Volume I, Fall 2014 | 17
P S YC H O LO GY
there had been a sufficient number of participants Unless otherwise stated, all analyses used all 83 in the intermediate group, perhaps this question responses, including responses from the intermedi- would have yielded interesting results as moderaate group, to give a more reliable, robust sample size. tor. Taking, for example, a third-generation Chinese American whose parents are second-generation, it would be interesting to see whether the Chinese Identity The six items composing “Chinese identi- parents’ use of Chinese affects their child’s Chity” were reliable, Cronbach’s alpha = .80. The nese identity. The overall effect was not significant adoptees had a higher average score (see Table (p = .67). In the small sample of the intermediate 1 for means), and the difference was significant group, the effect was insignificant as well (p = .68). “Of your closest five friends, are any Chinese? (t (71)= -2.06, p = .04). Nine of the 83 participants, including 2 adoptees and 4 ABCs, had a List their initials.” This question ended up being score below 3.0, indicating low Chinese identity. problematic for two reasons. First, the number of friends was selected in order to convert the responsTable 1: Chinese Identity as a Function of Being an es to a 1-5 scale as with the other questions, but four, not five, friends should have been asked for. ABC or Adoptee With four friends, 0 Chinese friends would convert Mean SD to 1, and 4 friends would convert to 5. Secondly, there was extensive confusion over this question. ABCs 3.69 .647 Many participants listed five initials even if they Adoptees 3.99 .617 indicated that they had no Chinese friends, so it is Moderating Variables. Four additional ques- unclear if they just listed initials of all their close tions in this first section were included to see if they friends, Chinese or not. Thus, this question was would moderate the results of “Chinese identity.” excluded from analysis as a moderating variable. Only the first three were used in analysis. “How often do your parents talk about Chi- American Identity The five items composing “American idennese history or Chinese culture?” Overall, the intity” were reliable (Cronbach’s alpha = .87). The teraction was only marginally significant (p = .08). Split by group, it was significant for the adoptees had a higher average score (see TaABCs (p = .02) but not for the adoptees (p = .72). ble 2 for means), and the difference was sig“Do you speak any Chinese?” The correla- nificant (t(71) = -2.76, p = .007). Only 2 partion between Chinese identity and the ability to ticipants, both ABCs, had scores below 3.0. speak Chinese was stronger for the adoptees because all of the ABCs attend Chinese school and Table 2: American Identity as a Function of Being an thus would speak Chinese. The overall effect was ABC or Adoptee not significant (p = .72). The effect for the adopMean SD tee group was not significant either (p = .29). ABCs 4.014 .472 “Do your parents speak any Chinese?” This 4.444 .535 question was less applicable to the main two groups Adoptees tested because all parents of ABCs speak Chinese American Identity and Chinese Identity. (they are all Chinese immigrants), whereas none of Overall, American identity (M = 4.25) was signifithe adoptees’ parents speak Chinese. If, however, cantly higher than Chinese identity (M = 3.81) in RESULTS