Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 2015, Vol. 21, No. 2, 213–224

© 2014 American Psychological Association 1099-9809/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037647

Feelings About Culture Scales: Development, Factor Structure, Reliability, and Validity Cara S. Maffini and Y. Joel Wong

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Indiana University Although measures of cultural identity, values, and behavior exist in the multicultural psychological literature, there is currently no measure that explicitly assesses ethnic minority individuals’ positive and negative affect toward culture. Therefore, we developed 2 new measures called the Feelings About Culture Scale—Ethnic Culture and Feelings About Culture Scale—Mainstream American Culture and tested their psychometric properties. In 6 studies, we piloted the measures, conducted factor analyses to clarify their factor structure, and examined reliability and validity. The factor structure revealed 2 dimensions reflecting positive and negative affect for each measure. Results provided evidence for convergent, discriminant, criterion-related, and incremental validity as well as the reliability of the scales. The Feelings About Culture Scales are the first known measures to examine both positive and negative affect toward an individual’s ethnic culture and mainstream American culture. The focus on affect captures dimensions of psychological experiences that differ from cognitive and behavioral constructs often used to measure cultural orientation. These measures can serve as a valuable contribution to both research and counseling by providing insight into the nuanced affective experiences ethnic minority individuals have toward culture. Keywords: culture, feelings, scale development, factor analysis

According to the U.S. Census (2010), 36.3% of the U.S. population identifies as ethnic minorities, many of whom are exposed to two cultures—their ethnic minority culture and the receiving culture, or mainstream American culture for the purposes of this study (Berry, 2005). The empirical study of ethnic minority individuals’ cultural orientation has thus far focused mainly on cognitive and behavioral components, such as language, traditions, and cultural values (Benet-Martínez, Lee, & Leu, 2006; Tsai, Ying, & Lee, 2000). Although studies have identified cultural differences in affective expectations and expression (Soto, Levenson, & Ebling, 2005) and how ethnic minority individuals experience affect when they identify with each of their respective cultures (Perunovic, Heller, & Rafaeli, 2007), research on ethnic minority individuals’ affective experiences toward culture is fairly limited. Understanding how people feel about their cultures may provide more insights into their mental health experiences in ways that are not captured through cognitive and behavioral assessments. To facilitate research on these affective processes, we developed measures to capture ethnic minority individuals’ positive and negative affect toward their ethnic culture as well as mainstream American culture.

Existing Constructs and Measures of Cultural Orientation The study of cultural orientation is best illustrated by the constructs of acculturation and enculturation. Acculturation has been defined as what occurs when two cultures interact for an extended period of time such that people adjust their ethnic culture to the new culture (Redfield, Linton, & Herskovits, 1936). Relatedly, Herskovits (1948) used the term enculturation to refer to the experience of preserving one’s ethnic culture amid a new (receiving) culture. The two constructs are not two ends of one spectrum. For example, a person can be both highly acculturated and enculturated (Kim, 2007). Bilinear measures of acculturation and enculturation assess both adaptation to a new culture as well as preservation of one’s ethnic culture primarily through cognitive and behavioral markers. These measures assess language proficiency, participation in traditions, connection to entertainment (e.g., music, movies, and dance), friends, and values for both ethnic culture and American culture (e.g., Benet-Martínez, 2003; Chung, Kim, & Abreu, 2004; Ryder, Alden, & Paulhus, 2000; Tsai et al., 2000). Identity has also been salient to the study of cultural orientation and has been assessed through measures that examine the degree to which people identify with their ethnic culture (e.g., Phinney, 1992; Phinney & Ong, 2007) or mainstream American culture (e.g., Schwartz et al., 2012). These assessments typically inquire about cognitive and behavioral markers such as values and engagement in traditions. However, one limitation of existing constructs and measures used in the study of cultural orientation is a lack of emphasis on the affective experiences of ethnic minority individuals in relation to culture.

This article was published Online First August 25, 2014. Cara S. Maffini and Y. Joel Wong, Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology, Indiana University. Cara S. Maffini is now at the San Jose State University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Cara S. Maffini, Sweeney Hall, San Jose State University, One Washington Square, San Jose, CA 95192. E-mail: [email protected] 213

214

MAFFINI AND WONG

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Affective Experiences of Ethnic Minority Individuals Affect is a complex and integral part of human psychological experiences that impacts mental health. Studies have demonstrated the influence of affect on behaviors (Nicholson, 1998), thoughts, appraisals of situations, and motivation (Izard, 1992), as well as attention and perceptions (Izard, Kagan, & Zajonc, 1984). From an evolutionary standpoint, primitive emotions serve as precursors to cognitions: Humans strive to develop cognitive strategies to change or suppress emotions, and through experiences, behaviors and cognitions influence how humans feel (Nicholson, 1998). Affect refers to broad dimensions of emotional experiences (e.g., positive and negative; Watson, Clark, & Carey, 1988), whereas emotions refer to specific experiences, such as fear and anxiety. Given that our focus is on these broad dimensions, we use the term affect. We retained the word feelings within the survey to facilitate use with lay populations. Positive affect has been found to be associated with positive well-being (Fredrickson, 2001) and greater affect regulation following negative experiences (Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004). Research has shown that in some risk-taking situations, affective responses have a greater influence on behavior than rational cognitive processes (Loewenstein & Lerner, 2002). Affective reactions to risk diverge from a cognitive appraisal of the situation (Loewenstein, Weber, Hsee, & Welch, 2001), such that affect does not factor in the long-term consequences of one’s actions (Loewenstein, 2000) and negative affect increases risk-taking (Leith, & Baumeister, 1996). In sum, affect, cognitions, and behaviors are interconnected and collectively impact and drive humans. Thus, in studying how people engage in the cultures to which they belong, cognitions, behaviors, and affect need to be assessed to enhance our understanding of people’s experiences. A focus only on cognitive and behavioral appraisals of one’s cultural experience and identity excludes an essential component of ethnic minority individuals’ psychological processes. Individuals may experience conflicting affective and cognitive processes such that they may be adept at navigating two distinct cultures, but may harbor negative affect toward one or both cultures. Affective experiences may impact one’s sense of belonging to a cultural group. For example, negative affect toward mainstream American culture may lead to a decreased sense of belonging, which may be associated with increased stress (Sánchez & Fernández, 1993). The extant research on affective experiences among ethnic minority individuals, particularly those in the United States, is in its nascency. Measures that examine affect toward culture are limited. Early versions of the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM) include a question about how “proud” an individual feels toward his or her ethnic culture (Phinney, 1992). The revised MEIM (MEIM–R) includes items inquiring about a “sense of belonging” and “attachment” (Phinney & Ong, 2007). The American Identity Measure (AIM) includes an item inquiring how “happy” individuals feel about American culture and the degree to which they have “pride in the United States” (Schwartz et al., 2012). A factor analysis of the 18-item MEIM (Phinney, 1992) using a sample of Asian American college students identified three dimensions, including affective pride in one’s ethnic culture. This dimension was related to positive self-esteem, suggesting a potential link between constructs associated with affective experience toward culture and

mental health. Nevertheless, we are not aware of any measure that provides a comprehensive assessment of ethnic minority individuals’ negative and positive affect toward their ethnic culture as well as mainstream American culture.

The Present Studies We developed two measures assessing the frequency of ethnic minority individuals’ positive and negative affect about their ethnic culture and mainstream American culture and examined their psychometric properties. Given the different nature of each culture and following previous scale development research on cultural orientation for ethnic minority individuals (Chung et al., 2004), we proposed two separate scales: (a) Feelings About Culture Scale— Ethnic Culture (FACS–EC) and (b) Feelings About Culture Scale—Mainstream American Culture (FACS–MAC). We hypothesized that each scale would have two factors involving positive and negative affect. Study 1 contained the initial scale development and pilot study, which was administered to both lay people and experts in the field. Studies 2– 6 involved testing the psychometric properties of both versions of the FACS. Participants for Studies 2– 6 (N ⫽ 473) were recruited through university listservs and listservs for national organizations serving ethnic minorities (e.g., Asian American Psychological Association, American Psychological Association Division 45, and National Latino Psychological Association). Participants accessed an online survey that took approximately 15 min to complete. Following previous scale development studies (Brown, 2003), we randomly divided the total sample into two groups for factor analyses in Studies 2 and 3. Studies 4 and 5 examined the construct validity of both versions of the FACS. Their samples reflect two different surveys completed by 233 respondents for Study 4 and 240 for Study 5. Both samples for Studies 4 and 5 contained both versions of the FACS, but each had different measures used to test construct validity. Finally, the sample for Study 6 (n ⫽ 94) was drawn from participants in Study 5 and examined the test–retest reliability of the FACS.

Study 1: Scale Development and Pilot In Study 1, we developed and piloted the FACS.

Method Item development. We began by aggregating a bank of emotion words and considered the likelihood of someone associating that word with a culture. We eliminated words that would likely not be used by people to refer to culture including provocative, cowardly, and glorious. We considered different types of positive and negative emotions (e.g., happiness, sadness, anger, fear) and emotion words used in extant cultural measures (e.g., proud). With the help of two counseling psychology doctoral students who study culture and race, we reviewed a list of emotion words and identified those associated with culture. Emotion words were selected to capture (a) a wide range of experiences, (b) both positive and negative affect, and (c) a reading level that did not exceed that of an eighth grader (determined by the number of syllables and ascertained through the Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level Test in Microsoft Word). Words of mild intensity such as calm or unsure

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

FEELINGS ABOUT CULTURE SCALES

were excluded. Thirteen positive emotion and 13 negative emotion words were retained for the FACS–EC and FACS–MAC to create two dimensions on each of the scales: (a) positive affect toward ethnic culture, (b) negative affect toward ethnic culture, (c) positive affect toward mainstream American culture, and (d) negative affect toward mainstream American culture. Therefore, the initial instrument contained 52 items. We focused on frequency rather than intensity of affect to acknowledge that individuals’ affect about each culture may shift across situation and context. Items were scored using a 5-point scale ranging from never to almost always. High scores on the positive and negative affective dimensions indicate greater frequency of positive and negative affect toward ethnic culture and mainstream U.S. culture, respectively. Participants and procedure. The pilot survey was e-mailed to lay people (n ⫽ 15) who identified as ethnic minorities over the age of 18 who do not research culture and experts (n ⫽ 7) who conduct ethnic minority cultural research. Participants were recruited through convenience sampling. In addition to answering the 52-item survey, both the lay and experts groups were asked to provide feedback on which items to retain or discard.

Results Some participants pointed out that our initial scale instructions requested participants to indicate their ethnic culture but did not define culture. Therefore, we added a sentence at the beginning of the instructions to define the term. The revised instructions are as follows: Culture refers to the norms, practices, values, and traditions of a group of people. Many of these questions refer to your ethnic culture, which may be the culture of your birth, the culture you have been raised in, or your parents’ family’s culture. Please fill in your ethnic culture (e.g., Chinese, Mexican, African, Black). If you do not feel that you have been influenced by any other culture, please name a culture that influenced previous generations in your family. Please fill in: My ethnic culture is . . ..

In addition, in the pilot study, some items read, “When I think about my ethnic culture, I feel. . . .” In the revisions, items were reworded so that each began with “I feel . . .” to capture the affective experience of the participants. Participants’ feedback also helped us decide which items to reword or discard. Items that seemed synonymous (e.g., loyal and devoted) were removed to reduce redundancy. Items that were less clearly related to affect (e.g., feeling negatively judged) were also removed. With these revisions, the FACS–EC and FACS–MAC each contained 20 items: 10 positive affect items and 10 negative affect items. This revised version was used to determine the structure and psychometric properties of the FACS.

Study 2: Exploratory Factor Analyses In Study 2, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to determine the factor structure and assess the FACS subscales’ internal consistency. Because positive and negative affect are bidimensional constructs (Diener & Emmons, 1984; Reich, Zautra, & Potter, 2001), we proposed a two-dimensional structure for each FACS scale: The FACS–EC would contain (a) positive affect toward ethnic culture and (b) negative affect toward ethnic culture,

215

and the FACS–MAC would contain (c) positive affect toward mainstream American culture and (d) negative affect toward mainstream American culture. We anticipated that negative and positive affect for each culture would be related and therefore the dimensions would be oblique.

Method The sample included 237 participants (65.4% female) ranging in age from 18 to 61 years (M ⫽ 28.43 years, SD ⫽ 9.75). The sample comprised 30.9% who identified as Latino, 26.7% Asian American/Pacific Islander, 24.6% Black/African American, 3.0% Native American, and 14.8% as “other race” including multiracial individuals. Within this sample, 61.6% were born in the United States.

Results EFA. EFAs were conducted using principal axis factoring to examine the factor structure of the FACS. Separate EFAs were generated for the FACS–EC and FACS–MAC. For both scales, scree plots suggested a three-factor solution. An examination of the factors revealed that positive affect items loaded highly on one factor, and negative affect items were spread over two factors in a way that did not make conceptual sense. Following previous scale development (Steger, Frazier, Oishi, & Kaler, 2006), we looked for a factor structure that was theoretically appropriate and interpretable. The distinction between positive and negative affect was congruent with the theoretical basis for the scales; therefore, a second set of EFAs was run and two-factor solutions were applied to both FACS–EC and FACS–MAC. The two-factor solutions were explored using both oblique (promax) and orthogonal (varimax) rotations, but the results for the oblique rotations were found to be most interpretable and had higher factor loadings. Examining the pattern matrix, we selected items on the basis of the following criteria: (a) a factor loading above .50; (b) a cross-loading of less than .30 (Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino, 2013); (c) no more than five items per factor, given our goal of developing brief measures; and (d) the final version of both scales would have the same affect words (e.g., grateful). With these criteria met, we retained 10 of the original 20 items for each scale. Another set of EFAs was conducted using principal axis factoring. The scree plot indicated a clear two-factor structure for both versions of the FACS. All items loaded on the factors above .55 and no cross-loadings exceeded .20. In the FACS–EC, Factor 1 (consisting of positive affect items) accounted for 40.66% of the variance and was labeled FACS–Ethnic Culture–Positive (FACS– EC[P]), whereas Factor 2 (consisting of negative affect items) accounted for 19.94% of the variance and was labeled FACS– Ethnic Culture–Negative (FACS–EC[N]). In the FACS–MAC, Factor 1 (consisting of negative affect items) accounted for 51.90% of the variance and was labeled FACS–Mainstream American Culture–Negative (FACS–MAC[N]), whereas Factor 2 (consisting of positive affect items) accounted for 15.41% and was labeled FACS–Mainstream American Culture–Positive (FACS– MAC[P]). The final list of items are described in Table 1. Internal consistency. All four subscales yielded adequate reliability scores. The Cronbach’s alpha was .85 for the FACS– EC(P) and .77 for the FACS–EC(N). Both the FACS–MAC(P) and FACS–MAC(N) yielded Cronbach’s alphas of .88.

MAFFINI AND WONG

216

Table 1 Item Means, Standard Deviations, and Factor Loadings for the FACS–EC and FACS–MAC EFA factor loadings Item

M (SD)

1

2

h2

CFA factor loadings

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

FACS–EC Positive affect I feel empowered when I think about my ethnic culture. I feel grateful toward my ethnic culture. I feel loyal to my ethnic culture. I feel encouraged when I think about my ethnic culture. I feel proud of my ethnic culture. Negative affect I feel embarrassed by my ethnic culture. I feel disappointed with my ethnic culture. I feel frustrated with my ethnic culture. I feel ashamed of my ethnic culture. I feel sad when I think about my ethnic culture.

3.56 (1.16) 4.19 (0.91) 3.94 (1.05) 3.68 (1.07) 4.25 (0.93)

.81 .75 .76 .79 .73

.17 ⫺.02 .05 ⫺.02 ⫺.17

.48 .52 .49 .57 .59

.72ⴱⴱⴱ .68ⴱⴱⴱ .64ⴱⴱⴱ .78ⴱⴱⴱ .81ⴱⴱⴱ

1.73 (0.84) 2.02 (0.90) 2.41 (0.92) 1.68 (0.80) 1.99 (0.98)

⫺.07 .04 .06 ⫺.16 .13

.56 .80 .65 .60 .58

.29 .45 .33 .41 .24

.73ⴱⴱⴱ .76ⴱⴱⴱ .64ⴱⴱⴱ .79ⴱⴱⴱ .36ⴱⴱⴱ

2.74 (1.04) 3.37 (0.98) 3.24 (1.07)

.10 ⫺.03 .04

.77 .78 .75

.45 .56 .49

.62ⴱⴱⴱ .80ⴱⴱⴱ .73ⴱⴱⴱ

3.04 (0.99) 3.34 (1.03)

⫺.09 ⫺.10

.70 .79

.54 .65

.73ⴱⴱⴱ .83ⴱⴱⴱ

2.50 (1.08) 2.86 (1.01) 2.99 (0.94) 2.40 (1.09) 2.38 (1.13)

.74 .78 .73 .81 .77

⫺.01 ⫺.004 ⫺.02 ⫺.01 .04

.52 .55 .51 .59 .51

.75ⴱⴱⴱ .80ⴱⴱⴱ .78ⴱⴱⴱ .81ⴱⴱⴱ .67ⴱⴱⴱ

FACS–MAC Positive affect I feel empowered when I think about mainstream American culture. I feel grateful toward mainstream American culture. I feel loyal to mainstream American culture. I feel encouraged when I think about mainstream American culture. I feel proud of mainstream American culture. Negative affect I feel embarrassed by mainstream American culture. I feel disappointed with mainstream American culture. I feel frustrated with mainstream American culture. I feel ashamed of mainstream American culture. I feel sad when I think about mainstream American culture.

Note. N ⫽ 237. FACS–EC ⫽ Feelings About Culture Scale—Ethnic Culture; FACS–MAC ⫽ Feelings About Culture Scale—Mainstream American Culture. Item means and standard deviations are based on the sample used for the exploratory factor analysis (EFA). In the EFA and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), correlations between positive and negative affect for ethnic culture were –.40 and –.25, respectively, and –.61 and –.34, respectively, for mainstream American culture. Boldfaced factor loadings indicate highest loading for each item. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

Study 3: Confirmatory Factor Analyses In Study 3, we further examined the factor structure of the FACS–EC and FACS–MAC using a different sample. We tested oblique, orthogonal, and one-factor models. We also examined the internal consistencies of the four FACS subscales.

below .08 on the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). A summary of the fit indices are presented in Table 2. The RMSEA, CFI, and SRMR values for the oblique models of both scales were within the range of values proposed by Hu and Bentler. We also conducted CFAs on the orthogonal and one-factor models (see Table 2). The orthogonal model refers to factors that

Method Participants (n ⫽ 236; 67.4% female) ranged in age from 18 –74 years (M ⫽ 29.37 years, SD ⫽ 10.33). The sample included Asian American/Pacific Islanders (30.1%), Latinos (26.7%), Black/African Americans (22.5%), Native Americans (1.3%), and “other race” including biracial individuals (19.5%). More than half (58.5%) of the participants were born in the United States.

Results Confirmatory factor analyses. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were conducted on the 10-item FACS–EC and 10-item FACS–MAC. Examining the goodness-of-fit statistics, Hu and Bentler (1999) suggested that adequate fit statistics should be close to .06 for the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), greater than or equal to .95 on the comparative fit index (CFI), and

Table 2 Goodness-of-Fit Indicators for Models of the 20-Item FACS Model Oblique—FACS–EC Oblique—FACS–MAC Orthogonal—FACS–EC Orthogonal—FACS–MAC One-factor—FACS–EC One-factor—FACS–MAC

df

␹2

34 52.37ⴱ 34 34.19 35 84.33ⴱⴱⴱ 35 116.97ⴱⴱⴱ 35 179.53ⴱⴱⴱ 35 131.55ⴱⴱⴱ

RMSEA [CI] .05 [.02, .08] .01 [.00, .05] .08 [.06, .10] .10 [.08, .12] .14 [.12, .16] .11 [.09, .13]

CFI SRMR 0.96 1.00 0.90 0.89 0.71 0.86

.05 .03 .15 .25 .12 .08

Note. N ⫽ 236. FACS–EC ⫽ Feelings About Culture Scale—Ethnic Culture; FACS–MAC ⫽ Feelings About Culture Scale—Mainstream American Culture; RMSEA ⫽ root mean square error of approximation; CI ⫽ confidence interval for RMSEA; CFI ⫽ comparative fit index; SRMR ⫽ standardized root mean square residual. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

FEELINGS ABOUT CULTURE SCALES

are not correlated and are thus nested within an oblique model in which the factors are correlated. We used a maximum likelihood estimation method that produces standard errors and a mean- and variance-corrected chi-square test statistic that can accommodate nonnormal multivariate data. Using a chi-square difference test, we found significant differences between the oblique and orthogonal models for both ethnic culture, ␹2(1, N ⫽ 237) ⫽ 43.19, p ⬍ .001, and mainstream American culture, ␹2(1, N ⫽ 237) ⫽ 144.66, p ⬍ .001. These results demonstrate that the oblique model was a better fit than the orthogonal model. The one-factor model was nested in the oblique model, so we examined the chi-square difference between both models and found for ethnic culture, ␹2(1, N ⫽ 237) ⫽ 175.53, p ⬍ .001, and for mainstream American culture, ␹2(1, N ⫽ 237) ⫽ 144.44, p ⬍ .001. These results indicate that the oblique models were a better fit than the one-factor models. Thus, it is evident that the oblique models best fit the data for both the FACS–EC and FACS–MAC. The CFA factor loadings for the oblique models are reported in Table 1. Reliability scores. The sample used in Study 3 had similar reliability estimates as were found in Study 2. FACS–EC(P) and FACS–EC(N) had Cronbach’s alphas of .86 and .79, respectively. Both FACS–MAC(P) and FACS–MAC(N) had Cronbach’s alphas of .87.

Study 4: Validity The purpose of Study 4 was to examine the convergent, discriminant, criterion-related, and incremental validity of the FACS. With respect to convergent validity, we hypothesized that both FACS versions would be related to measures of ethnic and mainstream American identity. These measures primarily assess cognitions and behaviors and although affect is distinctly different, it is also related. We hypothesized that the FACS–EC(P) and the FACS–EC(N) would be positively and negatively related to measures of ethnic identity (MEIM–R; Phinney & Ong, 2007), respectively, given that the MEIM–R includes items inquiring about “a strong sense of belonging” and “attachment” toward ethnic culture. These questions are different from items in the FACS, but parallel the positive affective dimensions of the FACS–EC. Conversely, we expected that the FACS–MAC(P) would be positively related to a measure of American identity (AIM; Schwartz et al., 2012), whereas the FACS–MAC(N) would be negatively related, given that the measure includes four items assessing positive affect with the words happy, pride, feel a strong attachment, and feel good. We also hypothesized that the FACS–EC(P) would be positively related to participants’ race-specific identity (Collective Self-Esteem—Race Specific [CSE–R] Identity scale; Crocker, Luhtanen, Blaine, & Broadnax, 1994) and the FACS–EC(N) would be negatively related because the CSE–R Identity scale examines the extent to which participants’ race influences their self-concept. Because the CSE–R Identity scale refers to participants’ racial/ ethnic group rather than to White Americans, we did not expect a significant relationship between this measure and the FACS–MAC scales. Hoyt, Warbasse, and Chu (2006) noted that researchers developing new measures could provide evidence for discriminant validity by examining the relationship between the new measures and social desirability. Therefore, we expected that the FACS subscales would not be significantly related to a measure of social

217

desirability (Short Social Desirability Scales [SSDS]; Ray, 1984) because affect toward culture is a conceptually distinct construct from social desirability motivation. In terms of criterion-related validity, previous research has demonstrated the positive relationship between positive affect and life satisfaction (Cohn, Fredrickson, Brown, Mikels, & Conway, 2009); therefore, we anticipated that high scores on the positive affect dimensions and low scores on the negative affect dimensions of the FACS–EC and FACS–MAC would be positively related to life satisfaction. For incremental validity, we controlled for measures of ethnic and American identities to identify whether the FACS subscales were uniquely related to life satisfaction beyond the variance accounted for by these other measures. Although ethnic/American identity and affect toward culture are both cultural orientation constructs, identity refers to how culture is integrated into one’s self-concept. However, the FACS reflects how people feel about their cultures regardless of the degree to which these cultures are integrated into their self-concepts. We hypothesized that when ethnic and American identities were controlled for, a significant amount of variance in life satisfaction would be uniquely accounted for by the FACS subscales. Given previous findings on gender differences in subjective well-being (Nolen-Hoeksema & Rusting, 1999), we also added gender as a covariate in our model predicting life satisfaction.

Method Participants. This sample contained 233 participants (75.9% female) who ranged in age from 18 to 66 years (M ⫽ 28.84 years, SD ⫽ 10.25). Racially, participants identified as Black/African American (31.3%), Asian American/Pacific Islander (29.2%), Latino (26.2%), Native American (0.4%), and “other race” (including multiracial individuals, 12.9%). In addition, 69.9% of the sample was born in the United States. Measures. MEIM–R. The MEIM–R (Phinney & Ong, 2007) is a six-item measure of the degree to which an individual identifies with his or her ethnic group. An example is “I have a strong sense of belonging to my own ethnic group.” Participants are asked to respond to each item using a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 ⫽ strongly disagree to 5 ⫽ strongly agree. Higher scores indicate higher levels of identification with one’s ethnic group. Research has demonstrated that the MEIM–R was positively related to the Ethnic Identity Scale, and ethnic identity has different salience for ethnic minorities than European Americans (Yoon, 2011). The Cronbach’s alpha was .88, slightly stronger than a previous study of .81 (Phinney & Ong, 2007). AIM. The 12-item AIM (Schwartz et al., 2012) measures people’s exploration and identification with the United States. A sample item is “I feel a strong attachment toward the United States.” Items are assessed using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 ⫽ strongly disagree to 5 ⫽ strongly agree. Higher scores indicate greater American identity. In this study, the scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .86. In its initial validation, Schwartz and colleagues (2012) found that the AIM was strongly related to a comparative measure of American identity as well as the American Practices subscale of the Multigroup Acculturation Scale (Stephenson, 2000).

MAFFINI AND WONG

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

218

CSE–R Identity scale. The CSE–R Identity scale consists of four items assessing the extent to which participants’ race influences their self-concept (Crocker et al., 1994). Participants responded using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 ⫽ strongly disagree to 7 ⫽ strongly agree. A sample item is “The racial/ethnic group I belong to is an important reflection of who I am.” Crocker and colleagues (1994) found that positive racespecific identity was associated with improved psychological wellbeing among Black participants. Previous research has found strong internal consistency with a value of .84 for this subscale (Crocker et al., 1994). SSDS. The SSDS (Ray, 1984) measures the tendency to respond in a more socially favorable manner by overreporting good behavior or underreporting negative behavior. This scale consists of eight items to which participants respond 1 ⫽ yes, 2 ⫽ not sure, or 3 ⫽ no. A sample item is “Do you sometimes feel resentful when you don’t get you own way?” High scores represent greater socially desirability. The SSDS has been found to be related to the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire—Lie Scale (Stöber, 2001) and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory/Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory—2 Lie Scale (Andrews & Meyer, 2003). The Cronbach’s alpha in this study (.76) was similar to that found in another study (.77; Ray, 1984). Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS). The SWLS (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) consists of five items assessing life satisfaction through a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 ⫽ strongly disagree to 7 ⫽ strongly agree. A sample item is “In most ways my life is close to my ideal.” High scores represent greater life satisfaction. The SWLS has been found to be lowest in populations that are most unhappy with their living situations such as prisoners, people in psychiatric institutions, and people residing in downtrodden or politically tumultuous countries (Pavot & Diener, 1993). Cronbach’s alpha of a previous study was .87 (David, Okazaki, & Saw, 2009) and.82 for this study.

Results Preliminary analyses. We examined racial, gender, and nativity differences in FACS scores using analysis of variance. The racial groups were Black/African American, Asian/Asian Ameri-

can, Latino, and other race (including multiracial individuals). Gender was categorized as male and female. Transgender individuals were omitted from these analyses because the number in this category was too small (n ⫽ 3). Nativity was categorized as born in the United States and born in other countries. There were no significant race or gender differences for any of the scales (p ⬎ .05); however, participants born outside the United States (M ⫽ 3.43, SD ⫽ 0.77) reported higher FACS–MAC(P) scores than their U.S.-born counterparts (M ⫽ 3.08, SD ⫽ 0.84), F(1, 174) ⫽ 6.95, p ⬍ .01, ␩p2 ⫽ .04. Participants born outside the United States (M ⫽ 4.11, SD ⫽ 0.69) also reported marginally higher FACS– EC(P) scores than U.S.-born participants (M ⫽ 3.81, SD ⫽ 0.81), F(1, 174) ⫽ 3.86, p ⬍ .10, ␩p2 ⫽ 02. Those born in the United States (M ⫽ 2.16, SD ⫽ 0.7) reported higher FACS–EC(N) scores, F(1, 174) ⫽ 5.37, p ⬍ .05, ␩p2 ⫽ .03, than immigrants (M ⫽ 1.86, SD ⫽ 0.63). Those born in the United States (M ⫽ 2.86, SD ⫽ 0.86) also reported higher FACS–MAC(N) scores than immigrants (M ⫽ 2.32, SD ⫽ 0.76), F(1, 174) ⫽ 8.62, p ⬍ .01, ␩p2 ⫽ .05. None of the interaction effects were significant (p ⬎ .05). Main results. We used Cohen’s (1988) guidelines suggesting that correlations greater than .50, .30, and .10 represent strong, moderate, and small correlations, respectively. The intercorrelations between the FACS–EC, FACS–MAC, and the validity measures are presented in Table 3. Our hypotheses regarding convergent validity were supported. FACS–EC(P) had a strong positive significant association with the MEIM–R. The FACS–EC(N) had a small negative significant association with the MEIM–R. In addition, the FACS–MAC(P) had a strong positive significant correlation with the AIM. The FACS–MAC(N) had a moderate negative significant association with the AIM. Finally, the FACS– EC(P) was strongly, positively, and significantly related to the CSE–R Identity scale and the FACS–EC(N) was negatively, weakly, and significantly related. As hypothesized, the FACS– MAC scales were not significantly related to the CSE–R Identity scale. In terms of discriminant validity, our prediction that the FACS would not be significantly related to social desirability was supported on all subscales, indicating that participants’ affect toward ethnic and mainstream American cultures was not influenced by social desirability. In support of our hypothesis regarding

Table 3 Intercorrelations Among the FACS–EC, FACS–MAC, and Measured Variables in Study 4 Variable

M (SD)

FACS– EC(P)

FACS– EC(N)

FACS– MAC(P)

FACS– MAC(N)

MEIM–R

AIM

CSE–R Identity

SSDS

SWLS

FACS–EC(P) FACS–EC(N) FACS–MAC(P) FACS–MAC(N) MEIM–R AIM CSE–R Identity SSDS SWLS

3.92 (0.79) 2.03 (0.72) 3.18 (0.82) 2.66 (0.87) 3.89 (0.84) 3.78 (0.63) 5.17 (1.44) 1.81 (0.36) 4.87 (1.24)

— ⫺.33ⴱⴱⴱ .25ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.06 .64ⴱⴱⴱ .14ⴱ .53ⴱⴱⴱ .14 .30ⴱⴱⴱ

— ⫺.20ⴱⴱ .51ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.19ⴱⴱ ⫺.20ⴱⴱ ⫺.20ⴱⴱ ⫺.01 ⫺.29ⴱⴱⴱ

— ⫺.58ⴱⴱⴱ .03 .54ⴱⴱⴱ .02 ⫺.07 .23ⴱⴱ

— .04 ⫺.40ⴱⴱⴱ .06 .02 ⫺.22ⴱⴱ

— .22ⴱⴱ .57ⴱⴱⴱ .13 .26ⴱⴱⴱ

— .04 ⫺.15ⴱ .19ⴱⴱ

— .11 .19ⴱ

— .09

—

Note. N ⫽ 233. FACS–EC(P) ⫽ Feelings About Culture Scale—Ethnic Culture (Positive); FACS–EC(N) ⫽ Feelings About Culture Scale—Ethnic Culture (Negative); FACS–MAC(P) ⫽ Feelings About Culture Scale—Mainstream American Culture (Positive); FACS–MAC(N) ⫽ Feelings About Culture Scale—Mainstream American Culture (Negative); MEIM–R ⫽ Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure—Revised; AIM ⫽ American Identity Measure; CSE–R ⫽ Collective Self-Esteem—Race Specific, Identity Scale; SSDS ⫽ Short Social Desirability Scale; SWLS ⫽ Satisfaction With Life Scale. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

FEELINGS ABOUT CULTURE SCALES

criterion-related validity, the FACS–EC(P) and FACS–MAC(P) were significantly, moderately, and positively related to the SWLS, whereas the FACS–EC(N) and FACS–MAC(N) were significantly and negatively related to the SWLS, although with smaller effect sizes. In other words, more frequent positive affect toward each culture was associated with greater satisfaction with life, whereas a greater frequency of negative affect toward each culture was associated with decreased satisfaction with life. To assess incremental validity, we used three-step hierarchical linear regressions. All predictor variables were standardized before being entered into the model. When all the FACS–EC and FACS– MAC subscales were entered in the same model, none of the predictors were significant, although the overall models were significant. Furthermore, we detected variance inflation factor values above 2.50 and tolerance scores below 0.40 (Allison, 1999), indicating the presence of multicollinearity. To reduce multicollinearity, we entered each of the FACS subscales in separate regression models. Gender was entered in Step 1 for all regression models. Table 4 describes the measures entered in Steps 2 and 3. With other measures controlled for, the FACS–EC(P) positively predicted the SWLS and the FACS–EC(N) negatively predicted the SWLS. The FACS–MAC(N) also significantly and negatively predicted the SWLS; however, the FACS–MAC(P) did not significantly predict SWLS.

Study 5: Validity Similar to Study 4, Study 5 examined the convergent, criterionrelated, and incremental validity of the FACS. Beginning with convergent validity, we hypothesized that the positive and negative subscales of the FACS would correlate, respectively, with positive and negative scales of general affect (International Positive and Negative Affect Schedule Short Form [I-PANAS-SF]; Thompson, 2007). We also predicted that the FACS–EC and FACS–MAC scales would be significantly related to measures of behavioral acculturation and enculturation (Vancouver Index of Acculturation [VIA]; Ryder et al., 2000) given that both sets of measures examine cultural orientation. Previous research has demonstrated that negative affect is associated with symptoms of anxiety and depression, whereas positive affect is inversely related to depressive symptoms and positively related to improved emotional well-being (Fredrickson, 2001; Watson et al., 1988). Therefore, examining criterion-related validity, we anticipated that the FACS would be significantly related to psychological distress (Brief Symptom Inventory [BSI-18]; Derogatis, 2000), with the FACS–EC(P) and FACS–MAC(P) negatively correlated with distress and the FACS– EC(N) and FACS–MAC(N) associated with greater distress. To assess incremental validity, we tested whether the FACS–EC and FACS–MAC dimensions were uniquely related to psychological distress over and beyond measures of generic affect and behavioral markers of acculturation and enculturation. Conceptually, positive and negative affect toward culture are related yet distinct constructs from generic positive and negative affect and behavioral acculturation/enculturation. For example, it is possible that a person can generally experience moderately high levels of positive affect in her life but low levels of positive affect toward her ethnic culture because affect toward ethnic culture is a domainspecific construct. Therefore, if the FACS accounted for a significant amount of the variance in psychological distress, this would

219

Table 4 Incremental Validity With the FACS Predicting the Satisfaction With Life Scale Variable

B

␤

SE

R2

⌬R2

FACS–EC(P) Step 1 Gender Step 2 MEIM–R CSE–R Identity Step 3 FACS–EC(P)

.06

.09

.05

.30 .08

.11 .11

.23ⴱⴱ .06

.28

.12

.22ⴱ

.002

.002

.08

.07ⴱⴱ

.10

.03ⴱ

.002

.002

.08

.07ⴱⴱⴱ

.13

.05ⴱⴱⴱ

.002

.002

.04

.04ⴱⴱ

.06

.02†

.002

.002

.04

.04ⴱⴱ

.07

.02ⴱ

FACS–EC(N) Step 1 Gender Step 2 MEIM–R CSE–R Identity Step 3 FACS–EC(N)

.06

.09

.05

.30 .08

.11 .11

.23ⴱⴱ .06

⫺.29

.09

⫺.24ⴱⴱⴱ

FACS–MAC(P) Step 1 Gender Step 2 AIM Step 3 FACS–MAC(P)

.06

.09

.05

.25

.09

.20ⴱⴱ

.20

.11

.17†

FACS–MAC(N) Step 1 Gender Step 2 AIM Step 3 FACS–MAC(N)

.06

.09

.05 ⴱⴱ

.25

.09

.20

⫺.20

.10

⫺.16ⴱ

Note. N ⫽ 233. MEIM–R ⫽ Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure— Revised; CSE–R Identity ⫽ Collective Self-Esteem—Race Specific— Identity Scale; FACS–EC(P) ⫽ Feelings About Culture Scale—Ethnic Culture (Positive); FACS–EC(N) ⫽ Feelings About Culture Scale—Ethnic Culture (Negative); AIM ⫽ American Identity Measure; FACS– MAC(P) ⫽ Feelings About Culture Scale—Mainstream American Culture (Positive); FACS–MAC(N) ⫽ Feelings About Culture Scale—Mainstream American Culture (Negative). † p ⬍ .10. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

imply that the new measures assess a different construct from general affect and behavioral measures of acculturation and enculturation. Given previous findings on gender differences in mood and anxiety disorders (Eaton et al., 2012), we also added gender as a covariate in our model predicting psychological distress.

Method Participants and procedure. The sample in Study 5 contained 240 participants (79% female) who ranged in age from 18 to 74 years (M ⫽ 28.97 years, SD ⫽ 9.89). Racially, 31.5% of the sample identified as Latino, 23.9% identified as Asian American/ Pacific Islander, 16.8% identified as African American/Black, 1.3% identified as Native American, and 26.5% were categorized as other race including multiracial individuals. In addition, 72.3%

MAFFINI AND WONG

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

220

of the participants were U.S.-born. Participants completed the FACS along with the VIA, the I-PANAS-SF, and the BSI-18. Measures. VIA. The VIA (Ryder et al., 2000) is a 20-item assessment measuring individuals’ identification with their heritage and mainstream American cultures (David et al., 2009). Items are assessed using a 9-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 ⫽ strongly disagree to 9 ⫽ strongly agree. High scores on the Heritage subscale represent greater affiliation with one’s heritage culture, whereas high scores on the Mainstream subscale represent greater association with mainstream American culture. A sample item is “I often participate in my ethnic cultural traditions.” The VIA has demonstrated associations with adjustment to a second culture among first- and second-generation immigrants (Ryder et al., 2000). In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha values were .87 for the Heritage subscale and .82 for the Mainstream subscale, which were comparable to previous findings: .87 for Heritage subscale (David et al., 2009) and values ranging from .75 to .86 for the Mainstream subscale (David et al., 2009; Ryder et al., 2000). I-PANAS-SF. The I-PANAS-SF (Thompson, 2007) measures generic positive and negative affect through 10 items. Items are rated on a 5-point scale with anchors of 1 ⫽ never and 5 ⫽ always. Examples of positive affect terms include inspired and attentive, whereas negative affect terms include upset and hostile. High scores on the Positive Affect (PA) subscale and the Negative Affect (NA) subscale represent greater frequency of positive and negative affect, respectively. Thompson (2007) found the I-PANAS-SF-PA scale to be positively correlated and the NA scale negatively correlated with the Subjective Well-Being and Subjective Happiness Scales. Cronbach’s alphas were .72 for the PA subscale and .76 for the NA subscale, which are comparable to previous research that showed values of .78 and .76, respectively (Thompson, 2007). BSI-18. The 18-item BSI-18 (Derogatis, 2000) is an assessment of psychological distress with three subscales (Depression, Anxiety, and Somatic Symptoms), and an overall score called the global severity index, which was used in our analyses. Participants rate the extent to which they are distressed by each symptom using a 5-point scale ranging from 0 ⫽ not at all to 4 ⫽ extremely.

Sample items include feeling blue and nervousness. High scores represent greater psychological distress. Previous research has found that the BSI-18 was strongly and positively correlated with the Distress Management Screening Measure, demonstrating evidence of validity (Hoffman, Zevon, D’Arrigo, & Cecchini, 2004). The Cronbach’s alpha for the global severity index in this study was .92, which is slightly higher than a previous study, .89 (Derogatis, 2000).

Results The correlations among the FACS–EC, FACS–MAC, and measured variables are presented in Table 5. With respect to convergent validity, the FACS–EC(P) and FACS–MAC(P) had small, significant, positive associations with the I-PANAS-SF-PA, providing support for our hypothesis. However, the FACS–EC(N) and FACS–MAC(N) were not significantly related to the I-PANASSF-NA. Consistent with our hypothesis, we found that the FACS–EC(P) was strongly, positively, and significantly related to the VIA Heritage scale. The FACS–EC(N) had a moderate negative and significant association with the VIA Heritage scale. Similarly, the FACS–MAC(P) was strongly, positively, and significantly related to the VIA Mainstream scale and the FACS–MAC(N) had a moderate negative and significant association with that scale. Examining the relationship between the FACS and BSI-18 for criterion-related validity, we found that the findings were mixed. FACS–EC(P) had a small, significant, and negative relationship with the BSI-18. However, none of the other FACS scales were significantly related to the BSI-18. Incremental validity was examined by controlling for the VIA and the I-PANAS-SF to clarify the unique contribution of the FACS to the BSI-18. Similar to Study 4, concerns regarding multicollinearity resulted in each subscale being entered in separate regression models. All predictors were standardized before being entered and gender was controlled for in Step 1 for all regressions. Table 6 describes the measured entered at Steps 2 and 3. Among the four FACS subscales, only FACS–EC(P) signifi-

Table 5 Intercorrelations Among the FACS–EC, FACS–MAC, and Measured Variables in Study 5 Variable

M (SD)

FACS– EC(P)

FACS– EC(N)

FACS– MAC(P)

FACS– MAC(N)

VIA Heritage

VIA Mainstream

I-PANAS-SF Positive

I-PANAS-SF Negative

BSI-18

FACS–EC(P) FACS–EC(N) FACS–MAC(P) FACS–MAC(N) VIA Heritage VIA Mainstream I-PANAS-SF Positive I-PANAS-SF Negative BSI-18

3.83 (0.84) 2.00 (0.63) 3.10 (0.84) 2.65 (0.85) 6.90 (1.31) 6.51 (1.12) 3.88 (0.61) 2.29 (0.65) .65 (0.62)

— ⫺.38ⴱⴱⴱ .18ⴱⴱ .04 .64ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.03 .23ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.18ⴱⴱ ⫺.21ⴱⴱ

— ⫺.24ⴱⴱⴱ .43ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.33ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.16ⴱ ⫺.20ⴱⴱ .11 .11

— ⫺.57ⴱⴱⴱ .08 .60ⴱⴱⴱ .22ⴱⴱ ⫺.04 ⫺.04

— ⫺.05 ⫺.40ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.13 .01 ⫺.01

— .06 .17ⴱ ⫺.15ⴱ ⫺.08

— .13 ⫺.08 ⫺.09

— ⫺.15ⴱ ⫺.26ⴱⴱⴱ

— .59ⴱⴱⴱ

—

Note. N ⫽ 240. FACS–EC(P) ⫽ Feelings About Culture Scale—Ethnic Culture (Positive); FACS–EC(N) ⫽ Feelings About Culture Scale—Ethnic Culture (Negative); FACS–MAC(P) ⫽ Feelings About Culture Scale—Mainstream American Culture (Positive); FACS–MAC(N) ⫽ Feelings About Culture Scale—Mainstream American Culture (Negative); VIA Heritage ⫽ Vancouver Index of Acculturation Heritage; VIA Mainstream ⫽ Vancouver Index of Acculturation Mainstream; I-PANAS-SF Positive ⫽ International Positive and Negative Affect Schedule Short Form Positive; I-PANAS-SF Negative ⫽ International Positive and Negative Affect Schedule Short Form Negative; BSI-18 ⫽ Brief Symptom Inventory. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

FEELINGS ABOUT CULTURE SCALES

Table 6 Incremental Validity With the FACS Predicting the Brief Symptom Inventory–18 Variable

B

␤

SE

R2

sponded to this request. The mean number of days between Time 1 and Time 2 was 21.45 (SD ⫽ 7.32). ⌬R2

FACS–EC(P)

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Step 1 Gender Step 2 VIA Heritage I-PANAS-SF-PA Step 3 FACS–EC(P)

⫺.09

.09

⫺.07

⫺.02 ⫺.16

.04 .04

⫺.04 ⫺.26ⴱⴱⴱ

⫺.13

.06

⫺.21ⴱ

.004

.004

.08

.07ⴱⴱⴱ

.10

.03ⴱ

.004

.004

.36

.36ⴱⴱⴱ

.36

.003

FACS–EC(N) Step 1 Gender Step 2 VIA Heritage I-PANAS-SF-NA Step 3 FACS–EC(N)

⫺.09

.09

⫺.07

.01 .37

.04 .04

.01 .60ⴱⴱⴱ

.04

.04

.06

⫺.09

.09

⫺.07

⫺.04 ⫺.16

.04 .04

⫺.06 ⫺.26ⴱⴱⴱ

.05

.05

.08

.004

.004

.08

.08ⴱⴱⴱ

.08

.003

.004

.004

.36

.36ⴱⴱⴱ

.36

.001

FACS–MAC(N) Step 1 Gender Step 2 VIA Mainstream I-PANAS-SF-NA Step 3 FACS–MAC(N)

⫺.09

.09

⫺.07

⫺.02 .37

.04 .04

⫺.04 .59ⴱⴱⴱ

⫺.02

.04

⫺.04

Results Analyses showed strong coefficient alphas at Time 2: .91 for the FACS–EC(P), .83 for the FACS–EC(N), and both the FACS– MAC(P) and FACS–MAC(N) had values of .89. Results also indicated high test–retest reliability scores for all subscales: FACS–EC(P), r ⫽ .88, p ⬍ .001; FACS–EC(N), r ⫽ .77, p ⬍ .001; FACS–MAC(P), r ⫽ .87, p ⬍ .001; and FACS–MAC(N), r ⫽ .87, p ⬍ .001. Paired samples t test revealed no significant mean differences between Time 1 and Time 2: FACS–EC(P), t(93) ⫽ 1.26; FACS–EC(N), t(93) ⫽ ⫺0.23; FACS–MAC(P), t(93) ⫽ ⫺1.16; FACS–MAC(N), t(93) ⫽ ⫺1.04, ps ⬎ .05. These findings suggest that the new measures demonstrated strong internal consistency and test–retest reliability.

General Discussion

FACS–MAC(P) Step 1 Gender Step 2 VIA Mainstream I-PANAS-SF-PA Step 3 FACS–MAC(P)

221

Note. N ⫽ 240. VIA Heritage ⫽ Vancouver Index of Acculturation Ethnic; VIA Mainstream ⫽ Vancouver Index of Acculturation Mainstream American; I-PANAS-SF-PA ⫽ International Positive and Negative Affect Schedule Short Form Positive Affect; I-PANAS-SF-NA ⫽ International Positive and Negative Affect Schedule Short Form Negative Affect; FACS–EC(P) ⫽ Feelings About Culture Scale—Ethnic Culture (Positive); FACS–EC(N) ⫽ Feelings About Culture Scale—Ethnic Culture (Negative); FACS–MAC(P) ⫽ Feelings About Culture Scale—Mainstream American Culture (Positive); FACS–MAC(N) ⫽ Feelings About Culture Scale—Mainstream American Culture (Negative). ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

cantly (and negatively) predicted the BSI-18 after controlling for other measures.

Study 6: Test–Retest Reliability Study 6 examined the test–retest reliability and internal consistency of the FACS.

Method Participants in Study 5 were invited to complete the FACS a second time about 3 to 4 weeks after they initially filled out the survey. Participants in Study 6 (N ⫽ 94) were those who re-

In this project, we created two new measures to assess how ethnic minority individuals feel about the cultures to which they belong. In six studies, we examined the factor structure, validity, and reliability of the FACS–EC and FACS–MAC. Exploratory and confirmatory analyses revealed a two-factor oblique structure for both scales. The 10-item FACS–EC and FACS–MAC each contained separate factors for positive and negative affect. Compared with immigrants, U.S.-born individuals experienced more negative affect and less positive affect toward culture, with significantly higher scores on the FACS–EC(N) and FACS– MAC(N) as well as significantly lower scores on the FACS– MAC(P). Perhaps these U.S.-born participants may have experienced some degree of marginalization in that they did not feel that they fully belonged to either mainstream American culture or their ethnic culture, whereas immigrants may feel more connected with their cultures of origin (Berry, 2005). Another reason for these differences is that U.S.-born individuals may perceive higher levels of racial discrimination than immigrants (Hall & Carter, 2006), thus contributing to greater experiences of negative affect toward American culture. These findings can be contrasted with previous research showing that U.S.-born ethnic minority individuals reported higher behavioral acculturation and lower behavioral enculturation than their immigrant counterparts (Chung et al., 2004). These differences underscore the conceptual differences between the affective and behavioral component of cultural orientation. An examination of the psychometric properties of the FACS–EC and FACS–MAC provide preliminary evidence for the validity and reliability scores of these measures. In terms of convergent validity, the FACS–EC(P) was strongly, significantly, and positively associated with ethnic identity and race-specific identity, and weakly although positively and significantly related to generic positive affect. The FACS–EC(N) was significantly, weakly, and negatively related to ethnic identity and race-specific identity. The FACS–MAC(P) was strongly, significantly, and positively related to American identity (AIM), as well as positively and significantly although weakly related to positive affect. The FACS–MAC(N) was moderately, negatively, and significantly related to American identity. The FACS–EC(P) was strongly, positively, and significantly related to affiliation with heritage culture,

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

222

MAFFINI AND WONG

and the FACS–MAC(P) was strongly, positively, and significantly related to affiliation with mainstream American culture. The FACS–EC(N) and FACS–MAC(N) were moderately, significantly, and negatively related to the respective scales. These findings suggest that affect toward culture may be associated with behavioral and cognitive measures of acculturation and enculturation. Taken together, these findings provide preliminary evidence for the convergent validity for the FACS–EC and FACS–MAC. As hypothesized, neither of the FACS–MAC subscales was related to race-specific identity. Although the FACS–EC(N) and FACS–MAC(N) were hypothesized to be positively and significantly related to generic negative affect, they were not, indicating that the negative affect scales of the FACS may measure a different construct than generic negative affect. In contrast, the FACS– EC(P) and FACS–MAC(P) were positively correlated with generic positive affect. Perhaps these contrasting findings reflect the different functions of positive and negative affect and emotions. According to the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions (Fredrickson, 2001), positive emotions build long-term psychological resources, which may include positive affect toward culture; conversely, negative emotions narrow individuals’ thought—action repertoires and may not generalize to other domains such as negative affect toward culture. In addition, none of the FACS scales was significantly associated with social desirability, providing some support for discriminant validity. An examination of criterion-related validity revealed that the FACS–EC and FACS–MAC were significantly related to satisfaction with life and less so with symptoms. The FACS–EC(P) was moderately, positively, and significantly related to life satisfaction and weakly, negatively although significantly related to symptoms. The FACS–EC(N) and the FACS–MAC(N) were weakly, negatively, and significantly related to satisfaction with life, and the FACS–MAC(P) was weakly although significantly and positively related to satisfaction with life. These findings may suggest that for racial/ethnic minority individuals, positive affect toward mainstream American culture and their ethnic culture may be protective factors associated with their psychological well-being, whereas negative affect toward mainstream American culture and their ethnic culture may be risk factors that undermine psychological well-being (David et al., 2009). Overall, these findings provide preliminary support for the criterion-related validity of the FACS. Results of incremental validity produced mixed findings. When ethnic identity and race-specific identity were controlled for, the FACS–EC(P) remained significantly and positively associated with satisfaction with life. Similarly, when those variables were controlled for, the FACS–EC(N) significantly and negatively predicted satisfaction with life. When American identity was controlled for, the FACS–MAC(P) positively predicted satisfaction with life and the FACS–MAC(N) negatively predicted satisfaction with life. When acculturation and general positive affect were controlled for, the FACS–EC(P) remained significantly and negatively related to psychological distress. None of the other FACS subscales significantly predicted psychological distress. Overall, our incremental validity evidence was stronger for satisfaction with life than for psychological distress. This could be a function of the way these two outcomes were measured. The BSI-18 measures transient symptoms of psychological distress over the past week, whereas the SWLS assesses trait-based life satisfaction. Therefore, the stronger relationship between the FACS and the

SWLS may reflect the notion that the FACS, like the SWLS, is a trait-based measure. In sum, findings from the incremental validity of the FACS indicate that affect toward culture uniquely predicted mental health outcomes beyond the influence of ethnic and American identity. Finally, the FACS–EC and FACS–MAC subscales were shown to have strong internal consistency and test–retest reliability scores.

Strengths The development of the FACS is an important contribution to the extant literature by measuring affective reactions toward culture. Although many existing measures focus primarily on cognitive and behavioral dimensions of cultural experiences (e.g., VIA, General Ethnicity Questionnaire [GEQ], AIM, MEIM–R), these new scales are, to our knowledge, the first to examine both positive and negative affect toward one’s ethnic culture and mainstream American culture. These scales may provide more nuanced insight into the complex experience of affect ethnic minority individuals have toward the cultures to which they belong. In addition, the FACS draws attention to the conceptual importance of affective experiences in racial/ethnic minority individuals’ cultural orientation. Although affect is related to cognitions and behaviors, the three may not always align. For example, a Mexican American woman may strongly identify with her ethnicity (high on ethnic identity) and may adhere strongly to Mexican cultural norms and practices (high on enculturation), yet she may have negative affect toward Mexican culture. Furthermore, as our factor analyses indicate, positive and negative affect toward culture are oblique constructs, suggesting that affect toward culture can include a combination of both positive and negative reactions. Therefore, an understanding of affect toward culture can provide greater insight into the complex cultural experiences of ethnic minority individuals.

Limitations and Future Directions for Research Several limitations in our study should be noted. First, some of the validity findings were mixed. For example, more research is needed to assess whether the FACS is related to mental health outcomes beyond the influence of general affect. It would also be useful to test the validity evidence of the FACS with minority groups that were not well represented in our samples, such as Native Americans and Pacific Islanders. Furthermore, the sample was recruited through university listservs targeting people in academic settings. Participants were also self-selected and may have strong affect toward the cultures with which they identify. These two factors may limit the applicability of these results to other populations. Additional research using this measure with community-based samples of varying socioeconomic levels would help provide a more nuanced depiction of racial/ethnic individuals’ affective experiences regarding culture. Other factors that may have impacted findings include the wording of the instructions and items. Participants might respond differently depending on whether the instructions provided examples of ethnic groups (e.g., Korean) or racial groups (Asian American) because some racial and ethnic minority individuals are more connected to a racial group, whereas others may feel more connected to an ethnic group. In addition, following other measures

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

FEELINGS ABOUT CULTURE SCALES

(e.g., MEIM–R and AIM), items examining ethnic culture include the word my, whereas items examining mainstream American culture do not. This slight difference in wording may influence participants to report feeling less connected to mainstream American culture, which may have contributed to higher scores on the FACS–EC(P) than on the FACS–MAC(P). Future research can also elucidate moderators and mediators of the relationship between affect toward culture and psychological well-being. Possible moderators such as racial identity and experiences of racism may provide insight into when affect toward culture impacts mental health. In addition, social engagement in one’s ethnic community may mediate the relationship between affect about culture and satisfaction with life. For example, ethnic minority individuals with strong positive affect toward their ethnic culture may participate actively in their ethnic communities, which may then improve their mental health.

Practical Implications The FACS–EC and FACS–MAC provide important insight into the affective experiences of ethnic minority individuals by capturing the intricacies of both positive and negative affect toward ethnic and mainstream American cultures. Whereas other measures focus on behavioral and cognitive dimensions of cultural orientation, the FACS–EC and FACS–MAC provide a more nuanced depiction of multifaceted affective experiences. This study highlights the importance of addressing affect toward culture in counseling. Whereas many counseling theories address the importance of affect (e.g., person-centered, Gestalt, psychodynamic therapies), there is less focus on the role of affect toward culture in the counseling literature. Nevertheless, this affective experience may impact the client’s psychological well-being. Counselors can examine how racial/ethnic minority clients feel when they think about their ethnic culture or mainstream American culture; for example, “What feelings come up for you when you think about being African American?” The FACS may be used to help clients articulate the mixed affective reactions they may have with regard to culture. Clinically, the results may provide insight about a client’s cultural orientation and mental health based on the endorsement of positive and negative affect experienced for each culture. Overall, understanding the interconnections among clients’ affect, cognitions, and behaviors associated with culture may help bring clarity to ethnic minority clients’ presenting concerns (Maffini & Wong, 2012).

References Allison, P. D. (1999). Multiple regression—A primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Andrews, P., & Meyer, R. G. (2003). Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale and Short Form C: Forensic norms. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59, 483– 492. doi:10.1002/jclp.10136 Benet-Martínez, V. (2003). The Riverside Acculturation Stress Inventory (RASI): Development and psychometric properties. Riverside, CA: University of California at Riverside. Benet-Martínez, V., Lee, F., & Leu, J. (2006). Biculturalism and cognitive complexity: Expertise in cultural representations. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 37, 386 – 407. doi:10.1177/0022022106288476 Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 697–712. doi:10.1016/j .ijintrel.2005.07.013

223

Brown, T. A. (2003). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire: Multiple factors or method effects? Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41, 1411–1426. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(03)00059-7 Chung, R. H. G., Kim, B. S. K., & Abreu, J. M. (2004). Asian American Multidimensional Acculturation Scale: Development, factor analysis, reliability, and validity. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 10, 66 – 80. doi:10.1037/1099-9809.10.1.66 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cohn, M. A., Fredrickson, B. L., Brown, S. L., Mikels, J. A., & Conway, A. M. (2009). Happiness unpacked: Positive emotions increase life satisfaction by building resilience. Emotion, 9, 361–368. doi:10.1037/ a0015952 Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R., Blaine, B., & Broadnax, S. (1994). Collective self-esteem and psychological well-being among White, Black, and Asian College students. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 503–513. doi:10.1177/0146167294205007 David, E. J. R., Okazaki, S., & Saw, A. (2009). Bicultural self-efficacy among college students: Initial scale development and mental health correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 211–226. doi:10.1037/a0015419 Derogatis, L. R. (2000). Brief Symptoms Inventory 18 (BSI-18): Administration, scoring, and procedures manual. Minneapolis, MS: National Computer Systems Inc. Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). The independence of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1105–1117. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.47.5.1105 Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13 Eaton, N. R., Keyes, K. M., Krueger, R. F., Balsis, S., Skodol, A. E., Markon, K. E., . . . Hasin, D. S. (2012). An invariant dimensional liability model of gender differences in mental disorder prevalence: Evidence from a national sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121, 282–288. doi:10.1037/a0024780 Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218 –226. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218 Hall, S. P., & Carter, R. T. (2006). The relationship between racial identity, ethnic identity, and perceptions of racial discrimination in an AfroCaribbean descent sample. Journal of Black Psychology, 32, 155–175. doi:10.1177/0095798406287071 Herskovits, M. J. (1948). Man and his works: The science of cultural anthropology. New York, NY: Knopf. Hoffman, B. M., Zevon, M. A., D’Arrigo, M. C., & Cecchini, T. B. (2004). Screening for distress in cancer patients: The NCCN Rapid-Screening Measure. Psycho-Oncology, 13, 792–799. doi:10.1002/pon.796 Hoyt, W. T., Warbasse, R. E., & Chu, E. Y. (2006). Construct validation in counseling psychology research. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 769 – 805. doi:10.1177/0011000006287389 Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis. Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 Izard, C. E. (1992). Basic emotions, relations among emotions, and emotioncognition relations. Psychological Review, 99, 561–565. doi:10.1037/0033295X.99.3.561 Izard, C. E., Kagan, J., & Zajonc, R. B. (1984). Emotions, cognition, and behavior. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Kim, B. S. K. (2007). Acculturation and enculturation. In F. T. L. Leong, A. Ebreo, L. Kinosha, A. G. Inman, L. Yang, & M. Fu (Eds.), Handbook of Asian American psychology (pp. 141–158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Leith, K. P., & Baumeister, R. F. (1996). Why do bad moods increase self-defeating behavior? Emotion, risk taking, and self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1250 –1267. doi:10.1037/ 0022-3514.71.6.1250

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

224

MAFFINI AND WONG

Loewenstein, G. (2000). Emotions in economic theory and economic behavior. American Economic Review, 90, 426 – 432. doi:10.1257/aer.90 .2.426 Loewenstein, G., & Lerner, J. S. (2002). The role of affect in decision making. In R. Davidson, K. Scherer, & H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective science (pp. 619 – 642). New York, NY: Oxford University Press Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 267–286. doi:10.1037/00332909.127.2.267 Maffini, C. S., & Wong, Y. J. (2012). Psychology of biculturalism. In G. R. Hayes & M. H. Bryant (Eds.), Psychology of culture (pp. 87–104). Hauppauge, NY: NOVA Science Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2013). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Nicholson, N. (1998, July). How hardwired is human behavior? Harvard Business Review, 13, 4 –147. Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Rusting, C. L. (1999). Gender differences in well-being. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Wellbeing: The foundation of hedonic psychology (pp. 330 –350). New York, NY: Russell Saga Foundation Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5, 164 –172. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.5.2.164 Perunovic, W. Q. E., Heller, D., & Rafaeli, E. (2007). Within-person changes in the structure of emotion: The role of cultural identification and language. Psychological Science, 18, 607– 613. doi:10.1111/j.14679280.2007.01947.x Phinney, J. S. (1992). The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: A new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156 –176. doi:10.1177/074355489272003 Phinney, J. S., & Ong, A. D. (2007). Conceptualization and measurement of ethnic identity: Current status and future directions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 271–281. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.54.3.271 Ray, J. J. (1984). The reliability of the Short Social Desirability Scales. The Journal of Social Psychology, 123, 133–134. doi:10.1080/00224545 .1984.9924522 Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. J. (1936). Memorandum for the study of acculturation. American Anthropologist, 38, 149 –152. doi: 10.1525/aa.1936.38.1.02a00330 Reich, J. W., Zautra, A. J., & Potter, P. T. (2001). Cognitive structure and the independence of positive and negative affect. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 20, 99 –115. doi:10.1521/jscp.20.1.99.22255 Ryder, A. G., Alden, L. E., & Paulhus, D. L. (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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79 .1.49

Sánchez, J. I., & Fernández, D. M. (1993). Acculturative stress among Hispanics: A bidimensional model of ethnic identification. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 654 – 668. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816 .1993.tb01107.x Schwartz, S. J., Park, I. J. K., Huynh, Q.-L., Zamboanga, B. L., UmañaTaylor, A., Lee, R. M., . . . Agocha, V. B. (2012). The American Identity Measure: Development and validation across ethnic group and immigrant generation. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 12, 93–128. doi:10.1080/15283488.2012.668730 Soto, J. A., Levenson, R. W., & Ebling, R. (2005). Cultures of moderation and expression: Emotional experience, behavior, and physiology in Chinese Americans and Mexican Americans. Emotion, 5, 154 –165. doi:10.1037/ 1528-3542.5.2.154 Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The Meaning in Life Questionnaire: Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 80 –93. doi:10.1037/00220167.53.1.80 Stephenson, M. (2000). Development and validation of the Stephenson Multigroup Acculturation Scale (SMAS). Psychological Assessment, 12, 77– 88. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.77 Stöber, J. (2001). The Social Desirability Scale–17 (SDS-17): Convergent validity, discriminant validity, and relationship with age. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17, 222–232. doi:10.1027//10155759.17.3.222 Thompson, E. R. (2007). Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 227–242. doi:10.1177/ 0022022106297301 Tsai, J. L., Ying, Y.-W., & Lee, P. A. (2000). The meaning of “being Chinese” and “being American”: Variation among Chinese American young adults. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 302–332. doi: 10.1177/0022022100031003002 Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient individuals use positive emotions to bounce back from negative emotional experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 320 –333. doi:10.1037/0022-3514 .86.2.320 U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Overview of race and Hispanic origin: 2010. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02 .pdf Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Carey, G. (1988). Positive and negative affectivity and their relation to anxiety and depressive disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 346 –353. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.97.3 .346 Yoon, E. (2011). Measuring ethnic identity in the Ethnic Identity Scale and the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure—Revised. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17, 144 –155. doi:10.1037/a0023361