Ethnic identity and orientation to white american culture are linked to well being among american in by Irakli Kavtaradze

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

Original Article

Ethnic Identity and Orientation to White American Culture Are Linked to Well-Being Among American Indians – But in Different Ways David Schiefer1 and Barbara Krahé2 1

Jacobs University Bremen, Germany, 2University of Potsdam, Germany

Abstract. This study examined the relationship between ethnic identity, orientation toward the White mainstream culture, and psychological well-being among American Indians. In the light of the unique history of American Indians, we investigated the relationship between identification with the American Indian ingroup, orientation toward the dominant White American culture (in terms of showing behavior typical for White mainstream culture as well as positive attitudes and feelings of belonging to White American culture), and self-efficacy and learned helplessness as indicators of psychological well-being. Structural equation analyses with an adolescent and an adult sample revealed a positive relationship between ethnic identity and self-efficacy but no link with learned helplessness. The tendency to show behavior typical for White mainstream culture was associated with higher self-efficacy in both samples and with lower helplessness in the adult subsample. White American orientation in the form of positive attitudes and sense of belonging were associated with higher helplessness in both samples and with lower self-efficacy among adults. The findings are discussed in terms of the role of both ethnic identity and the orientation toward the mainstream culture for well-being among American Indians, focusing on the distinct relations of White American behavior versus White American affiliation with well-being in American Indians. Keywords: American Indians, ethnic identity, acculturation, well-being

Ethnic or racial group membership is a significant component of an individual’s identity, reflecting “one’s sense of belonging to an ethnic group and the part of one’s thinking, perception, feelings, and behavior that is due to that ethnic group membership” (Rotheram & Phinney, 1987, p. 13). Ethnic identity comprises self-labeling as a group member, commitment, and emotional attachment to the ingroup, positive evaluations, specific beliefs, values, and behaviors as well as an exploration of one’s own ethnicity (Phinney & Ong, 2007). Similarly, racial identity describes a “sense of group or collective identity based on one’s perception that he or she shares a common racial heritage with a particular racial group” (Helms, 1990, p. 3).1 For racial or ethnic groups who live as a minority in some society there is not only one source of identity, but two: their own ethnic or racial group and the mainstream 1

society dominated by the majority group. In the United States, mainstream society is today still represented by White people of European descent. The challenge of developing a positive sense of identity with the ethnic ingroup and at the same time adapting to the surrounding mainstream culture is obvious with regard to immigrants, but it also applies to racial and ethnic minorities who have lived in the country for long periods of time, such as African Americans and American Indians in the USA. Most research investigating ethnic or racial identity and the orientation to the mainstream society has been conducted with African Americans (see Cross, 1995; Helms, 1990; Sellers, Smith, Shelton, Rowley, & Chavous, 1998) and immigrants (Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006). Fewer studies can be found regarding American Indians, the focus of the present research.2 The situation of American Indians

The terms ethnic identity and racial identity are often used interchangeably but have different connotations. Whereas racial identity refers to the attachment to groups that are determined by phenotypic characteristics such as skin color, ethnic identity refers to the attachment to groups that share a common cultural descent (Pope-Davis, Liu, Ledesma-Jones, & Nevitt, 2000). Throughout this article, we use the term American Indian to denote our target group, as suggested by Beals, Manson, Mitchell, and Spicer (2003) with reference to a joint resolution of the National Congress of American Indians and National Tribal Chairman’s Association in 1977.

Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(1):1–14 DOI: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000155

D. Schiefer & B. Krahé: Well-Being Among American Indians

is best compared to African Americans because, in contrast to immigrants, both groups have been living as minorities in the country for many centuries, have faced historical traumatization by the White European majority (see Duran, Duran, Yellow Horse Brave Heart, & Yellow Horse-Davis, 1998; Utsey, Walker, Dessources, & Bartolomeo, 2005), and today still face status differences and discrimination by the majority society. When we discuss the evidence on the link between ethnic and mainstream identification relevant to our study, we therefore refer primarily to the literature on African Americans and to the literature on immigrants only where appropriate.3 The psychological attachment to both the ethnic ingroup and to mainstream society has been addressed by different lines of research, such as the literature on ethnic and racial identity (Cross, 1995; Helms, 1990; Phinney, 1990), on bicultural identities (e.g., Benet-Martinez & Haritatos, 2005; LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993; Oetting & Beauvais, 1991) as well as on acculturation (e.g., Berry, 1997; Ward, 1996).4 The latter body of research deals mainly with immigrants, focusing on changes in ethnic identity and their adaptation to the new environment after moving to a new country. The former also include resident ethnic minorities such as African Americans (e.g., Cross, 1995; Sellers et al., 1998) or American Indians (e.g., Garrett & Pichette, 2000; Kvernmo, 2006) and their way of handling the two group identities. Two commonalities can be found in these lines of research. First, we find the idea that affiliation with the ethnic or racial ingroup and the mainstream society form independent dimensions of a person’s identity (Berry, 1997; Cole & Arriola, 2007; Oetting & Beauvais, 1991); one can be highly attached to only one group, to both groups, or to neither. Second, both dimensions of identity play an important role for the well-being of members of ethnic or racial minority groups (Phinney, Horenczyk, Liebkind, & Vedder, 2001; Seaton, Scottham, & Sellers, 2006; Umaña-Taylor & Shin, 2007). Numerous studies showed, for example, that the development of a black identity provides a source for well-being for African Americans – and also serves as a protective factor against racial discrimination (Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999; Sellers, Copeland-Linder, Martin, & Lewis, 2006). The same positive link between ethnic identity and well-being has been found for immigrants (e.g., Sam, Vedder, Ward, & Horenczyk, 2006). Furthermore, there is some evidence that being positively attached to mainstream society – in addition to identifying with the ethnic or racial ingroup – is also linked to higher well-being (Phinney et al., 2001). However, other authors, for example, Gong (2007) and 3

Phinney, Cantu, and Kurtz (1997), found that, for African Americans, only their black ingroup identification predicted well-being – not their identification with the mainstream society.

Ethnic Identity, Orientation Toward the Mainstream Society and Well-Being: The Case of American Indians In line with the findings on immigrants and African Americans, several authors argued that, for American Indians, too, a positive attachment to both the ethnic ingroup and the dominant (White) American society is beneficial to well-being (e.g., LaFromboise, Hoyt, Oliver, & Whitbeck, 2006; Oetting & Beauvais, 1991). However, empirical support for this proposition is mixed (House, Stiffman, & Brown, 2006; Jones & Galliher, 2007): Some studies found positive relations between ethnic identity, orientation toward the mainstream society and various indicators of well-being (e.g., LaFromboise, Albright, & Harris, 2010; Martinez & Dukes, 1997; Moran, Fleming, Somervell, & Manson, 1999; Oetting & Beauvais, 1991), whereas other studies showed nonsignificant or even negative associations (Adams, Fryberg, Garcia, & Delgado-Torres, 2006; Brown & Smirles, 2005; LaFromboise, Medoff, Lee, & Harris, 2007). Conceptualizing the relationship between American Indian identity, the orientation toward the White American society, and well-being in American Indians requires an analysis of the present situation of this group in a historical context. The history of the American Indians in the United States was essentially a struggle to defend and retain autonomy from the White European immigrants, an ultimately unsuccessful struggle. The colonization process by the White European immigrants started off as a genocide (Kvernmo, 2006), followed by attempts to assimilate the native population, to destroy their culture, and to turn them into “civilized” people. Or, as Garette and Pichette (2000) put it, to “kill the Indian, but save the man” (p. 4). For American Indians, identifying with their cultural group also means coming to terms with this collective experience of oppression and humiliation (Yellow Horse Brave Heart, 1998). This historical fate, together with the present experience of prejudice and discrimination, are seen as profoundly affecting their sense of identification and personal well-being (Duran et al., 1998; Walls & Whitbeck, 2011). Handling a life in two cultures with divergent world views, normative expectations, and value systems is a par-

Although less applicable to the current group under scrutiny than the literature on African Americans, the literature on immigrants is important for our study because issues of the identification with the majority society in particular have rarely been addressed in the literature on African Americans (see Gong, 2007). Another line of research that addresses multiple identities deals with relationships between minority groups that identify with a common superordinate ingroup (e.g., two ethnic minorities living in the same country) and how that common ingroup identity improves their relationship (see work by Gaertner, Rust, Dovidio, & Bachman, 1994; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000). This literature is not pertinent to the present study, which investigates the well-being of American Indians as a low-status group and not the relationship of American Indians with another minority group.

Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(1):1–14

D. Schiefer & B. Krahé: Well-Being Among American Indians

ticularly difficult task for American Indians, given that the dominant group of White-European origin is the same group that has oppressed them in the past and from which they still experience prejudice and discrimination (Garrett & Pichette, 2000; Kvernmo, 2006). American Indians are often described as being “stranded between two cultures” (LaFromboise & Bigfoot, 1988, p. 164), resulting in feelings of marginalization, alienation, and internal conflict (Garrett & Pichette, 2000). Several theories suggest that this unique historical context is important to understanding the role of ethnic identity and orientation toward the (White) majority society for American Indians’ well-being. They suggest a more critical perspective than conveyed by the research on ethnic and bicultural identity discussed earlier. First, social identity theory (SIT, Tajfel, 1981; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) postulates that an individual’s sense of self-esteem is partly derived from their identification with groups to which they belong (Tajfel, 1981). The theory proposes that individuals have a desire to maintain positive self-esteem by identifying with groups to which they belong and by establishing the ingroup’s positive distinctiveness (claiming that it is superior to the outgroup). However, if the ingroup is characterized by negative attributes, for example, a low socioeconomic status, group membership can be a threat to a positive self-image (Tajfel, 1981). Members of oppressed groups may include the negative attributes into their group-based selfconcept and develop a negative social identity or self-devaluation (Phinney, 1989). Second, ethnic identity development theory (Phinney, 1989), which is based on SIT, claims that members of ethnic minorities go through a period of identity exploration, which is particularly salient in adolescence. In this process, they search for answers to the question “Who am I?” in order to understand what the membership in the group means for their personal life (see also French, Seidman, LaRue, & Aber, 2006; Newman, 2005). For American Indians, ethnic identity exploration requires dealing with the historical experience of loss and oppression and the implications thereof for their own life (Evans-Campbell, 2008; Jervis et al., 2006; Yellow Horse Brave Heart, 1998). Feeling part of a group about which one has learned that it lost its autonomy to an outgroup and has never fully regained it might be detrimental to a positive self-perception. Third, the special challenges involved in identity formation for American Indians can be conceptualized from the perspective of research on social stigma. A group is described as socially stigmatized when negative, devaluating attitudes and beliefs about the group are widely shared by the surrounding outgroups, and when the group is denied social and economic participation (Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998; Dovidio, Major, & Crocker, 2000; Major & O’Brien, 2005). Numerous studies that investigated how membership of a stigmatized group affects well-being found that the more individuals perceive the group membership as an important part of their identity, the more they perceive stigmatization and discrimination toward their © 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

group as a threat to their self-esteem and personal well-being (Major & O’Brien, 2005; McCoy & Major, 2003). American Indians have historically been stigmatized as the “underdeveloped” or “uncivilized” people (e.g., Garrett & Pichette, 2000), and even today they experience stigmabased discrimination. Assuming that stronger group identification makes individuals more vulnerable to groupbased stigmatization, a stronger identification with the American Indian ingroup should – according to social stigma theory – be associated with poorer well-being. Besides the identification with the ingroup, the theories outlined above also have implications for conceptualizing the relationship of ethnic minority members to the dominant outgroup. They suggest that, when the ingroup is oppressed and devalued by the surrounding majority society, minority members are unlikely to develop a positive attitude and sense of belonging to the majority. They will more likely show ingroup favoritism and hostility toward the majority (Branscombe et al., 1999). In conclusion, social identity theory, ethnic identity development theory, and social stigma theory suggest that preserving their cultural heritage, but also affiliating with the culture of the group that has historically oppressed them and stigmatizes them until today poses particular challenges for American Indians.

The Current Study: A Focus on Personal Control – Self-Efficacy and Learned Helplessness The research traditions outlined so far suggest different answers to the question of how the identification with their ethnic ingroup and the orientation toward the dominant White culture are linked to well-being among American Indians. Whereas research on ethnic and bicultural identity, conducted mostly with African American and immigrant groups, points to a positive link between both facets of identity and well-being, the social psychological models of social identity, ethnic identity development, and social stigma suggest that identifying with a low-status minority may have negative implications for well-being. The current study was designed to empirically examine these contrasting perspectives in a sample of adolescent and adult American Indians. Similar to LaFromboise et al. (2010), we focus on personal control as an important indicator of psychological well-being, something that has received little attention in past research (Maddux & Gosselin, 2003; Peterson, 1999). Broadly speaking, personal control designates the subjective ability to master one’s own life. In order to develop a sense of identification with both the American Indian ingroup and the White American outgroup, American Indians need to come to terms with the historical experience of oppression and disempowerment by the dominant majority. This makes the construct of control (“I am in charge of my life”) a crucial aspect of American Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(1):1–14

D. Schiefer & B. Krahé: Well-Being Among American Indians

Indians’ identity formation (Talbert, 1996). Our focus on personal control is informed by the needs-based model of reconciliation (Shnabel & Nadler, 2008). According to this model, groups that have gone through a longer period of oppression and victimization experience an impaired sense of power and control, which are viewed as important emotional resources. A lack of power and control is associated with poorer well-being and with a strong need to regain them. The current study examined self-efficacy and learned helplessness as two indicators of personal control. Selfefficacy describes individuals’ belief that they are able to deal effectively with the challenges and problems in life through their own actions (Bandura, 1997; Maddux & Gosselin, 2003). This belief is the result of a learning process: The experience of being able to perform a certain action that, in turn, is necessary to reach a certain goal strengthens a person’s sense of self-efficacy. In a related vein, the construct of learned helplessness refers to the experience of a noncontingency between one’s actions and their intended effects, which gives rise to emotional, cognitive, and behavioral helplessness (Seligman, 1975). Noncontingency means that one’s actions and desired outcomes do not occur together. The realization that one’s actions do not lead to a desired goal despite the person’s best efforts results in a state of helplessness associated with cognitive, affective, and behavioral deficits. Although conceptually related, self-efficacy and learned helplessness differ in an important aspect: Selfefficacy focuses on the belief that the person has the ability to produce a particular response (self-response expectancy), whereas learned helplessness theory focuses on the experience that a particular response does not produce an expected outcome (response-outcome expectancy; Davis & Yates, 1982; Maddux & Gosselin, 2003). Thus, both constructs refer to an individual’s perceived sense of control – and they should be negatively correlated – but in fact they address different aspects of control beliefs. Maddux, Norton, and Stoltenberg (1986) empirically demonstrated that self-efficacy and outcome expectancies are not redundant and argue that both need to be differentiated. Shnek, Irvine, Stewart, and Abbey (2001) found a moderate negative relationship (r = –.42) between the two constructs.

Hypotheses The current study was designed to examine the role of ethnic identity and orientation toward the White mainstream society for the psychological well-being of American Indians. Two contrasting sets of hypotheses were tested: – Hypothesis 1: Based on the literature on ethnic and racial as well as bicultural (minority and majority) identity, we examined the proposition that the positive links of ethnic identity and orientation toward the mainstream society Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(1):1–14

with well-being, which has been documented for both immigrants and resident African Americans, would also be found for the resident minority of American Indians. Focusing on personal control as an indicator of well-being, we hypothesized that the more American Indians identify with their ethnic group, the higher their self-efficacy and the lower their learned helplessness would be (Hypothesis 1a). A strong affiliation with the American Indian culture indicates that individuals have constructively dealt with both the positive and negative aspects of their heritage and incorporated American Indian group membership into their self-concept. Parallel predictions were made with regard to the orientation toward the dominant White American culture. We predicted that being adapted to, and feeling affiliated with, the dominant society would be associated with an enhanced sense of selfefficacy and lower levels of learned helplessness, because an understanding of the mainstream group and an orientation toward its cultural practices is required for successful participation in society dominated by the majority group (Hypothesis 1b). – Hypothesis 2: Reflecting the assumption of SIT, ethnic identity development theory, and the literature on social stigma that membership in a negatively valued group potentially undermines a positive social identity and reduces affiliation with the outgroup, we tested the propositions of negative associations between ethnic identity as well as orientation toward White American culture and well-being. Hypotheses 2a and 2b predicted that a strong sense of ethnic identity as well as an affiliation with the majority culture would be associated with lower self-efficacy and higher learned helplessness.

Exploration of Age-Related Patterns Identity development is a crucial task in adolescence, and its meaning for psychological well-being is especially salient during this sensitive life period (Erikson, 1959; Marcia, 1966). However, coming to terms with different ethnic affiliations is a lifelong dynamic process (Cross, 1995; Phinney, 2000). Age-related patterns of ethnic identity, White American orientation, and well-being among American Indians have rarely been studied in previous research. It might be argued that the potential conflict between ethnic identity as an American Indian and the need to adapt to the dominant White group is more salient in adolescents, who are only beginning to define themselves in relation to both of these groups. Conversely, it could be argued that adults have come to see their ethnic identity as well as their relationship to the White American group in more ambivalent terms, reflecting the historical experiences, and may therefore be less able to use ethnic identity and White American orientation as personal resources. By including a sample with a wide age range, the present study was able to address this issue. © 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

D. Schiefer & B. Krahé: Well-Being Among American Indians

Method

Permission to submit the findings for publication was obtained in writing from the tribal chairman.

Participants The sample comprised 342 participants (169 males, 168 females, 5 did not report their gender) with a mean age of 26.8 years (SD = 16.25, range 13–87) from a Northern Plain Indian Reservation in the United States.5 Adolescent participants under the age of 18 (n = 181, 88 male, 89 female, 4 did not report their gender) were recruited from the three high schools on the reservation that were exclusively attended by tribal members. The mean age of the adolescent sample was 15.4 years (SD = 1.27, range 13–18). Adult participants aged 18 and above were recruited at the reservation’s main supermarket. The adult sample consisted of 161 individuals (81 male, 79 female, 1 did not report gender) with an average age of 40.1 years (SD = 15.49, range 18–87). All participants identified themselves as American Indian or of mixed heritage with an American Indian background. The adolescent sample completed the questionnaire during school hours. The adult participants were approached individually at the supermarket and completed the questionnaire on site. Responses to the questionnaire were given anonymously.

Background and Procedure The idea for this study was developed during an 8-month voluntary service by the first author in a children’s center on the reservation. In the course of this stay, contacts were established with the tribe’s Board of Education as well as with senior representatives of the tribe. The study was conducted in close liaison with the tribal officials. Support for the study was secured from the aforementioned senior members of the tribe, the Board of Education, and the school principles. Parental consent was obtained for the student sample, and assent was also obtained from the participants themselves. For the adult data, permission was obtained from the supermarket owner. In both samples, it was stressed that participation was voluntary and could be terminated at any time. The Northern Plain Indian Reservation in which the study was conducted covers two counties of the corresponding state. In both counties, American Indians form around 75% of the population (United States Census Bureau, 2010). The reservation’s average socioeconomic status is very low. The median household income in the two counties is roughly half the US average, with 34% respectively 50% of the individuals living below the poverty line (compared to 12.4% of the total US population; United States Census Bureau, 2010). Upon completion of the study, a detailed summary of the findings was sent to the school principals by request. In addition, the summary was sent to the tribal government. 5

Instruments Four instruments were used to measure (1) ethnic identity, (2) orientation to the White American culture, (3) self-efficacy, and (4) learned helplessness. Responses to all instruments were made on five-point scales ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

American Indian Identity The Ethnic Identity subscale of the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM, Phinney, 1992) was used to measure the extent to which participants identified with their American Indian ingroup. It has been widely used to measure ethnic identity across different ethnic groups with good reliability (α = .81–.90, Phinney, 1992). We selected this measure rather than a scale specifically designed for the group of American Indians (e.g., Zimmerman, Ramirez-Valles, Washienko, Walter, & Dyer, 1996) to make the present data comparable to previous research on ethnic identification with immigrant groups. In the items, the words “my ethnic group” were replaced by the words “the [name of the tribe] people.” The scale consisted of 14 items representing self-identification (“My ethnicity is [. . .]”), (2) affirmation and belonging (e.g., “I have a strong sense of belonging to [. . .]”), ethnic behavior (e.g., “I am active in organizations or social groups that include [. . .]”), the degree of exploration (e.g., “I have spent time trying to find out more about [. . .]”) and commitment (e.g., “I have a clear sense of my [. . .] background”).

White American Orientation Orientation toward the White American culture was measured with the General Ethnicity Questionnaire (GEQ, Tsai, Ying, & Lee, 2000). A reduced version of the subscale assessing American orientation (comprising 22 items) was used, excluding items that referred to command of English and use of English language media. Because the vast majority of the tribe members speak English as their mother tongue and all media available to them are in English, these items were not meaningful for this group. The shortened scale addressed social affiliations (“I prefer to live in an American Community.”), social interactions with Americans (“When I spend time with or talk to my friends and relatives, it is in a way that is American.”), typical American activities (“I engage in American forms of recreation.”), eating habits (“I eat

Because of the sensitive nature of research on American Indians (see Trimble, 2008), the term Northern Plain Indians is used to provide maximum confidentiality.

Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(1):1–14

D. Schiefer & B. Krahé: Well-Being Among American Indians

American food.”) and pride in American culture (“I am proud of American culture.”). The scale was found to be highly reliable in past research (α = .92, Tsai et al., 2000). In addition, the word “American” designating the reference group was replaced by “White American” (LaFromboise et al., 2010, pursue a similar approach). This was done to avoid confusion over nationality, but also because the term “White American” is commonly used in American Indian communities to refer to the American majority of European descent (see Garrett & Pichette, 2000).

Well-Being Two constructs referring to personal control were used as indicators of well-being. Self-efficacy was measured by the 10-item General Perceived Self-Efficacy Scale (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995). An example item is “I can solve most problems if I try hard enough.” The scale was found to be highly reliable (Rimm & Jerusalem, 1999). Learned helplessness was measured by the Learned Helplessness Scale (Quinless & McDermott Nelson, 1988). This 20-item scale comprises statements that give internal, global and stable reasons for failure (e.g., lack of ability) and external reasons for success (e.g., luck). It also includes statements indicating feelings of uncontrollability (e.g., “No matter how hard I try, I have no control over the outcome.”) as well as lacking motivation to invest effort (e.g., “When I do not succeed in a task, I will not attempt any similar task because I will fail them also.”). Quinless and McDermott-Nelson (1988) reported a reliability of α = .85.

Results Factorial Structure of the Instruments All scales were examined regarding their factorial structures prior to testing the hypotheses, performing exploratory factor analyses (EFA) using SPSS 16 (SPSS Inc., 2007) followed by confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) using AMOS 6 (Arbuckle, 2005). To evaluate the model fit of the CFA, the χ2 coefficient as well as the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) and the root mean square

error of approximation (RMSEA) were used. The use of SRMR and RMSEA is recommended to detect possible model misspecification with sufficient sensitivity (Hu & Bentler, 1999; McCallum, & Austin, 2000). A good model fit is indicated by SRMR < .08, and RMSEA < .06 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Regarding the MEIM, the EFA revealed that two reversely coded items (high agreement indicating low ethnic identity) loaded on a separate factor. They were excluded from the scale. The remaining 12 items loaded on a single factor explaining 52.7% (λ = 6.33) of the variance. The CFA confirmed the one-factor solution, χ2 = 138.03 (54), p < .01; SRMR = .04; RMSEA = .07. Yet, to improve the model, modification indices were checked, which suggested two pairs of error terms to correlate. These modifications improved the model fit, χ2 = 106.42 (52), p < .01; SRMR = .03; RMSEA = .05. The scale showed a good reliability of α = .91. For the GEQ, the EFA also revealed that two reversely coded items loaded on a separate factor. In addition, four items had high loadings on more than one factor. These six items were excluded from the scale to establish a clearer factor structure. The remaining 16 items formed two factors: Eight items addressing affiliation and attitudes loaded on one factor explaining 12.23% (λ = 1.96) of the variance. Eight items measuring behavioral aspects loaded on a second factor accounting for 39.55% (λ = 6.33) of the variance. Testing that two-factor solution in a CFA resulted in an acceptable fit to the data, χ2 = 318.34 (103), p < .01; SRMR = .06; RMSEA = .08. Again, modification indices suggested a number of error terms to correlate, which led to an improved model fit, χ2 = 207.45 (98), p < .01; SRMR = .05; RMSEA = .06. The subscales showed a high reliability (α = .89 for the behavior and α = .83 for the affiliation scale). An EFA for the self-efficacy items revealed a one-factor solution (43.17% explained variance, λ = 3.89). One selfefficacy item was dropped because it strongly loaded on a second factor. The one-factor solution showed a satisfactory fit with the data, χ2 = 45.84 (27), p < .05, SRMR = .035; RMSEA = .045. An EFA with the items assessing learned helplessness suggested one factor which explained 40.22% (λ = 8.04) of the variance. The CFA confirmed the one-factor structure. χ2 = 368.37 (152), p < .01; SRMR = .047; RMSEA = .065.

Table 1. Means (SD) and two-tailed zero-order correlations (1) Age

(1)

26.80

16.20

–

(2)

(3)

(4)

(2) American Indian identity

4.11

0.64

.36**

–

(3) White American affiliation

2.55

0.72

.11*

–.20*

(4) White American behavior

3.48

0.77

.14*

.07

.50**

–

(5) Learned helplessness

2.72

0.69

–.15*

–.11*

.32**

–.03

(6) Self-efficacy 3.82 Note. All scale ranges 1–5. *p < .05, **p < .01. Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(1):1–14

0.59

.32**

.50**

(5)

(6)

–

.01

.31**

– –.20**

–

D. Schiefer & B. Krahé: Well-Being Among American Indians

The reliability scores were α = .83 for self-efficacy, and α = .92 for learned helplessness.

Descriptive Statistics Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations of all variables included in the analyses. A MANOVA examining gender differences did not find a significant multivariate effect across the four scales, F(5, 331) = 0.54, p = .75. Gender was therefore not included in the subsequent analyses. The mean for American Indian identity was at the high end of the scale, whereas the mean for White American affiliation was below the scale midpoint. The mean for White American behavior fell in between. Self-efficacy beliefs were relatively high, but there was also evidence of a moderate level of learned helplessness. Table 1 also presents the bivariate correlations between the variables. As expected, the two aspects of White American orientation were substantially but not perfectly correlated, suggesting that they represent related, but distinguishable constructs. American Indian identity and White American affiliation were moderately correlated, but no correlation emerged with White American behavior, again corroborating the distinction between the two aspects of White American orientation. American Indian identity positively correlated with self-efficacy and negatively with learned helplessness. White American affiliation positively correlated with learned helplessness, but was unrelated to self-efficacy, whereas White American behavior positively correlated with self-efficacy and was unrelated to learned helplessness. Finally, age was significantly related to all other variables, pointing to the need to include this variable in the structural equation model.

Structural Equation Models A structural equation analysis was conducted to examine the proposed relationships of ethnic identity and White American affiliation and behavior with self-efficacy and learned helplessness. In addition, age was included in the model and was allowed to correlate with all other variables. The latent factors were modeled in accordance to the CFA’s (including the aforementioned correlations of error terms). American Indian identity and White American affiliation were allowed to correlate. Model estimations for the total sample resulted in an acceptable fit with the data; χ2 = 2544.07 (1,517), p < .01; RMSEA = .045; SRMR = .06. As shown in Figure 1, there was a significant positive relation between American Indian identity and self-efficacy, but no significant association with learned helplessness. White American behavior was significantly associated with both lower helplessness and higher self-efficacy. White American affiliation was significantly related to an increased level of learned helplessness and un© 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

Figure 1. Links between American Indian identity and White American orientation with learned helplessness and self-efficacy – total sample (N = 342). **p < .01, *p < .05, †p < .08. Dashes lines indicate nonsignificant paths that refer to the hypotheses. related to self-efficacy. Because age was significantly associated with all but one variable under scrutiny, we additionally performed a multigroup analysis, comparing the adolescent and adult subsamples. Using the age of 18 as a cutoff point, 181 participants fell into the subsample of adolescents, and 161 participants formed the adult subsample. This cutoff is meaningful, considering the fact that this age marks the transition from adolescence to adulthood (Arnett, 2003). Before testing the multigroup model, we checked whether the scales measured their underlying constructs comparably in both subsamples. This was required to ensure that the measures tapped into the same constructs in both groups (e.g., Arends-Toth & van de Vijver, 2006). A model constraining all measurement weights to be equal across both subsamples was compared to a model allowing the measurement weights to vary freely. The equality constraint did not worsen the model fit, Δχ2 = 48.23, Δdf = 51, p = .58 (implying that the model assuming no measurement differences between the samples had no worse fit than a model assuming differences). Next, we tested whether age as a covariate showed similar relationships with the main variables in both age groups. This test was performed because the distribution of age was different in the both samples (13–17 years in the adolescent sample vs. 18–87 years in the adult sample, see Method section). A model constraining the paths from age to all other variables to be equal in both groups revealed a slightly poorer fit than the model with unconstrained paths from age to the other variables, Δχ2 = 10.29, Δdf = 4, p < .05, indicating that age is differently related to the other constructs under scrutiny in the two age groups. Hence, we allowed the path coefficients from age to all other variables to vary between the adolescent and the adult subsample. Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(1):1–14

D. Schiefer & B. Krahé: Well-Being Among American Indians

Figure 2. Interrelations of American Indian identity and White American orientation with learned helplessness and self-efficacy – adolescent sample (N = 181). **p < .01, *p < .05, †p < .08. Dashes lines indicate nonsignificant paths that refer to the hypotheses.

helplessness. Age was related only to learned helplessness. Among the adults, American Indian identity was also associated only with self-efficacy. White American behavior was significantly related to both higher self-efficacy and lower helplessness. White American affiliation showed a strong association with higher learned helplessness and reduced self-efficacy. Age was associated only with American Indian identity. A comparison of the two age groups for each path that was significant in at least one subsample indicated a stronger relationship between White American affiliation and learned helplessness in the adult sample (.86) compared to the adolescent sample (.33), Δχ2 = 14.34, Δdf = 1, p < .01. The path from White American Affiliation to self-efficacy was also stronger in the adult sample (–.37) compared to the adolescent sample (no significant path), Δχ2 = 13.44, Δdf = 1, p < .01. The path from White American behavior to self-efficacy was significantly stronger among the adults (.49) compared to the adolescents (.26), Δχ2 = 4.36, Δdf = 1, p < .05, and the path from White American behavior to learned helplessness was also stronger among the adults (–.48) compared to the adolescents (no significant path), Δχ2 = 7.07, Δdf = 1, p < .01. The relationship of American Indian identity with self-efficacy and learned helplessness did not differ significantly between the subsamples.

Discussion

Figure 3. Interrelations of American Indian identity and White American orientation with learned helplessness and self-efficacy – adult sample (N = 161). **p < .01, *p < .05, †p < .08. Dashes lines indicate nonsignificant paths that refer to the hypotheses. The multigroup model including both subsamples revealed a satisfactory fit with the data, χ2 = 4592.83 (3034), p < .01; RMSEA = .039; SRMR = .075. Figure 2 and Figure 3 depict the paths for both samples. Among the adolescents, American Indian identity was positively associated with self-efficacy, but unrelated to learned helplessness. Similarly, White American behavior was related only to self-efficacy. White American affiliation was unrelated to self-efficacy, but was associated with a higher level of learned Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(1):1–14

The present study examined the relationship of American Indian identity and orientation toward the White American culture with self-efficacy and learned helplessness as two indicators of psychological well-being among members of a Northern Plain Indian tribe – an ethnic minority group that is underrepresented in psychological research. Two contrasting sets of predictions were tested concerning the positive versus negative associations of ethnic identity, and White American orientation with self-efficacy and learned helplessness. Overall, the findings are more consistent with the predictions of positive relationships derived from the literature on ethnic and racial identity as well as bicultural identity construction. Support for a negative association of these identity facets with well-being derived from social psychological models of social identity, ethnic identity development, and social stigma was only supported with regard to one subdimension of White American orientation. As predicted in Hypothesis 1a, Higher American Indian identification was associated with a higher sense of self-efficacy. This finding, although correlational, is compatible with the argument that ethnic identity is a protective factor for members of the American Indian group, corroborating past research with other resident minorities such as African Americans (see, e.g., Landrine & Klonoff, 1996; Miller & MacIntosh, 1999; Postmes & Branscombe, 2002). Several authors have pointed out that preserving the American Indian cultural practices, values, and beliefs may strengthen © 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

D. Schiefer & B. Krahé: Well-Being Among American Indians

resilience (see LaFromboise et al., 2006; Reynolds, Quevillon, Boyd, & Mackey, 2006; Zimmerman et al., 1996). However, in our data the positive link was found only for self-efficacy, which represents the self-response expectancy (i.e., the belief that one is able to perform certain actions that will potentially lead to intended outcomes; Davis & Yates, 1982; Maddux & Gosselin, 2003), but not for learned helplessness, which represents the response-outcome expectancy (i.e., the belief that certain actions will lead to the intended outcome). This pattern suggests that participants with a higher level of American Indian identification are more confident about their internal resources than those with a lower level, even though they do not have a stronger belief that their actions lead to desired outcomes. This pattern for the two indicators of well-being is difficult to interpret. The average level of learned helplessness is rather low in both samples, which speaks against the possible interpretation that high identifiers still see obstacles in the outside world that they cannot control (such as discrimination). Nevertheless, one reason why American Indian identity (as a personal resource) does not affect the response-outcome link might lie in this link being located more externally to the person compared to the self-response link, which is located more inside the person (and thus affected more by personal resources, such as ethnic identity). Regarding the relationship with the dominant White majority, the present study distinguished between White American orientation at the behavioral level (White American behavior) and at the level of psychological closeness and positive evaluation (White American affiliation), a distinction that turned out to be crucial. As a general pattern, it was found that engaging in White American behavior was associated with a higher level of self-efficacy and a lower level of learned helplessness, supporting Hypothesis 1b. White American affiliation, in contrast, was associated with higher levels of learned helplessness, and among adults also lower levels of self-efficacy, supporting Hypothesis 2b. The finding of a positive link between White American behavior and personal control confirms previous results on bicultural identities, showing that a successful participation in the majority society’s everyday social life – in addition to the affiliation with the minority group – is important for psychological functioning (see LaFromboise et al., 1993). The ability to behave like the dominant outgroup can be a useful competence and should therefore promote self-efficacy and reduce helplessness. Ward (1996) distinguished sociocultural from psychological adaptation. Sociocultural adaptation describes the competence to manage everyday life in the culturally different environment, whereas psychological adaptation refers to psychological well-being. The latent construct of White American behavior found in the present study refers to Ward’s dimension of sociocultural adaption. Interpreting the directionality of the relationship between White American affiliation and diminished feelings of con6

trol is not easy due to the cross-sectional nature of our data that precludes any causal inference. On the one hand, identification with the dominant majority could lead individuals to see themselves as having less control over their lives, realizing their subordinate status and learning that to whatever degree they attempt to participate in the mainstream society, it will never be possible to become a fully integrated member. The literature on dual identities of ethnic or racial minority members suggests that the orientation toward the majority society comprises feelings of attachment but also the desire to fit in and be accepted by the majority (Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 2002; Gong, 2007)6 Experiencing exclusion while desiring to be accepted by the dominant society may give rise to feelings of alienation and internal conflict (LaFromboise et al., 2010). Conversely, individuals who feel more helpless (e.g., due to poverty) might dissociate themselves from their ethnic heritage and be more inclined to identify with the White majority. Previous literature on African Americans has documented cases of outgroup favoritism (i.e., preferring the White outgroup over the Black ingroup; Dasgupta, 2004; Livingston, 2002; Major & O’Brien, 2005). Such a striving for social mobility – the attempt to leave the low-status ingroup and affiliate with the group of higher status – was described by social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). This interpretation is supported by the finding that American Indian identification and White American affiliation were negatively correlated, suggesting that a move toward the mainstream culture is linked to a move away from one’s original ethnic group. Both interpretations are plausible and deserve further examination in longitudinal research. Both White American behavior and White American affiliation are subfacets of the same construct (orientation to White American mainstream culture) and also correlate positively with each other. Hence, why do they relate differently to well-being? One possible answer is that the two constructs, although related, have different meanings to American Indians and differ in their functional significance as far as well-being is concerned. The behavior subfacet captures the lifestyle of White American mainstream culture. This lifestyle is most likely taken for granted by American Indians, because they are born into a society in which, for example, nearly all media is in English and music styles, food, and everyday activities are largely shaped by White American culture. Hence, adopting behavior that represents White American culture is an almost natural instance for American Indians. It may furthermore be seen as adaptive to well-being because it enables American Indians to function in the mainstream culture and relate to majority members with whom they share a community. In contrast, being emotionally attached to and identifying with the White American mainstream culture is less selfevident. It requires dealing with historical traumatization and contemporary discrimination to a much greater extent than adopting mainstream everyday behavior. It may there-

This understanding of majority group identification differs conceptually from identification with the minority ingroup, which has a stronger focus on sense of belonging, pride, and happiness about one’s ingroup (Gong, 2007; see also Tsai et al., 2000).

Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(1):1–14

D. Schiefer & B. Krahé: Well-Being Among American Indians

fore be maladaptive in terms of well-being making internal conflicts and reduced feelings of control more likely. The comparative analyses of the adolescent and adult subsamples yielded several interesting findings. Generally, where differences in the strengths of the associations were found, all were in the direction of stronger links in the adult sample. Adults showed significantly stronger associations between higher White American affiliation on the one hand, and higher helplessness as well as lower self-efficacy on the other. Adults also showed a stronger link between White American behavior and higher self-efficacy as well as lower learned helplessness. No difference was found between the two age groups on the link between American Indian identity and the control measures. These findings suggest that individual differences in behavioral adaptation to and psychological affiliation with the dominant White outgroup are more important for understanding well-being among adults compared to adolescents. By way of a tentative explanation, one could argue that our adolescent sample still in school was less exposed to the challenges of interacting with the White American mainstream, for example, finding a job or dealing with authorities. They may yet have to encounter the experience of tension between two cultures as described by La Fromboise and Bigfoot (1988): “As they enter the adult world American Indian adolescents are often presented with the reality of feeling stranded between two cultures” (p. 146). Perhaps the more active participation in the White majority society by participants in the adult sample explains the stronger links found in this subgroup. However, whether this is a generation effect or the result of developmental changes cannot be decided on the basis of the present data. A combined longitudinal and cohort design would be required to disentangle the influence of intraindividual development and historical change. The present findings have some implications for the development of intervention and treatment programs for American Indians. The positive association between American Indian identification and feelings of personal control suggests that incorporating the aspect of American Indian cultural identity into treatment programs may be a fruitful approach in promoting well-being in this group.7 As Moran et al. (1999) noted, American Indian communities strive to reduce social problems by promoting a positive awareness of their Indian heritage through the teaching of Indian values, introducing their history from a tribal perspective, and teaching about contemporary issues of tribal communities. Moran and Bussey (2007), for example, introduced an alcohol-prevention program incorporating the teaching of American Indian values and practices as a module. Interestingly, they found a significant increase in feelings of internal control among participants compared to a no-intervention group. 7

Future Research Questions Our study investigated the separate contributions of American Indian identity and White American orientation to individual well-being. However, although this approach is informative for understanding the distinct role of these identity facets for well-being, additional insights might be provided by investigating the interaction of both identities with regard to their relationship to well-being. White American affiliation might, for example, be related differently to well-being depending on the level of American Indian identification. Benet-Martínez, Leu, Lee, and Morris (2002), for example, suggested that individuals develop a bicultural identity in which both identities are either compatible or conflicting. Being highly identified with both groups and seeing both as compatible is more beneficial for well-being that being highly identified with both but seeing them as conflicting (Chen, Benet Martínez, & Harris Bond, 2008). Furthermore, bicultural identities can have different “qualities” (e.g., blended, fused, alternating; see LaFromboise et al., 1993; Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997), which can be linked differentially to well-being. The degree of conflict between both identity dimensions could also be an explanation for the age-related patterns in our findings. The perception of incompatibilities between American Indian and White American identification may become more salient over time and with increasing participation in mainstream society. The same argument could be made for American Indians living in larger cities with a nonnative majority compared with those living on (mostly geographically isolated) reservations. For the former group, issues such as being a member of a (low-status) ethnic minority and facing obstacles when attempting to participate in the mainstream society are likely to be more salient in everyday life. As a result, both identities could be more closely related to well-being (positively or negatively). They could also more strongly interact with respect to their relation with wellbeing since they might be viewed as being more in conflict (see, e.g., Cole & Arriola, 2007, for the situation of African American students in White-dominated universities). These more complex associations need to be investigated in future studies.

Limitations Some limitations about the present findings should be noted. First, the correlational design of the study precluded the testing of hypotheses about the causal sequence

It is worth noting, however, that mean levels of self-efficacy were relatively high and mean levels of learned helplessness relatively low, indicating a positive sense of personal control in the sample as a whole. This is in line with previous research showing that members of stigmatized and low-status minority groups do not generally show a lower level of well-being (Crandall, Tsang, Harvey, & Britt, 2000; Crocker & Major, 1989). Nevertheless, the protective role of American Indian identity for well-being confirmed in this study suggests that incorporating identity issues in treatment is worthwhile.

Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(1):1–14

D. Schiefer & B. Krahé: Well-Being Among American Indians

from ethnic identity and White American orientation to self-efficacy and learned helplessness. Longitudinal studies with different age groups would be required to demonstrate that ethnic identity and White American orientation predict well-being prospectively, and also to disentangle cohort effects and developmental changes. Second, the participants represented convenience samples. The adult group in particular may not be representative of the tribe’s population at large. Data collection took place during working hours, which may have lead to an underrepresentation of employed persons, which in turn may have affected the levels of group affiliation, self-efficacy, and learned helplessness. Evidence regarding the relationship between socioeconomic status, group identity, and feelings of control can be found in the literature (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002; Kessler, 1982; Negy & Woods, 1992; Phinney, 1990). Unfortunately, we were unable to collect data on employment or socioeconomic status in the present sample. Finally, the key constructs of ethnic identity and White American orientation were represented by a limited number of statements that were unable to fully capture participants’ feelings about their own group and the dominant White culture. Qualitative studies are needed to facilitate a better understanding of what it means to be a member of the American Indian community and how experiences with the dominant White culture have shaped their sense of belonging to this group.

Conclusion Our study supports previous findings of ethnic or racial identification among immigrants (e.g., Phinney, 1995) and African Americans (e.g., Sellers et al., 2006) and shows that, in the present sample of American Indians, identifying with one’s culture of origin was linked to psychological well-being as indicated by enhanced feelings of personal control. Furthermore, the findings suggest that the orientation of American Indians toward the White American mainstream culture should be differentiated into a behavioral and an affiliation dimension that are differentially related to our two indicators of well-being, namely, self-efficacy and learned helplessness. Whereas acquiring behavioral competencies that enable American Indians to function in an environment dominated by the White mainstream was found to be associated with enhanced self-efficacy and, among adults at least, also with lower helplessness, a sense of affiliation with the dominant group was linked to a lower level of self-efficacy and, again among adults, also to a higher level of learned helplessness. Further qualitative and longitudinal research is needed to establish the causal role of different identity constructions on feelings of personal control as an aspect of well-being among American Indians. © 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

References Adams, G., Fryberg, S. A., Garcia, D. M., & Delgado-Torres, E. U. (2006). The psychology of engagement with Indigenous identities: A cultural perspective. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12, 493–508. Arbuckle, J. L. (2005). Amos 6.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS. Arends-Toth, J., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2006). Assessment of psychological acculturation. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 142–160). New York: Cambridge University Press. Arnett, J. J. (2003). Conceptions of the transition to adulthood among emerging adults in American ethnic groups. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 100, 63–75. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Beals, J., Manson, S. M., Mitchell, C. M., & Spicer, P. (2003). Cultural specificity and comparison in psychiatric epidemiology: Walking the tightrope in American Indian research. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 27, 259–289. Benet-Martinez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural identity integration (BII): Components and psychosocial antecedents. Journal of Personality, 73, 1015–1049. Benet-Martinez, V., Leu, J. X., Lee, F., & Morris, M. W. (2002). Negotiating biculturalism – Cultural frame switching in biculturals with oppositional versus compatible cultural identities. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 492–516. Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 5–34. Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55, 303–332. Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (2002). Cross-cultural psychology. Research and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 371–400. Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 135–149. Brown, C. M., & Smirles, K. E. (2005). Examining the bicultural ethnic identity of adolescents of a northeastern Indian tribe. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 29, 81–100. Chen, S. X., Benet Martínez, V., & Harris Bond, M. (2008). Bicultural identity, bilingualism, and psychological adjustment in multicultural societies: Immigration based and globalization based acculturation. Journal of Personality, 76, 803–838. Cole, E. R., & Arriola, K. R. J. (2007). Black students on White campuses: Toward a two-dimensional model of Black acculturation. Journal of Black Psychology, 33, 379–403. Crandall, C. S., Tsang, J. A., Harvey, R. D., & Britt, T. W. (2000). Group identity-based self-protective strategies: The stigma of race, gender, and garlic. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 355–381. Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608–630. Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In D. T. Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(1):1–14

D. Schiefer & B. Krahé: Well-Being Among American Indians

Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 504–553). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Cross, W. E. J. (1995). In search of blackness and afrocentricity: The psychology of Black identity change. In H. W. Harris, H. C. Blue, & E. E. H. Griffith (Eds.), Racial and ethnic identity: Psychological development and creative expression (pp. 53–72). New York: Routledge. Dasgupta, N. (2004). Implicit ingroup favoritism, outgroup favoritism, and their behavioral manifestations. Social Justice Research, 17, 143–169. Davis, F. W., & Yates, B. T. (1982). Self-efficacy expectancies versus outcome expectancies as determinants of performance deficits and depressive affect. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 6, 23–35. Dovidio, J. F., Major, B., & Crocker, J. (2000). Stigma: Introduction and overview. In T. F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl, & J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp. 1–28). New York: Guilford. Duran, E., Duran, B., Yellow Horse Brave Heart, M., & Yellow Horse-Davis, S. (1998). Healing the American Indian soul wound. In Y. Danieli (Ed.), International handbook of multigenerational legacies of trauma (pp. 341–354). New York: Plenum. Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle: Selected papers. Psychological Issues, 1, 1–171. Evans-Campbell, T. (2008). Historical trauma in American Indian/Native Alaska communities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 316–338. French, S. E., Seidman, E., LaRue, A., & Aber, J. L. (2006). The development of ethnic identity during adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 42, 1–10. Gaertner, S. L., Rust, M. C., Dovidio, J. F., & Bachman, B. A. (1994). The contact hypothesis: The role of a common ingroup identity on reducing intergroup bias. Small Group Research, 25, 224–249. Garrett, M. T., & Pichette, E. F. (2000). Red as an apple: Native American acculturation and counseling with or without reservation. Journal of Counseling and Development 78, 3–13. Gong, L. (2007). Ethnic identity and identification with the majority group: Relations with national identity and self-esteem. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 503–523. Helms, J. E. (1990). Black and White racial identity: Theory, research and practice. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Subgroup relations: A comparison of mutual intergroup differentiation and common ingroup identity models of prejudice reduction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 242–256. House, L. E., Stiffman, A. R., & Brown, E. (2006). Unraveling cultural threads: A qualitative study of culture and ethnic identity among urban southwestern American Indian youth parents and elders. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15, 393–407. Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. Jervis, L. L., Beals, J., Croy, C. D., Klein, S. A., Manson, S. M., & Team, A. I. S. (2006). Historical consciousness among two American Indian tribes. American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 526–549. Jones, M. D., & Galliher, R. V. (2007). Ethnic identity and psychosocial functioning in Navajo adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17, 683–696. Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(1):1–14

Kessler, R. C. (1982). A disaggregation of the relationship between socioeconomic status and psychological distress. American Sociological Review, 47, 752–764. Kvernmo, S. (2006). Indigenous peoples. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 233–250). New York: Cambridge University Press. LaFromboise, T. D., Albright, K., & Harris, A. (2010). Patterns of hopelessness among American Indian adolescents: Relationships by levels of acculturation and residence. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 68–76. LaFromboise, T. D., & Bigfoot, D. S. (1988). Cultural and cognitive considerations in the prevention of American Indian adolescent suicide. Journal of Adolescence, 11, 139–153. LaFromboise, T. D., Coleman, H. L. K., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 395–412. LaFromboise, T. D., Hoyt, D. R., Oliver, L., & Whitbeck, L. B. (2006). Family, community, and school influences on resilience among Native American adolescents in the upper Midwest. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 193–209. LaFromboise, T. D., Medoff, L., Lee, C. C., & Harris, A. (2007). Psychosocial and cultural correlates of suicidal ideation among American Indian early adolescents on a Northern Plains reservation. Research in Human Development, 4, 119–143. Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. A. (1996). African American acculturation: Deconstructing race and reviving culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Livingston, R. W. (2002). The role of perceived negativity in the moderation of African Americans’ implicit and explicit racial attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 405–413. MacCallum, R. C., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 201–226. Maddux, J. E., & Gosselin, J. T. (2003). Self-efficacy. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 218–238). New York: Guilford. Maddux, J. E., Norton, L. W., & Stoltenberg, C. D. (1986). Selfefficacy expectancy, outcome expectancy, and outcome value: Relative effects on behavioral intentions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 783–789. Major, B., & O’Brien, L. T. (2005). The social psychology of stigma. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 393–421. Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 551–558. Martinez, R. O., & Dukes, R. L. (1997). The effects of ethnic identity, ethnicity and gender on adolescent well-being. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26, 503–516. McCoy, S., & Major, B. (2003). Group identification moderates emotional responses to perceived prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1005–1017. Miller, D. B., & MacIntosh, R. (1999). Promoting resilience in urban African American adolescents: Racial socialization and identity as protective factors. Social Work Research, 23, 159–170. Moran, J. R., & Bussey, M. (2007). Results of an alcohol prevention program with urban American Indian youth. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 24, 1–21. Moran, J. R., Fleming, C. M., Somervell, P., & Manson, S. M. © 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

D. Schiefer & B. Krahé: Well-Being Among American Indians

(1999). Measuring bicultural ethnic identity among American Indian adolescents. A factor analytic study. Journal of Adolescent Research, 14, 405–426. Negy, C., & Woods, D. J. (1992). A note on the relationship between acculturation and socioeconomic status. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 14, 248–251. Newman, D. L. (2005). Ego development and ethnic identity formation in rural American Indian adolescents. Child Development, 76, 734–746. Oetting, E. R., & Beauvais, F. (1991). Orthogonal cultural identification theory – the cultural identification of minority adolescents. International Journal of the Addictions, 25, 655–685. Peterson, C. (1999). Personal control and well-being. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 288–301). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Phinney, J. S. (1989). Stages of ethnic identity development in minority group adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 9, 34–49. Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 499–514. Phinney, J. S. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156–176. Phinney, J. S. (1995). Ethnic identity and self-esteem. A review and integration. In A. M. Padilla (Ed.), Hispanic psychology: Critical issues in theory and research (pp. 57–70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Phinney, J. S. (2000). Ethnic identity. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 254–259). Oxford, UK: University Press. Phinney, J. S., Cantu, C. L., & 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, 165–185. Phinney, J. S., & Devich-Navarro, M. (1997). Variations in bicultural identification among African American and Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 7, 3–32. Phinney, J. S., Horenczyk, G., Liebkind, K., & Vedder, P. (2001). Ethnic identity, immigration, and well-being: An interactional perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 493–510. Phinney, J. S., & Ong, A. D. (2007). Conceptualization and measurement of ethnic identity: Current status and future directions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 271–281. Pope-Davis, D. B., Liu, W. M., Ledesma-Jones, S., & Nevitt, J. (2000). African American acculturation and Black racial identity: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 28, 98–112. Postmes, T., & Branscombe, N. R. (2002). Influence of long-term racial environmental composition on subjective well-being in African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 735–751. Quinless, F. W., & McDermott Nelson, M. A. (1988). Development of a measure of learned helplessness. Nursing Research, 37, 11–15. Rimm, H., & Jerusalem, M. (1999). Adaptation and validation of an Estonian versino of the General Self-Efficacy Scale (ESES). Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 12, 329–345. Reynolds, W. R., Quevillon, R. P., Boyd, B., & Mackey, D. (2006). Initial development of a cultural values and beliefs © 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

scale among Dakota/Nakota/Lakota people: A pilot study. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research, 13, 70–93. Rotheram, M. J., & Phinney, J. S. (1987). Definitions and perspectives in the study of children’s ethnic socialization. In J. S. Phinney & M. J. Rotheram (Eds.), Children’s ethnic socialization: Pluralism and development (pp. 10–28). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Sam, D. L., Vedder, P., Ward, C., & Horenczyk, G. (2006). Psychological and sociocultural adaptation of immigrant youth. In J. W. Berry, J. S. Phinney, D. L. Sam, & P. Vedder (Eds.), Migrant youth in cultural transition: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation across national contexts (pp. 117–142). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). Windsor, UK: NFER-Nelson. Seaton, E. K., Scottham, K. M., & Sellers, R. M. (2006). The status model of racial identity development in African American adolescents: Evidence of structure, trajectories, and well-being. Child Development, 77, 1416–1426. Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. New York: Freeman. Sellers, R. M., Copeland-Linder, N., Martin, P. P., & Lewis, R. L. (2006). Racial identity matters: The relationship between racial discrimination and psychological functioning in African American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16, 187–216. 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, 18–39. Shnabel, N., & Nadler, A. (2008). A needs-based model of reconciliation: Satisfying the differential emotional needs of victim and perpetrator as a key to promoting reconciliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 116–132. Shnek, Z. M., Irvine, J., Stewart, D., & Abbey, S. (2001). Psychological factors and depressive symptoms in ischemic heart disease. Health Psychology, 20, 141–145. SPSS Inc. (2007). SPSS Base 16 unser’s guide. Chicago, IL: Author. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Talbert, I. M. (1996). Learned helplessness and locus of control in urban American Indians. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 57, 1456. Trimble, J. E. (2008). Commentary: No itinerant researchers tolerated: Principled and ethical perspectives and research with North American Indian communities. Ethos, 36, 380–383. Tsai, J. L., Ying, Y.-W., & Lee, P. A. (2000). The meaning of “being Chinese” and “being American.” Variation among Chinese American young adults. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 302–332. Umaña-Taylor, A. J., & Shin, N. (2007). An examination of ethnic identity and self-esteem with diverse populations: Exploring Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(1):1–14

D. Schiefer & B. Krahé: Well-Being Among American Indians

variation by ethnicity and geography. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13, 178–186. United States Census Bureau. (2010). United States Census 2000. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov Utsey, S. O., Walker, R. L., Dessources, N., & Bartolomeo, N. (2005). A psychohistorical analysis of the African American bicultural experience. In R. T. Carter (Ed.), Handbook of racial-cultural psychology and counseling (pp. 410–426). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Walls, M. L., & Whitbeck, L. B. (2011). Distress among indigenous North Americans: Generalized and culturally relevant stressors. Society and Mental Health, 1, 124–136. Ward, C. (1996). Acculturation. In D. Landis & R. S. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (pp. 124–147). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yellow Horse Brave Heart, M. (1998). The return to the sacred path: Healing the historical trauma and historical unresolved grief response among the Lakota through a psychoeducational group intervention. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 68, 287–305. Zimmerman, M. A., Ramirez-Valles, J., Washienko, K. M., Walter, B., & Dyer, S. (1996). The development of a measure of

Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(1):1–14

enculturation for Native American youth. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 295–310.

Received March 19, 2012 Final revision received October 15, 2012 Accepted December 04, 2012 Published online February 27, 2013

David Schiefer School of Humanities and Social Sciences Jacobs University Bremen Campus-Ring 1 29759 Bremen Germany Tel. +49 421 200-3407 Fax +49 421 200-3303 E-mail d.schiefer@jacobs-university.de