University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Culture, causal attribution, and social support-seeking in Asian college students

(USC Thesis Other)

Culture, causal attribution, and social support-seeking in Asian college students

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

CULTURE, CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION, AND SOCIAL SUPPORT-SEEKING IN
ASIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS

by

Mann Hua Jacqueline Lee

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(PSYCHOLOGY)

August 2012

Copyright 2012 Mann Hua Jacqueline Lee
ii

Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
Figure 1: Theoretical Model ........................................................................................... 8
Social Support ................................................................................................................. 9
Culture and Social Support-Seeking ............................................................................. 11
Causal Attribution and Social Support-Seeking ........................................................... 24
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 32
Hypotheses .................................................................................................................... 33

Chapter 2: Method ............................................................................................................ 34
Participants .................................................................................................................... 34
Procedure ...................................................................................................................... 34
Measures ....................................................................................................................... 36

Chapter 3: Results ............................................................................................................. 40
Preliminary Analyses .................................................................................................... 40
Correlations among the Variables ................................................................................. 40
Manipulation Check ...................................................................................................... 41
Cultural orientation, Social support-seeking, Causal attribution, and Self-blame by
Condition....................................................................................................................... 42
Further Analyses ........................................................................................................... 42

Chapter 4: Discussion ....................................................................................................... 48
Manipulation Check ...................................................................................................... 48
Cultural Orientation, Social Support-seeking, Causal Attribution, and Self-blame by
Condition....................................................................................................................... 50
Further Analyses ........................................................................................................... 50
Causal Attribution as a Mediator of Cultural Orientation and Social Support-seeking 55
Limitations .................................................................................................................... 56

References ......................................................................................................................... 60

Appendices
Appendix A: Sample Descriptives and the Dependent Variables by Condition ...... 68
Appendix B: Correlations among the Variables ....................................................... 70
Appendix C: Social Support, Causal Attribution, and Self-Blame by Condition
(COND) and Cultural Identification (CI) ................................................................. 71
1

Abstract

Research suggests that when stressed, Asians tend to seek social support less
frequently than European American populations. At present, it is unclear how culture
might be associated with social support-seeking behavior, particularly among Asian
groups who differ in their orientation towards individualistic or collectivistic values.
Therefore, the study explored how Asian college students’ cultural orientation would be
associated with their use of social support and their causal attribution of stress. The study
manipulated cultural orientation in 176 Asian and Asian American college students (142
females, 23 males; M = 19.86 years, SD = 1.28). Participants were randomly assigned to
either an individualistic or collectivistic priming condition and then asked to 1.) evaluate
the extent to which they attributed cause of a hypothetical academic failure to internal
factors and blamed themselves for the situation, and 2.) indicate the strategies they would
use to cope with the stressor. No group differences were found for social support, causal
attribution, and self-blame by condition. Further analyses revealed that the priming effect
varied by cultural identification. Bicultural-identified participants primed with
collectivistic values had lower scores for social support than those primed with
individualistic values. Asian-identified participants had higher scores for causal
attribution and lower scores for self-blame compared to Western-identified participants.
These results suggest that cultural orientation was associated with social support-seeking
behavior and that collectivistic-oriented individuals attributed cause to external factors
and blamed themselves less than individualistic-oriented individuals.
1

Chapter 1: Introduction

The purpose of the study was to explore the associations among cultural
orientation, causal attribution, and the use of social support in Asian and Asian American
college students. Understanding how cultural orientation may influence social support-
seeking in an Asian population is important for two main reasons. First, examining how
and why cultural orientation shapes social support-seeking could begin to address the
universal processes underlying the use of this coping strategy. Identifying group
differences in the use of social support could reveal explanatory factors that might
account for similarities and differences in social support-seeking across and within
cultures. Determining which variables are most salient to our understanding of social
support could lead to the development of more integrative and sophisticated theories
about help-seeking behavior. Existing studies examining group variations in social
support-seeking in different cultural contexts have reported inconsistent findings.
Furthermore, most studies have failed to explore the extent to which individuals adhere to
or endorse the beliefs and norms of their cultural settings. Instead, the studies have
grouped individuals of the same ethnic or cultural background together and used ethnicity
as a proxy for culture. They assume that individuals of the same ethnic or cultural group
share common cultural characteristics, such as cultural values and self-concepts, and do
not examine individual differences within these groups. To address this methodological
limitation, the study explored within-group heterogeneity by specifically operationalizing
and manipulating cultural orientation in an Asian sample.
2

Second, previous research has consistently indicated that when faced with
psychological problems, Asian Americans tend to underutilize formal mental health
services (Cheung & Snowden, 1990; Leong, 1986; Matsuoka, Breaux, & Ryujin, 1997;
Sue, Fujino, Hu, Takeuchi, & Zane, 1991). For example, in an analysis of data from the
first national epidemiological household study of Asian Americans in the United States
(i.e., the National Latino and Asian American Study), Abe-Kim et al. (2007) found that
only 8.6% of Asian Americans sought help from any formal services versus 17.9% from
the general population. Moreover, this difference persisted even among individuals who
had a demonstrated need for such services (e.g., 34.1% of Asian Americans with a
probable mental health diagnosis versus 41.1% of the general population who had
diagnosed disorders). The underutilization of professional help is of particular concern
because Asian Americans do not appear to have lower levels of psychopathology
compared to their European Americans counterparts (Sue, Sue, Sue, & Takeuchi, 1995).
Although the reluctance to seek professional help for psychological problems
suggests that the mental health concerns of Asian Americans are not being addressed,
some researchers have argued that this pattern of underutilization may not be an issue.
Rather, they propose that the pattern reflects a cultural preference to seek support from
their family and social networks instead of professional sources of help (Atkinson,
Whiteley, & Gim, 1990; Webster & Fretz, 1978). In a study of the coping attitudes and
practices of 470 Asian American college and graduate students from U.S. universities,
Yeh and Wang (2000) found that students reported a preference for coping with
psychological problems by talking to friends, family, and significant others and that they
3

were less inclined to seek support from counselors or religious leaders. Likewise, a study
of 274 immigrant Chinese, Korean, and Japanese junior high and high school students
reported that the most frequently endorsed coping strategy was the use of social support
networks (Yeh & Inose, 2002).
On the other hand, more recent studies have found that Asians and Asians
Americans tend to seek social support less frequently compared to European Americans
(e.g. Kim, Sherman, & Taylor, 2008). These findings contradict Yeh et al. (2006)’s
notion that Asians and Asian Americans use more ‘collectivistic’ ways of coping that
entail seeking informal sources of help within the boundaries of their social network.
After all, if Asians and Asian Americans are less likely than their Western counterparts to
seek support from professional and informal sources, then it makes sense to ask: Are their
psychological needs being met? If so, how are they being met? At present, however, we
know little about the extent to which Asians and Asian Americans actually use social
support to cope with stress or why they might prefer to use this alternative method of
coping.
Therefore, to address the gaps in the literature, the study examined how
individuals’ cultural orientation influences their social support-seeking behavior using a
transactional model proposed by Chun, Moos, and Cronkite (2006). According to this
model, how individuals cope with stressful situations depends on their perceptions of the
nature and patterns of their social relationships, their expectations of how they should
interact with their social network, and the responsibilities they place on themselves as
4

members of their community. These perceptions and expectations in turn are shaped by
their sociocultural context.
Sociocultural context matters because it influences how individuals construe
themselves and others and guides their normative behaviors within a particular setting.
Markus and Kitayama (1991) proposed that individuals from different cultural groups
have varying conceptions of their sense of self and others. These divergent self-construals
have direct consequences for individuals’ cognitions, emotions, and motivations.
Specifically, their theory suggests that in many Western cultures, individuals tend to
regard themselves as inherently unique and distinct from others. People from
individualistic-oriented cultures possess independent self-construals and tend to organize
their behavior with reference to their own personal thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.
Although they are responsive to their social environment, their actions and interactions
with others are primarily motivated by how they can best express their internal attributes
or attain their own personal goals. As a result, they are less concerned with social
obligations compared to individuals from collectivistic-oriented cultures.
In contrast, Markus and Kitayama argue that individuals from many non-Western
cultures tend to construe the self as fundamentally connected to their social context.
Individuals from collectivistic-oriented cultures maintain interdependent self-construals
and perceive themselves as less differentiated from others in their social network. Thus,
they are more likely than individuals from individualistic-oriented cultural groups to
evaluate, validate, and regulate their actions or behaviors in relation to others. Motivated
by the desire to conform to their larger social group to promote and maintain social
5

harmony, individuals with interdependent self-construals tend to view their personal
attributes as relatively flexible, context-specific characteristics. As a result, they tend to
believe that their internal attributes have less influence over their explicit behaviors than
do individuals with independent self-construals.
The current study integrated Markus and Kitayama’s views of culture and the self
with Chun et al.’s transactional model of culture and coping to investigate the relation
between culture and the use of social support. This integrated framework suggests that
how individuals construe the self and others is shaped by their cultural context and their
self-construal influences the attributions they make about the causes of their problems. In
turn, causal attributions then shape individuals’ beliefs about what they consider to be
culturally-appropriate coping behaviors.
The study focused on differences in the use of social support as a coping
mechanism. As social support in terms of social relations, shares a salient, common
element with culture, it was expected that individuals with different cultural orientations
would vary in how they relate to their social environment. How individuals relate to their
social environment shapes their perceptions of the availability of their social network and
whether drawing on one’s social network for support when stressed is culturally
appropriate. For example, culture could affect the kinds of assumptions individuals make
about the accessibility and helpfulness of their social network through the influence on
individuals’ causal attributions about their stress. These assumptions could then
encourage or discourage the individuals’ use of social support. Therefore, while the
6

concept of social support might be universal, the ways in which individuals seek social
support may be, to some extent, culture specific.
Given the potential importance of cultural orientation and attribution in the
understanding of social support-seeking, the study had two aims: 1.) To examine the
relation between individuals’ cultural orientation and their causal attribution of a stressor,
and 2.) To test whether the causal attribution of a stressor might explain why individuals
with different cultural orientations vary in their use of social support when faced with a
stressful event.
The study manipulated cultural orientation using a priming procedure. Although
existing cross-ethnic or cross-national studies have shown that differences in cultural
orientation are associated with observed systematic variations in psychological constructs
(Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002), the correlational patterns do not conclusively
indicate that the observed differences are due to individuals’ relative orientation towards
either individualism and collectivism. Priming allows us to create an experimental
equivalent of stable cross-cultural differences by temporarily manipulating the salience
and accessibility of individualism or collectivism in the minds of participants and
comparing variations in their responses after these constructs are primed. By isolating the
causal role of cultural orientation through random assignment of participants and the
activation of precise culturally-relevant goals or values in each cultural condition, the
priming technique offers a test of cultural outcome with greater internal validity than that
of tests provided by quasi-experimental cross-cultural studies (Hong, Chiu, & Benet-
Martinez, 2000). Accordingly, this study complemented existing comparative studies on
7

social support-seeking by examining the specific and causal effects of cultural orientation
on the use of social support.
Priming has been successfully used in studies investigating cultural differences in
psychological outcomes. A meta-analytic review of 67 studies (6,240 participants) that
used cultural priming techniques showed that priming individualism and collectivism
produced small-to-moderate sized effects on values (e.g., individualism, collectivism, and
social beliefs), relationality (e.g., social obligation, perceived social support from others,
social sensitivity, and prosocial orientation), self-concept (e.g., traits, abilities, attitudes,
and membership in social, ethnic, or religious groups), well-being (e.g., state emotion and
life satisfaction), and cognition (e.g., social judgment tasks, social comparison tasks, and
nonsocial judgments) that were similar to the types of effects found in cross-ethnic
studies comparing individualistic and collectivistic cultural groups (Oyserman & Lee,
2008).
To date, a single study has investigated the effects of goal priming (e.g., priming
self-goal vs. out-group goals) on individuals’ willingness to use social support to cope
with a social stressor (Kim, Sherman, Ko, & Taylor, 2006). Hong et al. (2000) also
studied the effects of priming cultural icons on variations in individuals’ causal
attribution of social events by using pictorial interpretations of the interactions between a
single fish and group of fish to infer differential attributions of group vs. individual
agency, however, no study has investigated the effects of priming individualism and
collectivism on causal attributions of a personal stressor. Therefore, by examining the
effects of priming independent vs. interdependent self-construals on social support-
8

seeking behaviors in response to a common academic stressor, the study sought to
validate and extend existing research on the associations among culture, causal
attribution, and social support-seeking.
The figure below depicts the model that was tested. It was expected that cultural
orientation would be associated with the use of social support and causal attribution.
Specifically, it was predicted that Asians and Asian Americans primed with collectivistic
values would report using social support less frequently to cope with a stressor than those
primed with individualistic values. It was also predicted that Asians and Asian Americans
primed with collectivistic values would more frequently attribute the cause of a stressful
situation to internal factors and blame themselves for the event than those primed with
individualistic values. Finally, individuals’ causal attribution of the hypothetical stressor
was expected to mediate the relation between their cultural orientation and social support-
seeking behavior.
Figure 1: Theoretical Model
Aim 1:

Aim 2:

Aim 3:

Cultural Orientation
Cultural Orientation
Cultural Orientation Social Support
Causal Attribution
Social Support
Causal Attribution
9

Social Support
Social support refers to individuals’ solicitation of emotional, informational, or
tangible support from their social network when they need help to cope with a stressful
event (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Schaefer, Coyne, & Lazarus, 1981). Emotional support
consists of acts of reassurance that make one feel that they are loved and cared about.
Informational support entails offering advice or information that might assist in problem-
solving efforts. Tangible support refers to the provision of direct assistance, such as
goods and services that help alleviate an individual’s specific material deficit or burden
(Langford, Bowsher, Maloney, & Lillis, 1997). In general, the social support literature
makes a distinction between the acts of support that are provided by one’s family, friends,
co-workers, and community, from formal helping agents, such as ministers, doctors, and
mental health professionals (e.g. Cohen, 1992; Streeter & Franklin, 1992). Social support
provides individuals with resources that enable them to modify a situation or shape their
perception and reaction to a situation. In turn, these responses allow them to better
regulate the demands of a stressful event (Cohen, 1992; Thoits, 1986).
The stress-buffering effects of social support and their overall beneficial impact
on both physical and psychological well-being have been well established (Cohen,
Gottlieb, & Underwood, 2000; Thoits, 1995). In their review of the extant literature,
Cohen and Wills (1985) examined the process through which social support affects well-
being. Their findings suggested that being embedded within a social network increases
individuals’ psychological well-being by providing them with positive feelings of
stability, predictability, and self-worth. These positive emotions affect physical health
10

and immune system functioning, and promote healthy lifestyle choices. Cohen and Wills
also determined that social support acts as a buffer against stress, proposing that social
support may intervene between stressful events and stress reactions by either attenuating
the stress appraisal response or eliminating the stress reaction. The intervention by social
support in the stress-response process reduces the negative psychological and
physiological impact of stress on individuals. Therefore, given the dual effect that social
support can have on psychological and physical well-being, it is not surprising that social
support is considered one of the most effective means through which individuals can
cope with stressful situations.
Determinants of Social Support-Seeking

Although the use of social support may be a valuable coping mechanism, social
support resources are ultimately useless unless the individual chooses to use them.
Therefore, understanding what influences an individual’s decision to utilize social
support can be as important as investigating the actual effects of using the strategy. For
example, in a study on the effects of social network orientation on coping, Tolsdorf
(1976) investigated the use of social support among psychiatric and non-psychiatric
individuals. The results showed that the individuals’ decision to seek support from their
social network was dependent on their relationships with members of their network and
whether they perceived their potential help to be useful. One implication of Tolsdorf’s
finding is that sociocultural context matters in the perceptions of one’s social network
and the support they choose to derive from it. However, few studies have specifically
investigated the determinants of social support-seeking.
11

In an early review of the literature on social networks in help-seeking, Gourash
(1978) reported that age, gender, and race were key factors that determined whether
individuals sought support from their social networks. Specifically, the findings indicated
that help-seeking from one’s social networks declined with age, was more prevalent in
females than males, and that Whites were more likely than Blacks to seek support.
Similarly, in a series of studies on social support that included four student samples and
one community sample, Vaux et al. (1986) found that compared to males, females
reported less negative perceptions of their social network and were more likely to
perceive their network as potentially helpful in resolving their problems. These consistent
findings about gender differences in social support-seeking suggest that sociocultural
context and socialization to prevailing norms are likely to play important roles in the use
of social support.
Culture and Social Support-Seeking
Given the potential impact of socialization on social support-seeking, it seems
likely that culture should play a role in shaping social support-seeking behaviors.
Whether individuals hold an independent or interdependent conception of the self vis-à-
vis their social environment should have some influence over how and when they seek
support from their social network. Indeed, findings from cross-cultural research on the
psychology of individualistic- and collectivistic-oriented cultural groups suggest that
cultural orientation has implications for the use of social support.
First, whether individuals choose to solicit support depends in part on how
comfortable they are about emotionally or verbally expressing their internal states. In
12

other words, one is required to express the need for help in order to elicit help. However,
while expressing one’s feelings or thoughts might be a normative practice in
individualistic-oriented cultural contexts to maintain interpersonal relationships (Butler,
Lee, & Gross, 2007), self-expression in collectivistic-oriented cultural settings may be
less common (Mesquita, 2001) or even discouraged because it is considered disruptive to
the harmony of the social group (Kim & Sherman, 2007). This normative difference in
self-expression was demonstrated in a study that compared the psychological and
biological responses of Asians, Asian Americans, and European Americans to a
laboratory stressor. Taylor et al. (2007) found that mobilizing culturally inappropriate
forms of social support could exacerbate an individual’s level of stress. Specifically,
Asians and Asian Americans who were required to explicitly ask for help from their
social group (i.e., a culturally inappropriate form of social support) exhibited higher
cortisol responses and reported higher levels of negative emotion compared to those who
were asked to think about a group important to them (i.e., a form of implicit support-
seeking that may be considered more culturally appropriate). Therefore, cultural
orientation can influence social support-seeking through differential normative
expectations of self-expression.
Furthermore, given that the goal of social support-seeking is to use others’
resources to meet the demands of a stressor, individuals who seek social support must be
willing to request others’ time and effort to reduce personal distress (i.e., use others’
resources to obtain a personal goal). However, seeking social support in pursuit of what
they perceive to be a personally oriented goal might be difficult for individuals with
13

interdependent self-construals as they tend to believe that attending to their personal
needs is secondary to maintaining social relationships (Taylor, Sherman, Kim, Jarcho,
Takagi, & Dunagan, 2004).
Second, the extent to which individuals believe they have control over their
existing realities seems to vary with cultural orientation and could in turn influence their
social support-seeking behaviors. Based on their review of the cross-cultural differences
in American and Japanese approaches to control across several behavioral domains,
Weisz et al. (1984) argued that individualistic-oriented individuals are more likely than
collectivistic-oriented individuals to act in ways that involve personal agency because
they believe that they can gain influence over their current situation (i.e., they have
‘primary control’ over their environment). In contrast, collectivistic-oriented individuals
are more likely than individualistic-oriented individuals to accept the reality of the
situation that they face; instead they will try to exert control over the psychological
impact that the event might have on them (i.e., they seek ‘secondary control’ over their
environment). One implication of Weisz et al.’s differential approach to control is that
individualistic-oriented individuals may be more motivated to seek out the help of others
to change the situation, whereas collectivistic-oriented individuals may be less likely to
approach others for help because they implicitly assume they should instead adjust their
own behavior to conform to a given situation. More specifically, if collectivistic-oriented
individuals believe they should align themselves to their existing realities, it is likely that
they consider it their responsibility to self-regulate their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors
in response to contextual stressors and avoid placing unnecessary demands on their social
14

network to change their situation. Thus, collectivistic-oriented individuals may be less
likely than individualistic-oriented individuals to use social support when they are faced
with a stressful event.
Third, according to Markus and Kitayama (1991), individuals with interdependent
self-construals have two primary self-goals: to be undifferentiated from the social group
and to meet normative group expectations. Therefore, in their view, the failure to perform
as well as the group on a given task results in negative evaluation by others. Thus,
collectivistic-oriented individuals may be more reluctant than individualistic-oriented
individuals to acknowledge this performance failure to others in their social group and to
be more fearful of eliciting criticism from their social network (i.e., loss of face). As a
result, they may be less inclined to seek social support for certain problems.
In summary, it appears that there are various ways in which cultural orientation
could have a role in influencing the use of social support. These findings suggest that
how individuals construe the self and others based on their cultural context could have
substantial implications for their decision to seek social support. Therefore, at least
conceptually, it should be expected that individualistic-oriented individuals and
collectivistic-oriented individuals differ in their social support-seeking behaviors.
Cultural Differences in Social Support-Seeking

Despite strong theoretical reasons for why we might expect variations in the use
of social support across cultures, empirical evidence for cultural differences in social
support-seeking is mixed. Some research examining cultural variations in broad coping
strategies has suggested that there are no differences in the use of social support. For
15

example, in an examination of internally and externally targeted control strategies in
response to life stressors, Tweed, White and Lehman (2004) found that when coping with
the most stressful event or experience that had occurred to them in the previous six
months, East Asian Canadian and Japanese university students were more likely to
engage in attempts to accommodate the self to the demands of their environment than
were their European Canadian peers. In contrast, European Canadian students were more
likely to use coping strategies that focused on altering or controlling their environment
than their counterparts of Asian descent. However, no significant group differences in
social support-seeking were found. Likewise, in two separate studies comparing coping
strategies of self-identified Asian American and Caucasian American college students in
a large university in the Northeast, Chang (1996, 2001) found that while Asian
Americans tended to use problem avoidance and social withdrawal strategies more
frequently than Caucasian Americans, there were no significant differences in their
specific use of social support to cope with stress.
On the other hand, other studies that have specifically focused on examining
cultural differences in social support-seeking suggest that when compared to European
Americans, individuals from collectivistic-oriented groups, such as Asians, Asian
Americans, and Latino Americans, are less likely to perceive and receive social support
(Golding & Baezconde-Garbanati, 1990; Liang & Bogat, 1994; Vaux, 1985) and to
utilize social support (for review, see Kim et al., 2008). Similarly, in a comprehensive
series of studies examining cultural variations in the willingness to seek social support,
Taylor and her colleagues (Kim, Sherman, Ko, & Taylor, 2006; Taylor et al., 2004) found
16

that college students of Asian descent were less likely than their European American
peers to report seeking social support when dealing with academic-, social-, and health-
related stressors. In their first study, Taylor et al. (2004, Study 1) used open-ended
questions to probe for commonly used coping strategies in Korean college students from
Seoul and European American college students from a large university in California.
They found that European Americans were more likely to mention using social support as
a coping strategy than Koreans. In their second study (Taylor et al., 2004, Study 2), a
standardized coping measure was used to assess responses to recent, self-reported
academic and social stressors of Asian, Asian American, and European American college
students in California. The data indicated that Asians and Asian Americans relied less on
social support, particularly emotional support, and tended to find social support less
helpful than European Americans.
Building on these results, Kim et al. (2006, Study 1) replicated this study of social
support-seeking behavior among Asian American and European American college
students when dealing with recent, self-reported health stressors. In Study 2, Kim et al.
primed participants with self-goals, in-group goals, and out-group goals. The results
showed that Asian Americans who were primed with in-group goals reported less
willingness to seek social support to cope with a social stressor than those who were
primed with out-group goals or self-goals. In addition, European Americans sought social
support to the same extent regardless of their assigned priming condition. Based on these
findings, Kim et al. inferred that priming Asian Americans to think about close others
made their concerns about the negative relational impact of social support-seeking more
17

accessible. As a result, they are less likely than those primed to think about the goals of
distant others or personal goals to seek social support.
In an attempt to move away from predominantly cross-sectional, experimental,
and survey-based studies, Wang et al. (2010) conducted a naturalistic, prospective daily
diary study over a 10-day period to investigate variations in social support for Asian
American and European American college students. The results showed that in response
to daily stressors, Asian Americans actively sought support from other people less often
than did European Americans. Asian Americans also rated the daily support they
received from others to be less helpful than their European American peers. The data
further indicated that the differences were more pronounced between recent Asian
immigrants (e.g., first-generation immigrants) and later-generation Asian Americans and
European Americans; suggesting that acculturation influences social support-seeking
behaviors.
The inconsistencies in the existing findings are not surprising, especially given the
limited number of studies examining social support across cultures, the use of different
conceptualizations of stress (e.g., major life stressors, daily hassles, and specific
stressors), and the variations in social support measures employed across these studies. In
general, however, there seems to be a trend toward cultural differences in social support-
seeking, particularly among the later, more methodologically rigorous studies that
focused solely on social support as a dependent measure. Nonetheless, further replication
of these studies could help crystallize extant findings.
18

Most research has also used between-group designs. With the exception of Kim et
al.’s (2006) examination of the effects of priming relational goals on social support-
seeking, most studies have compared two ethnic groups as a proxy for culture. The
between-group design is problematic for two reasons. First, the design fails to consider
inherent variations in social structure and accessibility of the social network between
these ethnic groups. The differences in the structure and accessibility of social networks
could have significant confounding effects on whether individuals are able to (as opposed
to willing to) utilize social support as a coping strategy. Therefore any observed
differences between groups could have little to do with their cultural orientation or
values. For example, individuals might report using social support less frequently than
others if they have less access to established social networks or if their current social
structure does not include people who might be helpful in solving a given problem. These
issues are seldom accounted for in the analysis of the data.
Second, the between-group design limits inferences that may be drawn about
potential mechanisms underlying these cultural differences. Researchers often infer that
ethnic group differences are a reflection of specific cultural orientations without
explicitly measuring or manipulating these cultural values. These unsubstantiated
inferences are of concern as other unmeasured third variables could account for these
group-based variations. Furthermore, studies have shown that members of both Western
and non-Western cultures are able to exhibit both independent and interdependent self-
construals. Thus, while individuals’ cultural background might dictate which self-
construal is more accessible to them at any given point, their self-concepts can shift
19

depending on current motives or contexts (Gardner, Gabriel, & Lee, 1999; Trafimow,
Triandis, & Goto, 1991). This ability to dynamically “frame-switch” between cultural
orientations is particularly relevant for bicultural college students that represent a
significant proportion of the samples in these studies (Hong, Chiu, & Benet-Martinez,
2000).
Given the methodological limitations of previous studies, further investigations of
the relation between cultural orientation and social support seeking using experimental,
within-groups designs are needed. Therefore, to contribute to the existing literature, the
study primed Asian and Asian American college students with individualistic- or
collectivistic-orientations and compared their responses to the same hypothetical
academic stressor using a standardized checklist of coping strategies.
Experimentally manipulating cultural orientation through priming allowed us to
unpack the process through which culture influences individual behavior. It was expected
that priming would activate individuals’ culturally-relevant goals, the accessibility and
salience of their independent or interdependent self-construals, and shape the interpretive
frameworks through which the participants process subsequent information. Thus, by
manipulating cultural orientation, stronger inferences could be made about how culture
influences social support-seeking. Furthermore, the operationalization of cultural
orientation as a flexible construct that can shift across current motivation and contexts
allowed for a more conceptually accurate investigation of the relation between cultural
orientation and social support-seeking behaviors.
20

In summary, although existing studies have identified group differences in social
support-seeking across cultures, the study’s novel approach contributes to the literature
because it used a more accurate operationalization of culture as an independent variable
and allowed for stronger inferences to be made about the role of cultural orientation in
social support-seeking.
Mechanisms Underlying Cultural Differences in Social Support-Seeking
Although an increasing number of studies have begun to uncover cultural
differences in social support-seeking, the question as to what might account for the
cultural effects on the use of social support remains relatively under-examined.
Understanding the process through which culture influences social support-seeking
behaviors is important because it enables us to develop a more sophisticated theoretical
understanding of factors that affect the use of social support. In addition, identifying
potential mediators could have important clinical implications; it allows us to focus on
specific change mechanisms when we culturally adapt social support interventions.
The main empirical contribution to our understanding of the mechanisms
underlying cultural differences in social support-seeking behaviors has been the
identification of relationship concerns as a mediator of culture and the use of social
support. To determine what factors best accounted for cultural differences in the use of
social support, Taylor et al. (2004, Study 3) examined three competing explanations
endorsed by Asian American and European American college students on why they chose
not to seek social support for a recent, self-reported social stressor. These reasons
included: 1.) the availability of unsolicited social support; 2.) the belief that personal
21

problems should be solved independently because people should be responsible for their
own problems (i.e., independence concerns); and 3.) their concerns about the potential
negative relational consequences of social support-seeking, such as disrupting group
harmony or receiving criticism from others (i.e., relationship concerns). Their results
indicated that while Asian Americans endorsed all three reasons more frequently than
European Americans, relationship concerns was the only explanatory construct that
successfully mediated the association between culture and social support-seeking (Kim et
al., 2008).
These correlational findings were later replicated by Kim et al. (2006, Study 2) in
a group of Asian American, Latino Americans, and European American college students
in response to a recent, self-reported health stressor. In the study, Kim and her colleagues
examined the extent to which relationship concerns and unsolicited support factors
explained cultural differences in the willingness to seek social support. They found that
while Asian Americans and Latino Americans were more likely than European
Americans to endorse both reasons, relationship concern was the only factor that
significantly mediated the relation between culture and social support-seeking behaviors.
Support for relationship concerns as a mediator of culture and social support-
seeking was also reported in Wang et al. (2010)’s study on ethnic differences in daily
support use by Asian American and European American undergraduates. The results
showed that emotion harmony, or the maintenance of harmony through restraint of
emotional expression, mediated cultural differences in daily support use by first-
generation Asian Americans and European Americans for both stress events and positive
22

events. The findings suggest that Asian Americans may choose not to seek social support
because of an inherent belief that the explicit expression of distress is socially
inappropriate. As a result, they may be resistant to expressing distress or the need for help
when faced with a stressful situation.
Although relationship concerns appears to represent a plausible, empirically
supported reason for why certain cultural groups might be more reluctant to seek social
support, it is still important to continue developing and testing theories to explain these
cultural variations. In the initial study by Taylor et al. (2004, Study 3), relationship
concerns accounted for only 40.95% of the variance in culture. Thus, other unexamined
factors could also explain why cultural differences exist in social support-seeking
behavior. In addition, participants were asked to explain what reasons might account for
their decision to not seek social support. This method of directly eliciting information
could lead to an incomplete explanation of the participants’ choice to seek social support
if they do not have adequate insight or understanding of their behavior to articulate their
decision-making process (e.g., if the reasons for their behavior exist below the surface of
verbal explanation and are too “cognitively deep” for them to access) (Krosnick, 1991).
The identification of mediators also allows researchers to develop interventions to
help bring about changes in target behaviors, such as social support-seeking. However,
while a focus on relationship concerns might help increase support-seeking behaviors of
collectivistic-oriented cultural groups (e.g., Asian and Asian Americans), attempts to alter
normative beliefs embedded within one’s cultural values can be challenging. In contrast,
23

the identification of a culturally-universal change mechanism could lead to treatments
that are more generalizable across cultural groups and less resistant to change.
In addition, because the variables underlying the construct of relationship
concerns are so strongly correlated with aspects of individualism and collectivism, it is
difficult to identify the extent to which the findings are merely an artifact of the
overlapping relationship underlying the two concepts. For example, as issues related to
maintaining harmony in relationships are most salient to collectivistic-oriented
individuals, the participants could have endorsed responses associated with relationship
concerns because the presented items were most familiar and relevant in content to them.
As such, interpretation of the true strength of the mediation findings is problematic.
Finally, the evidence suggests that collectivistic-oriented individuals may be
reluctant to seek social support because they are afraid of others’ criticism or are
concerned about disrupting the harmony of their social group. However, existing studies
do not explain why individuals who have collectivistic-orientations might think in this
manner. The common explanation that individuals with interdependent self-construals
value harmonious group interactions or are more inclined to fear the “loss of face” is
arguably tautological (Ratner & Hui, 2003). A more robust framework for understanding
cultural differences in social support-seeking would attempt to develop, measure, and test
more discrete and proximal explanatory factors for these variations. Therefore, given the
explanatory limitations of the existing studies, the study examined an understudied
construct that could help clarify how culture influences the use of social support: causal
attribution.
24

Causal Attribution and Social Support-Seeking
One possible explanation for cultural variations in social support seeking is how
an individual thinks about the cause of the stressor. Causal attributions are post-hoc
explanations that individuals form to explain the cause of a particular event or situation
(Roesch & Weiner, 2001). In general, these ascriptions of cause help individuals
understand a given situation, construct their assumptions about the situation, and guide
their responses to it. In the context of stress and social support-seeking, causal
attributions may influence how individuals appraise and ascribe meaning to an event and
in turn the specific strategies they choose to cope with it (Chun et al., 2006; Inman &
Yeh, 2007).
Two attribution theories provide conceptual frameworks that could guide the
understanding of how causal attributions motivate coping behaviors: Weiner’s (1980;
1985) theory of achievement motivation and emotion and Brickman’s (1982) theory of
responsibility attributions. Weiner (1985) proposes that individuals naturally seek
explanations for an event’s occurrence because it allows them to manage their behavior
and better adapt to their environment. Weiner’s model suggests the following motivation
sequence. In any given situation, individuals interpret the event as positive (i.e., success)
or negative (i.e., failure); then they determine the cause of the event and assign it to one
of three causal dimensions: whether the cause is 1.) internal or external to the self (locus
of causality); 2.) stable or unstable (stability); and 3.) externally or personally
controllable (controllability). These causal attributions consequently shape individuals’
25

behavior by influencing their expectancies and specific emotional experience of the
situation.
According to Weiner, all three causal dimensions differentially affect how
individuals feel about themselves and their given situation. Locus of causality is
associated with emotions of pride and self-esteem. For example, internal attributions of
failure lead to lowered self-esteem, whereas external attributions of failure have no effect
of one’s pride. Controllability is linked to guilt, anger, and shame. Failures that are
perceived as being under one’s volitional control give rise to feelings of shame. In
contrast, failures perceived to be outside of one’s control elicit feelings of anger. The
dimension of stability is tied to expectancies of change and thus impacts feelings of hope
(or hopelessness). For example, individuals who perceive their failure or a stressful event
to be unchangeable are less motivated to act in ways that might modify their situation.
The relation between attribution and behavior has important implications for
social support-seeking. How individuals attribute cause to a situation is likely to
influence the extent to which they blame themselves for the outcome and whether they
expect that they will be able to change the situation. For example, if a negative outcome
is perceived to be caused by attributes that are internal, individuals are more likely to
blame themselves for the situations (i.e., judge themselves to be responsible for the
failure) and are less likely to seek help from others (Roesch & Weiner, 2001). Therefore
rather than mobilizing social support to resolve the problem, they may be more inclined
manage the situation independently.
26

In his model of helping and coping, Brickman (1982) adds another layer to
Weiner’s attribution framework. Brickman argues that individuals’ decision to either help
others or help themselves is not solely determined by their attributions of the cause of the
problem, but also by their attributions of responsibility for the problem’s solution. In
other words, whether people choose to give help to or seek help from others in any given
situation depends on who they think is to blame for the problem, who they consider is
responsible for resolving the problem, and what they believe are the consequences of
their behaviors. These factors influence four distinct helping and coping orientations: the
moral model, the enlightenment model, the compensatory model, and the medical model,
each of which have different implications for coping behaviors.
In the moral model, individuals view themselves as responsible for both the cause
and the solution of their problems (i.e., they make internal attributions about their
problem). In the compensatory model, individuals believe external factors are to blame
for the problem, but that they are responsible for the resolution of the situation. In the
enlightenment model, individuals attribute internal causes for the problem, but consider
external sources to be responsible for the solution of the problem. In the medical model,
individuals make external attributions for both the cause and the solution of the situation.
Existing measures for attributions of solution have not been well-established
(Stepleman, Darcy, & Tracey, 2005). The only study that has tested Brickman’s model
with Asians and Asian Americans found that attributions of solution did not predict
coping behavior (Wong, Kim, & Tran, 2010). Therefore, the study focused on
attributions of cause. However, Brickman’s model nonetheless remains conceptually
27

useful because it explicitly links attribution theory to social support-seeking behaviors.
For instance, one direct implication of the model is that individuals who blame
themselves for their problems and consider themselves responsible for the solution of
their problems (i.e., make internal attributions and/or blame themselves) are less likely to
seek social support than those who make external attributions about their problems.
Both Weiner and Brickman’s attribution models inform our understanding of
social support as they collectively suggest that individuals who make internal attributions
of cause and blame themselves for their stressor may be less likely to seek support from
others. This reluctance could reflect a fear of being criticized by those in their social
network. However, the behavior could also indicate an underlying belief that it is within
the individuals’ power to independently cope with a stressful situation that they have
caused. Thus, they might find it unnecessary to burden their social group with their
problems.
In summary, causal attribution could play an important role in social support-
seeking behavior. As cultural orientation could shape how individuals ascribe causes to a
stressor, and causal attribution, in turn, could influence whether they seek support from
their social network, causal attribution could potentially explain cultural differences in
social support-seeking behaviors.
Cultural Differences in Causal Attribution

Existing research indicates that causal attribution varies across cultures,
particularly with regard to social perceptions of behavior. Researchers propose that these
variations in attributional patterns reflect socialized differences in cultural conceptions of
28

the person (e.g., self-construals) (Cousins, 1989). These embedded cultural meaning
systems influence individuals’ implicit theories of social behavior and the interpretation
of their experiences (Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995; Morris & Peng, 1994). Specifically,
individualistic-oriented cultural groups emphasize individuals’ autonomy from contextual
influence and their role as independent agents responsible for their actions. This emphasis
encourages individualistic-oriented individuals to search for internal or dispositional
factors to explain behaviors and situations. In contrast, collectivistic-oriented cultural
groups focus on more relational conceptions of the person and the salience of contextual
variables as determinants of one’s actions (Miller, 1984). Therefore, collectivistic-
oriented individuals are more likely than individualistic-oriented individuals to identify
external or contextual factors to explain behaviors or situations.
Other studies suggest that compared to their collectivistic-oriented counterparts,
individualistic-oriented individuals tend to attribute causes of others’ social behaviors to
dispositional factors rather than situational factor. Miller (1984) found that when asked to
explain their friends’ prosocial and negative behaviors, individualistic-oriented
Americans were more likely to attribute negative behaviors to their friends’ dispositions
and less likely to refer to situational factors when explaining these behaviors compared to
collectivistic-oriented Asian Indians. According to Morris and Peng (1994)’s study of
American and Chinese high school and graduate students, causal perceptions only
differed between these cultural groups for causes attributed to social situations and they
did not differ for physical events.
29

Interestingly, this other-focused attributional bias or the fundamental attribution
error is reversed when individuals are asked to explain the cause of negative events that
have occurred to them. Studies show that individuals tend to seek a positive image of
themselves and that this desire for positivity often results in a self-serving attributional
bias in which individuals attribute internal factors to positive events and external factors
to negative events (for meta-analytic review, see Mezulis, Abramson, Hyde, & Hankin,
2004). However, this self-serving bias is not universal (Heine, Lehman, Markus, &
Kitayama, 1999; Kashima & Triandis, 1986; Salili, 1996). Research has indicated that it
is more prominent in individualistic-oriented Western cultural groups and less evident in
collectivistic-oriented non-Western cultural groups. In their meta-analysis of 266 studies,
Mezulis et al. (2004) found that although there was significant variability in the
magnitude of the bias across the Asian cultural groups, the mean effect size within the
Asian samples was significantly smaller (d = 0.30) than U.S. (d = 1.05) or Western
samples (d = 0.70). These pronounced differences were replicated in another meta-
analysis by Heine and Hamamura (2007) which showed a clear self-serving bias (d = .87)
in Westerners, less bias in Asian Americans (d = .52), and no bias for East Asians (d = -
.01).
According to Heine et al. (1999), cultural variations in the self-serving bias can be
understood within the context of sociocultural values and their related self-concepts.
People who are individualistic-oriented may thrive on continual self-affirmation which
enables them to adapt to their idealized roles as autonomous, self-contained agents in the
world. In contrast, people who are more collectivistic-oriented may elicit affirmation
30

from their social relations and social networks. Thus, for collectivistic-oriented
individuals, the manifestation of a self-enhancing bias could be disruptive to their cultural
ideals of maintaining interpersonal harmony and a sense of belonging to a social group.
Instead, these cultural goals could be better attained through assuming self-critical or
self-improving orientations as reflected in their responses to failure (Heine, Kitayama, &
Lehman, 2001).
Although only a few studies have examined cultural differences in causal beliefs
about stress or failures, empirical support for variations in causal attribution has been
relatively consistent. A study of causal attribution of success and failure in social
affiliations found that American college students were more likely than Japanese students
to believe that luck (i.e., external attributions) played a more significant part in their
failure to maintain good social relations (Chandler, Shama, Wolf, & Planchard, 1981). In
fact, Japanese students were most likely to view the cause of their social failure as an
internal responsibility when compared to Indians, South Africans, Americans, and
Yugoslavians. Studies examining attributions of success and failure in the academic
domain for American and Asian university students showed similar results. Yan and
Gaier (1994) found that American college students were less likely to attribute academic
failure to effort an internal source, than they were to academic success. In contrast,
Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Southeast Asian students tended to judge effort to be
equally important for both academic success and failure. Results from an experimental
study by Kashima and Triandis (1986) found that Japanese students were more likely
than American students to attribute their failure in a memory task to themselves – an
31

internal factor, while American students were more likely than Japanese students to
blame luck, others, and task difficulty – an external attribution – for their failure.
These cultural differences have also been found in non-college student
populations and with reference to more general beliefs about stress and coping. A survey
study of Anglo-American and Japanese adults employed in white-collar positions in
Southern California found that compared to their Anglo-American counterparts, Japanese
adults tended to attribute successful coping with stress to good luck – an external factor.
However, they were more likely than Anglo-Americans to believe the cause of their
stress was due to lack of carefulness – an internal attribution (Kawanishi, 1995).
While researchers suggest that these differential attributions could have important
implications for explaining variations in coping strategies across cultural groups (e.g.,
Kawanishi, 1995), only one study attempted to explicitly test the conceptual associations
among culture, attribution, and coping. In a study examining the relation among
adherence to Asian values, attributions about depression, and preferred strategies for
coping with depression in Asian American college students, Wong et al. (2010) found
that adherence to Asian values was positively related to attributing the cause of
depression to internal factors. In turn, this internal attribution was associated with greater
use of disengagement coping strategies, such as avoiding the stressful situations, and
decreased use of engagement coping strategies, such as actively negotiating with stressful
situations. The results also indicated that internal attributions for the solution to
depressive symptoms was related to more reliance on engagement coping strategies and
32

lower use of disengagement coping strategies. However, attributions for the solution to
problems did not mediate the relation between adherence to cultural values and coping.
In summary, the literature suggests that causal attribution differs across cultural
settings. In general, compared to individualistic-oriented individuals, collectivistic-
oriented individuals tend to attribute external causes to a social situation. However, this
pattern of causal attribution is reversed when collectivistic-oriented individuals are faced
with stress or failure. When confronted with failure, collectivistic-oriented individuals are
more likely than individualistic-oriented individuals to attribute causes of failure to
internal factors, such as personal effort.
Nonetheless, although existing studies have identified key variations in the
patterns of causal attribution across cultures and situations, one major limitation is that, in
most studies, causal dimensions were inferred from the participants’ lay descriptions
about their causal attributions (e.g., luck, carefulness, effort, others). In an effort to
directly measure the underlying construct of causal attributions of collectivistic- and
individualistic-oriented groups, the study used a standardized dimensional measure of
internal and external attributions and a measure of self-blame to assess attributions of
cause instead of relying on the participants’ descriptions of perceived cause.
Summary
A review of the literature suggests that social support-seeking behavior varies
across individuals with different cultural orientations and that causal attribution could
help to explain cultural variations in the use of social support. There appears to be a
general pattern indicating that individuals who maintain a collectivistic-orientation tend
33

to make internal attributions about stressful events or failure situations and that these
attributions influence their social support-seeking behavior. In addition, two theoretical
frameworks on attribution suggest that causal attribution can influence coping responses
to stress. However, this mediating relation has yet to be tested empirically. Therefore, the
first purpose was to compare the influence of cultural orientation on social support-
seeking behavior and causal attribution in Asian and Asian American college students
using an experimental, within-group design. The second objective was to examine
whether causal attribution explained the relation between cultural orientation and the use
of social support.
Hypotheses
Based on the literature reviewed above three hypotheses were developed:
1. It was predicted that Asians and Asian Americans primed with collectivistic values
would report using social support less frequently to cope with a hypothetical academic
stressor than would those who were primed with individualistic values.
2. It was predicted that Asian and Asian Americans primed with collectivistic values
would more frequently attribute the cause of the stressful situation to internal factors and
to blame themselves for the event than would those who were primed with individualistic
values.
3. It was expected that individuals’ causal attributions of the hypothetical stressor would
mediate the relation between cultural orientation and social support-seeking behavior.
34

Chapter 2: Method

Participants
Participants were 180 undergraduate students of Asian descent recruited from the
undergraduate psychology subject pool, e-mail announcements to Asian student
organizations, flyers, and word-of-mouth. Four were immediately excluded because of
disruptions during the priming task. Appendix A summarizes the sample characteristics
(142 females, 23 males; M = 19.86, SD = 1.28 years of age). Participants recruited
through the undergraduate subject pool received one credit for the session and all others
were entered into a raffle for a $100 Amazon gift voucher.
Procedure
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two priming conditions: the
individualistic prime condition (IND-PRIME) and the collectivistic prime condition
(COL-PRIME). Each was individually administered an 8-minute priming procedure in a
quiet room. The priming material consisted of a modified version of the Similarities and
Differences with Family and Friends task (SDFF; Trafimow et al., 1991). In the original
SDFF task, participants in the individualistic self-priming condition were asked to think
about what makes them different from their family and friends for two minutes before
moving onto the main task, whereas participants in the collectivistic self-priming
condition were asked to think about what makes them similar to their family and friends
for two minutes before moving onto the main task. In the current study the same
experimental prompts were used as primes, however, participants were also asked to
write an essay about the topic for six minutes. In prior research (Chiao et al., 2009), this
35

modification was used to ensure that participants were adequately engaged in the task.
Studies have also found that the original task reliably influences self-construal with an
average effect size of .49 (Gardner et al., 1999; Oyserman & Lee, 2008).
Participants assigned to the IND-PRIME condition were instructed as follows:
For the next 1 – 2 minutes, please think about what makes you different from your family
and friends. What do you expect of yourself? They were then asked to write a brief essay
about the topic for six minutes. In the COL-PRIME condition, participants were
instructed as follows: For the next 1 – 2 minutes, please think about what makes you
similar to your family and friends. What do they expect of you? They were also asked to
write a brief essay about the topic for six minutes.
After the priming procedure, participants in both conditions were presented with a
vignette developed by Grant and Dweck (2003) to examine how learning and
performance goals predict college students’ motivation, achievement, and coping when
they experience major setbacks or failure on highly valued tasks (see below). To elicit
responses to a typically stressful situation (i.e., failure in a highly valued academic task),
participants were asked to imagine themselves in the following situation:
“Imagine that during your second semester at USC, you take an important course
in your major, in which students are required to read their essays out loud to the entire
class. This happens several times throughout the semester. The time comes for the first
readings. By the time it’s your turn, most students have already presented their essays.
All of them did pretty well, and you know their essays got good grades from the
professor. But when you read your essay in class, the professor and other students don’t
36

seem to like your presentation very much, and later you find out that the grade he gave
you was a C-.”
They were then asked to evaluate the extent to which they thought the situation
was caused by internal factors and to indicate the types of strategies they would use to
cope with such a situation based on an inventory of coping methods. Finally, participants
were asked to respond to some questions about their cultural values and demographic
background.
Measures
Demographic Questionnaire. Participants completed a brief questionnaire about
their age, ethnicity, birth place, length of time in the U.S., cumulative G.P.A., and
parents’ education.
Causal attribution. To measure attribution of causality, participants responded to
a single-item question that assessed self-blame: “To what extent do you blame yourself
for doing badly on the presentation?” rated on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all; 7 =
completely) and completed the 12-item Revised Causal Dimensions Scale (CDSII;
McAuley, Duncan, & Russell, 1992). The CDSII is a state measure based on Weiner’s
Attributional Theory (Weiner, 1985) and assesses how individuals perceive causes
associated with particular situations. There are four subscales, each measuring a different
dimension of causality on a 9-point scale: locus of causality, stability, personal control,
and external control. Locus of control refers to whether the cause resides within or is
external to the attributor (e.g., 1 = inside of you, 9 = outside of you); stability measures
the extent to which the cause is invariant or changes over time (e.g., 1 = stable over time,
37

9 = variable over time); and the control dimensions reflect the degree of personal or
external control over a particular situation (e.g., 1 = over which others have no control, 9
= over which others have control). Previous studies have found support for the four-
factor oblique structure and indicate acceptable levels of internal consistency with
average reliability coefficients ranging from .67 (stability) to .82 (external control) across
all four subscales (McAuley et al., 1992). Because there was no clear theoretical basis for
expecting cross-cultural differences in attributions of stability, the study focused on the
locus of causality, personal control, and external control subscales. A composite variable
was created from these three subscales to form an indicator of causal attribution, with
higher scores indicating more external causal attributions (α = .81).
Social Support. Participants completed the Brief COPE inventory (Carver, 1997).
The Brief COPE inventory is a 28-item abbreviated version of the COPE inventory
(Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989) in checklist form that has been used to assess
coping strategies. Based on Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) transactional model of stress
and coping and Carver and Scheier’s (1981) behavioral self-regulation model, the Brief
COPE inventory consists of 14 subscales, each of which reflects conceptually different
coping reactions to stressful situations. These strategies include: use of emotional
support, use of instrumental support, planning, active coping, positive reframing, denial,
self-blame, behavioral disengagement, self-distraction, religion, acceptance, substance
use, and humor. Participants rated each coping statement on a 4-point scale (1 = I would
not do this at all, 4 = I would do this a lot) based on how much they thought they would
use the strategy to manage the stressful event. As the interest here was on social support,
38

the measure was modified in two ways. First, the social support items were supplemented
with items from the use of emotional support (e.g., “I get sympathy and understanding
from someone”) and use instrumental support subscales (e.g., “I ask people who have
had similar experiences what they did”) subscales of the original COPE inventory
(Carver et al., 1989; Taylor et al., 2004). Second, items related to substance use were
removed. A composite variable was created from the social support items to form an
indicator of use of social support, with higher scores indicating greater social support-
seeking behaviors (α = .87).
Social Desirability. Participants completed the Crowne-Marlowe Social
Desirability Scale (SDS; Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). The SDS is a 33-item true-false
scale that is used to discriminate between individuals who exhibit a social desirability
bias and those who do not. It consists of statements that are considered culturally
sanctioned or approved, but occur infrequently. The items included statements such as “I
have never deliberately said something that hurt someone’s feelings” or “I have never
intensely disliked someone.” Previous studies have found the scale to have good internal
consistency (α = .88) and test-retest reliability (r = .89) (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). The
scale showed similarly adequate reliability with the study’s sample, α = .76.
Manipulation Check. To assess the effectiveness of the priming task in
manipulating cultural orientation, participants’ completed the Collectivism subscale of
the Asian American Values Scale – Multidimensional (AAVS-M; B. K. Kim, Li, & Ng,
2005). The Collectivism subscale measures the extent to which one places the goals of
the group over the needs of him or herself. It consists of items such as “One’s efforts
39

should be directed toward maintaining the well-being of the group first and the individual
second” and “The group should be less important than the individual” that are rated on a
7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). Previous studies have shown
that the total scale and five subscales have high internal reliability ranging between .79 -
.90 (B. K. Kim et al., 2005). The collectivism subscale showed good reliability in the
present study, α = .84.
Cultural Identification. To determine cultural identification, participants were
asked to rate how Asian or Western they considered themselves on a 5-point scale (1 =
Very Asian; 3 = Bicultural; 5 = Very Westernized) using a single item from the Suinn-
Lew Asian Self-Identity Acculturation Scale (SL-ASIA; R. M. Suinn, Rickard-Figueroa,
Lew, & Vigil, 1987; Suinn, Ahuna, & Khoo, 1992). The SL-ASIA is one of the most
widely used measures of behavioral acculturation in Asian Americans.
40

Chapter 3: Results

Preliminary Analyses
Preliminary screening of the questionnaire data revealed a few missing values and
outliers. Series means were computed and applied to the missing values. Outlier values
that were more than 2.0 SD from the mean were replaced with the value of the next
highest data point.
To examine differences in the participants’ demographic backgrounds in the two
conditions, independent t-tests and chi-squared tests were conducted (see Appendix A).
There were no significant differences between conditions for age, gender, G.P.A., or
parents’ education levels. However, there were more foreign-born participants in the
COL-PRIME condition (56.3%) than in the IND-PRIME condition (30.3%), χ
2
(1, N =
183) = 1.90, p <.001.
Correlations among the Variables
Correlations were computed among the demographic and outcome variables. As
shown in Appendix B, fathers’ and mothers’ education levels were positively correlated.
Gender was positively associated with social support. Self-blame was positively
correlated with collectivistic orientation and negatively correlated with causal attribution.
Although social desirability was positively associated with mothers’ education level, it
was not significantly correlated with any other variable. Therefore, participants’
responses to the questionnaire were less likely to have been influenced by social
desirability.
41

Manipulation Check
To assess the effectiveness of the priming task in manipulating cultural
orientation, participants’ scores on the AAVS-M Collectivism subscale (Kim et al., 2005)
were compared across both priming condition using independent t-tests. Results showed
that there were no significant differences in collectivistic orientation between the IND-
PRIME (M = 4.11, SD = .76) and COL-PRIME (M = 4.15, SD = .96) conditions, t(174) =
-.33, p = .74, n.s.
Because it was unclear whether the non-significant results were due to the lack of
effectiveness of the priming manipulation or a decay in the effects of priming before the
participants could respond to the AAVS-M (Bargh & Chartrand, 2000; Bargh, Lombardi,
& Higgins, 1988), a second manipulation check was performed. Two female raters who
were blind to the prime conditions independently read and rated each essay on how much
they thought the author valued individualistic and collectivistic values on a 7-point scale
(1 = not at all; 7 = very much). The results showed that the IND-PRIME participants had
higher individualistic values scores (M = 6.03; SD = 1.61) than did the COL-PRIME
participants (M = 1.67; SD = 1.38), t(182) = 19.72, p <.001; and the COL-PRIME
participants had higher collectivistic values scores (M = 6.23; SD = 1.53) than did the
IND-PRIME participants (M = 2.46; SD = 2.01), t(182) = -14.32, p <.001. Intraclass
correlation coefficient for interrater reliability was .92.
42

Cultural orientation, Social support-seeking, Causal attribution, and Self-blame by
Condition
To examine whether individuals primed with collectivistic values were less likely
to report seeking social support than those primed with individualistic values, an
independent t-test compared the IND-PRIME and COL-PRIME conditions by social
support. As shown in Appendix A, there were no significant differences for social
support between the IND-PRIME and COL-PRIME conditions.
To examine whether individuals primed with collectivistic values would be more
likely than those primed with individualistic values to attribute the cause of a stressful
situation to internal sources or to blame themselves, independent t-tests compared the
IND-PRIME and COL-PRIME conditions by causal attribution and self-blame As shown
in Appendix A, there were no significant differences between the two conditions in
causal attribution or

self-blame.
Because there were no significant findings for the relations among cultural
orientation and the use of social support, causal attribution, or self-blame, the regression
analyses to test whether causal attribution mediated the relation between cultural
orientation and social support-seeking were not conducted.
Further Analyses
To elucidate these findings, additional analyses were conducted to explore the
relations among the variables with a focus on the potential effects of the participants’
cultural identification. Previous studies have suggested that the extent to which bicultural
individuals’ cultural identities are integrated may influence how they perceive contextual
43

cues (Benet-Martinez, Leu, Lee, & Morris, 2002). Generally, bicultural individuals
possess two or more cultural schemas that allow them to dynamically switch between
culturally-based interpretive lenses depending on contextual cues. Cultural frame
switching, however, may not be a uniform process across all bicultural individuals.
Instead, bicultural individuals’ responses to cultural cues may be moderated by the
degree to which they perceive their ethnic and mainstream cultural identities as
compatible or in opposition with each other (Cheng, Lee, & Benet-Martínez, 2006; Zou,
Morris, & Benet-Martínez, 2008). Specifically, when bicultural individuals are not
conflicted about their dual cultural orientations or perceive contextual cues to be
consistent with their cultural identities, they are able to fluidly engage in cultural frame
switching and behave in ways consistent with the cultural context (i.e., assimilation
effects). In contrast, when bicultural individuals are conflicted about their dual cultural
identities or perceive the identities as incongruent with cultural cues, they tend to ‘react’
against cultural expectations embedded in a situation and engage in prime-inconsistent
behaviors (i.e., contrast effects) (Benet-Martinez et al., 2002).
The specific mechanisms underlying this reverse priming effect in bicultural
individuals are unclear. However, researchers have suggested that these prime-
inconsistent behaviors are related to two possible cognitive-affective processes that have
been shown to elicit contrast effects. Benet-Martinez et al. (2002) argues that compared
to bicultural individuals with high bicultural integrated identities (BII), bicultural
individuals with low BII tend to display a heightened sensitivity to cultural cues and
perceive these cues as highly valenced and distinctive. As a result, bicultural individuals
44

with low BII often overprocess these cultural cues and overcorrect their responses to
these cues. These inclinations to overprocess and overcorrect contextual cues result in
contrast effects when these bicultural individuals with low BII are culturally primed. An
alternative explanation for these contrast effects focuses on whether bicultural
individuals perceive the cultural cues they are exposed to as congruent with their internal
cultural associations or identity motives (Cheng et al., 2006; Zou et al., 2008). These
researchers proposed that bicultural individuals who experience dissonance between
external cultural cues and their internal cultural associations or identity motivations may
experience a psychological ‘reactance’ to perceived expectations and thus act in ways
that are contrary to expected behavior. This ‘reactance’ to expectation manifests itself as
prime-inconsistent behavior.
Therefore, with regard to the current study, cultural identification could be an
important factor. For example, it may be the case that bicultural individuals who have
high BII or whose cultural identities are congruent with the cultural priming cues would
respond in a prime-consistent manner. That is, biculturally-identified participants in the
COL-PRIME condition may report using less social support and making more internal
attributions than those in the IND-PRIME condition. On the other hand, bicultural
individuals with low BII or whose cultural identities are incongruent with the cultural
priming cues may respond in a prime-inconsistent manner. That is, western-identified
participants in the COL-PRIME condition may report using more social support and
make more external attributions than those in the IND-PRIME condition.
45

To test these possibilities, participants were split into three cultural identification
categories (Asian-identified, Bicultural-identified, Western-identified) based on how they
rated themselves in the SL-ASIA scale using a 5-point scale (1 = Very Asian; 3 =
Bicultural; 5 = Very Westernized). Participants who rated themselves as “Very Asian” or
“Mostly Asian” were categorized as Asian-identified (n = 44, 25%), “Very Westernized”
or “Mostly Westernized” were categorized as Western-identified (n = 69, 39.2%), and
Bicultural were categorized Bicultural-identified (n = 63, 35.8%). In this study,
Bicultural-identified participants were considered to have high BII across both
conditions, whereas Asian-identified and Western-identified participants were considered
to have low BII. In addition, Bicultural-identified participants in both IND-PRIME and
COL-PRIME conditions, Asian-identified participants in the COL-PRIME condition, and
Western-identified participants in the IND-PRIME condition were considered to be
exposed to cultural cues that were congruent with their internal cultural associations and
identity motivations. Asian-identified participants in the IND-PRIME condition and
Western-identified participants in the COL-PRIME condition were considered to be
exposed to cultural cues that were incongruent with their internal cultural associations
and identity motivations.
To examine group differences in the use of social support, causal attribution, and
self-blame, a 2 Condition ( IND-PRIME, COL-PRIME) x 3 Cultural identification
(Western identified, Bicultural-identified, Asian identified) multivariate analysis of
variance (MANOVA) was conducted. Appendix C displays the means and standard
deviations of the dependent variables by cultural orientation and condition.
46

There was a significant multivariate F for Cultural Identification, Wilks’s λ =
.910, F(6, 336) = 2.71, p=.014, partial η
2
=.05, and for the interaction of Condition x
Cultural Identification, Wilks’s λ = .901, F(6, 336) = 2.99, p=.007, partial η
2
= .05. The
multivariate F for Condition was not significant. All effect sizes were small in
magnitude.
Univariate ANOVA tests showed a significant interaction of Condition x Cultural
Identification for social support, F (2, 170) = 4.73, p=.010, partial η
2
= .05. Bicultural-
identified participants in the COL-PRIME condition reported lower scores on the social
support scale than those in the IND-PRIME condition, F(1, 67) = 4.88, p=.031, partial η
2

= .07. Western-identified participants in the IND-PRIME condition reported lower scores
on the social support scale than those in the COL-PRIME condition, F(1, 67) = 5.00,
p=.029, partial η
2
= .07.
For causal attribution, there was a significant main effect for cultural
identification, F (2, 170) = 7.14, p=.001, partial η
2
= .05. A post-hoc analysis using
Tukey’s HSD revealed that Asian-identified participants reported higher scores on the
causal attribution scale than Western-identified participants.
For self-blame, there was a significant main effect for cultural identification, F (2,
170) = 4.40, p=.014, partial η
2
= .05. A post-hoc analysis using Tukey’s HSD revealed
that Western-identified participants reported higher scores on the self-blame measure
than Asian-identified participants. There was also a significant interaction effect for
Condition x Cultural Identification interaction for self-blame, F(2, 170) = 4.07, p=.019,
partial η
2
= .05. A post-hoc analysis using Tukey’s HSD revealed that in the IND-
47

PRIME condition, Asian-identified participants reported lower scores on the self-blame
measure than Western-identified participants. There were no other significant findings.
48

Chapter 4: Discussion

The purpose of the study was to explore the associations among cultural
orientation, causal attribution, and social support-seeking in Asian and Asian American
college students. Understanding how cultural orientation may influence the use of social
support by Asian populations is important because it can help us identify the universal
processes underlying social support-seeking behavior and increase our limited knowledge
about the extent to which Asians and Asian Americans use social support as a strategy to
cope with stress. It was expected that cultural orientation would be associated with the
use of social support and causal attribution and that causal attribution would mediate the
relation between cultural orientation and the use of social support.
Manipulation Check
Independent content ratings of the participants’ cultural priming essays by blind
raters indicated that the IND-PRIME participants’ essays contained more references that
reflected that they valued individualistic values and fewer references that they valued
collectivistic values compared to those of the COL-PRIME participants. The ratings also
showed that COL-PRIME participants’ essays contained more references that reflected
that they valued collectivistic values and fewer references that they valued individualistic
values compared to those of the IND-PRIME participants. These findings demonstrate
that the priming task was effective in temporarily activating different cultural orientations
in the minds of the participants and suggest that participants engaged in cultural frame
switching in response to the cultural primes. These findings support the dynamic
constructivist perspective on culture that suggests that bicultural individuals maintain
49

dual cultural meaning systems that guide their behavior and are dynamic and responsive
to cultural cues (Hong et al., 2000).
Given these findings that indicate that participants’ cultural orientations were
successfully primed, our inability to detect group differences in participants’ scores on
the AAVS-M collectivism subscale (Kim et al., 2005) suggests that the priming effects
had decayed by the time the participants were asked to respond to the collectivism
subscale and therefore their responses on this measure reflected their chronically
accessible cultural constructs (i.e., tendencies towards collectivistic values) rather than
the temporarily activated cultural construct. This explanation corresponds to previous
research that the as time from the priming event to the stimuli response increases,
individuals are more likely to use a chronically accessible constructs than a primed
alternative construct to respond to a target stimuli (Bargh et al., 1988). The decision to
place the manipulation check measure at the end of the questionnaire packet instead of
the beginning of the questionnaire packet – despite the potential for these decay effects –
was based on findings from the pilot study that suggested that the collectivism subscale
itself could produce priming effects that might override our intended experimental
manipulation. To more directly measure the priming effects on cultural orientation, future
research could minimize the number of postpriming questionnaires used, use a more
ambiguous standardized measure of individualistic and collectivistic values that could be
administered closer to the priming task without affecting later responses, or increase how
frequently participants are primed with cultural values during the course of the
experiment (Bargh & Chartrand, 2000; Higgins, Bargh, & Lombardi, 1985).
50

Cultural Orientation, Social Support-seeking, Causal Attribution, and Self-blame by
Condition
The hypothesis that Asian and Asian Americans primed with collectivistic values
were less likely to seek social support and attribute causes of stressors to external sources
than those primed with individualistic values was not supported. The results indicated
that there were no significant differences in reported social support-seeking behavior,
causal attribution, or self-blame for the IND-PRIME and COL-PRIME conditions. This
finding was surprising because our manipulation check demonstrated that the priming
manipulation was effective in temporarily bringing to mind individualistic and
collectivistic values in the IND-PRIME and COL-PRIME participants, respectively.
Therefore, it was unlikely that this finding was due to the unsuccessful experimental
manipulation of cultural orientation in the participants. Instead, it seemed possible that
the non-significant findings could be due to the moderating effect of individual
differences among the participants that obscured the potential differences in the use of
social support, causal attribution, and self-blame produced by our cultural priming
manipulation.
Further Analyses
Further exploration of the data indicated that the reported use of social support,
causal attribution, and self-blame by participants in the IND-PRIME and COL-PRIME
conditions varied across the participants’ cultural identification. This finding corresponds
to Benet-Martinez et al.’s (2002) theory that the degree to which bicultural individuals’
dual cultural identities are integrated (or in opposition) to each other can moderate the
51

effects of cultural priming. It also supports previous research by Cheng et al. (2006) and
Zou et al. (2008) that suggests that the extent to which bicultural individuals’ internal
cultural associations and identity motives (e.g., their cultural identification) are congruent
(or incongruent ) with contextual cues can moderate the effects of cultural priming.
For social support, bicultural-identified participants in the COL-PRIME condition
reported lower scores on the social support-seeking measure compared to those in the
IND-PRIME condition. This finding suggests that cultural orientation is associated with
the use of social support and replicates previous studies by Taylor and colleagues (Kim et
al., 2006; Taylor et al., 2004, 2007) that found that individuals from more collectivistic
cultures seek social support less than individuals from more individualistic cultures when
faced with social-, academic-, or health-related stressors. It also supports research that
suggests that bicultural individuals with high BII or whose cultural identities are
congruent with contextual cues tend to behave in culturally congruent ways to cultural
cues (Benet-Martinez et al., 2002; Cheng et al., 2006; Zou et al., 2008). In addition, the
results revealed that Western-identified participants in the COL-PRIME condition
reported higher scores on the social support-seeking measure compared to those in the
IND-PRIME condition. The finding suggests that Western-identified participants who
were primed with collectivistic values may have experienced psychological ‘reactance’ to
their exposure to a contextual cue that was incongruent with their internal cultural
associations or identity motives. This ‘reactance’ produced strong contrast effects in
response to our prime as manifested by their prime-inconsistent behavior. This finding
corresponds to previous work by Cheng et al. (2006) and Zou et al. (2008) that showed
52

that bicultural individuals who were exposed to cultural cues that were incongruent with
their cultural identities tended to engage in prime-resistant behavior. It also supports
Benet-Martinez et al.’s (2002) study that found that bicultural individuals with low BII
were more likely to exhibit contrast effects when culturally primed compared to those
with high BII. Because we were not able to measure BII and cultural identification
separately, we were unable to tease apart whether it was the individuals’ BII or cultural
identity-contextual cue incongruence that produced these assimilative and contrast
priming effects. It was also not clear why a contrast effect was not observed in Asian-
identified participants who were primed with individualistic values. Therefore, in
addition to replicating these results, future research could also measure the BII and
cultural identification constructs separately and test which construct better predicts
prime-consistent and prime-resistant behavior.
For causal attribution, the results revealed that Asian-identified participants
reported higher scores on the causal attribution measure than Western-identified
participants in response to an academic stressor, regardless of condition. A similar pattern
of results emerged for self-blame: Western-identified participants reported higher scores
on the self-blame measure than Asian-identified participants. These findings suggest that
cultural orientation is associated with an individual’s attribution of cause and self-blame
tendencies. Specifically, when faced with an academic stressor, individualistic-oriented
individuals are more likely to make internal attributions and blame themselves for the
problem than collectivistic-oriented individuals. These findings correspond to Miller’s
(1984) argument that the emphasis of individualistic cultural groups on individuals’
53

autonomy from contextual influence and their role as independent agents responsible for
their actions encourages individuals from these societies to search for internal or
dispositional factors to explain behaviors and situations. In contrast, collectivistic cultural
groups who tend to focus on the salience of contextual variables as determinants of one’s
actions are more likely than their individualistic-oriented peers to identify external or
situational behaviors when explaining behaviors or situations. However, they also
contradict previous studies that have shown that, when faced with failure, individuals
from collectivistic cultural groups are more likely to make internal attributions than those
who are from individualistic cultural groups (Anderson, 1999; Chandler et al., 1981;
Kashima & Triandis, 1986; Kawanishi, 1995; Yan & Gaier, 1994).
One possible explanation for the discrepancy between this study’s results and
those of previous work on causal attribution of academic failures is the present study’s
use of a dimensional measure of causal attribution as opposed to inferred causality (and
controllability) based on lay description of the cause. In other words, individuals in the
present study were asked to directly rate the extent to which they thought their
attributions were due internal or external sources and were controllable or uncontrollable
instead of simply describing what they thought was the cause of their stressor and then
making post-hoc ascriptions about their lay attributions of the causes. This distinction is
important because it is possible that while previous researchers may have considered
“fate” and “luck” as external-uncontrollable causal attributions in their studies based on
Western-conceptions of “fate” and “luck,” Asian participants in the present study may
consider fate to be caused by an external source but also consider it to be controllable
54

(e.g., Papineau, 2005). This subtle distinction in the constructs underlying the
operationalization of causal attribution could explain the opposing findings. Future
studies should attempt to elucidate cross-cultural similarities and differences in these lay
descriptions of ascribed causes of a stressor based on more dimensional measures of
causal attribution and to replicate the relation among cultural orientation, causal
attribution, and self-blame across a variety of personal stressors (e.g., interpersonal
stressors, health-related stressors).
The findings also suggest that how individuals attribute cause to a personal
stressor may be related to individual differences in their attributional styles (i.e., inherent
trait-like tendencies) and may not be dynamic constructs (i.e., state-like tendencies) that
can be easily varied across contexts (e.g., Peterson et al., 1982; Peterson & Villanova,
1988). Indeed, previous studies that have effectively manipulated causal attribution
through cultural priming appear to have focus on perceptual attribution of cause rather
than causal attribution of a personal stressor (Benet-Martinez et al., 2002; Cheng et al.,
2006; Hong, Chiu, Dweck, Lin, & Wan, 1999; Hong et al., 2000; Zou et al., 2008). Thus,
it is possible that the mechanisms underlying different kinds of attributional processes –
and the variables associated with these mechanisms – could vary. Future research should
therefore make clear conceptual distinctions about the types of causal attributions they
are studying and to test the generalizability of these findings to different attributional
processes.
The results indicated that the Asian-identified participants in the IND-PRIME
condition reported lower scores on the self-blame measure than Western-identified
55

participants in the same condition. These findings suggest a contrast effect in which the
incongruence between Asian-identified participants and their individualistic-oriented
cues produced prime-resistant behavior. This interpretation supports previous research,
discussed above, by Cheng et al. (2006) and Zou et al. (2008) that showed that the
priming of bicultural individuals with cultural cues that were in conflict with their
cultural identities resulted in contrast effects. It was not clear why a similar contrast
effect was not observed in Western-identified participants who were primed with
collectivistic values. Therefore, although it appears that contrast effects can explain the
patterns in the data, the inconsistency in these contrast effects across both the use of
social support and self-blame suggests that more studies need to be conducted to replicate
these findings and to clarify what other variables might influence or contribute to contrast
and assimilative effects in cultural priming.
Causal Attribution as a Mediator of Cultural Orientation and Social Support-seeking
Because of the unanticipated moderating effects of cultural identification on our
cultural prime, our sample was not large enough to reliably conduct our planned analysis
to test whether causal attribution mediated the relation between cultural orientation and
social support-seeking behavior. However, although our correlational analyses indicated
that causal attribution was positively associated with the use of social support, causal
attribution did not relate to cultural orientation in the predicted direction. Therefore, our
theoretical rationale for why causal attribution might explain the relation between cultural
orientation and the use of social support appears unsupported. While a replication of this
study with a larger sample size would allow us to test for potential direct or indirect
56

effects of causal attribution on cultural orientation and the use of social support, it is also
important that future research considers other possible mechanisms that might explain the
association between cultural orientation and social support-seeking behavior.
Limitations
The study’s findings should be considered in light of several limitations. First, the
study is based on self-report data. Although standardized measures assessed social
support, causal attribution, and self-blame, the data were dependent on participants’
willingness and ability to accurately report their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.
Furthermore, responses based on hypothetical scenarios are particularly vulnerable to
social desirability biases and other satisficing effects by respondents. Although our
analysis of the data indicated that social desirability did not appear to influence the data,
future studies should nonetheless include objective measures, such as third-party
observations of behaviors (i.e., multi-informant reports) or behavioral assessments.
Second, the sample was limited to Asian and Asian American college students in
a large university in Southern California. Therefore, the results may not be generalizable
to Asians and Asian Americans of different age groups who may differ in their
acculturation to American mainstream culture or are as highly educated. In addition,
although all the participants were of Asian descent, the sample demographics suggest that
there is a wide range of ethnic groups within the umbrella term “Asian and Asian
American.” Thus, although individuals who hold collectivistic orientations may have
similar cultural values, there is considerable heterogeneity within Asian cultures that may
not be captured. Unfortunately, our sample was not large enough to explore within-group
57

cultural variations. Future research should include participants from a wide range of
Asian populations and communities and recruit a sample large enough to identify
potential within-Asian group differences.
Third, although there were some significant findings in our data, the overall effect
sizes observed in the study were relatively small. These results were possibly a reflection
of the restricted range of normative responses elicited from a relatively homogeneous
sample about a specific hypothetical stimulus situation. Previous research on differential
causal attributions about general academic stressors by a more heterogeneous group of
Asian and European American students reported small to moderate effects (.10 < d < .40)
between the two cultural groups (Yan & Gaier, 1994). Therefore, in retrospect, it should
not be surprising that asking a highly homogeneous Asian college sample to respond to a
standardized hypothetical academic stressor would produce a limited range of responses
and small effects. To elucidate the influence of cultural orientation on causal attribution,
future research should consider using a stimulus situation that could potentially elicit a
wider range of causal attributions, such as a social stressor, with a larger sample of
bicultural individuals with high BII (or individuals whose cultural identities are
congruent with the priming cues).
Finally, while attempts were made to experimentally manipulate cultural
orientation by activating cognitions related to independent and interdependent self-
construals to make a stronger inference about the relation between cultural orientation
and the use of social support, it is possible that there are other cognitions embedded
within the construct of culture that are more salient and relevant to attributions and social
58

support-seeking behaviors that remain unmeasured and inactivated. The small effect sizes
in the study suggest this might be the case. In addition, our results suggest that individual
differences among participants could moderate the effects of priming and we may not
have accounted for all of these potential differences in our analysis. Furthermore, because
our decision to analyze the moderating effect of BII on the culturally-primed responses
was motivated by our post-hoc exploration of the data (as opposed to being based on an a
priori hypothesis), we were not able to directly measure BII levels in our bicultural
participants (see BIIS-1 scale developed by Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005). Instead,
we used a crude, proxy measure of the construct based on the extent to which participants
identified themselves as Asian/Mostly Asian, Western/Mostly Western, or Bicultural.
Therefore, while our findings are suggestive of contrastive and assimilative effects that
have been shown in previous studies, it was difficult for us to interpret some of the
inconsistent patterns in the data. Future work using cultural priming procedures should
consider the potential for similar individual differences moderators in their study design
and account for these moderators in their analyses.
Despite these shortcomings, the study is noteworthy because it validates previous
findings that suggest that cultural orientation influences social support-seeking. In
addition, the experimental manipulation of cultural orientation allowed for stronger
inferences to be made about the relation between cultural orientation and social support-
seeking behavior. Second, the study contributes to the limited existing research on
cultural differences in causal attribution of a stressor. The study’s findings that contradict
our existing understanding of the association between culture and causal attribution in
59

failure situations raise questions about how and why this relation might differ across
measures and situations. Finally, the study provides some empirical evidence for
moderators of cultural priming that explain contrastive and assimilative effects. These
findings contribute to our understanding of the complexities underlying cultural frame
switching in bicultural individuals.
60

References

Abe-Kim, J., Takeuchi, D. T., Hong, S., Zane, N., Sue, S., Spencer, M. S., Appel, H., et
al. (2007). Use of Mental Health–Related Services Among Immigrant and US-
Born Asian Americans: Results From the National Latino and Asian American
Study. American Journal of Public Health, 97(1), 91–98.

Anderson, C. A. (1999). Attributional Style, Depression, and Loneliness: A Cross-
Cultural Comparison of American and Chinese Students. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 25(4), 482–499.

Atkinson, D. R., Whiteley, S., & Gim, R. H. (1990). Asian-American acculturation and
preferences for help providers. Journal of College Student Development, 31(2),
155 – 161.

Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (2000). The mind in the midle: A practical guide to
priming and automaticity research. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Hanbook of
research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 253 – 285). New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Bargh, J. A., Lombardi, W. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1988). Automaticity of chronically
accessible constructs in person × situation effects on person perception: It’s just
a matter of time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(4), 599–605.

Benet-Martínez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural Identity Integration (BII):
Components and Psychosocial Antecedents. Journal of Personality, 73(4), 1015–
1050.

Benet-Martinez, V., Leu, J., Lee, F., & Morris, M. W. (2002). Negotiating Biculturalism:
Cultural Frame Switching in Biculturals with Oppositional versus Compatible
Cultural Identities. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(5), 492–516.

Brickman, P., Rabinowitz, V. C., Karuza, J., Coates, D., Cohn, E., & Kidder, L. (1982).
Models of helping and coping. American Psychologist, 37(4), 368–384.

Butler, E. A., Lee, T. L., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Emotion regulation and culture: Are the
social consequences of emotion suppression culture-specific? Emotion, 7(1), 30–
48.

Carver, C. (1981). Attention and self-regulation : a control-theory approach to human
behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.

61

Carver, C. S. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol’ too long: Consider
the brief cope. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 92–100.

Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A
theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
56(2), 267–283.

Chandler, T. A., Shama, D. D., Wolf, F. M., & Planchard, S. K. (1981). Multiattributional
Causality for Social Affiliation Across Five Cross-National Samples. The Journal
of Psychology, 107, 219–229.

Chang, E. C. (1996). Cultural differences in optimism, pessimism, and coping:
Predictors of subsequent adjustment in Asian American and Caucasian American
college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43(1), 113–123.

Chang, E. C. (2001). A look at the coping strategies and styles of Asian Americans:
Similar and different? Coping with stress: Effective people and processes. (pp.
222–239). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.

Cheng, C.-Y., Lee, F., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2006). Assimilation and Contrast Effects in
Cultural Frame Switching Bicultural Identity Integration and Valence of Cultural
Cues. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(6), 742–760.

Cheung, F. K., & Snowden, L. R. (1990). Community mental health and ethnic minority
populations. Community Mental Health Journal, 26(3), 277–291.

Chiao, J. Y., Harada, T., Komeda, H., Li, Z., Mano, Y., Saito, D., Parrish, T. B., et al.
(2009). Dynamic Cultural Influences on Neural Representations of the Self.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(1), 1–11.

Chun, C.-A., Moos, R. H., & Cronkite, R. C. (2006). Culture: A Fundamental Context for
the Stress and Coping Paradigm. In P. T. P. Wong & L. C. J. Wong (Eds.),
Handbook of Multicultural Perspectives on Stress and Coping (pp. 29–53).
Boston, MA: Springer US.

Cohen, S. (1992). Stress, social support, and disorder. The meaning and measurement of
social support., The series in clinical and community psychology. (pp. 109–124).
Washington, DC, US: Hemisphere Publishing Corp.

Cohen, S., Gottlieb, B. H., & Underwood, L. G. (2000). Social Relationships and Health.
In S. Cohen, L. G. Underwood, & B. H. Gottlieb (Eds.), Social Support
Measurement and Interventions. New York: Oxford University Press.

62

Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.
Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310–357.

Cousins, S. D. (1989). Culture and self-perception in Japan and the United States.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 124–131.

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of
psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349–354.

Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit Theories and Their Role in
Judgments and Reactions: A Word From Two Perspectives. Psychological
Inquiry, 6, 267–285.

Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S., & Lee, A. Y. (1999). “I” Value Freedom, but “We” Value
Relationships: Self-Construal Priming Mirrors Cultural Differences in Judgment.
Psychological Science, 10(4), 321–326.

Golding, J. M., & Baezconde-Garbanati, L. A. (1990). Ethnicity, culture, and social
resources. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 465–486.

Gourash, N. (1978). Help-Seeking: A review of the literature. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 6, 413–423.

Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2003). Clarifying Achievement Goals and Their Impact.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 541–553.

Heine, S. J., & Hamamura, T. (2007). In Search of East Asian Self-Enhancement.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(1), 4 –27.

Heine, S. J., Kitayama, S., & Lehman, D. R. (2001). Cultural Differences in Self-
Evaluation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(4), 434 –443.

Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal
need for positive self-regard? Psychological Review, 106(4), 766–794.

Higgins, E. T., Bargh, J. A., & Lombardi, W. J. (1985). Nature of priming effects on
categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 11(1), 59–69.

Hong, Y., Chiu, C., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D. M.-S., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories,
attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. Vol 77(3), 77, 588–599.
63

Hong, Y.-Y., Chiu, C.-Y., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Multicultural minds: A dynamic
constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55(7),
709–720.

Inman, A. G., & Yeh, C. J. (2007). Stress and coping. In F. T. L. Leong, A. G. Inman, L.
Ebreo, L. Lang, L. Kinoshita, & M. Fu (Eds.), Handbook of Asian American
Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 323 – 340). Thousand Oak, CA: Sage Publications.

Kashima, Y., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). The Self-Serving Bias in Attributions as a Coping
Strategy: A Cross-Cultural Study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17, 83–
97.

Kawanishi, Y. (1995). The effects of culture on beliefs about stress and coping: Causal
attribution of Anglo-American and Japanese persons. Journal of Contemporary
Psychotherapy, 25(1), 49–60.

Kim, B. K., Li, L. C., & Ng, G. F. (2005). The Asian American Values Scale--
Multidimensional: Development, reliability, and validity. Cultural Diversity and
Ethnic Minority Psychology, 11(3), 187–201.

Kim, H. S., & Sherman, D. K. (2007). “Express Yourself”: Culture and the Effect of Self-
Expression on Choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 1–
11.

Kim, H. S., Sherman, D. K., Ko, D., & Taylor, S. E. (2006). Pursuit of Comfort and
Pursuit of Harmony: Culture, Relationships, and Social Support Seeking.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(12), 1595 –1607.

Kim, H. S., Sherman, D. K., & Taylor, S. E. (2008). Culture and social support. American
Psychologist, 63(6), 518–526.

Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of
attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 213–236.

Langford, C. P. H., Bowsher, J., Maloney, J. P., & Lillis, P. P. (1997). Social support: a
conceptual analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25(1), 95–100.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing
Company.

Leong, F. T. L. (1986). Counseling and psychotherapy with Asian-Americans: Review of
the literature. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33(2), 196–206.

64

Liang, B., & Bogat, G. A. (1994). Culture, control, and coping: New perspectives on
social support. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 123–147.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.

Matsuoka, J. K., Breaux, C., & Ryujin, D. H. (1997). National utilization of mental health
services by Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders. Journal of Community
Psychology, 25(2), 141–145.

McAuley, E., Duncan, T. E., & Russell, D. W. (1992). Measuring Causal Attributions:
The Revised Causal Dimension Scale (CDSII). Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 18, 566–573.

Mesquita, B. (2001). Emotions in Collectivist and Individualist Contexts. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80(1), 68–74.

Mezulis, A. H., Abramson, L. Y., Hyde, J. S., & Hankin, B. L. (2004). Is There a
Universal Positivity Bias in Attributions? A Meta-Analytic Review of Individual,
Developmental, and Cultural Differences in the Self-Serving Attributional Bias.
Psychological Bulletin, 130(5), 711–747.

Miller, J. G. (1984). Culture and the development of everyday social explanation. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(5), 961–978.

Morris, M. W., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions
for social and physical events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
67(6), 949–949–971.

Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and
collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses.
Psychological Bulletin;Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3–72.

Oyserman, D., & Lee, S. W. S. (2008). Does culture influence what and how we think?
Effects of priming individualism and collectivism. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2),
311–311–342.

Papineau, E. (2005). Pathological Gambling in Montreal’s Chinese Community: An
Anthropological Perspective. Journal of Gambling Studies, 21(2), 157–178.

Peterson, C., Semmel, A., von Baeyer, C., Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, G. I., & Seligman,
M. E. P. (1982). The attributional Style Questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 6(3), 287–299.
65

Peterson, C., & Villanova, P. (1988). An Expanded Attributional Style Questionnaire.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97(1), 87–89.

Ratner, C., & Hui, L. (2003). Theoretical and Methodological Problems in Cross‐Cultural
Psychology. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 33(1), 67–94.

Roesch, S. C., & Weiner, B. (2001). A meta-analytic review of coping with illness: Do
causal attributions matter? Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 50(4), 205–219.

Salili, F. (1996). Learning and Motivation: An Asian Perspective. Psychology &
Developing Societies, 8(1), 55 –81.

Schaefer, C., Coyne, J. C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981). The health-related functions of social
support. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 381–406.

Stepleman, L. M., Darcy, M. U. A., & Tracey, T. J. G. (2005). Helping and Coping
Attributions: Development of the Attribution of Problem Cause and Solution
Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65(3), 525 –542.

Streeter, C. L., & Franklin, C. (1992). Defining and Measuring Social Support:
Guidelines for Social Work Practitioners. Research on Social Work Practice,
2(1), 81 –98.

Sue, S., Fujino, D., Hu, L., Takeuchi, D. T., & Zane, N. (1991). Community mental
health services for ethnic minority groups: A test of the cultural responsiveness
hypothesis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(4), 533–540.

Sue, S., Sue, D., Sue, L., & Takeuchi, D. T. (1995). Psychopathology among Asian
Americans: A model minority? Cultural Diversity and Mental Health, 1(1), 39–
51.

Taylor, S. E., Sherman, D. K., Kim, H. S., Jarcho, J., Takagi, K., & Dunagan, M. S.
(2004). Culture and Social Support: Who Seeks It and Why? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3), 354–362.

'Taylor, S. E., Welch, W. T., Kim, H. S., & Sherman, D. K. (2007). Cultural Differences
in the Impact of Social Support on Psychological and Biological Stress
Responses. Psychological Science, 18(9), 831 –837.

Thoits, P. A. (1986). Social support as coping assistance. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 54(4), 416–423.

Thoits, P. A. (1995). Stress, Coping, and Social Support Processes: Where Are We?
What Next? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 35, 53–79.
66

Tolsdorf, C. C. (1976). Social Networks, Support, and Coping: An Exploratory Study.
Family Process, 15, 407–417.

Trafimow, D., Triandis, H. C., & Goto, S. G. (1991). Some tests of the distinction
between the private self and the collective self. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 60(5), 649–655.

Tweed, R. G., White, K., & Lehman, D. R. (2004). Culture, Stress, and Coping. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(6), 652 –668.

Vaux, A. (1985). Variations in Social Support Associated with Gender, Ethnicity, and
Age. Journal of Social Issues, 41(1), 89–110.

Vaux, A. C., Burda, P. C., & Stewart, D. (1986). Orientation toward utilization of support
resources. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(2), 159 – 170.

Wang, S., Shih, J. H., Hu, A. W., Louie, J. Y., & Lau, A. S. (2010). Cultural differences
in daily support experiences. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology,
16, 413–420.

Webster, D. W., & Fretz, B. R. (1978). Asian American, Black, and White college
students’ preferences for help-giving sources. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
25(2), 124–130.

Weiner, B. (1980). A cognitive (attribution)-emotion-action model of motivated
behavior: An analysis of judgments of help-giving. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 39(2), 186–200.

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573.

Weisz, J. R., Rothburn, F., & Blackburn, T. C. (1984). Standing out and standing in: The
psychology of control in America and Japan. American Psychologist, 39(9), 955–
969.

Wong, J. Y., Kim, S.-H., & Tran, K. K. (2010). Asian Americans’ Adherence to Asian
Values, Attributions About Depression, and Coping Strategies. Cultural Diversity
& Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16(1), 1–8.

Yan, W., & Gaier, E. L. (1994). Causal Attributions for College Success and Failure.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25(1), 146 –158.

Yeh, C., & Inose, M. (2002). Difficulties and coping strategies of Chinese, Japanese and
Korean immigrant students. Adolescence, 37(145), 69–82.
67

Yeh, C. J., Arora, A. K., & Wu, K. A. (2006). A New Theoretical Model of Collectivistic
Coping. In P. T. P. Wong & L. C. J. Wong (Eds.), Handbook of Multicultural
Perspectives on Stress and Coping (pp. 55–72). Boston, MA: Springer US.

Yeh, C., & Wang, Y.-W. (2000). Asian American coping attitudes, sources, and
practices: Implications for indigenous counseling strategies. Journal of College
Student Development, 41(1), 94–103.

Zou, X., Morris, M. W., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2008). Identity motives and cultural
priming: Cultural (dis)identification in assimilative and contrastive responses.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(4), 1151–1159.
68

Appendix A: Sample Descriptives and the Dependent Variables by Condition

Sample
(N = 176)
IND-PRIME
(N = 89)
COL-PRIME
(N = 87)

Range M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) t-value (d)/χ
2

Age 18 – 23 yrs 19.86 (1.28) 19.90 (1.21) 19.83 (1.36) .37 (.05)
Females 142 (80.7%) 74 (83.1%) 68 (78.2%) .70
GPA 1.73 – 4.00 3.43 (.34) 3.39 (.32) 3.47 (.36) 1.52 (.23)
Father’s
Education
0 - 8 6.53 (2.10) 6.79 (1.87) 6.26 (2.30) 1.65 (.25)
Mother’s
Education
0 – 8 6.34 (1.85) 6.51 (1.89) 6.17 (1.80) 1.20 (.18)
Foreign Born 76 (43.2%) 27 (30.3%) 49 (56.3%) 12.11
**

Length in US
1
< 1.5 yrs 23 (30.3%) 9 (32.1%) 14 (27.5%) 1.90
1.5 – 3.5 yrs 19 (25.0%) 5 (17.9%) 14 (27.5%)
3.5 – 12 yrs 17 (22.4%) 5 (17.9%) 12 (23.5%)
>12 yrs 20 (26.3%) 9 (32.1%) 11 (21.6%)
69

Appendix A (continued)

Ethnicity Chinese 86 (48.9%) 37 (41.6%) 49 (56.3%) 7.35
Korean 35 (19.9%) 20 (22.5%) 15 (17.2%)
Japanese 10 (5.7%) 4 (4.5%) 6 (6.9%)
Indian 15 (8.5%) 10 (11.2%) 5 (5.7%)
SE Asian 14 (8.0%) 7 (7.9%) 7 (7.9%)
Mixed-Asian 9 (5.1%) 7 (7.9%) 2 (2.3%)

Mixed-
Eurasian
7 (4.0%) 4 (4.5%) 3 (3.4%)
Cultural
Identification
Western 69 (39.2%) 37 (41.6%) 32 (36.8%) .719
Bicultural 63 (35.8%) 32 (36.0%) 31 (35.6%)
Asian 44 (25.0%) 20 (22.5%) 24 (27.6%)
Causal
Attribution
9 – 67 36.55 (10.18) 37.07 (10.80) 35.86 (10.72) .74 (.11)
Self-blame 3 – 6 4.69 (.92) 4.73 (.94) 4.66 (.88) .55 (.08)
Social Support 11 – 32 24.34 (4.85) 24.24 (5.18) 24.32 (4.68) -.12 (.02)
*
p < .05,
**
p <.01.
1
Length of stay in US for foreign-born participants only.
70

Appendix B: Correlations among the Variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Age - -.05 -.10 .01 -.06 -.01 .01 -.02 -.07 .10 -.05
2. Gender - - .11 -.05 -.01 .05 -.09 .01 -.01 .21
**
-.03
3. GPA - - - .05 .09 .01 .06 -.01 .06 .10 -.04
4. Father’s
Education
- - - - .72
**
.04 -.06 -.10 .00 -.07 .11
5. Mother’s
Education
- - - - - .14 .03 -.06 .00 -.06 .15
*

6. Collectivistic
Values
- - - - - - - .01 .20
**
-.01 -.01
7. Causal
Attribution
- - - - - - - - -.51
**
.09 -.11
8. Self-blame - - - - - - - - - .07 .11
9. Social Support - - - - - - - - - - -.11
10. Social
Desirability
- - - - - - - - - - -
*
p <.05 (2-tailed),
**
p <.01 (2-tailed)
71

Appendix C: Social Support, Causal Attribution, and Self-Blame by Condition (COND)
and Cultural Identification (CI)

IND-PRIME
(N = 89)
COL-PRIME
(N = 87)
F Value (η
2
)
Cultural Identification M (SD) M (SD) COND CI COND x
CI
Social Support Western 23.14 (4.58) 25.50 (4.13) .02 (.00) .01 (.00) 4.73
**
(.05)
Bicultural 25.78 (5.02) 23.06 (4.73)
Asian 24.00 (5.82) 24.67 (4.72)
Causal
Attribution
Western 34.47 (9.92) 32.63 (11.45) 2.77 (.02) 7.14
**
(.05) .25 (.00)
Bicultural 37.75 (9.06) 36.16 (8.86)
Asian 42.80 (10.94) 38.67 (8.76)
Self-blame Western 5.05 (.74) 4.78 (.91) .01 (.00) 4.40
**
(.05) 4.07
**
(.05)
Bicultural 4.72 (.92) 4.42 (.72)
Asian 4.15 (1.14) 4.75 (.99)
**
p <.01 (2-tailed),

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Research suggests that when stressed, Asians tend to seek social support less frequently than European American populations. At present, it is unclear how culture might be associated with social support-seeking behavior, particularly among Asian groups who differ in their orientation towards individualistic or collectivistic values. Therefore, the study explored how Asian college students’ cultural orientation would be associated with their use of social support and their causal attribution of stress. The study manipulated cultural orientation in 176 Asian and Asian American college students (142 females, 23 males

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Is affluence a developmental risk for Hong Kong Chinese adolescents?

PDF

Social norms intervention to promote help-seeking with depressed Asian and European Americans: A pilot study

PDF

Cultural influences on mental health stigma in Asian and European American college students

PDF

Do the perceptions of the usefulness of academic support services influence ethnically diverse students' help-seeking attitudes and behaviors?

PDF

Towards validating therapists’ in-session behaviors of cultural competence

PDF

Perceived discrimination and Latino youth adjustment: examining the influence of relinquished control and immigration status

PDF

Identity, perceived discrimination, and attenuated positive psychotic symptoms among college students

PDF

Psychosociocultural predictors of help seeking among Latino community college students

PDF

Goals and weight: the interplay of goal perceptions in weight management

PDF

Perspective taking behavior and social outcomes in late adolescence

PDF

The graduate school experience: exploring help-seeking behaviors of female South Asian international graduate alumni after experiencing sexual harassment or sexual assault

PDF

The relationship between social anxiety and verbal creativity in the context of induced mindfulness

PDF

Students in basic skills mathematics: perceptions and experiences of community college progress and help-seeking

PDF

Adolescent life stress and the cortisol awakening response: the moderating roles of emotion regulation, attachment, and gender

PDF

The cultural expression of depression in Asian Americans and European Americans

PDF

Third culture kids and college support: a case study

PDF

Social support in Cambodia: the role of peer educators in behavior change

PDF

Understanding the psycho-social and cultural factors that influence the experience of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in Chinese American college students: a systems approach

PDF

Student academic self‐efficacy, help seeking and goal orientation beliefs and behaviors in distance education and on-campus community college sociology courses

PDF

Federal loan borrowing in community colleges: examining the decision making processes of non‐traditional community college students

Asset Metadata

Creator Lee, Mann Hua Jacqueline (author)

Core Title Culture, causal attribution, and social support-seeking in Asian college students

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Psychology

Publication Date 07/26/2012

Defense Date 05/09/2012

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Asian,causal attribution,College students,cultural priming,culture,help-seeking,OAI-PMH Harvest,social support

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Farver, Jo Ann M. (committee chair), Graham, Jesse C. (committee member), Huey, Stanley J., Jr. (committee member), Lopez, Steven R. (committee member)

Creator Email jmltilley@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-67235

Unique identifier UC11289238

Identifier usctheses-c3-67235 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LeeMannHua-1015.pdf

Dmrecord 67235

Document Type Thesis

Rights Lee, Mann Hua Jacqueline

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA