Finally, bicultural competence scores are unrelated to cultural conflict
but are highly (negatively) associated with cultural distance,
suggesting that individuals who report having overlapping or hyphenated
cultural identities are more likely to participate in both
cultures effectively.
Bicultural Identity Integration 1033
In summary, the above pattern of correlations suggests that: (1)
the associations between the pilot BIIS-P scale and demographic/
acculturation variables reported in Benet-Martı´ nez et al.’s (2002)
study were probably driven by the (confounded) cultural distance
component of the BII vignette; (2) perceptions of cultural distance
are closely related to traditional acculturation variables (i.e., years
lived in each culture, language proficiency, and identification with
mainstream culture); and (3) cultural conflict seems largely independent
from these acculturation factors. In all, these results suggest
that cultural distance, but not cultural conflict, is related to objective,
learning- and performance-based aspects of the acculturation
experience (e.g., amount of cultural exposure, language proficiency).
In order to map an initial network of antecedents for cultural
conflict and distance, we next ran a series of path analyses, using
structural equation modeling (SEM) techniques. These analyses allowed
us to ascertain the unique contribution of our acculturation,
personality, and sociodemographic variables in predicting BII, as
well as the specific causal links within and between these different
types of antecedents.
Path Analyses
Using AMOS 4.0 structural equation modeling software, we developed
an initial model where cultural conflict and distance were each
predicted by what we considered psychological proximal factors (i.e.,
different types of acculturation stress, bicultural competence, acculturation
strategies), as well as more distal or stable psychological
variables (personality dispositions). Specifically, recall that we had
suggested earlier that perceived contextual acculturation stressors (as
measured by our new RASI scales) would negatively impact BII, by
increasing the feeling that one’s two cultures cannot both be embraced.
Further, we hypothesized that traditional acculturation variables
(e.g., Berry’s separation strategy, bicultural competence)
would also influence BII, particularly the cultural distance component.
Also, earlier, we introduced the idea that variations in BII
would be predicted by certain personality traits, particularly those
dispositions related to cognitive flexibility (i.e., openness), emotional
resilience (i.e., low neuroticism), and social skills (i.e., extraversion).
Finally, because personality traits function as antecedents to many
types of behavioral outcomes, we also specified some paths between
1034 Benet-Martı´nez & Haritatos
the Big Five and the more proximate predictors (e.g., low extraversion
would predict feelings of cultural isolation, and low agreeableness
would heighten feelings of discrimination and strain in
intercultural relations). After defining the specific paths included in
our initial model, these theory-driven general hypotheses were somewhat
expanded and streamlined with the correlational information
provided by Table 1 (e.g., a path between linguistic stress and cultural
conflict was added).7
Next, we proceeded to run a series of path analyses that started
with our initial model; this model was modified three times based on
the information provided by the modification indices (e.g., a path
from openness to bicultural competence was added, the path from
agreeableness to discrimination was dropped, and the work-related
acculturation stress variable was dropped from the model). Models
were evaluated using the w2 /df ratio, the Comparative Fit Index
(CFI), and the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA).
In this and all successive models, the Big Five and all the residuals of
the endogenous variables (i.e., acculturation stressors, acculturation
orientation, cultural conflict and distance), were allowed to correlate
with each other. Final estimates for these correlations are available
from the authors.
The final model is depicted in Figure 1. This figure includes all the
paths that had coefficients significant at a p value of .05 or lower.
Note that direct effects on our outcome variables (cultural conflict
and distance) are represented by thick lines, while indirect effects are
represented by thin lines. Numbers in parenthesis represent path coefficients
obtained when the Big Five were not introduced in the
model (so that the predictive value of the proximal variables could
also be assessed without controlling for the more stable personality
characteristics). The resulting fit indices for this model were: w2 /
df51.5, CFI5.99, GFI5.939, RMSEA5.065, RMR5.045, indicating
a satisfactory fit to the data.
7. To conserve degrees of freedom and still account for measurement error, we
used composite scales as observed variables and used each scale’s reliability estimate
to fix the error terms of the scale variables. Liang, Lawrence, Bennett, and
Whitelaw (1990) recommend this method in working with smaller sample sizes
while not compromising measurement specificity.
Bicultural Identity Integration 1035
An inspection of Figure 1 reveals that cultural conflict is predicted
mostly by acculturation stress in the linguistic and intercultural relations
domains and moderately by discrimination. This suggests
that cultural conflict is largely rooted in acculturation-related interpersonal
causes, specifically, the feeling that one is socially rejected,
mistreated, and pressured because of one’s cultural/ethnic memberships.
Cultural distance, on the other hand, is predicted largely by
feelings of cultural isolation and, like cultural conflict, by linguistic
challenges. Notice that acculturation stress in the work domain is
not included in Figure 1; this is because, when all five types of acculturation
stress were included in the model, stress in the work domain
no longer predicted BII. Several traditional acculturation
variables also emerge as important predictors in our model. Specifically,
bicultural competence (negatively) predicts cultural distance,
as does Berry’s separation strategy, which has both a direct effect on
cultural distance, as well as an indirect effect through bicultural
competence.
Finally, as anticipated, several personality variables, most notably
neuroticism and openness, emerge as important precursors of BII
and other variables in the model. Openness seems particularly important:
individuals who are rigid and closed to new experiences are
more likely to compartmentalize cultural identities, feel stressed
about their linguistic abilities, support a separation acculturation
strategy, and be less biculturally competent (all factors that, in turn,
are important predictors of cultural distance and/or conflict). Like
low openness, the results for neuroticism indicate that this disposition
also puts individuals at risk for negative acculturation experiences.
Specifically, neurotic individuals who tend to feel vulnerable
and anxious are more likely to perceive conflict between their cultural
identities and also experience stress in the linguistic and intercultural
relations domains (which, in turn, predict conflict and/or
distance).
Interestingly, two other personality dispositions, namely, the interpersonal
traits of agreeableness and extraversion, also play a role
in the acculturation processes depicted in Figure 1. Agreeable individuals,
perhaps because of their easygoing nature, are less likely to
report conflict in their intercultural relationships. Extraverted individuals,
on the other hand, perhaps because of the interpersonal resources
and gains associated with being sociable and outgoing, are
less likely to feel strained by a living environment that is not very
1036 Benet-Martı´nez & Haritatos
multicultural. Lastly, note that conscientiousness does not predict
any of processes depicted in Figure 1.8
PERSONALITY ACCULTURATION (Low) BICULTURAL
STRESSORS IDENTITY INTEGRATION
−0.21 (−0.21)
ACCULTURATION ORIENTATION
0.18 (0.18)
0.16 (0.16)
0.24 (0.28)
0.28 (0.30)
−0.33 (−0.35)
0.19
0.18
0.17
−0.19
−0.29
−0.20
0.20
−0.21
0.21 (0.25)
−0.18
0.24 (0.25)
NEUROTICISM
AGREEABLENESS
OPENNESS
EXTRAVERSION
DISCRIMINATION
INTERCULTURAL
LINGUISTIC
CULTURAL
ISOLATION
SEPARATION
STRATEGY
BICULTURAL
COMPETENCE
CULTURAL
CONFLICT
CULTURAL
DISTANCE
Figure 1
N 5133 first-generation, Chinese American biculturals; Bicultural
Identity Integration (BII): Components (cultural distance and conflict)
and antecedents (personality dispositions, acculturation orientation,
and acculturation stressors).
8. An examination of Appendix A reveals several significant associations between
the Big Five traits and demographic/acculturation variables such as years lived in
the United States and a Chinese country, and the language and cultural identification
variables (see McCrae, Yik, Trapnell, Bond, & Paulhus, 1998; and Ryder
et al., 2000; for similar results). Although a detailed empirical examination and
discussion of these patterns is beyond the scope of the present study, we wish to
note that these associations are interesting and highlight the significant role played
by dispositional factors in the acculturation process (see McCrae et al., 1998, and
Ryder et al., 2000, for interesting discussions of this topic). The pattern of intercorrelations
among the demographic/acculturation variables is also interesting
and highlights the mutual constitution of many of these factors in delineating
Bicultural Identity Integration 1037
In conclusion, results from the path and correlational analyses
elucidate a meaningful yet complex picture of BII: First, the degree
of distance versus blendedness and degree of conflict versus harmony
perceived between one’s cultural identities, which initially were understood
as components or dimensions of the larger construct of BII,
in fact, seem to be independent constructs. Cultural distance is predicted
by being dispositionally low on openness, having low levels of
bicultural competence, supporting a separation acculturation strategy,
and experiencing linguistic acculturation stress and cultural isolation.
Cultural conflict, on the other hand, is predicted by having a
neurotic disposition, experiencing linguistic acculturation stress, and
facing the interpersonal acculturation challenges of discrimination
and strained intercultural relations. Overall, these patterns of relationships
suggest that variations in BII, far from being purely subjective
identity representations, are psychologically meaningful
experiences linked to specific dispositional factors and perceived
contextual pressures.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The present study unpacks the construct of Bicultural Identity Integration
(BII) and delineates an initial network of personality, sociodemographic,
and acculturation precursors. A key finding in this
study is that variations in BII do not define a unitary identity construct,
as initially suggested in earlier work (Benet-Martı´ nez et al.,
2002). Instead, BII seems to involve two independent psychological
constructs, cultural conflict and cultural distance, each representing
unique and separate aspects of the dynamic intersection between
mainstream and ethnic cultural identities in bicultural individuals.
More specifically, the psychometric independence of cultural conflict
and distance suggests that they are formative (i.e., causal) rather
than reflective (i.e., effect) indicators of BII (Bollen & Lennox, 1991).
That is, rather than a latent construct with two resulting dimensions
(cultural distance and conflict), BII should perhaps be understood as
emerging or resulting from (rather than leading to) variations in
cultural distance and conflict. Thus, behaviors, attitudes, and feelings
described by cultural researchers under the rubric of low BII
acculturation trajectories (e.g., strong association between linguistic and cultural
identification variables), as is also found in other studies (Ryder et al., 2000).
1038 Benet-Martı´nez & Haritatos
(e.g., ‘‘Biculturalism is a difficult dichotomy’’; ‘‘You are neither culture’’)
may in fact be largely capturing the phenomenology of the
more basic experience of cultural conflict and/or cultural distance.
Furthermore, perhaps BII should be conceptualized as a process
more than a construct, and cultural distance and conflict may be two
important components in this process. Still, until future studies examine
BII in larger bicultural samples and with different cultural
groups, the independence of cultural conflict and distance (and our
proposed reconceptualization of BII) should be interpreted with
caution and not be seen as conclusive.
Lastly, we found that cultural distance and conflict are associated
with different sets of dispositional and acculturation antecedents,
which explains the very different phenomenological
experiences of biculturalism in the existing literature. The implications
of these findings are discussed in greater detail in the
following sections.
BII: Cultural Conflict
Our results indicate that the perception that mainstream and ethnic
cultures clash with one another seems to be capturing uniquely
affective (vs. cognitive or neutral) aspects of the bicultural experience.
This conclusion is supported by cultural conflict’s pattern of
antecedents (e.g., neuroticism) and its independence from traditional
demographic, attitudinal, and performance-related acculturation
variables such as amount of cultural exposure, acculturation
attitudes, and linguistic variables. In this way, cultural conflict
may be informative regarding affective elements of the bicultural
experience that have been overlooked in traditional acculturation
research.
Our findings also indicate that certain acculturation stressors (discrimination
and strain in the linguistic and intercultural relations
domains) are predictive of cultural conflict. Perhaps these strains,
particularly discrimination and intercultural relations stress, create a
strong discrepancy between explicit and implicit attitudes toward
each culture. If individuals consciously identify with and value both
mainstream Anglo/American and ethnic cultures, but also experience
prejudice and rejection from members of one or both of these
groups, feelings of anger and distress may create an internal discrepancy
that may be subjectively experienced as cultural conflict
Bicultural Identity Integration 1039
(Van Hook & Higgins, 1988). In addition, it is possible that for some
biculturals (particularly those high on neuroticism), switching cognitive
and behavioral frames in response to different cultural cues
(Hong et al., 2000) is accompanied by feelings of confusion regarding
one’s ability to maintain consistent, recognizable self-identities.
In conclusion, perceptions of cultural conflict appear to be a
product of both neuroticism (e.g., vulnerability, rumination, and
emotional rigidity) and perceived contextual pressures, mainly stress
in the linguistic, intercultural relations, and discrimination domains.
We propose that these factors may challenge biculturals’ feelings of
efficacy in maintaining consistent and harmonious self-images and
group affiliations, thus leading to the perception that one ‘‘has to
choose one culture or the other’’ (see earlier quotation).
BII: Cultural Distance
In contrast to cultural conflict, our results show that the perception
that one’s two cultures are nonoverlapping, dissociated, and distant
from one another is related to more learning- and performance-related
aspects of the acculturation experience, including the amount
of exposure to each culture, acculturation attitudes (separation and/
or integration), English and ethnic language proficiency and use, and
identification with mainstream culture (but not with ethnic culture).
In this sense, perceptions of cultural distance are more similar to, yet
not interchangeable with, traditional acculturation concepts regarding
attitudes and behavior.
Cultural distance may be related to recently proposed identity
constructs such as alternation (Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997),
identity compartmentalization (Roccas & Brewer, 2002), and optimal
distinctiveness (Brewer, 1991). Specifically, some biculturals
may choose to keep their ethnic and mainstream identities separate
in an effort to affirm both their intragroup (ethnic) similarity and
intergroup (American) differentiation. For example, in our study,
biculturals high on cultural distance may be keeping ethnic (e.g.,
Chinese) and American cultures separate to affirm their strong ties to
their Chinese culture while also differentiating themselves from the
mainstream American cultural group. Note that this idea is consistent
with our findings that cultural distance is somewhat positively
associated with the endorsement of a separation acculturation strategy
and negatively correlated with American cultural identification.
1040 Benet-Martı´nez & Haritatos
An alternative interpretation of cultural distance is that this construct
captures biculturals’ assessment of the overall degree of difference/
similarity between the salient features of the ethnic and
mainstream cultures (Ward & Kennedy, 1993). That is, cultural distance
may be related to seeing one’s two cultures as being very different
from each other. To the extent that perceptions of difference
may be accentuated in the early stages of mainstream culture acquisition
(e.g., experience of cultural shock), one could speculate that, as
biculturals’ exposure to the mainstream culture increases, perceptions
of cultural distance would decrease. The negative correlation
found in our study between cultural distance and years of exposure
to U.S. culture seems to support this argument.
Regardless of whether cultural distance is driven by perceptual or
motivational forces, our studies also show that this construct is
heightened by dispositional factors (low openness), performance
variables (low bicultural competence), and acculturation-related
contextual factors (living in a culturally isolated environment and
having linguistic difficulties). Perhaps low openness makes acculturating
individuals perceive ethnic and mainstream cultures more rigidly,
both in terms of their ‘‘essential’’ defining characteristics and
the boundaries between them (Yzerbyt, Corneille, & Estrada, 2001);
it may also make them less permeable to new cultural values and life
styles. Such attitudes may lead to the belief that one’s two cultural
identities cannot ‘‘come together’’ and must remain separate.
With regard to the impact of cultural isolation and linguistic stress
on cultural distance, one possible interpretation is that these experiences
function as chronic and explicit reminders of biculturals’
unique status as cultural minorities. For example, the perception
that one has a noticeable accent and/or that one’s cultural background
is uncommon in the local environment may increase the
cognitive salience of biculturals’ own distinct cultural characteristics
(historical, ethnic, and linguistic), which, in turn, may accentuate
perceptions of cultural difference.
In conclusion, cultural distance appears to be driven by dispositional
factors, such as (low) openness, and perceived contextual pressures,
such as stress in the linguistic domain and the experience of
cultural isolation. We propose that all of these factors may challenge
biculturals’ feelings of efficacy in creating a combined, synergistic
cultural identity, thus leading to the perception that ‘‘biculturalism is
a dichotomy’’ (see earlier quotation).
Bicultural Identity Integration 1041
Limitations and Future Work
This article represents an initial, exploratory step towards understanding
bicultural identity and, as such, our results need to be replicated
and our designs refined and expanded in future studies. For
instance, because we relied entirely on a single ethnic group—Chinese
American, first-generation immigrants—future studies should
examine how generalizable our findings are to non-Chinese ethnic
groups, who are likely to have different cultural norms, migration
histories, and patterns of race relations in the United States. Secondly,
we examined only first generation biculturals; thus, future
work is needed to see whether BII is relevant to nonimmigrant
biculturals, that is, individuals for whom the internalization of two
cultures did not involve a physical relocation to the United States.
Third, our sample size was somewhat small for the testing of complex
models, and, given the exploratory nature of this study, our
findings and conclusions should be validated in future studies with
larger numbers of participants. Fourth, although our study identified
some negative antecedents of low BII (e.g., discrimination, cultural
isolation) that are likely to impact biculturals’ overall adjustment,
additional work is needed to examine empirically how acculturation
stressors and cultural conflict and distance separately and jointly
influence overall psychological well-being (e.g., levels of anxious and
depressed mood). A new study by Benet-Martı´ nez, Haritatos, and
Santana (2004) addresses these three types of limitations by examining
BII and its adjustment outcomes in bicultural samples varying
in ethnicity and generation status.
A fifth limitation concerns the abstract, context-free, and normative
assessment of cultural distance and conflict in our studies.
Future work should explore the behavioral domains associated
with biculturals’ feelings of conflict (e.g., clashes in work values,
marriage practices, gender roles, etc.), as well as the types of contexts
associated with biculturals’ feelings of compartmentalization
(e.g., home vs. work, relatives vs. friends, etc.). In addition, given
the ongoing controversy over the benefits and costs of identity
complexity (Rafaeli-Mor & Steinberg, 2002), future research should
examine BII in relation to other well-known structural models of
self-concept and identity structure, such as those proposed by Linville
(1987), Showers (1992), and Donahue, Robins, Roberts, and
John (1993).
1042 Benet-Martı´nez & Haritatos
Finally, it is important to note that the processes proposed in
Figure 1, like most psychological processes, occur over time and
probably include bidirectional effects (Baron & Kenny, 1986). The
correlational and cross-sectional nature of our data limits our ability
to be conclusive about the direction of effects in our model. However,
our theoretical framing of these results in terms of personality
and contextual antecedents of cultural conflict and distance is consistent
with existing personality and acculturation literature (Ryder
et al., 2000; Saldan˜ a, 1994). In addition, it is possible that the direction
of effects involved in negotiating bicultural identities may actually
change over an individual’s life course. For instance, it may be
that, over time, particularly once individuals’ bicultural identities
and personalities becomes more stable in middle and late adulthood,
variations in cultural conflict and distance may come to impact individuals’
choice of acculturation orientation and their experience of
acculturation stress, instead of the other way around. The changing
nature of the immigration experience provides an ideal context for
longitudinal studies that could examine how variations in identity
(cultural distance and conflict), acculturation (acculturation strategies
and acculturation stress), and personality impact these same
variables at different times through life (see Church, 1982; and Gardiner,
Mutter, & Kosmitzki, 1998, for discussions of bidirectional
effects and longitudinal designs in culture change studies). Such
studies would also allow for an examination of BII among samples
of biculturals older than those in the current study. Thus, further
studies are clearly needed to expand and clarify the exact nature of
the BII process; however, the present study makes an important first
contribution by proposing and evaluating one possible model that
closely fits and helps explain the experiences of identity negotiation
among biculturals.
Concluding Remarks
Cultural and cross-cultural psychology seem to be moving away
from an initial focus on cultural differences and dynamics between
groups toward an interest in how cultures are negotiated and played
out within the individual (Phinney, 1999). This shift calls for complex
studies that acknowledge the interplay between personality, cultural,
and sociocognitive variables. The present study takes such an approach
in trying to understand individual variations in bicultural
Bicultural Identity Integration 1043
identity integration (BII). In doing so, we identified two distinct and
little understood bicultural identity constructs: attitudes regarding
the conceptual organization of dual cultures (i.e., cultural distance)
and feelings associated with the emotional process of navigating
one’s position within and between each culture (cultural conflict),
each with largely different personality and sociocultural antecedents.
We hope the present work brings awareness to the issue that ‘‘biculturalism
is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon; there is
not just one way of being bicultural.’’ (Phinney & Devich-Navarro,
1997; p. 19).
REFERENCES
AMOS (Version 4.0) [statistical computer software]. Chicago, IL: SPSSS Inc.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction
in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Baumeister, R. (1986). Identity: Cultural change and the struggle for self. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Benet-Martı´ nez, V. (2003a). The Bicultural Identity Integration Scale –Version 1
(BIIS-1): Development and psychometric properties. Technical Report, Department
of Psychology, University of California at Riverside.
Benet-Martı´ nez, V. (2003b). The Riverside Acculturation Stress Inventory (RASI):
Development and psychometric properties. Technical Report, Department of
Psychology, University of California at Riverside.
Benet-Martı´ nez, V., Haritatos, J., & Santana, L. (2004). Biculturalism and wellbeing.
Paper submitted for publication. Department of Psychology, University
of California at Riverside.
Benet-Martı´ nez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). ‘Los Cinco Grandes’ across cultures
and ethnic groups: Multitrait-multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish
and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 729–750.
Benet-Martı´ nez, V., & Karakitapoglu, Z. (2003). The interplay of cultural values
and personality in predicting life-satisfaction: Comparing European- and
Asian-Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 38–61.
Benet-Martı´ nez, V., Leu, J., Lee, F., & Morris, M. (2002). Negotiating biculturalism:
Cultural frame-switching in biculturals with oppositional vs. compatible
cultural identities. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 492–516.
Berry, J. W. (1990). Psychology of acculturation. In N. R. Goldberger & J. B.
Veroff (Eds.), The culture and psychology reader (pp. 457–488). New York:
New York University Press. (Reprinted from Nebraska symposium on motivation:
Cross-cultural perspectives, J. J. Berman, [Ed.], 1989, Lincoln,: University
of Nebraska Press).
Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Power, S., Young, M., & Bujaki, M. (1989). Acculturation
attitudes in plural societies. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 38,
185–206.
1044 Benet-Martı´nez & Haritatos
Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A
structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 305–314.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: on being the same and different at the same
time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482.
Chavez, D. (1994). Face of an angel. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Chiu, C., Morris, M. W., Hong, Y., & Menon, T. (2000). Motivated cultural
cognition: the impact of cultural theories on dispositional attribution varies as
a function of need for closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78,
247–259.
Chuang, Y. (1999). Fusion: The primary model of bicultural competence and bicultural
identity development in a Taiwanese-American family lineage. Unpublished
dissertation.
Church, A. T. (1982). Sojourner adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 540–572.
Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective
properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608–630.
Cross, W. E. (1995). Oppositional identity and African American youth: Issues
and prospects. In W. D. Hawley (Ed.), Toward a common destiny: Improving
race and ethnic relations in America (pp. 185–204). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Donahue, E. M., Robins, R. W., Roberts, B. W., & John, O. P. (1993). The divided
self: Concurrent and longitudinal effects of psychological adjustment
and social roles on self-concept differentiation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 64, 834–846.
Durczak, J. (1997). Selves between cultures: Contemporary American bicultural
autobiography. San Francisco: International Scholars Publications.
Flannery, W. P. (1998, August). The bi-dimensional model of acculturation: Too
little? Too much? Or just right? Paper presented at the XIV International
Congress of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology,
Bellingham, WA.
Gardiner, H. W., Mutter, J. D., & Kosmitzki, C. (1998). Lives across cultures:
Cross-cultural human development. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Gil, A. G., Vega, W. A., & Dimas, J. M. (1994). Acculturative stress and personal
adjustment among Hispanic adolescent boys. Journal of Community Psychology,
22, 43–54.
Goode, W. J. (1960). A theory of role strain. American Sociological Review, 25,
483–496.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (1998). Mapping the domain of expressivity: Multimethod
evidence for a hierarchical model. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74, 170–191.
Haritatos, J., & Benet-Martı´ nez, V. (2003). on being bicultural: A content analysis
of identity narratives. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Riverside.
Hermans, H., & Kempen, H. (1998). Moving cultures: The perilous problem
of cultural dichotomies in a globalizing society. American Psychologist, 53,
1111–1120.
Hong, Y. Y., Morris, M., Chiu, C. Y., & Benet-Martı´ nez, V. (2000). Multicultural
minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American
Psychologist, 55, 709–720.
Bicultural Identity Integration 1045
John, O. P. (1990). The Big Five factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in
the natural language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of
personality: Theory and research (pp. 66–100). New York: Guildford.
LaFromboise, T. D., Coleman, H., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of
biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 395–412.
LaFromboise, T. D., & Rowe, W. (1983). Skills training for bicultural competence:
Rationale and application. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30, 589–595.
Liang, J., Lawrence, R. H., Bennett, J. M., & Whitekew, N. A. (1990). Appropriateness
of composites in structural equation models. Journal of Gerontology,
45, 52–59.
Linville, P. W. (1987). Self-complexity as a cognitive buffer against stress-related
illness and depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,
663–676.
McCrae, R. R., Yik, M. S., Trapnell, P. D., Bond, M. H., & Paulhus, D. L. (1998).
Interpreting personality profiles across cultures: Bilingual, acculturation, and
peer rating studies of Chinese undergraduates. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74, 1041–1055.
Mena, F. J., Padilla, A. M., & Maldonado, M. (1987). Acculturative stress and
specific coping strategies among immigrant and later generation college students.
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences: Special Issue: Acculturation research,
9, 207–225.
Mehta, B. (1996). Emigrants twice displaced: Race, color, and identity in Mira
Nair’s Mississippi Masala. In D. Bahri & M. Vasudeva (Eds.), Between the
lines: South Asians and post-coloniality (pp. 185–203). Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Ogbu, J. U. (1993). Differences in cultural frame of reference. International Journal
of Behavioral Development: Special Issue: International roots of minority
child development, 16, 483–506.
O’Hearn, C. C. (1998). Half and half: Writers on growing up biracial and bicultural.
New York: Pantheon Books.
Oyserman, D., Sakamoto, I., & Lauffer, A. (1998). Cultural accommodation:
Hybridity and the framing of social obligation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74, 1606–1618.
Padilla, A. M. (1994). Bicultural development: A theoretical and empirical examination.
In R. Malgady & O. Rodriguez (Eds.), Theoretical and conceptual issues
in Hispanic mental health (pp. 20–51). Melbourne, FL: Krieger Publishing
Co., Inc.
Phinney, J. S. (1996). When we talk about American ethnic groups, what do we
mean? American Psychologist, 51 (9), 918–927.
Phinney, J. S. (1999). An intercultural approach in psychology: Cultural contact
and identity. Cross-Cultural Psychology Bulletin, 33, 24–31.
Phinney, J. S., & Devich-Navarro, M. (1997). Variations in bicultural identification
among African American and Mexican American adolescents. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 7, 3–32.
Pollak, K. I., & Niemann, Y. F. (1998). Black and White tokens in academia: A
difference of chronic versus acute distinctiveness. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 28, 954–972.
1046 Benet-Martı´nez & Haritatos
Rafaeli-Mor, E., & Steinberg, J. (2002). Self-complexity and well-being: A
review and research synthesis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6,
31–58.
Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 6, 88–107.
Roth, P. (1969). Portnoy’s complaint. New York: Random House.
Rotheram-Borus, M. (1993). Biculturalism among adolescents. In M. Bernal &
G. Knight (Eds.), Ethnic identity formation and transmission among Hispanics
and other minorities (pp. 81–102). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Ryder, A., Alden, L., & Paulhus, D. (2000). Is acculturation unidimensional or
bidimensional? A head-to-head comparison in the prediction of personality,
self-identity, and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79,
49–65.
Rudmin, F. W. (1996, August). Critical review of acculturation. Paper presented
at the XIII International Congress of the International Association for Cross-
Cultural Psychology, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Saldan˜ a, D. H. (1994). Acculturative stress: Minority status and distress. Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 16, 116–128.
Showers, C. (1992). Compartmentalization of positive and negative self-knowledge:
Keeping bad apples out of the bunch. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 62, 1036–1049.
Stapel, D. A., & Winkielman, P. (1998). Assimilation and contrast as a function of
context-target similarity, distinctness, and dimensional relevance. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 634–646.
Sullivan, N., & Schatz, R. T. (1999). When cultures collide: The official language
debate. Language and Communication, 19, 261–275.
Thoits, P. A. (1991). on merging identity theory and stress research. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 54, 101–112.
Tsai, J., Ying, Y., & Lee, P. (2000). The meaning of ‘‘being Chinese’’ and ‘‘being
American’’: Variation among Chinese-American youth adults. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 302–332.
Tzeng, O. C., & Jackson, J. W. (1994). Effects of contact, conflict, and social
identity on interethnic group hostilities. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 18, 259–276.
U.S. Census (2002). Available at http://www.census.gov/
Van Hook, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1988). Self-related problems beyond the selfconcept:
Motivational consequences of discrepant self-guides. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 55, 625–633.
Vivero, V. N., & Jenkins, S. R. (1999). Existential hazards of the multicultural
individual: Defining and understanding ‘‘cultural homelessness’’. Cultural Diversity
& Ethnic Minority Psychology, 5, 6–26.
Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1993). Where’s the ‘‘culture’’ in cross-cultural transition?
Comparative studies of sojourner adjustment. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 24, 221–249.
Yzerbyt, V., Corneille, O., & Estrada, C. (2001). The interplay of subjective essentialism
and entitativity in the formation of stereotypes. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 5, 141–155.
Bicultural Identity Integration 1047
Appendix A
Correlations Among Variables
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Demographics/Acculturation
1. Years lived in U.S. —
2. Years lived in Chinese
culture
.51 —
3. English proficiency/use .54 .72 —
4. Chinese proficiency/use .43 .57 .58 —
5. U.S. identification .42 .55 .61 .46 —
6. Chinese identification .23 .15 .18 .40 .06 —
7. Bicultural competence .29 .39 .50 .01 .53 .33 —
Bicultural Identity Integration
8. BIIS-P .21 .15 .34 .31 .37 .13 .31
9. Conflict .13 .09 .02 .13 .08 .02 .14 .31 —
10. Distance .29 .36 .55 .32 .52 .11 .39 .51 .02 —
Acculturation Attitudes
11. Assimilation .14 .13 .23 .39 .36 .31 .03 .24 .04 .16 —
12. Separation .25 .14 .34 .42 .37 .33 .21 .29 .09 .37 .40 —
13. Integration .06 .21 .12 .25 .13 .31 .11 .01 .06 .10 .30 .12 —
14. Marginalization .00 .10 .13 .04 .12 .00 .08 .10 .00 .17 .05 .08 .03 —
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Acculturative Stress
15. Work .22 .43 .40 .42 .30 .17 .08 .14 .11 .20 .19 .17 .15 .02 —
16. Linguistic .37 .58 .60 .43 .47 .02 .38 .23 .23 .36 .08 .22 .06 .06 .52 —
17. Intercultural Relations .06 .06 .04 .03 .03 .20 .04 .26 .31 .06 .09 .13 .05 .01 .10 .12 —
18. Discrimination .23 .24 .13 .03 .06 .06 .20 .19 .23 .01 .09 .02 .00 .13 .29 .04 .27 —
19. Cultural Isolation .18 .12 .18 .18 .16 .06 .09 .24 .20 .29 .24 .19 .08 .12 .32 .16 .13 .33 —
Personality
20. Extraversion .08 .10 .22 .15 .23 .04 .11 .01 .07 .25 .17 .09 .07 .29 .11 .20 .08 .14 .25 —
21. Agreeableness .10 .33 .13 .20 .07 .20 .03 .13 .12 .05 .15 .11 .11 .13 .08 .03 .29 .21 .03 .22 —
22. Conscientiousness .01 .30 .01 .07 .10 .16 .03 .07 .07 .04 .04 .04 .18 .26 .10 .02 .14 .17 .02 .31 .45 —
23. Neuroticism .01 .05 .13 .04 .00 .11 .09 .28 .29 .02 .13 .15 .03 .07 .08 .21 .25 .13 .19 .26 .29 .23 —
24. Openness .26 .13 .46 .23 .23 .05 .20 .04 .05 .34 .16 .16 .07 .05 .10 .34 .08 .03 .10 .35 .02 .21 .22—
Note. N5133 first-generation, Chinese American biculturals. Correlations significant at p o .01 are in bold; correlations significant at p o .05
are underlined.
1050
'theory > 성격심리학' 카테고리의 다른 글
| [스크랩] 오이디푸스콤플렉스(Oedipus complex) (0) | 2009.09.08 |
|---|---|
| Meaning in life (0) | 2008.03.17 |
| External Control and Internal Control (0) | 2007.10.24 |
| Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory (0) | 2007.10.23 |
| Personal Construct Theory and the Psychotherapeutic Interview (0) | 2007.10.23 |