Activation, Automaticity, and Mental Health Implications of Colonial Mentality
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ACTIVATION, AUTOMATICITY, AND MENTAL HEALTH IMPLICATIONS OF COLONIAL MENTALITY BY ERIC JOHN DAVID B.A., University of Alaska Anchorage, 2002 M.A., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2004 DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2007 Urbana, Illinois Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 3269875 INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. ® UMI UMI Microform 3269875 Copyright 2007 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. C e r t i f i c a t e of C o m m it t e e A p p r o v a l University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Graduate College April 12, 2007 We hereby recommend that the thesis by: ERIC JOHN DAVID Entitled: ACTIVATION, AUTOMATICITY, AND MENTAL HEALTH IMPLICATIONS OF COLONIAL MENTALITY Be accepted in partial fulfillment o f the requirements for the degree of: Doctor of Philosophy Signatures: 1----------- » \ S J ------------T -------------------- Director of Research Head of Department Committee on Final Examination1 Chairperson ■ommittee Memqer Committee Member Committee Member Committee Member Committee Member * Required for doctoral degree but not for master’s degree Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT Among Filipino Americans, Colonial Mentality (CM) is a specific form of internalized oppression that is characterized by an automatic preference for anything American and automatic rejection of anything Filipino that may be manifested overtly and covertly. Given that CM is theorized to be composed of a covert aspect and that it may operate automatically, introspection- dependent and explicit methods of investigating the construct may be limited. Thus, using indirect and implicit methodologies, three studies were conducted to test CM theory: Study 1 attempted to activate and capture the existence of a CM-consistent cultural knowledge system using explicit primes; Study 2 investigated whether CM may be activated outside of awareness, intention, or control using a more indirect and implicit priming methodology - a lexical decision priming task; and Study 3 tested the theory that Filipino Americans have automatically associated pleasantness with anything American and unpleasantness with anything Filipino using the Implicit Association Test. The results suggest that many Filipino Americans may hold a CM- consistent cultural knowledge system, that CM may be automatically activated, and that CM may operate outside of awareness, intention, or control. Mental health implications of CM among Filipino Americans are also explored. iii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. To my Nanay, Tatay, Ate Ellen, Bonz, Margaret, Jass, and Alex iv Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks to my nanay for continuing to inspire me with the words “edukasyon lamang ang mai-papamana ko sa iyo.” Appreciation also goes to my tatay for supporting me and loving me in his own unique way. Salamat to Bunsoy, Ate Ellen, Jass, and Alex for always being in my heart and for always keeping me in theirs. Special appreciation and love are extended to Margaret Hoffman for all her love, support, and affection. Extreme gratitude goes to the Vinas family for being so generous and welcoming; I don't know how I would have done it without your family. I would also like to thank the entire Rochon, Ebue, Danner, and Hoffman families for all the help, assistance, support, and encouragements. Special thanks to my mentor, Sumie Okazaki, who gambled with a naive Filipino kid from Alaska and to whom I am forever indebted. Others who I would like to thank are: my lab mates in the Culture & Emotions Lab at the University of Illinois for tolerating my thoughts; my homeboys in Alaska and the Philippines for stimulating the researcher in me; the Clinical-Community Psychology Division for allowing me to explore issues that others do not think are important; Howard Berenbaum, Ying-yi Hong, CY Chiu, and Martin Manalansan for their suggestions; Thara Gagni for her assistance in data collection; the Philippine Student Association at the University of Illinois for their help in advertising the project; the National Institute of Mental Health through the American Psychological Association Minority Fellowship Program for providing me with financial support to conduct these studies (MH15742-26); and last but definitely not the least, the hundreds of Filipino Americans who participated in this project for sharing their experiences and feelings with me. “Maraming-maraming salamat po sa inyong lahat. v Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1 STUDY 1A METHOD..................................................................................................................30 STUDY 1A RESULTS................................................................................................................. 36 STUDY IB METHOD................................................................................................................. 37 STUDY IB RESULTS................................................................................................................. 39 STUDY 1 DISCUSSION............................................................................................................. 40 STUDY 2...................................................................................................................................... 42 STUDY 2 METHOD.................................................................................................................... 44 STUDY 2 RESULTS.................................................................................................................... 49 STUDY 2 DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................. 54 STUDY 3...................................................................................................................................... 56 STUDY 3 METHOD.....................................................................................................................57 STUDY 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.................................................................................. 64 POST-HOC TEST OF STIMULI................................................................................................. 69 GENERAL DISCUSSION...................................................................................................... .73 TABLES....................................................................................................................................... 86 FIGURES..................................................................................................................................... 94 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................. 97 APPENDICES.............................................................................................................................112 CURRICULUM VITAE.............................................................................................................115 vi Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. INTRODUCTION Although Asian American psychology has experienced tremendous growth over the past three decades (Leong, Okazaki, & David, 2006; Okazaki, 2002), this burgeoning field continues to be plagued with several limitations. First, most studies in Asian American psychology use East Asian or multi-ethnic samples that usually fail to capture the cultural and psychological heterogeneity among Asian Americans. Second, there persists a lack of situating Asian Americans’ psychological experiences within historical and environmental contexts (e.g., Root, 2002). Third, most of these studies focus on Asian cultural variables (e.g., collectivism) and cultural adaptation processes (e.g., acculturation), and less attention is paid to Asian Americans’ experiences of historical and contemporary forms of oppression (David & Okazaki, 2006a). Lastly, there has been a call for a methodological move “beyond questionnaires” (Okazaki, 2002). The current set of studies attempts to address these limitations by