Generation Status Ethnic Identity Colonial Mentality and Encul

Western Michigan University
ScholarWorks at WMU
Dissertations Graduate College
4-2022
Generation Status, Ethnic Identity, Colonial Mentality, And

Enculturation In Filipino Americans
Kamille Patricia Urmaza La Rosa
Western Michigan University, kamille.larosa@gmail.com
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations
Part of the Counseling Psychology Commons, and the Psychiatry and Psychology Commons
Recommended Citation
La Rosa, Kamille Patricia Urmaza, "Generation Status, Ethnic Identity, Colonial Mentality, And Enculturation
In Filipino Americans" (2022). Dissertations. 3842.
https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/3842
This Dissertation-Open Access is brought to you for free

and open access by the Graduate College at
ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion
in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of
ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please
contact wmu-scholarworks@wmich.edu.
GENERATION STATUS, ETHNIC IDENTITY, COLONIAL MENTALITY, AND
ENCULTURATION IN FILIPINO AMERICANS
Kamille P. U. La Rosa, Ph.D.
Western Michigan University, 2022
Filipino Americans’ psychological experiences pertaining to their generation status,
ethnic identity, enculturation, and colonial mentality are rarely studied in counseling psychology
due to inconsistent disaggregation of Asian American and Pacific Islander (AA&PI) data
(Agbayani-Siewert, 2004; Espiritu, 2003; Nadal et al., 2010; Okamura, 2013). Literature
suggests that the study of these constructs related to their mental health can guide more culturally
informed care for this historically excluded population (David & Nadal, 2013; Nadal, 2020). The
current study used an exploratory design to test six research hypotheses and accomplish the
following: examine relationships between the constructs, investigate intergenerational
differences, validate a measure of ethnic identity on a Filipino American population, and expand
on cross-disciplinary counseling psychology research of Filipino Americans.
Five hundred and ninety-two individuals, who identified as Filipino American, between
the ages of 18-83, and currently living in the United States engaged with this study after
recruiting from email lists and social media pages of Filipino American-run and/or serving
organizations. This sample was split into two subsamples to examine generational differences in
ethnic identity, enculturation, and colonial mentality and to examine relationships between these
constructs. The instruments used in this study were the Enculturation Scale for Filipino
Americans–Short Form (ESFA-S; del Prado & Church, 2010), Colonial Mentality Scale (CMS;
David & Okazaki, 2006), Ethnic Identity Scale (EIS; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2004), and a
demographic questionnaire. Primary analyses were conducted via multivariate analysis of
variance tests (MANOVA) and canonical correlation analyses.
Results suggested that there are intergenerational differences in ethnic identity
Resolution, and Connection with Homeland, and Interpersonal Norms. Intergenerational
differences in colonial mentality were not detected and were explained by the possible use of
colonial mentality as an adaptive strategy. Three different canonical correlations between the
subscale scores for ESFA-S, CMS, and EIS measures yielded 4 interpretable functions
explaining relations between subscales from the three measures: Pagmamahal sa Sarili at Kapwa
(Love of Self & Kapwa/Interdependence), Pagkakasundo sa Kultura at Sarili (Cultural and Self
Harmony), Rebolusionaryong Kaisipan (Revolutionary Thinking), and Nahahati sa Kamalayan
(Divided Consciousness). These functions explained at least 40%, 14%, 26.3%, and 23.5% of
variance within the sample, respectively. Additional functions, such as Yaman sa Kulturang
Pilipino (Filipino Cultural Wealth), Pakikisama Concerns (Interpersonal Harmony Concerns),
and Paglalakad sa Sakit (Walking through the Pain), each explained less than 10% of the
variance within the sample and were presented to expand nuanced discussions on Filipino
American psychological research.
Overall, the current study provided support for relationship(s) between ethnic identity,
enculturation, and colonial mentality in Filipino Americans and confirmed literature findings on
intergenerational differences in ethnic identity. The study’s main accomplishments include
validation of the EIS on a predominantly second generation Filipino American sample and
strengthened construct validity of the CMS and ESFA-S.

GENERATION STATUS, ETHNIC IDENTITY, COLONIAL MENTALITY, AND
ENCULTURATION IN FILIPINO AMERICANS
by
Kamille P. U. La Rosa
A dissertation submitted to the Graduate College

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Counselor Education and Counseling Psychology
Western Michigan University
April 2022
Doctoral Committee:
Joseph R. Morris, Ph.D., Chair

Mary Z. Anderson, Ph.D.
Allyson Tintiangco-Cubales, Ph.D.
Copyright by
2022
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
No success in this effort is mine alone, and I am honored to have communities that
wholeheartedly supported my pursuit of a doctoral degree. This has been a long, challenging, and
humbling journey to embark upon, and I am indebted to the people who believed in me when I
struggled to believe in myself. Your unwavering support means a lot to me as I look forward to
the privileges of being able to pay that forward.
I would like to thank my family for their encouragement and motivation. You’ve taught
me to value my education, hard work, and excellence in all my endeavors. While I am the first
person in my family to obtain this degree, I do not anticipate being the last. I am honored and
inspired by the past and future generations of my family who’ve dared me to chase my dreams
with courage and resilience. I am especially grateful to my husband, Tanav, for his unwavering
love, support, and encouragement. I would not be here to complete this work without your
patience and belief in my strength and perseverance throughout the years. Thank you for sharing
your life with me—I am looking forward to where our future will bring us!
To my WMU CECP friends, I owe so much of my success to your wisdom, strength, and
bravery over the years. Your successes inspire me, and I am proud of what we’ve accomplished
for our communities over the years. You have all watched me struggle, cry, vent, laugh, and
complain over the past several years. Thank you for giving me the space to be vulnerable and
courageous in advocating for myself and others. I have so many people who’ve planted seeds of
hope in me throughout the years: Walter Malone, Anthony Daniel, Maime Butler, Ricky Pope,
Dawnielle Simmons, Annette Perales, Jeannette Perales, Sonia Amin, Rebecca Tuinstra, Anné
ii
Acknowledgements—Continued
Stocker, Mike Evitts, Zari Carpenter, Breezie Gibson, Ingrid Rauk, and many others. To some of
my most dedicated friends over the years, thank you for your support: Rachel Robinson, Meagan
Roche, Elizabeth Karslake, Masroor Hossain, Eva Sola, Jessica Liu, Jacks Cheng, Camille Cielo,
Emilie Santos Tumale, and Sylvia Lin.
To my BGSU Internship friends, I am thankful to have your support during some of the
most challenging moments of our careers. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, our mutual
support for each other via internet sustained me and inspired me to embrace myself fully, even
when I felt discouraged. Lindsey Dollar, Shieka Glenn, Sam Gauvin, Schaad, Mandisa Sherife-
Kekulah, Jaime Furda, Carnessca Butler, and Denise Litterer—I will treasure the moments when
we’ve laughed, cried, and believed in each other.
Maraming Salamat to my Barangay Group—you’ve helped me remember my “why”
when I was ready to give up. Our weekly Zoom meetings and group chats are a perpetual
reminder of why kapwa is an integral part of healing within the Filipina/x/o diaspora. Jessica
Petalio, Von Torres, Shea Carter, and Louie Cuaderno—thank you for providing a shoulder to
lean on and for celebrating the small victories with me. I would also like to extend my thanks to
the many members of the Asian American Psychological Association (AAPA) and the Filipino
American National Historical Society (FANHS) who have inspired me and contributed directly
to the completion of my dissertation. You’ve kept me steadfast in my commitment to serving our
communities’ needs and building on our community cultural wealth.
To Mary Ebejer, June Gothberg, and Wessam Abdelazziz, thank you for your writing
encouragement and statistical wisdom! You’ve been a sounding board to my ideas and played an
iii
Acknowledgements—Continued
important role in my scholarly process during this dissertation. My weekly check-ins with you
have grounded me and provided accountability throughout the dissertation writing process. Your
expertise and perspectives on my work motivated me to complete this dissertation and believe in
my own expertise. I would also like to thank my doctoral advisor and dissertation chair, Dr.
Joseph R. Morris, and my dissertation committee members, Dr. Mary Z. Anderson and Dr.
Allyson Tintiangco-Cubales. Thank you for the time and energy in helping me reach this point in
my doctoral journey—I will carry the lessons I’ve learned from all of you along the way for
many years to come. To my undergraduate mentors, Dr. Siu-Lan Tan and Dr. Paul Sotherland,
thank you for inspiring me to begin this journey and believing in my capacity to grow before I
was even aware of it. You’ve changed my life forever. Maraming salamat—I am so grateful for
the many communities who have held and encouraged me throughout this journey.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ ii
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................1
Experiences of Filipino Americans ..................................................................................... 3
Filipino American Settlement and Immigration History .................................................... 6
First Wave of Filipino American Settlement ............................................................6
Second Wave of Filipino American Immigration ....................................................7
Third Wave of Filipino American Immigration ...................................................... 8
Fourth Wave of Filipino American Immigration .....................................................9
Fifth Wave of Filipino American Immigration ......................................................10
Sixth Wave of Filipino American Immigration ...................................................... 11
Seventh Wave of Filipino American Immigration .................................................12
Mental Health and Stigma Among Filipino Americans .................................................... 13
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 16
Significance of the Research ................................................................................. 18
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 19
Research Hypotheses ........................................................................................................ 20
v
Table of Contents—Continued
CHAPTER
Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................... 21
Outline for the Remainder of the Dissertation .................................................................. 27
II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .................................................................................28
Generation Status .............................................................................................................. 28
Generation Status Defined .................................................................................... 28
Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and Generation Status ............................ 29
Generational Differences in Filipino Americans .................................................. 31
Ethnic Identity ................................................................................................................... 36
Ethnic Identity Defined ......................................................................................... 39
Ethnic Identity Models and Theories .....................................................................40
Social Identity Theory ............................................................................... 42
Umaña-Taylor’s Ethnic Identity Model .................................................... 45
Ethnic Identity in Filipino Americans ................................................................... 48
Colonial Mentality ............................................................................................................ 52
Colonial Mentality and Race ................................................................................ 56
Colonial Mentality Development .......................................................................... 58
Colonial Mentality Among Filipinos and Sikolohiyang Pilipino .......................... 59
Enculturation ..................................................................................................................... 62
Enculturation in Diasporic Cultures and Anticolonial Theories ........................... 64
Mental Health Implications of Acculturation and Enculturation .......................... 66
Filipino American Enculturation........................................................................... 67
vi
CHAPTER
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 69
III. METHOD ................................................................................................................................71
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 71
Measures ........................................................................................................................... 74
Enculturation Scale for Filipino Americans–Short Form ..................................... 75
Colonial Mentality Scale....................................................................................... 77
Ethnic Identity Scale ............................................................................................. 79
Demographic Questionnaire ................................................................................. 81
Procedures ......................................................................................................................... 81
Research Design................................................................................................................ 83
Statistical Analysis ............................................................................................................ 85
Missing Data ......................................................................................................... 85
Descriptive Statistics and MANOVA ................................................................... 87
Bivariate Correlations and Linear Regression ...................................................... 87
Canonical Correlations.......................................................................................... 88
Research Question 1 ..............................................................................................88
vii
IV. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................94
Preliminary Data Analyses ................................................................................................ 94
Power Analysis.......................................................................................................94
Missing Data ..........................................................................................................95
Descriptive Statistics ..............................................................................................99
Reliability Estimates ............................................................................................103
Assumptions .........................................................................................................105
Primary Statistical Analyses ........................................................................................... 106
Research Hypothesis 1: Ethnic identity for first- and 1.5-generation

Filipino Americans will be higher than that of second- and third/
subsequent-generation Filipino Americans ..........................................................106
Research Hypothesis 2: Lower ethnic identity subscale scores will be

related to higher colonial mentality subscale scores in Filipino Americans ........108
Research Hypothesis 3: Higher enculturation subscale scores will be

related to higher ethnic identity subscale scores in Filipino Americans .............. 111
Research Hypothesis 4: Higher enculturation subscale scores will be

related to lower colonial mentality subscale scores in Filipino Americans ......... 115
Research Hypothesis 5: First- and 1.5-generation Filipino Americans

will have higher enculturation scores than second- and third/subsequent-
generation Filipino Americans ............................................................................. 118
Research Hypothesis 6: First-generation Filipino Americans will have

lower colonial mentality scores than 1.5-, second-, and third/subsequent-
generation Filipino Americans .............................................................................122
V. DISCUSSION..........................................................................................................................124
Purpose of the Research .................................................................................................. 124
Research Questions ..............................................................................................125
viii
CHAPTER
Research Hypotheses ...........................................................................................125
Research Hypothesis Testing .......................................................................................... 126
Research Hypothesis 1 .........................................................................................126
Summary of Discussion .......................................................................................146
Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 149
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 152
Implications of the Study ................................................................................................ 155
Implications for Mental Health Clinicians and Clinical Practice ........................156
Implications for Researchers................................................................................162
Implications for Training .....................................................................................166
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 170
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................172
APPENDICES
A. HSIRB Approval and Informed Consent Forms .........................................................224
B. Recruitment Materials .................................................................................................227
ix
APPENDICES
C. Enculturation Scale for Filipino Americans–Short Form............................................230
D. Colonial Mentality Scale .............................................................................................233
E. Ethnic Identity Scale....................................................................................................240
F. Demographics Questionnaire .......................................................................................242
x
LIST OF TABLES
1 Dissertation Research Questions and Hypotheses .............................................................20
2 Participant Demographic Information ...............................................................................73
3 Psychometric Properties for ESFA-S, CMS, and EIS Scales and Subscales ...................101
4 Summary of Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Scores on

ESFA-S, CMS, and EIS Subscales...................................................................................104
5 Average Ethnic Identity Subscale Scores Across

Filipino American Generation Groups .............................................................................106
6 MANOVA Summary Table: Ethnic Identity ....................................................................107
7 Canonical Solution for Ethnic Identity Predicting Colonial Mentality for

Functions 1 and 2 ............................................................................................................. 112
8 Canonical Solution for Ethnic Identity Predicting Enculturation for

Functions 1 and 2 ............................................................................................................. 114
9 Canonical Solution for Enculturation Predicting Colonial Mentality for

Functions 1, 2, and 3 ........................................................................................................ 119
10 Average Enculturation Subscale Scores Across

11 MANOVA Summary Table: Enculturation ......................................................................121
12 Average Colonial Mentality Subscale Scores Across

13 MANOVA Summary Table: Colonial Mentality..............................................................123
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
1 Push and Pull Factors of Filipino Migration ......................................................................54
2 Meter Model of Assimilation, Acculturation, and Enculturation .......................................68
3 Proposed Analysis for Research Question 2 ......................................................................90
6 Chart of Missing Value Patterns.........................................................................................98
7 Missingness Pattern Frequencies in Dataset ......................................................................99
8 Canonical Correlation Analysis for Ethnic Identity and Colonial Mentality ...................109
9 Canonical Correlation Analysis for Ethnic Identity and Enculturation ........................... 113
10 Canonical Correlation Analysis for Enculturation and Colonial Mentality ..................... 116
xii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AA&PIs) are the fastest growing panethnic racial
group in the United States with many ethnic groups sharing a long history of settling in the
United States and confronting experiences of discrimination. Over 20 million AA&PIs are
members of diasporic ethnic groups with connections to countries in the Pacific Islands, East,
Southeast, and South Asia. Their population is projected to reach over 35 million by 2060
(Budiman & Ruiz, 2021b; Lopez et al., 2017). AA&PIs are frequently perceived as being
monolithic despite the high level of diverse ethnicities, religions, languages, and cultural values
represented by each of the ethnic groups within this racial category, while sharing a common
history of discrimination, oppression, and exclusion from many privileges afforded to people of
White racial status due to racism and xenophobia (Lee & Ramakrishnan, 2019; Shih et al., 2019).
Even within the AA&PI panethnic category, Native Hawaiian and Pasifika scholars,
educators, and community leaders have critiqued the co-opting and erasure of Pacific Islanders’
(PIs) identity by Asian American (AA) researchers in scholarship by claiming to study AA&PI
ethnic groups and exclusively focusing on AA ethnic groups (Hall, 2015; Trask, 1999). While
there are individuals and communities of people who identify as both AA&PI, this study moves
away from the old nomenclature of the panethnic category of AAPI—a common, harmful error
in psychological research on these historically undervalued groups and a consequence of
systemic and environmental forms of discrimination (Fujikane & Okamura, 2008; Shimkhada et
al., 2021). Indeed, the nuanced discourse on AA&PI has evolved and expanded to encourage the
equitable representation and empowerment of narratives that thrive in resistance to White
supremacy (Lo, 2019; Marsh & Na’puti, 2017).
1
In the absence of White racial status and their privileges, many AA&PI ethnic groups
have experienced various forms of historical oppression via colonization, discrimination, and
prejudice over the years. Within the settler-colonial borders of the United States, various AA&PI
ethnic groups have historically been excluded from naturalization, voting, hiring within certain
professions and subjected to environmental racism and grave social, legal, or financial
consequences by congregating in dance halls (Lee & Ramakrishnan, 2019; Millan & Alvarez,
2014; Teodoro, 1999). AA&PIs have had Indigenous lands exploited by the United States for
resources and military bases for geopolitics. They have also been subjected to education
endorsing “benevolent assimilation,” victimized by violent riots, forced to leave their homes to
reside in internment camps, killed for being wrongfully perceived as terrorists, and, within the
past year, brutally attacked due to xenophobic attitudes surrounding COVID-19-related fears and
job losses (Ancheta, 2006; Lee et al., 2017; Ruiz et al., 2021; Tapia, 2006). Events like these are
likely to have profound effects on their psychological well-being in both overt and covert ways.
The complex, intertwining, and divergent histories of different AA&PI ethnic groups and
their experiences with prejudice and discrimination in the United States over the years
contributes to signs of psychological distress in individuals belonging to these groups, which
may be overlooked by many mental health professionals for various reasons (Tran & Chan,
2017; Wu et al., 2021). Over the past two decades, researchers have found links between
experiences of discrimination with increased risks for symptoms of depression, anxiety, and
substance use among different AA&PI ethnic groups (Greene et al., 2006; Huynh & Fuligni,
2010; Laus, 2020; Wang et al., 2019; Wei et al., 2010; Yip et al., 2008, 2019). Racialized
experiences, such as perceived discrimination, can have an impact on AA&PI individuals’ self-
perception, well-being, and messages they receive about their group (Chen et al., 2020; David &
2
Derthick, 2018; Trieu, 2019). Indeed, it can be distressing for members of minoritized groups,
such as AA&PIs, to experience discrimination and to mitigate its effects on their self-perception
and daily life.
Given the diversity of experiences within AA&PIs, there have been increasing calls for
researchers and policymakers to disaggregate studies and reports on the several ethnic groups
within the AA&PI community and to draw more visibility towards coping strategies and
resiliencies within each AA&PI ethnic group (Choi et al., 2020; Nadal, 2019; Park, 2017).
Interventions for addressing needs related to confronting racialized experiences and mental
health within the AA&PI community draw upon an ethnic group’s adaptations to their
environment, values for interdependence, shared resources, increased political involvement, and
self-advocacy within ethnic communities or with other marginalized, minoritized groups (Leung,
2021; Morey et al., 2020; Tran & Chan, 2017). Currently, however, intragroup variations in
AA&PIs are still overlooked and erase the variations across ethnic groups resulting from
different histories, languages, and norms, including those of Filipino Americans (Ai et al., 2015;
Shih et al., 2019).
Experiences of Filipino Americans
Filipino Americans are the third largest AA&PI group and account for 18% or 4.2 million
members of the overall AA&PI population, yet their distinct history, concerns, and narratives are
still commonly overlooked by a predominantly monolithic view of AA&PIs (Budiman & Ruiz,
2021a, 2021b). Compared to other AA&PI ethnic groups, Filipino Americans have the highest
language proficiency at 84%, yet they have lower levels of education compared to East Asians
when disaggregated by generation status (Nadal, 2020). In comparison to other AA&PI ethnic
groups, Filipino Americans are reported to be more aware of discrimination because of their
3
relatively higher acculturation rates and understanding of Western culture through their unique
history with colonization by Spain and the United States (Ai et al., 2015; Kitano & Daniels,
2001; Ocampo, 2014). Identity terms for Filipino Americans have allowed for ways to
decolonize and refuse the colonial, gendered, and settler grammars of Spanish and English
imposed by Western empires and to reflect the multitude of intersectional ways Filipino
Americans exist and resist (Barrett et al., 2021; Curammeng et al., 2022). For example,
Curammeng et al. (2022) have observed conversations and tensions surrounding the use of “o”
for cisgender men, “a” for cisgender women, and “x” for Filipinx Americans whose identities
transcend the cis-gender male and cis-gender female binary and were celebrated by Indigenous
Filipina/x/os. While these conversations about identity and resistance are ongoing within the
community, it is important to note that this conversation rapidly evolved during this study, with
Filipina/x/o American becoming the more accepted identity term after the completion of a
rigorous literature review and data analysis. While this study uses the term, “Filipino American”
to include the intersectional experiences of individuals and communities within the diaspora
across gender and sexual orientation, it is important to honor and make space for the
expansiveness of Filipina/x/o American identity and the various forms of power, innovation, and
resistance at its core over time. Given that similar conversations are taking place within different
communities of color, it is important to highlight the nuance of identity terms within this
population.
In fact, some researchers have provided explanations that Filipino American experiences
share more overlaps in racialized experiences with non-AA&PI minoritized groups (e.g., African
Americans, Latine Americans, Indigenous peoples) because their identity formation was also
forged through subjugation and oppression through colonialism (Abueva, 1976; Ai et al., 2015;
4
Balce, 2006; Ocampo, 2014, 2016). It is important to note, however, that, while comparisons
may be drawn between some of the mechanisms driving identity formation between Filipino
Americans, African Americans, Latine Americans, and Indigenous peoples, the lived experiences
by members from each of these groups and their positionality within oppressive systems are
distinct from one another. Studies have shown that relative to Chinese Americans and, at times,
even to Vietnamese Americans, Filipino Americans experience higher and more distinct forms of
“perceived discrimination” (Ai et al., 2015; Chutuape, 2016; Nadal, 2019; Nadal et al., 2012;
Shih et al., 2019).
Within recent years, spikes in discrimination that stem from xenophobic and racist
ideology have increased the risks for Filipino Americans’ well-being and feelings of safety and
belonging within their identity. According to national reports, during the COVID-19 pandemic
AA&PIs experienced the largest spike in hate incidents (i.e., verbal harassment, shunning,
physical assault, civil rights violations, and online harassment) from March 2020 to February
2021, with Filipino Americans as the fourth largest AA&PI ethnic group affected by these
harmful behaviors (Cabral, 2021; Hong et al., 2021; Jeung et al., 2021; Ruiz et al., 2020). Indeed,
assumptions of AA&PIs as a monolithic racial group and the relative invisibility of Filipino
American experiences has ultimately added to distress levels among Filipino Americans.
Additionally, Filipino Americans are experiencing higher levels of risk for contracting COVID-
19 due to historical and socioeconomic factors, such as undocumented status, exposure for health
workers, preexisting health conditions, and lack of health insurance, which have contributed to
increased vulnerability to contracting the virus—accounting for at least 35% of COVID-19
deaths in California’s AA&PI population (Wong, 2020). Filipinos account for 4% of nurses
nationwide and 50% of all foreign-educated nurses yet account for 31% of nurse deaths due to
5
COVID-19 (Choy, 2013; Fadel & Levid, 2020; Jurado & Saria, 2018; National Nurses United,
2020; Shoichet, 2020). Implicit biases and systemic barriers have also contributed to a lower
likelihood for Filipino Americans to have professional or managerial positions compared to
Whites, which has increased their occupational risk during the pandemic (David, 2020; Lee,
2019). As Filipino Americans live through unprecedented times, it should be noted that they have
historically persevered through waves of hardship and discrimination.
Filipino American Settlement and Immigration History
The Filipino diaspora has a distinct, 400-year history on lands that are now known as the
United States. This history intersects with Western imperialism and describes seven waves of
immigration documented by Filipino American historians, sociologists, and researchers in the
social sciences. Within each of these waves, Filipino Americans settlers or immigrants faced
unique challenges that corresponded with the demands of that time. A summary of these
immigration waves is provided in this study to provide context for the experiences of Filipino
Americans in the United States and illuminate their distinct history within the AA&PI panethnic
group (Cordova, 1983; Mabalon, 2007, 2013).
First Wave of Filipino American Settlement
The first wave of Filipino American settlers is frequently left out of AA&PI history or
U.S. history due to the hypervisibility of East Asian AA ethnic groups, the relative invisibility of
Filipino Americans, and the small number of people within this wave of settlement. Settlers who
were indios (natives) from what is now known as the Philippine Islands arrived and settled on the
shores of Indigenous Chumash and Obispeño lands (now known as Morro Bay, California) in
1587 (Borah, 1995; Francia, 2013; Nadal, 2020; Rodriguez, 2016; Sue, 2013). This wave
consisted of shipbuilders, sailors, and slaves during the Spanish colonial period in Mexico and
6
the Manila Galleon trade from 1587-1898 (Mabalon, 2007). Another documented settlement
named St. Maló was established on Indigenous Houma, Chitimacha, and Chahta Yakni
(Choctaw) lands (now known as St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana) in 1762 (Aguilar Jr., 2012;
Cordova, 1983; Espina, 1988; Fajardo, 2016; Murillo, 2009). These indios were known by
English speakers during this time as seafaring “Manilamen” or “Manillas” who escaped working
conditions on Spanish galleon ships by jumping ship in the Indigenous Dominion of Yopitzinco
province within Mēxihcah lands (now known as Acapulco, Mexico). They took up occupations
as farmers, craftsmen, fishermen, and, in some cases, as mercenaries after settling on those lands
or migrating elsewhere (Aguilar Jr., 2012). This wave occurred during the 16th century, while the
Philippine Islands and Mexico were being established as colonies of Spain, which occurred
before the colonization of the islands by the United States and was integral to the establishment
of a Filipino presence in the lands now known as the United States.
Second Wave of Filipino American Immigration
The second wave of Filipino immigration to the United States occurred between 1898-
1906, which overlapped Filipino efforts towards independence from Spain, the Philippine-
American War, and U.S. imperial efforts to quell the Filipino “Indian” resistance to U.S.
colonization with attempts at “benevolent assimilation” that resembled North American
residential schools and education programs (Dunbar-Ortiz, 2014; Gealogo, 2018; Rodriguez,
2016; Teodoro, 1999). U.S. capitalism had a profound impact on Filipinos. The United States
denigrated Filipinos and justified the exploitation of Filipino land and labor through claims of
wanting to save their “little brown brothers” (Halagao, 2010; Ignacio et al., 2001). The passage
of Law No.852 allowed the use of public funds to support the academic endeavors of Filipinos
from mostly ilustrado (rich, influential, elite families in Philippine society) at American
7
institutions (Hernandez, 2016; Teodoro, 1999). These individuals, who became known as
pensionados, were selected, in part, because of their potential to pass on Americanized ways to
Philippine locals and to establish a new class of elites more amenable to U.S. political and
economic interests within Philippine municipalities after completing their studies and returning
to the Philippines. Some pensionados were unable to complete their education for various
reasons and did not return to the Philippines due to financial reasons or shame (Nadal, 2020).
Many of these pensionados completed bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees and were able
to read and write in English upon completing their education—further advancing U.S. cultural
colonization (Mabalon, 2007). The pensionado program ended by the mid-1910s, and, despite
the brevity of this immigration wave, it had an impact on relations between the United States and
the Philippines.
Third Wave of Filipino American Immigration
The third wave of immigration occurred between 1906 and 1934 in response to
immigration restrictions on Chinese laborers along the West Coast (e.g., CA, HI, AK) and labor
demands in farming and fishing industries (Guyotte & Posadas, 2013). Approximately 100,000
Filipinos arrived and resided in the United States, including the thousands of predominantly
Ilocano and Visayan sakada workers who were recruited by the Hawaiian Sugar Planters
Association (HSPA) and settled in Hawaii (Mabalon, 2007, 2013). Within AA&PI history and
ethnic studies literature, this wave of Filipino American immigrants is known as the manong
(older brother figure) generation. Even though this wave of immigration overlapped
chronologically with the second wave, they were predominantly male, differed in social and
economic backgrounds compared to pensionados, and were recruited more to fill labor demands
as opposed to influencing Philippine bureaucracy (Hernandez, 2016). While many of these
8
laborers migrated across the West Coast according to seasonal labor availability and demands in
farming or fishing industries, others worked in factories, service jobs, domestic work, or even
managed to enlist officially or unofficially in the U.S. Navy (Cordova, 1983; Espiritu, 2003b;
Mabalon, 2013). These laborers, commonly known as manongs, endured intense stoop labor
conditions for low pay in addition to racial discrimination and prejudice.
During this time, members of the manong generation withstood intense levels of anti-
Asian sentiment likened to current-day, media narratives on AA&PIs, while jumpstarting
community organizing efforts for improved labor conditions. Businesses and establishments on
the West Coast often prohibited entry and services to Filipino Americans by posting “Positively
no Filipinos allowed” signs and using rhetoric that described Filipino Americans as the “brown
menace,” “hypersexual,” or “brown monkeys” based on racially prejudiced assumptions of
criminality and deviance (Balce, 2006; Nadal, 2020; Okamura, 2010; Tapia, 2006). The
heightened anti-Filipino sentiment resulted in various hate crimes and violent riots in which
White rioters “hunted” Filipino Americans out of towns, which led to loss of livelihoods, homes,
or even their lives (Dosono, 2013; Millan & Alvarez, 2014; Nadal, 2019; Teodoro, 1999). Yet,
even amid these encounters, many of these manongs led and participated in the monumental
labor and farmworkers movement alongside Mexican Americans in the Delano Grape Strike to
create the United Farm Workers (UFW) labor union through the 1960s (Mabalon, 2013).
Fourth Wave of Filipino American Immigration
This period of Filipino immigration occurred between 1934-1946 and is characterized by
three key developments: the exclusion of Filipinos and the change in their status from “national”
to “alien,” the onset of World War II, and the coming of age of American-born or -raised children
of the pre-war immigrants (Mabalon, 2007, 2013). In 1934, the Tydings-McDuffie Act cut off
9
immigration from the Philippines, drastically reducing routes to immigration outside of U.S.
Navy enlistment or marriage to military personnel and causing a gap between immigration waves
(Guyotte, 1997). Filipinos’ status as “aliens” during this period meant that many individuals
could no longer move freely between the Philippines and the United States.
During this period, World War II devastated the Philippines as the United States left the
islands, which were then seized and occupied by Japan. Given the increased restrictions on
Filipino immigration during this time, some Filipino immigrants in the United States found
opportunities to become naturalized citizens after fighting in the Philippines within the Army’s
First and Second Filipino Infantry Regiments. Many Filipino American families in the United
States and the children from these families began to create a unique Filipino American identity
and ethnic culture as they matured into adolescence during the 1930s and 1940s (Mabalon,
2007).
Fifth Wave of Filipino Immigration
The fifth wave of Filipino immigration occurred between 1946-1965 as the end of World
War II and the Cold War brought more changes for Filipino immigrants and Filipino American
families (Mabalon, 2007). This wave was characterized by four main events: the arrival of war
brides, family reunification, the establishment of navy families, and citizenship rights. Many
Filipino American soldiers brought back well-educated brides from the Philippines to settle and
establish families in the United States after their service. The passing of the Luce-Cellar Act in
1946 relaxed Philippine immigration restrictions from the previous wave by increasing the
immigrant quota from 50 to 100 per year, providing opportunities for naturalization, and
allowing for family reunification and petitions for spouses, children, and parents. In addition,
naturalized Filipino Americans could purchase land and vote. The Military Bases Agreement was
10
passed in 1947 because of Cold War policies and U.S.-Philippines neocolonial relations,
allowing for Filipinos to join the U.S. Navy and become naturalized citizens (Espiritu, 2003b).
Given these circumstances, there was a growing Filipino American baby boom and trend towards
suburbanization that paralleled developments in other U.S. communities during this time.
Sixth Wave of Filipino Immigration
Immigration to the United States from the Philippines between 1965-1986 was
characterized by changes in immigration law and unrest and division in the Philippines and the
United States over the regime of U.S.-backed dictator Ferdinand Marcos (Mabalon, 2007). The
1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act was passed, which repealed the Asian Exclusion Act of
1924, the Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934, and the Walter-McCarran Immigration and
Naturalization Act of 1952 to loosen and eliminate nation-based immigration quotas (Choy,
2013; Espiritu, 2007; Guyotte, 1997). Filipino immigrants established large suburban and urban
communities in Daly City, Union City, Fremont, Chicago, New York, Jersey City, and the
Hampton Roads region of Virginia. Most Filipino immigrants filled U.S. employment gaps as
professionals, technicians, and skilled workers (Choy, 2013; Espiritu, 2007). Racial preferences
in immigration law were abolished and permitted a 20,000 annual quota of immigrants to every
country, including the Philippines. U.S. imperialism did little to improve rampant unemployment
or develop the Philippine economy and created the conditions for a brain drain of educated,
English-speaking Filipino workers to immigrate to the United States (Alonso-Garbayo & Maben,
2009; Ocampo, 2014).
When dictator Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law in 1972, the Philippines
experienced an explosion of conflict and unrest (Mabalon, 2007). Policies enacted by then-
dictator Ferdinand Marcos created a labor-brokerage state in which the Philippines’ exported
11
labor to pay off debts and build infrastructure (Ocampo, 2014; Rodriguez, 2016). Many
individuals and groups from the Anti-Martial Law Movement in the United States challenged
Filipino Americans and the U.S. government on their support of the Marcos dictatorship. This
movement lasted until the end of the Marcos dictatorship when he was peacefully ousted by the
People Power Revolution and Corazon Aquino’s election as president of the Philippines.
Seventh Wave of Filipino Immigration
This wave is known for generating the largest increase in the Filipino American
population—many of whom continued to settle along the West Coast and other regions of the
United States, such as the Midwest, East Coast, and the South (Nadal, 2020). The seventh wave
of Filipino American immigration began in 1986 and last through the present day. The
immigration Reform and Control Act’s passage granted amnesty to undocumented Filipinos,
though it also signaled a growing opposition to immigration that increased in the 1990s
(Mabalon, 2007). At the same time, the grandchildren of pioneer Filipino American generations
and post-1965 Filipino immigrants experienced their coming of age and contributed to the
establishment of an ever-evolving Filipino American ethnic identity.
Like previous immigration waves, many Filipino professionals immigrating from this
wave received college degrees in the Philippines only to experience language discrimination and
racism in the job market in the form of occupational downgrading. This means that their jobs
were lacking parity with their training, which affected their licensing, credentialing,
opportunities for career advancement, and long-term earning potential or financial stability
(Buenavista, 2010; Espiritu, 2003a; Kitano & Daniels, 2001). Occupational downgrading affects
many undocumented Filipino American individuals, known as tago ng tago (“TNT’s” or “to keep
on hiding”), who may need to pursue employment “under the table,” are less likely to seek social
12
services out of fear of persecution or deportation, and are subjected to many negative stereotypes
about their undocumented status (Department of Homeland Security, 2018; Montoya, 1997;
Nadal, 2020; Rodriguez, 2016).
Though their per capita income is higher compared to other Asian Americans, Filipino
Americans experience higher rates of HIV/AIDS, poverty, and gang violence (Mabalon, 2007;
Nadal, 2020). Indeed, first-generation Filipino American immigrants and their U.S.-born/raised
children continue to have nuanced experiences in the United States across these various waves of
settlement and immigration, which can impact their mental health and well-being.
Mental Health and Stigma Among Filipino Americans
Even with the continual growth of Filipino immigration to the United States, existing
literature on AA&PI mental health neither sufficiently addresses the mental health needs nor
reduces stigma about mental health issues among Filipino Americans—a rapidly growing
AA&PI ethnic group with unique needs and concerns relative to other AA&PIs. Psychology
researchers have found various risks for, predictors of, and correlations with depression, anxiety,
and substance abuse for Filipino Americans in different age groups and genders. For example,
Filipino American youth have reported more symptoms of the following mental health disorders
compared to Japanese American and White youths: depression, anxiety, panic disorder,
agoraphobia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) (Okamura et al., 2016). Researchers also
found a positive relationship between age and depression symptoms in Filipino American youth
and relatively higher risks for suicidal ideation for Filipino American adolescents and young
adults among AA&PIs, despite having culturally religious beliefs discouraging suicide as a sin
(Javier, 2018; Park, 2017).
13
Compared to Chinese American and Vietnamese American ethnic groups, depression was
positively correlated with discrimination and negatively correlated with racial and ethnic identity
in Filipino Americans, which means that depression increased with discrimination and decreased
with increases in Filipino racial and ethnic identity (Ai et al., 2015). Relative to other AA&PI
women, researchers have found that Filipino American women have increased levels of
resilience despite higher rates for depression, postpartum depression, substance use, and higher
avoidance of public shame, which prevents many Filipino American women, especially first-
generation immigrants, from disclosing intimate partner abuse (Reyes et al., 2019). So far, some
research has highlighted concerns of Filipino Americans, but concerns about providing services
to address those needs remain.
The small but growing body of research on Filipino American mental health also
illuminates current barriers and remedies to preventing and treating mental illness in Filipino
American communities. Many studies unanimously note that underutilization of mental health
services, low representation of Filipino Americans among mental healthcare providers, and the
lack of culturally responsive treatments developed for Filipino Americans are barriers to
improving mental health access and outcomes for this population (Abe-Kim et al., 2004; Nadal,
2020; Sanchez & Gaw, 2007). Given that mental illness is commonly seen as a source of shame
or stigma within Filipino American communities, individuals who are less likely to seek help
from family, friends, religious clergy, and/or Indigenous healers may resort to internalizing their
symptoms. An increase in some American cultural tendencies is related to increases in mental
health help-seeking in Filipino Americans. This is important to consider, given that access to
Filipino cultural practices and communities provides effective coping, increases social support,
and bolsters mental health help-seeking in Filipino Americans across gender, age, or immigrant
14
generation status (Ferrera, 2017; Reyes et al., 2020; Tintiangco-Cubales, 2013; Tuazon et al.,
2019). When colonial mentality (i.e., a form of internalized oppression under which a person
seeks to emulate qualities of the colonizer) was increased, it was more likely to predict decreased
levels of mental health help-seeking in Filipino Americans, which indicates that historical forms
of trauma have some influence on Filipino American mental health and ethnic identity (Tuazon
et al., 2019).
What does it mean to be a Filipino American living in a culturally plural, settler-state
nation like the United States? The social structure in the United States has maintained the
oppressed, minoritized status of Indigenous peoples by oppressive attitudes based in White
supremacy in the United States and abroad. As many racial and ethnic groups migrate and settle
on lands belonging to Indigenous peoples and occupied by Western, European colonists (and
their descendants), members of these diasporic, immigrant, minority groups begin to build
awareness of their own identities and histories through interactions with people from both similar
and different backgrounds. Through these cultural exchanges, immigrant racial and ethnic groups
undergo various processes of reflexively learning about the core of their cultural identities and
histories while writing a new diasporic narrative. The history of the United States and the
Philippines share complex themes of imperialism and colonialism, forming an important
backdrop for the origin stories of Filipino Americans to carve out the essential foundations of
their ever-growing collective identity and the values, practices, and attitudes that guide Filipino
American communities to collective liberation and empowerment (Bhatia & Ram, 2001; David
et al., 2017; Dunbar-Ortiz, 2014; Hufana & Consoli, 2020).
15
Statement of the Problem
Counseling psychology literature still has a limited availability of quantitative research
on Filipino Americans. This gap within counseling psychology literature is currently being
addressed with increased visibility, interest, and advocacy by Filipino American counseling
psychologists over the past twenty years. While Filipinos have historically been
underrepresented and face environmental forms of discrimination due to invisibility within the
Asian American community, a growing sense of kapwa (or “one’s unity, connection, and oneness
with other people—regardless of ‘blood’ connection, SES, educational level, place of origin or
other factors”) and bayanihan (or “community”) within a new generation of Filipino American
scholars and clinicians ushers in a new movement towards interdisciplinary and decolonizing
efforts to claim space in an otherwise predominantly White field (David et al., 2017; Hufana &
Consoli, 2020; Maramba & Nadal, 2013). There are 3.98 million Americans of Filipino descent
residing in the United States, which, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s projections makes
Filipino Americans one of the largest, fastest-growing Asian American ethnic groups behind
Chinese and South Asian Indian ethnic groups (Budiman & Ruiz, 2021a, 2021b; Lopez et al.,
2017). As Filipino Americans grow increasingly aware of their overall presence and influence
within the United States, they begin to empower themselves through challenging the “Model
Minority Myth” and the invalidating, systemic effects of racial assignment (Cherng & Liu, 2017;
Lee & Ramakrishnan, 2019; Nadal et al., 2010; Park et al., 2018). Internalization of the “Model
Minority Myth” hinders development of sociopolitical awareness, increases self-stereotyping,
and is associated with greater anti-Black attitudes—all of which uphold White supremacy and
minimize opportunities for solidarity between Black, Latine, Indigenous, and AA&PIs (Yi &
Todd, 2021).
16
Most studies in Asian American and Pacific Islander (AA&PI) psychological research do
not differentiate and disaggregate Filipino American data from other AA groups (Agbayani-
Siewert, 2004; Espiritu, 2003; Nadal et al., 2010; Okamura, 2013). Without additional
consideration of generation status in psychological research on, education for, and clinical
practice with Filipino Americans, the likelihood of invalidation could result in greater mistrust of
and collaboration with psychologists by Filipino Americans. Considering the recent effects of the
COVID-19 pandemic on this population, who are more likely than other Asian ethnic groups to
be at risk for infection and death due to workplace exposure, disaggregation and visibility of
Filipino Americans could mean more opportunities to meet their specific mental health needs
during times of distress and recent increases in anti-Asian hate crimes (Wong, 2020). Overall,
Filipino Americans reported higher mental health concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic
than Asian Americans as a collective (Constante, 2021). Given the emergence of mental health
risk factors associated with second- and third-generation Filipino Americans, researchers should
consider including generation status as a variable in psychological research (Austin & Chorpita,
2004; del Prado & Church, 2010; Liu & Suyemoto, 2016; Tompar-Tiu & Sustento-Seneriches,
1995; Tuason et al., 2007).
Filipino Americans’ psychological experiences pertaining to their ethnic identity,
enculturation, and colonial mentality are rarely studied in counseling psychology, even though
literature suggests that the study of constructs that are salient to minoritized groups (e.g., ethnic
identity and enculturation) and are related to their mental health can guide more “culturally
responsive” and “trauma informed” care for this historically excluded population (David &
Nadal, 2013; Nadal, 2020). There is still a need for Filipinos and other AA&PI ethnic groups
with histories of colonialism to develop or adapt and utilize multidimensional mental health
17
models that contextualize the psychological effects of past and contemporary oppression (Tran &
Chan, 2017). Contextualizing the history behind one’s social identity while analyzing an
individual’s presenting concerns and traits (e.g., generation status) may help with developing
more specific clinical and educational interventions for use with Filipino Americans (Cordisco
Tsai & Seballos-Llena, 2020; David, 2013; Feliciano & Rumbaut, 2019; Halagao, 2010; Heras,
2007; Nadal, 2008; Pe-Pua & Protacio-Marcelino, 2000; Sanchez & Gaw, 2007; Tuazon et al.,
2019). The effects of different generation statuses on these experiences within the Filipino
American community are also rarely examined as a variable alongside important relationships
between ethnic identity, enculturation, and colonial mentality processes. The present study
addresses a gap in the counseling psychology literature in examining and predicting relationships
between these processes and ethnic identity in Filipino Americans.
Significance of the Research
The purpose of the present study was to investigate the relationships among
enculturation, colonial mentality, generation status, and ethnic identity in Filipino Americans.
Furthermore, the study explored connections between these variables—generation status, ethnic
identity, enculturation, and colonial mentality—and how they may have shaped the ways that
members of this population perceive their Filipino culture and internalized oppression. The value
of the current study is derived from its exploration of these variables by its:
• integration of Asian American studies, postcolonial studies, and ethnic studies topics
into multicultural, counseling psychology research;
• focus on measuring developmental and psychological phenomena (e.g., ethnic
identity and enculturation) with measures that are not commonly used together in an
understudied population (e.g., Filipino Americans);
18
• identification of generation status as a specific variable of interest in analyzing ethnic
identity; and
• use of social identity theory as a lens to describe patterns of enculturation and
internalized oppression in Filipino Americans.
The use of the Ethnic Identity Scale (EIS; Umaña-Taylor, Yazedjian, & Bamaca-Gomez,
2004) in conjunction with two measures developed and validated for specific use with Filipino
Americans is what distinguishes the current study from existing literature on ethnic identity,
enculturation of Filipino culture, and experience of colonial mentality. Previous studies with this
population have used the Multiethnic Identity Measure (MEIM; Phinney, 1992), which
operationalizes the components of ethnic identity differently than the original and brief forms of
the EIS. Qualitative studies have investigated different aspects of Filipino American ethnic
identity and the effects of enculturation, colonial mentality, and generation status, but few
quantitative studies have explored the nature and strength of their connections through the lens of
social identity theory.
Research Questions
1. Does Filipino American ethnic identity vary among generations?
2. Are ethnic identity subscale scores related to colonial mentality subscale scores among
Filipino Americans?
3. Does a relationship exist between ethnic identity subscale scores and enculturation
subscale scores in Filipino Americans?
4. Are enculturation subscale scores related to colonial mentality subscale scores in Filipino
Americans?
5. Does Filipino American enculturation vary among generations?
19
6. Will generation status affect colonial mentality?
Research Hypotheses
1. Ethnic identity for first- and 1.5-generation Filipino Americans will be higher than
second- and third/subsequent-generation Filipino Americans.
2. Lower ethnic identity subscale scores will be related to higher colonial mentality subscale
scores in Filipino Americans.
3. Higher enculturation subscale scores will be related to higher ethnic identity subscale
4. Higher enculturation subscale scores will be related to lower colonial mentality subscale
5. First- and 1.5-generation Filipino Americans will have higher enculturation scores than
6. First-generation Filipino Americans will have a lower colonial mentality than 1.5-,
second-, and third/subsequent-generation Filipino Americans.
Table 1.
Dissertation Research Questions, Data Sources, and Hypotheses
Research Question Elements
Research Question Data Sources
(Hypothesis)
1. Does Filipino American ethnic Multivariate Analysis of Ethnic identity for first and 1.5
identity vary among generations? variance (MANOVA) generation Filipino Americans will be
statistical test for higher than second, and
differences between third/subsequent generation Filipino
generation groups' Americans
Ethnic Identity Scale
(EIS) subscale scores
from participants' web
survey responses;
Multivariate Analysis of
Variance (MANOVA)
Post-Hoc tests
20
Table 1. Continued
2. Are ethnic identity subscale Canonical Correlation Filipino Americans with lower ethnic
scores related to colonial Analysis (CCA) of EIS identity subscale scores will be related
mentality subscale scores among subscales with Colonial to higher colonial mentality subscale
Filipino Americans? Mentality Scale (CMS) scores
subscales from
participants' web survey
responses
3. Does a relationship exist CCA of EIS subscales Filipino Americans with higher
between ethnic identity subscale with Enculturation Scale enculturation subscale scores will be
scores and enculturation subscale for Filipino Americans related to higher ethnic identity scores
scores in Filipino Americans? (ESFA) subscales from
participants' web survey
responses
4. Are enculturation subscale CCA of ESFA subscales Filipino Americans with higher
scores related to colonial with CMS subscales enculturation subscale scores will be
mentality subscale scores in from participants web related to lower colonial mentality
Filipino Americans? survey responses subscale scores
5. Does Filipino American MANOVA statistical First and 1.5 generation Filipino
enculturation vary among test for differences Americans will have higher
generations? between generation enculturation scores than second, and
groups' ESFA subscale third/subsequent generation Filipino
scores from participants Americans
web survey responses;
MANOVA Post-Hoc
tests
6. Will generation status affect MANOVA statistical First generation Filipino Americans
colonial mentality? test for differences will have a lower colonial mentality
between generation than 1.5, second, and third/subsequent
groups' CMS subscale generation Filipino Americans
scores from participants
web survey responses;
MANOVA Post-Hoc
tests
Definition of Terms
The specific terms below, which are organized for simplicity, are used throughout the
current study and serve as a quick reference guide.
21
Acculturation is commonly defined as the process and degree to which an individual
from an immigrant background takes on and immerses themselves in the host country’s culture
(Berry, 2005; Gibson, 2001; Redfield et al., 1936; Telzer et al., 2016; Yoon et al., 2011).
Assimilation is the linear process by which individuals from immigrant backgrounds
discard their immigrant cultural values in exchange for the cultural values of their host country to
engage in acculturation processes and seek acceptance among people who are native-born to the
host country (Gordon, 1964; Harker, 2001; LaFromboise et al., 1993; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001;
Rumbaut, 1995).
Barangay refers to a precolonial group of people traditionally governed by a datu (chief)
(Murillo, 2009; Reyes, 2015). This basic societal structure for community remains intact in the
Philippines for local governance and administration and is informally replicated within Filipino
American communities and organizations across the United States. At its core, the barangay
serves multiple roles as a community forum for the expression and consideration of collective
views, a place for engaging in discourse on contentious issues, and a primary unit of activism or
organizing for the implementation of various plans, programs, projects, and activities within the
community (Department of Interior and Local Government, 2016).
Bayanihan is a traditional cultural value describing a spirit of collective responsibility
and caring for one another and emphasizes collectivism and the placement of one’s family or
community before anyone else (Constante, 2021; Hufana & Consoli, 2020). This value is a
known contributor to strong family values, help-seeking, and help-providing within a person’s
family or communities (Hufana & Consoli, 2020; Nadal, 2020).
“Brown Asian American” is a panethnic term referring to Asian Americans of Filipino,
South Asian (e.g., Indian, Pakistani, Bangaldeshi, Nepalese, and Sri Lankan), and/or Southeast
22
Asian (e.g., Vietnamese, Hmong, Lao, Malaysian, Cambodian, and Thai) descent. Historically,
this term was developed as part of efforts to increase advocacy for and reduce marginalization of
Filipino, South Asian, and Southeast Asian Americans within broader Asian American
movements (David, 2016a, 2020; Nadal, 2019).
Colonialism is the practice of control involving the domination of a group of people by
another group, which typically involves the transfer of permanent settlers to the new, stolen
territory originally belonging to an Indigenous group of people. Colonial practices include
domination over and dispossession of land, customs, and traditional history belonging to
Indigenous groups by Europeans and/or Americans (Césaire, 1972; David, 2013; Kohn & Reddy,
2017). In this study, colonialism will refer to the subjugation of Filipinos by Spain for over 300
years and then by the United States for 50 years.
Colonial Mentality (CM) is a specific form of internalized oppression among members
of an ethnic or racial group who were previously colonized by Europeans and/or Americans
(David et al., 2019; David & Okazaki, 2006). In this study, CM is characterized by perceptions
of ethnic or cultural inferiority tied to the Philippines’ centuries-long history of colonization
under Spain and the United States. CM is a multifaceted construct involving automatic and
uncritical rejection of all things Filipino and an automatic and uncritical rejection preference for
anything European or American (David & Okazaki, 2010).
Cultural values are a set of ideals, beliefs, values, and principles defining an ethnic
community.
Decolonization is a process of confronting settler colonial states, structures of
domination, and institutions to bring about the repatriation of indigenous land and life (Tiongson,
2019; Tuck & Yang, 2012). Within Filipino diasporic communities (i.e., Filipinos in the
23
Philippines and outside of the Philippines) and the parameters of this study, decolonization is a
process of building cultural reconnections to indigenous Filipino culture as a source of grounding
and reclaiming humanity in the presence of internalized oppression (Ferrera, 2016; Halagao,
2010; Strobel, 1997).
East Asian is a panethnic term describing Asian cultural and ethnic identities from China,
Japan, and Korea (Lee & Ramakrishnan, 2019).
Enculturation is commonly defined as the process and degree to which an individual
from an immigrant background maintains and adheres to the norms and behaviors of their
indigenous culture (Cotas, 2017; del Prado & Church, 2010; Yoon et al., 2011).
Ethnic identity is a sense of belonging involving the cultural traditions, beliefs, and
behaviors that are passed down through generations of an ethnic group and is formed by an
individual’s ethnic heritage and their lived experiences within a social, historical context
(Umaña-Taylor, 2018; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2004). This process is described and experienced as
being dynamic, multidimensional, and developmental (Syed, 2015; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2014).
Filipino Americans are people who have Filipino ancestry and are represented under the
following panethnic categories: Asian American and Pacific Islanders (AA&PI), Brown Asian
American, and Southeast Asian American (Budiman & Ruiz, 2021a, 2021b; Lee &
Ramakrishnan, 2019; Lopez et al., 2017; Tran & Chan, 2017).
Generation status is used in this study to classify the experiences of people from
immigrant backgrounds. Generation status can be categorized as follows: (a) first generation
immigrant individuals who are born and raised outside of the United States whose parents were
also born overseas; (b) 1.5 generation individuals who immigrated to the United States as
children or adolescents to parents born and raised outside of the United States; (c) second
24
generation individuals born and raised in the United States to one or both parents born overseas;
and (d) third and subsequent generation individuals refer to those who are born and raised in the
United States to second generation individuals and have grandparents or great grandparents who
immigrated to the United States.
Immigration refers to the process by which an individual or group of people move to a
new country for permanent residency.
Indigenous describes peoples or characteristics that are native to or originate from a
particular region or country.
Intergenerational trauma, or historical trauma, refers to the transmission of trauma
experiences and stress responses across generations, affecting the children and grandchildren of
those who were directly victimized (Bombay et al., 2009). In this study, it refers to experiences
of Filipino survivors of collective or historical forms of trauma (i.e., U.S. occupation,
authoritarian dictator regimes, war, natural disasters, pandemics), coping strategies, and stress
responses related to those traumatic events that are transmitted and expressed in subsequent
generations (Chan & Litam, 2021). When the souls or cultures of people are oppressed, they are
wounded and in need of healing and liberation (Durán et al., 2008; Durán & Durán, 1995).
Within oppressed communities, the erasure or invisibility of historical soul wounding perpetuates
various forms of spiritual, mental, and emotional suffering (Durán, 1990).
Internalized oppression is described in this study as a form of learned self-hatred when
members of an oppressed, minoritized group start to believe that they are not as good as their
oppressors (Strobel, 1997). Internalized oppression is a major psychological effect of colonialism
in which individuals may learn to attach feelings of inferiority to their indigenous identity and
25
value assimilation to emulate their colonizers (Césaire, 1972; David & Derthick, 2018; Fanon,
1967; Friere, 2014).
Kapwa is a Filipino core value of one’s unity, connection, and oneness with other people,
regardless of “blood” connection, SES, educational level, place of origin, or other factors (David
et al., 2017; Enriquez, 1992; Pe-Pua & Protacio-Marcelino, 2000; Reyes, 2015; Tintiangco-
Cubales & Curammeng, 2018).
The Model Minority Myth is a negative stereotype that portrays all Asian Americans as
a monolithic group that experiences few hardships due to racism because of their hard work
towards occupational and academic success (Tran & Chan, 2017). This stereotype was used to
minimize and erase Asian American and Pacific Islanders experiences of racism and oppression,
while driving a wedge between members of this racial category and other minoritized racial
groups from Black, Indigenous, and Latine communities (Museus & Maramba, 2011).
Pakikisama is a Filipino core value of social acceptance, cooperation, and
interpersonal/relational accommodation with members of a group (Cordisco Tsai & Seballos-
Llena, 2020; David et al., 2017; Enriquez, 1992; Hufana & Consoli, 2020).
Panethnic or panethnicity is a term used to describe multiple ethnic groups who are
grouped together based on similarities in cultural values, geographic origins, language, or
religion. In this study, Asian Americans are considered a panethnic racial category because this
category includes multiple ethnicities with some similarities in geographic origins.
Social Identity Theory is a theory of intergroup relations proposing that social identity is
part of a person’s self-concept and originates from membership within a social group (Tajfel,
1974; Thibeault et al., 2018; Turner & Tajfel, 1979; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2014). Identity
26
management strategies are used to restore or improve an individual’s sense of belonging or
satisfaction with their social group membership (Bourhis & Montreuil, 2015; Meca et al., 2017).
Southeast Asian is a panethnic category within the broader Asian panethnic racial
category describing individuals with ethnic origins from countries geographically located in
Southeast Asia (e.g., Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia,
Burma/Myanmar) who share some cultural and ethnolinguistic similarities (Tran & Chan, 2017).
Outline for the Remainder of the Dissertation
Chapter two provides an overview of the literature on immigrant generation status and
how it has been used to differentiate various experiences among AA&PIs, particularly Filipino
Americans, in the United States. The second chapter also provides a review of related literature
on ethnic identity models and past studies on Filipino American ethnic identity and enculturation.
Colonial mentality literature among Filipino Americans is also reviewed in the second chapter.
Chapter three describes the participants who completed the study, recruitment procedures,
and the instruments used in the study. This chapter also includes a summary of the instruments’
psychometric properties, strengths and limitations, selection criteria for subjects, procedures for
the data collection method, design of the study, and methods for statistical analysis.
Chapter four presents results from the data analysis of the six research questions.
Chapter five includes a discussion of results reported in chapter four, the study’s
limitations, implications for research, training/education implications, clinical implications, and
future directions for research.
27
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This study investigated the relationships between enculturation, colonial mentality, and
generation status in Filipino American adults’ ethnic identity. In addition, a related purpose of the
current study was to contribute to the scarce but growing body of research and literature that
exists on Filipino American ethnic identity. More specifically, research from a perspective that
acknowledges this population’s historical context and related cultural processes is needed within
the field of counseling psychology. Within this study is a review of literature on generation
status, ethnic identity models, social identity theory, colonial mentality, and enculturation as
related to Filipino Americans.
Generation Status
When studying the lived experiences of individuals from immigrant backgrounds, a
common language on generation status is required by researchers to understand literature
findings and observations from the data collection process for a panethnic racial category (e.g.,
Asian Americans) and more specific ethnic subgroups (e.g., Filipino Americans).
Generation Status Defined
The following generation status categories are commonly known and delineated from
studies on immigrant assimilation and acculturation: first generation, 1.5 generation, second
generation, and third generation (Bui, 2013; Harker, 2001; Ryabov, 2009, 2015). Though
Western psychology tends to focus on individual differences and groups Asian American ethnic
groups into a panethnic racial category, the field should also investigate the variation of
experiences within different generation groups and consider more dynamic relationships between
the individuals and their social groups (Meca et al., 2017; Rogers et al., 2020). Previous
28
researchers have indicated that the process of immigrating may influence the motivations,
actions, values, and beliefs of each immigrant generation (Morey et al., 2020; Portes & Zhou,
1993; Zhou, 2014). Among some generations, for example, distinctive life experiences that
differentiate one immigrant generation from another are the place of an individual’s birth and/or
the immigration process from a home country, if applicable (Rumbaut, 1994; Yap et al., 2016). In
this study, first-generation immigrants are defined as individuals born outside of the United
States who immigrate during emerging, middle, or late adulthood.
Immigrants who are classified as 1.5 generation are born outside of the United States and
immigrate during childhood or adolescence. Most studies will typically collapse data from the
1.5 generation into either the first generation or the second generation in their analysis because
the years of exposure to mainstream U.S. culture, as defined by age of arrival to the United
States, may affect their socialization (Poon, 2014; Sirin et al., 2013).
The second generation are American-born children of the first and/or 1.5 generation who
did not emigrate from their parents’ homeland and spend the formative years of their life in the
United States (Lopez et al., 2017; Portes et al., 2005; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001). Lastly, the
proposed study defines the third generation as the American-born children of second-generation
individuals and the grandchildren of first-generation immigrants.
Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and Generation Status
Over a decade ago, current literature on AA&PIs and generation status offered limited
information on the second and subsequent generations. A recent PsycINFO database search of
peer-reviewed articles between 2014-2020 for “second generation” AND “Asian American”
generated 47 results to suggest that there is some interest in disaggregating data by generation
status within the literature. The Asian American Journal of Psychology published 20 of the
29
articles included in those search results. While the rapid growth of this research niche provides
hope and direction for psychologists working with AA&PIs, many inconsistencies still exist in
how these generation subgroups are defined and studied. The terms “second generation,”
“immigrant second generation,” and “new immigrant second generation” are interchangeably
used for both American-born children of immigrants (i.e., second-generation Americans) and
immigrants who arrived in the United States as young children (i.e., 1.5 generation), thus,
contributing to the relative invisibility of this variable in AA&PI psychological research
(Chirkov, 2009b, 2009a; Poon, 2014). More recent studies have observed and critiqued this
practice and advocated for more consistent use of generation status in future research (Liu &
Suyemoto, 2016).
Liu and Suyemoto’s (2016) study tested whether generational status moderated
relationships between racism-related stress (RRS) and depression as mediated by interpersonal
sensitivity (IS). They hypothesized that generation status moderated the mediating relationship
between RRS and depression. This relationship was explained by anxiety and IS operating as
mediators for second-generation participants. In developing a literature review for their study,
they found some research to suggest that acculturation and generation status may be related to
mental health and the ways in which Asian Americans experience discrimination in the United
States. Their design was unique from past studies because they identified generation status as a
predictor variable. For participants across all generation statuses, RRS was related to mental
health in AA&PIs and supported literature findings that used aggregated AA&PI samples (Lau et
al., 2009; Liu & Suyemoto, 2016; Young et al., 2010). In first-generation participants’ responses,
generation status moderated the relationship between RRS and depression (as mediated by IS).
This relationship was stronger in first-generation participants than in 1.5- and second-generation
30
participants, which suggested a difference in racial or ethnic socialization between these
generations due to latter generations’ acclimation to U.S. race relations during their formative
years. Ultimately, the authors made strong recommendations to disaggregate future findings on
Asian Americans by generation status to prevent inaccurate overgeneralizations of experiences in
the literature given the rich diversity within the AA&PI population.
Literature suggests that, for the second generation, group identification weakens with a
growing lack of familiarity with the country of origin (Heras, 2007; Sue, 2013). Some studies
have found that greater acculturation or exposure to acculturative stress predicted more somatic
manifestations of psychological distress in first-generation immigrants, while second-generation
participants in other studies had higher rates of psychological disorders and reports of perceived
discrimination (Cherng & Liu, 2017; Goto et al., 2002; Lau et al., 2009; Sirin et al., 2013;
Takeuchi et al., 2007). The weakened connection with one’s country of origin leads to an
increased cultural distance and a decreased sense of belonging to one’s ethnic group, which may
contribute to family conflict and psychological distress (Farver et al., 2002; Liu et al., 2019;
Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; Szapocznik & Kurtines, 1993).
Generational Differences in Filipino Americans
Filipino American families may experience dynamics similar to other Asian ethnic groups
who battle the effects of assimilation and acculturation in a host country as they navigate their
identity formation and resolution (Buenavista, 2010; Chutuape, 2016; Kiang & Witkow, 2015;
Maramba, 2008; San Juan, 1994; Teranishi, 2002). While these experiences are shared among
many Asian ethnic groups, these phenomena may be intensified among Filipino Americans by
the following factors: (a) the colonial relationship between the United States and the Philippines,
(b) second-generation Filipino Americans’ family indebtedness to first-generation parents, (c)
31
internalized oppression in the form of colonial mentality, and (d) the navigation of racial and
ethnic identities in a largely Black-White society (Agbayani-Siewert, 1994, 1997; David &
Nadal, 2013; Enrile & Agbayani, 2007; Ferrera, 2016; Ocampo, 2014). To date, most studies on
Filipino immigrants and U.S. acculturation either focus on the experiences of the first generation
(i.e., born in the Philippines) or aggregate the first and second generations (i.e., born in the
United States to one or more Philippine-born parents) (Cordova, 1983). Only a few studies have
attempted to conduct either quantitative or qualitative inquiry into the different experiences of
Filipino American generations (Ferrera, 2017; Kiang et al., 2013; Kiang & Fuligni, 2009;
Ocampo, 2013).
The unique aspects of U.S.-Philippines post-colonial relations and their long-term effects
on the racial and ethnic socialization of Filipino Americans across generations are not frequently
addressed in most psychological studies focusing on panethnic (and predominantly East Asian)
research on AA&PIs. Though Filipino Americans, when grouped with Asian Americans, are
often positively stereotyped as a “model minority,” the erasure of their historical background
with the United States fails to add context and nuance to this group’s unique experiences and
narratives of influence by American imperialism and Spanish colonialism (Feliciano & Rumbaut,
2019; Lee et al., 2017; Rodriguez-Operana et al., 2017). After the Spanish-American and
Filipino-American Wars and through current times, many Filipinos emigrated to the United
States due to environmental, social, political, and economic “push” factors from their home
country that were a result of occupation by these foreign sovereign powers (e.g., poverty,
disasters, unemployment) (Alonso-Garbayo & Maben, 2009).
While this history and its effects on acculturation and racial/ethnic socialization of youth
are frequently discussed within the Filipino American community, many non-Filipino researchers
32
and journal editors in psychology may lack the intimate knowledge or confidence in Filipino
American studies to recognize or explain Filipino American racial/ethnic socialization relative to
other groups, due to persistent adoption of the White gaze in many predominantly White
institutions and fields (Pailey, 2020; Paris, 2019; Sin, 2007). Because of his strong ties to his
ethnic identity and expertise within the field of psychology, Nadal (2019) can provide a historical
background to the American Movement, the positionality of Filipino Americans within the Asian
American Movement relative to East Asian Americans, and the implications for advocacy on
contemporary issues affecting Filipino Americans. As the Yellow Power Movement gained
traction alongside the Black Power Movement and the Brown Power Movement in the 1960s and
1970s, many Filipino Americans challenged the East Asian exclusivity of the Yellow Power
Movement. This was because of Filipino Americans’ identification as “brown” and their lived
experiences of discrimination from other Asian Americans (i.e., of East Asian descent) as being
“not Asian enough,” invisible, inferior, and uncivilized within the AA&PI community (Ignacio,
1976; Nadal, 2019, 2020; Nadal et al., 2012). In fact, Filipino Americans and Pacific Islanders
(i.e., Native Hawaiians, Samoans, and Chamorros) met during a Brown Asian Caucus at a
National Conference on Asian American Mental Health to discuss the internal conflicts of
successful advocacy from a critical mass of Asian Americans (when in coalition with other Asian
Americans), even though these coalitions did not serve Filipino American and Pacific Islanders’
interests, include Filipino American narratives in Asian American Studies, or provide accurate
representations of Filipino Americans (Cordova, 1983; Espiritu, 1992; Mabalon, 2013; Nadal,
2019; Rondilla, 2002). This history is unique to the Filipino American narrative and may benefit
future analyses and study design in research about generational differences in acculturation or
enculturation within this population.
33
For example, in a study by Okamura and colleagues (2016) on internalizing symptoms
across Chinese American, Filipino American, Japanese American, Native Hawaiian, and White
youth, it was found that Filipino American parents reported more symptoms of anxiety and
depression than White parents from their children. While their findings confirmed previous
research on the well-being of AA&PI youth, particularly Filipino American youth (Austin &
Chorpita, 2004; Javier et al., 2010), it did not (a) collect data on the generation status of the
parents and children, (b) acknowledge or reference the potential macro-level, long-term
influence(s) or role(s) of Filipino Americans’ and Native Hawaiians history of oppression and
colonization by White, European empires on opportunities for parental education and SES
mobility, nor (c) measure participants’ ethnic identity.
Emic approaches that acknowledge these macro-level influences are emerging in the
literature and serve to expand on previous findings. In a study by Filipino American researcher
Agbayani-Siewert (2004) on Chinese, Filipino, Latine and White undergraduate students’
attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs related to dating violence, the researchers’ findings disputed
conventional assumptions that Filipino students are more similar to Chinese students and less
like Hispanic and White students. Unlike previous studies, which grouped Filipino Americans
with other Asian American ethnic groups and assumed strong similarities among Filipino
Americans and East Asians, Agbayani-Siewert’s (2004) study approached comparisons between
these groups with an interpretation that advocated for a deeper understanding of Filipino
Americans’ unique perspectives and contextualization of their history within the field. The
study’s statistical findings and implications indicated that conventional models comparing Asian
and White racial categories only would not have uncovered similarities and differences between
34
Filipino and Chinese students nor elaborated upon the potential influences behind them—a key
difference that may be more salient to a researcher who is also a member of this community.
Others have also explored Filipino experiences from this in-group perspective. A more
recent study highlighting the importance of family (within Filipino communities) in
understanding adolescent behavioral health needs is an example of an emic approach to research
designed for understanding the unmet mental health needs of Filipino Americans (Javier et al.,
2018). Two of the researchers in the study, including the primary author, identified as
Filipino/Filipino American and interviewed participants from community-based settings (e.g.,
high schools, primary care settings, churches) and via word-of-mouth for phase 1 of the study.
While a non-Filipino American may be trained in using predetermined probes, the benefit of
having a trained, Filipino American interviewer is their ability to elicit relevant opinions related
to this community’s perception of mental health among youth for the first phase. Given the
researchers’ background as a mental healthcare provider, their perspective also facilitated a
complex, nuanced way to collect data from caregivers in phase 2 of the study and for analysis of
results from both phases. The results from the study facilitated the dissemination of observations
about the role(s) and importance of family cohesion in Filipino youths’ behavioral health to
members within this ethnic group and healthcare providers hoping to increase service utilization
and design culturally adapted interventions.
Many second-generation Filipino Americans may experience feelings of indebtedness to
their first-generation family members due to cultural norms of reciprocity and deference to
elders, as well as a sense of deep appreciation for the first generation’s resilience and sacrifice
for the “American Dream.” While these sentiments reflect cultural norms of deferring to elders
acquired through socialization, these feelings of deference may often parallel or mirror first-
35
generation members’ feelings of indebtedness and gratitude for what they perceive to be their
host country’s hospitality and provision of increased opportunities for economic stability upon
immigration (Berry, 2007; Kang & Raffaelli, 2014; Marin & Gamba, 2003). Despite individual
differences in the intensity of these feelings, these sentiments and experiences contribute to
second-generation Filipino Americans’ meaning-making processes and their potential
motivations for resolving their individual ethnic identity, while accommodating collective values
and beliefs.
In an article focusing on therapeutic work with second-generation Filipino women, Heras
(2007) highlights the importance of family matters, intergenerational conflict, and ethnic identity,
which are all themes emphasized in existing multicultural psychology research on Filipino
Americans. Given the importance of family closeness and harmony in Filipino culture, a lack of
connection to one’s country of origin may expose second-generation Filipinos to various risk
factors and stressors associated with being a racial or ethnic minority in the United States. For
example, some studies have found that generation status and use of English in the home predicts
a greater likelihood of marijuana use and delinquency rates in AA&PI youth, particularly with
Filipino or Pacific Islander youth (Nagasawa et al., 2001). When second-generation Filipino
American youth struggle with a sense of belonging to their host and native cultures,
opportunities for an ethnic identity crisis may begin to manifest themselves.
Ethnic Identity
Ethnic and racial identity is a nested, psychosocial process of self and society that
operates longitudinally and across multiple contexts and frequently refers to one’s self-image,
understanding, and positioning within their social groups (Cross et al., 1991; Rogers, 2018;
Rogers et al., 2020; Sellers et al., 1998). According to Phinney and Ong (2007), self-
36
categorization is an important component of measuring ethnic identity, especially given that
previous research has confirmed that individuals or groups may identify at varying degrees with
their social identities at different times (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001). Over the years, ethnic identity
has been studied in many fields to explore its influence on wellness, self-esteem, and adjustment
to reflect the lived realities of minoritized individuals and groups. Many prominent Black
scholars in the 1970s and 1980s laid the groundwork for Black identity research, which
positioned identity development processes within societies that upheld anti-Black and White
supremacist attitudes, influencing the course of ethnic and racial identity psychology research for
other minoritized ethnic and racial groups for years to come (Cross et al., 1991; Parham &
Helms, 1985; Thomas, 1970; White, 1984).
Since the 1970s and 80s, many psychology researchers have studied ethnic and racial
identity experiences of Latine, Black, and AA&PI ethnic and racial groups extensively to
examine between- and within-group differences (Balidemaj & Small, 2019; Phinney et al.,
1997). More common and recent examinations of ethnic and racial identity within the literature
use quantitative approaches among adolescents and emerging adults—surveying their self-
identification with their ethnic group(s), as well as their self-esteem, ethnic-racial socialization,
attitudes towards other groups, and various predictors for mental health and educational
outcomes (Maiya et al., 2021; Rivas-Drake et al., 2020). Within predominantly White institutions
and fields, the study of ethnic and racial identity has provided a space for scholars and
communities from ethnic and racially minoritized populations to gain visibility and rewrite
narratives that previously presumed deficits among individuals who self-identified as Black,
Latine, Indigenous, and/or AA&PI (Rogers et al., 2020; Syed et al., 2018).
37
Ethnic identity serves as an important concept for individuals from minoritized
populations living in the United States, given that many studies have described its influence and
interactions with well-being and resilience (Ai et al., 2015; Gartner et al., 2014; Lam & Tran,
2020; Teppang et al., 2017). Despite the importance of this concept, researchers, such as Syed et
al. (2018) and Jensen et al. (2021), have observed that existing research on ethnic and racial
identity is decades behind the literature on other forms of identity in psychology and
developmental sciences. Since most early developmental theories center the experiences of
Western, White, heterosexual, Christian, educated, male individuals with more privileged
identities, this has created and sustained benchmarks of success and wellness that deemed these
psychosocial and developmental pathways as superior to those with oppressed, minoritized
identities (Rogers et al., 2020; Syed et al., 2018). Psychology as a predominantly White
discipline is defined by its focus on individual organisms as a product of its earliest White,
Eurocentric, forerunners and historical exclusion of scholars from non-White, collectivist
cultures who describe development as more transactional and interdependent (Kiang & Fuligni,
2009; Phinney et al., 2001; Rogers, 2018). To combat the detrimental effects of White-centric
theorizing and research, many researchers have answered the calls to decolonize identity
research through the use of critical theories, integrative models, and acknowledgement of the
relevance of historical and sociopolitical contexts (in ethnic identity) as an important mechanism
for identity development (Carter & Constantine, 2000; Coll & Marks, 2012; Martinez-Fuentes et
al., 2020; Syed et al., 2018; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2014). Over the years, several theories and
models were used to explore and explain ethnic and racial identity, particularly its mechanisms
and manifestations in various individuals who have lived experiences as ethnic or racial
minorities within the United States (Phinney & Ong, 2007; Schwartz et al., 2014; Syed, 2015).
38
Ethnic Identity Defined
Within this current study, ethnic identity is defined as a sense of belonging that involves
the cultural traditions, beliefs, and behaviors that are passed down through generations of an
ethnic group (Umaña-Taylor, Yazedjian, & Bamaca-Gomez, 2004). It is also defined by the
extent of an individual’s exploration into their own ethnic background and the resolution of
meaning(s) for their own general self-concept. Ethnic identity is informed by an individual’s
ethnic heritage and one’s racialized experiences in each sociohistorical context (Umaña-Taylor,
2018).The basis for ethnic identity is a dynamic, evolving developmental process that manages
the identification with an ethnic group along cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions
within the field of psychology (Syed, 2015; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2014).
In general, ethnic identity development is a continuous and dynamic phenomenon
beginning in adolescence for individuals who are exploring, affirming, and/or resolving different
aspects of their ethnicity. According to Erikson’s (1994) psychosocial theory of development,
ego development occurs within the context of resolving crises that are social and cultural in
nature, especially with regard to identity in the psychological research of multicultural
populations. This has become the basis of both social identity theory and, most importantly,
ethnic identity. Within psychology research, racial identity and ethnic identity are defined as
concepts that are independent from one another; however, these identity categories can be
described with significant overlaps, particularly among Filipino Americans whose experiences
“break the rules of race” (Jensen et al., 2021; Ocampo, 2016). In the case of Filipino Americans,
members of this group encountering marginalization must ultimately resolve conflicts between
maintaining their Filipino identity and healthy ego development while being devalued by their
colonizer’s culture—meaning that they engage in a transactional or bidirectional process that
39
balances accommodation and resistance strategies for thriving, despite existing power disparities
caused by White supremacy (Masta, 2018; Rogers, 2018).
Ethnic Identity Models and Theories
According to a literature review by Balidemaj and Small (2019), most research on ethnic
identity follows the main theoretical approaches of developmental theory and social identity
theory. Both developmental and social identity models have remained influential within the field
of psychology, with more attention in current research being drawn towards models grounded in
developmental theories, lifespan models, and more current, integrative models (Syed et al., 2018;
Williams et al., 2020). Balidemaj and Small (2019) noted that, among most studies operating
from developmental theoretical approaches, ethnic identity consisted of multiple components
referring to an individual’s self-identification as a member of an ethnic group, belonging to that
group, attitudes towards the group, shared beliefs, and specific ethnic practices. These
components were also observed to function on a group level, particularly among collectivist
cultures, and followed a progression over time that is attributed to an individual’s experiences,
actions, and sense of association with that group.
The most popular developmental model for ethnic identity was developed by Phinney,
who applied Marcia’s individual identity statuses and Erikson’s psychosocial development stages
to develop the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM)—the most widely used ethnic
identity measure, which has since undergone a revision following its development (Balidemaj &
Small, 2019; Phinney, 1992; Phinney & Ong, 2007). These developmental theories highlight the
importance of context, reflection, and observation, and particularly the opportunities for ethnic
identity to develop, which often leads to predictions that individuals living in environments with
more people from a similar ethnic group would develop a stronger ethnic identity (Erikson,
40
1994; Phinney & Ong, 2007; Syed et al., 2018; Syed et al., 2018). Within the past decade or so,
critiques of Erikson have arisen to call psychology researchers, particularly developmental
psychologists, towards returning to concepts of bidirectionality and “psychosocial relativity”
(Erikson, 1994; Rogers et al., 2020). Consistent themes were named within Erikson’s original
writings on identity as a transactional, co-constructed process between self and society,
intertwined and nested within a sociohistorical and cultural context (Erikson, 1994; Rogers,
2018; Rogers et al., 2020). To illustrate a need to revisit Erikson’s concepts, particularly on
identity and psychosocial relativity, Rogers (2018) challenged current interpretations of
Erikson’s “negative identity” construct, which placed excessive, unidirectional emphasis on
individuals, rather than a critical, bidirectional perspective that roots identity in systems of power
and privilege within relationships, communities, and cultures.
In her overview of suggested approaches to make identity research from Eriksonian
perspectives more culturally inclusive, Rogers (2018) provides concrete examples, practices, and
theoretical evidence for needed shifts to empower individuals and communities with oppressed,
minoritized identities. The following types of transactional approaches were summarized by
Rogers (2018) as effective strategies for examining transactions between self and society in
identity development more thoroughly and critically to affect systemic changes socially and
politically: (a) historical, political, and master narratives (Hammack, 2008; Hammack & Toolis,
2016; McLean et al., 2018); (b) accommodation and resistance (Genovese, 1974; Gilligan, 2011;
Hurtado, 1997; Masta, 2018); and (c) intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989, 1995). Concluding an
overview of approaches, the following recommendations were provided by Rogers (2018): (a)
integration of history (Hammack & Cohler, 2011); (b) adoption of intergeneration or relational
lens (McLean, 2015; Ocampo, 2014; Popescu, 2019; Suyemoto & Liu, 2018); and (c) assessment
41
of societal-level outcomes related to identity—all of which are considerations taken by this
current study and overlap with recommendations by other fields and professionals serving
minoritized groups, including Filipino Americans (Ai et al., 2015; Chan & Litam, 2021; Devos &
Sadler, 2019; Irwin et al., 2017). Rogers’ explanation and rationale for transactional approaches
echoes similar themes that are evolving within ethnic identity research that stems from social
identity theory, psychology research on immigrant populations, and more clinical and counseling
psychology research that moves from deficit-based perspectives towards emphasizing cultural
values and community cultural wealth (Syed et al., 2018; Syed et al., 2018; Yosso, 2005).
Both developmental and social identity theories have complemented each other within
the research on historically excluded and minoritized groups; however, there has been an
increasing need to bridge these approaches to account for lifespan development, institutionalized
discrimination, and internalized oppression (Jensen et al., 2021). Historically, within the
literature, there have been divides across fields within psychology (e.g., social, counseling,
health, clinical community), outside of psychology (e.g., education, social work, ethnic studies),
and even between these two theoretical approaches that are currently being addressed in the most
recent research on ethnic and racial identity (Williams et al., 2020). While this current study
operates from a predominantly social identity theoretical perspective, it attempts to continue this
new legacy of bridging theories and fields by exploring with a measure that uses developmental
perspectives and contextualizing the influence using concepts relevant to Filipino Americans,
such as colonial mentality and enculturation.
Social Identity Theory
While social categorization theory is commonly used with social identity theory in a
social identity approach, this current study will primarily focus on social identity theory. Within
42
ethnic identity research, social identity theory has provided a complementary lens to
developmental theory in that it considered social identity groups in settings that demanded more
situational awareness due to unequal power structures and different types of intergroup relations
(due to these power differentials) in society (Sellers et al., 1998; Syed et al., 2018). Social
identity theory was originally formulated by Tajfel and Turner (1979) to describe intergroup
behaviors and perceived group status differences; they argued that intergroup relations were
influenced by interactions with cognitive, motivational, and sociohistorical factors (Hornsey,
2008). Within the theory, social identity is defined as part of an individual’s self-concept, which
derives from an individual’s knowledge of their social group membership combined with the
emotional significance attached to that membership (Bourhis & Montreuil, 2015; Tajfel, 1974).
Both Tajfel and Turner (1979) argued that most human interactions fall along a continuum of
interpersonal interactions (e.g., people relating as individuals) and intergroup interactions (e.g.,
people relating as representatives of their groups), resulting in dynamic shifts in the ways
humans see themselves and each other (Hornsey, 2008).
According to the theory, an individual’s social identity is based on three general
assumptions: (a) individuals strive for the maintenance or enhancement of a positive self-
concept, (b) social groups and the membership of them are associated with positive or negative
valuations, and (c) the evaluation of one’s own group is mostly determined by other groups
through social comparison (Atkin & Tran, 2020; Bourhis & Montreuil, 2015). Categorization
plays a key role as people are theorized to shift between a self-concept that comprises their own
personal identity as individuals and their social identity with the desire for a positive and secure
self-concept as a primary motivating principle (Hornsey, 2008; Turner & Tajfel, 1979). A group
identity is mostly salient during interactions with other groups when comparisons are made with
43
outgroups, leading to opportunities for a negative social identity to develop for one or more
groups. Thus, the current study examines ethnic identity exploration, affirmation, and resolution
as an indicator of Filipino Americans’ positive feelings towards their group and colonial
mentality as an indicator of negative comparisons held by Filipino Americans and imposed by
White European colonizers (Atkin & Tran, 2020; David et al., 2019; Phinney & Ong, 2007).
Social identity theory gained popularity in the field of social psychology, group
dynamics, and ethnic identity formation because of how it can be experienced by groups and
individuals in the context of stereotypes based in systematic discrimination. Theorists have
outlined the following identity management strategies as ways that a marginalized group member
may attempt to carve out a more positive social identity: (a) physically or psychologically
leaving their membership group, (b) making downward intergroup comparisons towards the
outgroup that flatters the membership group, (c) maintaining exclusive focus on aspects that
elevate the membership group’s status, (d) devaluing aspects that may detract from the
membership group’s status, and (e) engaging in social change to overturn status hierarchy among
groups (Atkin & Tran, 2020; Hornsey, 2008; Tajfel, 1974; Turner & Tajfel, 1979). Based on its
theoretical assumptions, individuals with a more positive social identity make more favorable
comparisons or identified positive differentiations of their membership group relative to non-
membership groups. Conversely, an individual’s unsatisfactory social identity may motivate an
individual towards leaving their membership group and joining another with a more positive
valuation or pressure them to improve the valuation of their membership group. In recent
decades, however, the theory’s emphasis on the internalization of group membership as an aspect
of an individual’s self-concept has broadened its popularity and usage in the psychological
research of ethnic and racial minority identity.
44
According to a historical review by Hornsey (2008, p. 207), social identity theory was
“the first social psychological theory to acknowledge that groups occupy different levels of a
hierarchy of status and power, and that intergroup behavior is driven by people’s ability to be
critical of, and to see alternatives to, the status quo.” Incorporation of theoretical approaches that
acknowledge status and power differentials that systematically oppress Black, Indigenous,
Latine, and AA&PI groups in the United States is conducive to developing inclusive, progressive
research. Since its development in the 1970s, this theory of social identity and change has been
used within various fields of psychology to explain current events, intergroup relations, and
possible motivators for actions and attitudes at both the individual and group levels (Hornsey,
2008; Radke et al., 2020).
Umaña-Taylor’s Ethnic Identity Model
Umaña-Taylor et al.’s (2004) ethnic identity model draws upon theoretical
conceptualizations of identity and developmental psychology by Erikson (1994), Phinney (1992),
Marcia (1980), and Tajfel (1974; 1979). Based on these theories, Umaña-Taylor presents ethnic
identity as a normative developmental process deriving from an individual’s basic need and drive
for identity cohesion (Umaña-Taylor, 2016, 2018). Empirical work using this ethnic identity
model and its corresponding measure assumes that ethnic identity is comprised of three distinct
components: (a) degree of ethnic identity exploration in an individual, (b) degree to which an
individual has resolved what their ethnic identity means to them, and (c) the (positive or
negative) affect associated with that resolution (Umaña-Taylor et. al., 2004). Over time, Umaña-
Taylor et al.’s model and EIS have reliably and consistently fit with social identity theory
constructs, thus contributing to its use with Black, Indigenous, Latine, and AA&PI communities
who are historically excluded from psychology research. A positive or negative valuation was
45
added as a third dimension to mirror Marcia’s four identity statuses, thus, creating a model that
allowed for greater heterogeneity and clarity.
The utility of this ethnic identity model captures the experiences of individuals who have
explored their ethnic identity and maintained a meaning of group membership regardless of the
positive or negative feelings they ascribe towards their reference group (Umaña-Taylor et al.,
2004). By allowing for multiple distinct components, a multidimensional model of ethnic
identity captures different perspectives of people who engage in exploration, resolution, and
affirmation processes. Historically, this model and its corresponding measure is most frequently
used among Latine adolescents, and more recently, there is interest in using this measure with
AA&PI ethnic groups (Martinez-Fuentes et al., 2020; Rivas-Drake et al., 2020).
Despite the popularity of this model, most studies on AA&PI ethnic identity have used
Phinney’s model and scales, specifically the MEIM and MEIM-R (Phinney, 1992; Phinney et al.,
1997, 2001; Phinney & Ong, 2007). Thus, the current study aims to use Umaña-Taylor et al.’s
(2004) model to address a gap within the literature with AA&PIs, and, more specifically, with
Filipino Americans. Most recently, Atkin and Tran (2020) used a subscale of the MEIM-R and a
social identity theoretical approach to investigate links between ethnic identity, racial
discrimination, psychological distress, and metastereotype awareness (MSA; the awareness one
has regarding stereotypes others hold of their group) at Predominantly White Institutions (PWIs).
This quantitative study was administered after the authors reviewed ethnic identity literature on
Asian Americans and addressed mixed findings on the protective effects of ethnic identity by
introducing MSA.
Within their study, Atkin and Tran (2020) argued the plausibility of MSA being a
protective mechanism for Asian American emerging adults because it involves constructs similar
46
to public regard and preparation for bias, which helps them to comprehend and navigate negative
intergroup social interactions because they have been primed to recognize stereotypes as false,
negative generalizations about their membership group (Atkin et al., 2019; Hughes et al., 2006;
Sellers et al., 1998). After administering a survey to a sample of Asian American emerging adults
at PWIs, Atkin and Tran (2020) found that high levels of ethnic identity commitment and MSA
or high levels of MSA with lower levels of ethnic identity commitment had a buffering effect on
psychological distress in the face of racial discrimination, which explains why, in some studies,
ethnic identity alone could not serve as a buffer. To advance this line of research, both Atkin and
Tran (2020) acknowledged limitations caused by the aggregation of AA&PI ethnic groups and
not accounting for stereotype internalization. Using an alternative model and measure, such as
Umaña-Taylor et al.’s (2004) EIS in future research with more specific focus on Filipino
Americans, can help with updating the literature on ethnic identity. The utility of this model may
be helpful in Filipino culture and the historical influence of colonization by multiple countries
and in measuring the affective component as distinct from internalized oppression or shame.
Few studies have explored Filipino ethnic identity in line with Umaña-Taylor’s model,
which has been frequently used with Mexican American participants who share historical and
cultural experiences and perspectives with Filipino Americans (Douglass & Umaña-Taylor,
2015; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2006). Currently, the use of the Multiethnic Identity Measure
(MEIM) or Multiethnic Identity Measure–Revised (MEIM-R) is more widely practiced when
exploring ethnic identity in Filipino Americans (Cotas, 2017; de Dios, 2015; Morente, 2015;
Murillo, 2009; Tuazon et al., 2019). A possible limitation to use of the MEIM-R is that this
measure still retains a two-factor structure (from the original measure) that merges the three
distinct constructs of affirmation, belonging, and commitment into one factor, potentially
47
complicating the analysis and/or implications of how Filipino Americans incorporate colonial
mentality into their ethnic identity resolution (Ponterotto & Park-Taylor, 2007; Schwartz et al.,
2014). In contrast, the EIS measures constructs of ethnic identity exploration, affirmation, and
resolution as distinct from one another and may correlate better with measures of colonial
mentality and/or enculturation, even though it is not developed and validated as a Filipino-
specific measure. Existing research has found that there are significant, positive relationships
between ethnic identity, self-esteem, and well-being in youth from immigrant families, including
Filipino Americans (Meca et al., 2020; Rivas-Drake et al., 2014; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2014).
Literature findings support Umaña-Taylor’s model in emphasizing the importance of family in
the development of ethnic identity and socialization, which are also important components in the
ethnic identity development and well-being of Filipino American youth (Javier, 2018; Javier et
al., 2018; Kiang & Witkow, 2018; Nadal, 2020; Tuason et al., 2014; Umaña-Taylor, 2016;
Umaña-Taylor et al., 2006, 2014).
Ethnic Identity in Filipino Americans
There is a growing interest in Asian American studies and psychology to study Filipinos’
ethnic identity from a perspective that acknowledges the significant historical and psychological
impact of being under both Spanish and U.S. rule. Filipino Americans may have historical and
cultural experience that are more like Latino ethnic groups with the same colonial history than
with other AA&PI ethnicities who have not been colonized by both Spain and the United States
(Agbayani-Siewert, 2004; Nadal et al., 2012; Ocampo, 2016; Root, 1997).
Given the prevalence of ethnic identity research on disaggregated Latine ethnic groups
and their overlapping colonial histories, it may be beneficial to continue addressing Filipino
Americans’ lived experiences of exploring and committing to their ethnic identity.
48
Mossakowski’s (2003) study on Filipino American adults found that ethnic identity is a vital
stress buffer that aids in coping with discrimination and reduces depressive symptoms. In other
words, Filipino Americans’ membership and sense of belonging (to their ethnic group) may be
protective to their ego development, much of which occurs in connection with family, friends,
and communities. Given that many Filipino Americans value kapwa and have an interdependent
self-concept that dynamically balances their personal identity with their social identity as
Filipinos, it becomes important to continue disaggregating Asian American panethnic research to
focus on Filipino Americans and their unique history from a social identity theoretical approach.
Thoughts or behaviors that increase Filipino Americans’ ethnic identity (e.g., engaging in cultural
practices) are examples of one way in which a negative social identity may be resolved, thus,
aligning with social identity theory principles. However, from previous research approaches
rooted in developmental perspectives, colonial mentality may be described as an alternative ego
defense mechanism that motivates a Filipino American towards eschewing their ethnic identity.
Results from Murillo’s (2009) dissertation study found that a person may still manifest colonial
mentality regardless of how strongly he or she identifies with their Filipino ethnicity.
To investigate the relationship between ethnic identity, colonial mentality, and parenting
style among Filipino American parents, Murillo did not find a statistically significant relationship
between colonial mentality, as measured by the Colonial Mentality Scale (CMS; David &
Okazaki, 2006), and ethnic identity, as measured by the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure–
Revised (MEIM-R; Phinney & Ong, 2007). Murillo (2009) had explained that colonial mentality
and ethnic identity are different constructs, with ethnic identity requiring effort on the individual
to maintain or build, and colonial mentality requiring effort to contain or dismantle. While this
finding is surprising at first glance, it supports findings that Filipinos may not exhibit a linear
49
pattern of acculturation/enculturation in comparison to other AA&PI ethnicities (Enrile &
Agbayani, 2007) and that their colonial mentality is not correlated with acculturation (David and
Okazaki, 2006). However, aspects of Murillo’s study have yet to be replicated with a measure
that uses a three-factor structure to fit with ethnic identity constructs in the literature, such as the
EIS.
Since Murillo’s (2009) study, two recent studies on Filipino American ethnic identity by
Teppang et al. (2019) and Tuazon et al. (2019) provided support and future directions for both
quantitative and qualitative research within this ethnic group that informed various aspects of the
current study. Both studies highlighted existing research on the importance of ethnic identity
among Filipino Americans within their literature reviews and echoed concerns among scholars
about the lack of ethnic identity development research after adolescence, disaggregated ethnic
identity research focusing on Filipino Americans, and inclusion of historical context within
Filipino Americans’ ethnic identity (Kiang et al., 2010; Kim & Lee, 2011; Smith & Silva, 2011;
Teppang et al., 2019; Tuazon et al., 2019). And while Teppang et al. (2019) and Tuazon et al.
(2019) used different methodology and theoretical approaches from each other, they ultimately
contributed to directions for ongoing research on Filipino American ethnic identity.
Teppang and her colleagues (2019) adopted a qualitative, exploratory approach based in
social identity theory to address a gap in ethnic identity formation among Filipino American
young adults with a primarily 1.5- and second-generation immigrant population. The following
themes were presented by Teppang et al. (2019) as important considerations for the ethnic
identity processes of Filipino Americans: (a) ethnic identity formation as process, (b) pride in
being Filipino American, (c) family values and dynamics, and (d) acceptance through
participation in ethnic groups. The researchers found substantial support for previous literature
50
on the adaptivity of developing a bicultural identity for Filipino Americans and the need for
relational, participatory, and cultural opportunities to increase self-concept and ethnic identity
affirmation (Choi et al., 2018; Ferrera, 2017; LaFromboise et al., 1993; Mossakowski, 2003;
Mossakowski & Zhang, 2014; Rudmin et al., 2016; Schmidt et al., 2014). Their research
strengthened arguments that ethnic identity in Filipino Americans is influenced by fulfilling
social interactions and relationships, while implementing Rogers’ (2018) recommendation to
conduct research informed by historical context and a relational lens (Nadal, 2020; Tomaneng,
2015). Teppang et al. (2019) made further recommendations for quantitative approaches to
investigate ethnic identity among Filipino American adults, which were addressed by Tuazon et
al. (2019) and the current study.
As a complement to Teppang et al.’s (2019) research, Tuazon et al. (2019) addressed a
gap in the literature by examining assessments of social support, ethnic identity, and colonial
mentality of Filipino Americans from developmental perspectives, including Marcia’s (1980)
identity statuses. Their quantitative study on colonial mentality and mental health help-seeking of
Filipino Americans used David and Okazaki’s (2006) colonial mentality scale to measure
colonial mentality and Phinney and Ong’s (2007) MEIM-R to measure ethnic identity along two
subscales of exploration and commitment. Tuazon et al. (2019) found a negative correlation
between colonial mentality and ethnic identity, as measured by the MEIM-R; and study
participants with an ethnic identity achievement status reported lower colonial mentality levels
than other ethnic identity statuses to confirm past research on the importance of ethnic identity as
a buffer to discrimination, including internalized discrimination among Filipino Americans (de
Dios, 2015; Mossakowski, 2003; Mossakowski & Zhang, 2014; Smith & Silva, 2011; Tuason et
al., 2007; Woo et al., 2020). Like Teppang and her colleagues (2019), Tuazon and his colleagues
51
(2019) also addressed directions for future research provided by Rogers (2018) to integrate
historical perspectives, utilize a relational lens, and assess societal-level outcomes. To
complement the latest research on Filipino American ethnic identity and implement ethnic
identity research recommendations by ethnic identity scholars within the past three years, this
current quantitative study integrated historical contexts and utilized Umaña-Taylor et al.’s (2004)
EIS with David and Okazaki’s (2006) from a social identity theoretical lens.
Colonial Mentality
Alongside a growing literature base on concepts of racial and/or ethnic identity and
acculturation in AA&PI communities is psychology’s need for more disaggregated research (on
AA&PI ethnic groups) on the process, role, and potential consequences of internalized racial
oppression. Colonial mentality is a specific process based on broader concepts of “double-
consciousness,” “internalized racial oppression,” and “internalized racism”—a reflexive process
in which racially oppressed groups come to accept, believe, and internalize the negative views,
images, and behaviors produced by the dominant group’s upholding of oppressive colonial
relationships and systems of power (Choi et al., 2017; David et al., 2019; David & Derthick,
2018; Du Bois, 1909; Pyke, 2010; Trieu, 2019). According to reviews of literature on
internalized racism in sociology, education, and psychology on AA&PIs by Trieu (2019) and
David et al. (2019), scholarship on topics related to internalized racism (including colonial
mentality) on specific AA&PI ethnic groups are sparse yet have attracted more attention within
recent years. Given that colonial mentality is an important concept within the current study, it is
important to briefly consider and acknowledge the historical and psychological impact of
colonialism, imperialism, and oppressive power structures as it pertains to Black, Latine,
Indigenous, and AA&PI communities’ lived experiences as racialized beings.
52
Colonialism is the practice of control involving the domination of an Indigenous group of
people, their lands, governments, customs, and history by another group (e.g., newcomers,
colonizers, settlers) for exploitation of land and advancement of imperialism (Arvin et al., 2013;
Césaire, 1972; David, 2013; Kohn & Reddy, 2017). Dunbar-Ortiz (2014) recounts a thorough,
accurate history of the United States from an Indigenous perspective and attributes the
colonization of the non-European world by Europeans to the “Doctrine of Discovery.” which
originated in 1455 to permit Portugal’s monarchy to seize West Africa and was later used by
Christian, European monarchy nations to justify the devastating subjugation of other Indigenous
nations for centuries to come. While her book focused on the United States, Pacific Islands, and
the Philippines, Dunbar-Ortiz (2014) presented this doctrine as a backdrop for European nations
who upheld this doctrine to justify the destruction and removal of Indigenous peoples and the
plundering of Indigenous peoples’ lands in Africa, North America, South America, Southeast
Asia, the Middle East, the Pacific Islands, and Australia (Bradley, 2009; Fanon, 1967). The
effects of this “Doctrine of Discovery” are reshaped and reiterated even in contemporary times,
with the U.S. colonization of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Mexico, and Hawaii in 1898 and
current-day interrogations into China’s presence in Africa (Campomanes, 1999; Ignacio et al.,
2004; Jackson, 2012; Rimonte, 1997). Once “discovered,” the Indigenous groups of these lands
found themselves actively engaged in struggles for survival and resistance to the erasure of their
cultures; some were even pushed towards migrating from their homelands and living in diasporic
communities (Alonso-Garbayo & Maben, 2009; Okamura, 2013; Rondilla, 2002; Tolentino,
2019).
Among diasporic communities, especially Black, Latine, and Asian, it is important to
acknowledge colonialism’s and imperialism’s role in creating the push and pull factors for
53
voluntary immigration and the cultural, psychological ramifications for involuntary immigration
and displacement on the stolen lands of Indigenous peoples in North America (Alonso-Garbayo
& Maben, 2009; Kim, 2006; Ogbu & Simons, 1998; Pyke, 2010; Tolentino, 2019; Tuck & Yang,
2012). To summarize the positionality of Filipinos, especially Filipino Americans, in their
migration to Western countries, an infographic of Alonso-Garbayo and Maben’s (2009) factors is
provided by Dr. Therapinay (2020) in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Push and Pull Factors of Filipino Migration
Note. An example of push and pull factors for Filipinos described by Alonso-Garbayo and Maben, 2009
by Dr. Therapinay [@The.DrTherapinay]. Reprinted from Dr. Therapinay, In Instagram, August 14,
2020, Retrieved August 28, 2020, from http://www.instagram.com/p/CD4nHpDDc9z/. Reprinted with
permission from Dr. Therapinay.
It is important to note that all waves of Filipino settlement and immigration to the United
States were affected by these push and pull factors (Choy, 2013; Rodriguez, 2016). Within the
original article by Alonso-Garbayo & Maben (2009) and in Dr. Therapinay’s (Dr. Therapinay
54
[@The.DrTherapinay], 2020) social media infographic in Figure 1, the consequences of
subjugation to colonial, imperial structures ultimately draw individuals towards relocation, re-
settlement, reconciliation, and reclamation. Among Latine and Filipinos from all waves of
settlement/immigration and their descendants, the invasion, control, and imperial powers of
Spain and the United States created a system that forcibly pushed individuals from their home
countries to settle on stolen Indigenous North American and Pacific Islanders’ lands in hopes of
finding avenues for survival (Alonso-Garbayo & Maben, 2009; Tolentino, 2019).
In the midst of increasing calls for reconciliation and reckoning for the Indigenous lives
lost over centuries due to colonialism, including Native American residential schools in North
America at the hands of settler-colonial governments and the Roman Catholic church, it is
important to acknowledge the core goals of decolonization scholarship and activism: to eliminate
settler property rights and sovereignty to uphold the sovereignty and self-determination of Native
peoples and repatriation of their lands (Austen, 2021; Dunbar-Ortiz, 2014; Tuck & Yang, 2012).
Within Filipino/Filipino American psychology research on colonialism, colonial mentality, and
decolonization, this emphasis is sometimes lost and leads to the morphing of decolonization into
a metaphor and an avoidance of Filipinos’ and Filipino Americans’ participation in settler
colonial structures that continue to harm Indigenous peoples despite a shared history with
colonization (Arvin et al., 2013; Césaire, 1972; Fujikane, 2005; Fujikane & Okamura, 2008; Lo,
2019; Tiongson, 2019; Tuck & Yang, 2012). Within Tintiangco-Cubales and Curammeng’s
(2018) chapter from Education at War on resisting the inheritance of American schooling, the
authors informed readers with critical, historical perspectives on the ways that Filipino
Americans experienced colonial coercion, maintained White supremacy and imperialism, and
more importantly, exerted collective resistance towards the (Neo)Colonial ideology within
55
education systems—an institution largely responsible for carrying out and sustaining colonial
oppression that can be confronted by collective resistance and solidarity among Filipino
Americans and other minoritized groups (Campomanes, 1999; Grosfoguel, 2016). While
cultivating critical consciousness to challenge colonial mentality is an important step, scholars
are recommending that all efforts towards decolonizing the psyche among Filipinos and Filipino
Americans should also translate into praxis and direct engagement with Indigenous self-
determination (Arvin et al., 2013; Lo, 2019; Masta, 2018; Rogers et al., 2020; Tintiangco-
Cubales & Curammeng, 2018; Tiongson, 2019).
Colonial Mentality and Race
Historically, colonial mentality was first studied by a few Black, Indigenous, Latine anti-
colonialist scholars in the mid-20th century who explored the relationship between colonial
oppression and its psychological effects on groups colonized by White European countries and
the United States (Césaire, 1972; Fanon, 1967; Friere, 2014; Trieu, 2019). Aimé Césaire, a
Francophone Martinican poet and politician, defined colonization as a “bridgehead in a
campaign to civilize barbarism, from which there may emerge at any moment the negation of
civilization” (1972, p. 5). In fact, global colonization of so-called “Third World” nations and
non-Western civilizations by Europeans marks the most significant event of institutionalizing
White privilege to sustain their power on a massive scale (Bhatia & Ram, 2001; Hunter, 2005;
Jones, 2013; Ryabov, 2016). The phenotypic, color-based social hierarchy was established to put
White Europeans in the dominant position and dark-skinned natives at the bottom leading to their
native cultures being eradicated, ancestral lands confiscated, and existing institutions undermined
(Césaire, 1972; Hunter, 2005; Leong, 2006). In Kempf’s (2009) seminal work on anti-
colonialism in the United States and Canada, he describes colonization as “the globalization of
56
whiteness.” Over time, natives subjugated by this system were faced with total annihilation of
their communities or imitating whiteness economically, culturally, and aesthetically for survival
in colonial societies (David, 2013; Fanon, 1967; Hall, 2008, 2010; Okamura, 2008; Ryabov,
2016; Saperstein & Gullickson, 2013). In the case of South, Southeast Asian, and Pacific Islander
countries once ruled by Europeans, the residual effects of colonization remain as a preference for
whiteness and its representation of social mobility (Leong, 2006; Rondilla & Spickard, 2007;
Tran & Chan, 2017).
The historical and psychological impact of European and American colonialism/
imperialism has lasting effects, which span across nation-state borders and time when applied to
the current experiences of Brown Asian Americans. In the case of Filipino, South, Southeast
Asian, and Pacific Islander Americans living in the United States, individual members from these
groups may be navigating multiple, simultaneous processes of ethnic identity exploration or
resolution, acculturation/enculturation, colonial mentality, and/or challenging settler
colonialism—all which compound stress onto an individual’s overall well-being and self-concept
over time. While Brown Asian Americans of first or second generations navigate enculturation
and acculturation processes in the United States, they may also be navigating or resolving
attitudes and behaviors that endorse colonial mentality. Internalization of negative images or
stereotypes crafted by colonizers from the homeland can occur over generations within an ethnic
group as a form of intergenerational trauma—meaning that the transnational ideology of White
supremacy can travel with immigrants and migrants before they even begin to acculturate to their
host country’s culture (Trieu, 2019).
57
Colonial Mentality Development
The development of colonial mentality may also be conceptualized through the context of
social identity theory, which describes the internalization and valuation of group membership by
an individual through their self-concept. In stratified colonial societies, an unequal division of
accessibility to power, education, or wealth can lead to a negative valuation towards an
individual’s ethnic group if they are systematically oppressed and marginalized. Tajfel (1979)
began to describe a phenomenon among “deprived groups” of derogating their membership
group and displaying positive attitudes toward the dominant out-group, even going so far as
internalizing a broader social evaluation as “inferior.” Similarly, Erikson (1994) described a
“negative identity” affecting individuals who were confronting negative perceptions of
themselves. While the observation of a marginalized group’s self-derogation and admiration of a
dominant out-group was considered unusual by the authors at the time of publication, they did
manage to raise questions about the psychological effects of internalized oppression that socially
oppressed groups have endured at the hands of colonialism for centuries.
Frantz Fanon, a Martinican psychiatrist and philosopher, is among the first to apply
psychoanalytic and historical perspectives to describe the divided self-perception of colonized
natives that results from generations of colonial oppression. In Black Skin, White Masks he
details the psychological process of lactification, or racial whitening, through the eyes of a
colonized Black male:
For him there is only one way out, and it leads to the white world. Hence his constant
preoccupation with attracting the white world, his concern with being as powerful as the
white man… The withdrawal of the ego as a successful defense mechanism is impossible
for the black man. He needs white approval. (Fanon, 1967, p. 34)
58
The psychological phenomenon of internalizing the oppressive, prejudiced attitudes of
colonization and its effects on mental health is now coined by Fanon’s contemporaries in the
social sciences as “colonial mentality” (David, 2013; Root, 1997; Nadal, 2013). It corresponds
with generationally transmitted perceptions of the colonizer’s values, socioeconomic institutions,
and skin color as inherently superior to indigenous values and culture (David & Okazaki, 2006).
According to Trieu (2019), “Acknowledging the impact of this oppressive colonial history is
critical to the understanding of the mentality and behaviors of the oppressed” (p. 4).
Though this generational-wounds or trauma-lens perspective is not the only way to
educate and challenge colonial mentality, examining and launching new trajectories of research
from this perspective still possesses value in helping researchers, educators, and clinicians with
unlearning problematic histories inherited from mostly White, Eurocentric narratives. David and
Derthick (2018, p. 8) explain that “experiencing oppression over lifetimes and generations can
lead individuals to internalize the messages of inferiority they receive about their group
membership” which means that people with lived experiences of colonial oppression can
“internalize the negative stereotypes” as an “unconscious [and] involuntary response.” In the
case of Filipinos, colonial mentality describes a psychological form of internalized oppression
resulting from 370 years of Spanish colonization and 50 years of U.S. colonization (Ocampo,
2016).
Colonial Mentality Among Filipinos and Sikolohiyang Pilipino
Like many ethnic groups historically affected by colonization, Filipinos still face daily
internal conflicts and tensions that embattle their traditional, indigenous values with the Western
values of their Spanish and U.S. colonizers (Abe-Kim et al., 2004; David et al., 2017; Enrile &
Agbayani, 2007; Flores, 1998; Museus & Maramba, 2011; Napholz & Mo, 2010). When one
59
reviews historical examples of colonial oppression by the United States or Spain, the reduction
of Filipinos to “otherness” or dehumanization becomes apparent. For example, Gealogo (2018)
traced how representations, nomenclature, and categorization of the Philippine population in the
1903 Philippine Census by the United States had lasting effects on justifying colonial projects
and depicting Filipino individual groups as “defective” or “wild,” which was based on body size,
skin color, facial features, levels of “sanity,” and acquiescence to colonial authority figures and
Christian religion, even after centuries of enduring similar treatment by Spanish colonial
administration. This form of classification, enforced within various institutions for the duration
of the Philippines’ colonial rule by Spain and the United States, determined which individuals
could elect representatives or which groups were presumed to be inferior, “uncivilized,” or
criminal. When racialized frames, such as the ones described by Gealogo (2018), are
internalized, they begin to influence intragroup relationships and even an individual’s own self-
perception (Césaire, 1972; David et al., 2019; Fanon, 1967). In the case of Filipinos and Filipino
Americans, “experiencing racism over lifetimes and generations can lead individuals to
internalize the messages” and to “develop animosity toward others of the same race or ethnicity,
or toward other oppressed racial or ethnic groups” (David et al., 2019, p. 1060; Friere, 2014),
When Filipinos or other colonized ethnic groups display attitudinal or behavioral
manifestations of colonial mentality, they may not be consciously aware of its role in
psychological distress. Conflicts and distress are created within Filipino families by the
contrasting values of their indigenous culture and the values of the dominant, American culture
(Agbayani-Siewert, 1994; David et al., 2017; Maramba, 2008; Sanchez & Gaw, 2007). Over
time, the insidious legacy of colonialism manifests itself in Filipinos eschewing their indigenous,
collectivistic value of kapwa (i.e., an individual’s personhood, connection, or oneness that is
60
shared with and inseparable from others) for cultural assimilation and individualistic values
(Enriquez, 1992; Pe-Pua & Protacio-Marcelino, 2000; Reyes, 2015; Root, 1997). This divided
self-perception reinforces psychological denigration of the Filipino ethnicity and culture, thus,
enforcing Spain’s and the United States’ colonial legacy of cultural hegemony in the Philippines.
Colonial mentality’s manifestation in Filipino Americans is described and operationalized
by David and Okazaki (2006) in four different ways: (a) denigration of the Filipino self, (b)
denigration of the Filipino culture or body, (c) discrimination against less-Americanized
Filipinos, and (d) toleration of historical oppression via “colonial debt” or a sense of gratitude
towards the Spanish and Americans for colonization. These manifestations may be identified as
covert or overt in nature, with covert manifestations describing internalized perceptions and
feelings of shame and overt manifestations as behaviors that emulate Western values or distance
the self from Filipino characteristics (Clemente et al., 2017; Cotas, 2017; David, 2008; Gambol,
2016).
Overall, this legacy of colonialism weighs heavily on Filipino Americans’ mental health
by increasing the conditions that make low self-esteem, isolation, and shame more prevalent in
daily life. In a report and interview by a Los Angeles Times journalist with Filipino American
psychologists, lower self-esteem related to colonial mentality increases an individual’s chances
of engaging in high-risk behaviors, which include substance abuse, anxiety, depression, and low
life satisfaction (Constante, 2021). Furthermore, while interviewing Filipino American
psychology scholar E. J. R. David on Filipino American mental health needs, Constante noted
that for first- or 1.5-generation Filipino Americans, losing the ability to speak Tagalog or other
Filipino languages can lead to a profound sense of loss or grief. While grief is a normal,
emotional process for individuals coping with loss, the loss of connection with a culture is
61
complicated by Western psychopathology and its limitations in supporting liberatory healing
practices for approaching cultural soul wounds, such as internalized oppression, created by
systemic racism and colonialism (Durán, 1990; Durán et al., 2008). To address these soul
wounds, many healers, researchers, and educators from historically excluded and minoritized
groups have centered on their native cultural knowledge and practices.
Enculturation
Enculturation research stems from movements within the field of psychology to describe
the cultural processes of immigrant groups and individuals in less deficit-focused ways after
several scholars provided impactful, critical perspectives on acculturation research (Bhatia &
Ram, 2001; Rudmin et al., 2016; Weinreich, 2009). Most cross-cultural, psychological research
on immigrant or diasporic identity is studied in terms of acculturation, or the degree to which an
individual takes on and immerses themselves in the host culture (Gibson, 2001; Redfield et al.,
1936; Telzer, 2011; Yoon et al., 2011). Over time, acculturation research has moved from linear
models to multidimensional, nonlinear models that encompass a dynamic interplay of social
identity processes and adaptation strategies (Berry, 1980; Gordon, 1964; Hall, 1976; Szapocznik
et al., 1978; Telzer et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2019). Acculturation research is commonly used in
studies about immigrant ethnic and racial groups in the United States, particularly among Latine
and AA&PIs, despite its troubling history as a Eurocentric concept that upholds hierarchical
statuses and views (Chirkov, 2009a; Rudmin et al., 2016).
In 2009, the International Journal of Intercultural Relations published a special issue on
Critical Acculturation Psychology, calling attention to acculturation research’s shortcomings as a
culturally imposing, reductionist field of study and its lack of implementing helpful and
meaningful changes for immigrant communities. Despite these calls for reexamination of
62
acculturation research and movement towards enculturation research or community, strengths-
based research, many scholars still complete and publish acculturation studies without
accounting for or naming acculturation’s background. As a popular topic within the Asian
American Journal of Psychology, a recent PsycINFO database search of peer-reviewed articles
for “acculturation” generated 84 publications and 23 publications for “enculturation” between
2009 to 2021—meaning that more research on enculturation is needed to inform research,
education, and practices based on enhancing cultural wealth within immigrant populations as
opposed to cultural deficits.
Within the 2009 special issue, Chirkov (2009) and Weinrich (2009) each provided a
summary of critiques about acculturation research and recommended directions for enculturation
research. Chirkov (2009) identified the following groupings of criticism on acculturation
research within psychology: (a) problems with the definition of acculturation, (b) problems with
understanding the nature of acculturation processes, specifically deficiencies of its modern,
conceptual framing, (c) epistemological issues, (d) methodological problems, and (e) problems
with application for immigrant communities. To address some of these critiques, Weinrich (2009)
suggested a more intentional pursuit of enculturation research and his rationale for doing so. He
provided a critical examination of Berry’s (1980) model of acculturation, stating that this
commonly used acculturation model depended on assumptions of “congenial” relations between
immigrant and host cultural groups—an assumption that is widely contested given that most
ethnic and racial minority immigrant groups have continued to experience both oppression
within their homelands and host countries due to racism, colonialism, and xenophobia (Bhatia,
2018; Bhatia & Ram, 2001; Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC), 2020;
Macleod et al., 2017; Weinreich, 2009). Furthermore, Weinrich (2009) has argued that pursuing
63
research on acculturation processes often absolves immigrant groups of their agency as
individuals engaging in various socialization processes and, instead, puts them in a unilateral
position to submissively “receive” culture without taking on a situational or transactional
approach, summarized within previous portions of this current study’s literature review.
Rudmin et al. (2016) provided an in-depth history on the problematic origins of
acculturation research and concerning trends among acculturation studies. According to Rudmin
and his colleagues (2016), the construct was developed from a place of Eurocentric superiority
over other cultures, particularly with regard to imperial colonization of Indigenous societies.
Initially, the term was coined in the late 1800s to describe the “cultural changes of native
peoples” colonized by European nations, who were stereotyped as being unintelligent and
inferior (Rudmin, 2009, 2010; Rudmin et al., 2016). Rudmin et al. (2016) contended that, when
empirical research on acculturation began in the early 1920s on Eastern European immigrants,
some of these ethnocentric superiority views were still retained and reflected in the development
of acculturation models and its history of colonialism, xenophobia, and racism was erased in
definitions informing later models during the 1970s, including Berry’s (1980) model, which are
still used today. This indicates an unconscious contamination of 21st-century acculturation
research by 19th-century constructs (Rudmin, 2009). As a troubling trend, Rudmin et al. (2016, p.
14) observed that most contemporary acculturation research, including research on panethnic
Latine and AA&PI groups, “seems to be marching in a conformist, confirmation-bias
bandwagon.”
Enculturation in Diasporic Cultures and Anticolonial Theories
Acculturation’s complementary development process, enculturation, is defined as the
degree to which individuals maintain and adhere to the norms of the indigenous culture (Yoon et
64
al., 2011; Cotas, 2017). Current research defines the processes of acculturation and enculturation
as independent from one another (Abe-Kim et al., 2001). The field of psychology has only
recently begun to include anticolonial and diasporic theories in cross-cultural psychology
scholarship (Bhatia, 2018; Bhatia & Ram, 2001; David et al., 2019; David & Nadal, 2013;
Hermans & Kempen, 1998). As previously discussed, Bhatia and Ram (2001) provided earlier
challenges to acculturation research in cross-cultural psychology towards research that excluded
imperial, colonial histories within diasporic ethnic and racial groups commonly studied within
psychology.
In a critical review of cross-cultural psychology, Bhatia and Ram (2001) argue that
current acculturation research problematically conflates culture with a fixed, geographical space,
explaining acculturation processes only in terms of individuals’ most recent point of cultural
contact (i.e., immigration to a host country). Territorial-linked concepts of culture are
problematic for second- and third-generation progeny of immigrants because it erases the
negotiations this population makes between their country of birth (e.g., United States) and a so-
called “homeland” with which they have little or no contact. Furthermore, existing models
narrowly consider immigration as the only point of cultural contact with the host nation, erasing
historical contact points that occur vis-à-vis colonization (Bhatia, 2018; Macleod et al., 2017). To
enhance the heterogeneity of cross-cultural psychology research, the authors made two
interconnected suggestions for future research: to pay attention to postcolonial concepts and
theories of migrant identity and to adapt a more process-oriented notion of acculturation and
enculturation that includes the painful experiences of “living in between” cultures (2001).
In contrast to psychological models of acculturation, in-depth study of enculturation fits
with calls to look beyond past, problematic models of immigrant experiences towards more
65
agentic perspectives of a diasporic community of immigrants. By viewing Latine and AA&PI
ethnic groups as part of diasporic communities, researchers can begin to decolonize their
perspectives from enculturation towards viewing these ethnic groups as communities who make
connections and commitments to their homeland (Bhatia & Ram, 2009). Adopting a diasporic
perspective and leaning towards more intentional use of enculturation allows for researchers to
better understand the interdependent self-construal of individuals from Filipino cultures in a way
that contextualizes their colonial history.
Mental Health Implications of Acculturation and Enculturation
The processes of acculturation and enculturation are examined in the literature for their
varying effects on the mental health and interpersonal relationships in AA&PI ethnic groups,
especially on immigrant families (Kim et al., 2014; Miller, 2007; Phinney & Ong, 2007; van der
Ham et al., 2014). There are 55 published articles in the Asian American Journal of Psychology
between 2009 and 2017 on enculturation, as correlates or predictors of psychological distress,
help-seeking behaviors and attitudes, family socialization, parenting, conflicts, and coping in
various AA&PI ethnic groups. In fact, many studies describe acculturation and enculturation
processes as important predictors for immigrants’ adaptation and as major influences on
individual health and wellness (Ho & Birman, 2010; LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993;
Park et al., 2010; Phinney et al., 2001; Portes & Hao, 2002; Weinreich, 2009). AA&PI
acculturation and enculturation research mirrors ethnic/racial identity research on AA&PIs, with
more studies focusing on predominantly East Asian ethnic groups or aggregated samples, which
leads to conflicted findings in the literature and a paucity of research on Filipino Americans.
There is a growing need to disaggregate AA&PI enculturation research and utilize ethnic-specific
measures with groups, such as Filipino Americans, to mitigate an oversight of within-group
66
differences (Cordova, 1983; David, 2016b; del Prado & Church, 2010; Hernandez, 2016; Nadal
et al., 2010, 2012; San Juan, 1994).
Filipino American Enculturation
Conducting research specific to Filipino Americans’ experience of enculturation enhances
the generalizability and diversity of findings on this topic, while addressing the fundamental
cultural differences among AA&PI ethnic groups (David, 2016b; Espiritu, 1992; Nadal, 2020;
Sanchez & Gaw, 2007). This recommendation aligns with Chirkov’s (2009b) suggestion to adjust
research approaches on acculturation and enculturation with each ethnic group based on
contextual factors to improve explanatory power and applicability. Figure 2 presents the
definitions of assimilation, acculturation, and enculturation, as well as some of the critiques and
implications of these processes on minoritized groups, including Filipino Americans. Within this
figure, assimilation, acculturation, and enculturation concepts are presented as if they are on a
gauge, like a moisture meter or speedometer, to serve as a metaphor for how individuals and
communities might navigate different environments and situations. With this type of metaphor,
individuals and communities are provided with a framework to compare and understand their
identity management processes. Within this model, the spaces closer to the borders between
processes represent more overlap in use of assimilation and acculturation or acculturation and
enculturation strategies. Within this Meter Model, minoritized individuals and communities are
given flexibility and agency to compare, decide, and choose how they may utilize these
processes in both self- and community-care for overall empowerment and wellness.
While Chirkov’s (2009) recommendation is reiterated in multiple studies, a need for more
ethnic specific empirical research exists, especially on Filipino Americans (Nadal, 2020). Studies
on ethnic and generational differences in early adolescents’ risk behaviors described patterns of
67
concern for second-generation Filipino Americans struggling with their ethnic identity. For
example, second-generation Filipino Americans were more likely to initiate smoking, engage in
sexual activity, and experience depressive symptoms than second-generation Chinese Americans,
as they integrated more fully into American culture through adolescence and adulthood (Chen &
Unger, 1999; Coll & Marks, 2012; Farrelly et al., 2001; Faryna & Morales, 2000; James et al.,
1997; Nadal, 2020; Park, 2017; Willgerodt & Thompson, 2006).
Figure 2. Meter Model for Assimilation, Acculturation, and Enculturation
Note. This model shows and compares concepts of assimilation, acculturation, and enculturation along a
gauge. It includes past studies, critiques, and implications of these processes in the outer edges of the
meter and the definition(s) of the processes in the inner circle of the meter. The arrow represents the
individual’s or communities’ flexibility and agency in using these processes to navigate different
environments and situations.
Even though current research supports findings that Filipino American enculturation may
be a source of protection against mental health issues, there are few studies that utilize the ESFA
to measure adherence to Filipino culture in the fields of counseling psychology, clinical
68
psychology, and community psychology (Mossakowski & Zhang, 2014; Okamura, 2010; Tuliao
et al., 2016). To date, there are only two validated measures of acculturation and enculturation
developed for use with Filipino samples: the unidimensional ASASFA (A Short Acculturation
Scale for Filipino Americans; dela Cruz, Padilla, & Agustin, 2000) and the multidimensional
ESFA (del Prado & Church, 2010).
The ESFA was developed to include both values and behaviors of Filipino Americans in
its assessment of Filipino enculturation to address this gap in the literature. del Prado and Church
(2010) found in their initial development and validation of the ESFA that enculturated Filipino
Americans typically do not identify strongly with a panethnic Asian American culture, which
suggests that the use of non-Filipino specific enculturation measures could obfuscate significant
results with this subsample. Only three dissertations have used this Filipino-specific
enculturation measure, and no peer-reviewed studies using the ESFA have been published since
its initial development and validation in 2010. Through consistent and systematic use of a
multidimensional, Filipino-specific measure of enculturation, future research on Filipino
Americans can hopefully provide greater clarity on how Filipino Americans adhere to their
cultural norms.
Summary
Filipino Americans are shaped by their cultural experiences, which includes how they
interact with various attitudes, values, and traditions in their lives. When researching the ethnic
identity of Filipino Americans, it is crucial to think about how (a) generation status (Ferrera,
2017; Javier et al., 2018; Ocampo, 2014), (b) enculturation (Cotas, 2017; De Luna & Kawabata,
2020; del Prado & Church, 2010; Hufana & Consoli, 2020; Murillo, 2009), and (c) colonial
mentality (David et al., 2017; Felipe, 2016; Tuazon et al., 2019) play a role in how they resolve,
69
affirm, or explore different aspects of their ethnic identity. Filipino Americans may have different
experiences with internalized oppression and with their cultural values, which may shape the
way they perceive their ethnic identity. As a result, they may encounter a range of experiences
that either affirm or invalidate their sense of belonging and connection to Filipino culture, which
can provide various risks and benefits for their self-concept and collective self-esteem.
Current literature has some inconsistent findings with regard to the influence of
generation status on ethnic identity in Filipino Americans; though, most studies find that
enculturation may serve as a buffer to different aspects of colonial mentality, which affect mental
well-being or various attitudes/behaviors towards Filipino culture. These findings are further
constrained by a lack of disaggregated research on AA&PI ethnic groups by generation status
and limited use of different theoretical models or approaches to studying ethnic identity among
Filipino Americans. The existing literature on Filipino American ethnic identity and generational
differences has yet to explore influences on this concept from a social identity theory framework
and bridge it with constructs related to internalized racism in Filipino Americans, such as
colonial mentality. The present study addresses these constraints in the literature and expands
scholarship on generation status, enculturation, colonial mentality, and ethnic identity in the
Filipino American population. The results from this study will help mental health professionals,
educators, researchers, and community members understand how generation status,
enculturation, and colonial mentality may correlate with or influence various dimensions of
ethnic identity in Filipino Americans.
70
CHAPTER III
METHOD
The purpose of this study was to examine generation status, enculturation, and colonial
mentality on Filipino Americans’ ethnic identity. In this chapter, the methods used to conduct and
analyze the data obtained in this study will be discussed. The sections in this chapter will
describe the following: (a) participants, (b) procedures, (c) measures, (d) research design, (e)
statistical analyses, and (f) limitations.
Participants
Five hundred and ninety-four participants started and engaged with the survey. Of those
participants, one was removed after they did not provide consent to participate in the study and
another one was removed due to not meeting the study’s inclusion criteria. Of the remaining
participants, 222 had random missing responses, including 209 who did not provide information
on their generation status. While many of these participants with missing responses did not
provide enough information to be included in analyses for research questions investigating
differences between generation statuses, they did provide enough survey responses and
information about participant response styles needed to explore relationships between colonial
mentality, ethnic identity, and enculturation subscales, while meeting the minimum percentage of
responses for each measure, 85-90%, needed to complete an analysis. Due to the study’s overall
emphasis on theory and concepts relating to the broader category of Filipino American ethnic
identity, splitting the sample to address the two different types of research questions allowed for
the researcher to investigate and validate these theoretical concepts in an exploratory manner to
inform more detailed, experimental research designs. Previous researchers on colonial mentality
and enculturation have utilized subsamples or split a larger sample in their research to validate
71
measures relating to these concepts and inform more experimental designs with their broader,
conceptual findings (David & Okazaki, 2006; del Prado & Church, 2010). Retaining the
remaining responses from participants who did not complete the entire survey due to skipped
responses still provided useful information for specific aspects of the current study exploring
colonial mentality, ethnic identity, and enculturation as more universal, theoretical concepts
affecting the broader group of Filipino Americans.
As a result, the participant count for portions of the current study addressing generation
group differences (n = 383) is smaller than the participant count for portions of the study
examining relationships among colonial mentality, ethnic identity, and enculturation subscales (n
= 592). Participants were between 18-83 years of age, and the average age was 33 years.
Participants from 36 states engaged with the survey, though most of the sample resided in the
Pacific West Coast region of the United States. Most participants (72.4%) identified as female
and 75.7% of participants identified their sexual orientation as heterosexual or straight.
To accurately identify Filipino Americans by immigrant generation status as discussed in
the literature, self-reports of generation status were checked against participants’ reporting of
their birth country and age of immigration (if applicable). Participants who reported their birth
country as the Philippines or a country outside of the United States, provided an age of
immigration of at least 18 years old or did not provide an age of immigration, and self-identified
as first generation were coded as first generation in the analysis. For participants who reported
their birth country as the Philippines or a country outside of the United States, provided an age of
immigration between 0-17 years, and self-identified as first or second generation, their responses
were coded as 1.5 generation in the analysis. Participants who reported being born outside of the
United States, provided an age of immigration between 0-17 years, and self-identified as 1.5
72
generation were coded as 1.5 generation. Participants who reported their birth country as the
United States and self-identified as second or subsequent generations were coded second or
subsequent generation in the analysis. Participants who reported their birth country as the United
States and self-identified as first generation were coded as second-generation Filipino American,
as their native-born status did not meet the study’s requirements for coding as first generation in
the data analysis. After accounting for birth country and age of immigration, 9.9% of participants
were identified as first generation, 67.4% were identified as second generation, and 18.7% were
identified as 1.5 generation. See Table 2 for the full range of participants’ demographic
characteristics in the study.
Table 2.
Participant Demographic Information
Valid
Categorical Variables Frequency Percent
Percent
Generation Status
1st 38 6.4 9.9

1.5 72 12.1 18.7
2nd 259 43.7 67.4
3rd or subsequent 14 2.4 3.6
Missing* 209 35.2
Gender
Female, Woman, Femme 278 46.9 72.4
Male, Man, Masc 92 15.5 24
Agender, Nonbinary, Nonconforming 7 1.2 1.8
Gender Questioning, Genderfluid,
5 0.8 1.3
Genderqueer, Queer
Trans Male/Female/Nonbinary 2 0.3 0.5
Missing* 209 35.2
73
Table 2. Continued
Sexual Orientation
Heterosexual, Straight 278 46.9 75.7
Bisexual, Pansexual 33 5.6 9
Asexual, Aromantic 2 0.3 0.5
Gay, Lesbian, Homosexual 24 4 6.5
Queer, Questioning, or Fluid 28 4.7 7.6
Other, NA, Prefer not to say 2 0.3 0.5
Missing* 226 38.1
Geographic Region
Northeast
(CT, DE, DC, MA, MD, NH, NJ, NY, 67 11.3 17.9
PA, RI)
South
50 8.43 13.4
(AL, FL, GA, KY, NC, TN, TX, VA)
Midwest
58 9.8 15.5
(IL, IN, MI, MN, MO, NB, OH, WI)
Rocky Mountain
12 2 3.2
(AZ, CO, MT, NV, NM)
Pacific West Coast
187 31.5 50
(AK, CA, HI, OR, WA)
Missing* 219 36.9
Note. *Denotes participants from the full sample only. While these participants’ data and responses
were not included in the 383 subsamples, they were included in the full sample CCA.
Measures
Three measures and a demographics questionnaire were used in this study to examine
generation status, enculturation, colonial mentality, and ethnic identity in the Filipino American
sample. These measures were: (a) Enculturation Scale for Filipino Americans–Short Form
74
(ESFA-S; del Prado & Church, 2010), (b) Colonial Mentality Scale (CMS; David & Okazaki,
2006), and (c) Ethnic Identity Scale (EIS; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2004).
Enculturation Scale for Filipino Americans–Short Form (ESFA-S)
The ESFA-S is a 30-item scale that measures enculturation in Filipino Americans using
three subscales: (a) Connection with Homeland, (b) Interpersonal Norms, and (c) Conservatism
(del Prado & Church, 2010). The scale measures the degree to which a person adheres to the
values and behaviors of their Filipino culture. Each subscale consists of ten items (Appendix C)
that are averaged to create a subscale score. Connection with Homeland describes an individual’s
contact with the Philippines, other Filipinos, adherence to cultural customs, and use, preference,
and knowledge of Tagalog, the primary language of the Philippines (Cajilog, 2018). Sample
items include: “I am in regular contact with my family in the Philippines through telephone calls,
email, mail, or texting” (Connection with Homeland). Interpersonal Norms describe culturally
accepted social values and interactions relating to hiya (i.e., humility or shame), pakikisama (i.e.,
smooth interpersonal relations), utang na loob (i.e., reciprocity), hospitality, and personalism.
Conservatism is used to refer to socially conservative attitudes and behavior regarding authority
figures, religious morality, and education (Cajilog, 2018; del Prado & Church, 2010). Examples
of items for both subscales include: “My behavior is determined by what others will say, think,
or do” (Interpersonal Norms), and “I leave things to God’s will” (Conservatism).
Nine items are reverse scored, and all items are listed at random in the questionnaire.
Items are scored on a 6-point Likert-style scale with points of Strongly disagree (1) to Strongly
agree (6). Reverse scored items, which change the Likert-style scale points to Strongly disagree
(6) to Strongly agree (1), must be computed before computing total or subscale scores. Higher
scores describe higher enculturation of Filipino culture in individuals. Total average ESFA-S
75
scores are calculated by adding the item response scores and dividing by 30. Total average scores
range from 1 (low enculturation to Filipino culture) to 6 (high enculturation to Filipino culture).
Two Filipino American samples were utilized to establish validity for the ESFA-S. The
first sample consisted of 281 participants whose responses were analyzed using exploratory
factor analysis to identify a factor structure and explain the maximum amount of variance.
Negative correlations were observed between the first sample’s Suinn-Lew Asian Self-Identity
Acculturation Scale (SL-ASIA; Suinn et al., 1992) scores and the total ESFA score, Connection
with Homeland subscale score, and Conservatism subscale score. Doing so established construct
validity and indicated that participants with higher enculturation generally exhibited less
behavioral acculturation (del Prado & Church, 2010). Construct validity was confirmed by
moderate, positive correlations with the Asian Values Scale–Revised (AVS-R; Hong et al., 2005),
which indicated that participants with higher Filipino enculturation were more likely to exhibit
higher enculturation of Asian values. The second sample consisted of 269 participants whose
responses were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis to ensure that the short form of the
scale fit with the developer’s expectations for internal consistency and patterns of relationships
with less culture-specific acculturation measures. When the factor structure was tested in this
sample, results indicated a good fit with the three-factor model.
Reliability estimates for internal consistency are measured by Cronbach’s alpha. Alpha
levels of .7 are deemed to be acceptable, estimates of .8 are good, and estimates of .9 and above
are deemed to be excellent (Kline, 2000). Reliability estimates for the ESFA-S in a dissertation
by Cotas (2017) were acceptable and approached good internal reliability at .79 for the total
scale. Reliability estimates of internal consistency for Cotas’ (2017) validation of the ESFA-S
constructs are documented as follows for each of the subscales: Connection with Homeland
76
was .86, Interpersonal Norms was .75, and Conservatism was .86. Test-retest reliability over a
time span of two months indicated that the ESFA-S and its subscales had very strong test-retest
reliability at a statistically significant level, r = .958, p < .0001 (Cajilog, 2018). For the current
study, the ESFA-S internal consistency values were either good or acceptable at the following
values: .83 for Connection with Homeland, .79 for Interpersonal Norms, .83 for Conservatism,
and .84 for total.
Colonial Mentality Scale (CMS)
The CMS consists of 36 self-report items that measure the colonial mentality of Filipino
Americans in five dimensions: Within-Group Discrimination (WGDiscrimin), Physical
Characteristics (PhysChar), Colonial Debt (CD), Cultural Shame and Embarrassment
(CulturalShame), and Internalized Cultural/Ethnic Inferiority (IntInferior) (David & Okazaki,
2006) (Appendix D). The Internalized Cultural/Ethnic Inferiority subscale has 5 items; Cultural
Shame and Embarrassment subscale has 5 items; Within-Group Discrimination has 11 items;
Physical Characteristics has 8 items; and Colonial Debt has 7 items. Colonial mentality’s
manifestation in Filipino Americans is described and operationalized by David and Okazaki
(2006) in four different ways: (a) denigration of the Filipino self, (b) denigration of the Filipino
culture or body, (c) discrimination against less-Americanized Filipinos, and (d) toleration of
historical oppression via “colonial debt” or a sense of gratitude towards the Spanish and
Americans for colonization. Items are scored on a 6-point Likert-style scale from Strongly
disagree (1) to Strongly agree (6). Means for each subscale are calculated, with higher scores
denoting higher levels of that colonial mentality manifestation.
Items in this scale are intended to assess various feelings, opinions, attitudes, and
behaviors that are believed to be manifestations of colonial mentality among Filipino Americans
77
(David & Okazaki, 2010; Felipe, 2016). Sample items include: “In general, I do not associate
with newly-arrived Filipino immigrants” (WGDiscrimin); “I do not want my children to be dark-
skinned” (PhysChar); “Filipinos should be thankful to Spain and the United States for
transforming the Filipino ways of life into a White/European American way of life” (CD); “In
general, I am embarrassed of the Filipino culture and traditions” (CulturalShame); and “In
general, I feel that being a person of my ethnic/cultural background is not as good as being
White” (IntInferior).
In the development and validation studies for the CMS, concurrent validity was
established through use of negative correlations of colonial mentality with personal self-esteem,
collective self-esteem, and acculturation (David & Okazaki, 2006). In their documentation of the
scale’s construction and validation, David & Okazaki (2006) used a data sample of 603 Filipino
Americans that was split into two subsamples for exploratory (n = 292) and confirmatory (n =
311) factor analyses for cross validation. Results from the first subsample were used for the
exploratory purposes of examining the measure’s factor structure and establishing reliability and
validity constructs. The second subsample was utilized to confirm the validity findings from the
first sample and establish fit with the expected theory and factor structure. For the exploratory
subsample, split-half reliability analysis produced a correlation of .67 between the initial, 53-
item version of the CMS and the final, 36-item version of the CMS, while also producing a
Guttman split-half reliability of .80.
Concurrent and discriminant validity of the CMS subscales were established by testing
correlations between the CMS subscales and subscales from measures on personal self-esteem,
collective self-esteem, and acculturation. Statistically significant, negative correlations were
found between colonial mentality and collective self-esteem, ranging from -.1 to -.60 and sharing
78
about 36% of the variance between both sets of subscales to confirm that, although these
concepts are closely related, they are distinct concepts (David & Okazaki, 2006). Construct
validity was supported when subscales representing covert and overt colonial mentality
correlated negatively with collective self-esteem subscales and correlated positively with
acculturation subscales. In the second subsample, estimates of reliability were like the first
subsample and established both concurrent and discriminant validity through statistically
significant and negative correlations between CMS subscales and personal self-esteem and
positive correlations with acculturation.
Internal consistency reliability estimates range from .71 to .90 for CMS subscales (David,
2008; David & Okazaki, 2006, 2010; Felipe, 2016). Previous reliability estimates of CMS
subscales were .85 for Within-Group Discrimination, .89 for Physical Characteristics, .80 for
Colonial Debt, .77 for Cultural Shame and Embarrassment, .78 for Internalized Ethnic
Inferiority, and .93 for Total Scale Score to indicate acceptable or good levels of reliability for
the subscales (Tuazon et al., 2019). The internal consistency or alpha estimates from the current
study are consistent and within range of previous studies. Reliability estimates from the current
study are as follows for the CMS subscales: .79 for Internalized Inferiority, .75 for Cultural
Shame and Embarrassment, .86 for Within-Group Discrimination, .89 for Physical
Characteristics, .84 for Colonial Debt, and .92 for Total Average Score.
Ethnic Identity Scale (EIS)
Ethnic identity was assessed using the 17-item Ethnic Identity Scale (Umaña-Taylor et
al., 2004), which includes three subscales that measure exploration (7 items), resolution (4
items), and affirmation (6 items) (Appendix E). Items are scored on a 4-point Likert scale, with
end points of Does not describe me at all (1) to Describes me very well (4). Items from each
79
subscale are added together, with negatively worded items reverse scored so that higher scores
indicated higher levels of affirmation, exploration, and resolution. Sample items include: “I have
attended events that have helped me learn more about my ethnicity” (exploration); “I have a
clear sense of what my ethnicity means to me” (resolution); and “I wish I were of a different
ethnicity” (affirmation, reverse scored). The scale was originally developed and validated using
both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Within the EFA sample, examination of the
factor loadings and scree plot, using a retention criterion of eigenvalues over 1 and factor
loadings higher than .4, yielded a three-factor solution for exploration affirmation and resolution.
Goodness of fit was determined to be adequate after removing five items from the resolution
subscale in the first model due to their significantly large residuals, resulting in the 17-item scale
used today.
To explore construct validity and measure reliability, the scale developers examined the
correlations of each subscale with measures of personal self-esteem and familial ethnic
socialization. In the scale construction study, the authors’ investigation of construct validity
found that exploration and resolution subscales were both positively associated with self-esteem
and familial ethnic socialization among ethnic minority group members. Their findings described
a positive, modest relationship between ethnic identity and self-esteem, which explains that how
much an individual feels or resolves issues relating to ethnicity is more related to self-esteem.
The scale developers also found positive relationships between exploration, resolution, and
familial ethnic socialization. The subscales of the original EIS have obtained moderately strong
coefficient alphas ranging from .84 to .89 with ethnically diverse samples (Umaña-Taylor,
Yazedjian, & Bámaca-Gómez, 2004). With a predominantly Mexican-origin adolescent sample,
coefficient alphas from a longitudinal study using the EIS ranged from .82 to .88 for
80
exploration, .83 to .88 for resolution, and .71 to .75 for affirmation (Umaña-Taylor, Vargas-
Chanes, Garcia, & Gonzales-Backen, 2008). For the current study, reliability estimates are as
follows: .90 for exploration, .80 for affirmation, .91 for resolution, and .88 for total. These
estimates indicated that the EIS is a reliable measure for ethnic identity.
Demographic Questionnaire
The researcher created a demographic questionnaire to look at the various demographic
features of the Filipino American participants in the sample. Descriptive statistics from this
questionnaire help the researcher learn more about the sample’s demographics. The demographic
questionnaire provided opportunities for the researcher to examine any variations in the
experiences of Filipino Americans who differed in age, gender, sexual orientation, geographic
location, generation status, and other factors. Participants were asked to self-report their
responses to describe themselves (Appendix F). Participants shared information on the following
characteristics: age, gender, race(s), ethnicity/ethnicities, generation status, sexual orientation,
religion, education level, country of birth, city of current primary residence, and years spent
living in the United States, if applicable.
Procedures
The Institutional Review Board (IRB) through Western Michigan University approved
this current study and the informed consent document presented to participants (Appendi A) in
August 2018. The study received HSIRB approval to extend the study for one year in August
2019 and again in August 2020 for data analysis. Data for this study was collected using a secure
online survey hosted by Qualtrics, which was approved by the HSIRB. Prior to recruitment and
posting of digital recruiting materials, the researcher developed (a) a brief description of the
study, (b) the inclusion and exclusion criteria for participation, (c) a direct link to the Qualtrics
81
website on the internet, (d) information on the raffle entry process and prizes, and (e) email
letters to targeted organizations to inquire about distribution of the recruitment materials so that
recruited participants could have access to information about the study and contact information
for the student researcher. Internet flyers, emails, and some printed flyers included the same
format and information (Appendix B).
Filipino American adults aged 18 years and up were recruited through various email
listservs and social media outlets (e.g., Facebook, Instagram). Some paper flyers were posted in
businesses serving Filipino Americans and included the same information as the digital
recruitment materials. Recruitment methods involved a combination of purposive, convenience,
and snowball sampling from Filipino American community and professional organizations in the
United States. Recruitment for the study occurred between January 2019 to July 2019. The study
was completed through use of digital, online platforms for recruitment (i.e., Facebook,
Instagram, and email listservs) and survey completion (i.e., Qualtrics for surveys and Google
Forms for raffle drawing). To be eligible for the study, participants were required to be of
Filipino descent, be at least 18 years of age, and reside in the United States. While the
recruitment focus was primarily along the West Coast (e.g., California, Washington, and
Nevada), efforts to recruit from the Midwest (e.g., Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan)
attempted to geographically diversify the sample.
Participants were provided a link through a flyer handout, email, or social media posting.
Upon clicking on the survey URL or scanning the QR code, participants were provided with the
following: a brief description of the study that provided inclusion criteria, risks, and benefits to
completion; informed consent; and participant understanding and agreement to accept the terms
of participation. Participants agreeing to participation terms proceeded to engage with the online
82
survey by providing self-reported responses to questionnaires in the following order:
Enculturation Scale for Filipino Americans–Short (ESFA-S), Colonial Mentality Scale (CMS),
Ethnic Identity Scale (EIS), and the Demographics Questionnaire. They were then given the
option to provide their contact information via Google Forms if they wanted to be entered in a
raffle for one of three $25 Visa gift cards. Contact information and identifying information was
kept separate from their data to ensure confidentiality of their responses.
Research Design
An exploratory and non-experimental design is utilized due to a need for describing a
deeper theoretical understanding of multidimensional relationships between enculturation,
colonial mentality, and ethnic identity in Filipino Americans. While descriptive, exploratory, and
non-experimental designs are less common in quantitative studies, they still provide important
contributions for producing hypotheses for future research endeavors, identifying important
categories of meaning, and documenting phenomena of interest in processes and issues that are
important for historically excluded populations (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). For this study, a
non-experimental design has utility for advancing theoretical complexity within research on
Filipino American ethnic identity, creating opportunities for future researchers and clinicians to
engage in liberatory practices with Filipino American communities, and documenting subscale
intercorrelations for further scale validation and experimental research that is impactful (Brough
& Hawkes, 2018).
Given that the EIS has not yet been validated on a Filipino sample, a descriptive design
using Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA) is appropriate for exploring and documenting the
scale’s psychometric properties and piloting data collection methods before proceeding with an
appropriate analysis for validation, such as Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), Principal
83
Component Analysis (PCA), and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), in future studies with this
sample and/or population. While scales, such as the ESFA, CMS, and EIS, have been used in
some experimental research to hypothesize causality of one outcome variable in Filipino
Americans, few research designs explore theoretical alignment in depth or consider the construct
validity of scales with Filipino Americans to assess whether current empirical evidence is
consistent with expectations (Flora & Flake, 2017). Documenting and observing these
psychometric properties are important steps and best practices in scale validation (Flora & Flake,
2017; Watkins, 2018). Indeed, descriptive studies about observations from subscale
intercorrelations can provide important information about reliability for further studies
documenting a scale’s validity because, without documenting these properties, the use of
experimental designs on this population and the generalizability of results may be limited.
To analyze the relationships between enculturation, colonial mentality, ethnic identity,
and generation status in Filipino Americans, this study used a non-experimental, descriptive
survey methodology design. The survey methodology was used because of the several
advantages of this method. Self-administered measures have an advantage over interviews and
other experimental design formats in that the participant does not have to directly disclose
socially unacceptable behavior or traits that are negatively valued (Fowler, 2014). This
consideration was involved in the research design decision-making process because, as reported
in the literature, Filipino Americans may feel more comfortable with an indirect communication
style with an unfamiliar person due to their concerns about hiya (shame), related to discussing
more private behaviors or controversial perspectives on cultural practices (Gong et al., 2003).
Filipino Americans tend to avoid open disclosure of perspectives or behaviors that could threaten
their self-image and values of pakikisama (belongingness) with other Filipino Americans and
84
non-Filipino Americans. As a result, a self-administered survey design was chosen because
participants would remain anonymous when answering questions about their cultural practices,
attitudes, and ethnic identity. An additional advantage to using a self-administered online survey
includes improved opportunities to effectively recruit and produce a more representative sample,
due to remote administration of the survey to participants (Hewson, 2017).
Statistical Analysis
Several statistical analyses were performed using SPSS23 and R, with the results reported
in Chapter IV (Results). After handling missing data and testing for patterns of missingness,
means were imputed using modern-day missing data techniques. Demographic data of the
sample, standard deviations, and reliability statistics for the variables were analyzed. The main
variables were analyzed for patterns in missing data and distribution of the data to proceed with
the appropriate tests. The following statistical analyses are used for the study to address the six
research questions: (a) general descriptive statistics (i.e., mean, median), (b) Pearson’s r
correlation test(s), (c) MANOVA, and (d) canonical correlation.
Missing Data
To minimize the influence of missing data from 222 participants in the multivariate
analysis (i.e., canonical correlation), a missing values analysis across subscales was conducted
using SAS and SPSS to test assumptions that data from ESFA-S subscales were missing
completely at random (MCAR). The same methods of testing missingness were used across
subscales of the CMS and EIS, respectively. When MCAR and missing at random (MAR)
assumptions are not violated, missing data were replaced using expectation-maximization (EM)
algorithms, given the rigorousness and efficiency of this method and support for its use in the
literature (Allison, 2009; Bennett, 2001; van der Heijden et al., 2006). The EM algorithm uses all
85
available variables as predictors for imputing missing data because it starts with the full
covariance matrix and, therefore, avoids some of the difficulties associated with more
conventional regression imputation methods (Allison, 2011; Enders, 2003). Furthermore,
counseling psychology researchers have found that maximum likelihood methods for handling
missing data, such as EM, are suitable for handling missing data with the use of additional steps
for standard error and confidence intervals (Schlomer et al., 2010).
The use of EM across subscales instead of across variables in the current study allows for
more iterations of expectation and maximizations steps for parameter estimates of means,
variances, and covariances that are helpful to the primary multivariate analyses of enculturation,
colonial mentality, and ethnic identity constructs. In addition, this method exhibits utility in
internal consistency and reliability calculations for the scales used in the current study. Because
the current study views the concepts of colonial mentality, enculturation, and ethnic identity as
being multivariate, missing data were handled with EM methods to facilitate inferences about the
data in the current study’s main analysis. A picture of patterned missingness and a histogram of
missing data were generated within statistical software as an additional check for violations of
MCAR and MAR to confirm alignment of Little’s MCAR test results.
For research questions using statistical tests that compare mean differences among
generation statuses, listwise deletion was utilized to exclude 209 cases with missing generation
status data. This approach was used for specific research questions addressing generational
differences due to the demographic, categorical, non-imputable nature of generation status. For
these research questions, the sample of cases was reduced to 383 and still met the minimum
number of 120 cases required by the a priori power analysis.
86
Descriptive Statistics and MANOVA
The initial analysis determined mean scores in ethnic identity, enculturation, and colonial
mentality among first- and subsequent-generation statuses. Mean subscale scores and total scores
of continuous variables (ethnic identity, enculturation, and colonial mentality) were calculated
for 383 participants and then tested using MANOVA tests. A MANOVA test is known to have
greater power than ANOVA in detecting effects by virtue of its ability to account for correlations
between the dependent variables (Field, 2013a). Should the MANOVA test for Research
Hypotheses 1, 5, and 6 indicate any differences on the multiple dependent variables, the analysis
will resume for that respective hypothesis with follow-up univariate ANOVA tests and Fisher’s
Least Significant Difference (LSD) post-hoc tests to locate and describe the mean differences.
Results from this analysis addressed differences among Filipino American generation status
groups in Research Hypothesis 1, Research Hypothesis 5, and Research Hypothesis 6 for ethnic
identity, enculturation, and colonial mentality, respectively. Reliability tests for all three
measures were established and are described in the Chapter IV (Results).
Bivariate Correlations and Linear Regression
The second proposed analysis, a bivariate Pearson’s r correlation, addressed Research
Hypothesis 2, Research Hypothesis 3, and Research Hypothesis 4. For two of these correlational
analyses (i.e., Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 3), ethnic identity was the criterion variable for
colonial mentality and enculturation, respectively. The third correlational analyses attempted to
find a relationship between enculturation as a predictor variable and colonial mentality as a
criterion variable. These correlations were conducted as a preliminary investigation into
relationships between the variables before completing a multivariate correlational analysis using
87
canonical correlation. They were also completed to further support results obtained from the
canonical correlation and draw implications for future studies.
Canonical Correlations
A third analysis, a canonical correlation, tested the multivariate, shared relationships
between multiple pairs of variable sets. The canonical correlation between the synthetic predictor
and criterion variables is analogous to a Pearson r correlation, with variables from either the
predictor or criterion sets “loading” onto these synthetic variables to define a function that
explains a proportion of the shared variance (Sherry & Henson, 2005). Analysis results
measuring shared relationships between ethnic identity and colonial mentality variable sets
addressed Research Hypothesis 2. Relationships among variable sets of ethnic identity and
enculturation (Research Hypothesis 3) and enculturation with colonial mentality scores
(Research Hypothesis 4) were also tested in the study.
Research Question 1
Does Filipino American ethnic identity vary among generations?
The first hypothesis for this study expected that ethnic identity (EIS) would differ
between Filipino American generation statuses, and, more specifically, that first- and 1.5-
generation Filipino Americans will have higher ethnic identity than second- and
third/subsequent-generation Filipino Americans. The first research question was analyzed using a
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) test to compare mean scores of ethnic identity
between responses from Filipino Americans from generation statuses. A MANOVA is a type of
statistical method used by researchers to compare the variability in several sets of dependent
variables between different groups due to the independent variable (Field, 2013a; Pallant, 2016).
Often, the variability within each of the groups is due to chance. For this research question,
88
generation status will serve as the independent variable. Should the MANOVA test indicate any
differences on the multiple dependent variables, the analysis will resume with follow-up
univariate ANOVA tests and Fisher’s Least Significant Difference post-hoc tests to locate and
describe the mean differences.
Research Question 2
Are ethnic identity subscale scores related to colonial mentality subscale scores among
Filipino Americans?
The second hypothesis expected correlational relationships between the ethnic identity
(EIS) subscales and the colonial mentality (CMS) subscales, as well as some directions for these
correlations. It was hypothesized that Filipino Americans with lower ethnic identity subscale
scores would be related to higher colonial subscale scores. The three ethnic identity subscales
were predicted to correlate negatively with the five colonial mentality subscales, meaning that
higher levels of ethnic identity would be related to lower levels of colonial mentality and vice
versa.
To test the second hypothesis and address the second research question, a canonical
correlation analysis (CCA) statistic technique was used to conduct a multivariate correlational
test that would simultaneously explore relationships between two variable sets while minimizing
the risk for Type 1 error (Sherry & Henson, 2005). In this research question, the two variable sets
include three predictor variables from the ethnic identity subscales and the five criterion
variables from the colonial mentality subscales, which are combined into a synthetic or latent
variable. A graphic summary depicting the proposed canonical correlation analysis between
ethnic identity subscales and colonial mentality subscales is depicted in Figure 3.
89
Figure 3. Proposed Analysis for Research Question 2
Note. This model depicts the proposed variable sets and analysis for Research Question 2, with rectangles
representing subscales/variables, double-headed arrows representing the canonical correlation coefficient,
and single-headed arrows representing structure coefficients between variable(s) and a
synthetic/latent variable.
Research Question 3
Does a relationship exist between ethnic identity subscale scores and enculturation
The hypothesis was that higher ethnic identity subscale scores (EIS) would be related to
higher enculturation subscale scores (ESFA-S). More specifically, the current study anticipated
that higher enculturation subscale scores would be related to higher ethnic identity subscale
scores. A canonical correlation analysis (CCA) statistical technique was used to explore data that
addressed the third research question and examine relationships between ethnic identity and
enculturation as two variable sets. Given that ethnic identity and enculturation are
multidimensional concepts, this statistical technique was appropriate in examining a correlational
90
relationship over use of multiple, Pearson r bivariate correlations, which would increase the risks
for error. In this research question, the two variable sets include three predictor variables from
the ethnic identity subscales and the three criterion variables from the enculturation subscales,
which are combined into a synthetic or latent variable. A graphic summary depicting the
proposed canonical correlation analysis between ethnic identity subscales and enculturation
subscales is depicted in Figure 4.
Note. This model depicts the proposed variable sets and analysis for Research Question 3, with double-
headed arrows representing the canonical correlation coefficient, single-headed arrows representing
structure coefficients between variable(s), which are depicted by rectangles, and a
Research Question 4
Are enculturation subscale scores related to colonial mentality subscale scores in Filipino
Americans?
91
In this study, it was hypothesized that higher enculturation subscale scores (ESFA-S)
would be related to lower colonial mentality (CMS) subscales scores. A canonical correlation
analysis (CCA) statistical technique was used to explore data that addressed the third research
question and examine relationships between enculturation and colonial mentality as two variable
sets representing two multidimensional psychological concepts. In this research question, the two
variable sets include three predictor variables from the enculturation subscales and the five
criterion variables from the colonial mentality subscales. A graphic summary depicting the
proposed canonical correlation analysis between enculturation subscales and colonial mentality
subscales is depicted in Figure 5.
Note. This model depicts the proposed variable sets and analysis for Research Question 3, with double-
headed arrows representing the canonical correlation coefficient, single-headed arrows representing
structure coefficients between variable(s), which are depicted by rectangles, and a
92
Research Question 5
Does Filipino American enculturation vary among generations?
The fifth hypothesis for this study expected that enculturation (ESFA-S) would differ
between Filipino American generation statuses. Data for examining this research question was
analyzed using a MANOVA test to compare mean subscale scores of enculturation between
responses from Filipino Americans of different generation status groups. Follow-up ANOVA
tests and Fisher’s LSD post-hoc tests to locate and compare mean differences were used as
needed. For this research question, generation status will serve as the independent variable for
comparing enculturation scores among Filipino Americans.
Research Question 6
Will generation status affect colonial mentality?
The sixth hypothesis for this study anticipated that first-generation Filipino Americans
would have lower colonial mentality scores than 1.5-, second-, and third/subsequent-generation
Filipino Americans. This research question was analyzed with MANOVA to test for statistically
significant differences in CMS scores between various generation statuses before proceeding
with a follow-up ANOVA and Fisher’s LSD post-hoc tests, as needed, to investigate possible
mean differences.
93
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
The aim of this study is to explore levels of enculturation, colonial mentality, and ethnic
identity among Filipino Americans from various generation statuses. Analyses focused on 592
responses from first-, second- and 1.5-generation Filipino Americans. The purpose of using
inferential statistical analyses to examine the data was to determine the following: (a) the
demographic characteristics of the participants; (b) reliability estimates of the measures (ESFA-
S, CMS, EIS); (c) differences in ethnic identity (EIS), enculturation (ESFA-S), and colonial
mentality (CMS) scores across generation statuses; (d) the relationships between ethnic identity
(EIS) subscale scores and colonial mentality (CMS) subscale scores; € the relationships between
ethnic identity (EIS) subscale scores and enculturation (ESFA-S) subscale scores; and (f)
relationships between enculturation (ESFA-S) and colonial mentality (CMS) subscale scores.
Main analyses examining relationships between variables use subscale scores of the measures
and analyses comparing differences across generation statuses use average total scores of the
measures.
Preliminary Data Analyses
Preliminary analyses were conducted, which included tests for reliability, descriptive
statistics, and power analyses. To determine the significance of effect sizes, Cohen’s (Cohen,
1987) guidelines were utilized and described the following criteria for effect sizes, small effect
size = .10, medium effect size = .30, and large effect size ≥ .50. Results are presented below.
Power Analysis
A power analysis was completed to determine the appropriate sample size needed for the
proposed statistical analyses. An a priori power analysis was conducted using G*Power
94
statistical software to determine an appropriate sample size for a regression analysis with a
medium effect size and 95% confidence interval (Erdfelder et al., 2009). The recommended
sample size from this analysis is 120. The subsample used for generational group comparisons of
colonial mentality, ethnic identity, and enculturation consisted of 383 participants, and the full
sample used for multivariate correlational analyses was 592. Both numbers met the sample size
criteria needed for statistical significance as set by the a priori power analysis.
Missing Data
After using SAS and SPSS for missing data analysis, missingness was determined overall
at 40%, which meant that 222 participants did not complete the survey due to mostly random,
incomplete responses. Since items within each subscale of the ESFA-S are assumed to be highly
correlated, based on past literature citing its internal consistency and reliability, missing data
analysis proceeded with the three subscales (Connection with Homeland, Interpersonal Norms,
and Conservatism) and with overall variables/scale items. Similar findings in past literature on
the CMS and EIS for internal consistency and reliability meant that missing data analysis could
also proceed for each of the five and three subscales for each measure, respectively, and for both
scales with overall variables/scale items before merging into a new dataset.
Results from the Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) tests for the overall scale and
for each of the ESFA-S subscales in the ESFA-S were not significant and confirmed that the
missingness on subscales did not depend on the subscale themselves. Results for MCAR test at
the item level for the entire ESFA-S scale were also found to be not significant χ2(539, N = 593)
= 563.8, p = .22. For the Connection with Homeland subscale, percent missingness ranged from
14.5% to 19.9%, and results from Little’s MCAR was not significant, χ2(57, N = 593) = 74.5, p
= .06. Percent missingness for Interpersonal Norms and Conservatism were reported as ranging
95
from 14.8% to 19.9% and 14.7% to 19.9%, respectively. Little’s MCAR test results for
Interpersonal Norms χ2(79.7, N = 593) = 74.5, p = .20 and Conservatism χ2(87, N = 593) = 78.5,
p = .73 were not significant. When significant, this test’s results suggest that the null hypothesis,
that data are not missing completely at random, can be rejected. In the absence of MCAR
violations, missing data analysis proceeded with the iterative processes of the expectation-
maximization (EM) algorithm to replace missing data with the algorithm’s “best guess” on the
most likely values for the missing data until convergence occurs (Bennett, 2001; Schlomer et al.,
2010). After using EM for each ESFA-S subscale to replace the missing values, the three
subscales were merged to form a new dataset.
MCAR test results at the item level for the CMS overall were found to be significant,
χ2(381, N = 593) = 469.8, p = .00, and confirmed that the missingness on subscales may most
likely meet the conditions for Missing at Random (MAR) rather than MCAR. To understand
which subscale was driving violation(s) of MCAR in the overall test, results from Little’s MCAR
were analyzed for each subscale. Little’s MCAR test for the five subscales produced results that
are not significant for 4 out of the 5 subscales. Results from Little’s MCAR for the Internalized
Inferiority subscale were not significant, χ2(10, N = 593) = 9.4, p = .49. Little’s MCAR test
results for Cultural Shame, χ2(11, N = 593) = 3.0, p = .99, and Within-Group Discrimination,
χ2(62, N = 593) = 38.8, p = .99, were not significant. For the Colonial Debt subscale, results from
Little’s MCAR were not significant, χ2(33, N = 593) = 39.2, p = .21. For the Physical
Characteristics subscale, results from Little’s MCAR were reported to be significant, χ2(28, N =
593) = 48.4, p = .01. To remain consistent with handling of missing data, EM was used for each
CMS subscale to replace the missing values. The five subscales were merged to form a new
dataset.
96
MCAR test results at the item level for the EIS were overall found to not be significant,
χ2(140, N = 593) = 152.5, p = .22. To understand which subscale was driving violation(s) of
MCAR, results from Little’s MCAR were analyzed for each subscale. For the Exploration
subscale, results from Little’s MCAR were significant, χ2(18, N = 593) = 31.3, p = .03.
Affirmation subscale results for Little’s MCAR were not significant, χ2(14, N = 593) = 9.5, p
= .79; and Little’s MCAR test results for Resolution, χ2(11, N = 554) = 8.2, p = .69, were not
significant. To remain consistent with the handling of missing data, EM was used for each EIS
subscale to replace the missing values. The five subscales were merged to form a new dataset.
A picture of pattern missingness and histogram of pattern missingness was generated in
SPSS, as shown in Figures 6 and 7, to examine data for monotonicity. Figure 6 orders analysis
variables and patterns to assist in confirming an appropriate imputation method for missing data
(e.g., EM). The dataset possesses monotonicity, given that it has no “islands” of non-missing
cells in the lower right portion of the chart and few to no “islands” of missing cells in the upper
left portion of the chart. The few islands in the upper left portion of the chart confirm the two
statistically significant MCAR test subscale results for CM Physical Characteristics and EIS
Exploration. Upon examination of the first row in the picture of pattern missingness, this graphic
representation establishes alignment with Little’s MCAR tests results in Figure 6 and confirms
assumptions that data within the sample are likely to be MAR. Given the high level of
monotonicity confirmed by the chart, the MCAR test results, and EM methods of missing values
imputation, the researcher was able to proceed with handling missing data with modern
techniques.
97
Figure 6. Chart of Missing Value Patterns
Note. The patterns chart displays missing value patterns for the analysis variables. Analysis variables and
patterns are ordered to reveal monotonicity. Variables are ordered from left to right in increasing order of
missing values. Patterns are then sorted first from the last variable (non-missing values in white
first, then missing values in red) from right to left.
Further examination of the missingness patterns histogram in Figure 7 confirmed Little’s
MCAR test results for all subscales as nonsignificant except for the Physical Characteristics
subscale and Exploration subscale. The histogram displayed the percentage of cases in the
dataset, which fit the patterns described in Figure 5. While pattern 53 indicates cases with many
missing values, patterns 23, 41, 35, and 19 represent cases with high proportions of non-missing
values. Nearly 60% of the cases in the dataset have Pattern 1, and the missing value patterns
chart shows that this is the pattern for cases with no missing values. Enough evidence was
gathered from the MCAR tests, the chart of missing values patterns, and the missingness patterns
98
histogram that most of the missing data within study scales and subscales either met MCAR or
MAR criteria and were suitable for handling with EM methods.
Figure 7. Missingness Pattern Frequencies in Dataset
Note. The ten most frequently occurring patterns of missingness are displayed in the chart. The histogram
displays the percentage of cases for each pattern. Pattern 1 is the most frequently occurring
pattern for cases with no missing values.
Descriptive Statistics
Means, standard deviations, kurtosis, skewness, and reliability values for each variable
are presented in Table 3. Subscale scores are used in all main analyses that compare variables of
ethnic identity, enculturation, and colonial mentality across generation statuses in Filipino
Americans. On average, participants’ ESFA-S subscale scores indicated that they slightly
disagreed with statements relating to their Connection with Homeland (M = 2.82, SD = 0.94),
Interpersonal Norms (M = 3.26, SD = 0.83), and Conservatism (M = 3.39, SD = 0.97). Colonial
mentality subscale scores indicated that most participants either strongly disagreed or somewhat
99
agreed with statements related to Internalized Inferiority (M = 2.20, SD = 0.89), Cultural Shame
and Embarrassment (M = 1.49, SD = 0.48), Within-Group Discrimination (M = 1.91, SD = 0.58),
Physical Characteristics (M = 1.94, SD = 0.81), and Colonial Debt (M = 2.13, SD = 0.75). Ethnic
Identity Exploration (M = 3.22, SD = 0.59), Affirmation (M = 3.83, SD = 0.26), and Resolution
(M = 3.30, SD = 0.63) subscale scores indicated that, on average, participants thought the
statements pertaining to those ethnic identity concepts described them well.
Even though the current study focused on subscale scores, total average scores are
presented to observe overall patterns in total average scores for the sample. Total average scores
on the EIS ranged from 2.94 to 3.94 (M = 3.45, SD = 0.38). These results show that participants
reported a range of ethnic identity levels and that 75% identified well or very well with their
Filipino American ethnic identity. Enculturation (ESFA-S) total scores ranged from 1.49 to 4.43
(M = 3.30, SD = 0.62) and indicated that 50% of participants agreed slightly, somewhat, or
strongly with statements that described maintenance and adherence to Filipino norms and
behaviors. Scores for colonial mentality ranged from 1.21 to 3.44 (M = 1.94, SD = 0.51) and
indicated that at least 50% of participants in the sample reported strongly or somewhat disagreed
with statements endorsing attitudes, behaviors, and feelings that endorsed automatic rejection of
Filipino characteristics and automatic preference for Western, European characteristics.
Bivariate correlations between subscales were obtained to observe possible relationships
between these variables prior to the multivariate canonical correlation analysis. Several
statistically significant small, medium, and large bivariate correlations were observed between
colonial mentality, enculturation, and ethnic identity subscales. See Table 4 for the correlations
between study subscale variables and their means and standard deviations. For the ESFA-S,
Connection with Homeland was found to have statistically significant, low, positive correlations
100
with Interpersonal Norms, r = .16, p < .001, and with Conservatism, r = .22, p < .001, validating
participants’ responses to statements from each of these subscales as three unique components of
Filipino American enculturation.
Table 3.
Psychometric Properties for ESFA-S, CMS, and EIS Scales and Subscales
Cronbach's
Scale M SD Range Skewness Kurtosis
α
ESFA-S Total Average
3.16 0.62 2.94 -0.03 0.47 .84
Score
Connection with
2.82 0.94 2.14 0.49 0.13 .83
Homeland
Interpersonal Norms 3.26 0.83 1.78 -0.33 0.10 .79
Conservatism 3.39 0.97 1.72 0.17 -0.31 .83

CMS Total Average
1.94 0.51 2.23 0.75 0.97 .92
Score
Internalized
2.20 0.89 1.89 0.90 0.84 .79
Inferiority
Cultural Shame &
1.49 0.48 0.96 1.78 4.76 .75
Embarrassment
Within-Group
1.91 0.58 2.02 0.92 1.31 .86
Discrimination
Physical
1.94 0.81 0.66 1.20 1.99 .89
Characteristics
Colonial Debt 2.13 0.75 1.81 0.71 0.51 .84
EIS Total Average Score 3.45 0.38 0.99 -0.84 0.95 .88
Exploration 3.22 0.59 .61 -0.87 0.81 .90
Affirmation 3.83 0.26 0.14 -2.82 9.68 .80
Resolution 3.30 0.63 0.15 -0.98 0.77 .91
101
There are a few correlations to note between the ESFA-S and the CMS subscales and
between the ESFA-S and the EIS subscales from the current study. CMS subscales were
observed to have statistically significant, positive correlations with ESFA-S Interpersonal Norms
and ESFA-S Conservatism subscales, which indicates a pattern that is mostly different from the
study’s research hypothesis, except for statistically significant, negative correlations with the
ESFA-S Connection with Homeland subscale. A statistically significant, moderate, and positive
correlation was observed between ESFA-S Interpersonal Norms and CMS Internalized
Inferiority, r = .41, p < .001. The statistically significant, positive correlation between ESFA-S
Interpersonal Norms and CMS Physical Characteristics was observed at a level approaching
moderate levels, r = .29, p < .001, and the statistically significant, positive correlation between
ESFA-S Conservatism and CMS Colonial Debt was observed to approach strong levels, r = .48,
p < .001.
With regard to relationships between the ESFA-S and the EIS subscales, some of the
correlations suggested patterns that were moderately consistent with the study’s hypothesis on
relationships between ethnic identity and enculturation. A statistically significant, moderate, and
positive correlation was observed between ESFA-S Connection with Homeland and EIS
Exploration, r = .35, p < .001, and a statistically significant, approaching moderate, and positive
correlation was observed between ESFA-S Connection with Homeland and EIS Resolution, r
= .28, p < .001. Within this sample, a connection with the Philippines was related to ethnic
identity exploration and resolution.
Several statistically significant correlations were observed between the EIS subscales and
the CMS subscales in the current study in the hypothesized direction. EIS Affirmation was
moderately and negatively related to CMS Internalized Inferiority, r = -.40, p < .001. EIS
102
Resolution was also negatively related to CMS Internalized Inferiority and approaching
moderate levels, r = -.28, p < .001. EIS Resolution was negatively and moderately related to
CMS Cultural Shame and Embarrassment CMS, r = -.33, p < .001. Cultural Shame and
Embarrassment was strongly related to EIS Affirmation, r = -.58, p < .001. The patterns in these
subscale correlations suggest some important, negative relationships between colonial mentality
and ethnic identity in the study’s Filipino American sample.
Reliability Estimates
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of reliability were calculated for each scale and subscale in
the sample (N = 592). Reliability analyses were conducted for the ESFA-S, CMS, and EIS, and
their reliabilities for the overall scales were reported as follows: ESFA-S Cronbach alpha
coefficient was reported at .84, CMS Cronbach alpha coefficient was .92, and EIS was .88. All
scale and subscale scores had strong reliabilities. ESFA subscale Cronbach alpha coefficient
scores were reported as .83 for Connection with Homeland, .79 for Interpersonal Norms, and .83
for Conservatism. The Cronbach alpha coefficient scores for CMS subscales had reported values
of .75 for Cultural Shame and Embarrassment, .86 for Within-Group Discrimination, .89 for
Physical Characteristics, .84 for Colonial Debt, and .79 for Internalized Inferiority. For the EIS
subscales the Cronbach alpha coefficient scores were reported as .90 for Exploration, .91 for
Resolution, and .80 for Affirmation. Interpretations of reliability scores are based on criteria
defined by DeVellis’ (2017) and Field’s (2013) interpretation of alpha coefficients. See Table 3
for reliability scores of the scale and subscales in the study.
103
Table 4.
Summary of Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Scores on ESFA-S, CMS, and EIS Subscales
Subscale M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. ESFA- 2.8
0.94 -
S: CWH 2
2. ESFA- 3.2
0.83 0.16*** -
S: IN 6
3. ESFA- 3.3 0.15**
0.97 0.22*** -
S: Cons. 9 *
4. CMS: 2.2 0.41**
0.89 -0.05 0.04 -
Int. Inf. 0 *
5. CMS: 1.4 0.19**
0.48 -0.12** -0.00 0.53*** -
CSE 9 *
6. CMS: 1.9 - 0.21** 0.15**
0.58 0.38*** 0.45*** -
104
WGD 1 0.21*** * *
7. CMS: 1.9 0.29** 0.24**
0.81 -0.09* 0.40*** 0.38*** 0.52*** -
PC 4 * *
8. CMS: 2.1 0.48**
0.75 0.00 0.04 0.12** 0.25*** 0.45*** 0.46*** -
CD 3 *
9. EIS: 3.2 -
0.59 0.35*** 0.06 -0.01 -0.10* -0.25*** -0.16*** -0.17*** -
Exp. 2 0.21***
10. EIS: 3.8
0.26 0.09* -0.12** 0.02 -0.40*** -0.58*** -0.27*** -0.28*** -0.05 0.14** -
Aff. 3
11. EIS: 3.3 0.57**
0.63 0.28*** -0.07 0.09* -0.26*** -0.33*** -0.16*** -0.19*** -0.10* 0.24***
Res. 0 *
Note. CWH = Connection with Homeland, IN = Interpersonal Norms, Cons. = Conservatism, Int. Inf. = Internalized Inferiority, CSE =
Cultural Shame & Embarrassment, WGD = Within-Group Discrimination, PC = Physical Characteristics, CD = Colonial Debt, Exp. =
Exploration, Aff. = Affirmation, and Res. = Resolution. *Denotes p < .05, **Denotes p < .01, ***Denotes p < .001.
Assumptions
Prior to conducting statistical analyses to test the hypotheses, the data were examined to
determine whether the assumptions for conducting Multivariate Analysis of Variance
(MANOVA) were met. These assumptions include (a) independence of observations, (b) random
sampling, (c) multivariate normality, and (d) homogeneity of covariance matrices (Field, 2013a).
While the robustness of the MANOVA test reduces the need to meet multivariate normality in all
cases, the researcher assessed the following as an added measure: normality, linearity, and
homoscedasticity histograms, Q-Q plots, and scatterplots of standardized residuals against
predicted residual values. Field (2013) noted that MANOVA is found to work acceptably well
with moderately correlated dependent variables, and its power increases if the measures are
somewhat different from each other, as supported by the results of bivariate correlations between
the subscales. Analysis of the data did not indicate significant violations of the assumptions of
independence of observations, random sampling, and multivariate normality. Due to the
differences in group size based on generation status, homogeneity of covariance cannot be
assumed in the sample. While the MANOVA does retain robustness to moderate violations of the
assumptions, both Roy’s Largest Root, the most conservative MANOVA test statistic, and Pillai’s
trace, the most used test statistic, were utilized to accommodate the impact of lack of
homogeneity of covariance. To address the lack of homogeneity of variance-covariance, the
current study used the .005 criteria for evaluating Box’s Test of Equality of Covariance (Huberty
& Petoskey, 2000). Results from the primary statistical analyses are presented in the following
segments of Chapter IV.
105
Primary Statistical Analyses
After completion of power analysis, missing values analysis and imputation, descriptive
statistics, reliability estimates, and assumptions testing, the study proceeded with primary
statistical analyses to test the study’s research questions and their respective hypotheses. Follow-
up or post-hoc tests were implemented, as needed, for research questions when the primary
multivariate statistical analysis test results indicated statistically significant results.
Research Hypothesis 1: Ethnic identity for first- and 1.5-generation Filipino Americans will
be higher than that of second- and third/subsequent-generation Filipino Americans.
A one-way between-groups multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) test was used
to investigate generational differences in ethnic identity. The EIS subscale scores, Exploration,
Affirmation, and Resolution, were used as three dependent variables. The independent variable
was generation status. Table 5 illustrates the means and standard deviations between the four
groups examined in the current study.
Table 5.
Average Ethnic Identity Subscale Scores Across Filipino American Generation Groups
Third/Subsequent
EIS Subscale First Generation 1.5 Generation Second Generation
Generation
M SD M SD M SD M SD
EIS:
3.35 0.67 3.21 0.71 3.26 0.71 2.95 0.83
Exploration
EIS:
3.64 0.46 3.32 0.70 3.28 0.79 2.88 0.94
Resolution
EIS:
3.80 0.30 3.86 0.28 3.83 0.31 3.79 0.38
Affirmation
Note. Participant responses were scored as follows: 1 = Does not describe me at all, 2 = Describes me a
little, 3 = Describes me well, 4 = Describes me very well.
Use of the Pillai’s trace criterion indicated that the results were approaching a significant
effect of generation status on ethnic identity, V = .04, F(9, 1137) = 1.87, p = .05. After
106
considering the more conservative Roy’s Largest Root criterion, the results confirmed the
presence of a statistically significant effect of generation status on ethnic identity, ʘ = .04, F(3,
379) = 4.64, p = .00. Separate univariate ANOVAs on the dependent variables revealed
significant generation status effects on Resolution, F(3, 379) = 4.09, p < .001.; partial 2 = .03.
MANOVA results are summarized in Table 6.
Table 6.
MANOVA Summary Table: Ethnic Identity
Test Value F df p ηp2 power
Pillai’s Trace .044 1.87 1137 .053 .01 .830

Wilks’ Lambda .957 1.88 918 .052 .01 .727
Hotelling’s Trace .045 1.88 1127 .051 .01 .833
Roy’s Largest Root .037 4.64c 379 .003 .03 .891
b c
Note: = Exact statistic. = The statistic is an upper bound on F that yields a lower bound on the
significance level.
Given the significance of both the MANOVA and the ANOVA test results, a follow-up
Fisher’s Least Significant Difference was utilized to compare the four generation groups to
locate the generational difference in Resolution for areas of future study. Results indicated
statistically significant mean differences in Resolution between first-generation and all other
generation groups. First-generation Filipino Americans (M = 3.64) had higher scores than 1.5-
generation (M = 3.32), second-generation (M = 3.28), and third/subsequent-generation (M =
2.88) Filipino Americans on the Resolution subscale. Resolution refers to the extent that an
individual has clarity or understanding of what their ethnic identity means to them. Results
suggest that first-generation Filipino Americans are more likely to have clarity on the meaning of
their ethnic identity compared to 1.5-, second, and third/subsequent-generation Filipino
Americans.
107
Research Hypothesis 2: Lower ethnic identity subscale scores will be related to higher
colonial mentality subscale scores for Filipino Americans.
A canonical correlation analysis was conducted using the three ethnic identity variables
as predictors of the five colonial mentality variables to evaluate the multivariate shared
relationship between the two variable sets (i.e., ethnic identity and colonial mentality). The
overall results were found to be statistically significant using the Wilk’s λ = .564 criterion, F(15,
1615.33) = 24.799, p < .001. The analyses statistical significance holds when considering the
more conservative Pillais’ trace criterion = .459, F(15, 1761.00) = 21.207, p < .001, to account
for any possible bias or error introduced by sampling and missing data. Results of the canonical
correlation analysis between these variable sets are provided in Table 7. The analysis yielded
three functions with squared canonical correlations (RC2) of .402, .051, and.009 for each
successive function.
The dimension reduction analysis tested the hierarchical arrangement of functions for
statistical significance by analyzing the groups of functions and dropping one function at a time.
Collectively, the full model (i.e., Functions 1, 2, and 3) across all functions was statistically
significant using the same Wilk’s λ = .564 criterion, F(15, 1615.33) = 24.799, p < .001. Because
Wilk’s λ represents the variance unexplained by the model, 1 – λ yields the full model effect size
in an r2 metric. Thus, for the set of three canonical functions, the r2 effect size was .436, which
indicates that the full model explained about 43.6% of the variance shared between the variable
sets. The second grouping of function variables (i.e., Functions 2 and 3) was also statistically
significant, F(8, 1172.00) = 4.390, p < .001, and contributed 5.7% of the variance. The last
grouping, (i.e., Function 3 only) was not statistically significant and did not explain a statistically
significant amount of shared variance between the variable sets, F(3, 587.00) = 1.199, p = .309.
A graphic summary depicting the canonical correlations and structure coefficients equal to or
108
greater than |.30| between ethnic identity subscales and colonial mentality subscales is depicted in
Figure 8.
Figure 8. Canonical Correlation Analysis for Ethnic Identity and Colonial Mentality
Note. Two canonical correlations and their respective synthetic/latent variates are presented with double-
headed arrows, connecting variates for Function 1 (Pagmamahal sa Sarili at Kapwa) and Function 2
(Yaman sa Kulturang Pilipino), respectively. Structure coefficients from variables equal to or greater than
|.30| are depicted with dashed lines, and structure coefficients equal to or greater than |.45| are represented
with single-headed arrows pointing to the synthetic/latent variate. Both canonical correlations are
statistically significant (p < .001).
In general, individual functions should account for approximately 10% of the variance to
be considered meaningful; however, it is also important to explore and consider smaller,
statistically significant functions for informing future research. Given the RC2 effects for each
function, only the first one was considered noteworthy in the context of the study with 40.2% of
the shared variance. To advance the exploratory purpose and significance of the current study for
future research, individual functions will be labeled and named in Tagalog to highlight important
themes in the results that center Filipino Americans’ mental health concerns as individuals and as
109
a community. The first function was labeled Pagmamahal sa Sarili at Kapwa (Love of Self and
Interdependence).
In the current study, Pagmamahal sa Sarili at Kapwa is defined by structure coefficients
(rs) from the following subscales using a cutoff of |.30|: Affirmation, Resolution, Internalized
Inferiority, Cultural Shame and Embarrassment, Within-Group Discrimination, and Physical
Characteristics. Exploration served as the sole, secondary level contributor to the function.
Among these structure coefficients, both EIS variables defining the function have a positive sign,
and the four CMS variables defining the function have a negative sign. This means that CMS
Internalized Inferiority, Cultural Shame and Embarrassment, Within-Group Discrimination, and
Physical Characteristics were negatively related to EIS Affirmation and Resolution. Upon
examining the standardized canonical coefficients (Coef), it was found that Affirmation,
Resolution, and Cultural Shame and Embarrassment explained most of the relationship between
functions in an inverse direction for Pagmamahal sa Sarili at Kapwa. These results are generally
supportive of theoretically expected relationships between internalized racism, personal self-
esteem, and collective self-esteem for Filipino Americans.
Although Function 2 explained a small amount of the variance, its labeling and
characteristics are presented in the current study for consideration in future discussions about
upcoming research, teaching, and clinical practices with Filipino Americans. Function 2 is
labeled Yaman sa Kulturang Pilipino (Filipino Cultural Wealth) and was defined by the
following subscales: Exploration, Internalized Inferiority, Within-Group Discrimination, and
Colonial Debt. Within this function, Exploration and Colonial Debt are primary contributors to
the function and were negatively related to each other. Within-Group Discrimination and
Internalized Inferiority served as secondary level contributors, with Within-Group
110
Discrimination being negatively related to Exploration and the Internalized Inferiority being
positively related to Exploration. Examination of the standardized canonical coefficients revealed
that Exploration, Internalized Inferiority, and Colonial Debt explained most of the relationship
between functions in a mostly inverse direction for Yaman sa Kulturang Pilipino.
Research Hypothesis 3: Higher enculturation subscale scores will be related to higher

ethnic identity subscale scores for Filipino Americans.
To evaluate the multivariate shared relationship between the ethnic identity and
enculturation variables, a canonical correlation analysis was conducted using the ethnic identity
variables as predictors of the three enculturation variables. The overall results were found to be
statistically significant after examining both Wilk’s λ = .819, F(9, 1428.75) = 13.577, p < .001,
and the more conservative Pillais’ trace = .187, F(9, 1767.00) = 13.080, p < .001. Table 8
provides results of the canonical correlation between these variable sets. The analysis yielded
three functions with squared canonical correlations (RC2) of 0.143, 0.043, 0.000 for each
successive function.
The full model (i.e., Functions 1, 2, and 3) was statistically significant at p < .001, using
the same Wilk’s λ = .819, F(9, 1428.75) = 13.577. The r2 effect size for the full model was 0.181,
which shows that the full model explained about 18% of the variance between the variable sets.
Functions 2 and 3 were also statistically significant, F(4, 1176.00) = 6.688, p < .001 and
contributed 4.3% of the variance. The last grouping (i.e., Function 3 only) was not statistically
significant and did not explain a statistically significant amount of shared variance between the
variable sets, F(1, 589.00) = 0.999, p = .446. Given the RC2 effects for each variable set, only the
full model was considered noteworthy in the context of the study with 14% of the shared
111
Table 7.
Canonical Solution for Ethnic Identity Predicting Colonial Mentality for Functions 1 and 2
Function 1 Function 2
Variable Coef rs rs2 (%) Coef rs rs2 (%) h2 (%)

EIS: Exploration 0.05 0.34 11.90 1.19 0.89 78.50 90.4
EIS: Affirmation 0.30 0.54 28.84 -0.50 0.14 1.96 30.8
EIS: Resolution 0.87 0.95 89.68 -0.15 -0.10 1.06 90.74
Rc2 40.20 5.70

CMS: Internalized
-0.17 -0.67 45.56 0.58 0.32 10.43 55.99
Inferiority
CMS: Cultural
112
Shame & -0.85 -0.97 93.32 -0.27 -0.19 3.57 96.89
Embarrassment
CMS: Within-Group
0.00 -0.46 21.25 -0.01 -0.31 9.49 30.74
Discrimination
CMS: Physical
-0.18 -0.49 23.81 -0.02 -0.29 8.64 32.45
Characteristics
CMS: Colonial Debt 0.18 0.14 1.85 -0.86 -0.87 76.04 77.89
Note. Structure coefficients (rs) greater than |.30| are underlined. Communality coefficients (h2) greater than 30% are underlined.
Coef = standardized canonical coefficient; rs = structure coefficient; rs2 = squared structure coefficient; and h2 = communality
coefficient.
variance; though, the second function may be considered for implications in future research. A
graphic summary depicting the canonical correlations and structure coefficients equal to or
greater than |.30| between ethnic identity subscales and colonial mentality subscales is depicted in
Figure 9.
Figure 9. Canonical Correlation Analysis for Ethnic Identity and Enculturation
Note. Two canonical correlations and their respective synthetic/latent variates are presented with double-
headed arrows, connecting variates for Function 1 (Pagkakasundo sa Kultura at Sarili) and Function 2
(Pakikisama Concerns), respectively. Structure coefficients from variables equal to or greater than |.30|
are depicted with dashed lines, and structure coefficients equal to or greater than |.45| are
represented with single-headed arrows pointing to the synthetic/latent variate.
Both canonical correlations are statistically significant (p < .001).
The function for the full model was labeled as Pagkakasundo sa Kultura at Sarili
(Cultural and Self Harmony) and defined by the following variables with signs in the same,
positive direction: Exploration, Affirmation, and Connection with Homeland. This means that
Connection with Homeland was positively related to both Exploration and Affirmation. The
variables explaining the direct relationship between functions for Pagkakasundo sa Kultura at
113
Sarili include Exploration, Affirmation, Resolution, and Connection with Homeland. These
results are generally supportive of theoretical expectations and previous studies about the
importance of ethnic socialization in developing a person’s ethnic identity.
The second function was labeled as Pakikisama Concerns and defined by the following
variables: Affirmation, Resolution, Interpersonal Norms, and Conservatism. While the second
function did not explain more than 10% of the variance, it is labeled and presented in the current
study for consideration in future counseling psychology research, education, and clinical
practices. Interpersonal Norms and Resolution were the primary contributors of the function and
were negatively related to each other, while Conservatism and Affirmation served as secondary
Table 8.
Canonical Solution for Ethnic Identity Predicting Enculturation for Functions 1 and 2
Function 1 Function 2
Variable Coef rs rs2 (%) Coef rs rs2 (%) h2 (%)

EIS:
0.78 0.96 92.90 0.66 0.21 4.35 97.25
Exploration
EIS: 0.31 0.76 58.19 -0.60 -0.41 17.08 75.27
Affirmation
EIS: Resolution 0.44 0.23 5.28 -0.76 -0.81 65.73 71.02
Rc2 14.30 4.30

ESFA-S:
Connection with 1.03 0.97 94.73 -0.04 -0.01 0.02 94.75
Homeland
ESFA-S:
Interpersonal -0.09 0.05 0.23 0.92 0.82 68.04 68.27
Norms
ESFA-S: -0.21 0.01 0.01 -0.56 -0.43 18.53 18.53
Conservatism
Note. Structure coefficients (rs) greater than |.30| are underlined. Communality coefficients (h2) greater
than 30% are underlined. Coef = standardized canonical coefficient; rs = structure coefficient; rs2 =
squared structure coefficient; and h2 = communality coefficient.
114
contributors. Unlike Interpersonal Norms, Conservatism’s structure coefficient had a negative
sign, indicating that it was positively related to Affirmation and Resolution. Examination of the
standardized canonical coefficients showed that Exploration, Internalized Inferiority, and
Colonial Debt accounted for most of the relationship between functions in a mostly inverse
direction for Pakikisama Concerns.
Research Hypothesis 4: Higher enculturation scores will be related to lower colonial

mentality subscale scores for Filipino Americans.
A third canonical correlation analysis was conducted using the enculturation variables as
predictors of the colonial mentality variables to evaluate the multivariate shared relationship
between the two sets of subscales. Results of the canonical correlation analysis between these
variable sets were statistically significant when examining both the standard Wilk’s λ = .538,
F(15, 1615.33) = 27.101, p <.001, and the more conservative Pillais’ trace = .543, F(15, 1761.00)
= 25.966, p < .001. These results are provided in Table 9. The squared canonical correlations
(RC2) for the three functions yielded by the analysis were 0.263, 0.235, and 0.044, respectively.
The dimension reduction analysis tested the hierarchical arrangement of functions for
statistical significance by analyzing the groups of functions and dropping one function at a time.
Using the same Wilk’s λ = .538, F(15, 1615.33) = 27.101, p <.001, the full model’s (i.e.,
Functions 1, 2, and 3) r2 effect size was 0.462, which shows that this grouping of functions
explained about 46.2% of the variance between the variable sets. The second set of variables
(i.e., Functions 2 and 3) and the third set of variables (i.e., Function 3) were also statistically
significant after considering Wilk’s criteria for each of those sets, F(8, 1172) = 24.908, p < .001
and F(3, 587.00) = 9.145, p < .001. Given the RC2 effects for each function, the first and second
sets of functions were considered noteworthy in the context of the study with 26.3% and 23.5%
of the shared variance, respectively. A graphic summary depicting the canonical correlations and
115
structure coefficients equal to or greater than |.30| between enculturation subscales and colonial
mentality subscales is depicted in Figure 10.
Figure 10. Canonical Correlation Analysis for Enculturation and Colonial Mentality
Note. Three canonical correlations and their respective synthetic/latent variates are presented with double-
headed arrows, connecting variates for Function 1 (Rebolusionaryong Kaisipan), Function 2 (Nahahati sa
Kamalayan), and Function 3 (Paglalakad sa Sakit), respectively. Structure coefficients from variables
equal to or greater than |.30| are depicted with dashed lines, and structure coefficients equal to or greater
than |.45| are represented with single-headed arrows pointing to the synthetic/latent variate. Both
canonical correlations are statistically significant (p < .001).
The first function was labeled as Rebolusionaryong Kaisipan (Revolutionary Thinking),
and the second function was labeled as Nahahati sa Kamalayan (Divided in Consciousness). A
third function accounted for 4.4% of the shared variance and was labeled as Paglalakad sa Sakit
(Walking Through the Pain) for consideration in future research. Rebolusionaryong Kaisipan
was defined by structure coefficients from the following variables: Conservatism, Colonial Debt,
and Physical Characteristics. Conservatism and Colonial Debt served as the primary contributors
116
to the function, and both had negative signs in their structure coefficients, indicating that they
were positively related to each other. Physical Characteristics served as the sole secondary
contributor to the function and had a negative sign in its structure coefficient, indicating that it
was also positively related to the primary contributor variables. Examination of the standardized
canonical coefficients showed that Colonial Debt and Conservatism accounted for most of the
direct relationship between functions in Rebolusionaryong Kaisipan.
Nahahati sa Kamalayan was defined by structure coefficients from the following
variables with negative signs: Interpersonal Norms, Internalized Inferiority, Cultural Shame and
Embarrassment, Within-Group Discrimination, and Physical Characteristics. All these variables
for this function shared the same sign, indicating that they were positively related to each other.
After considering the standardized canonical coefficients for this function, it was determined that
Connection with Homeland, Interpersonal Norms, Internalized Inferiority, Within-Group
Discrimination, and Physical Characteristics explained most of the mostly direct relationship
with the function. Of these standardized canonical coefficients, Connection to Homeland was the
only variable with a positive sign, indicating that it was the only variable inversely related.
The Paglalakad sa Sakit function was defined by the Connection with Homeland,
Interpersonal Norms, and Within-Group Discrimination variables. While this function did not
meet the standard threshold for being a significant function, its labeling and characteristics are
presented in the current, exploratory study to continue discussions on future counseling
psychology research, education, and clinical practice that is responsive to the Filipino American
communities’ needs. Connection with Homeland and Within-Group Discrimination served as the
primary contributors to the function, and each had opposite signs within their structure
coefficients, indicating that they were negatively related to each other. Interpersonal Norms
117
served as a secondary contributor and shared a negative sign with Connection with Homeland,
showing that it was also negatively related to Within-Group Discrimination. The standardized
coefficients explaining most of the relationship between functions included: Connection with
Homeland, Internalized Inferiority, Within-Group Discrimination, and Physical Characteristics.
When considering the signs of the standardized coefficients, the relationship explained by
Connection with Homeland and Within-Group Discrimination is inverse despite the direct
relationships between Connection with Homeland, Internalized Inferiority, and Physical
Characteristics. These results may suggest that, for some Filipino Americans, a sense of
connection with the Philippines may reduce within-group discrimination yet may increase some
levels of self-consciousness related to their physical characteristics and internalized inferiority.
This finding suggests a push-pull dynamic outlined in theoretical explanations for bicultural
development in second-generation Filipino Americans.
Research Hypothesis 5: First- and 1.5-generation Filipino Americans will have higher
enculturation scores than second- and third/subsequent-generation Filipino Americans.
to investigate generational differences in enculturation. The ESFA-S subscale scores, Connection
with Homeland, Interpersonal Norms, and Conservatism, were used as three dependent variables.
The independent variable was generation status. Table 10 illustrates the means and standard
deviations between the four groups examined in the current study.
118
Table 9.
Canonical Solution for Enculturation Predicting Colonial Mentality for Functions 1, 2, and 3
Function 1 Function 2 Function 3
Variable Coef rs rs2 (%) Coef rs rs2 (%) Coef rs rs2 (%) h2 (%)
ESFA-S: Connection 0.11 -0.09 0.83 0.43 0.25 6.45 -0.93 -0.96 92.74 100.02
with Homeland
ESFA-S: Interpersonal 0.17 0.03 0.10 -0.97 -0.91 82.81 -0.27 -0.41 17.14 100.05
Norms
ESFA-S: Conservatism -1.03 -0.98 95.65 -0.07 -0.13 1.59 0.08 -0.17 2.86 100.10
Rc2 26.30 23.50 4.40
CMS: Internalized 0.02 0.04 0.19 -0.69 -0.88 77.09 -0.79 -0.29 8.41 85.69
Inferiority
CMS: Cultural Shame 0.28 0.04 0.19 0.14 -0.48 22.85 0.34 0.28 7.84 30.88
119
& Embarrassment
CMS: Within-Group 0.10 -0.27 1.45 -0.30 -0.62 38.19 1.02 0.71 50.13 95.77
Discrimination
CMS: Physical -0.09 -0.40 15.76 -0.43 -0.70 49.14 -0.80 0.13 1.82 66.72
Characteristics
CMS: Colonial Debt -1.03 -0.95 90.63 0.24 -0.14 2.07 -0.28 0.13 1.64 94.34
Note. Structure coefficients (rs) greater than |.30| are underlined. Communality coefficients (h2) greater than 30% are underlined. Coef =
standardized canonical coefficient; rs = structure coefficient; rs2 = squared structure coefficient; and h2 = communality coefficient.
Table 10.
Average Enculturation Subscale Scores Across Filipino American Generation Groups
Third/Subsequent
ESFA-S Subscale First Generation 1.5 Generation Second Generation
Generation
M SD M SD M SD M SD
ESFA-S:
Connection with 3.63 0.94 2.97 1.06 2.72 0.94 2.25 0.87
Homeland
ESFA-S:
Interpersonal 2.69 1.01 3.15 0.90 3.32 0.91 3.71 0.75
Norms
ESFA-S:
3.47 1.17 3.24 1.13 3.33 0.98 4.00 0.96
Conservatism
Note. Participant responses were scored as follows: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Somewhat Disagree, 3 =
Slightly Disagree, 4 = Slightly Agree, 5 = Somewhat Agree, and 6 = Strongly Agree.
Use of the Pillai’s trace criterion indicated that the results had a significant effect of
generation status on enculturation, V = .19, F(9, 1137) = 8.53, p < .001. After considering the
more conservative Roy’s Largest Root criterion, the results confirmed the presence of a
statistically significant effect of generation status on enculturation, ʘ = .21, F(3, 379) = 26.15, p
< .001. Separate univariate ANOVAs on the dependent variables revealed statistically significant
effects of generation status on Connection with Homeland, F(3, 379) = 12.05, p < .001.; partial
2 = .09 and on Interpersonal Norms, F(3, 379) = 6.70, p < .001.; partial 2 = .05. MANOVA
results are provided in Table 11. Given the significance of both the MANOVA and the ANOVA
test results, a follow-up Fisher’s Least Significant Difference was utilized to compare the four
generation groups to locate the generational differences in Connection with Homeland and in
Interpersonal Norms for areas of future study.
120
Table 11.
MANOVA Summary Table: Enculturation
Pillai’s Trace .190 8.53 1137 .000 .06 1.00

Wilks’ Lambda .813 9.03 918 .000 .07 1.00
Hotelling’s Trace .226 9.42 1127 .000 .07 1.00
Roy’s Largest Root .207 26.15c 379 .000 .17 1.00
b c
Note. = Exact statistic. = The statistic is an upper bound on F that yields a lower bound on the
significance level.
Results indicated statistically significant mean differences in Connection with Homeland
between first generation and all other generation groups. First-generation Filipino Americans (M
= 3.63) had higher scores than 1.5-generation (M = 2.97), second-generation (M = 2.72), and
third/subsequent-generation (M = 2.25) Filipino Americans in Connection with Homeland
subscale scores. 1.5-generation Filipino Americans also had a statistically significant mean
difference in Connection with Homeland when compared to third/subsequent-generation Filipino
Americans. Connection with Homeland describes an individual’s contact with the Philippines,
other Filipinos, adherence to cultural customs, and use, preference, and knowledge of Tagalog,
the primary language of the Philippines. These results suggest that first-generation Filipino
Americans are more likely to have a stronger connection to the Philippines as compared to 1.5-,
second-, and third/subsequent-generation Filipino Americans. Results also suggest that 1.5-
generation Filipino Americans are more likely to have a stronger connection to the homeland
than third/subsequent-generation Filipino Americans.
Like Connection with Homeland, results for Interpersonal Norms indicated statistically
significant differences between first generation and all other generation groups. First-generation
Filipino Americans (M = 2.69) had lower scores than 1.5-generation (M = 3.15), second-
121
generation (M = 3.32), and third/subsequent-generation (M = 3.71) Filipino Americans in
Interpersonal Norms subscale scores. Interestingly, 1.5-generation Filipino Americans also had a
statistically significant mean difference in Interpersonal Norms when compared to
third/subsequent-generation Filipino Americans. Interpersonal Norms are culturally accepted
social values and interactions relating to hiya (i.e., humility or shame), pakikisama (i.e., smooth
interpersonal relations), utang na loob (i.e., reciprocity), hospitality, and personalism. These
results suggest that first-generation Filipino Americans were more likely to adhere to Filipino
interpersonal styles and customs as compared to 1.5-, second-, and third/subsequent-generation
Filipino Americans. Results also suggest that 1.5-generation Filipino Americans are less likely to
adhere to Filipino interpersonal styles than third/subsequent-generation Filipino Americans.
Research Hypothesis 6: First-generation Filipino Americans will have lower colonial

mentality than 1.5-, second-, and third/subsequent-generation Filipino Americans.
to investigate generational differences in colonial mentality. The CMS subscale scores,
Internalized Inferiority, Cultural Shame and Embarrassment, Within-Group Discrimination,
Physical Characteristics, and Colonial Debt were used as five dependent variables. The
independent variable was generation status. Table 12 illustrates the means and standard
deviations between the four generation groups examined in the current study.
Use of the Pillai’s trace criterion indicated that the results did not have any significant
effect of generation status on colonial mentality, V = .19, F(15, 113) = 1.30, p = .19. Even though
Roy’s Largest Root criterion was found to be statistically significant, ʘ = .04, F(5, 377) = 3.03, p
= .01, follow-up ANOVAs for each of the dependent variables did not find statistically
significant differences among different generation groups across all colonial mentality subscales.
Results for the MANOVA test are summarized in Table 13.
122
Table 12.
Average Colonial Mentality Subscale Scores Across Filipino American Generation Groups
Third/Subsequent
CMS Subscale First Generation 1.5 Generation Second Generation
Generation
M SD M SD M SD M SD
CMS:
Internalized 1.87 0.95 2.22 1.13 2.25 0.97 2.10 0.98
Inferiority
CMS: Cultural
Shame & 1.45 0.48 1.45 0.51 1.50 0.61 1.45 0.50
Embarrassment
CMS: Within-
Group 1.65 0.57 1.87 0.61 1.93 0.69 1.72 0.48
Discrimination
CMS: Physical
1.87 0.90 1.89 0.82 1.90 0.93 1.44 0.42
Characteristics
CMS: Colonial
2.14 0.72 2.09 0.82 2.07 0.87 1.91 0.64
Debt
Note. Participant responses were scored as follows: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Somewhat Disagree, 3 =
Slightly Disagree, 4 = Slightly Agree, 5 = Somewhat Agree, and 6 = Strongly Agree.
Table 13.
MANOVA Summary Table: Colonial Mentality
Pillai’s Trace .051 1.30 1131 .195 .02 .812

Wilks’ Lambda .950 1.30 1036 .192 .02 .770
Hotelling’s Trace .052 1.31 1121 .190 .02 .815
Roy’s Largest Root .040 3.03c 377 .011 .02 .865
b c
Note. = Exact statistic. = The statistic is an upper bound on F that yields a lower bound on the
significance level.
123
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
The final chapter of this dissertation provides an overview of the study’s purpose,
research questions, and the hypotheses tested. A portion of the chapter is devoted to summarizing
and providing discussion of the study results as they relate to the role of generation status,
colonial mentality, and enculturation on Filipino American individuals’ ethnic identity.
Ultimately, six hypotheses were tested, and the findings provided mixed support. In this section,
the discussion and limitations provide an understanding of the study’s implications for future
research, education, and practice of the information learned for individuals and institutions who
serve the Filipino American community. The chapter is then summarized, including highlights of
the study’s significance.
Purpose of the Research
The present study investigated relationships between enculturation, colonial mentality,
and generation status on ethnic identity in Filipino Americans to provide observations and
inferences on the connections between these four variables. The study’s use of Ethnic Identity
Scale (EIS; Umaña-Taylor, Yazedjian, & Bamaca-Gomez, 2004) in conjunction with two
measures developed and validated for specific use with Filipino Americans is what distinguishes
the current study from existing literature on ethnic identity, enculturation of Filipino culture, and
experience of colonial mentality. Research questions were posed to expand on findings from
previous studies with this population that have used the Multiethnic Identity Measure (MEIM;
Phinney, 1992), which operationalizes the components of ethnic identity differently than the EIS.
In addition, the current study attempted to explain implications of findings and possible
124
connections between ethnic identity, enculturation, generation status, and colonial mentality
using social identity theory.
Research Questions
This study explored six research questions, stated as follows:
1. Does Filipino American ethnic identity vary among generations?
2. Are ethnic identity subscale scores related to colonial mentality subscale scores
among Filipino Americans?
3. Does a relationship exist between ethnic identity subscale scores and enculturation
4. Are enculturation subscale scores related to colonial mentality subscale scores in
Filipino Americans?
5. Does Filipino American enculturation vary among generations?
6. How will generation status affect colonial mentality?
Research Hypotheses
Six hypotheses were formulated based on the study’s research questions and are stated as
follows:
1. Ethnic identity for first- and 1.5-generation Filipino Americans will be higher than
2. Lower ethnic identity subscale scores will be related to higher colonial mentality
subscale scores for Filipino Americans.
3. Higher enculturation subscale scores will be related to higher ethnic identity subscale
scores for Filipino Americans.
125
4. Higher enculturation subscale scores will be related to lower colonial mentality
subscale scores for Filipino Americans.
5. First- and 1.5-generation Filipino Americans will have higher enculturation scores
than second- and third/subsequent-generation Filipino Americans.
6. First-generation Filipino Americans will have a lower colonial mentality than 1.5-,
second-, and third/subsequent-generation Filipino Americans.
Research Hypothesis Testing
Results from the current study were interpreted for each research hypothesis to determine
evidence for support, possible limitations, factors affecting results, and implications for future
research. Within the current study, canonical correlation functions that explained a significant
amount of variance or opened a new window of opportunity for future research were labeled in
Tagalog to enhance the richness of psychology discussions on Filipino American psychological
research and the ways that communities may experience ethnic identity, enculturation, and
colonial mentality. The use of Tagalog, a language seldomly used to name psychological
phenomena in the United States, was emphasized to enhance the strengths of Filipino culture,
center Filipino American communities, and move away from deficit-based perspectives on
historically excluded groups in counseling psychology.
Research Hypothesis 1
To answer the research question, Does Filipino American ethnic identity vary among
generations? The following hypothesis was developed: Ethnic identity for first- and 1.5-
generation Filipino Americans will be higher than second- and third/subsequent-generation
Filipino Americans.
126
Results from the current study indicate support for ethnic identity differences between
first and subsequent generation groups, especially with regard to the resolution of ethnic identity.
While some differences were observed in Affirmation and Exploration, Resolution was the only
subscale with substantial strength to support the hypothesis. Overall, this means that first-
generation Filipino Americans are more likely to have clarity and understanding of what their
Filipino ethnic identity means to them when compared to 1.5, second, and third generations. This
finding fits with previous studies that suggest more complex experiences with bicultural
identities and dual consciousness for 1.5, second, and third/subsequent generations who are
navigating different social contexts throughout their development (Choi et al., 2018; de Dios,
2015; Ferrera, 2017; Teppang et al., 2019).
Multiple explanations for the lack of consistent evidence to support generational
differences in Exploration and Affirmation include the following: (a) shared or learned
participation among generations in Exploration activities/events due to socialization, (b) a need
for more nuanced response types to describe Filipino Americans’ ethnic identity Affirmation
processes, and (c) a higher representation of second-generation Filipino American participants
with differing levels of accessibility to Filipino events in their daily lives. Given the nature of
racial/ethnic socialization of minoritized populations with a more collective focus in the United
States, participants might have scored similarly on ethnic identity Exploration items due to
family ethnic/racial socialization and shared relational or geographic proximity to events or
activities in ethnic communities (Feliciano & Rumbaut, 2019; Ocampo, 2016; Woo et al., 2020).
Items for the EIS Exploration subscale are written in the past tense, meaning that participants
only reported on past Exploration behaviors rather than plans or intent to engage in future events
or activities. The lack of differences between generation groups in Affirmation may be due to the
127
overrepresentation of second-generation Filipino Americans in the sample as compared with
other generation groups. With more representation of first-, 1.5-, and third/subsequent-generation
Filipino Americans in a sample, the more likely that variance within each of those groups will be
adequately observed in group comparisons.
Overall, the results suggest that the Resolution, or the sense of meaning or clarity behind
an individual’s identity, may be the most important, differentiating factor between generations in
Filipino Americans. Support for generational differences in ethnic identity Resolution may be
due to more nuanced patterns in outcome expectations, personal goals, or self-concept beliefs
that are connected to lived experiences by each generation’s status. For the first generation,
perhaps the unique experiences contributing to their increased resolve behind their ethnic identity
are connected to specific memories of living in the Philippines and/or immigrating to the United
States—experiences that 1.5, second, and third/subsequent generations are less likely to
experience vividly within their lifetimes. Based on this sample, the significance or meaning of an
ethnic identity may play a more important role in Filipino Americans’ overall ethnic identity than
how positively they feel about their ethnic identity or how much they explore it.
Research Hypothesis 2 was developed to investigate the multivariate relationship
between ethnic identity and colonial mentality in Filipino Americans. The hypothesis read as
follows: Lower ethnic identity subscale scores will be related to higher colonial mentality
subscale scores for Filipino Americans. The current study’s results provide strong evidence for
(or suggestions of possible) correlations and/or associations between ethnic identity and colonial
mentality in Filipino Americans in the predicted directions.
128
Evidence from the current study provide strong support for a unique set of associations
between ethnic identity Affirmation and Resolution with most of the colonial mentality variables
among Filipino Americans. The source of association, labeled as Pagmamahal sa Sarili at
Kapwa (Love of Self and Kapwa or interdependence), contributed to 40.2% of the shared
variance among Filipino American adults in the sample. Results showed that, when Filipino
Americans are experiencing high levels of encouragement, support, happiness, a sense of
meaning, and clarity with their ethnic identity, they may be experiencing low levels of
shame/embarrassment and inferiority towards their Filipino culture, physical traits, and
discrimination towards people within their ethnic group, which confirms David et al.’s (2017)
conceptualization of connections between ethnic identity, colonial mentality, and indigenous
Filipino values of kapwa. In other words, immersing Filipino Americans with positive attitudes
about their culture and encouragement towards this pursuit in their daily life can buffer the
negative effects of colonial mentality and racial or ethnic discrimination on Filipino American
individuals and their communities’ mental health. This important finding considers and confirms
the decades of research on the effects of racial socialization and racial discrimination on the
mental health outcomes of minoritized groups, such as Filipino Americans.
The associations described within this function may also describe how participants feel
when they encounter opportunities to challenge covert or overt experiences of colonial mentality,
while in the process of affirming themselves or creating meaning(s) from their Filipino American
identity. Given that the sample within the current study consists of predominantly second-
generation female Filipino Americans, this finding about Pagmamahal sa Sarili at Kapwa is
most generalizable to that subgroup and can inform future research on this subgroup’s process of
navigating ethnic identity Affirmation and Resolution from their specific intersection of
129
identities. Findings about Pagmamahal sa Sarili at Kapwa align with literature findings on
Filipino American women that have studied the additive effects of racism and sexism from
multiple, marginalized identities on their self-esteem and mental health, which requires many
clinicians to be culturally responsive in addressing unhealthy fluctuations in self-perceptions and
to enhance resilience through more strengths-based approaches (Del-Mundo & Quek, 2017;
Reyes et al., 2019; Tintiangco-Cubales, 2004). Given that these studies have cited gender as
playing an important role in retaining Filipino identity, learning Pagmamahal sa Sarili at Kapwa
from family and community members can help Filipino American women, who are often the
recipients of dehumanizing sexism and racism, from embodying negative colonial stereotypes
imposed upon them and from accepting false notions of insignificance (Enrile & Agbayani,
2007; Espiritu, 2001; Felipe, 2016). Active engagement in practices that increase affirmation and
resolution in Filipino American identity for Filipino American women can decrease
shame/embarrassment and inferiority towards their Filipino culture, physical traits, and
discrimination towards people within their ethnic group. Conversely, when Filipino American
individuals struggle to gain clarity and/or feel positively about their ethnic identity group, it is
advisable to consider the various sources of shame, negativity, or embarrassment towards their
culture.
Even though Function 2, Yaman sa Kulturang Pilipino (Filipino Cultural Wealth), was
observed to be statistically significant, it contributed to only 5.7% of the variance, which is
possibly an indication for additional topics for future research and clinical practice about ethnic
identity Resolution and Colonial Debt. In the Yaman sa Kulturang Pilipino function, the negative
relationship between ethnic identity Exploration and Colonial Debt could explain ethnic identity
processes that operate similarly to Marcia’s (1980) psychosocial explanations of identity
130
diffusion and achievement—both of which necessitate high levels of identity exploration. In
other words, Filipino Americans’ increases in ethnic identity Exploration are related to decreases
in an automatic preference for mindsets that claim indebtedness to Western, American, or
European colonizer cultures and institutions. Conversely, it is possible that rigid beliefs and
historical narratives, which frame Western colonizers as “saviors” for Filipinos, may be related to
decreased motivations and desires to explore Filipino culture because of what is presumed to be
owed (to the colonizers).
Concepts, such as Pagmamahal sa Sarili at Kapwa and Yaman sa Kulturang Pilipino, are
indicative of radical, new forms of familial, aspirational, social, resistant, linguistic, and
navigational wealth within Filipino American communities that are still understudied in
counseling psychology studies on this population. Given that many participants within the
current study were exposed to ethnic studies coursework, involved with Filipino American
organizations, or had consumed media developed for engaging with Filipino culture, the findings
were named to address a gap in the research on ethnic identity: a need for ethnic identity to
include components that endorse community actualization, cultural perpetuity, and revolution.
Inclusion of attitudes and behaviors that endorse advocacy and liberation is needed within
counseling psychology research to move forward in identity studies that emancipate minoritized
groups, like Filipino Americans, because these behaviors often create the conditions for
increased psychological wellness and help-seeking in oppressive systems. Many ethnic identity
scales, such as the MEIM-R and the EIS, have yet to incorporate subscales or items that measure
an individual’s influence on community actualization or cultural perpetuity—values which may
be of high importance to Filipino Americans who develop an ethnic identity influenced by a
sense of belonging and loving protection for their community. Similarly, the Colonial Mentality
131
Scale may need some additional items to reflect some more attitudinal and behavioral forms of
opposition towards revolutionary, emancipatory types of education rooted in Critical Race
Theory or ethnic studies. While this measure does contain items that describe disdain for Filipino
culture, disdain for acts of liberation or decolonization may be required to reflect on how
colonial mentality has changed over time. While psychology does an adequate job of measuring
highly individualized experiences of ethnic identity and colonial mentality, there is still a need
for including more of the individual’s contexts (e.g., communities, systems) within these
measures.
Because causality cannot be inferred, future research may benefit from newer, nuanced
explanations for the process(es) of individual(s) giving up a need for maintaining colonial
mentality and dismantling contemporary forms of oppression as a Filipino American in everyday
life. For example, as ethnic identity exploration increases for Filipino Americans, feelings or
sentiments endorsing indebtedness towards Western, colonial institutions and oppressive
practices are less supported by individuals. Furthermore, Filipino Americans individuals may
begin to endorse fostering a healthy relationship between themselves and their communities,
which is still understudied by counseling psychologists. Overall, the statistical significance of
these less substantial association sources provides a brief insight into possible areas of research
and personal reflection about current Filipino American ethnic identity and colonial mentality.
Research Hypothesis 3 answered the following research question: Does a relationship
exist between ethnic identity subscale scores and enculturation subscale scores in Filipino
Americans? In response to the constructs investigated, the specific hypothesis predicted the
following: Higher enculturation subscale scores will be related to higher ethnic identity subscale
132
scores in Filipino Americans. More specifically, it was predicted that higher enculturation scores
would relate to higher ethnic identity scores in Filipino Americans. Results from a canonical
correlation between enculturation and ethnic identity scales confirmed the presence and nature of
the relationship(s) between both variable sets.
Evidence from the current study provides support for a unique set of associations
between ethnic identity Exploration and Affirmation with enculturation experiences of a
Connection with the Homeland among Filipino Americans. The source of association, labeled as
Pagkakasundo sa Kultura at Sarili (Cultural and Self Harmony), contributed about 14% of the
variance to ethnic identity among Filipino Americans. In this function, ethnic identity
Exploration and Affirmation subscale scores increase with enculturation Connection with
Homeland subscale scores. This means that, when Filipino Americans explore, participate, and
feel more encouraged by their Filipino culture, they feel more connected with the Philippines.
Overall, this finding provides strong evidence for connections between ethnic identity and
enculturation in Filipino Americans, even as they are explained and experienced by Filipino
Americans as unique processes.
One explanation for this association may be attributed to the need for Filipino Americans
to have accessibility to cultural practices and a sense of agency in developing their ethnic
identity to strengthen their ongoing connection to Filipino culture and the Philippines, which
confirms findings in past literature about ethnic identity development in Filipino American adults
(Teppang et al., 2017). While many Filipino Americans, especially the second generation,
encounter pressures to acculturate or assimilate into their host country, a major source of strength
comes from this population’s resilience and efforts towards pedagogies of resistance found
within critical ethnic studies that center Filipino American narratives (Tintiangco-Cubales et al.,
133
2016; Tintiangco-Cubales & Curammeng, 2018). Given the increasing accessibility to formal
and informal sources of information about Filipino culture, it is possible that the association
between identity exploration, affirmation, and connection with homeland contribute to or drive
development of identity resolution within this population.
Another source of association, labeled as Pakikisama Concerns, provided a small source
of variance that may be an area of interest for future research, clinical practice, or dialogue
within the Filipino American community. Though this association only contributed to 4% of the
variance, it indicated, contrary to initial predictions, relationships between ethnic identity and
enculturation. Decreases in ethnic identity resolution were related to increases in interpersonal
norms. This is a small but statistically significant source of association, which may benefit from
a variety of explanations for its negative, moderate association between these two subscales. One
possible explanation for these findings is that participants might be expressing attitudes towards
the interpersonal norms described in the scale that reflect more internalization of Western,
Americanized social norms or usage of “code-switching” in daily interactions.
In some ways, Pakikisama Concerns could explain a sense of ambivalence about
navigating different social spaces and the norms that dictate preferred interpersonal styles in
Filipino and American cultures. In the case of second-generation Filipino Americans, certain
interpersonal norms or strategies may occasionally feel uncomfortable or disingenuous to some
Filipino American individuals. While a Filipino American person may use code-switching
behaviors to navigate interactions with, for example, elders within their family or community,
they may not agree with its use or that this disagreement deeply hinders their overall ethnic
identity. This ambivalence may be further explained by acculturative stress or navigating a
134
bicultural identity; however, a more appropriate name/label to consider, which may be of greater
relevance for second- and subsequent-generation statuses, is enculturation stress.
However, this source of variance may be characterized by Filipino American individuals
who identified as having less clarity about their ethnic identity and actively seek for assistance
with this area of ethnic identity among Filipino American family members, peers, or ethnic
studies. This explanation may be likely given that most of the dataset identified themselves as
second-generation Filipino Americans—a generation that is generally described by the literature
as being more likely to seek help than the first generation (De Luna & Kawabata, 2020). Even
though the direction of this relationship is surprising, it may indicate a strength—cultural help-
seeking, within a small percentage of Filipino Americans who participated in the study, which
confirms studies about second-generation Filipino Americans’ use of cultural portals (Ferrera,
2017). If this is the case, then another argument can be made for continuing research that
examines strengths that arise from Filipino American adults seeking to increase clarity and
meaning making from their ethnic identity within their communities. Filipino American
participants reported lower ethnic identity affirmation scores when endorsing higher scores on
enculturation interpersonal norms.
While the relationship between enculturation and ethnic identity exists, the low strength
of this relationship is somewhat surprising and brings into question whether these concepts need
to be revisited for individuals with a background in ethnic studies or who have immersed
themselves in Filipino culture through their peers. Overall, the sample endorsed high levels of
ethnic identity, yet relatively lower levels of enculturation, which indicates, perhaps, a need for a
new subscale that measures an orientation towards building Community Cultural Wealth (CCW)
with other Filipino Americans. While this concept is gaining popularity in education, it is still
135
emerging in counseling psychology research, especially on Filipino Americans. Since
acculturation research has historically been characterized by a one-dimensional view of groups
like Filipino Americans, the addition of more indigenous Filipino cultural concepts on
community engagement and liberation, like the barangay and bayanihan, could speak to an even
stronger relationship in Pagkakasundo sa Kultura at Sarili and in Pakikisama Concerns. For a
growing segment of second-generation Filipino Americans, internal motivation towards
cultural/interpersonal harmony and advocacy for Filipino American communities are recognized
as part of a cultural legacy; however, this revolutionary part of both ethnic identity and
enculturation is not yet recognized in psychology research. Furthermore, peer socialization or
acknowledgment of counterspaces as a source of enculturation is not yet recognized in a lot of
psychology research on racial and ethnic minorities because of overwhelming emphasis on
cultural transmission from older to newer generations. In essence, the novel findings from testing
this hypothesis indicate new explanations for ethnic identity and enculturation to be explored in
Filipino Americans and among many other racial and ethnic minorities in psychology.
To answer the research question—Are enculturation subscale scores related to colonial
mentality subscale scores in Filipino Americans?—the following hypothesis was developed:
Higher enculturation subscale scores will be related to lower colonial mentality subscale scores
in Filipino Americans. More specifically, higher enculturation scores were predicted to be related
to lower colonial mentality subscale scores of Within-Group Discrimination, Physical
Characteristics, and Colonial Debt. Evidence from the dataset confirmed the presence of a
relationship and/or associations between enculturation and colonial mentality but not in the
predicted direction of the hypothesis.
136
While multiple relationships between the two sets of variables were observed, the results
did not fully support the direction of the hypothesis. Evidence from the current study provided
strong support for three unique and statistically significant sets of canonical correlations between
enculturation and colonial mentality experiences among Filipino Americans at the p < .001 level.
The first canonical correlation function, which was labeled as Rebolusionaryong Kaisipan
(Revolutionary Thinking), contributed to 26.3% of the shared variance and described a positive,
mostly direct correlation between Conservatism and Colonial Debt.
In Rebolusionaryong Kaisipan (Revolutionary Thinking), decreases in feelings of
indebtedness to Western, colonial powers are related to decreases in Enculturation Conservatism.
The high correlation between these variables may be better explained by the specific wording
and references to Christianity and unwavering obedience to authority figures in the ESFA-S
subscale items. Given that Christianity was a product of Spanish and American colonization and
historically used as a means of subjugating Filipinos, feelings of indebtedness and gratitude may
be higher among Filipino Americans who identify strongly with their religion, particularly
among Roman Catholics. Historically, the United States colonized the Philippines and modeled
the education system in ways that mirrored the cultural indoctrination and oppression of
Indigenous populations in North America, Puerto Rico, and the Pacific (David, 2013; Dunbar-
Ortiz, 2014; Reyes, 2015). Therefore, it is possible that, for Filipino Americans with less
expressed religiosity and low affiliation with Christian denominations (i.e., Roman Catholicism)
emphasizing internalized guilt and indebtedness towards authority, Colonial Debt may be less
salient because of what their religion means to them. If some Filipino Americans have developed
a deep, critical awareness of colonization and a strong commitment to decolonization, then they
137
may choose not to believe or practice more conservative values, especially if they strongly
endorse Christianity.
A second canonical correlation function, labeled as Nahahati sa Kamalayan (Divided in
Consciousness), described a relationship between decreases in enculturation Interpersonal Norms
and decreases in Internalized Inferiority, Cultural Shame and Embarrassment, Within-Group
Discrimination, and Physical Characteristics. This function may draw more attention to the
complex nuances between enculturation and colonial mentality and similar correlations observed
between familial, peer, and community indexes with colonial mentality (David & Nadal, 2013).
This could be explained by increased exposure to other Filipino American individuals with
colonial mentality and how this may be reinforced or maintained by an individual’s lived
experiences with racism in the United States. It would be erroneous and harmful to interpret the
relationship between enculturation and colonial mentality in Filipino Americans’ consciousness
as a cultural deficit that emphasizes self-loathing from a Westernized perspective that values the
individualism and self-autonomy rather than a decolonized lens that considers the adaptive
features of more interdependent, collective, non-Western values, such as hiya (shame) and
pakikisama (accommodation, cooperation).
Given that the sample is mostly second generation, participants may be attempting to
describe protective factors and negotiations that arise while adeptly navigating bicultural
identities—processes which may be elaborated by identity management models and studied
further in a qualitative follow-up or via mixed-methods research (Teppang et al., 2017; Wei et al.,
2010). The statements used in the interpersonal norms may describe interpersonal processes that
are not adaptive for bicultural, second-generation Filipino Americans in many situations while
living in the United States, if issues of racial discrimination and coping with these issues are
138
salient to them. While Du Bois (1909) described the process of double consciousness within the
African American experience, some Filipino Americans may also experience other forms of
reconciling their Filipino-ness and American-ness internally and among their families or
communities.
The presence of a third, though weakly observed, function did support this hypothesis in
the predicted direction. This function, labeled as Paglalakad Sa Sakit (Walking through the
Pain), provided evidence for an indirect relationship between scores from the Connection with
Homeland subscale and colonial mentality Within-Group Discrimination subscale scores. Within
this function, decreases in an individual’s connection with the homeland were related to increases
in discrimination and denigration of fellow Filipino Americans. The outcome may be explained
by a sense of familiarity, kinship, or kapwa experienced by Filipino Americans when a
connection to the Philippines is communicated and accepted, which further highlights the
importance of kapwa in challenging colonial mentality (David et al., 2017). Filipino American
individuals or subgroups may be less likely to discriminate against members of their group when
they learn about a shared connection to the homeland, which emphasizes feelings of
connectedness and empathy towards others who are also deeply engrained in Filipino cultural
values of kapwa.
A source of this critical awareness within the sample comes from participants’ knowledge
of ethnic studies and the second generation’s increased peer socialization on the negative effects
of colonialism and internalized racism. While many second-generation Filipino Americans have
some formative experiences of cultural socialization with their first-generation parents, the
experiences of Ferrera’s (2017) constrained enculturation (i.e., first generation endorsement of
assimilation) may lead second-generation Filipino Americans to creatively seek out and develop
139
mechanisms for enculturation that are specific to the needs of this subpopulation’s decolonization
efforts. Enculturation could be happening more laterally and in a socially liberal way between
individuals of a similar generation, especially among second-generation Filipino Americans. So
far, counseling psychology has not yet named or measured the psychological health benefits of
adopting Rebolusionaryong Kaisipan and navigating Nahahati sa Kamalayan and Paglalakad sa
Sakit because the inclusion of social activism and engagement as a beneficial mental health
practice for historically excluded individuals and communities is not popularly recognized
among clinicians and researchers. Embodiment of these ideals and linking them to indigenous
Filipino concepts of community, past narratives of Filipino ancestors’ resilience, and hopes for
cultural perpetuity have become more prevalent among second-generation Filipino Americans’
path towards psychological decolonization efforts; however, it is mostly first generation, socially
conservative values that are reflected in the enculturation scales. Inclusion of new items or
subscales in enculturation to reflect more socially liberal and community-engaged Filipino
practices can increase the scale’s effectiveness in measuring enculturation in second-generation
Filipino Americans. To effectively work against a problematic past in acculturation research,
psychology will need to accept how narratives of community resistance and actualization are just
as important as self-actualization among newer generations of Filipino Americans.
Research Hypothesis 5 was developed to investigate potential mean differences in
enculturation scores among Filipino American immigrant generation groups. The hypothesis
reads as follows: First- and 1.5-generation Filipino Americans will have higher enculturation
scores than second- and third/subsequent-generation Filipino Americans. The current study’s
results provided strong evidence for intergenerational differences in Connection with Homeland
140
in the predicted direction and some strong evidence for intergenerational differences in
Interpersonal Norms, though, in a novel, unobserved direction to be studied in future research.
Results from the current study indicated that first-generation Filipino Americans had the
strongest feelings of connection with the Philippines when compared with 1.5-, second-, and
third/subsequent-generation Filipino Americans. When comparing 1.5- and third/subsequent-
generation Filipino Americans, there was also strong evidence for higher levels of connection
with the Philippines for the 1.5 generation. In other words, first-generation Filipino Americans
are more likely to initiate contact with the Philippines and other Filipinos, adhere to cultural
customs, and use Tagalog, the primary language of the Philippines, with a preference or
knowledge of how to speak in Tagalog. The evidence for statistically significant differences
between generation statuses on Connection with Homeland are better explained by the first
generation’s salience of lived experiences in the Philippines during their formative years and
their status as having English as a Second Language (ESL)—experiences that are less common
among 1.5-, second-, and third-generation Filipino Americans. As for the 1.5-generation Filipino
Americans, depending on their age of immigration during their childhood or adolescent years,
they may be more likely to experience connections with the homeland compared to
third/subsequent generations, despite spending less time in the Philippines compared to the first
generation. Unlike the other generations, the first generation grew up more immersed in Filipino
culture. Therefore, even though second-generation Filipino Americans may make significant
efforts to connect with their culture through cultural portals within the family, these first-
generation cultural portals possess the strongest ties to the Philippines.
While there is strong evidence for generational differences between in Interpersonal
Norms, the unanticipated direction of these differences adds richness to the current study’s
141
analysis and implications for future study. Even though previous literature suggests that first and
1.5 generations are more likely to adhere to Filipino cultural ways of interpersonal interaction
(Agbayani-Siewert, 1994, 1997; Heras, 2007; Nadal, 2020), the results suggested the opposite
phenomenon occurring based on participant responses to the survey. Within the current study,
first-generation Filipino Americans were more likely to report lower levels of adhering to
Filipino cultural interpersonal styles compared to 1.5-, second-, and third/subsequent-generation
Filipino Americans, and 1.5-generation Filipino Americans reported lower adherence to these
interpersonal styles than third/subsequent generations.
Though this result is surprising, it elicits a few possible explanations and questions for
this generational difference to be considered for future research. Given that the current study has
confirmed previous literature findings about the first generation’s increased ethnic identity
resolution and connection with the homeland compared to other generation groups, adherence to
Filipino interpersonal norms might become less of a priority for this generation years after
immigrating to the United States. If first-generation Filipino Americans are positioned to have
greater resolve with their ethnic identity and connection with the homeland, then perhaps
assimilation to American interpersonal norms becomes less of a threat to their ethnic identity or
enculturation overall. Furthermore, the Interpersonal Norms described in the wording of the
items are more likely to endorse interpersonal ways of communication that are more functional
to life in the Philippines than in the United States for first-generation Filipino Americans. First-
generation Filipino Americans who have retained fluency of their native Filipino language(s),
including Tagalog, may also be less likely to describe nonadherence to these norms as a threat to
their Filipino identity and enculturation. If the first generation possesses this linguistic versatility
142
over 1.5, second, and third/subsequent generations, assimilation may become a less distressful
task for navigating social contexts in the United States.
As for the higher levels of adherence to interpersonal customs for second and
third/subsequent generations, learned interpersonal norms may be the most prominent and
retained aspect of Filipino culture passed down through family socialization in the absence of
lived experiences in the Philippines and fluency in Filipino languages. In this case, one can
hypothesize for future study the possibility that second and third/subsequent generations may be
more likely to adhere to interpersonal norms to compensate for this difference or find kapwa with
other Filipino Americans. The current study has, in essence, found an adaptive strength of
second- and third/subsequent-generation Filipino Americans’ ability to enhance their
enculturation in the absence of strong connections to the homeland or clarity about the meaning
of their ethnic identity. While interpersonal norms may not be as functional to first- and 1.5-
generation Filipino Americans’ daily life in the United States, they may be more important for
connecting with Filipino culture and communities for second and third/subsequent generations
hoping to build kapwa. In identifying this uncommon pattern as a strength, the current study has
potentially revealed a way in which the second and third/subsequent generations of Filipino
Americans bridge their experiences with the first and 1.5 generations.
To answer the research question—Will generation status effect colonial mentality?—the
following hypothesis was developed: First-generation Filipino Americans will have lower
colonial mentality than 1.5-, second-, and third/subsequent-generation Filipino Americans. Data
from the study did not provide evidence for statistically significant mean differences between
143
first-, 1.5-, second-, and third/subsequent-generation Filipino Americans on the five colonial
mentality subscales.
While this finding is surprising, it presents an area of interest for future research about the
mechanisms by which generations pass on colonial mentality and how they may be maintained
when living in the United States. The lack of statistically significant mean differences between
Filipino Americans of different generation statuses may speak to the strengths of familial
socialization or transmission of cultural norms within the sample. Overall, most participants
reported strongly or somewhat disagreed with statements provided in the CMS, indicating lower
levels of colonial mentality. This notable similarity between generations in the current study’s
sample indicates a need for more responses from other generations (e.g., first, 1.5,
third/subsequent) and the possibility that there are unique characteristics to the sample in the
current study. Furthermore, it poses the question of whether Filipino Americans who respond to a
survey on Filipino American cultural experiences are more likely to have lower colonial
mentality than Filipino Americans who do not engage with the survey because of their lower
levels of internalized inferiority. Given the previous literature’s findings on colonial mentality’s
negative impact on help-seeking behaviors (Constante, 2021; David, 2008; Tuazon, 2015;
Tuazon et al., 2019), Filipino Americans with lower levels of colonial mentality are likely to be
more motivated to not only seek help from other Filipino Americans, but also provide help to
fellow Filipino Americans. There is currently little empirical research on colonial mentality’s
effects on prosocial behaviors, like providing help or altruism, outside of traditional Filipino
interpersonal norms, such as utang na loob (i.e., reciprocity), which means that these findings
present another gap in psychology research on Filipino Americans that is worth exploring.
144
Although difficult to explore, this potential source of bias is worth noting for future research on
colonial mentality.
These results support the adaptive strategy behind having a dual consciousness that
includes colonial mentality, even though it may lead to increased psychological stress in Filipino
Americans (David & Okazaki, 2006, 2010). It is possible that the data reported by 1.5-, second-,
and third/subsequent-generation Filipino Americans on colonial mentality speaks to the extent to
which they have inherited historical trauma and internalized oppression from first-generation
elders and community members. While living in the United States, a lack of accessibility to
decolonized perspectives and lived experiences with systemic barriers to equality limits Filipino
Americans across all generation statuses from making significant changes to levels of colonial
mentality without active self-reflection and awareness. Perhaps, regardless of the years spent
living in the Philippines, life in the United States demands that all Filipino Americans maintain
some level of colonial mentality to function within different institutions and communities for
survival. This highlights a greater need, overall, for different institutions to reexamine how their
demands prioritize and value colonial mentality at the cost of Filipino Americans’ self-concept
and wellness. Indeed, the findings from this research question highlight a need to thoroughly
examine how living in the United States may affect the generational transmission and
maintenance of colonial mentality.
This novel, surprising lack of generational differences in Filipino Americans on colonial
mentality offers several new explanations for how colonial mentality has evolved and how
Filipino Americans have strategically navigated their lives to challenge colonial mentality. Given
that this sample was either exposed to ethnic studies or consisted of individuals who are
motivated towards Filipino American community engagement in mental health services, perhaps
145
these findings have detected the positive outcomes of colonization counterspaces. Among this
sampling of mostly female Filipino Americans, exposure and engagement in ethnic studies or
organizations promoting Filipino American mental health usage has an effect of creating low
colonial mentality across generation statuses. When considering how the colonial mentality is
related to ethnic identity and enculturation within this subpopulation, the current study has found
that it accounts for a cumulative 89.8% of the variance by ways of new canonical functions, such
as Pagmamahal sa Sarili at Kapwa, Rebolusionaryong Kaisipan, and Nahahati sa Kamalayan—
all of which imply that these participants have a unique relationship with colonial mentality
despite scoring very low on its manifestations. These results highlight a need for psychology
research to describe the value and psychological effects of resistant community cultural wealth
among Filipino Americans quantitatively (Yosso, 2008).
Summary of Discussion
Overall, five out of the six hypotheses were provided with support for intergenerational
differences in ethnic identity and enculturation, and for relationships between ethnic identity,
enculturation, and colonial mentality variables. The results from this study suggest that there are
generational differences in ethnic identity for Filipino Americans, especially when considering
their sense of resolution towards their ethnic identity. Differences between generation groups in
ethnic identity resolution were strongest between first generation and all subsequent generations
(i.e., 1.5, second, and third/subsequent), with the first generation endorsing the highest levels of
clarity and resolve about the meaning of their Filipino American ethnic identity. Thus, this study
may be helpful to Filipino Americans who are trying to understand why they view their ethnic
identity differently than individuals in other generation statuses.
146
In investigating the relationship between ethnic identity and colonial mentality variables
in Filipino Americans, the study’s results found that increases in exploration, affirmation, and
resolution of an individual’s ethnic identity were related to decreases in thoughts, feelings, and
behaviors tied to internalized inferiority, cultural shame/embarrassment, within-group
discrimination, colonial debt, and disdain for Filipino physical characteristics. This relationship
was labeled as Pagmamahal sa Sarili at Kapwa and was a significant finding, accounting for at
least 40% of the variance within the sample. A major strength of this finding is that it confirms
both the prevalence and strength of a relationship between ethnic identity and colonial mentality
found in the literature, even when using a different theoretical perspective and psychological
scale that is seldom used with Filipino Americans. This relationship between ethnic identity and
colonial mentality may assist Filipino Americans with talking more openly about the possible
attitudes, thoughts, and behaviors that contribute to an individual’s assumptions of inferiority
towards their Filipino culture and members of their ethnic group in ways that promote mental
wellness within the community. Overall, this finding strongly emphasized that love of self and an
interdependent, culturally connected self that is in contact with the Filipino community is
protective against the negative effects of colonial mentality.
Findings from the current study highlighted a strong relationship between ethnic identity
Exploration, Affirmation, and Connection with Homeland. The function explaining this
relationship, Pagkakasundo sa Kultura at Sarili, accounted for 14% of the variance and
maintained previous literature findings about connections between ethnic identity and
enculturation in Filipino Americans. Relationships between enculturation and colonial mentality,
were primarily described by two functions: Rebolusionaryong Kaisipan and Nahahati sa
Kamalayan. These two functions accounted for 26.3% of the variance and 23.5% of the variance
147
in the sample, respectively. Rebolusionaryong Kaisipan was characterized by decreases in
endorsement of views espousing socially conservative values, disdain for Filipino physical
characteristics, and indebtedness to Spanish and American colonizers. Nahahati sa Kamalayan
was characterized by decreases in adherence to Filipino interpersonal norms, internalized
inferiority, cultural shame and embarrassment, discrimination against other Filipinos, and disdain
for Filipino physical characteristics.
Intergenerational differences were explored further in Filipino American enculturation
and colonial mentality. First-generation Filipino Americans had the highest levels of connection
with the Philippines, and 1.5-generation Filipino Americans were more likely to feel connected
to the Philippines than third/subsequent generations. Surprisingly, first-generation Filipino
Americans endorsed the lowest levels of interpersonal norms compared to other generation
groups, and 1.5-generation Filipino Americans were less likely to adhere to interpersonal cultural
norms than third/subsequent generations. This was explained by the adaptability of Filipino
Americans and the different meanings of interpersonal norms for each generation of Filipino
Americans. Finally, results did not suggest any statistically significant differences between
generations in colonial mentality, confirming the use of colonial mentality as an adaptive strategy
for Filipino Americans across generation statuses.
Additional canonical functions accounting for less than 10% of the variance were found
in the study and described for the purpose of future studies to investigate relationships between
ethnic identity, enculturation, and colonial mentality. The three functions provided for future
research include: Yaman sa Kulturang Pilipino, Pakikisama Concerns, and Paglalakad sa Sakit.
These functions indicated the presence of more complex, nuanced relationships between ethnic
148
identity, enculturation, and colonial mentality that can inform more intricate and in-depth
conversations on Filipino American experiences in counseling psychology.
Limitations
There are several limitations that should be taken into consideration when examining the
outcomes of the current study. In a web-based survey that relies on a combination of purposive
and snowball sampling methods, many of the participants who engaged with the survey are self-
selected and may already share similar characteristics, perspectives, and experiences. For
example, participants who engage with various Filipino American organizations and cultural
figures via online media may present with different responses, attributes, and thought processes
than those who do not engage in those activities. The participants were mostly recruited from
various professional organizations (i.e., Asian American Psychological Association), various
chapters of the Filipino American National Historical Society (FANHS), Filipino/Filipino
American college student associations, podcasts on Filipino American culture and identity (i.e.,
This Filipino American Life, Bruha Baddies), and some businesses serving Filipino Americans in
the Midwest. It is critical to note that there is vast heterogeneity within Filipino Americans that
may not be represented by participant responses from these recruitment sources.
Given these recruitment efforts, Filipino Americans who do not engage with these
resources may have different experiences with navigating their ethnic identity, including the way
they describe themselves. The term “Filipino American” was used in the recruitment materials
and in the survey, which may limit generalizability to people who describe themselves in a
similar way. As a result, individuals who did not identify with that term would have been less
likely to participate in the survey or may have participated differently if they use different terms
to describe their ethnicity and cultural experiences. possibly affecting the representation of first-
149
generation Filipino Americans in the sample. After correcting for birthplace and age of
immigration, first-generation Filipino Americans may be underrepresented in the sample relative
to second-generation Filipino Americans. Given their connection to the homeland, future
research might explicitly recruit first-generation individuals by using different terms, such as
“Philippine-born,” in recruitment materials or address whether Philippine-born individuals are
more likely to identify themselves as Filipino versus Filipino American.
In the current study, the sample is mostly limited to participants who engage in some use
of internet or social media use due to the nature of recruitment. The means of recruitment may
have affected the availability of responses from participants who do not typically use social
media or have limited access to a mobile phone or internet connection. Given that the
recruitment and survey materials are primarily written in English, Filipino American individuals
who perceive themselves as less competent in English or with the use of digital surveys may
have been less likely to engage with the study.
With regard to survey implementation and/or design within the current study, participants
were able to skip or omit responses to items, which provided limitations in the analysis due to
missing data. Participants who provided consent to participate in the study were not obligated to
provide responses for every item. While non-response to items provides a glimpse into how
members of the Filipino American population (dis)engage with survey items, missing data
reduces the representativeness of the sample, and inferences from the study should be made or
taken with caution to reduce bias. Although the number of cases with complete generation status
data meets the minimum required by the a priori power analysis, exclusion of cases with missing
generation status data for research questions comparing mean generational differences may still
limit some of the generalizability of these results to the larger Filipino American population.
150
While many studies use complete case analysis approaches and delete incomplete cases from
statistical analysis, this type of approach often increases the likelihood of Type I error bias and
drastically alters the sample (van der Heijden et al., 2006).
Though MCAR tests and EM methods were used to minimize the influence of missing
data on multivariate analyses in the current study, it could still be viewed as a limitation due to
possible factors, such as participants’ survey-taking fatigue or their subjective
interpretations/responses to question items concerning colonial mentality, questions on Physical
Characteristics, and ethnic identity questions on Exploration. It should be noted, however, that
the use of instruments, such as the CMS, ESFA, and EIS, have been widely studied and validated
on Filipino Americans and other populations as reliable measures. While studies have shown that
missing data in educational or psychological self-report survey research among historically
undervalued populations is a common occurrence, it is still important to consider and discuss the
potential causes and effects in current and future research with Filipino Americans. Future
studies may benefit from implementing practices to reduce missing data in web survey
distribution, considering use of planned missing response designs in studies, or using mixed
methods (or qualitative follow-up) to investigate reasons for non-response to items.
Survey designs provide utility to researchers in making inferences about Filipino
Americans; however, they may be limited in capturing subtleties and nuances of culture in that
they fail to fully describe the context of social life for individuals and subgroups (Agbayani-
Siewert, 2004) due to some of these limitations and the nature of the question(s) they answer.
Use of survey approaches may not provide an abundance of information on the breadth of
participants’ subjective experiences. Although the current study involved use of a large dataset
and conducted analyses on multiple sets of variables with Filipino Americans from different
151
generation statuses, the study is cross-sectional and uses mostly correlational analyses, which
cannot infer causality. Longitudinal research and comparison of quantitative results with
qualitative data is needed to address differences in ethnic identity to expand on findings from the
current study. Ethnic identity is a construct that is described by multiple researchers as a lifespan
development process, therefore, cross-sectional data from this study serves as a momentary
snapshot of participants’ ethnic identity (as defined by the measures used) within the context of
their lifespans (Marcia, 2010; Meca et al., 2018; Williams et al., 2020). Furthermore, qualitative
data would enhance researchers’ knowledge of the context(s) and process(es) used by
participants in their survey responses. While it is helpful to know that generational differences
exist for certain constructs within this sample, the use of quantitative methods alone fails to
describe the meaning-making or coping processes that may be used by Filipino Americans in
describing their ethnic identity, enculturation, generation status, and colonial mentality.
Recommendations for Future Research
Future studies utilizing these surveys should supplement or follow up with qualitative
methods, such as interviews or focus groups, to generate more breadth and depth of knowledge
about the relationships between the variables in the current study. Qualitative follow-up or a
mixed-methods research design may be helpful to understand the specific types of experiences
salient to different generations after completing the survey and in developing explanations or
theories about Filipino American ethnic identity from an emic approach that is grounded in the
culture. Quantitative studies, such as the current study, provide information and explanations
about the results of measuring concepts of ethnic identity, enculturation, and colonial mentality.
To explore the subjective contexts, which change within different Filipino American population
subgroups and in response to the sociocultural zeitgeist or events in a historical period,
152
qualitative methods are required for information on new patterns of thinking, behaviors, and
feelings about different aspects of Filipino American lived experiences. In a systematic review of
psychological literature on internalized racism, David et al. (2019) found that psychology was
still lacking in research to better understand internalized racial oppression and provided a call to
psychology researchers to contribute for more work that
1. utilizes qualitative or mixed methods,
2. focuses on the experiences of different racial and ethnic groups,
3. investigates how internalized racism intersects with other forms of internalized
oppression,
4. clarifies the connection of internalized racism with other theoretically similar
phenomena, and
5. incorporates social justice and advocacy in clinical and community services to
balance unequal power dynamics that perpetuate racism—the root cause of
internalized racism.
Focus groups consisting of individuals from similar generations may help future researchers to
develop narratives that guide future training and clinical work with Filipino Americans; however,
focus groups with individuals from different generations may also provide future researchers
with opportunities to observe how these differences or similarities may present themselves in
real-time.
In addition to the use of qualitative methods, it may be helpful for researchers to consider
a longitudinal design to increase opportunities for observing changes in individuals or groups
over time. Analyzing data from multiple modalities across time may assist researchers with
exploring new possibilities as to how Filipino Americans explore, resolve, and affirm their ethnic
153
identity over time in their behavior patterns and attitudes towards the self and others. With a
longitudinal design, researchers may be able to observe baseline levels of subscale scores within
a sample and the extent to which they may change over a period.
A longitudinal study that includes a generationally diverse sample may help researchers
in psychology and other fields learn more about how levels of enculturation, colonial mentality,
and ethnic identity change over time. Longitudinal designs may also benefit from working with
Filipino populations before and after immigrating to the United States. Given that most studies
on Filipino Americans collect data from individuals after having lived in the United States, it
may be helpful to connect their experiences with the broader Filipino Diaspora. Filipino
American researchers should consider collaborating with Filipino researchers in the Philippines
who are studying similar concepts with Filipinos who wish to or are preparing to immigrate to
the United States. Though literature suggests some changes to ethnic identity may occur in
response to external stressors or an individual’s developmental processes, studies with a
longitudinal design with attention to these sources of influence may help researchers understand
which variables or constructs are susceptible to change over time (Syed, Juang, et al., 2018;
Umaña-Taylor, 2018). This is consistent with theoretical frameworks that have historically
acknowledged the fluidity with which a person experiences the degree of commitment or
identification with their ethnic group (Umaña-Taylor, 2016). Furthermore, the use of a
longitudinal design may help researchers develop a body of research that tells a richer narrative
of how ethnic identity functions as a buffer for different Filipino American individuals or
subgroups.
A deeper investigation into the potential role(s) or connections of the following beliefs or
value systems among different Filipino American immigrant generations should also be
154
considered: meritocratic beliefs, social/political conservative viewpoints, and implicit biases.
While counseling psychology research typically does not explore the relationships between
ethnic/racial identity, mental health, and the endorsement of various political policies (i.e.,
healthcare, education, immigration, labor) on minoritized populations, generational shifts in
identity development, life experiences, and attitudes towards political systems/structures may
reveal more nuanced information about their varied effects on AA&PIs, including Filipino
Americans (Cooc & Kim, 2021). Within the past year, political analysts, economists, and public
health experts have begun to examine the impact of ethnic identity, generation status, and
political viewpoints on familial relationships, and psychology research has confirmed these to be
sources of strength, emotional wellness, and interpersonal harmony/strife for many Filipino
Americans (Abdelkader & Liu, 2021; Leung, 2021; Nadal, 2020). Understanding Filipino
Americans’ sense of agency, motivation, and belonging in political discourse and some of the
related mental health outcomes can provide members within this community with starting points
for understanding multiple facets and meeting points between seemingly personal experiences
and political ones. This could allow for more potential to collaborate with researchers in other
fields of social psychology and the social sciences for increased awareness and visibility of this
growing ethnic group.
Implications of the Study
Overall, the current study’s findings suggest a need to continue research on issues
affecting Filipino Americans’ ethnic identity, given the high likelihood of variance within this
population. Even though some hypotheses were not strongly supported by observations from this
study, unexpected newer findings with statistical significance may provide further areas of
consideration for psychologists who engage in clinical practice, training, or research. As this
155
population grows, a conversation on serving the needs of this community may continue to
flourish among Filipino American clinicians, educators, and researchers within the field of
psychology and other mental health or medical professionals.
Implications for Mental Health Clinicians and Clinical Practice
Based on the current study’s findings, the following implications and their
recommendations for clinical practice are provided as follows:
• Recognize that high colonial mentality, low enculturation, and low ethnic identity
in Filipino Americans are manifestations of intergenerational trauma to be
addressed with decolonized clinical practices in-session with clients.
• Consider adaptation or integration of Filipino cultural values with established
clinical practices by using cultural humility and a critical consciousness of
Westernized, individualistic perspectives.
• Develop a deeper understanding of kapwa to empower Filipino American clients
with increasing self-agency during the therapeutic process.
• Consult with reliable Filipino research and community members on adapting
evidence-based psychoeducation and skills for Filipino Americans to include
appropriate cultural references.
• Name and confront the presence of systemic oppression towards Filipino
Americans when using trauma-informed approaches with Filipino American
clients in-session.
More detailed examples and explanations for the study’s implications on clinical practice with
Filipino Americans is provided with references to common approaches and theoretical
orientations used by therapists.
156
Clinicians may benefit from conceptualizing signs of high colonial mentality, low
enculturation, and low ethnic identity affirmation in clients as possible manifestations of
intergenerational trauma and systemic oppression for Filipino Americans, which may be
addressed through a more decolonized lens of practice that addresses the role of systemic
oppression in-session. This could mean using a culturally congruent integration of theoretical
approaches with traditional, Filipino values, which may include opportunities for facilitating
empowering insights and coping skills for Filipino American clients with lived experiences of
identity concerns, family relational distress, acculturation, and discrimination. The following
theoretical approaches and practices are examples presented for their potential to aid clinicians in
conceptualizing and treating Filipino American clients with a variety of concerns when combined
with a decolonized focus and cultural humility: Interpersonal Process Therapy (IPT), Dialectical
Behavior Therapy (DBT), Cognitive Processing Therapy (CPT), and Acceptance and
Commitment Therapy (ACT).
Given the important role of interpersonal norms and harmony within Filipino culture, it
may be important for Filipino American clinicians to consider the strengths of using IPT and the
process dimension in case conceptualization and treatment planning with their Filipino American
clients. The benefits of using this approach include attentiveness to different levels of
communication within the therapist-client relationship, provision of corrective emotional
experiences, and client response specificity (Teyber & Teyber, 2017). Though researchers have
provided broad recommendations for culturally adapting humanistic and person-centered
therapies with Filipino Americans due to their preferences for emotional warmth and values for
pakikisama (social acceptance), no studies have considered describing specific examples or
157
detailing the processes of using common factors between Filipino Americans in a therapeutic
relationship effectively from IPT approaches (Nadal, 2020; Okamura & Agbayani, 1991).
A deeper understanding of the core value of kapwa (unity, connection, and oneness with a
fellow being) by a Filipino American therapist and their client can assist with the development of
insight and self-agency within a trusting therapeutic relationship. An example of how the process
dimension may be utilized is described by Filipino Canadian artist Anne Carly (2019):
I asked my therapist to speak to me in Tagalog because it felt right to me. It was intense. I
had no idea my inner child needed to hear the words “Go ahead & cry” in my first
language. “Sige, umiyak ka. Walang problema sakin yun.”
In that narrative, the client describes the importance of having her unmet emotional needs
addressed by a Filipino therapist who could attend to and communicate on multiple levels in
therapy. Feelings of safety in authentically expressing emotions were achieved in that exchange
through the counselor’s focus on empathy and unconditional positive regard towards the client.
The brief disclosure by the client described a specific way in which a Filipino therapist can
effectively utilize the process dimension, purposive collaboration with the client, client
transference, and common factors in a therapeutic way.
For Filipino American therapists who integrate the use of DBT in their work with Filipino
American clients, it may be helpful to consider consultation and collaboration on culturally
adapting mindfulness, interpersonal effectiveness, distress tolerance, and emotion regulation
skills in session with clients from different generation statuses and enculturation levels. For
example, a Filipino American client who may identify as first generation and exhibits high levels
of conservatism and interpersonal norms may experience more challenges with practicing a
DEAR MAN interpersonal effectiveness skill with elders due to values about obedience and
158
loyalty towards elders compared to an individual with lower levels of conservatism and
interpersonal norms (Agbayani-Siewert, 1994, 1997; Sanchez & Gaw, 2007). In this case, the
clinician may invest more time in exploring the pros and cons of using this skill, as well as a
missing-links or chain analysis to gain more clarity on culture-specific adaptations and increase
the client’s self-efficacy in utilizing the DEAR MAN interpersonal effectiveness skill.
Incorporation of cultural proverbs, narratives, and metaphors with specific DBT skills can
strengthen the therapeutic relationship and clients’ ethnic identity affirmation (Hinton & Jalal,
2019; Litam, 2020). Furthermore, decolonized definitions of the commonly used Tagalog phrase,
Bahala na (i.e., literally translated as “Leave it up to God”), may serve as a helpful way to help
clients learn about DBT dialectics and use of reality acceptance skills in times of distress. The
Tagalog phrase is often exclaimed during times of distress to express acceptance of life
transitions, openness to uncertainty, or courage and willingness to attempt shaping one’s
outcomes in the face of uncontrollable circumstances, which overlaps with DBT’s walking the
middle path, radical acceptance, and turning the mind (David, 2013; Linehan, 2015; Reyes,
2015; Tomaneng, 2015). Recommendations for cultural adaptations of DBT for use with Filipino
Americans are unavailable in existing literature for use in counseling practice; however, it is
recommended that Filipino American therapists explore possible avenues for incorporating their
cultural values/beliefs to increase therapeutic efficacy.
At this time, there is limited information on how CPT is adapted for use with Filipino
American clients with PTSD symptoms and how to develop strategies for working through
influences of colonial, historical, and intergenerational trauma on this population. Given that
there is increased interest in trauma-informed approaches and broadening definition(s) of trauma
to include intergenerational and/or environmental trauma, clinicians may benefit from
159
investigating how their client’s types of trauma responses may overlap with their ethnic identity
narrative. Literature suggests that, while Filipino Americans, particularly Filipina Americans,
report high levels of resilience, most Filipino Americans may use repression of trauma as a
coping mechanism, which may result in increased somatic symptoms and poorer health
experiences overall (Chan & Litam, 2021; Kim et al., 2012; Klest et al., 2013; Reyes et al.,
2019). Many Filipino Americans reported signs of psychological distress and collective trauma
in response to spikes in hate crimes towards Asian Americans, leading to a mental health crisis
affecting a population already less likely to seek help from counselors and clinicians (Chan &
Litam, 2021; Chen et al., 2020; Hong et al., 2021; Nadal, 2020; Sanchez & Gaw, 2007). Given
the recent increases in anti-Asian violence towards Filipino Americans, due to assumptions of
similarities between Asian ethnic groups and risk factors for Filipino American healthcare
workers treating COVID-19 patients, demand or the development of incorporation of culturally-
responsive, trauma-informed therapies will likely increase (Agbayani-Siewert, 2004; Nadal et al.,
2012).
For example, clinicians familiar with Cognitive Processing Therapy (CPT) for PTSD are
familiar with the influence of schemas and frames of reference about safety, trust, power/control,
and community affected by trauma (Mahoney & Lyddon, 1988; McCann et al., 1988; Resick et
al., 2017). It is possible for schemas about the self and others, particularly kapwa, to be
altered/distorted by discrimination, microaggressions, and acts of racial/ethnic violence fueled by
xenophobia and White supremacy. Over time, these harmful acts may increase Filipino American
individuals’ risk for rumination about racial discrimination, helplessness, self-criticism, and
internalization of negative feelings about Filipino ethnic identity that manifest as colonial
mentality and/or racial trauma. Therapists from trauma-informed approaches would likely benefit
160
from deepening their understanding of how systemic racism and intergenerational trauma affects
Filipino Americans and intersects with their clients’ individual history and their ethnic group’s
history of surviving traumatic oppression.
A therapist utilizing CPT may consider conceptualizing their Filipino American client’s
assimilated beliefs, overaccommodated beliefs, and “stuck points” about their Filipino ethnic
identity as processes that may affect the client’s ethnic identity resolution process and learning
processes, while intersecting with their history of traumatic experiences. Addressing this could
mean attending to an individual client’s or therapy group’s processing of past fight, flight, fawn,
or freeze responses and overlaps with how they have been socialized (as individuals from a
minoritized identity) to cope with discrimination in their environment(s). When clinicians attend
to or engage clients in developing insights about unconscious patterns or parallels between their
existing trauma responses and manifestations of intergenerational trauma (e.g., colonial
mentality), they may increase opportunities for clients to examine the impact of their trauma and
develop greater cognitive flexibility to challenge problematic thoughts and challenging beliefs.
Currently, researchers have advocated for adapting evidence-based approaches, such as
motivational interviewing, CBT, and ACT, given their effectiveness with Filipino Americans and
other minoritized populations (Chen et al., 2020; Tomaneng, 2015). Recently, researchers have
developed various CBT-specific treatment models and conceptualizations for specific East Asian
and Southeast Asian ethnic groups that focus on treatment goals and interventions to address
anxiety depression, somatic complaints, catastrophic cognitions, and emotion regulation from
their cultural healing traditions and virtues (Hinton & Jalal, 2019). In a recent review of
psychotherapy model applications with Asians and Asian Americans, researchers suggested
adapting CPT conceptualizations with more interdependent conceptualizations of the self and
161
incorporating more indirect forms of communication and coping for clients’ use (Hall et al.,
2019). Clinicians may refer Filipino American clients to Filipino American Decolonization
Experience (FADE) workshops using individual and group interventions (e.g., colonial mentality
logs, positive Filipino list, oppression logs, cognitive restructuring) based in CBT and on
empirical evidence from colonial mentality models of depression for Filipinos (David, 2008,
2013).
As clinicians expand their knowledge on ways to culturally adapt existing therapeutic
approaches and interventions for use with this population, the results from this study indicate that
openness to continuing professional education to decolonize practices within this community are
recommended to address the wide range of concerns experienced by Filipino Americans that are
connected to their ethnic identity and/or culture, especially with regard to intergenerational
trauma and healing. The mixed results from this study indicate that there is room for future
discussions among Filipino American mental health professionals to develop and expand
appropriate interventions for work with clients within this community. Intergenerational trauma
and healing may manifest differently between and within generations, which may demand
increased self-awareness and intentionality in navigating these lived experiences as therapists.
Increasing visibility of Filipino American mental health professionals, providing
psychoeducation on effectiveness/uses of therapy within communities, development of task
forces on Filipino American wellness, and involvement in Filipino American mental health
professional organizations may serve as avenues to assist with serving this population.
Implications for Researchers
Implications for counseling psychology research on Filipino Americans based on findings
from the current study are provided as follows:
162
• validation of ethnic identity, enculturation, and colonial mentality as related yet
distinct concepts with their own multifaceted impact on Filipino American
communities,
• more theoretically consistent exploration of ethnic identity as a multidimensional
concept in Filipino Americans, and
• cross-disciplinary analysis using critical perspectives and language centering
Filipino cultural knowledge and wisdom.
More detailed examples and explanations for the study’s implications on culturally responsive
research with Filipino Americans is provided with suggestions to common approaches and
theoretical orientations for researchers to use in studying ethnic identity, enculturation, colonial
mentality, and generational differences within this population.
This study provides two unique contributions to the field through its empirical validation
of multiple scales on enculturation, ethnic identity, and colonial mentality on a predominantly
second-generation Filipino American adult sample and use of multivariate approaches to
studying their associated concepts. Previous validations of the ESFA-S and the CMS were
conducted within the last three years. Compared to previous research using these measures
(Cotas, 2017; David & Okazaki, 2006; De Luna & Kawabata, 2020; del Prado & Church, 2010;
Felipe, 2016; Murillo, 2009; Tuazon et al., 2019), this study’s validation sample included a much
higher percentage of second-generation Filipino Americans and more responses from geographic
areas (outside of California), which have been underrepresented in the past. Most studies using
these measures examined relationships among variables using univariate tests (i.e., Pearson’s
product-moment coefficient), which is a gap in research methodology and analysis that is
addressed by this study’s use of canonical correlation. Because these studies have examined
163
responses from both measures, a canonical correlation allowed for further examination of how
the variables from each scale relate to one another and how much variance was shared between
these variables. In doing so, this study contributed use of an analysis method that aligns with
explanations of enculturation and colonial mentality as multidimensional concepts in the
literature. The use of this multivariate test reduces the likelihood of error that is typically
attributed to interpreting variable relationships univariately.
Additional contributions of this study include its use of the EIS on a predominantly
second-generation Filipino American sample. While several studies have tested the scale’s
validity on Asian American samples or have included Filipino Americans to do cross-
ethnic/racial comparisons, few have utilized the EIS to accomplish a similar task using canonical
correlation analysis (David, 2008; Irwin et al., 2017; Lam & Tran, 2020; Suh et al., 2019). So far,
most studies on Filipino American ethnic identity have utilized the MEIM, devised brief survey
items asking about ethnicity, or included items from other surveys to measure this construct.
Currently, most studies using the EIS have validated the measure on Mexican American
adolescent samples. Given that ethnic-racial identity development is often described in the
literature as a multidimensional, lifespan process, this study has implications for exploring future
use of the EIS on adult samples from a different type of immigrant background. In validating the
EIS on Filipino Americans and using it in a canonical correlation analysis with the ESFA and
CMS, this study provides observations that may be used to expand on future methodology and
analysis. Few studies using ethnic/racial identity measures with a Filipino American sample have
proposed and completed the use of multivariate tests, which confirms explanations of this
construct as a multidimensional rather than a one-dimensional concept that relates to
enculturation and colonial mentality. Overall, the current study provides multiple possibilities for
164
researchers to consider in the measurement and analysis of ethnic identity, generation status,
enculturation, and colonial mentality among Filipino Americans.
Lastly, further implications of this study for future research include understanding that
the fields of health education, public health, and counseling psychology must be equipped with
the critical frameworks and concepts to challenge racism, while promoting the health and well-
being of different Asian American ethnic groups (Maglalang et al., 2021). If researchers of
minoritized populations employ more critical perspectives (i.e., ethnic studies, Critical Race
Theory, anti-imperialism) acknowledging the effects of racism and colonialism on Filipino
Americans’ mental health and overall well-being, then they will have at least created the
conditions for developing critical antiracist frameworks, evidence-based tools, and community-
based research to act on the needs and concerns of Filipino American communities (Maglalang et
al., 2021; Tintiangco-Cubales & Curammeng, 2018). Overall, the current study’s findings
confirm findings within the literature about the important roles of ethnic identity, Filipino
cultural values, and colonial mentality in the lives of Filipino Americans.
By framing systemic oppression and internalized oppression as everyday risk factors and
contextualizing them within anti-racist frameworks in psychology research, psychologists within
the field can more effectively engage in more praxis of decolonization efforts and highlight the
Community Cultural Wealth of Filipino Americans as protective barriers (Acevedo & Solorzano,
2021; Maglalang et al., 2021; Yosso, 2005). To immediately center decolonization frameworks
and empower Filipino American researchers to pursue a connection with the homeland, the
current study made deliberate use of the Tagalog language in the nomenclature of themes and
functions relevant to capturing Filipino American ethnic identity, enculturation, and colonial
mentality experiences from a strengths-based perspective. Praxis of decolonization
165
recommendations, such as an intentional use of language to spark pride, curiosity, and
connection with Filipino culture, can effectively center Filipino American communities and
invite more collaboration with first-generation Filipino Americans or Philippines-based
psychology researchers studying ethnic identity, enculturation, and colonial mentality.
Implications for Training
The current study’s implications and recommendations for training future Filipino
American mental healthcare providers or culturally responsive training of mental health
clinicians on Filipino American experiences based on findings from the current study are
provided as follows:
• increasing active recruitment efforts and accessibility (i.e., grants, scholarships,
mentorship, workshops) to training for future Filipino American mental healthcare
providers,
• increasing cross-disciplinary collaboration and networking between various
mental healthcare providers serving Filipino Americans,
• cross-disciplinary analysis using critical perspectives and language centering
Filipino cultural knowledge and wisdom,
• including Filipino cultural referents, communications, and learning styles in
education curriculum(s), and
• emphasizing Filipino American communities’ Community Cultural Wealth and
knowledge sources from strengths-based perspectives.
Examples and explanations for the study’s implications for training of Filipino American mental
healthcare providers and on culturally responsive care training practices is provided.
166
As the Filipino American population grows so will the need for Filipino American
psychologists and experts on their unique psychological experience. A corollary need for this
population’s rapid development and expansion into the mental health field are ongoing supports
to reduce burnout of Filipino American psychologists in practice and in research (Maramba &
Nadal, 2013). Networking, grants, and workshops for Filipino American psychologists at the
Asian American Psychological Association (AAPA) annual convention and at the upcoming
second biennial Division on Filipino Americans (DoFA) conference are examples of professional
support structures at the national level.
Increasing the number of Filipino American psychologists to meet the demands of a
rapidly growing population means developing a collaborative, multidisciplinary approach with
Filipino social workers, occupational therapists, scholars, university administrators, nurses, and
K-12 teachers. Furthermore, the classroom environment must allow for use of Filipino students’
cultural referents (e.g., cultural knowledge, prior experiences, and performance styles) to offer
opportunities for this underrepresented group to reeducate themselves in a Filipino-centric way
(Andresen, 2013; Gay, 2010; Halagao, 2010). The conclusions that Maramba and Nadal (2013)
outline in their report on the Filipino American faculty pipeline overlap with a similar dilemma
encountered in the field of counseling psychology—a lack of critical mass. Specific strategies for
increasing the number of Filipino psychologists include collaborating with kapwa in related
mental health/social services and ethnic studies, creating and maintaining opportunities for
scholarship and professional development, and actively recruiting and psychoeducating in
Filipino American communities about psychology services and careers.
In the absence of readily available formal education on decolonization and accessible
mentors in certain regions or institutions, it becomes necessary for Filipino Americans to tap into
167
their ancestral knowledge of finding community and connection in ways consistent with Yosso’s
interpretations of Community Cultural Wealth (2005). In recognizing and supporting Filipino
Americans’ social capital (i.e., networks of community or peer resources to provide instrumental
and emotional support needed to navigate through institutions) and navigational capital (i.e.,
skills of maneuvering through social institutions that were not designed with minoritized
populations in mind), a critical mass of Filipino American educators, researchers, and
practitioners may be able to serve the community and address health disparities in ways that
cannot be served by their counterparts from more privileged identities. Lateral partnerships with
Filipino American educators and social service and mental health care providers (e.g., Pin@y
Educational Partnerships or PEP) could mean opportunities for transformative, experiential
learning with peers who share a common cultural background and complementary sets of skills
while training to serve their community (Tintiangco-Cubales et al., 2016). Developing research
projects and presentations with kababayans (fellow countrymen) at major conferences will
effectively provide a wealth of knowledge and experience for members of this forgotten,
“invisible” population (Cordova, 1983). When a desire to connect with fellow Filipino
Americans in helping professions is fostered, the spirit of bayanihan (a community tradition of
helping a neighbor with a task) is revisited and nurtured as well.
Regional disparities in opportunities for Filipinos residing outside of California make it
difficult for these professionals to find mentors or supervisors to provide guidance. In many
instances, Filipino American students may rely on the help of non-Filipino professors, especially
professors of color, for mentorship and guidance (Alvarez et al., 2009). For example, Alvin
Alvarez, the first Filipino American president of AAPA and a founding member of the DoFA,
sought and received mentorship from the late Joseph White, the father of Black psychology, as a
168
student while developing his career as a psychologist (Alvarez, October 5, 2017, personal
communication). Non-Filipino professors, university administrators, and clinical supervisors can
support the growth of their Filipino American students, supervisees, and/or colleagues by
encouraging them to attend these conferences and defraying the cost of travel and participation,
as needed. Recommending Filipino American psychology graduate students for scholarships and
fellowships, such as APA’s Minority Fellowship Program or even funding opportunities at the
local, university level, ensures that their research is provided with financial and academic
support en route to degree completion and structural reinforcement to a pipeline that is still in
development.
Efforts to recruit and hire Filipino American students, faculty, and clinicians are a high
priority strategy for building a pipeline of psychologists. In addition, Filipino immigrant and
second-generation youth experience high “push-out” rates in high school and lower engagement
and retention rates in postsecondary education compared to other Asian American ethnic groups
(Museus & Maramba, 2011; Ocampo, 2013, 2014; Okamura, 2008). A handful of empirical
studies on Filipino American undergraduate and graduate students reveal that having a Filipino
American tenure-track faculty member on campus can positively influence students’ sense of
belonging, self-efficacy, and well-being, which echoes recommendations for African Americans
and Latines in higher education settings (Alvarez et al., 2009; Maramba, 2008; Nadal et al.,
2010). The practice of active, intentional recruitment and mentorship of underrepresented
populations to expand psychological perspectives and enhance understanding of cultural
minorities is used with Native Americans in school psychology and provides a well-researched
base of practices that may be used to develop a larger cohort of Filipino American psychologists
(Goforth et al., 2016). Active recruitment paired with mentorship may be the most important
169
intervention to enact to support the scholarship, professional development, and sense of kapwa
among Filipino American psychologists and psychologists-in-training.
Professional development and training for non-Filipino psychologists is the best way to
continue developing culturally competent services in the absence of Filipino American clinicians.
The American Psychological Association (APA) code of ethics mandates that psychologists must
“undertake ongoing efforts to develop and maintain their competence”—which can include work
with underrepresented and understudied populations (2017, p. 5). Program directors, department
chairs, and faculty dedicated to causes of anti-racism work must recognize that colonization’s
image of Filipinos (e.g., invisibility) originates from the lessons learned in an educational system
implemented for and by Whites (Andresen, 2013; Banks, 2008; Flores, 1998; Friere, 1970;
Steele, 2003). Efforts to decolonize traditional curriculums emerge from fields of education,
sociology, history, and ethnic studies. Psychologists can move towards non-Eurocentric
perspectives through adopting critical, interdisciplinary approaches in classrooms and counseling
centers that will increase Filipino American psychology graduate students’ engagement,
retention, and graduation (David, 2013; Halagao, 2010; Lee, 2014).
Conclusion
The current study’s results and implications, novel as they are, produce more questions
and areas of research for future psychology and social sciences researchers to explore and
investigate on the process of colonial mentality. Colonial mentality did not produce the expected
intergenerational differences despite being highly, directly related to enculturation and highly,
indirectly related to ethnic identity. Given the newness of this finding, ongoing research is
needed to develop more types of explanations to describe the Filipino American community’s
relationship with healing from colonialism. Within the field of psychology, there is a high value
170
placed on studying concepts that are static and predictable along mathematical models, when, in
fact, the lived experiences of these communities ebbs and flows within fluid, dynamic
relationships between self and community over time. As Filipino American communities build
upon different forms of familial, aspirational, social, resistant, linguistic, and navigational wealth
over time, the manifestations of colonial mentality and forms of enculturation should reflect
many of these changes within Filipino American communities’ narratives.
As researchers, educators, and clinicians increase their awareness on ethnic identity,
generation status, and colonial mentality in Filipino Americans’ lived experiences, the hope is
that increased visibility and understanding may translate into policies and actions contributing to
systemic changes, which would lead to more overall positive experiences and mental health
outcomes for members this population. While many aspects of theories about ethnic identity,
enculturation, and colonial mentality remain static, it should be noted that the subjective contexts
around these concepts change over time in response to different events and movements.
Increased accessibility to Filipino American-centered narratives in history, visibility of Filipino
Americans in popular media, and spikes in ethnically charged situations, such as the increased
risks for Filipino American COVID-19 frontline workers and racist hate crimes against Asian
American women and elders, inevitably push individuals towards re-examining their ethnic
identity exploration, affirmation, and resolution in a multitude of ways. Therefore, efforts within
counseling psychology to serve this population should go beyond mere increases in
representation and decolonization efforts and towards approaching work with Filipino American
communities as an ongoing, evolving conversation.
171
REFERENCES
Abdelkader, R., & Liu, S. (2021). “Binded by blood,” split over election: Asian American family
embodies generational shift in politics. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-
america/binded-blood-split-over-election-asian-american-family-embodies-generational-
n1244077
Abe-Kim, J., Gong, F., & Takeuchi, D. T. (2004). Religiosity, spirituality, and help-seeking
among filipino americans: Religious clergy or mental health professionals? Journal of
Community Psychology, 32(6), 675–689. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20026
Abueva, J. V. (1976). Filipino Democracy and the American Legacy. American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 428, 114–133. doi: 10.1177/000271627642800111
Acevedo, N., & Solorzano, D. G. (2021). An Overview of Community Cultural Wealth: Toward a
Protective Factor Against Racism. Urban Education, 004208592110165. doi:
10.1177/00420859211016531
Agbayani-Siewert, P. (1994). Filipino American culture and family: Guidelines for practitioners.
Families in Society, 75(7), 429. doi: 10.1108/17506200710779521
Agbayani-Siewert, P. (1997). The Dual World of Filipino Americans. Journal of Multicultural
Social Work, 6(1), 59–76. doi: 10.1300/J285v06n01_05
Agbayani-Siewert, P. (2004). Assumptions of Asian American Similarity: The Case of Filipino
and Chinese American Students. Social Work, 49(1), 39–51. doi: 10.1093/sw/49.1.39
Aguilar Jr., F. V. (2012). Manilamen and seafaring: Engaging the maritime world beyond the
Spanish realm. Journal of Global History, 7(3), 364–388. doi:
10.1017/S1740022812000241
172
Ai, A. L., Nicdao, E. G., Appel, H. B., & Lee, D. H. J. (2015). Ethnic Identity and Major
Depression in Asian American Subgroups Nationwide: Differential Findings in Relation to
Subcultural Contexts. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 71(12), 1225–1244. doi:
10.1002/jclp.22214
Allison, P. D. (2009). Missing Data. In R. E. Millsap & A. Maydeu-Olivares (Eds.), The SAGE
Handbook of Quantitative Methods in Psychology (1st ed., pp. 72–90). SAGE Publications,
Inc. doi: 10.4135/9780857020994.n4
Allison, P. D. (2011). Maximum Likelihood. In Missing Data (pp. 13–27). Sage Publications,
Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412985079
Alonso-Garbayo, Á., & Maben, J. (2009). Internationally recruited nurses from India and the
Philippines in the United Kingdom: The decision to emigrate. Human Resources for Health,
7, 1–11. doi: 10.1186/1478-4491-7-37
Alvarez, A. N., Blume, A. W., Cervantes, J. M., & Thomas, L. R. (2009). Tapping the Wisdom
Tradition: Essential Elements to Mentoring Students of Color. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 40(2), 181–188. doi: 10.1037/a0012256
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of
Conduct. In American Psychologist. American Psychological Association. doi:
10.1037/0003-066X.57.12.1060
Ancheta, A. N. (2006). Filipino Americans, Foreigner Discrimination, and the Lines of Racial
Sovereignty. In A. T. Tiongson, E. V. Gutierrez, & R. V. Gutierrez (Eds.), Positively No
Filipinos Allowed: Buildling Communities and Discourse (1st ed., pp. 90–107). Temple
University Press.
173
Andresen, T. (2013). Knowledge Construction, Transformative Academic Knowledge, and
Filipino American Identity and Experience. In Dina C. Maramba & R. Bonus (Eds.), The
“Other” Students: Filipino Americans, Education, and Power (1st ed., pp. 65–85).
Information Age Publishing.
Arvin, M., Tuck, E., & Morrill, A. (2013). Decolonizing Feminism: Challenging Connections
between Settler Colonialism and Heteropatriarchy. Feminist Formations, 25(1), 8–34. doi:
10.1353/ff.2013.0006
Atkin, A. L., & Tran, A. G. T. T. (2020). The Roles of Ethnic Identity and Metastereotype
Awareness in the Racial Discrimination-Psychological Adjustment Link for Asian
Americans at Predominantly White Universities. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority
Psychology, 26(4), 498–508. doi: 10.1037/cdp0000323
Atkin, A. L., Yoo, H. C., & Yeh, C. J. (2019). What types of racial messages protect Asian
American adolescents from discrimination? A latent interaction model. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 66(2), 247–254. doi: 10.1037/cou0000297
Austen, I. (2021). With Discovery of Unmarked Graves, Canada’s Indigenous Seek Reckoning.
New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/26/world/canada/indigenous-
residential-schools-grave.html?smid=url-share
Austin, A. A., & Chorpita, B. F. (2004). Temperament, anxiety, and depression: Comparisons
across five ethnic groups of children. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology,
33(2), 216–226. doi: 10.1207/s15374424jccp3302_2
Balce, N. S. (2006). Filipino Bodies, Lynching, and the Language of Empire. In A. T. Tiongson,
E. V. Gutierrez, & R. V. Gutierrez (Eds.), Positively No Filipinos Allowed: Building
Communities and Discourse (1st ed., pp. 43–60). Temple University Press.
174
Balidemaj, A., & Small, M. (2019). The effects of ethnic identity and acculturation in mental
health of immigrants: A literature review. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 65(7–
8), 643–655. doi: 10.1177/0020764019867994
Banks, J. A. (2008). Teaching Strategies for Ethnic Studies (8th ed.). Pearson.
Barrett, K. U., Hanna, K. B., & Palomar, A. (2021). In Defense of the X: Centering Queer, Trans,
and Non-Binary Pilipina/x/os, Queer Vernacular, and the Politics of Naming. Alon: Journal
for Filipinx American and Diasporic Studies, 1(2), 125–147. doi: 10.5070/LN41253177
Bennett, D. A. (2001). How can I deal with missing data in my study? Australian and New
Zealand Journal of Public Health, 25(5), 464–469. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
842X.2001.tb00294.x
Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. Padillo (Ed.), Acculturation,
theory, models, and some new findings (pp. 9–25). Westview Press.
Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 29(6 SPEC. ISS.), 697–712. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.07.013
Berry, J. W. (2007). Acculturation strategies and adaptation. In J. E. Landford, K. Deater-
Deckard, & M. H. Bornstein (Eds.), Immigrant families in contemporary society (pp. 69–
82). Guilford Press.
Bhatia, S. (2018). Decolonizing Psychology: Globalization, social justice, and Indian youth
identities. Oxford University Press.
Bhatia, S., & Ram, A. (2001). Rethinking “Acculturation” in Relation to Diasporic Cultures and
Postcolonial Identities. Human Development, 44(1), 1–18. doi: 10.1159/000057036
175
Bhatia, S., & Ram, A. (2009). Theorizing identity in transnational and diaspora cultures: A
critical approach to acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(2),
140–149. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.12.009
Bombay, A., Matheson, K., & Anisman, H. (2009). Intergenerational Trauma: Convergence of
Multiple Processes among First Nations Peoples in Canada. International Journal of
Indigenous Health, 5(3), 6–47. doi: 10.3138/ijih.v5i3.28987
Borah, E. G. (1995). Filipinos in Unamuno’s California Expedition of 1587. Amerasia Journal,
21(3), 175–184. doi: 10.17953/amer.21.3.q050756h25525n72
Bourhis, R. Y., & Montreuil, A. (2015). Social Identity Theory. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of
Intercultural Competence (pp. 758–760). doi: 10.4135/9781483346267
Bradley, J. (2009). The Imperial Cruise: A Secret History of Empire and War (1st ed.). Little,
Brown and Company.
Brough, P., & Hawkes, A. (2018). Designing impactful research. In P. Brough (Ed.), Advanced
Research Methods for Applied Psychology (1st ed., pp. 7–14). Routledge. doi:
10.4324/9781315517971
Budiman, A., & Ruiz, N. G. (2021a). Key facts about Asian Americans, a diverse and growing
population. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/29/key-
facts-about-asian-americans/
Budiman, A., & Ruiz, N. G. (2021b). Key facts about Asian origin groups in the U. S. Pew
Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/29/key-facts-about-asian-
origin-groups-in-the-u-s/
176
Buenavista, T. L. (2010). Issues affecting U.S. Filipino student access to postsecondary
education: A critical race theory perspective. Journal of Education for Students Placed at
Risk, 15(1–2), 114–126. doi: 10.1080/10824661003635093
Bui, H. N. (2013). Racial and ethnic differences in the immigrant paradox in substance use.
Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 15(5), 866–881. doi: 10.1007/s10903-012-9670-
Cabral, S. (2021). Covid “hate crimes” against Asian Americans on rise. BBC News.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56218684
Cajilog, C. F. (2018). The Enculturation Scale for Filipino Americans: A Psychometric
Investigation and its Relationship to Attitudes Toward Help Seeking (Issue May).
https://proxy.lib.umich.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-
theses/enculturation-scale-filipino-americans/docview/2117544634/se-2?accountid=14667
Campomanes, O. v. (1999). 1898 and the Nature of the New Empire. Radical History Review,
73, 130–146. doi: 10.1215/01636545-1999-73-130
Carter, R. T., & Constantine, M. G. (2000). Career Maturity, Life Role Salience, and
Racial/Ethnic Identity in Black and Asian American College Students. Journal of Career
Assessment, 8(2), 173–187. doi: 10.1177/106907270000800206
Césaire, A. (1972). Discourse on Colonialism. New York, 1–31. doi:
10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Chan, C. D., & Litam, S. D. A. (2021). Mental Health Equity of Filipino Communities in
COVID-19: A Framework for Practice and Advocacy. The Professional Counselor, 11(1),
73–85. doi: 10.15241/cdc.11.1.73
177
Chen, J. A., Zhang, E., & Liu, C. H. (2020). Potential impact of COVID-19-related racial
discrimination on the health of Asian Americans. American Journal of Public Health,
110(11), 1624–1627. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305858
Chen, X., & Unger, J. B. (1999). Hazards of smoking initiation among Asian American and non-
Asian adolescents in California: A survival model analysis. Preventive Medicine, 28(6),
589–599. doi: 10.1006/pmed.1999.0487
Cherng, H.-Y. S., & Liu, J.-L. (2017). Academic social support and student expectations: The
case of second-generation asian americans. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 8(1),
16–30. doi: 10.1037/aap0000072
Chirkov, V. (2009a). Introduction to the special issue on Critical Acculturation Psychology.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(2), 87–93. doi:
10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.03.003
Chirkov, V. (2009b). Summary of the criticism and of the potential ways to improve
acculturation psychology. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(2), 177–180.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.03.005
Choi, A. Y., Israel, T., & Maeda, H. (2017). Development and evaluation of the Internalized
Racism in Asian Americans Scale (IRAAS). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64(1), 52–
64. doi: 10.1037/cou0000183
Choi, M., Wang, C., Wong, C. C. Y., Correa, A., & Lu, Q. (2020). Intergenerational family
conflict and depressive symptoms: The buffering role of cognitive appraisal. Asian
American Journal of Psychology, 11(1), 23–30. doi: 10.1037/aap0000160
Choi, Y., Park, M., Lee, J. P., Yasui, M., & Kim, T. Y. (2018). Explicating Acculturation
Strategies among Asian American Youth: Subtypes and Correlates across Filipino and
178
Korean Americans. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(10), 2181–2205. doi:
10.1007/s10964-018-0862-1
Choy, C. C. (2013). Empire of Care: Nursing and Migration in Filipino American History. Duke
University Press. doi: 10.1215/9780822384410
Chutuape, E. D. (2016). ‘Chinese-Mexicans’ and ‘Blackest Asians’: Filipino American youth
resisting the racial binary. Race Ethnicity and Education, 19(1), 200–231. doi:
10.1080/13613324.2013.792801
Clemente, J. A. R., Daganzo, M. A. A., Bernardo, A., & Pangan, C. A. C. (2017). Filipino
Adolescents’ Conceptions of Socioeconomic Mobility: a Consensual Qualitative Research.
Child Indicators Research, 10(1), 117–140. doi: 10.1007/s12187-016-9370-6
Cohen, J. (1987). The Effect Size Index: d. In J. Cohen (Ed.), Statistical power analysis for the
behavioral sciences (Rev. Ed., pp. 25–27). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Coll, C. G., & Marks, A. K. (2012). The immigrant paradox in children and adolescents: Is
becoming American a developmental risk? (1st ed.). American Psychological Association.
Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC). (2020). As Coronavirus Fears Incite
Violence, CAPAC Members Urge Colleagues to Not Stoke Xenophobia. Media Center.
https://capac-chu.house.gov/press-release/coronavirus-fears-incite-violence-capac-
members-urge-colleagues-not-stoke-xenophobia
Constante, A. (2021). Filipino Americans reported higher Covid mental health toll than Asian
Americans collectively. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/85-
filipino-americans-reported-covid-mental-health-issues-more-any-n1271214
Constante, B. Y. A. (2021). How the Philippines’ colonial legacy weighs on Filipino American
mental health. 1–19.
179
Cooc, N., & Kim, G. M. (2021). The roles of racial discrimination and English in civic outcomes
for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority
Psychology. doi: 10.1037/cdp0000443
Cordisco Tsai, L., & Seballos-Llena, I. F. (2020). Reflections on Adapting Motivational
Interviewing to the Filipino Cultural Context. Practice, 32(1), 43–57. doi:
10.1080/09503153.2019.1621279
Cordova, F. (1983). Filipinos, forgotten Asian Americans: A pictorial essay, 1763 - circa 1963
(A. A. Acena, Ed.; 1st ed.). Kendall/Hunt Pub. Co.
Cotas, A. (2017). “How Filipino Are You?”: Strengthening the Construct Validity of the
Enculturation Scale for Filipino Americans. Wright Institute Graduate School of
Psychology.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist
Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theorym and Antiracist Politics. The
University of Chicago Legal Forum, 139–168.
Crenshaw, K. (1995). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence
Against Women of Color. In Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings that Formed the
Movement (pp. 357–383). The New Press.
Cross, W. E., Parham, T. A., & Helms, J. E. (1991). The Stages of Black Identity Development:
Nigresence Models. In R. L. Jones (Ed.), Black Psychology (3rd ed., pp. 319–338). Cobb
and Henry.
Curammeng, E. R., Borja, J., Daus, L. A., & Tintiangco-Cubales, A. (2022). Identity Terms. In
Encyclopedia of Filipina/x/o American Studies (1st ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
180
David, E. J. R. (2008). A colonial mentality model of depression for Filipino Americans. Cultural
Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14(2), 118–127. doi: 10.1037/1099-
9809.14.2.118
David, E. J. R. (2013). Brown Skin, White Minds: Filipino -/ American Postcolonial Psychology
(1st ed.). Information Age Publishing.
David, E. J. R. (2016a). The Marginalization of Brown Asians: It’s Even Worse Than We
Thought. HuffPost Contributor. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-marginalization-of-
brown-asians-its-even-worse_b_58072a55e4b021af3477646d
David, E. J. R. (2016b). Why are Filipino Americans Forgotten and Invisible: The Perplexing
Case of the Marginalization of Filipino Americans. Psychology Today.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unseen-and-unheard/201604/why-are-filipino-
americans-still-forgotten-and-invisible
David, E. J. R. (2020). 5 Ways COVID-19 Might Be Affecting Filipino Americans. Psychology
Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unseen-and-unheard/202004/5-ways-covid-
19-might-be-affecting-filipino-americans
David, E. J. R., & Derthick, A. O. (2018). What Is Internalized Oppression, and So What?
Internalized Oppression, 2013, 1–30. doi: 10.1891/9780826199263.0001
David, E. J. R., & Nadal, K. L. (2013). The colonial context of filipino american immigrants’
psychological experiences. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 19(3), 298–
309. doi: 10.1037/a0032903
David, E. J. R., & Okazaki, S. (2006). The Colonial Mentality Scale (CMS) for Filipino
Americans: Scale construction and psychological implications. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 53(2), 241–252. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.53.2.241
181
David, E. J. R., & Okazaki, S. (2010). Activation and automaticity of colonial mentality. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 40(4), 850–887. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00601.x
David, E. J. R., Schroeder, T. M., & Fernandez, J. (2019). Internalized Racism: A Systematic
Review of the Psychological Literature on Racism’s Most Insidious Consequence. Journal
of Social Issues, 75(4), 1057–1086. doi: 10.1111/josi.12350
David, E. J. R., Sharma, D. K. B., & Petalio, J. (2017a). Losing Kapwa: Colonial legacies and
the Filipino American family. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 8(1), 43–55. doi:
10.1037/aap0000068
David, E. J. R., Sharma, D. K. B., & Petalio, J. (2017b). Losing Kapwa: Colonial legacies and
the Filipino American family. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 8(1), 43–55. doi:
10.1037/aap0000068
de Dios, A. M. (2015). What does being Filipino American mean? The influences of cultural
identity on well being considering the moderating effects of ethnic context. In Dissertation
Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering (Vol. 76, Issues 9-B(E)).
http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-ub.rug.nl/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2016-
26518-076&site=ehost-live&scope=site
De Luna, M. J. F., & Kawabata, Y. (2020). The Role of Enculturation on the Help-Seeking
Attitudes Among Filipino Americans in Guam. International Perspectives in Psychology,
9(2), 84–95. doi: 10.1037/ipp0000127
del Prado, A. M., & Church, A. T. (2010). Development and Validation of the Enculturation
Scale for Filipino Americans. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(4), 469–483. doi:
10.1037/a0020940
182
Dela Cruz, F. A., Padilla, G. V., & Agustin, E. O. (2000). Adapting a measure of acculturation for
cross-cultural research. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 11(3), 191–198.
Del-Mundo, J. L., & Quek, K. M.-T. (2017). Balancing the Old and the New: The Case of
Second-Generation Filipino American Women. In K. M.-T. Quek & S. Fang (Eds.),
Transition and Change in Collectivist Family Life: Strategies for Americans Clinical
Practice with Asian Americans (pp. 67–77). Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-50679-1_7
Department of Homeland Security. (2018). Population Estimates. Illegal alien population
residing in the United States: January 2015 (Issue January).
Department of Interior and Local Government. (2016). The Local Government Code of the
Philippines, Book III: Local Government Units. III(7), 76.
http://dilg.gov.ph/PDF_File/reports_resources/dilg-reports-resources-
2016120_5e0bb28e41.pdf
DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Reliability. In R. F. DeVellis (Ed.), Scale development: Theory and
applications (4th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Devos, T., & Sadler, M. (2019). Context diversity predicts the extent to which the American
identity is implicitly associated with Asian Americans and European Americans. Asian
American Journal of Psychology, 10(2), 182–193. doi: 10.1037/aap0000149
Dosono, B. (2013). Identity Work of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders on Reddit:
Traversals of Deliberation, Moderation, and Decolonization. Syracuse University.
Douglass, S., & Umaña-Taylor, A. J. (2015). A Brief Form of the Ethnic Identity Scale:
Development and Empirical Validation. Identity, 15(1), 48–65. doi:
10.1080/15283488.2014.989442
183
Dr. Therapinay [@The.DrTherapinay]. (2020). Push and Pull Factors of Filipino Immigration.
Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/p/CD4nHpDDc9z/?utm_medium=copy_link
Du Bois, W. E. B. (1909). The Souls of Black Folk: Essays and Sketches (8th ed.). A. C. McClurg
& Co. doi: 10.1086/211199
Dunbar-Ortiz, R. (2014). An Indigenous peoples’ history of the United States (1st ed.). Beacon
Press.
Durán, E. (1990). Transforming the soul wound: A theoretical/clinical approach to American
Indian psychology. Folklore Institute. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015021892412
Durán, E., & Durán, B. (1995). Native American postcolonial psychology (1st ed.). State
University of New York Press. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/hvd.32044044445682
Durán, E., Firehammer, J., & Gonzalez, J. (2008). Liberation psychology as the path toward
healing cultural soul wounds. Journal of Counseling and Development, 86(3), 288–295. doi:
10.1002/j.1556-6678.2008.tb00511.x
Enders, C. K. (2003). Using the Expectation Maximization Algorithm to Estimate Coefficient
Alpha for Scales with Item-Level Missing Data. Psychological Methods, 8(3), 322–337.
doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.8.3.322
Enrile, A., & Agbayani, P. T. (2007a). Differences in Attitudes Towards Women Among Three
Groups of Filipinos: Filipinos in the Philippines, Filipino American Immigrants, and U.S.
Born Filipino Americans. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 16(1), 1–
25. doi: 10.1300/J051v16n01_01
Enrile, A., & Agbayani, P. T. (2007b). Differences in attitudes towards women among three
groups of Filipinos: Filipinos in the Philippines, Filipino American immigrants, and U.S.
184
born Filipino Americans. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 16(1–2),
1–25. doi: 10.1300/J051v16n01_01
Enriquez, V. (1992). From colonial to liberation psychology: the Philippine experience.
Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using
G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods,
41(4), 1149–1160. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
Erikson, E. H. (1994). Identity: youth and crisis. W.W. Norton & Co.
Espina, M. E. (1988). Filipinos in Louisiana (1st ed.). A. F. Laborde & Sons.
Espiritu, Y. L. (1992). Asian American Panethnicity: Bridging Institutions and Identities (1st
ed.). Temple University Press.
Espiritu, Y. L. (2001). “We don’t sleep around like white girls do”: Family, culture, and gender in
Filipina American lives. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 26(2), 263–284.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3175448
Espiritu, Y. L. (2003a). Home bound: Filipino American lives across cultures, communities, and
countries. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Espiritu, Y. L. (2003b). Making Home: Building Communities in a Navy Town. In Home bound:
Filipino American Lives across cultures, communities, and countries (pp. 205–218).
University of California Press.
Espiritu, Y. L. (2007). Colonial Oppression, Labour Importation, and Group Formation: Filipinos
in the United States. In K. A. Ono (Ed.), A Companion to Asian American Studies (Vol. 19,
Issue 1, pp. 332–349). Wiley Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470996928.ch20
Fadel, L., & Levid, J. (2020). Online Memorial Honors Filipino Health Care Workers Who Have
Died Of COVID-19. NPR’s Weekend Edition Saturday.
185
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/01/898099601/online-memorial-honors-filipino-health-care-
workers-who-have-died-of-covid-19
Fajardo, K. B. (2016). Decolonizing Manila-Men and St. Malo, Louisiana: A Queer Postcolonial
Asian American Critique. In M. F. Manalansan & A. Espiritu (Eds.), Filipino Studies:
Palimpsests of Nation and Diaspora (1st ed., pp. 227–248). New York University Press.
Fanon, F. (1967). Black skin, white masks. Grove.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=m5ysTujFqbgC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=bla
ck+skin+white+masks&ots=HcHS8bj77D&sig=h3nVvbq1ZNiHucaiL64HgFYkV4g#v=on
epage&q=black skin white masks&f=false
Farrelly, M. C., Faulkener, D. L., & Mowery, P. (2001). Cigarette Smoking Among Youth: Results
from the 1999 National Youth Tobacco Survey.
Farver, J. A. M., Narang, S. K., & Bhadha, B. R. (2002). East meets west: Ethnic identity,
acculturation, and conflict in Asian Indian families. Journal of Family Psychology, 16(3),
338–350. doi: 10.1037//0893-3200.16.3.338
Faryna, E. L., & Morales, E. (2000). Self-efficacy and HIV-related risk behaviors among
multiethnic adolescents. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 6(1), 42–56.
doi: 10.1037//1099-9809.6.1.42
Feliciano, C., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2019). The Evolution of Ethnic Identity from Adolescence to
Middle Adulthood: The Case of the Immigrant Second Generation. Emerging Adulthood,
7(2), 85–96. doi: 10.1177/2167696818805342
Felipe, L. C. S. (2016). The Relationship of Colonial Mentality with Filipina American
Experiences with Racism and Sexism. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 7(1), 25–30.
doi: 10.1037/aap0000033
186
Ferrera, M. J. (2016). The burden of colonial debt and indebtedness in second generation Filipino
American families. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 43(3), 155–178.
Ferrera, M. J. (2017a). The Transformative Impact of Cultural Portals on the Ethnic Identity
Development of Second-Generation Filipino-American Emerging Adults. Journal of Ethnic
and Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 26(3), 236–253. doi:
10.1080/15313204.2016.1141739
Ferrera, M. J. (2017b). The Transformative Impact of Cultural Portals on the Ethnic Identity
Development of Second-Generation Filipino-American Emerging Adults. Journal of Ethnic
and Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 26(3), 236–253. doi:
10.1080/15313204.2016.1141739
Field, A. (2013a). Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA). In Discovering Statistics
Using IBM SPSS Statistics (4th ed., pp. 623–664). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Field, A. (2013b). Reliability Analysis. In Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics (4th
ed., pp. 706–715). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Flora, D. B., & Flake, J. K. (2017). The purpose and practice of exploratory and confirmatory
factor analysis in psychological research: Decisions for scale development and validation.
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 49(2), 78–88. doi: 10.1037/cbs0000069
Flores, P. (1998). Filipino American students: Actively Carving a Sense of Identity. In V. O. Pang
& L. Cheng (Eds.), Struggling to be Heard: The Unmet Needs of Asian Pacific American
Children (p. 351). SUNY Press.
Fowler, F. J. (2014). Applied social research methods series: Survey research methods (5th ed.).
Sage Publications, Inc.
187
Francia, L. (2013). A history of the Philippines: from Indios Bravos to Filipinos (1st ed.).
Abrams.
Friere, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. In Continuum. doi: 10.1215/00382876-1472612
Friere, P. (2014). Pedagogy of the Oppressed: 30th Anniversary Edition (30th ed.). Bloomsbury
Academic & Professional.
Fujikane, C. (2005). Nationalisms: A Critique of Antinationalist Sentiment in Asian American
Studies. In K. A. Ono (Ed.), Asian American Studies After Critical Mass (1st ed., pp. 73–
97). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Fujikane, C., & Okamura, J. Y. (2008). Asian Settler Colonialism: From Local Governance to the
Habits of Everyday Life in Hawai’i (1st ed.). University of Hawai’i Press.
https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015082649495
Gambol, B. (2016). Changing racial boundaries and mixed unions: the case of second-generation
Filipino Americans. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 39(14), 2621–2640. doi:
10.1080/01419870.2016.1164879
Gartner, M., Kiang, L., & Supple, A. (2014). Prospective Links Between Ethnic Socialization,
Ethnic and American Identity, and Well-Being Among Asian-American Adolescents.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(10), 1715–1727. doi: 10.1007/s10964-013-0044-0
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice. Teachers
College Press.
Gealogo, F. A. (2018). Bilibid and beyond: Race, body size, and the native in early American
colonial Philippines. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 49(3), 372–386. doi:
10.1017/S0022463418000310
188
Genovese, E. D. (1974). Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made (1st ed.). Pantheon
Books.
Gibson, M. A. (2001). Immigrant Adaptation and Patterns of Acculturation. Human
Development, 44(1), 19–23. doi: 10.1159/000057037
Gilligan, C. (2011). Joining the Resistance (1st ed.). Polity.
Goforth, A. N., Brown, J. A., Machek, G. R., & Swaney, G. (2016). Recruitment and Retention of
Native American Graduate Students in School Psychology. 31(3), 340–357.
Gong, F., Gage, S. J. L., & Tacata, L. A. (2003). Helpseeking behavior among Filipino
Americans: A cultural analysis of face and language. Journal of Community Psychology,
31(5), 469–488. doi: 10.1002/jcop.10063
Gordon, M. M. (1964). Assimilation in American life the role of race, religion, and national
origins. Oxford University Press.
Goto, S. G., Gee, G. C., & Takeuchi, D. T. (2002). Strangers still? The experience of
discrimination among Chinese Americans. Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2), 211–
224. doi: 10.1002/jcop.9998
Greene, M. L., Way, N., & Pahl, K. (2006). Trajectories of perceived adult and peer
discrimination among Black, Latino, and Asian American adolescents: Patterns and
psychological correlates. Developmental Psychology, 42(2), 218–238. doi: 10.1037/0012-
1649.42.2.218
Grosfoguel, R. (2016). The Dilemmas of Ethnic Studies in the United States: Between Liberal
Multiculturalism, Identity Politics, Disciplinary Colonization, and Decolonial
Epistemologies. In R. Grosfuguel, R. Hernandez, & E. R. Velasquez (Eds.), Decolonizing
189
the Westernized University: Interventions in Philosophy of Education from Within and
Without (1st ed., pp. 27–38). Lexington Books.
Guyotte, R. L. (1997). Review: Generation Gap: Filipinos, Filipino Americans and Americans,
Here and There, Then and Now Reviewed Work(s): On Becoming Filipino: The Selected
Writings of Carlos Bulosan by E. San Juan; The Cry and the Dedication by Carlos Bulosan
and E. San Juan; Journal of American Ethnic History, 17(1), 64–70.
Guyotte, R. L., & Posadas, B. M. (2013). Filipinos and Filipino Americans, 1870-1940. In E. R.
Barkan (Ed.), Immigrants in Amerian History: Arrival, Adaptation, and Integration (1st ed.,
pp. 347–356). ABC-CLIO, LLC.
Halagao, P. E. (2010). Liberating Filipino Americans through decolonizing curriculum. Race
Ethnicity and Education, 13(4), 495–512. doi: 10.1080/13613324.2010.492132
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond Culture. Doubleday (Anchor).
Hall, G. C. N., Kim-Mozeleski, J. E., Zane, N. W., Sato, H., Huang, E. R., Tuan, M., & Ibaraki,
A. Y. (2019). Cultural adaptations of psychotherapy: Therapists’ applications of conceptual
models with Asians and Asian Americans. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 10(1),
68–78. doi: 10.1037/aap0000122
Hall, L. K. (2015). Which of these things is not like the other: Hawaiians and other pacific
islanders are not Asian Americans, and all pacific islanders are not Hawaiian. American
Quarterly, 67(3), 727–747. doi: 10.1353/aq.2015.0050
Hall, R. E. (2008). Racism in the 21st Century: An Empirical Analysis of Skin Color. doi:
10.1007/978-0-387-79097-8
Hall, R. E. (2010). An Historical Analysis of Skin Color Discrimination in America. doi:
10.1007/978-1-4419-5505-0
190
Hammack, P. L. (2008). Narrative and the cultural psychology of identity. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 12(3), 222–247. doi: 10.1177/1088868308316892
Hammack, P. L., & Cohler, B. J. (2011). Narrative, identity, and the politics of exclusion: Social
change and the gay and lesbian life course. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 8(3), 162–
182. doi: 10.1007/s13178-011-0060-3
Hammack, P. L., & Toolis, E. E. (2016). Putting the social into personal identity: The master
narrative as root metaphor for psychological and developmental science. Human
Development, 58(6), 350–364. doi: 10.1159/000446054
Harker, K. (2001). Immigrant Generation, Assimilation, and Adolescent Psychological Well-
Being Author(s): Kathryn Harker Published by: Oxford University Press Stable URL :
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2675615 Accessed : 09-03-2016 16 : 51 UTC Your use of the
JSTOR arch. Social Forces, 79(3), 969–1004.
Heras, P. (2007). Psychotherapy with Filipinas. Women & Therapy, 30(3), 63–73. doi:
10.1300/J015v30n03_06
Hernandez, X. J. (2016). Filipino American college students at the margins of neoliberalism.
Policy Futures in Education, 14(3), 327–344. doi: 10.1177/1478210316631870
Hewson, C. (2017). Research Design and Tools for Online Research. In N. G. Fielding, R. M.
Lee, & G. Blank (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Online Research Methods (2nd ed., pp.
57–75). SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781473957992
Hinton, D. E., & Jalal, B. (2019). Dimensions of Culturally Sensitive CBT: Application to
Southeast Asian Populations. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 89(4), 493–507. doi:
10.1037/ort0000392
191
Ho, J., & Birman, D. (2010). Acculturation gaps in Vietnamese immigrant families: Impact on
family relationships. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(1), 22–33. doi:
10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.10.002
Hong, N., Kim, J., Watkins, A., & Southall, A. (2021, March 30). Brutal Attack on Filipino
Woman Sparks Outrage: “Everybody is on Edge.” New York Times, 1–6.
Hong, S., Kim, B. S. K., & Wolfe, M. M. (2005). A psychometric revision of the european
american values scale for Asian Americans using the Rasch model. Measurement and
Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 37(4), 194–207. doi:
10.1080/07481756.2005.11909760
Hornsey, M. J. (2008). Social Identity Theory and Self-categorization Theory: A Historical
Review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 204–222. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-
9004.2007.00066.x
Huberty, C. J., & Petoskey, M. D. (2000). Multivariate Analysis of Variance and Covariance. In
H. E. A. Tinsley & S. D. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of Applied Multivariate Statistics and
Mathematical Modeling (1st ed., pp. 183–208). Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/B978-
012691360-6/50008-2
Hufana, A., & Consoli, M. L. M. (2020). “I push through and stick with it”: Exploring resilience
among Filipino American adults. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 11(1), 3–13. doi:
10.1037/aap0000171
Hughes, D., Rodriguez, J., Smith, E. P., Johnson, D. J., Stevenson, H. C., & Spicer, P. (2006).
Parents’ ethnic-racial socialization practices: A review of research and directions for future
study. Developmental Psychology, 42(5), 747–770. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.747
Hunter, M. L. (2005). Race, gender, and the politics of skin tone. Routledge.
192
Hurtado, A. (1997). Understanding multiple group identities: Inserting women into cultural
transformations. Journal of Social Issues, 53(2), 299–327. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-
4560.1997.tb02445.x
Huynh, V. W., & Fuligni, A. J. (2010). Discrimination hurts: The academic, psychological, and
physical well-being of adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(4), 916–941.
doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00670.x
Ignacio, A., de La Cruz, E., Emmanuel, J., & Toribio, H. (2004). The Forbidden Book: The
Philippine-American War in Political Cartoons (1st ed.). T’Boli Publishing and
Distribution. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015060635086
Ignacio, L. F. (1976). Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (Is there such an Ethnic Group?)
(1st ed.). Pilipino Development Associates, Inc.
Irwin, K., Mossakowski, K. N., Spencer, J. H., Umemoto, K. N., Hishinuma, E. S., Garcia-
Santiago, O., Nishimura, S. T., & Choi-Misailidis, S. (2017). Do different dimensions of
ethnic identity reduce the risk of violence among Asian American and Pacific Islander
adolescents in Hawai‘i? Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 27(3), 151–
164. doi: 10.1080/10911359.2016.1262806
Jackson, T. (2012). Postcolonialism and organizational knowledge in the wake of China’s
presence in Africa: Interrogating South-South relations. Organization, 19(2), 181–204. doi:
10.1177/1350508411429395
James, W. H., Kim, G. K., & Moore, D. D. (1997). Examining racial and ethnic differences in
Adolescent drug use: The contributions of culture, background and lifestyle. Drugs:
Education, Prevention and Policy, 4(1), 39–51.
193
Javier, J. R. (2018). The use of an educational video to increase suicide awareness and
enrollment in parenting interventions among filipinos. Asian American Journal of
Psychology, 9(4), 327–333. doi: 10.1037/aap0000144
Javier, J. R., Galura, K., Aliganga, F. A. P., Supan, J., & Palinkas, L. A. (2018). Voices of the
Filipino Community Describing the Importance of Family in Understanding Adolescent
Behavioral Health Needs. Family and Community Health, 41(1), 64–71. doi:
10.1097/FCH.0000000000000173
Javier, J. R., Lahiff, M., Ferrer, R. R., & Huffman, L. C. (2010). Examining depressive
symptoms and use of counseling in the past year among Filipino and non-Hispanic White
adolescents in California. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 31(4), 295–
303. doi: 10.1097/DBP.0b013e3181dbadc7
Jensen, C., Koerten, H., Mattei, G., Grant Weinandy, J., Froemming, M., Dulek, E., & Dworsky,
D. (2021). Examination of ethnic racial identity exploration and commitment in emerging
adults: Group comparisons and specific features of multiracial identity. Journal of American
College Health, 0(0), 1–10. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2021.1900197
Jeung, R., Yellow Horse, A., Popovic, T., & Lim, R. (2021). Stop AAPI Hate National Report
3/19/20 - 2/28/21. In Stop AAPI Hate.
Jones, T. (2013). The Significance of Skin Color in Asian and Asian-American Communities:
Initial Reflections Symposium Issue: Reigniting Community: Strengthening the Asian
Pacific American Identity. In UC Irvine Law Review (Vol. 3, pp. 1105–1124).
Jurado, L. F. M., & Saria, M. G. (2018). Filipino nurses in the United States. Nursing
Management, 49(3), 36–41. doi: 10.1097/01.NUMA.0000530423.71453.58
194
Kang, H., & Raffaelli, M. (2014). Personalizing Immigrant Sacrifices: Internalization of Sense of
Indebtedness Toward Parents Among Korean American Young Adults. Journal of Family
Issues, 37(10), 1331–1354. doi: 10.1177/0192513X14567955
Kempf, A. (Ed.). (2009). Breaching the Colonial Contract: Anti-Colonialism in the US and
Canada. Springer Netherlands.
Kiang, L., & Fuligni, A. J. (2009). Ethnic identity in context: Variations in ethnic exploration and
belonging within parent, same-ethnic peer, and different-ethnic peer relationships. Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 38(5), 732–743. doi: 10.1007/s10964-008-9278-7
Kiang, L., & Witkow, M. R. (2015). Normative changes in meaning in life and links to
adjustment in adolescents from Asian American backgrounds. Asian American Journal of
Kiang, L., & Witkow, M. R. (2018). Identifying as American among Adolescents from Asian
Backgrounds. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(1), 64–76. doi: 10.1007/s10964-017-
0776-3
Kiang, L., Witkow, M. R., Baldelomar, O. A., & Fuligni, A. J. (2010). Change in ethnic identity
across the high school years among adolescents with latin American, Asian, and European
Backgrounds. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(6), 683–693. doi: 10.1007/s10964-
009-9429-5
Kiang, L., Witkow, M. R., & Champagne, M. C. (2013). Normative changes in ethnic and
american identities and links with adjustment among asian american adolescents.
Developmental Psychology, 49(9), 1713–1722. doi: 10.1037/a0030840
195
Kim, E., & Lee, D. (2011). Collective self-esteem: Role of social context among Asian-American
college students. Psychological Reports, 109(3), 1017–1037. doi:
10.2466/07.17.21.PR0.109.6.1017-1037
Kim, G., Chiriboga, D. A., Bryant, A., Huang, C. H., Crowther, M., & Ma, G. X. (2012). Self-
rated mental health among Asian American adults: Association with psychiatric disorders.
Asian American Journal of Psychology, 3(1), 44–52. doi: 10.1037/a0024318
Kim, N. Y. (2006). “Patriarchy is so third world”: Korean immigrant women and “migrating”
white Western masculinity. Social Problems, 53(4), 519–536. doi: 10.1525/sp.2006.53.4.519
Kim, S. Y., Shen, Y., Huang, X., Wang, Y., & Orozco-Lapray, D. (2014). Chinese American
parents’ acculturation and enculturation, bicultural management difficulty, depressive
symptoms, and parenting. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 5(4), 298–306. doi:
10.1037/a0035929
Kitano, H. H. L., & Daniels, R. (2001). Asian Americans Emerging Minorities (3rd ed.).
Prentice-Hall.
Klest, B., Freyd, J. J., Hampson, S. E., & Dubanoski, J. P. (2013). Trauma, socioeconomic
resources, and self-rated health in an ethnically diverse adult cohort. Ethnicity and Health,
18(1), 97–113. doi: 10.1080/13557858.2012.700916
Kline, P. (2000). The handbook of psychological testing. In The handbook of psychological
testing (2nd ed., Issue London; New York :). Routledge.
Kohn, M., & Reddy, K. (2017). Colonialism. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall
2017). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. doi: 10.1145/544317.544327
196
LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H. L. K., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of biculturalism:
Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 395–412. doi: 10.1037/0033-
2909.114.3.395
Lam, C. K., & Tran, A. G. T. T. (2020). Asian American cultural socialization and ethnic identity:
interdependent self-construal as a mediator. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in
Social Work, 00(00), 1–12. doi: 10.1080/15313204.2020.1799471
Lau, A. S., Fung, J., Wang, S., & Kang, S.-M. (2009). Explaining elevated social anxiety among
Asian Americans: Emotional attunement and a cultural double bind. In Cultural Diversity
and Ethnic Minority Psychology (Vol. 15, Issue 1, pp. 77–85). Educational Publishing
Foundation. doi: 10.1037/a0012819
Laus, V. (2020). Race and Filipina/o drug use: rethinking ethnicity among Filipina/o Americans
through drug consumption, racial profiling, and the social construction of ethnicity. Journal
of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse, 0(0), 1–21. doi: 10.1080/15332640.2020.1829236
Lee, J. (2019, February 21). Op-Ed: Asian Americans may have an educational advantage but
they face a “bamboo ceiling” at work. Los Angeles Times, 1–10.
Lee, J., & Ramakrishnan, K. (2019). Who counts as Asian. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 0(0), 1–
24. doi: 10.1080/01419870.2019.1671600
Lee, R. M. (2014). Disciplinary Divides within Asian American Studies: Lessons from
Intergroup Contact Theory and Community-Based Participatory Research. Journal of Asian
American Studies, 17(1), 99–103. doi: https://doi.org/10.10353/jaas.2014.0001
Lee, S. J., Park, E., & Wong, J.-H. S. (2017). Racialization, Schooling, and Becoming American:
Asian American Experiences. Educational Studies, 53(5), 492–510. doi:
10.1080/00131946.2016.1258360
197
Leong, S. (2006). Who’s the fairest of them all? Television ads for skin-whitening cosmetics in
Hong Kong. Asian Ethnicity, 7(2), 167–181. doi: 10.1080/14631360600736215
Leung, V. (2021, March). Recent attacks could push Asian Americans to get more politically
active, research suggests Anti-Asian stereotypes in the United States How I did my research
The ‘forever foreigner’ stereotype can activate Asian American political identity likely.
Washington Post.
Linehan, M. M. (2015). DBT Skills Training Manual (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
Litam, S. D. A. (2020). “Take Your Kung-Flu Back to Wuhan”: Counseling Asians, Asian
Americans, and Pacific Islanders with Race-Based Trauma Related to COVID-19. The
Professional Counselor, 10(2), 144–156. doi: 10.15241/sdal.10.2.144
Liu, C. M., & Suyemoto, K. L. (2016). The effects of racism-related stress on Asian Americans:
Anxiety and depression among different generational statuses. Asian American Journal of
Liu, J., Liang, C. T. H., Nguyen, D., & Melo, K. (2019). A qualitative study of intergenerational
cultural conflicts among second-generation chinese Americans and Taiwanese Americans.
Asian American Journal of Psychology, 10(1), 47–57. doi: 10.1037/aap0000121
Lo, B. (2019). Epistemic Decolonization: Centering Settler Colonialism in Asian American
Studies. Ethnic Studies Review, 42(2), 210+.
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A619214421/AONE?u=umuser&sid=AONE&xid=bf1583a4
Lopez, G., Cilluffo, A., & Patten, E. (2017). Filipinos in the U.S. Fact Sheet.
Mabalon, D. B. (2007). Seven Waves of Filipina/x/o Immigration. In A. Tintiangco-Cubales
(Ed.), Pin@y Educational Partnerships, a Filipina/o American Studies Sourcebook Series:
198
Philippine and Filipina/o American History (1st ed., pp. 226–229). Phoenix Publishing
House International.
Mabalon, D. B. (2013). Little Manila is in the heart: The making of the Filipina/o American
Community in Stockton, California (1st ed.). Duke University Press.
Macleod, C., Bhatia, S., & Kessi, S. (2017). Postcolonialism and Psychology: Growing Interest
and Promising Potential. In W. S. Rogers & C. Willig (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of
Qualitative Research in Psychology (pp. 306–317). Sage Publications. doi:
10.4135/9781848607927
Maglalang, D. D., Peregrina, H. N., Yoo, G. J., & Le, M.-N. (2021). Centering Ethnic Studies in
Health Education: Lessons from Teaching an Asian American Community Health Course.
Health Education & Behavior: The Official Publication of the Society for Public Health
Education, 48(3), 371–375. doi: 10.1177/10901981211009737
Mahoney, M. J., & Lyddon, W. J. (1988). Recent developments in cognitive approaches to
counseling and psychotherapy. The Counseling Psychologist, 16(2), 190–234. doi:
10.1177/0011000088162001
Maiya, S., Carlo, G., Landor, A. M., & Memmott-Elison, M. K. (2021). Ethnic-Racial and
Religious Identity as Mediators of Relations Between Ethnic-Racial Socialization and
Prosocial Behaviors Among Black Young Adults. Journal of Black Psychology, 47(1), 31–
50. doi: 10.1177/0095798420971388
Maramba, Dina C. (2008). Immigrant Families and the College Experience: Perspectives of
Filipina Americans. Journal of College Student Development, 49(4), 336–350. doi:
10.1353/csd.0.0012
199
Maramba, Dina C., & Nadal, K. L. (2013). Exploring the Filipino American Faculty Pipeline:
Implications for Higher Education and Filipino American College Students. In D. C.
Maramba & R. Bonus (Eds.), The “Other” Students: Filipino Americans, Education, and
Power (1st ed., pp. 297–308). Information Age Publishing.
Marcia, J E. (1980). Ego identity development. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of adosescent
psychology (pp. 159–187). Wiley.
Marcia, James E. (2010). Life Transitions and Stress in the Context of Psychosocial
Development. In T. W. Miller (Ed.), Handbook of Stressful Transitions Across the Lifespan
(pp. 19–34). Springer New York. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-0748-6_2
Marin, G., & Gamba, R. J. (2003). Acculturation and changes in cultural values. In K. M. Chun
& G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research
(pp. 83–93). American Psychological Association.
Marsh, K. G., & Na’puti, T. R. (2017). Pacific Islanders in the U.S. and their Heritage: Making
the Visible the Visibly Absent. In F. Odo (Ed.), Finding a Path Forward: Asian American
Pacific Islander National Historic Landmarks Theme Study (pp. 235–252). U.S. Department
of the INterior. doi: 10.1093/jahist/jaz173
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2016). The What of the Study: Building the Concecptual
Framework. In Designing Qualitative Research (6th ed., pp. 65–96). SAGE Publications,
Inc.
Martinez-Fuentes, S., Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Jager, J., Seaton, E. K., & Sladek, M. R. (2020). An
Examination of Ethnic-Racial Identity and U.S. American Identity among Black, Latino,
and White Adolescents. Identity, 20(3), 208–223. doi: 10.1080/15283488.2020.1784177
200
Masta, S. (2018a). Strategy and Resistance: How Native American Students Engage in
Accommodation in Mainstream Schools. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 49(1),
21–35. doi: 10.1111/aeq.12231
Masta, S. (2018b). Strategy and Resistance: How Native American Students Engage in
Accommodation in Mainstream Schools. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 49(1),
21–35. doi: 10.1111/aeq.12231
McCann, I. L., Sakheim, D. K., & Abrahamson, D. J. (1988). Trauma and victimization: A model
of psychological adaptation. The Counseling Psychologist, 16(4), 531–594. doi:
10.1177/0011000088164002
McLean, K. C. (2015). The Co-Authored Self: Family Stories and the Construction of Personal
Identity (1st ed.). Oxford University Press.
McLean, K. C., Lilgendahl, J. P., Fordham, C., Alpert, E., Marsden, E., Szymanowski, K., &
McAdams, D. P. (2018). Identity development in cultural context: The role of deviating
from master narratives. Journal of Personality, 86(4), 631–651. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12341
Meca, A., Cobb, C. L., Schwartz, S. J., Szabó, Á., Moise, R., Zamboanga, B. L., Lee, T. K.,
Klimstra, T. A., Soares, M. H., Ritchie, R., & Stephens, D. P. (2018). Exploring Individual
Differences in the Relationship Between Cultural Identity Processes and Well-Being.
Emerging Adulthood, 9(1), 11–21. doi: 10.1177/2167696818817168
Meca, A., Gonzales-Backen, M., Davis, R. J., Hassell, T., & Rodil, J. C. (2020). Development of
the United States Identity Scale: Unpacking exploration, resolution, and affirmation.
Journal of Latinx Psychology, 8(2), 127–141. doi: 10.1037/lat0000135
Meca, A., Sabet, R. F., Farrelly, C. M., Benitez, C. G., Schwartz, S. J., Gonzales-Backen, M.,
Lorenzo-Blanco, E. I., Unger, J. B., Baezconde-Garbanati, L., Picariello, S., Soto, D. W.,
201
Pattarroyo, M., des Rosiers, S. E., Villamar, J. A., & Lizzi, K. M. (2017). Personal and
cultural identity development in recently immigrated hispanic adolescents: Links with
psychosocial functioning. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 23(3), 348–
361. doi: 10.1037/cdp0000129
Millan, J. B., & Alvarez, A. N. (2014). Asian Americans and Internalized Oppression Do We
Deserve This? In E. J. R. David (Ed.), Internalized Oppression: The Psychology of
Marginalized Groups (1st ed., pp. 163–190). Springer Publishing COmpany, LLC. doi:
10.1891/9780826199263.0007
Miller, M. J. (2007). A Bilinear Multidimensional Measurement Model of Asian American
Acculturation and Enculturation: Implications for Counseling Interventions. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 54(2), 118–131. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.54.2.118
Montoya, C. A. (1997). Living in the Shadows: The Undocuented Immigrant Experience of
Filipinos. In M. P. P. Root (Ed.), Filipino Americans: Transformation and identity. (1st ed.,
pp. 112–120). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Morente, D. R. (2015). Deconstructing the Colonial Mentality and Ethnic Identity of Filipinos:
An Exploratory Study of Second Generation Filipinos. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses,
211.
Morey, B. N., Gee, G. C., Shariff-Marco, S., Yang, J., Allen, L., & Gomez, S. L. (2020). Ethnic
Enclaves, Discrimination, and Stress Among Asian American Women: Differences by
Nativity and Time in the United States. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology,
26(4), 460–471. doi: 10.1037/cdp0000322
Mossakowski, K. N. (2003). Coping with Perceived Discrimination: Does Ethnic Identity Protect
Mental Health? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44(3), 318–331.
202
Mossakowski, K. N., & Zhang, W. (2014). Does Social Support Buffer the Stress of
Discrimination and Reduce Psychological Distress Among Asian Americans? Social
Psychology Quarterly, 77(3), 273–295. doi: 10.1177/0190272514534271
Murillo, N. (2009). The relationship between ethnic identity, colonial mentality and parenting
style in Filipino-American adults (E. L. Bloch, Ed.). ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Museus, S. D., & Maramba, D. C. (2011a). Museus Impact of Culture on Filipino American
Student Sense of Belonging. Review of Higher Education, 34(2), 231–258.
Museus, S. D., & Maramba, D. C. (2011b). The Impact of Culture on Filipino American
Students’ Sense of Belonging. The Review of Higher Education, 34(2), 231–258. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2010.0022
Nadal, K. L. (2008). A Culturally Competent Classroom for Filipino Americans. Multicultural
Perspectives, 10(3), 155–161. doi: 10.1080/15210960802197763
Nadal, K. L. (2019). The Brown Asian American Movement: Advocating for South Asian,
Southeast Asian, and Filipino American Communities. Asian American Policy Review,
29(June), 2–11.
Nadal, K. L. (2020). Filipino American Psychology: A Handbook of Theory, Research, and
Clinical Practice (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Nadal, K. L., Pituc, S. T., Johnston, M. P., & Esparrago, T. (2010). Overcoming the Model
Minority Myth: Experiences of Filipino American Graduate Students. Journal of College
Student Development, 51(6), 694–706. doi: 10.1353/csd.2010.0023
Nadal, K. L., Vigilia Escobar, K. M., Prado, G. T., David, E. J. R., & Haynes, K. (2012). Racial
microaggressions and the Filipino American experience: Recommendations for counseling
203
and development. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 40(3), 156–173.
doi: 10.1002/j.2161-1912.2012.00015.x
Nagasawa, R., Qian, Z., & Wong, P. (2001). Theory of Segmented Assimilation and the Adoption
of Marijuana Use and Delinquent Behavior by Asian Pacific Youth. The Sociological
Quarterly, 42(3), 351–372.
Napholz, L., & Mo, W. (2010). Attribution of Importance to Life Roles and Their Implications
for Mental Health Among Filipino American Working Women. Health Care for Women
International, 31(2), 179–196. doi: 10.1080/07399330903342215
National Nurses United. (2020). Sins of Omission: How Government Failures to Track COVID-
19 Data Have Led to More Than 1,700 Health Care Worker Deaths and Jeopardize Public
Health.
Ocampo, A. C. (2013). “Am I Really Asian?”: Educational Experiences and Panethnic
Identification among Second-Generation FIlipino Americans. Journal of Asian American
Studies, 16(3), 295–324. doi: 10.1353/jaas.2013.0032
Ocampo, A. C. (2014). Are second-generation Filipinos “becoming” Asian American or Latino?
Historical colonialism, culture and panethnicity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 37(3), 425–445.
doi: 10.1080/01419870.2013.765022
Ocampo, A. C. (2016). The Latinos of Asia: How Filipino Americans Break the Rules of Race
(1st ed.). Stanford University Press.
Ogbu, J. U., & Simons, H. D. (1998). Voluntary and Involuntary Minorities: A Cultural-
Ecological Theory of School Performance with Some Implications for Education. 29(2),
155–188.
Okamura, J. Y. (2008). Ethnicity and Inequality in Hawai-i (1st ed.). Temple University Press.
204
Okamura, J. Y. (2010). From running amok to eating dogs: A century of misrepresenting Filipino
Americans in Hawai’i. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 33(3), 496–514. doi:
10.1080/01419870903055993
Okamura, J. Y. (2013). Imagining the filipino american diaspora: Transnational relations,
identities, and communities. In Imagining the Filipino American Diaspora: Transnational
Relations, Identities, and Communities. doi: 10.4324/9780203055359
Okamura, J. Y., & Agbayani, A. (1991). Filipino Americans. In N. Mokuau (Ed.), Handbook of
social services for Asian and Pacific Islanders (1st ed., pp. 97–114). Greenwood Press.
Okamura, K. H., Ebesutani, C., Bloom, R., Higa-McMillan, C. K., Nakamura, B. J., & Chorpita,
B. F. (2016). Differences in Internalizing Symptoms Across Specific Ethnic Minority
Groups: An Analysis Across Chinese American, Filipino American, Japanese American,
Native Hawaiian, and White Youth. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(11), 3353–
3366. doi: 10.1007/s10826-016-0488-4
Pailey, R. N. (2020). De-centring the ‘White Gaze’ of Development. Development and Change,
51(3), 729–745. doi: 10.1111/dech.12550
Pallant, J. (2016). One-way analysis of variance. In SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide
to Data Analysis using IBM SPSS (6th ed., pp. 255–270). McGraw-Hill Education.
Parham, T. A., & Helms, J. E. (1985). Relation of Racial Identity Attitudes to Self-Actualization
and Affective States of Black Students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32(3), 431–440.
doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.32.3.431
Paris, D. (2019). Naming beyond the white settler colonial gaze in educational research.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 32(3), 217–224. doi:
10.1080/09518398.2019.1576943
205
Park, H., Choi, E., & Wenzel, J. A. (2018). Racial/ethnic differences in correlates of
psychological distress among five Asian-American subgroups and non-Hispanic Whites.
Ethnicity and Health, 0(0), 1–17. doi: 10.1080/13557858.2018.1481495
Park, S. Y. (2017). Depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation from adolescence to young
adulthood in chinese american and filipino american youth. Journal of the Society for Social
Work and Research, 8(4), 621–643. doi: 10.1086/694790
Park, Y. S., Kim, B. S. K., Chiang, J., & Ju, C. M. (2010). Acculturation, enculturation, parental
adherence to asian cultural values, parenting styles, and family conflict among asian
american college students. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 1(1), 67–79. doi:
10.1037/a0018961
Pe-Pua, R., & Protacio-Marcelino, E. (2000). Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino psychology): A
legacy of Virgilio G. Enriquez. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 49–71. doi:
10.1111/1467-839X.00054
Phinney, J. S. (1992a). The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: A New Scale for Use with
Diverse Groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7(2), 156–176.
Phinney, J. S. (1992b). The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: A New Scale for Use with
Diverse Groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7(2), 156–176. doi:
10.1177/074355489272003
Phinney, J. S., Cantu, C. Lou, & Kurtz, D. A. (1997). Ethnic and American identity as predictors
of self-esteem among African American, Latino, and White adolescents. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 26(2), 165–185. doi: 10.1023/A:1024500514834
206
Phinney, J. S., Horenczyk, G., Liebkind, K., & Vedder, P. (2001). Ethnic Identity, Immigration,
and Well-Being: An Interactional Perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 57(3), 493–510. doi:
10.1111/0022-4537.00225
Phinney, J. S., & Ong, A. D. (2007). Conceptualization and Measurement of Ethnic Identity:
Current Status and Future Directions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(3), 271–281.
doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.54.3.271
Ponterotto, J. G., & Park-Taylor, J. (2007). Racial and Ethnic Identity Theory, Measurement, and
Research in Counseling Psychology: Present Status and Future Directions. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 54(3), 282–294. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.54.3.282
Poon, O. (2014). “The Land of Opportunity Doesn’t Apply to Everyone”: The Immigrant
Experience, Race, and Asian American Career Choices. Journal of College Student
Development, 55(6), 499–514. doi: 10.1353/csd.2014.0056
Popescu, A. (2019). The brief history of generation-defining the concept of generation. An
analysis of literature review. Journal of Comparative Research in Anthropology and
Sociology, 10(2).
Portes, A., Fernández-Kelly, P., & Haller, W. (2005). Segmented assimilation on the ground: The
new second generation in early adulthood. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28(6), 1000–1040.
doi: 10.1080/01419870500224117
Portes, A., & Hao, L. (2002). Ethnic and Racial Studies. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 25(6), 889–
912. doi: 10.1080/014198702200000936
Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: the story of the immigrant second generation
(Rubén G Rumbaut, Ed.). University of California Press.
207
Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1993). The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and Its
Variants. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 530, 74–96.
doi: 10.1177/0002716293530001006
Pyke, K. D. (2010). What is internalized racial oppression and why don’t we study it?
Acknowledging racism’s hidden injuries. Sociological Perspectives, 53(4), 551–572. doi:
10.1525/sop.2010.53.4.551
Radke, H. R. M., Kutlaca, M., Siem, B., Wright, S. C., & Becker, J. C. (2020). Beyond Allyship:
Motivations for Advantaged Group Members to Engage in Action for Disadvantaged
Groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24(4), 291–315. doi:
10.1177/1088868320918698
Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. J. (1936a). MEMORANDUM FOR THE STUDY OF
ACCULTURATION. American Anthropologist, 38(1), 149–152. doi:
10.1525/aa.1936.38.1.02a00330
Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. J. (1936b). MEMORANDUM FOR THE STUDY OF
ACCULTURATION. American Anthropologist, 38(1), 149–152. doi:
10.1525/aa.1936.38.1.02a00330
Resick, P. A., Monson, C. M., & Chard, K. M. (2017). Cognitive Processing Therapy for PTSD
(1st ed.). The Guilford Press.
Reyes, A. T., Constantino, R. E., Cross, C. L., Tan, R. A., & Bombard, J. N. (2020). Resilience,
Trauma, and Cultural Norms Regarding Disclosure of Mental Health Problems among
Foreign-Born and US-Born Filipino American Women. Behavioral Medicine, 46(3–4), 217–
230. doi: 10.1080/08964289.2020.1725413
208
Reyes, A. T., Constantino, R. E., Cross, C. L., Tan, R. A., Bombard, J. N., & Acupan, A. R.
(2019). Resilience and psychological trauma among Filipino American women. Archives of
Psychiatric Nursing, 33(6), 177–185. doi: 10.1016/j.apnu.2019.08.008
Reyes, J. (2015). Loób and kapwa: An introduction to a Filipino virtue ethics. Asian Philosophy,
25(2), 148–171. doi: 10.1080/09552367.2015.1043173
Rimonte, N. (1997). Colonialism’s Legacy: The Inferiorizing of the Filipino. In M. P. P. Root
(Ed.), Filipino Americans: Transformation and identity. (1st ed., pp. 39–61). SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Rivas-Drake, D., Lozada, F. T., Pinetta, B. J., & Jagers, R. J. (2020). School-Based Social-
Emotional Learning and Ethnic-Racial Identity Among African American and Latino
Adolescents. Youth and Society, 52(7), 1331–1354. doi: 10.1177/0044118X20939736
Rivas-Drake, D., Seaton, E. K., Markstrom, C. A., Quintana, S. M., Syed, M., Lee, R. M.,
Schwartz, S. J., Umaña-Taylor, A. J., French, S., Yip, T., & Ethnic and Racial Identity in the
21st Century Study Group. (2014). Ethnic and Racial Identity in Adolescence: Implications
for Psychosocial, Academic , and Health Outcomes Tiffany Yip and Ethnic and Racial
Identity in the 21st Century Study Group Source : Child Development , Vol . 85, No. 1
(JANUARY / FEBRUARY 2014. Child Development, 85(1), 39–57. doi:
10.1111/cdev.l2200
Rodriguez, R. M. (2016). Toward a critical filipino studies approach to philippine migration. In
M. R. Manalansan & A. F. Espiritu (Eds.), Filipino Studies: Palimpsests of Nation and
Diaspora (pp. 33–55). New York University Press.
209
Rodriguez-Operana, V. C., Mistry, R. S., & Chen, Y. J. (2017). Disentangling the myth: Social
relationships and Filipino American adolescents’ experiences of the model minority
stereotype. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 8(1), 56–71. doi: 10.1037/aap0000071
Rogers, L. O. (2018a). Who Am I, Who Are We? Erikson and a Transactional Approach to
Identity Research. Identity, 18(4), 284–294. doi: 10.1080/15283488.2018.1523728
Rogers, L. O. (2018b). Who Am I, Who Are We? Erikson and a Transactional Approach to
Identity Research. Identity, 18(4), 284–294. doi: 10.1080/15283488.2018.1523728
Rogers, L. O., Kiang, L., White, L., Calzada, E. J., Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Byrd, C., Williams, C.
D., Marks, A., & Whitesell, N. (2020). Persistent Concerns: Questions for Research on
Ethnic-Racial Identity Development. Research in Human Development, 00(00), 1–24. doi:
10.1080/15427609.2020.1831881
Rondilla, J. L. (2002). The Filipino Question in Asia and the Pacific: Rethinking Regional
Origins in the Diaspora. In D. Hippolite Wright, J. L. Rondilla, & P. R. Spickard (Eds.),
Pacific Diaspora: Island peoples in the United States and across the Pacific (1st ed.).
Rondilla, J. L., & Spickard, P. (2007). Is lighter better?: skin-tone discrimination among Asian
Americans. In Choice Reviews Online (Vol. 45, Issue 03). Rowman & Littlefield. doi:
10.5860/choice.45-1758
Root, M. P. P. (1997). Filipino Americans: Transformation and identity. In Maria P P Root (Ed.),
Filipino Americans: Transformation and identity. Sage Publications, Inc.
Rudmin, F. (2009). Constructs, measurements and models of acculturation and acculturative
stress. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(2), 106–123. doi:
10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.12.001
210
Rudmin, F. (2010). Steps towards the Renovation of Acculturation Research Paradigms: What
Scientists’ Personal Experiences of Migration Might Tell Science. Culture and Psychology,
16(3), 299–312. doi: 10.1177/1354067X10371140
Rudmin, F., Wang, B., & de Castro, J. (2016). Acculturation research critiques and alternative
research designs. In The Oxford Handbook of Acculturation and Health (Issue October).
doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190215217.013.4
Ruiz, N. G., Edwards, K., & Lopez, M. H. (2021). One-third of Asian Americans fear threats,
physical attacks and most say violence against them is rising. Pew Research Center.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/21/one-third-of-asian-americans-fear-
threats-physical-attacks-and-most-say-violence-against-them-is-rising/
Ruiz, N. G., Horowitz, J. M., & Tamir, C. (2020). Many Black and Asian Americans Say They
Have Experienced Discrimination Amid the COVID-19 Outbreak. Pew Research Center.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/07/01/many-black-and-asian-americans-
say-they-have-experienced-discrimination-amid-the-covid-19-outbreak/
Rumbaut, Rubén G. (1994). The Crucible Within: Ethnic Identity, Self-Esteem, and Segmented
Assimilation among Children of Immigrants. International Migration Review, 28(4), 748–
794. doi: 10.1177/019791839402800407
Rumbaut, Rubén G. (1995). The New Californians: Comparative Research Findings on the
Educational Progress of Immigrant Children. In W. A. Cornelius & R. G. Rumbaut (Eds.),
California’s Immigrant Children. Center of U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California.
Ryabov, I. (2009). The role of peer social capital in educational assimilation of immigrant
youths. Sociological Inquiry, 79(4), 453–480. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-682X.2009.00300.x
211
Ryabov, I. (2015). Relation of peer effects and school climate to substance use among Asian
American adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 42, 115–127. doi:
10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.04.007
Ryabov, I. (2016). Colorism and educational outcomes of Asian Americans: evidence from the
National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Social Psychology of Education, 19(2),
303–324. doi: 10.1007/s11218-015-9327-5
San Juan, E. (1994). The Predicament of Filipinos in the United States. In K. Aguilar (Ed.), State
of Asian America: Activism and Resistance (pp. 205–218). South End.
Sanchez, F., & Gaw, A. (2007). Mental Health Care of Filipino Americans. Psychiatric Services,
58(6), 810–815.
Saperstein, A., & Gullickson, A. (2013). A “Mulatto Escape Hatch” in the United States?
Examining Evidence of Racial and Social Mobility During the Jim Crow Era. Demography,
50(5), 1921–1942. doi: 10.1007/s13524-013-0210-8
Schlomer, G. L., Bauman, S., & Card, N. A. (2010). Best Practices for Missing Data
Management in Counseling Psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(1), 1–10.
doi: 10.1037/a0018082
Schmidt, C. K., Piontkowski, S., Raque-Bogdan, T. L., & Ziemer, K. S. (2014). Relational
Health, Ethnic Identity, and Well-Being of College Students of Color: A Strengths-Based
Perspective. The Counseling Psychologist, 42(4), 473–496. doi:
10.1177/0011000014523796
Schwartz, S. J., Syed, M., Yip, T., Knight, G. P., Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Rivas-Drake, D., Lee, R.
M., Cross, W. E., French, S. E., Markstrom, C. A., Quintana, S. M., Seaton, E. K., & Sellers,
R. M. (2014). Methodological Issues in Ethnic and Racial Identity Research with Ethnic
212
Minority Populations: Theoretical Precision, Measurement Issues, and Research Designs.
Child Development, 85(1), 58–76. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12201
Sellers, R. M., Smith, M. A., Shelton, J. N., Rowley, S. A. J., & Chavous, T. M. (1998).
Multidimensional model of racial identity: A reconceptualization of African American racial
identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(1), 18–39. doi:
10.1207/s15327957pspr0201_2
Sherry, A., & Henson, R. K. (2005). Conducting and Interpreting Canonical Correlation Analysis
in Personality Research: A User-Friendly Primer. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84(1),
37–41. doi: 10.1207/ s15327752jpa8401_09
Shih, K. Y., Chang, T. F., & Chen, S. Y. (2019). Impacts of the Model Minority Myth on Asian
American Individuals and Families: Social Justice and Critical Race Feminist Perspectives.
Journal of Family Theory and Review, 11(3), 412–428. doi: 10.1111/jftr.12342
Shimkhada, R., Scheitler, A. J., & Ponce, N. A. (2021). Capturing Racial/Ethnic Diversity in
Population-Based Surveys: Data Disaggregation of Health Data for Asian American, Native
Hawaiian, and Pacific Islanders (AANHPIs). Population Research and Policy Review,
40(1), 81–102. doi: 10.1007/s11113-020-09634-3
Shoichet, C. E. (2020). Covid-19 is taking a devastating toll on Filipino American nurses. CNN
Health. https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/24/health/filipino-nurse-deaths/index.html
Sin, C. H. (2007). Ethnic-matching in qualitative research: Reversing the gaze on “white others”
and “white” as “other.” Qualitative Research, 7(4), 477–499. doi:
10.1177/1468794107082304
213
Sirin, S. R., Ryce, P., Gupta, T., & Rogers-Sirin, L. (2013). The Role of Acculturative Stress on
Mental Health Symptoms for Immigrant Adolescents: A Longitudinal Investigation.
Developmental Psychology, 49(4), 736–748.
Smith, T. B., & Silva, L. (2011). Ethnic Identity and Personal Well-Being of People of Color: A
Meta-Analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(1), 42–60. doi: 10.1037/a0021528
Steele, C. M. (1997). A Threat in the Air: How Stereotypes Shape Intellectual Identity and
Performance. In J. Banks & C. Banks (Eds.), American Psychologist (2nd ed., Vol. 52, Issue
6, pp. 613–629). Jossey-Bass. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613
Strobel, L. M. (1997). Coming Full Circle: Narratives of Decolonization Among Post-1965
Filipino Americans. In M. P. P. Root (Ed.), Filipino Americans: Transformation and
identity. (1st ed., pp. 62–79). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sue, D. W. (2013). Counseling the culturally diverse: theory and practice / Derald Wing Sue,
David Sue. (6th ed..).
Suh, H. N., Flores, L. Y., & Wang, K. T. (2019). Perceived Discrimination, Ethnic Identity, and
Mental Distress Among Asian International Students in Korea. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 50(8), 991–1007. doi: 10.1177/0022022119874433
Suinn, R. M., Ahuna, C., & Khoo, G. (1992). The Suinn-Lew Asian Self-Identity Acculturation
Scale: Concurrent and Factorial Validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
52, 1041–1046. doi: 10.1177/0013164492052004028
Suyemoto, K. L., & Liu, C. M. (2018). Asian American Students in Asian American Studies:
Experiences of Racism-Related Stress and Relation to Depressive and Anxious Symptoms.
Journal of Asian American Studies, 21(2), 301–326. doi: 10.1353/jaas.2018.0016
214
Syed, M. (2015). Theoretical and methodological contributions of narrative psychology to ethnic
identity research. 27–54.
Syed, M., Juang, L. P., & Svensson, Y. (2018). Toward a New Understanding of Ethnic-Racial
Settings for Ethnic-Racial Identity Development. Journal of Research on Adolescence,
28(2), 262–276. doi: 10.1111/jora.12387
Syed, M., Santos, C., Yoo, H. C., & Juang, L. P. (2018). Invisibility of racial/ethnic minorities in
developmental science: Implications for research and institutional practices. American
Psychologist, 73(6), 812–826. doi: 10.1037/amp0000294
Szapocznik, J., & Kurtines, W. M. (1993). Family psychology and cultural diversity:
Opportunities for theory, research, and application. American Psychologist, 48(4), 400–407.
doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.48.4.400
Szapocznik, J., Scopetta, M. A., Kurtines, W. M., & Aranalde, M. D. (1978). Theory and
measurement of acculturation. Revista Interamericana de Psicología, 12(2), 113–130.
Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information, 13(2),
65–93. doi: 10.1177/053901847401300204
Takeuchi, D. T., Zane, N. W., Hong, S., Chae, D. H., Gong, F., Gee, G. C., Walton, E., Sue, S., &
Alegría, M. (2007). Immigration-related factors and mental disorder among Asian
Americans. American Journal of Public Health, 97(1), 84–90. doi:
10.2105/AJPH.2006.088401
Tapia, R. C. (2006). “Just Ten Years Removed from a Bolo and a Breech-cloth” The
Sezualization of the Filipino “Menace.” In A. Tiongson, R. Gutierrez, & E. Gutierrez (Eds.),
Positively No Filipinos Allowed: Building Communities and Discourse (1st ed., pp. 61–70).
Temple University Press.
215
Telzer, E. H. (2011). Expanding the acculturation gap-distress model: An integrative review of
research. Human Development, 53(6), 313–340. doi: 10.1159/000322476
Telzer, E. H., Yuen, C., Gonzales, N., & Fuligni, A. J. (2016). Filling Gaps in the Acculturation
Gap-Distress Model: Heritage Cultural Maintenance and Adjustment in Mexican–American
Families. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(7), 1412–1425. doi: 10.1007/s10964-015-
0408-8
Teodoro, N. V. (1999). Pensionados and workers: The Filipinos in the United States, 1903-1956.
Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 8(1–2), 157–178. doi: 10.1177/011719689900800109
Teppang, N., Han, M., & Lee, Y. J. (2017). Exploring ethnic identity and its development process
among young adult Filipino Americans. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social
Work, 00(00), 1–16. doi: 10.1080/15313204.2017.1409679
Teppang, N., Han, M., & Lee, Y. J. (2019). Exploring ethnic identity and its development process
among young adult Filipino Americans. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in Social
Work, 28(4), 408–423. doi: 10.1080/15313204.2017.1409679
Teranishi, R. T. (2002). Asian pacific americans and critical race theory: An examination of
school racial climate. Equity and Excellence in Education, 35(2), 144–154. doi:
10.1080/713845281
Thibeault, M. A., Stein, G. L., & Nelson-Gray, R. O. (2018). Ethnic identity in context of ethnic
discrimination: When does gender and other-group orientation increase risk for depressive
symptoms for immigrant-origin young adults? Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority
Psychology, 24(2), 196–208. doi: 10.1037/cdp0000174
Thomas, C. W. (1970). something borrowed: something black. The Counseling Psychologist,
2(1), 6–10.
216
Tintiangco-Cubales, A. (2004). Pinayism. In M. L. de Jesus (Ed.), Pinay Power: Peminist
Critical Theory: Theorizing the Filipina/American Experience (pp. 137–148). Routledge.
Tintiangco-Cubales, A. (2013). Struggling to Survive: Poverty, Violence, and Invisibility in the
Lives of Urban Filipina/o American Youth. In Dina C. Maramba & R. Bonus (Eds.), The
“Other” Students: Filipino Americans, Education, and Power (1st ed., pp. 123–144).
Information Age Publishing.
Tintiangco-Cubales, A., & Curammeng, E. R. (2018). Pedagogies of Resistance: Filipina/o
“Gestures of Rebellion” against the Inheritance of American Schooling. In A. I. Ali & T. L.
Buenavista (Eds.), Education at War (1st ed., pp. 244–267). Fordham University Press.
https://muse.jhu.edu/book/58285
Tintiangco-Cubales, A., Daus-Magbual, A., Desai, M. R., Sabac, A., & Torres, M. von. (2016).
Into our hoods: where critical performance pedagogy births resistance. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29(10), 1308–1325. doi:
10.1080/09518398.2016.1201165
Tiongson, A. T. (2019). Asian American Studies, Comparative Racialization, and Settler Colonial
Critique. Journal of Asian American Studies, 22(3), 419–443. doi: 10.1353/jaas.2019.0030
Tolentino, J.-A. (2019). Feminism: A Counter-Hegemonic Response for Healing and
Psychological Well-Being Among Filipinx Americans (Issue April).
Tomaneng, R. (2015). Recovering Kapwa: Filipino American Postcolonial Psychology as
Decolonizing Praxis. Multicultural Perspectives, 17(3), 164–169. doi:
10.1080/15210960.2015.1053327
Tompar-Tiu, A., & Sustento-Seneriches, J. (1995). Depression and Other Mental Health Issues:
The Filipino American Experience (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
217
Tran, N., & Chan, W. Y. (2017). A Contemporary Perspective on Working with Asian and Asian
American Communities in the United States. In M. A. Bond, I. Serrano-Garcia, & C. B.
Keys (Eds.), APA Handbook of Community Psychology: Methods for Community Research
and Action for Diverse Groups and Issues (2nd ed., pp. 475–490). American Psychological
Association. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14954-028
Trask, H.-K. (1999). From a Native Daughter: Colonialism and Sovereignty in Hawaii: Vol. Rev.
ed (Rev.). University of Hawaii Press.
http://proxy.lib.umich.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&d
b=nlebk&AN=38994&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Trieu, M. M. (2019). Understanding the use of “twinkie,” “banana,” and “FOB”: Identifying the
origin, role, and consequences of internalized racism within Asian America. Sociology
Compass, 13(5), 1–12. doi: 10.1111/soc4.12679
Tuason, Ma. T. G., Ancheta, I. B., & Battie, C. A. (2014). What impacts the psychological health
of Filipino American women? Asian American Journal of Psychology, 5(4), 307–315. doi:
10.1037/a0037781
Tuason, Ma. T. G., Taylor, A. R., Rollings, L., Harris, T., & Martin, C. (2007). On Both Sides of
the Hyphen: Exploring the Filipino-American Identity. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
54(4), 362–372. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.54.4.362
Tuazon, A. C. A. (2015). Colonial mentality and mental health help-seeking attitudes among
filipino americans. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and
Engineering, 75(10-B(E)), No-Specified.
http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-
2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&res_dat=xri:pqm&rft_dat=xri:pqdiss:
218
3581166%5Cnhttp://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=psyc11&N
EWS=N&AN=2015-99080-424
Tuazon, V. E., Gonzalez, E., Gutierrez, D., & Nelson, L. (2019). Colonial Mentality and Mental
Health Help-Seeking of Filipino Americans. Journal of Counseling and Development,
97(4), 352–363. doi: 10.1002/jcad.12284
Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity,
Education and Society, 1(1), 1–40.
Tuliao, A. P., Velasquez, A. E., Bello, A. M., Joyce, M., & Pinson, T. (2016). Intent to Seek
Counseling Among Filipinos: Examining Loss of Face and Gender. The Counseling
Psychologist, 44(3), 353–382. doi: 10.1177/0011000015627197
Turner, J. C., & Tajfel, H. (1979). An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. In The social
psychology of intergroup relations (Vol. 33, pp. 33–47).
Umaña-Taylor, A. J. (2016). Ethnic-racial identity: Conceptualization, development, and
associations with youth adjustment. In L. Balter & C. S. Tamis-LeMonda (Eds.), Child
psychology: A handbook of contemporary issues (3rd ed., pp. 305–327). Psychology Press.
doi: 10.4324/9781315764931-24
Umaña-Taylor, A. J. (2018). Intervening in cultural development: The case of ethnic-racial
identity. Development and Psychopathology, 30(5), 1907–1922. doi:
10.1017/S0954579418000974
Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Bhanot, R., & Shin, N. (2006). Ethnic identity formation during
adolescence: The critical role of families. Journal of Family Issues, 27(3), 390–414. doi:
10.1177/0192513X05282960
219
Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Quintana, S. M., Lee, R. M., Cross, W. E., Rivas-Drake, D., Schwartz, S. J.,
Syed, M., Yip, T., Seaton, E. K., French, S. E., Knight, G. P., Markstrom, C., & Sellers, R.
M. (2014). Ethnic and Racial Identity During Adolescence and Into Young Adulthood: An
Integrated Conceptualization. Child Development, 85(1), 21–39. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12196
Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Vargas-Chanes, D., Garcia, C. D., & Gonzales-Backen, M. (2008). A
longitudinal examination of latino adolescents’ ethnic identity, coping with discrimination,
and self-esteem. Journal of Early Adolescence, 28(1), 16–50. doi:
10.1177/0272431607308666
Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Yazedjian, A., & Bámaca-Gómez, M. (2004). Developing the Ethnic
Identity Scale Using Eriksonian and Social Identity Perspectives. Identity, 4(1), 9–38. doi:
10.1207/s1532706xid0401_2
van der Ham, A. J., Ujano-Batangan, M. T., Ignacio, R., & Wolffers, I. (2014). The Dynamics of
Migration-Related Stress and Coping of Female Domestic Workers from the Philippines: An
Exploratory Study. Community Mental Health Journal, 51(1), 14–20. doi: 10.1007/s10597-
014-9777-9
van der Heijden, G. J. M. G., T. Donders, A. R., Stijnen, T., & Moons, K. G. M. (2006).
Imputation of missing values is superior to complete case analysis and the missing-indicator
method in multivariable diagnostic research: A clinical example. Journal of Clinical
Epidemiology, 59(10), 1102–1109. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.01.015
Wang, L., Bordon, J. J., Wang, K. T., & Yeung, J. G. (2019). Acculturation, enculturation,
perceived discrimination, and well-being: A comparison between U.S.-raised and non-U.S.-
raised Asian students. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 10(1), 22–32. doi:
10.1037/aap0000117
220
Watkins, M. W. (2018). Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Guide to Best Practice. Journal of Black
Psychology, 44(3), 219–246. doi: 10.1177/0095798418771807
Wei, M., Heppner, P. P., Ku, T.-Y., & Liao, K. Y.-H. (2010). Racial discrimination stress, coping,
and depressive symptoms among Asian Americans: A moderation analysis. Asian American
Journal of Psychology, 1(2), 136–150. doi: 10.1037/a0020157
Weinreich, P. (2009). “Enculturation”, not “acculturation”: Conceptualising and assessing
identity processes in migrant communities. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
33(2), 124–139. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.12.006
White, J. L. (1984). The Psychology of Blacks: An Afro-American Perspective (1st ed.). Prentice-
Hall, Inc.
Willgerodt, M. A., & Thompson, E. A. (2006). Ethnic and Generational Influences on Emotional
Distress and Risk Behaviors Among Chinese and Filipino American Adolescents. Research
in Nursing & Health, 29, 311–324. doi: 10.1002/nur.20146
Williams, C. D., Byrd, C. M., Quintana, S. M., Anicama, C., Kiang, L., Umaña-Taylor, A. J.,
Calzada, E. J., Pabón Gautier, M., Ejesi, K., Tuitt, N. R., Martinez-Fuentes, S., White, L.,
Marks, A., Rogers, L. O., & Whitesell, N. (2020). A Lifespan Model of Ethnic-Racial
Identity. Research in Human Development, 00(00), 1–31. doi:
10.1080/15427609.2020.1831882
Wong, T. (2020, July 21). Little noticed, Filipino Americans are dying of COVID-19 at an
alarming rate. Los Angeles Times.
Woo, B., Maglalang, D. D., Ko, S., Park, M., Choi, Y., & Takeuchi, D. T. (2020). Racial
Discrimination, Ethnic-Racial Socialization, and Cultural Identities Among Asian American
221
Youths. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 26(4), 447–459. doi:
10.1037/cdp0000327
Wu, C., Qian, Y., & Wilkes, R. (2021). Anti-Asian discrimination and the Asian-white mental
health gap during COVID-19. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 44(5), 819–835. doi:
10.1080/01419870.2020.1851739
Yap, S. C. Y., Donnellan, M. B., Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., Kim, S. Y., Huynh, Q. L.,
Vazsonyi, A. T., Cano, M. ángel, Hurley, E. A., Whitbourne, S. K., Castillo, L. G., Donovan,
R. A., Blozis, S. A., & Brown, E. J. (2016). Evaluating the invariance of the multigroup
ethnic identity measure across foreign-born, second-generation and later-generation college
students in the United States. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 22(3),
460–465. doi: 10.1037/cdp0000068
Yi, J., & Todd, N. R. (2021). Internalized model minority myth among Asian Americans: Links
to anti-Black attitudes and opposition to affirmative action. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology. doi: 10.1037/cdp0000448
Yip, T., Gee, G. C., & Takeuchi, D. T. (2008). Racial Discrimination and Psychological Distress:
The Impact of Ethnic Identity and Age Among Immigrant and United States-Born Asian
Adults. Developmental Psychology, 44(3), 787–800. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.44.3.787
Yip, T., Wang, Y., Mootoo, C., & Mirpuri, S. (2019). Supplemental Material for Moderating the
Association Between Discrimination and Adjustment: A Meta-Analysis of Ethnic/Racial
Identity. Developmental Psychology, 55(6), 1274–1298. doi: 10.1037/dev0000708.supp
Yoon, E., Langrehr, K., & Ong, L. Z. (2011). Content Analysis of Acculturation Research in
Counseling and Counseling Psychology: A 22-Year Review. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 58(1), 83–96. doi: 10.1037/a0021128
222
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91. doi:
10.1080/1361332052000341006
Young, C. B., Fang, D. Z., & Zisook, S. (2010). Depression in Asian-American and Caucasian
undergraduate students. Journal of Affective Disorders, 125(1–3), 379–382. doi:
10.1016/j.jad.2010.02.124
Zhou, M. (2014). Segmented assimilation and socio-economic integration of Chinese immigrant
children in the USA. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 37(7), 1172–1183. doi:
10.1080/01419870.2014.874566
223
Appendix A
HSIRB Approval and Informed Consent Forms
224
225
226
Appendix B
Recruitment Materials
227
228
Please consider participating in our study! We are conducting research on various cultural
experiences and attitudes of Filipino and Filipino American adults in the United States. To
participate in the study you must:
• Identify as Filipino or Filipino American
• Be 18 years of age or older
The survey will take up to 15-20 minutes to complete. Participants will be compensated
with a raffle entry for one of three $25 Visa gift cards. The direct link to the survey is: [INSERT
SURVEY LINK]
For more information, please contact the student investigator: Kamille La Rosa
229
Appendix C
Enculturation Scale for Filipino Americans–Short Form (ESFA-S)
Instructions: The statements below describe values, attitudes, and behaviors that you may
agree or disagree with. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each
statement by putting a check mark in one of the boxes next to each statement.
Strongl Somewh Slightly Slightl Somewh Strongl

y at Agree Disagre y at Agree y
Disagre e Agree Agree
e
1 I am in regular contact 1 2 3 4 5 6
with my family in the
Philippines through
telephone calls, email,
mail, or texting.
2 Failing to recognize 1 2 3 4 5 6
someone's social status or
family standing is
offensive.
3 I always listen carefully to 1 2 3 4 5 6
those in positions of
authority.
4 I visit the Philippines 1 2 3 4 5 6
often.
5 When my doctor gives me 1 2 3 4 5 6
treatments or
recommendations, I tend
to be afraid or ashamed to
ask questions.
6 Children should give 1 2 3 4 5 6
unquestioning respect and
obedience to their elders
and authority figures.
7 I would like to retire in the 1 2 3 4 5 6
Philippines.
8 Instead of confronting 1 2 3 4 5 6
someone face to face, I
would rather talk about
this person behind his or
her back.
9 Praying cannot help cure 1 2 3 4 5 6
illnesses.
230
1 I always celebrate Rizal 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 Day (December 30th).
1 If I am unsure about how 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 much I need to repay
someone who has done me
a favor, I keep trying to
pay back the favor so that I
do not look ungrateful.
1 Going to church is not 1 2 3 4 5 6
2 very important to me.
1 I am familiar with many 1 2 3 4 5 6
3 important events in
Filipino history.
1 My behavior is determined 1 2 3 4 5 6
4 by what others will say,
think, or do.
1 Parents must teach the 1 2 3 4 5 6
5 importance of religion.
1 I prefer to see a Pilipino/a 1 2 3 4 5 6
6 physician.
1 A personal failure is a 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 letdown for the entire
family.
1 Committing suicide is a 1 2 3 4 5 6
8 mortal sin.
1 I greet the elderly by 1 2 3 4 5 6
9 gently placing the back of
their hand on my forehead
and saying "mano po"
(kissing the hand).
2 I try to please others, even 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 if it is inconvenient to
myself.
2 Children are blessings and 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 gifts of God.
2 When speaking with 1 2 3 4 5 6
2 elders, I address them with
"po" or "ho."
2 Using a third party is a 1 2 3 4 5 6
3 good way to avoid the
shame of making a request
or a complaint face to face.
2 I leave things to God's 1 2 3 4 5 6
4 will.
231
2 I frequently read Filipino 1 2 3 4 5 6
5 newspapers/magazines/bo
oks.
2 I may say I understand 1 2 3 4 5 6
6 something, even when I
only partly understand the
instructions or what is
being said.
2 One must obey parental 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 advice on education and
money.
2 While I currently do not 1 2 3 4 5 6
8 live there, I consider the
Philippines to be my
home.
2 I would give a job to a 1 2 3 4 5 6
9 relative or friend, before
giving it to a more
qualified person that I did
not know.
3 Siblings should respect the 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 decisions and instructions
of older siblings.
232
Appendix D
Colonial Mentality Scale (CMS)
Please respond to the following items honestly and as accurately as you can. There are
not right or wrong responses to any of these items; we are interested in your honest responses
and opinions. All responses are strictly anonymous.
Using the following scale, please circle the number that describes your level of agreement
or disagreement with each statement.
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly

Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree
I tend to divide
Filipinos in
America into
two types: the
FOBs (fresh-
1 off-the- 1 2 3 4 5 6
boat/newly
arrived
immigrants)
and the Filipino
Americans.
There are
situations where
I feel inferior
2 1 2 3 4 5 6
because of my
ethnic/cultural
background.
I find persons
with lighter
skin-tones to be
3 more attractive 1 2 3 4 5 6
than persons
with dark skin-
tones.
In general, I do
not associate
4 with newly- 1 2 3 4 5 6
arrived Filipino
immigrants.
233
I do not want
my children to
5 1 2 3 4 5 6
be dark-
skinned.
Filipinos should
feel privileged
and honored
that Spain and
6 1 2 3 4 5 6
the United
States had
contact with
them.
There are
situations where
I feel that it is
more
7 advantageous or 1 2 3 4 5 6
necessary to
deny my
ethnic/cultural
heritage.
The American
ways of living
or the American
culture is
8 generally more 1 2 3 4 5 6
admirable,
desirable, or
better than the
Filipino culture.
There are
situations where
I feel ashamed
9 1 2 3 4 5 6
of my
ethnic/cultural
background.
I generally
think that a
person that is
part White and
10 part Filipino is 1 2 3 4 5 6
more attractive
than a full-
blooded
Filipino
234
I believe that
Filipino
Americans are
superior, more
11 admirable, and 1 2 3 4 5 6
more civilized
than Filipinos
in the
Philippines.
In general, I am
ashamed of
newly arrived
Filipino
12 1 2 3 4 5 6
immigrants
because of the
way they dress
and act.
I find persons
who have
bridged noses
(like Whites) as
13 1 2 3 4 5 6
more attractive
than persons
with Filipino
noses.
I generally do
not like newly-
14 1 2 3 4 5 6
arrived Filipino
immigrants.
I would like to
have a skin-tone
15 that is lighter 1 2 3 4 5 6
than the skin-
tone I have.
I think newly
arrived
immigrants
should become
16 1 2 3 4 5 6
as
Americanized
as quickly as
possible.
I would like to
have children
17 1 2 3 4 5 6
with light skin-
tones.
235
Spain and the
United States
are highly
responsible for
18 1 2 3 4 5 6
civilizing
Filipinos and
improving their
ways of life.
I think newly-
arrived
immigrant
19 Filipinos are 1 2 3 4 5 6
backwards,
have accents,
and act weird.
I would like to
have a nose that
is more bridged
20 1 2 3 4 5 6
(like Whites)
than the nose I
have.
Filipinos should
be thankful to
Spain and the
United States
for
transforming
21 1 2 3 4 5 6
the Filipino
ways of life into
a
White/European
American way
of life.
I tend to pay
more attention
to the opinions
of Filipinos
who are very
22 Americanized 1 2 3 4 5 6
than to the
opinions of
FOBs/newly-
arrived
immigrants.
In general,
23 1 2 3 4 5 6
Filipino
236
Americans
should be
thankful and
feel fortunate
for being in the
United States.
In general, I
feel that being a
Filipino
American is not
24 1 2 3 4 5 6
as good as
being
White/European
American.
I do not want
my children to
25 1 2 3 4 5 6
have Filipino
noses.
In general,
Filipino
Americans do
not have
anything to
26 1 2 3 4 5 6
complain about
because they
are lucky to be
in the United
States.
I feel that there
are very few
things about the
27 1 2 3 4 5 6
Filipino culture
that I can be
proud of.
The
colonization of
the Philippines
by Spain and
the United
28 1 2 3 4 5 6
States produced
very little
damage to the
Filipino culture.
In general, I
29 1 2 3 4 5 6
feel that being a
237
Filipino is a
curse.
In general, I am
ashamed of
newly-arrived
Filipino
immigrants
30 1 2 3 4 5 6
because of their
inability to
speak fluent,
accent-free
English.
In general, I am
embarrassed of
31 the Filipino 1 2 3 4 5 6
culture and
traditions.
In general, I
make fun of,
tease, or
badmouth
32 Filipinos who 1 2 3 4 5 6
are not very
Americanized
in their
behaviors.
There are
moments when
I wish I was a
member of a
33 1 2 3 4 5 6
ethnic/cultural
group that is
different from
my own.
I make fun of,
tease, or
badmouth
34 Filipinos who 1 2 3 4 5 6
speak English
with strong
accents.
In general, I
feel ashamed of
35 the Filipino 1 2 3 4 5 6
culture and
traditions.
238
In general, I
feel that being a
person of my
36 ethnic/cultural 1 2 3 4 5 6
background is
not as good as
being White.
239
Appendix E
Ethnic Identity Scale (EIS)
The United States is made up of people of various ethnicities. Ethnicity refers to cultural
traditions, beliefs, and behaviors that are passed down through generations. Some examples of
the ethnicities that people may identify with are Mexican, Cuban, Nicaraguan, Chinese,
Taiwanese, Filipino, Jamaican, African American, Haitian, Italian, Irish, and German. In
addition, some people may identify with more than one ethnicity. When you are answering the
following questions, we’d like you to think about what YOU consider your ethnicity to be.
Please select what you consider to be your ethnicity here
__________________________________ and refer to this ethnicity as you answer the questions
below.
Does Describes Describes Describes

not me a little me well me very
describe well
me at
all
My feelings about my ethnicity are
1 1 2 3 4
mostly negative.
I have not participated in any activities
2 1 2 3 4
that would teach me about my ethnicity.
I am clear about what my ethnicity
3 1 2 3 4
means to me.
I have experienced things that reflect my
4 ethnicity, such as eating food, listening 1 2 3 4
to music, and watching movies.
I have attended events that have helped
5 1 2 3 4
me learn more about my ethnicity.
I have read
books/magazines/newspapers or other
6 1 2 3 4
materials that have taught me about my
ethnicity.
7 I feel negatively about my ethnicity. 1 2 3 4
I have participated in activities that have
8 1 2 3 4
exposed me to my ethnicity.
240
9 I wish I were of a different ethnicity. 1 2 3 4
10 I am not happy with my ethnicity. 1 2 3 4
I have learned about my ethnicity by
doing things such as reading (books,
11 magazines, newspapers), searching the 1 2 3 4
internet, or keeping up with current
events.
I understand how I feel about my
12 1 2 3 4
ethnicity.
If I could choose, I would prefer to be of
13 1 2 3 4
a different ethnicity.
14 I know what my ethnicity means to me. 1 2 3 4
I have participated in activities that have
15 1 2 3 4
taught me about my ethnicity.
16 I dislike my ethnicity. 1 2 3 4
I have a clear sense of what my ethnicity
17 1 2 3 4
means to me.
241
Appendix F
Demographics Questionnaire
1. Gender (specify) ____
2. Age (in years) ____
3. Please indicate your sexual orientation: ____
4. Country of birth (specify)
5. Please select the generation status you identify with:
First generation Second generation 1.5 Generation
Third or subsequent Generation Other:_____
6. If you were born outside of the United States, please specify the age at which you immigrated to
the United States: _____
7. Indicate your racial background by choosing from one or more of the following options:
American Indian or Alaska Native Asian
Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
Non-Hispanic White Latino or of Hispanic descent
8. Indicate your ethnicity by choosing the option(s) that best applies to you:
Filipino/a Pinay/Pinoy Filipino/a American Filipinx or Pinxy
Other:____
9. Please select the state you currently reside in: [Dropdown list of 50 U.S. states & territories]
10. How would you describe your current community of residence?
Rural/provincial Suburban Urban Other:_____
11. What is the racial composition of your current community of residence?
Mostly racial/ethnic minority (specify) Mixed Mostly White Other:_____
12. What is your religious affiliation? _____
13. What is your political affiliation? _____
242
14. Have you served (currently or previously) in the U.S. military? Yes No
15. Please list the language(s) you speak or understand, and indicate your level of fluency for each:
____________
No proficiency Elementary Limited Working Professional Working
Full Professional Native or Bilingual Proficiency
16. If you are employed, what is your current occupation? _____
17. What is the best estimate of your annual income before taxes?
Less than $10,000 Between $40,000 and $60,000
Between $10,000 and $20,000 Between $60,000 and $80,000
Between $20,000 and $30,000 Between $80,000 and $100,000
Between $30,000 and $40,000 More than $100,000
Prefer not to answer
18. How would you describe the primary community in which you were raised?
Rural/provincial Suburban Urban Other:_____
19. What is the racial composition of the community in which you were raised?
Mostly racial/ethnic minority (specify) Mixed Mostly White Other:_____
20. Please indicate the Philippine province(s) that your family calls as “home”: _____
21. During my formal education (e.g., K-12, undergraduate studies, graduate studies, vocational
studies), I have taken one or more courses in Asian American studies or Ethnic Studies to learn
about the history, culture, and experiences of Filipinos living in the United States.
Yes No I don’t know
If yes, please specify the number of courses: _____
If no, please rate your level of interest in taking a course:
0 – No interest 1 – little interest 2 – moderate interest 3 – high interest
243
22. During my formal education (e.g., K-12, undergraduate studies, graduate studies, vocational
studies), I have taken one or more courses in Asian studies or another discipline to learn about the
history, culture, and experiences of Filipinos living in the Philippines.
Yes No I don’t know
If yes, please specify the number of courses: _____
If no, please rate your level of interest in taking a course:
0 – No interest 1 – little interest 2 – moderate interest 3 – high interest
23. Please rank these sources of your cultural/ethnic knowledge or upbringing from the following list
in order of influence or importance to you:
Elders in my family (e.g., parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles) Siblings or cousins
Friends, Peers, & Coworkers from the same background
Friends, Peers, & Coworkers from another background Media/Internet/News outlets
Social Media Academic Journals & Publications Formal education courses
Community Workshops & Seminars Other:_____
244

Generation Status Ethnic Identity Colonial Mentality and Encul

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Generation Status Ethnic Identity Colonial Mentality and Encul

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Western Michigan University

Dissertations Graduate College

Generation Status, Ethnic Identity, Colonial Mentality, And

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations

This Dissertation-Open Access is brought to you for free

Kamille P. U. La Rosa, Ph.D.

Western Michigan University, 2022

Filipino Americans’ psychological experiences pertaining to their generation status,

following: examine relationships between the constructs, investigate intergenerational

on cross-disciplinary counseling psychology research of Filipino Americans.

demographic questionnaire. Primary analyses were conducted via multivariate analysis of

variance tests (MANOVA) and canonical correlation analyses.

Results suggested that there are intergenerational differences in ethnic identity

Resolution, and Connection with Homeland, and Interpersonal Norms. Intergenerational

Harmony), Rebolusionaryong Kaisipan (Revolutionary Thinking), and Nahahati sa Kamalayan

Pilipino (Filipino Cultural Wealth), Pakikisama Concerns (Interpersonal Harmony Concerns),

American psychological research.

intergenerational differences in ethnic identity. The study’s main accomplishments include

strengthened construct validity of the CMS and ESFA-S.

A dissertation submitted to the Graduate College

Joseph R. Morris, Ph.D., Chair

the privileges of being able to pay that forward.

Emilie Santos Tumale, and Sylvia Lin.

we’ve laughed, cried, and believed in each other.

Maraming Salamat to my Barangay Group—you’ve helped me remember my “why”

to the completion of my dissertation. You’ve kept me steadfast in my commitment to serving our

communities’ needs and building on our community cultural wealth.

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... xi

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... xii

Experiences of Filipino Americans ..................................................................................... 3

Filipino American Settlement and Immigration History .................................................... 6

First Wave of Filipino American Settlement ............................................................6

Second Wave of Filipino American Immigration ....................................................7

Third Wave of Filipino American Immigration ...................................................... 8

Fourth Wave of Filipino American Immigration .....................................................9

Fifth Wave of Filipino American Immigration ......................................................10

Sixth Wave of Filipino American Immigration ...................................................... 11

Seventh Wave of Filipino American Immigration .................................................12

Mental Health and Stigma Among Filipino Americans .................................................... 13

Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 16

Significance of the Research ................................................................................. 18

Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 19

Research Hypotheses ........................................................................................................ 20

Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................... 21

Outline for the Remainder of the Dissertation .................................................................. 27

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .................................................................................28

Generation Status .............................................................................................................. 28

Generation Status Defined .................................................................................... 28

Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and Generation Status ............................ 29

Generational Differences in Filipino Americans .................................................. 31

Ethnic Identity ................................................................................................................... 36

Ethnic Identity Defined ......................................................................................... 39

Ethnic Identity Models and Theories .....................................................................40

Social Identity Theory ............................................................................... 42

Umaña-Taylor’s Ethnic Identity Model .................................................... 45

Ethnic Identity in Filipino Americans ................................................................... 48

Colonial Mentality ............................................................................................................ 52

Colonial Mentality and Race ................................................................................ 56

Colonial Mentality Development .......................................................................... 58

Colonial Mentality Among Filipinos and Sikolohiyang Pilipino .......................... 59

Enculturation in Diasporic Cultures and Anticolonial Theories ........................... 64

Mental Health Implications of Acculturation and Enculturation .......................... 66

Filipino American Enculturation........................................................................... 67

III. METHOD ................................................................................................................................71