ABSTRACT 
 
 
 
Title of Thesis: THE RELATIONSHIPS OF RACIAL 
IDENTITY AND GENDER-ROLE CONFLICT 
TO SELF-ESTEEM OF ASIAN AMERICAN 
UNDERGRADUATE MEN   
  
 Yen Ling Shek, M.A., 2005 
Thesis Directed By: Marylu K. McEwen, Ph.D., Associate Professor, 
Counseling and Personnel Services 
 
 
The purpose of this quantitative, correlational, online study was to examine the 
relationships of racial identity and gender-role conflict to self-esteem of Asian American 
undergraduate men (N = 173). Instruments included the People of Color Racial Identity 
Attitude Scale, Gender-Role Conflict Scale, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and a 
demographic questionnaire. Random samples were drawn from two large public research 
institutions on the East and West coasts. The two samples were combined because there 
were no significant differences in self-esteem by location of institution. Through blocked, 
hierarchical multiple regression analysis, 36.8% of the variance in self-esteem (p < .001) 
was explained by gender-role conflict subscales and racial identity statuses. Three 
subscales were found to be significant (p<.05) predictors of self-esteem: Restrictive 
Emotionality, Dissonance, and Internalization. Implications were that mature racial 
identity development and critical analysis of traditional gender-roles were important for 
the development of self-esteem of Asian American undergraduate men.
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE RELATIONSHIPS OF RACIAL IDENTITY AND  
GENDER-ROLE CONFLICT TO SELF-ESTEEM OF  
ASIAN AMERICAN UNDERGRADUATE MEN 
 
 
 
 
By 
 
 
Yen Ling Shek 
 
 
 
 
 
Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the  
University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment 
of the requirements for the degree of 
Master of Arts 
2005 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Advisory Committee: 
Associate Professor Marylu K. McEwen, Chair 
Assistant Professor Karen Kurotsuchi Inkelas 
Affiliate Assistant Professor Lisa Kiely   
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
? Copyright by 
Yen Ling Shek 
2005 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ii 
 
DEDICATION 
This thesis is dedicated to my grandmother, Pan Kam Shek. 
 
 iii 
 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
Writing a thesis is an arduous process that without the support, encouragement, 
and challenges from my family and friends, I would not have been able to complete. I 
would like to specifically acknowledge the following people: 
? To Marylu McEwen, you are an incredible mentor and I can only strive to 
match your compassion, humility, intellect, and commitment to students. 
Thank you for walking with me on this journey towards becoming a 
scholar-practitioner. 
? To Karen Inkelas, I really appreciate your unique sense of humor, research 
knowledge and skills, and no-nonsense attitude. Your inquiries challenge 
me to reconsider my assumptions and push me as a researcher.  
? To Lisa Kiely, thank you for helping me map out this thesis to make it 
manageable. You kept me on point and realistic. 
? To Gina Garcia, you constantly pushed me, made me laugh, and have been 
my partner-in-crime (against oppression) as well as my thesis buddy. You 
truly are a blessing in my life.  
? To the thesis/seminar paper support group of Tiki Ayiku, Marcus Peanort, 
Josh Hiscock, Paul Eaton, and of course GG, we filled the beaker. Thanks 
for the laughs! 
? To Susan Komives, thank you for your leadership and faith in everyone in 
the program. You introduced ?scholar-practitioner? into my vocabulary.  
? To Grace Chen and Alvin Alvarez, thank you for answering all of my 
questions, your insight, and for being such great friends and colleagues.  
 
 iv 
 
? To everyone who helped me with each step of the process, I could not 
have completed this without you: Kristen Vogt, Jeff Milem, Mitchell 
Chang, Susan Longerbeam, Carlos Hipolito, Will Liu, John Lynch, John 
Dugan, Daniello Bal?n, Glenna Chang, Valerie Romero, Jean Chao, Dan 
Symonds, Alison Orkin, and Roslyn Edson. 
? To Andrea Young, Stephanie Hsu, Christina Hsu, Jeremiah Jeffries, Isti 
Islam, and Emily Fan for being my cheerleaders, you are incredible 
friends. 
? To Giles Li, Bao Phi, and Neel Saxena, thank you for supporting this 
research on masculinity and for supporting me. You are phenomenal 
Asian American men and great role models for the coming generations. 
? To Rob Waters and Andrea Levy, thank you for believing in me and 
extending yourselves to help me succeed.  
? To Cordell Black for your understanding and support of me throughout 
my time here. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to learn from you. 
? To Kimberly Arauz, Ade Adebayo, and Karen Chin, thank you for 
comforting me through the madness and sharing in my joy. Your 
friendships mean more to me than words can express. 
? To my dad, mom, sisters, brother, brother-in-law, nephews, grandparents, 
aunts, uncles, and cousins, thank you for supporting me even though you 
may not understand what I do and why I am in this profession. Thank you 
for caring for me, taking care of me, and for your prayers. I love you all. 
 
 v 
 
? Finally to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who has given me salvation 
and sustained me through this journey, I give to you all the glory, honor, 
and praise. 
 
 vi 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
DEDICATION ............................................................................................................... ii 
 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................... iii 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................vi 
 
LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................ix 
 
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................1 
History.........................................................................................................................1 
Asian Americans in Higher Education .........................................................................6 
Profile......................................................................................................................6 
Influences on Asian American Student Experiences.................................................7 
Factors Related to Asian American Men?s Self-Esteem................................................9 
Problem Statement.....................................................................................................10 
Definitions.................................................................................................................11 
Professional Significance...........................................................................................12 
Overview of Remaining Chapters ..............................................................................14 
 
CHAPTER 2 - REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................................................15 
Racial Identity ...........................................................................................................15 
General Racial Identity Literature ..........................................................................15 
Asian American Racial Identity .............................................................................18 
Masculinity................................................................................................................27 
General Literature on Masculinity..........................................................................28 
Asian American Masculinity..................................................................................29 
Gender-Role Conflict.............................................................................................34 
Asian American Men and Gender-Role Conflict ....................................................42 
Self-Esteem ...............................................................................................................46 
Overview of Self-Esteem .......................................................................................46 
Racial Identity, Racism, and Self-Esteem...............................................................48 
Gender-Role Conflict and Self-Esteem...................................................................53 
Summary ...................................................................................................................54 
 
CHAPTER 3 ? METHODOLOGY................................................................................56 
Purpose and Hypotheses ............................................................................................56 
Research Design ........................................................................................................58 
Research Context.......................................................................................................59 
Participants................................................................................................................60 
Instrumentation..........................................................................................................66 
People of Color Racial Identity Attitude Scale .......................................................66 
Gender-Role Conflict Scale....................................................................................67 
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.................................................................................69 
 
 vii 
 
Demographic Questionnaire...................................................................................70 
Procedures.................................................................................................................70 
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................72 
Delimitations .............................................................................................................74 
Summary of the Methodology....................................................................................75 
 
CHAPTER 4 ? RESULTS.............................................................................................76 
Preliminary Analyses.................................................................................................76 
Analyses of Hypotheses.............................................................................................78 
Hypothesis 1: There is no relationship between each racial identity status and self-
esteem for Asian American undergraduate men............................................78 
Hypothesis 2: A significant negative relationship exists between gender role conflict 
and self-esteem for Asian American undergraduate men...............................78 
Hypothesis 3: Significant positive relationships exist between the Dissonance, 
Immersion-Emersion, and Internalization racial identity statuses and gender-
role conflict..................................................................................................79 
Hypothesis 4: There are distinct and significant relationships between the statuses of 
racial identity development and the subscales of gender-role conflict with self-
esteem for Asian American undergraduate men............................................80 
Hypothesis 5a: There are no differences by ethnic region and location of institution 
(East coast and West coast) in racial identity development and gender-role 
conflict.........................................................................................................83 
Hypothesis 5b:  There are no relationships between generational status and 
socioeconomic status with racial identity development and gender-role 
conflict.........................................................................................................84 
Summary ...................................................................................................................85 
 
CHAPTER 5 - DISCUSSION........................................................................................86 
Summary of Findings.................................................................................................86 
Hypothesis 1: Racial Identity and Self-Esteem.......................................................86 
Hypothesis 2: Gender-Role Conflict and Self-Esteem ............................................89 
Hypothesis 3: Racial Identity and Gender-Role Conflict ........................................90 
Hypothesis 4: Racial Identity, Gender-Role Conflict, and Self-Esteem...................94 
Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables, Racial Identity, and Gender-Role Conflict.96 
Limitations ................................................................................................................99 
Implications for Practice ..........................................................................................105 
Recommendations for Further Research...................................................................110 
 
APPENDIX A: PEOPLE OF COLOR RACIAL IDENTITY ATTITUDE SCALE......116 
 
APPENDIX B: GENDER-ROLE CONFLICT SCALE................................................120 
 
APPENDIX C: ROSENBERG SELF-ESTEEM SCALE .............................................123 
 
APPENDIX D: DEMOGRAPHICS.............................................................................124 
 
 
 viii 
 
APPENDIX E: CONCLUSION OF SURVEY.............................................................126 
 
APPENDIX F: EAST COAST INITIAL CONTACT EMAIL .....................................127 
 
APPENDIX G: WEST COAST INITIAL CONTACT EMAIL....................................129 
 
APPENDIX H: EAST COAST FIRST FOLLOW-UP EMAIL ....................................131 
 
APPENDIX I: WEST COAST FIRST FOLLOW-UP EMAIL.....................................132 
 
APPENDIX J: EAST COAST SECOND FOLLOW-UP EMAIL.................................133 
 
APPENDIX K: WEST COAST SECOND FOLLOW-UP EMAIL ..............................134 
 
APPENDIX L: EAST COAST INFORMED CONSENT FORM.................................135 
 
APPENDIX M: WEST COAST INFORMED CONSENT FORM...............................137 
 
APPENDIX N: COMMENTS FROM SURVEY .........................................................139 
 
APPENDIX O: ETHNICITIES OF PARTICIPANTS..................................................141 
 
APPENDIX P: CORRELATIONAL MATRIX OF DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES 
AND INDEPENDENT VARIABLES .........................................................................142 
 
REFERENCES............................................................................................................143 
 
 
 ix 
 
LIST OF TABLES 
 
Table 1. Participants? Demographic Information 63 
 
Table 2. Participants? Age and Generational Status with Years in the U.S. 66 
 
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Gender Role Conflict Scale, People of  77 
 Color Racial Identity Attitude Scale, and Rosenberg Self-Esteem  
 Scale 
 
Table 4. Pearson Correlations of Racial Identity Statuses, Gender-Role  79 
 Conflict Total Scale and Subscales 
 
Table 5. Multiple Regression Summary of Demographic Variables, Racial  82 
 Identity, and Gender-Role Conflict in Relationship to Self-Esteem 
 
Table 6. MANOVA Summary of Differences in Racial Identity Development 83 
Statuses by Location of Institution and Participants? Ethnic Region  
 
Table 7. MANOVA Summary of Differences in Gender-Role Conflict  84 
 Subscales by Location of Institution and Participants? Ethnic Region  
 
Table 8. Post Hoc Analysis of Ethnic Regional Differences in Restrictive 84 
Affectionate Behavior Between Men 
 
Table 9. Means and Standard Deviations for Gender-Role Conflict Scale  92 
in Current Study and Previous Studies 
  
Table 10.  Means and Standard Deviations for POCRIAS Statuses in Current  93 
 Study and Previous Studies 
 
 
 
 1 
 
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 
The Asian American student population at institutions of higher education is a 
growing field of interest for student affairs professionals, as noted by the increasing 
presence of Asian American focused scholarship. Whereas earlier literature on Asian 
Americans focused on assimilation or acculturation, more recent scholarship has 
examined Asian American psychosocial development (Kodama, McEwen, Liang, & Lee, 
2002), racial identity (Alvarez, 2002; Kohatsu, 1992), gender identity (Kim, O'Neil, & 
Owen, 1996; Liu, 2000), multiple social identities (Chen, 2005), student involvement 
(Liu & Sedlacek, 1999), use of counseling services (Chang & Yeh, 2003; Solberg, 
Ritsma, Davis, Tata, & Jolly, 1994), and self-esteem (Alvarez & Helms, 2001; Yip, 
2003). One point of inquiry that needs to be inspected further is the intersection of 
identities within this population that may influence Asian American students? quality of 
life. This study explored racial identity and gender identity in Asian American 
undergraduate men and their relationship to self-esteem.  
In order to provide a context for this study, several areas will be covered in this 
chapter: history of Asian Americans in the United States, Asian American student 
presence in higher education, and factors related to Asian American men?s self-esteem. 
Following the overview of Asian American experiences, the next chapter will focus on 
existing literature on racial identity, masculinity, gender-role conflict, and self-esteem, 
particularly as it relates to Asian American undergraduate men. 
History 
Asian American history dates as far back as the 1700s with Filipino mariners 
arriving in what is now known as Louisiana (Takaki, 1990). There are entire books 
dedicated to Asian American history that could provide more detailed chronology of 
 
 2 
 
immigration waves and descriptions of  communities that were built in the United States 
(S. Chan, 1991; Takaki, 1990). The following will attempt to provide a perspective of 
history through focusing on Asian American men, in particular Chinese and Japanese 
American men. The focus on these two particular ethnic groups within the Asian 
American community is due to the long history and presence of these groups in large 
numbers which in turn greatly shaped the dominant perspective on Asian American men 
in today?s society.  
The first large wave of Asian immigration to the United States occurred in the 
mid-1800s with the arrival of Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Korean, and Indian laborers 
(Espiritu, 1997; Takaki, 1990). The influx of Asian laborers consisted of primarily men 
who came for the California gold rush, worked on Hawai`ian plantations, and worked in 
the South following the abolition of slavery (Takaki). 
 In the late 1800s and early 1900s, Asian Indians were also being recruited to 
work in the United States in plantations, on railroads, in agricultural fields in California 
and lumber towns in Washington (Takaki, 1990). The competition for labor opportunities 
caused many Asian Indian men to be driven out of their communities in the U.S. by 
White workers in groups such as the Asiatic Exclusion League (Takaki). The White 
workers saw Asian Indian men not only as threats to their jobs but also to White women 
(Takaki). 
Over the years following the first wave, the United States government passed 
legislation which limited and, at times, restricted the immigration of Asian women 
(Espiritu, 1997; Takaki, 1993). Espiritu noted that the policies, such as the Page Law in 
1875, were often driven by economics such that Asian men without families would offer 
the least costs to employers and be more transient to meet labor needs. Takaki remarked 
 
 3 
 
that the Page Law was intended to bar Chinese prostitutes but became enforced so 
broadly that Chinese wives were also kept out of the country. In addition, the 1917 
Immigration Act prevented Asian Indian men with wives to bring them to the United 
States (Takaki). 
With limited opportunities to create families with Asian women, politicians 
realized that Asian men may want to intermarry with White women, and therefore anti-
miscegenation laws were created to revoke citizenship of any White woman who out 
married (Chua & Fujino, 1999; Espiritu, 1997; Takaki, 1990). The establishment of anti-
immigration laws and anti-miscegenation laws were institutional forms of oppression 
faced by Asian men. Along with institutional barriers, cultural forms of oppression soon 
emerged.  
Espiritu (1997) described all the images of Asian American men ?as alternatively 
inferior, threatening, or praiseworthy? (p. 87). Racist images collapsed gender and 
sexuality where Asian American men were hypermasculine and effeminate. One example 
of the hypermasculine image was the Yellow Peril, a threatening and insidious force to be 
reckoned. The Yellow Peril image was consistent with masculinity?s aggressiveness to 
the point that it was too aggressive and thus hypermasculine. Particularly following the 
bombing in Pearl Harbor, anti-Japanese propaganda spread throughout the United States 
through media, martial law in Hawai`i, and internment of Japanese Americans on the 
mainland. This image worked in conjunction with the perpetual foreigner such that Asian 
Americans were seen as having questionable loyalties to the United States and the 
inability to assimilate completely (Espiritu). Over the years, the target group of the 
Yellow Peril shifted from the Japanese to the Chinese to the Vietnamese depending on 
 
 4 
 
global economics and political situation (Espiritu; Takaki, 1993). The threat included 
possible miscegenation, military action, and foreign business competition. 
In order to prevent miscegenation, the intermingling of races, from occurring, 
popular images of Asian men as sexually deviant, asexual, effeminate, or luring White 
women to their opium dens were created (J. Chan, 2001; Espiritu, 1997). The image of 
Asian Americans as exotic and foreign was further promoted by the growing popularity 
of mysticism in the early 1900s with the influx of South Asians looking to profit from 
offering ?Eastern wisdom? to the Hollywood elite (Prashad, 2000). To further emasculate 
Asian men, employment opportunities were also limited in scope, consisting primarily of 
?feminine? work such as laundry, housekeeping, and cooking, which translated into 
restaurant work (Takaki, 1993).  
Immigration acts banning Chinese immigration ? the Chinese Exclusion Act of 
1891 ? and the Barred Zone Act in 1924, kept many Indians from immigrating to the 
United States (Joshi, n.d.; Takaki, 1990). The shared history of limited access to the U.S. 
by Asian ethnic groups were often in response to economic concerns and typically used 
inflammatory and stereotypical images to encourage support by the broader public for 
these anti-immigration acts. 
 Throughout the 1900s, stereotypical images of Asian American men were seen in 
cartoons, Broadway shows, film, and television shows (J. Chan, 2001; Espiritu, 1997). 
White actors put on ?yellow face? and taped their eyes to appear Chinese or Japanese. 
The movie character, Dr. Fu Manchu, was an Oriental mastermind that typified the lack 
of heterosexuality and the Yellow Peril at the same time (Espiritu, 1997). The buck-
toothed bumbling image of Asian American men could be seen in movies such as 
Breakfast at Tiffany?s, while the nerdy, lustful image could be seen in Sixteen Candles 
 
 5 
 
(Wong, 1993). In the Broadway production, M. Butterfly, the effeminate image of Asian 
American men became intertwined with issues of sexuality when the lead character was a 
cross-dressing Chinese male spy who falls in love with the British male spy (J. Chan, 
2001). South Asian American men became equated with turbans, mystics, and quickie-
marts in shows such as The Simpsons and the film, The Guru (Joshi, n.d.; Prashad, 2000). 
The Joy Luck Club became a mainstream Asian American movie that had very few, if 
any, redeeming Asian and Asian American men (J. W. Chan, 1998). They were portrayed 
as misogynists and cheap and their Asian American women love interests would turn to 
relationships with White men. 
The second large immigration wave occurred following the passage of the 1965 
Immigration Act (Hune, 2002; Takaki, 1993). The 1965 Immigration Act lowered 
restrictions on family reunification and encouraged the influx of professionals from Asian 
countries, a population very different from the low-wage laborers during the 1800s 
(Hune; Takaki). With the influx of Asian professionals into the United States, the 1970s 
saw the emergence of the model minority myth, a stereotype that applied to all Asian 
Americans (Suzuki, 2002). The rationale of the myth was that the Confucian work ethic 
of Asian Americans contributed to their success in the United States. Some Southeast 
Asian Americans ? Vietnamese, Hmong, Laotian, and Mien ? were often displaced in the 
broader model minority image due to a very different immigration pattern and the 
circumstances by which they entered into the U.S. (Takaki, 1990, 1993). The 1970s and 
1980s saw an influx of refugees from Southeast Asia that was a forced migration out of 
their homelands following the Vietnam War. Many were suffering from nerve gases that 
were used in the war, as well as from post-traumatic stress syndrome (Takaki, 1990). 
Although the model minority did not originally include Southeast Asian Americans, they 
 
 6 
 
became incorporated in the broader mindset of U.S. society under the label of Asian 
Americans. The perpetuation of the model minority image served to support the 
meritocracy myth, the notion that people were judged and rewarded solely based on merit 
(Chua & Fujino, 1999; Suzuki, 2002).  
The impact of the model minority myth on Asian American men included lower 
pay compared to their White counterparts and a lack of promotion to managerial 
positions, what is described as a glass ceiling effect (Suzuki, 2002). A broader 
implication of the model minority myth is how it is often used in juxtaposition with 
African Americans and Latinos to pit the communities against each other and to leave the 
institutional barriers of racism unquestioned and unchallenged, particularly at institutions 
of higher education (Suzuki, 2002; Takaki, 1993).  
Asian Americans in Higher Education 
Profile 
The term Asian American was first created in the 1960s as a term of 
empowerment and activism to end discrimination (Hune, 2002). Since that period, Asian 
American has been used, by the community and institutions, to describe a pan-ethnic 
identity, incorporating Chinese, Filipino, and Sri Lankan, just to name a few.  
Asian Americans constitute 4.2% of the total U.S. population consisting of over 
20 different ethnic groups recognized by the United States government in the U.S. 
Census 2000 (Barnes & Bennett, 2002). The Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac 
("College Enrollment by Racial and Ethnic Group, Selected Years," 2004) showed that 
Asian Americans made up 6.4% of all students in higher education in 2001. In the span of 
over a decade, Asian American student presence increased by 78% from 1990 to 2001 
("College Enrollment by Racial and Ethnic Group, Selected Years," 2004). More notable 
 
 7 
 
is the fact that 60% of Asian Americans ages 18- to 24- years were enrolled at institutions 
of higher education in 2002 compared with 36.7% of all 18- to 24- year olds in the United 
States. Among the college-age population, Hsia and Peng (as cited in Hall, Sue, Narang, 
& Lilly, 2000) found 88% of Asian Americans attending institutions of higher education.  
Hune (2002), however, cautioned against interpreting the data on Asian Americans in 
higher education at a cursory level. The heterogeneity of the population needs to be 
considered by region, prior educational attainment for immigrants, and within ethnic 
groups. Regardless, these numbers demonstrate the need for colleges and universities to 
take note of this diverse and distinct population of students and consequently have 
research available that informs their practice (Hune).  
Influences on Asian American Student Experiences 
With Asian Americans seen as the model minority, not only in society as a whole 
but particularly on college campuses (Suzuki, 2002), the factors that have influenced their 
quality of life were not a point of interest for scholars until recently.  Suzuki noted that 
the model minority stereotype of Asian Americans created an image that Asian American 
students were highly successful and did not need assistance. The model minority myth 
places an unrealistic expectation on Asian Americans to succeed academically regardless 
of the capabilities of the individual (Solberg et al., 1994; Suzuki). Not only was the 
model minority image pervasive but also the perfidious foreigner image in Asian 
American stereotypes. Suzuki described the perfidious foreigner image as one in which 
Asian Americans are duplicitous, scheming, and untrustworthy. In a couple of reports 
about Asian Pacific Americans in higher education (Cress & Ikeda, 2003; Sue, 1994), 
these stereotypes were described to work together to negatively affect students. Stories of 
lack of language assistance, suspicions of cheating, and unrealistically high academic 
 
 8 
 
expectations by family, professors, and peers combined to create a stressful environment 
for Asian American students (Cress & Ikeda; Sue).  
Other factors that affect the experiences of Asian American students in higher 
education include issues of race and racism (Alvarez & Yeh, 1999). Incidences of hate 
crimes and racist incidences both nationally and on college campuses serve to create 
hostile environments in which Asian American students have to negotiate (Alvarez & 
Yeh). Therefore it is important to understand what factors may potentially influence 
students? racial identity development and how they deal with racism. Beyond the typical 
image of Asian American students as ?model minorities,? Alvarez and Yeh argued for a 
better understanding of how racial issues are salient in Asian American students? lives 
and how institutions of higher education need to attend to their racial identity 
development for their psychological well-being. This may be achieved through the 
creation of Asian American studies programs, support of co-curricular involvement in 
Asian American political organizations and ethnic cultural organizations, and workshops 
that take into consideration the various racial identity developmental statuses and 
differential responses to interventions. 
In addition to the stresses faced by the broader Asian Pacific American 
population, the notion of Asian American men being among the least desirable by women 
and hyperdesirable by men has been shown to create anxiety among Asian American men 
(J. W. Chan, 1998; Chen, 2004; Kumashiro, 1999). Hyperdesirability of Asian American 
men by other men relayed a parallel Orientalism in the gay community which fetishized 
Asian American men in the same way that heterosexuality fetishized Asian American 
women (Kumashiro, 1999). As Chen found in her study on Asian Americans? multiple 
identities, Asian American men reported their sexual identity as more salient than Asian 
 
 9 
 
American women, regardless of how they categorized their sexual identity. Through this 
overview, it becomes apparent that Asian American men?s racialized and gendered 
identities influence their experiences. 
Factors Related to Asian American Men?s Self-Esteem 
The existing scholarship on Asian Americans? psychological well-being have 
looked at help-seeking behaviors (Chang & Yeh, 2003), anxiety related to assertiveness 
(Sharpe & Heppner, 1991), and career self-efficacy (Smith & Betz, 2002); at times the 
research included perspectives on gender. Racial identity and gender identity have been 
shown to be related to students? psychological well-being (Cress & Ikeda, 2003; Kim et 
al., 1996), and more particularly to their self-esteem (Alvarez & Helms, 2001). This study 
focused on self-esteem since it was often used to operationalize psychological well-being 
in other studies (Parham & Helms; Sharpe & Heppner; Smith & Betz; Utsey, Ponterotto, 
Reynolds, & Cancelli, 2000; Yip, 2003).  
Racial identity is how individuals perceive themselves in relation to a specific 
racial group (Helms, 1993). For Asian Americans, racial identity is distinct to the United 
States and based on sociopolitical and geographical origins as opposed to a common 
cultural heritage (Chen, 2004; Helms & Cook, 1999). Racial identity development refers 
to the process through which individuals achieve a positive and internally defined self-
concept (Helms & Cook). Within racial identity development, there are five different 
statuses: (a) Conformity, (b) Dissonance, (c) Immersion-Emersion, (d) Internalization, 
and (e) Integrative Awareness. The first three statuses have been categorized as 
externally defined self-concepts and the last two statuses as internally defined (Wade, 
1996). 
 
 10 
 
Gender identity, more specifically the notions of masculinity and gender-role 
conflict, relates to the societal roles and expectations of men within the United States 
culture (Kumashiro, 1999; O'Neil, Helms, Gable, David, & Wrightsman, 1986; Pleck, 
1981). The masculinity that was used in the studies was hegemonic masculinity, the 
dominant form of masculinity based on White cultural standards and norms of 
aggressiveness, competition, and limited expressiveness (J. W. Chan, 1998; Cheng, 1996; 
Kumashiro; Liu, 2000, 2002; O'Neil et al.; Pleck).  
The negative impact of gender-role conflict on psychological well-being has been 
well-researched; however, Asian American men were often not studied in significant 
numbers to be included (Blazina & Watkins, 1996; Good & Wood, 1995; Sharpe & 
Heppner, 1991; Stillson, O'Neil, & Owen, 1991). In particular, global self-esteem, as a 
measure of psychological well-being, has also not been examined in relation to Asian 
American men. Therefore, it is important to explore the relationships between race, 
gender, and self-esteem for this particular population (Chang & Yeh, 2003; Cheng, 1996; 
Chua & Fujino, 1999; Kumashiro, 1999; Solberg et al., 1994; Wah, 1998). 
Problem Statement 
 Little research has been done on Asian American men?s gender role conflict and 
self-esteem (Liu, 2002; Stillson et al., 1991). Although research (Blazina & Watkins, 
1996; Good & Wood, 1995; Sharpe & Heppner, 1991) shows a general relationship 
between gender role conflict and self-esteem, as well as more general psychological well-
being, Asian American men were either not included in the study or there was a limited 
sample (Sharpe & Heppner; Smith & Betz, 2002; Stillson et al.). In an effort to expand 
the knowledge base on the interactions between race, gender, and self-esteem, 
particularly among college-aged men, this study focused on the following research 
 
 11 
 
question: Do racial identity and gender-role conflict relate to Asian American 
undergraduate men?s self-esteem? 
The sub-research questions were as follows: 
1. What is the relationship of each racial identity status and self-esteem for Asian 
American undergraduate men?  
2. Is there a negative relationship between gender role conflict and self-esteem for 
Asian American undergraduate men?  
3. Is there a significant positive relationship between racial identity statuses and 
gender role conflict for Asian American undergraduate men?  
4. Are there distinct relationships between statuses of racial identity development 
and the subscales of gender role conflict with self-esteem for Asian American 
undergraduate men? 
5. Are there any relationships between location of school based on East coast and 
West coast, ethnic regions, generational status, socioeconomic status and racial 
identity development and gender-role conflict? 
To investigate these questions, a quantitative correlational study was conducted 
using a random sample of Asian American undergraduate men from both a public East 
coast university and a public West coast university. The participants completed an online 
survey that combined a demographic questionnaire with instruments on racial identity 
development, gender-role conflict, and self-esteem. The methodology is described in 
greater detail in Chapter 3.  
Definitions 
 In order to provide a foundation for understanding the study, the following terms 
and accompanying definitions are provided below. 
 
 12 
 
Asian American ? people of Asian descent born and/or raised in the United States 
(includes Indian, Pakistani, Afghani, Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan, Nepalese, and other 
ethnic groups in South Asia; Filipinos, Vietnamese, Thai, Chinese, Japanese, Korean; 
Barnes & Bennett, 2002; Hune, 2002). 
Racial identity ? an individual?s perception of a shared group identity with a 
particular racial group (Helms, 1993).  
Gender-role conflict ? the psychological impact of gender roles; in particular, the 
consideration of traditional Western notions of what it means to be a man, otherwise 
known as hegemonic masculinity (O'Neil et al., 1986). 
Self-esteem ? a positive or negative evaluation of the self (Rosenberg, 1965). 
Professional Significance 
Research has already shown the importance of racial identity development to 
psychosocial tasks and general well-being (Chang & Yeh, 2003; Cress & Ikeda, 2003; 
Pope, 2000). With the growing numbers of Asian American students in higher education, 
there is an increased importance to understand this heterogeneous community. In 
particular, greater understanding of Asian American male students will serve to better 
inform student support services, programming, and curriculum development.  
Sue (1994) noted that a careful analysis of studies on Asian Americans and 
mental health contradict the popular stereotype that Asian Americans are well-adjusted. 
In reporting on a study of Chinese American students? anxiety levels at two West coast 
institutions, Sue stressed that ?academic achievement should not be used as an indicator 
of emotional well-being and adjustment? (p. 269). He also suggested that methodological 
limitations of prior studies on mental health have led to underestimations of Asian 
Americans? rate of psychological disorders. The studies that have been conducted on 
 
 13 
 
psychological well-being of Asian Americans have shown relationships between racial 
identity, ethnic identity, and self-esteem (Alvarez, 2002; Alvarez & Helms, 2001; Chua 
& Fujino, 1999; Kohatsu, 1992; Yip, 2003). Depending on the saliency of ethnic identity 
or racial identity to the student, its effect on self-esteem will vary (Yip). Recognizing the 
importance of race in a university setting, particularly with Asian American students 
where they are often left out of the Black-White dialogue (Cress & Ikeda, 2003), serves 
not only to legitimize their experiences but encourages their racial identity development 
which has shown to relate to positive mental health (Alvarez & Yeh). The frustration 
exhibited by Asian American undergraduate men, detailed in the literature review, should 
be a cause of concern for student affairs administrators as they develop culturally 
appropriate developmental programs (J. W. Chan, 1998; Chang & Yeh, 2003). 
Gender-role conflict and notions of masculinity have also been found to relate to 
psychological well-being (J. Chan, 2001; Sharpe & Heppner, 1991; Stillson et al., 1991). 
Since Asian American students underutilize counseling services on college campuses, it 
is therefore important to determine what factors contribute to psychological well-being in 
order to create culturally appropriate interventions and preventions (Chang & Yeh, 2003; 
Sue, 1994). For Asian American students who experience distress, Asian American men 
are less likely to seek assistance than Asian American women (Chang & Yeh).  
Self-esteem is an important and commonly used component of psychological 
well-being (Good, Robertson, Fitzgerald, Stevens, & Bartels, 1996; Sharpe & Heppner, 
1991; Yip, 2003). The psychological well-being of students is important to consider with 
regard to retention and reducing crisis management cases (Cress & Ikeda, 2003). The 
study also expands the body of knowledge surrounding self-esteem by examining a 
population previously not considered. 
 
 14 
 
This study serves to expand the understanding of hegemonic masculinity, as well 
as the intersection of race and gender identities, and broaden the understanding of gender 
role conflict and psychological well-being as evidenced in self-esteem.   
Overview of Remaining Chapters 
 The remaining chapters will include a review of the literature on racial identity 
development, masculinity, gender role conflict, and self-esteem, as well as methodology 
for the current study, results, and discussion.  
 
 
 
 15 
 
CHAPTER 2 - REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 
The growing body of literature on Asian American student development has 
attempted to expand the knowledge base around racial identity, masculinity, and self-
esteem. In order to gain a foundational understanding for the research question, a review 
of the literature on Asian American racial identity development, masculinity, gender role 
conflict, and self-esteem was conducted. The following review attempted to stay true to 
the original language; some terms relating to specific ethnic or racial communities in the 
samples may seem outdated. 
Racial Identity 
General Racial Identity Literature 
 Racial identity has often been confused with ethnic identity (Helms, 1996). 
Whereas ethnic identity refers to a shared cultural heritage, and language, racial identity 
refers to the intrapersonal reactions to systematic oppression (Helms). In developing a 
racial identity development model, Helms (1993) referred to racial identity as ?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? (p. 3). It is a social construct where the 
socialization process results from differential access to resources and treatment, which is 
socially and governmentally defined, regulated, and reinforced (Helms & Cook, 1999; 
Omi, 2000). Racial identity, as conceived in the United States, was based on differential 
access to resources where White people were in the dominant status and People of Color 
in the disadvantaged status (Helms & Cook; Omi). 
Conceptualizing racial identity as a distinct area of development led Helms (1993) 
to create both White and Black racial identity development models. The Black racial 
identity development model was based on Cross? model of Nigrescence (Helms, 1993). 
 
 16 
 
Helms (1995) later incorporated Atkinson, Morten, and Sue?s minority identity 
development model and updated her Black racial identity development model to include 
other people of color, such as Asian Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans.  
Racial identity development for visible racial and ethnic minority groups, as noted 
by Helms and Cook (1999), involves overcoming internalized racism based on the 
existing system of racial hierarchy and systematic discrimination of communities of color 
in the United States. Internalized racism is the impact of negative social images of one?s 
own racial group where the dominant group?s perceptions of the group are incorporated 
into the person?s identity. In the existing racial identity development models, the goal for 
individuals is to develop more complex ways of information processing and negotiating 
the racial dynamics, particularly as it relates to their self-concept (Alvarez & Helms, 
2001; Helms & Cook). Rather than maintaining an identity that is based on external 
perceptions of a racial group, internally defined conceptualizations of the racial identity 
are considered to reveal more complex modes of thinking.  
The People of Color racial identity model is used to describe the ego statuses and 
schemata people of color use as they deal with race related issues (Helms, 1995; Helms & 
Cook, 1999). In her update, Helms changed the model from stages to statuses since the 
former were seen as static and mutually exclusive. One rationale for the change in 
terminology to statuses was to incorporate the idea of permeability across statuses. The 
other rationale was to emphasize development as a dynamic process (Helms, 1996). Not 
everyone moves through all the statuses nor does development occur in a singular 
direction with no possibility of returning to less complex statuses. Rather, while 
individuals may be in more complex statuses, they can still draw from attitudes and 
behaviors of earlier statuses. Although Helms (1996) identified six theoretically distinct 
 
 17 
 
ego statuses, two (Immersion and Emersion) are combined since she was unable to 
distinguish them empirically (Liu, 2000).    
It is important to note the use of the term statuses as opposed to stages to describe 
where individuals may be in their development. Although Helms? racial identity 
development model is often mistaken to be a linear model, the model has been described 
as a spiral staircase where as people progress to more mature statuses, they may always 
draw from and go back to earlier statuses (Wade, 1996). In addition, the five statuses may 
be broken down into two primary points of reference for individuals as they develop: 
Conformity, Dissonance, and Immersion-Emersion are seen as using external reference 
points to develop a racial identity whereas Internalization and Internalization are seen as 
using internal reference points (Wade). 
The People of Color racial identity development model consists of five statuses: 
Conformity, Dissonance, Immersion-Emersion, Internalization, and Internalization 
(Helms, 1993, 1995; Helms & Cook, 1999). Conformity describes a state of being where 
individuals deny, ignore, or are unaware of their racial identity and often choose to 
identify with White standards and norms. People in this status may be unaware of their 
racial group?s history, culture, and sociopolitical status (Helms & Cook). As individuals 
become aware of their racial identity either through positive exposure to their race or 
through negative incidents, they move into the Dissonance status (Alvarez, 2002). In 
Dissonance, individuals become confused or ambivalent about identifying with a racial 
group, whether it is their own or another race (Helms, 1995; Helms & Cook). During this 
status, individuals may experience dissonance between the idealized White culture and 
new information they are learning about their own racial group or the awareness that they 
are unfamiliar with their own racial group?s histories (Alvarez; Helms & Cook).  
 
 18 
 
In order to deal with the new information and their confusion, individuals enter 
the Immersion-Emersion status where they idealize their racial group and reject White 
standards and norms (Alvarez, 2002; Helms, 1995; Helms & Cook, 1999). Following this 
dualistic way of thinking, individuals move into Internalization where they reevaluate 
their previous perspectives on their own racial group and the White racial group and 
begin to develop an internalized frame of reference for their identity development 
(Helms; Helms & Cook). In the final status of Integrative Awareness individuals use an 
internal definition of their racial identity, integrate multiple aspects of their identity, and 
collaborate with other oppressed groups to combat oppression (Alvarez; Helms; Helms & 
Cook). 
 Scales for measuring racial identity development have undergone various 
iterations ranging from the Racial Identity Attitude Scale, which primarily measured 
Black racial identity and was more closely linked to Cross? model of Nigrescence, to the 
Cultural Identity Attitudes Scale to the Visible Racial/Ethnic Identity Attitude Scale 
(VREIAS), which began to encompass other communities of color, to the more 
contemporary People of Color Racial Identity Attitude Scale (PRIAS) (Alvarez & Helms, 
2001; Helms & Carter, 1990; Kohatsu, 1992; Liu, 2002; Parham & Helms, 1985; Pyant & 
Yanico, 1991; Solberg et al., 1994). Both the VREIAS and the PRIAS have been used as 
valid instruments to measure Asian American racial identity development and will be 
discussed further in the methodology section (Alvarez & Helms, 2001; Kohatsu, 1992; 
Liu, 2000, 2002). 
Asian American Racial Identity 
 With early literature focused primarily on African American racial identity 
development, more recent scholars have attempted to apply Helms? model to the Asian 
 
 19 
 
American community (Alvarez, 2002; Alvarez & Helms, 2001; Kohatsu, 1992; Liu, 
2002; Naik, 2003; Toya, 1996). The six statuses identified by Helms adequately describe 
the racial identity development of Asian Americans and provide insight into how students 
may be challenged and supported (Alvarez; Kohatsu). 
Alvarez (2002) detailed a progression through Helms? model for Asian Americans 
and identified roles student affairs professionals may play. In the Conformity status, 
Alvarez noted that Asian Americans want to assimilate into the White community and do 
not see themselves as racialized beings, often viewing the world as color-blind. In this 
status, individuals do not progress until they are exposed to alternative worldviews 
regarding their racial identity or are personally subjected to racial discrimination.  
 As Asian Americans are confronted with the connections between race and 
differential treatment by society, they enter the Dissonance status of racial identity 
development (Alvarez, 2002). This status is often marked by ?anxiety, confusion, and 
racial ambivalence? (p. 37). Asian Americans begin to reevaluate White norms and 
explore the Asian and Asian American communities. Individuals begin to question their 
inherent acceptance of White norms and their belief that all races are treated equally. 
 Moving into the Immersion and Emersion statuses, Asian Americans begin to 
adopt a dualistic worldview in which Asian American culture, values, and history are 
idealized and where White/Eurocentric perspectives are devalued (Alvarez, 2002). Asian 
Americans in Immersion and Emersion typically educate themselves through Asian 
American studies courses, participation in ethnic organizations, or community 
involvement. They begin to see the disparate racial treatment of Asian Americans and 
feel angry and resentful towards the White majority (Alvarez). 
 
 20 
 
 Asian Americans in the Internalization status begin to develop their racial identity 
from a personally meaningful perspective rather than in response to socially imposed 
definitions of being Asian American (Alvarez, 2002). Alvarez described this status as 
striking a delicate balance between personal and group definitions while also developing 
a more critical perspective of their community. Whereas everything Asian American was 
seen as good and positive in the previous status, negative aspects are also taken into 
consideration, thereby providing a more realistic assessment of the community.  
 The Integrative Awareness status is the most mature status where the individual?s 
?sense of self-esteem [is] rooted in a self-affirming definition of oneself as an Asian 
American? (Alvarez, 2002, p. 40). In this status, Asian Americans are also able to 
integrate multiple identities into their self-concept, such as their gender and sexual 
orientation.  
 Alvarez (2002) saw racial identity development as key to the holistic development 
of Asian American students, particularly since college is often the time when race 
becomes a salient issue. By paying attention to the racial identity development of Asian 
American students, Alvarez proposed that student affairs practitioners assist student 
leaders in understanding and promoting the racial identity development of the entire 
Asian American community in addition to assisting them in tasks related to their 
organizations. 
Kohatsu?s (1992) study on the effects of racial identity and acculturation on 
anxiety, assertiveness, and awareness of racism among Asian American college students 
used one of the earlier versions of the PRIAS called the Cultural Identity Attitudes Scale 
(CIAS). The sample consisted of four groups of Asian American students (N = 267) from 
a medium-sized West coast university. The students were undergraduates with an average 
 
 21 
 
age of 20.6 years. The participants were 56% foreign born and 44% U.S. born. The 
generational breakdown was 49% first generation, 22% second generation, and 12% third 
generation. The study used convenience sampling of students from Asian American 
studies courses, volunteers, and students from ethnic student organizations. Kohatsu?s 
sample included Korean American, Japanese American, Chinese American, and 
Vietnamese American students. 
In addition to using the CIAS, Kohatsu (1992) used the State Anxiety Inventory, 
Rathus Assertiveness Schedule, Anglo and Asian acculturation scales, Cultural Mistrust 
Inventory, and a demographic data sheet. Statuses in the CIAS were Conformity, 
Dissonance, Resistance, and Integrative Awareness. Kohatsu modified the CIAS for 
Asian Americans by making the statements specifically about Asian Americans. He 
found comparable Cronbach alpha coefficients to studies with other racial groups. The 
analysis consisted of hierarchical multiple regressions to measure the relationships 
between acculturation, assertiveness, racism, racial identity, and ascribed identity.  
In his preliminary analyses, Kohatsu (1992) found that men were significantly 
more aware of racism than women. This finding is not surprising considering the 
historical and cultural oppression geared towards Asian American men. In looking at 
ethnic differences, Vietnamese Americans and Korean Americans had higher levels of 
Conformity stage attitudes than did Japanese Americans. However, Japanese Americans 
were more highly acculturated to White culture than Vietnamese Americans and Korean 
Americans. Kohatsu noted that 86% of Japanese Americans identified as second, third, or 
fourth generation compared to only 14% of Korean Americans who identified as second 
generation and 10% of Vietnamese Americans who identified as 1.5 generation, those 
who were born in Asia but raised predominantly in the United States (Kohatsu, 1992).  
 
 22 
 
In a multiple regression using racial identity attitudes and acculturation as 
predictors of anxiety, racial identity accounted for 5% of the variance in anxiety where 
Dissonance was the significant predictor (Kohatsu, 1992). Because Dissonance is the 
status where individuals begin to question their previous frame of reference, one in which 
White values are dominant, it was reasonable that there would be a relationship with 
anxiety. During this inquiry status, individuals are uncertain about how they are to 
interact with White people. Other findings included racial identity subscales predicting 
27% of the variance in awareness of interpersonal racism, after controlling for gender. 
Resistance was a significant predictor of interpersonal racism. Resistance is now known 
as the Immersion/Emersion statuses where individuals are highly critical of the dominant 
race and have more negative attitudes towards that race. Racial identities predicted for 
24% of the variance in awareness of political racism with Dissonance, Resistance, and 
Integrative Awareness as significant positive predictors; the more strongly one exhibited 
high scores for the subscale, the more they would be aware of political racism. Kohatsu?s 
findings supported Helms? (1995) people of color racial identity model in that Asian 
Americans who move on from Conformity would begin to recognize and make sense of 
the way racism impacts them. 
The limitations in Kohatsu?s (1992) study were how he acquired his sample and 
the make-up of the sample. The unequal sample sizes by ethnicity limited the 
generalizability of the results to Asian Americans who do not fit the demographic 
characteristics of his sample. In addition, the students who responded to the survey were 
somewhat homogeneous in that they all participated in Asian American activities, either 
in a course or in an organization. Kohatsu also noted a limitation in the lack of 
adjustment of statistical tests, in that he did not adjust the alpha for the number of tests, 
 
 23 
 
which increased the risk of Type I error (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001). Finally, the 
sample of Asian American men did not include South Asian American men. Due to the 
political situation of South Asian Americans, particularly following September 11, 2001, 
South Asian American racial identity development may provide a broader perspective on 
Asian American experiences.  
 With regards to ethnic differences in racial identity development, numerous 
studies have failed to find significant differences between ethnic groups (Alvarez & 
Helms, 2001; Liu, 2000, 2002). This could have been due to inadequate sample sizes of 
ethnic groups (Liu, 2002). Another consideration would be that the sociopolitical forces 
that combined Asian ethnic groups under a single racial category in the United States 
may create an environment where the various groups develop along a similar trajectory 
(Helms & Cook, 1999). In addition, the impact of race and racism may be mediated by 
generational status and length of time in the United States. 
 Alvarez and Helms (2001) studied racial identity and reflected appraisals as 
influences on Asian Americans? racial adjustment. Racial adjustment was operationalized 
by collective self-esteem and awareness of anti-Asian racism. They sampled 188 Asian 
American university students, mostly undergraduates, at a medium-sized, private, East 
Coast university. The participants were volunteers with similar percentages of Chinese 
Americans, Indian Americans, and Korean Americans. Most of the participants were born 
in the United States and, those who were foreign born had lived in the U.S. for a mean of 
12.9 years. Alvarez and Helms used the People of Color Racial Identity Attitude Scale 
(PRIAS), Perceptions of Asian Americans Scale, the Cultural Mistrust Inventory, and the 
Collective Self-Esteem instruments.  
 
 24 
 
Through multiple regression analysis, racial identity and reflected appraisals were 
significantly predictive of racial adjustment (Alvarez & Helms, 2001). In particular, 
Alvarez and Helms found a relationship between racial identity development and 
collective self-esteem. Collective self-esteem referred to how Asian Americans felt about 
their social group identity as opposed to a more individual and global aspect of self-
esteem (Alvarez & Helms). The researchers found that Conformity related to lower 
collective self-esteem while Immersion and Integrative Awareness related to higher 
collective self-esteem. Preliminary analyses of group differences showed that Chinese 
Americans and Indian Americans thought the general public had more positive 
perceptions of the Asian American community than Korean Americans. A possible 
explanation for this difference between ethnic groups, a historical threat to the study, was 
that the study was conducted following the Los Angeles uprising which involved the 
Korean American community. Due to this finding, Alvarez and Helms controlled for 
ethnicity in the Public subscale of the Collective Self-Esteem scale.  
An overall finding was that Asian Americans, regardless of their racial identity 
status, were more concerned with other Asian Americans? appraisals than with White 
appraisals of the Asian American community. In addition, Dissonance and Integrative 
Awareness related to lower awareness of interpersonal racism.  
 Some limitations in the study included the sample characteristics. As Alvarez and 
Helms (2001) noted, 75% of the sample identified as part of the middle class or higher, 
which would affect the generalizability of the findings to the broader Asian American 
population. In addition, the nature of the sample, drawing on those who were already 
involved in Asian American activities, could have inflated the relationship between their 
racial identity development and the collective self-esteem. 
 
 25 
 
 A more recent study of Asian American college students attempted to reveal any 
ethnic variation in racial identity development. Naik (2003) conducted a non-
experimental study at a large, public, research institution in the mid-Atlantic with 137 
Asian American undergraduate students (South Asians, n = 26; Southeast Asians, n = 51; 
East Asians, n = 59). The sample consisted of students from Asian American student 
organizations and Asian American studies courses. The breakdown by sex was 42.3% 
men and 57.7% women. The age range was 18 to 31 years old with a mean age of 19.9. 
With regards to generational status, 73% of the students identified as first-generation 
meaning they were born in the U.S. and at least one parent was not. Naik?s classification 
of first-generation would be equivalent to other studies that use second-generation to 
denote those who were born in the United States (Alvarez & Helms, 2001; Chua & 
Fujino, 1999; Kim et al., 1996; Kohatsu, 1992; Liu, 2000). Although Naik sought to 
explore differences by sex, ethnicity, and generational status, the limited sample sizes 
precluded her from such analyses.  
 Naik?s (2003) results regarding racial identity development and using the PRIAS 
matched other studies as it related to the Asian American student population in that she 
found no ethnic differences. Through multivariate analysis of variance testing, no ethnic 
variations were discovered in racial identity development; thus the null hypothesis could 
not be rejected. Whereas Naik had suspected regional ethnic differences within the Asian 
American student population, the study was unable to reject the null. There was no 
difference in racial identity development among South Asian American, Southeast Asian 
American, and East Asian American college students.  
The limitations in the study (Naik, 2003) included the small sample size of South 
Asian American students compared with the size of Southeast and East Asian American 
 
 26 
 
students. In addition, within the South Asian category, one ethnic group was 
predominant. Although ethnic groups such as Korean, Chinese, and Japanese were 
collapsed into the East Asian category, within the South Asian category, Asian Indian 
dominated the grouping with only one respondent responding as another South Asian 
ethnicity. An increase in the sample size of South Asians and a more diverse ethnic 
representation within that category may have led to different findings. Another limitation 
to the study was that the sample was taken from Asian American oriented activities, 
which would reduce its generalizability to the larger Asian American student population. 
South Asian American students who chose to participate in Asian American oriented 
activities may have similar racial identity development to East and Southeast Asian 
American students who participate in similar activities. The rationale for this concept is 
that Asian American racial identity could be reinforced and institutionalized through 
university programming and staff support (Naik).  
Liu?s (2000, 2002) study of Asian American men?s racial identity, male role 
norms, gender-role conflict, and prejudicial attitudes included 323 participants from 
public, private, and community colleges from the East and West coasts. Participants? 
ethnic identifications were collapsed into the seven categories based on the Office of 
Management and Budget?s Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal 
Data on Race and Ethnicity. Participants were Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Filipino, South 
Asian, Southeast Asian, and biracial and bi-ethnic; several participants did not report 
their ethnicity. Through a one-way multivariate analysis of variance, Liu found no 
significant ethnic differences on the PRIAS, Male Role Norm Inventory, and Gender-role 
conflict Scale, and therefore did not control for ethnicity in subsequent analyses. Further 
exploration of Liu?s findings is presented in the review of masculinity. 
 
 27 
 
In using Helms? (1995) people of color racial identity development model, it 
becomes apparent there were several challenges in applying it to the Asian American 
community. Issues such as generational status, ethnicity, cultural values, salience of other 
identities, class, and region were cited as possible additional influences on how Asian 
Americans progressed through these statuses (Alvarez & Helms, 2001; Liu, 2000). For 
example, some Asian Americans from the West Coast may skip Conformity and 
Dissonance due to the environment affirming their Asian American culture and the large 
presence of Asian Americans in that region of the United States. For Asian Americans in 
Hawai`i, race may not be as salient an issue as ethnicity due to the high percentage of 
Asian Americans on the islands. Therefore, Asian Americans from Hawai`i may not 
progress through Helms? model unless they experience life on the mainland where issues 
of race become more salient. In addition, since the creation of a pan-Asian American 
identity is a concept to which not all Asian Americans subscribe, Asian American college 
students may progress at much slower or differentiated rates than other students of color 
(Chang & Yeh, 2003). 
Masculinity 
 In providing an overview of the literature on masculinity, one could argue that the 
review would be on hegemonic masculinity, which describes the dominant form of 
masculinity based on White norms, in both an aesthetic and behavioral sense (J.W. Chan, 
1998; Cheng, 1996; Liu, 2000, 2002). It is a construct that serves to define what is 
desirable not only among men but, in a sexist society, what is desirable for women to 
emulate (Cheng, 1996). It is important to provide the context of hegemonic masculinity 
since it is the standard by which Asian American men may be expected to aspire.  
 
 28 
 
General Literature on Masculinity 
Masculinity as defined in the literature uses a Western model of masculinity 
which includes aggressiveness, violence, limited expressiveness, and competition (O'Neil 
et al., 1986; Pleck, 1981). Masculinity includes a prescribed gender role, gender order, 
and way of behaving for men (O'Neil et al.; Pleck; Sabo & Gordon, 1995). For men in the 
United States, hegemonic masculinity is the standard by which men compare themselves. 
Sabo and Gordon asserted that gender order had two primary structural components: (a) 
male dominance over women and (b) inter-male dominance where a small group of males 
dominate the masses of other men based on social identities such as race, socioeconomic 
status, and sexual identity. 
Two paradigms used to examine masculinity have been the Male Sex Role 
Identity (MSRI) paradigm and the Sex Role Strain (SRS) paradigm (Pleck, 1981). 
Whereas the MSRI paradigm sees sex role identity as being innate in men and 
psychological in nature, the SRS paradigm sees sex role identity as social and situational 
adaptations. Pleck argued that SRS is the more appropriate paradigm, noting that sex 
roles are responsible for the psychological strain people go through, particularly men. 
Most men have unrealistic expectations of masculinity and feel inadequate when they fail 
to meet those ideals, which are often contradictory in nature. For example, Pleck 
mentioned the conflict between the traditional male norm of being intellectually superior 
to women whereas a more contemporary male norm calls for men to have intellectual 
partnerships with women.  
Sabo and Gordon (1995), in their series on men?s health, detailed how feminist 
studies were used as a way of informing new concepts of masculinity. Whereas the 
Western model of masculinity is based on subordinating and dominating women and all 
 
 29 
 
things deemed feminine, Sabo and Gordon suggested that feminist concepts of gender 
equality be used to reconstruct masculinity. The sociocultural construction of hegemonic 
masculinity has been shown to have deleterious effects on men?s health, in particular to 
their psychological well-being and mortality (O'Neil et al., 1986; Sabo & Gordon, 1995; 
Sharpe & Heppner, 1991; Stillson et al., 1991).  
Asian American Masculinity 
 Asian American masculinity is a concept that has been mostly externally defined 
(J. Chan, 2001; J. W. Chan, 1998; Espiritu, 1997). With the locus of control largely being 
external, the impact of racism and a racialized gender identity on Asian American men 
could create negative self-evaluations due to a failure to live up to others? expectations. 
Within the framework of hegemonic masculinity, Asian American masculinities are then 
subordinated as are other forms of masculinity, such as among men of color, gay men, 
and bisexual men. Some of the existing literature on Asian American masculinity focused 
on White perspectives of Asian American men as effeminate and asexual while at the 
same time patriarchical and domineering (J. Chan; J. W. Chan; Cheng, 1996; Chua & 
Fujino, 1999). These contradictory and competing images of Asian American men serve 
not only to uphold the cultural and institutional racism in society but also to confuse the 
development of Asian American men to the point where their self-images are in reaction 
to those popular images as opposed to being internally defined (J.W. Chan; Espiritu; Liu, 
2000, 2002). 
 In Cheng?s (1996) studies on masculinities in organizations, college students had 
to select among their classmates people who would serve as leaders for group projects 
and what values they needed to possess. He found that all the leadership values students 
were looking for were based on hegemonic masculinity. What naturally followed was the 
 
 30 
 
selection of mostly White men to be group leaders followed by White women who 
emulated masculine behaviors. Of all the racial and gender groups, Asian American men 
were the least likely to be chosen for leadership positions within their class. Students 
cited meritocracy to rationalize their decisions. However, when Cheng analyzed all the 
selected leaders based on merit alone, the Asian American men were more qualified than 
the students who were selected. He also found that Asian American men were 
characterized as having a mixture of masculine and feminine traits according to their 
peers. Cheng postulated that Asian cultural values such as humility and communalism 
were feminized and challenged the appropriateness of traits in hegemonic masculinity, 
such as confidence, individualism, and competition. 
 J. Chan (2001) found that Asian American male students would prefer to be a part 
of the hegemonic masculinity rather than aligning themselves with other oppressed 
groups because of the patriarchical rewards set up in such a system. J. Chan explored the 
popular images of Chinese American men, finding that archetypal images of being 
effeminate yet also kung fu master were used to relegate Chinese American men to a 
lower social status than other groups. While highlighting the problematic nature in seeing 
Chinese American men as emasculated, J. Chan argued for a new construct of 
masculinity that was informed by a pro-feminist perspective. He challenged the 
patriarchy, fear of feminization, and homophobic characteristics of hegemonic 
masculinity and called upon Asian American men to take risks in creating alternative 
models of masculinity. J. Chan perceptively noted that  
when White American men are used by popular culture as standard bearers of 
masculinity, Asian Americans are forced to accept the racial hierarchy embedded 
in the discourse of American manhood. In effect, Asian American men are given 
 
 31 
 
a false choice: either we emulate White American notions of masculinity or 
accept the fact that we are not men. (p. 156)  
J. Chan (2001) discussed Asian American masculinity as a reproduction of 
American stereotypes. The Asian American male college students in his class did not 
have the tools to construct a new masculinity since many of them have felt racial barriers 
to accessing the benefits of patriarchy. In an earlier article, J.W. Chan (1998) found that 
when the dominant form of masculinity was being critiqued, the Asian American men felt 
attacked. They saw the situation more as a ?politics of inclusion to a hegemonic 
normative heteromasculinity rather than a politics of alliance with women and gay and 
lesbian groups? (J. Chan, p. 165). J. Chan, however, proposed an ambi-sexual model of 
masculinity which was non-patriarchical, pro-feminist, promoted gender equality, and an 
?ambivalence towards socially determined definitions of masculinity? (p. 166).  
Another study which shed light on issues of Asian American masculinity was 
conducted by Kumashiro (1999). Kumashiro?s qualitative study explored the experiences 
of three queer Asian American men. He found that supplemental forms of oppression 
existed for Asian American men where their masculinity and sexuality were intertwined. 
He contended that the queerphobia in Asian communities, privileging heteronormativity 
within the Asian culture and denigrating queerness with Whiteness, presented 
supplemental forms of oppression that did not replace mainstream racism and 
queerphobia. In addition to feeling oppressed within the Asian American community, 
queer Asian American men may also feel oppressed within the queer community with the 
appropriation of U.S. Orientalism that exoticizes and colonizes Asian American men into 
hypersexually desirable beings. Kumashiro cited the inversion of privilege and 
oppression within both the Asian American community and queer community as new 
 
 32 
 
forms of oppression. These findings showed additional pressures on Asian American men 
as they construct their masculinity. As a study that focused on queer Asian American 
men, Kumashiro provided another perspective on Asian American masculinity. 
 Chua and Fujino (1999), however, studied how immigrant Asian men and U.S. 
born Asian men negotiated their masculinities by looking at their self-concepts and their 
attitudes towards women. The sample included 239 White, Chinese, and Japanese 
American students. Some participants volunteered through a psychology course while 
others were randomly contacted through the university?s listings of the three ethnic and 
racial populations. The study was done within a broader study that looked at heterosexual 
dating. The generational differences among the different racial groups showed that over 
80% of White students were at least third generation American, whereas 40% of Chinese 
Americans were at least second generation, 37% of Japanese Americans were second 
generation, and 44% of Japanese Americans were third generation. Chua and Fujino 
identified three groups for the study ? White men, U.S. born Asian men, and immigrant 
Asian men. Chua and Fujino administered the Attitude Towards Women Scale as well as 
a locally designed instrument that included demographics, attitudes about self, and 
attitudes about others. The attitudes about self and attitudes about others instruments 
were created using factor analysis with varimax rotation. However, no further reliability 
or validity studies were conducted. 
The results of Chua and Fujino?s (1999) study on college age men found that U.S. 
born Asian men and immigrant Asian men had greater variability compared to White 
men in what they considered masculine. White male students were the only group who 
saw themselves as sexually exciting, physically attractive, outgoing, and social. U.S.-born 
Asian men were the only ones who would do domestic tasks, which showed an expanded 
 
 33 
 
notion of masculinity. Immigrant Asian men held the least distinct characteristics of 
themselves thus showing a greater variation of what they perceived as masculine. Where 
there was a strong negative association of masculinity with feminine characteristics for 
White men, both U.S. born and immigrant Asian men showed no significant association 
between masculine and feminine characteristics (Chua & Fujino). This finding further 
supported the notion of hegemonic masculinity and gender-role conflict, which will be 
explored further in a later section. 
Chua and Fujino (1999) argued that Asian American masculinity needed to be 
considered using social representation theory which is counter to seeing gender and 
masculinity as a purely internal and individual process. They also argued that ?Asian 
American masculinity was socially constructed around ?model minority? maleness and 
not in terms of the dominant construction of masculinity? (Chua & Fujino, p. 396). 
Although Chua and Fujino made this case, they also recognized that there were Asian 
American men who choose to frame masculinity in terms of hegemonic masculinity. 
However, due to the contradiction in being both a privileged group by gender and a 
subordinated group by race, Asian American men may redefine their masculinity since 
racism may prevent them from fully emulating White masculinity (Chua & Fujino).  
Chua and Fujino?s (1999) study was limited in its generalizability since 
generational status was not clearly delineated and Asian Americans included only 
Chinese and Japanese Americans. There was no further information on whether or not 
there were any 1.5 generation Asian American participants, those who were born 
elsewhere but raised in the United States. Information on whether or not the participants 
were raised primarily in the United States could provide insight into their level of 
acculturation. A possibility is that those who were primarily socialized in the United 
 
 34 
 
States would have perspectives similar to those who were born in the States than those 
who were not. In addition, the sampling technique was not representative of the 
population since it was a mix of convenience sampling through a psychology course and 
random sampling. Finally, factor analyses were reported for the Attitudes About Self and 
Attitudes About Others scales to confirm that the instrument measured the characteristics 
the researchers were looking for; however, validity of the Attitudes Towards Women 
Scale was not provided using the Asian American sample.  
The literature on Asian American masculinity has broadly touched on the 
variations of masculinity in the Asian American community but has been unable to 
produce findings that could be generalizable to the broader Asian American population. 
The studies have been qualitative or limited in ethnic representation of the Asian 
American male population. 
Gender-Role Conflict 
 Much of the literature on masculinity identified certain characteristics that defined 
men; the common theme among the characteristics was that masculinity was an absence 
of femininity. Men who practiced masculinity as a highly gendered role could possibly 
experience gender-role conflict. ?Gender-role conflict is a psychological state where 
gender roles have negative consequences or impact on a person or others" (O'Neil et al., 
1986, p. 336). Gender-role conflict was seen as restricting a person?s capability to 
actualize his potential and the restriction of another?s potential through the imposition of 
gender roles (O'Neil et al.).  
Building on Pleck?s Sex Role Strain paradigm, O?Neil et al. (1986) attempted to 
identify constructs related to gender-role conflict. O?Neil et al. used a feminist approach 
to deconstructing masculinity. O?Neil (1990) noted that gender-role conflict was a 
 
 35 
 
consequence of institutional sexism and operated on both conscious and unconscious 
levels as well as through cognitive, affective, and behavioral processes. Using the fear of 
femininity as a central construct, the factor analysis of the original survey (O?Neil et al., 
1986) revealed four primary factors that illustrated gender-role conflict.  
In O?Neil et al.?s (1986) initial study to create an instrument to measure gender-
role conflict, the sample included 527 undergraduate men, mostly White, from two 
Midwestern universities who were in psychology classes. The mean age was 19.8 years 
with 95% identified as single. From their original 85 item instrument, O?Neil et al. 
identified 37 items which ?yielded the most significant factor composition? (p. 343) 
thereby resulting in the Gender-Role Conflict Scale (GRCS). The four factors which 
emerged were: (a) Success, Power, and Competition (SPC); (b) Restrictive Emotionality 
(RE); (c) Restrictive Affectionate Behavior Between Men (RABBM); and (d) Conflict 
Between Work and Family Relations (CBWFR). Success, Power, and Competition (SPC) 
revealed the importance of success, control, power, and competition within the male 
gender role which related to men?s aggressiveness and instrumentality (O'Neil et al.). The 
factor of Restrictive Emotionality (RE) showed the expectations that men could not be 
expressive with their feelings. Restrictive Affectionate Behavior Between Men 
(RABBM) related to the homophobia, lack of physical contact and fear of being seen as 
gay. Conflict Between Work and Family Relations (CBWFR) addressed the push-pull of 
being the provider and spending time at work versus being with family. 
 Stillson, O?Neil, and Owen (1991) examined race, class, age, unemployment, 
instrumentality-expressiveness, and personal strain on gender-role conflict. Stillson et al. 
used a sample of 134 adult men from an urban environment with about half unemployed. 
The sample included White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian men with Asian men omitted 
 
 36 
 
from analysis due to the limited response rate. Stillson et al. used the Gender-Role 
Conflict Scale (GRCS), Personal Attributes Questionnaire, Personal Strain Questionnaire, 
Index of Social Position, and a demographic questionnaire.  
In the canonical correlation analysis between predictor variables and GRCS 
subscores, two canonical variate pairs yielded significant findings (Stillson et al., 1991). 
The first pair, which accounted for 82% of the variance, included low vocational strain 
and high physical strain which predicted conflict in Success, Power, and Competition 
(SPC), Restrictive Emotionality (RE), and Conflict Between Work and Family Relations 
(CBWFR). The second canonical variate pair accounted for 6.1% of the variance in 
gender-role conflict. The second pair described lower class Black men who described 
themselves as instrumental and inexpressive and report low psychological strain 
predicting SPC but not RE or CBWFR.  
 Stillson et al. (1991) noted canonical correlation analyses tended to inflate 
findings and 88% of the variance accounted for may have been too liberal. In addition, 
the convenience sampling technique and demographics of the sample were additional 
limitations to the findings. The overrepresentation of unemployed men in the sample may 
have skewed the findings and limit the generalizability of the study. Also, there needed to 
be a broader sample of Asian American men in the study so this population could be 
included in the analyses.  
 In a study of male role conflict and psychological distress in male university 
counseling center clients, Good, Robertson, Fitzgerald, Stevens, and Bartel (1996) 
demonstrated the negative relationship of gender-role conflict to the psychological well-
being of male college students through the use of a clinical sample. The sample included 
130 male counseling center clients from a West Coast university and a Midwest 
 
 37 
 
university where this was the students? first request for counseling services. The sample 
was evenly spread across class years, including undergraduate and graduate students. The 
sample was primarily White (over 84%) with a small sample of Asian Americans (8%), 
Hispanics (6%), and Black/African Americans (2%). The study used the Gender-Role 
Conflict Scale and the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R). For analyses, Good 
et al. (1996) conducted simultaneous multiple regressions with a stringent criterion for 
determining significance, p < .001.  
 The results of the simultaneous multiple regressions found that masculine role 
conflict variables were significantly related to five symptoms in the SCL-90-R: paranoia 
(R
2
 = 20%), interpersonal sensitivity (R
2
 = 20%), psychoticism (R
2
 = 19%), depression 
(R
2
 = 18%), and obsessive-compulsivity (R
2
 = 17%) (Good et al., 1996). The following 
significant relationships emerged in the regressions: Restrictive Emotionality (RE) (p < 
.01) and Success, Power, and Competition (SPC) (p < .05) positively related to paranoia; 
RE positively related to interpersonal sensitivity (p < .001); RE positively related to 
psychoticism (p < .01); RE  (p < .05) and Conflict Between Work and Family Relations 
(CBWFR) (p < .001) positively related to depression; CBWFR positively related to 
obsessive-compulsivity (p < .001); and Restrictive Affectionate Behavior Between Men 
(RABBM) was uncorrelated to measures of psychological distress under the significance 
level determined by the researchers. 
 The limitations of this study were in the analysis and instrumentation. Good et al. 
(1996) believed the criterion may have been too stringent, which was due to the 
simultaneous multiple correlations analysis. There may have been more significant 
relationships had the analysis been conducted differently. In addition, the correlational 
design of the study did not show causality, which would limit the applicability of the 
 
 38 
 
findings (Good et al.). With the sample of mostly White men, more research is needed to 
see if similar relationships exist with men of color as well as men in other age groups and 
educational status.  
With regard to instrumentation, Good et al. (1996) expressed concern with the 
CBWFR subscale in the GRCS as not having strong construct validity and its possible 
impact on their findings. In measuring psychological distress, Good et al. used a self-
reported instrument where people who may experience more distress may choose to see 
themselves in a more positive light. They recommended having interviews with other 
parties to supplement their data from the participants. The findings may be different from 
conducting interviews in which professionals detected distress. 
 Blazina and Watkins (1996) examined the relationship of masculine gender-role 
conflict to college men?s psychological well-being, chemical substance usage, and 
attitudes toward help-seeking. The study used a sample of 148 undergraduate men 
enrolled in psychology courses at a southwestern university. The age range was 18 to 55 
years, with a mean of 23 years. The racial breakdown of the sample was 77% White, 
10.8% African American, 4.1% Hispanic, 4.1% Asian, and 4.1% other. The instruments 
used were the GRCS, Beck Depression Inventory, State Trait Anger Expression 
Inventory, State Trait Anxiety Inventory, Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory, 
and the Attitudes Toward Seeking Professional Psychological Help. Through canonical 
correlational analysis, gender-role conflict accounted for 7.8% of the variance in 
psychological well-being and 15.6% of the variance in help seeking attitudes. Success, 
Power, and Competition (SPC) and Restrictive Emotionality (RE) were significantly 
negatively correlated to help seeking.  
 
 39 
 
 In a study on the relationship between gender-role conflict and psychological 
distress, Good et al. (1995) surveyed male counseling students from a Midwestern 
university and a West Coast university. The total sample of 130 students, ranging in age 
from 17 - 39 years with a mean of 23 years, was similarly split among class years 
including undergraduate and graduate students. The racial breakdown of the sample was 
82% White with 8% Asian American, 6% Hispanic, and 2% Black-African American. 
The instruments used were GRCS and Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R).  
Good et al. (1995) observed regional differences between the Midwest and West 
coasts on Restrictive Affectionate Behavior Between Men (RABBM) with men from the 
Midwest having significantly higher scores on the RABBM subscale. However, the mean 
scores for the GRCS and SCL-90-R were similar enough for the researchers to combine 
the two samples for subsequent analyses. In the regression, GRCS predicted 20% of the 
variance in psychological distress; Restrictive Emotionality (RE) and Conflict Between 
Work and Family Relations (CBWFR) subscales were the two significant predictors. 
However, an earlier study had raised concerns with the CBWFR subscale as an accurate 
construct for gender-role conflict which prompted a second simultaneous regression 
without the subscale yielding similar significant results for RE. For future consideration, 
Good et al. mentioned that CBWFR may not be as salient an aspect of life for college 
students and that the construct needed to be tested further for content validity.  
In another study, Good and Wood (1995) attempted to present a more complex 
picture of male gender-role conflict and its impact on psychological distress and help-
seeking. The sample of 397 students in introductory psychology courses, from a large, 
public Midwestern university, consisted of 92% White, 4% African American, 3% Asian 
American, and 0.5% Hispanic. The instruments used in the study were the GRCS, the 
 
 40 
 
Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale, and the Attitudes Toward Seeking 
Professional Psychological Help.  
Good and Wood (1995) conducted latent variable modeling analysis with the 
GRCS and created two latent variables: restriction-related and achievement-related. 
Through this analysis, restriction-related male gender-role conflict accounted for 25% of 
help-seeking attitudes. Restriction-related male gender-role conflict referred to RE and 
RABBM, things that men are not socialized to do such as expressing feelings and having 
close friendships with other men. With regard to depression, achievement-related male 
gender-role conflict accounted for 21% of the variance. The competition aspect of 
comparing achievement with other men was seen as part of what men were expected to 
do and, when they were unable to meet those goals, it was related to depression. 
Wade (1996) studied racial identity, using the Racial Identity Attitudes Scale ? B 
Short Form (RIAS-B), and gender-role conflict, using the GRCS. The sample consisted 
of 95 African American men from two metropolitan areas in the East Coast. One group 
included alumni from a Black fraternity and the other group were non-fraternity 
members. The men ranged in age from 23 - 80 years (M = 48, SD = 12). Wade found no 
significant differences in scores on the RIAS-B Short Form and GRCS between the 
fraternity and non-fraternity samples. Through a correlation matrix with p < .05, the 
following results were found: Encounter attitudes were significantly positively related to 
all four GRCS subscales; Immersion/Emersion was positively related to Success, Power, 
and Competition (SPC) and Restrictive Emotionality (RE); Pre-Encounter was positively 
related to RE and Conflict Between Work and Family Relations (CBWFR); and there 
were no significant correlations between Internalization and the four GRCS subscales. 
 
 41 
 
Wade (1996) noted the relationship between having externally defined racial 
identity statuses and high gender-role conflict. He proposed that African American men 
experienced stress from having to conform to traditional dominant masculine roles as 
well as having to meet cultural expectations within the African American community. 
Wade explained that the lack of relationship between Internalization and the GRCS may 
have been due to individuals who were able to create a personal racial identity that would 
translate into a similar approach to gender identity.  
Limitations in this study may be due to the administration of the questionnaire 
since there were two different methods for the different samples (Wade, 1996). In 
addition, since questionnaires were mailed back, possible response biases of those who 
chose to respond as opposed to those who did not participate would affect the 
generalizability of the results. The demographic characteristics of the sample would also 
reduce the generalizability since the sample was mostly Black, middle-class, college 
educated fraternity men (Wade). More studies need to be conducted with a greater 
diversity in the sample and with more rigorous statistical analyses. 
With regards to the analysis, Wade (1996) was unable to provide evidence that 
racial identity could explain the variance in gender-role conflict. He could have explored 
the strength of the relationship between racial identity and gender-role conflict by 
conducting multiple regressions rather than a correlation analysis. 
 Overall, gender-role conflict has been shown to be significantly related to 
psychological distress, well-being, and help-seeking as indicated through various studies. 
However, in the previous studies, Asian American men were either not included or 
included in such small numbers that separate analyses could not be conducted. In 
 
 42 
 
addition, using self-esteem as a specific indicator of positive well-being was not used as 
often as more negative indicators such as depression and measures of psychosis.  
Asian American Men and Gender-Role Conflict 
Kim, O?Neil, and Owen (1996) investigated ethnic group differences and 
relationships between ethnicity, acculturation, and gender-role conflict among Asian 
American men. The sample included 125 Chinese American, Japanese American, and 
Korean American male college students, primarily undergraduates at a large 
southwestern university. The sample was overwhelmingly first generation (71%) but had 
representation of second generation (18%) and third generation (11%) Asian Americans. 
First generation in this study referred to students who were not born in the United States 
but immigrated. Kim et al. used the Suinn-Lew Asian Self-Identity Acculturation Scale 
and the Gender-Role Conflict Scale (GRCS) along with a demographic instrument.  
Through multivariate analysis of variance, Kim et al. (1996) found no ethnic 
differences in acculturation but found a significant relationship between acculturation and 
gender-role conflict. Through main canonical analysis, acculturation accounted for 18% 
of the variance in gender-role conflict. More specifically, acculturation was related to the 
GRCS subscales of Success, Power, and Competition (SPC) and Restrictive Emotionality 
(RE). Higher levels of acculturation predicted higher conflict in SPC and lower conflict 
in RE. The findings support the notion of the GRCS as an instrument that measures 
conflicts with hegemonic masculinity, using Western values as opposed to various Asian 
cultural values and heritages. The Restrictive Emotionality subscale, in particular, seems 
to illustrate that the variance in RE is dependent on the degree that Asian Americans 
subscribe to Western culture. The comparison between their Asian ethnic culture and 
Western culture may lead to a perspective that expressing emotions is more reflective of 
 
 43 
 
Western values. Therefore, the higher level of acculturation leading to lower conflict in 
RE demonstrates an association between expressing emotions and Western values. 
However, this idea contradicts the dominant Western idea of masculinity as being 
restrictive emotionally.  
Kim et al.?s (1996) study has limited generalizability due to its sampling. The 
focus on East Asian Americans left out the potential ethnic differences with other Asian 
Americans such as South Asian Americans and Southeast Asian Americans. In addition, 
the sampling technique was convenience sampling where students were recruited through 
campus organizations. Kim et al. did not provide more detailed information as to what 
type of campus organizations they recruited from, particularly whether they were 
mainstream student organizations or Asian ethnic organizations. The type of 
organizations the sample participated in may be indicative of students? level of 
acculturation and skew the results. In addition, the criteria for the generational statuses 
were not clearly explained. Information on age of arrival to the United States may 
provide insight into the participants? level of acculturation.  
Liu (2000, 2002) considered how racial identity and racism interacted with 
notions of masculinity in Asian American men. The variables included in the study were 
Asian American male college students? racial identity, prejudicial attitudes, gender-role 
conflict, and male role norms. The instruments used were Helms? People of Color Racial 
Identity Attitude Scale (PRIAS), the Gender-Role Conflict Scale (GRCS), Male Role 
Norms Inventory (MRNI), and the Quick Discrimination Index (QDI) in addition to a 
demographic form.  
The convenience sample (N = 323) of Asian American men came from four 
different institutions: a large East Coast public university, a small West Coast community 
 
 44 
 
college, a medium sized public West Coast university, and a medium-sized private, West 
Coast university (Liu 2000, 2002). Participants were recruited from an Asian American 
studies course, an introductory psychology course, and an Asian American fraternity. The 
mean age was 21.07 years; undergraduates comprised 85% of the sample, graduate 
students 4.6%, college graduates 7.4%, and 2.8% who did not report their status. The 
breakdown by ethnicity was Chinese (33%), Korean (23%), Japanese (8%), Filipino 
(11%), Vietnamese (5%), Taiwanese (3%), Asian Indian (3%), Pakistani (0.9%), Laotian 
(0.3%), Thai (0.9%), Hmong (0.3%), and Mien (0.3%). In addition, there were 12 bi-
racial students who identified as White and Asian, one bi-racial student who identified as 
Black and Asian, one bi-racial student who identified as Latino and Asian, 11 mixed 
ethnicity Asian, and 2.2% of the entire sample who did not report any ethnic information. 
Liu did not find any ethnic group differences on scores for gender-role conflict or male 
role norms, which may be due to the limited sample of various Asian ethnic groups or to 
the collapsing of those groups into broader regional categories (i.e., East Asian, Southeast 
Asian, and South Asian). 
The analysis revealed that Asian American men?s racial identity and prejudicial 
attitudes were significantly related (Liu, 2002). There was a negative relationship 
between the Conformity status of racial identity development and prejudicial attitudes.  
Lower scores on the Quick Discrimination Index indicated higher prejudicial attitudes. 
Students who endorsed Conformity attitudes were related to higher prejudicial attitudes. 
However, there was a positive relationship between Internalization status and prejudicial 
attitudes where students who endorsed Internalization attitudes had less prejudicial 
attitudes.  
 
 45 
 
Through hierarchical multiple regression, Liu (2000) found that racial identity and 
prejudicial attitudes accounted for 14% of the variance in gender-role conflict. PRIAS 
subscales that were significant positive predictors of gender-role conflict were 
Dissonance, Immersion/Emersion, and Internalization. Liu postulated that as Asian 
American men were struggling with their racial identity, they would also begin to 
question their gender identity. In addition, ?the more one endorsed racial identity 
attitudes of racial confusion, ethnocentrism, and integration, the more one was likely to 
experience Gender Role Conflict? (p. 144). In the regression for male role norms, racial 
identity and prejudicial attitudes accounted for 13% of the variance of male role norms. 
Immersion and Resistance (also known as Immersion/Emersion) and Internalization were 
significantly positively related and prejudicial attitudes were significantly negatively 
related to male role norms. Liu posited that ethnic and cultural values may account for the 
remainder of the variance for both gender-role conflict and male role norms. This 
coincides with Cheng?s (1999) thoughts on the influence of traditional Asian cultural 
values on notions of masculinity.  
Liu (2000, 2002) recommended looking at ethnic identity more closely by getting 
larger samples within each ethnic group to analyze ethnic differences. He also 
recommended greater attention to Asian cultural values. However, the idea of a 
monolithic Asian cultural values scale is rather presumptuous considering the varied 
ethnic heritages represented in the political term of Asian American (Hirabayashi, 1998). 
Asian cultural values instruments would need to be validated on many of the newer Asian 
ethnic groups that have immigrated to the United States, such as Vietnamese, Laotian, 
Hmong, and Thai Americans. Another limitation in Liu?s study included his choice of 
sampling. Since the sample participated in Asian American activities that were 
 
 46 
 
homogeneous either racially and possibly by gender, their experiences would not 
necessarily be generalizable to the broader population of Asian American men. 
 Overall, the literature on Asian American gender-role conflict is limited in its 
ability to generalize to the larger population of Asian American men. The focus on 
undergraduate students and limited sample sizes of non-East Asian American men give a 
narrow picture of the role of gender-role conflict in the lives of Asian American men. An 
issue that was alluded to by Liu (2000) and somewhat addressed by Kim et al. (1996) is 
the notion of conflicting or contradictory Asian cultural values for masculinity. However, 
this issue needs to be approached cautiously as to not assume a monolithic Asian cultural 
masculinity.  
Self-Esteem 
Overview of Self-Esteem 
 The concept of self-esteem among adolescents was explored in depth by 
Rosenberg (1965). He described self-esteem as a positive or negative attitude toward the 
self. It is a measure of self-appraisals that are influenced by reflected appraisals. He noted 
that societal factors serve to create standards by which individuals appraise themselves. 
This was particularly the case among adolescents whom Rosenberg described as being 
highly concerned with self-image. High self-esteem could be seen through two different 
lenses: (a) being superior to others or (b) just good enough. The meaning behind high 
self-esteem is self-respect and having a sense of self-worth while also being aware of 
limitations and wanting to grow. Low self-esteem ?implies self-rejection, self-
dissatisfaction, [and] self-contempt? (Rosenberg, 1965, p. 31). Incorporated in 
Rosenberg?s (1979) concept of self-esteem was having control over one?s life or being an 
 
 47 
 
?active agent? (p. 31), which is reflective of the Western values of individualism and 
ignores the role faith and religion may play in one?s life. 
In order to create an instrument to measure self-esteem, Rosenberg (1965) 
conducted a study to specify how social factors influence self-esteem and how self-
esteem related to socially significant attitudes and behaviors. This study resulted in the 
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE), a 10-item instrument where higher scores represent 
higher self-esteem with no threshold for low and high self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1989).  
The sample consisted of White and Black students who were ?5,024 high school 
juniors and seniors from ten randomly selected public high schools? in New York state 
(Rosenberg, 1965, p. 33). The results of Rosenberg?s study were that boys were 
significantly different from girls. Boys in the highest social class were more likely to 
have higher self-esteem than the lowest class whereas there was not a comparable 
difference for girls. The adolescent boys were more likely to value motor skills, physical 
control, interpersonal control and dominance, hardheadedness, and versatility in what 
they could do. The adolescent girls were more likely to value how likeable they were, 
being able to sympathize and care for others, having good ethics, and appreciating 
aesthetics. Rosenberg?s findings are consistent with more recent findings on gender roles 
and studies on masculinity (Blazina & Watkins, 1996; Bowker, 1998; O'Neil et al., 1986; 
Pleck, 1981). In addition, although 39% of Black adolescents and 45% of White 
adolescents reported high self-esteem, Rosenberg did not test for a significant racial 
difference in self-esteem. 
The limitation in Rosenberg?s (1965) study lies in its generalizability. He had a 
limited sample with only two races, White and Black, and although he noted a difference 
in the percent of Black students versus White students who had high self-esteem, he did 
 
 48 
 
not conduct any statistical analysis to determine if there was a significant difference in 
self-esteem between the two samples. In addition, testing for validity on non-White 
populations in general was not conducted. However, later studies using the Rosenberg 
Self-Esteem Scale (RSE) have shown its validity for diverse populations (Poindexter-
Cameron & Robinson, 1997; Pyant & Yanico, 1991; Utsey et al., 2000). In the analysis, 
Rosenberg could have conducted tests for significant differences between boys and girls, 
as well as Black youth and White youth.  
Racial Identity, Racism, and Self-Esteem 
 Most literature on racial identity and self-esteem has been focused on Black racial 
identity and racism. One study conducted by Parham and Helms (1985) examined 
African American students? self-esteem. The sample consisted of 166 Black college 
students, 65 men and 101 women, in four predominantly White institutions in the South, 
Midwest and West Coast. Parham and Helms used the Racial Identity Attitude Scale and 
the Self-Regard subscale of the Personal Orientation Inventory. Through multiple 
regression analysis, Parham and Helms found that racial identity accounted for 17% of 
the variance in self-regard.  They discovered that Pre-Encounter and Immersion statuses, 
equivalents to Conformity (Poindexter-Cameron & Robinson, 1997) and Immersion in 
the PRIAS, had an inverse relationship to self-esteem. Encounter was seen as positively 
related to self-regard, as was Internalization, although the latter status was not found to be 
significantly related.  
The findings on Pre-Encounter attitudes are consistent with the notion that Black 
students in that status devalue themselves as being Black and would therefore have low 
self-regard (Parham & Helms, 1985). Parham and Helms provided an explanation for the 
Encounter relationship with self-regard as due to the ?emerging, positive racial self-
 
 49 
 
concept? (p. 145). To explain Immersion?s negative relationship with self-regard, Parham 
and Helms thought the reactionary characteristic of that status may contribute to Black 
students? guilt over their previous denial or ignorance. The positive relationship, although 
not significant, of Internalization with self-regard, represented the new balance and 
reconciliation of prior attitudes and feelings towards one?s own race. 
Although Parham and Helms (1985) used the Self-regard subscale of the Personal 
Orientation Inventory to measure self-esteem, the construct was similar and could be 
reasonably translated to findings using the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. A limitation in 
the study was the lack of information regarding sampling procedures. Parham and Helms 
were unclear about whether the participants were selected purposefully or randomly and 
where the tests were administered.  
 In a study on Black women, Pyant and Yanico (1991) examined the relationship 
between racial identity and gender role attitudes with psychological well-being. The 
sample consisted of 78 Black female college students from a predominantly Black 
university in North Carolina and 65 Black female nonstudents. The instruments used 
were the Racial Identity Attitude Scale ? B Short Form (RIAS-B), Attitudes Toward 
Women Scale, Well-Being scale of California Psychological Inventory, Beck Depression 
Inventory, and Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. The only significant predictor of self-
esteem was the RIAS-B Pre-Encounter subscale which accounted for 5.8% of the 
variance in the student sample and was negatively related. In the non-student sample, the 
Pre-Encounter and Encounter subscales were significant negative predictors of self-
esteem with Pre-Encounter accounting for 16.4% of the variance and Encounter 
accounting for 4.9% of the variance.  
 
 50 
 
 Pyant and Yanico (1991) indicated that the negative relationship between Pre-
Encounter and Encounter attitudes with self-esteem was consistent with Cross?s model of 
Nigrescence. This finding contradicted Parham and Helms? (1985) earlier study which 
found a positive relationship between Encounter with self-regard. The difference may be 
due to the different instruments used to measure self-esteem or to the samples. The 
Encounter relationship was only negatively significant for the non-college age sample 
which Pyant and Yanico noted could have been indicative of their life situations where 
they were faced with more racism than the college students. 
 Utsey, Ponterotto, Reynolds, and Cancelli (2000) conducted a study on the coping 
strategies, racial discrimination, life satisfaction, and self-esteem of African American 
college students. The purpose was to explore if any relationships existed between the 
types of coping strategies used and the types of racial discrimination African Americans 
encountered, if there was a relationship between their encounters with racism and their 
overall race-related stress, and if there was a relationship between the coping strategies 
with life satisfaction and self-esteem. Utsey et al. used a sample of 213 African American 
college students from North Carolina, New York City, and Louisiana with 64% women 
and 36% men. The ages ranged from 17 ? 60 years old (M = 21.35, SD = 5.6). A majority 
of the sample (93%) identified as single. The instruments used were the Coping Strategy 
Indicator (CSI), Index of Race Related Stress, Satisfaction with Life Scale, Demographic 
questionnaire, and Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE). 
 The primary tools for analysis included a General Linear Model Multiple 
Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) to determine if gender differences existed in the types 
of coping strategies used in encounters with racial discrimination. Since there was a main 
effect found for gender, specifically in the Seeking Social Support subscale of the CSI, 
 
 51 
 
separate analyses were conducted for men and women. Women were reported to have 
higher scores in Seeking Social Support than men. With regards to self-esteem, Utsey et 
al. (2000) used multiple regression analysis to determine the amount of variance in RSE 
accounted for by the CSI subscale scores, gender, and racism condition. They found that 
CSI subscales, gender, and racism condition accounted for 16% of the variance in self-
esteem with the CSI Avoidance subscale having a negative relationship with the RSE.  
The limitations in the study include the limited generalizability of the findings due 
to the sample. Since the sample was taken from Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities and Black Studies courses, the students may have had different levels of 
exposure to racism and racial discrimination thereby affecting their responses to the 
instruments (Utsey et al., 2000).  
 In another study, Poindexter-Cameron and Robinson (1997) examined racial 
identity and self-esteem using the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE). The sample 
included 46 African American undergraduate females from a predominantly White 
university (PWU) and 38 African American undergraduate females from a traditionally 
Black university (TBU) in the Southeast. The median age was 20.3 years for the PWU 
and 21.3 for the TBU. The study used the Racial Identity Attitude Scale Long Form, 
Womanist Identity Attitude Scale, and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. There was a 
negative correlation between Pre-Encounter and self-esteem and a positive correlation 
between Internalization and self-esteem. However, no significant correlation was found 
between Encounter and Immersion and self-esteem. With regards to gender identity, a 
more inclusive/internalized notion of gender identity was significantly positively 
correlated with self-esteem.   
 
 52 
 
 Limitations in the study included administration of the survey as well as the 
locations of the studies. The race and gender of the administrator may have influenced 
the results. Additionally, the presence of resources geared towards African American 
students and particularly African American women at the institutions would reduce the 
generalizability of the findings since not all students have access to such institutional 
support. There is a possibility that the high self-esteem exhibited by the women could 
have been due to the large amount of programming and support to assist in their racial 
and gender identity development on campus (Poindexter & Cameron, 1997). 
 Yip (2003) focused on Chinese Americans? self-esteem. The purpose of the study 
was to investigate the salience of racial or ethnic identity depending on the situation and 
self-esteem. The sample included 67 undergraduates from two New York City 
universities ranging in age from 17 to 22 years old. There were 29 males and 38 females 
who participated in the palm pilot study. The study spanned seven days; participants 
completed a questionnaire at the end of the seven days. Half the sample were born in the 
U.S. while the other half were born in countries that were majority ethnically Chinese. 
Yip (2003) used the Global Ethnic Identity instrument, locally designed questions on 
presence of Chinese in the area, ethnic identity salience, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem 
Scale, and the anxiety and depressive symptoms subscales of the Profile of Mood States. 
Although Yip found that ethnic identity salience varied depending on the context, there 
was no relationship between self-esteem and depressive symptoms or between self-
esteem and ethnic identity. However, ethnic identity salience was associated with better 
mental health. Yip?s study showed that it was not only positive regard, operationalized by 
an instrument on global self-esteem, that was related to good mental health but positive 
regard about one's ethnic identity and salience. 
 
 53 
 
 Limitations in Yip?s (2003) study include the validity of the Global Ethnic 
Identity instrument on populations that are not in metropolitan areas. The surveys were 
conducted in New York City where there may be distinct racial and cultural experiences 
not found in other Chinese American communities in the United States. Another 
consideration that was not taken into account was how race may have influenced the 
participants? self-esteem. For second or later generation Chinese Americans, race may be 
more salient than ethnicity due to the racialization process that occurs in the United 
States. 
Gender-Role Conflict and Self-Esteem 
 Sharpe and Heppner (1991), in a study on gender role, gender-role conflict and 
psychological well-being, used a sample of 190 male students, predominantly White, in 
psychology classes at a large Midwestern university. The study used the Gender-Role 
Conflict Scale (GRCS), Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ), Coopersmith Self-
Esteem Inventory, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Beck Depression Inventory, Miller 
Social Intimacy Scale, and Austin Contentment/Distress. Through a canonical analysis, 
Sharpe and Heppner found ?three independent sources of covariation? with the primary 
two described as traditional masculine well-being and affiliative well-being. They found 
that the psychological well-being variables were better predictors of the male sex role 
variables than male sex role variables as predictors of psychological well-being.   
Psychological well-being variables accounted for 25% of the variance of the male 
sex role variables while male sex role variables accounted for 12% of the variance in 
psychological well-being. Sharpe and Heppner also found that the GRCS served as a 
more direct measure of the negative consequences of following traditional male roles 
than the PAQ masculinity scores. Self-esteem was negatively correlated with gender-role 
 
 54 
 
conflict, with the exception of the Success, Power, and Competition (SPC) subscale of 
the GRCS. However, they noted that the lack of significance of SPC could have been due 
to the use of a college sample in which those issues may not be particularly important at 
that time.  
 Since the RSE has been tested for construct validity with the Coopersmith Self-
Esteem Inventory, future studies on gender-role conflict and self-esteem should lead to 
similar findings (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991; Silber & Tippett, 1965; Wylie, 1989). Of 
special interest would be the lack of relationship between SPC and self-esteem in Sharpe 
and Heppner?s study (1991). Sharpe and Heppner proposed that Success, Power, and 
Competition may not be related to psychological health or that those issues did not 
resonate with the college age sample. In other studies on the GRCS (Good et al., 1996; 
Good et al., 1995), the Conflict Between Work and Family Relations (CBWFR) subscale 
was highlighted as the subscale that may not be applicable to the college-aged population 
instead of the SPC. The argument in those studies regarding CWFR indicated that career 
issues would not be as relevant to the college male population and findings on the 
subscale CBWFR would be difficult to generalize to the male population as a whole. 
Summary 
A review of the literature has shown a dearth of information on Asian American 
men, particularly as it relates to their gender-role conflict and self-esteem. Studies have 
shown the importance of racial identity development for Asian American college students 
that needs to be explored in greater depth among the various Asian ethnic groups. The 
growing body of literature around gender-role conflict has revealed the negative impact 
of conforming to hegemonic masculinity on men?s well-being without much 
consideration for Asian Americans. Finally the literature on self-esteem, as a component 
 
 55 
 
of psychological well-being, has yet to explore the interaction between race and gender as 
it relates to Asian American men.  
 For most of the studies, the primary limitations were in sampling, whether it was 
the technique or limited response rates, and instrumentation. The use of convenience 
sampling reduced the generalizability of the findings to the broader population. A more 
rigorous sampling method needs to be employed for future studies on Asian American 
men. Most of the instruments need to be validated on the Asian American population 
since the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and Gender-Role Conflict Scale were normed on 
White men. 
 In addition, the qualitative findings of the impact race and gender have on Asian 
American men have not been explored quantitatively (J. W. Chan, 1998; Chang & Yeh, 
2003; Cheng, 1996; Kumashiro, 1999). With the literature noting the importance of racial 
identity and gender on self-esteem and the lack of empirical research that focuses 
specifically on Asian American men, Chapter 3 will outline the methodology for this 
study. More mature statuses of racial identity and low gender-role conflict have been 
shown to relate to higher self-esteem. In addition, more mature racial identity statuses 
have been shown to relate to lower gender-role conflict. By combining the widely used 
instruments for each variable, the study attempted to reveal the interactional nature of 
race, gender, and self-esteem as it pertains to Asian American undergraduate men.   
 
 56 
 
CHAPTER 3 ? METHODOLOGY 
 This chapter outlines the methods the researcher used in conducting this 
quantitative, correlational research project. It provides details on sample, instrumentation, 
procedures, and data analyses.  
Purpose and Hypotheses 
The study examined the following research question: Do racial identity and 
gender-role conflict relate to Asian American undergraduate men?s self-esteem? 
The specific hypotheses for the research questions were: 
Hypothesis 1: There is no relationship between each racial identity status and self-
esteem for Asian American undergraduate men. 
 Based on the literature in Chapter 2, there are conflicting findings with regards to 
the relationships between the racial identity statuses and self-esteem. Alvarez and Helms 
(2001) found that Immersion and Integrative Awareness in the People of Color Racial 
Identity Attitude Scale (PRIAS) were positively significantly related to collective self-
esteem whereas in the study conducted by Parham and Helms (1985), Pre-Encounter 
(equivalent to Conformity) and Immersion were inversely related to global self-esteem 
and Encounter (equivalent to Dissonance) was significantly positively related to self-
esteem. Poindexter-Cameron and Robinson (1997) did not find significant relationships 
between the Encounter and Immersion statuses with self-esteem, only a negative 
relationship between Pre-Encounter with self-esteem and a positive relationship between 
Internalization and self-esteem. The point of agreement on the studies was the positive 
relationship between the more complex racial identity status of Internalization with self-
esteem. However, with such conflicting findings regarding the various racial identity 
statuses and self-esteem, the null hypothesis was used in this study. 
 
 57 
 
Hypothesis 2: A significant negative relationship exists between gender role 
conflict and self-esteem for Asian American undergraduate men. 
 The previous literature indicated that gender role conflict was negatively related 
to self-esteem and other measures of positive psychological well-being (Good et al., 
1996; Good & Wood, 1995; Sharpe & Heppner, 1991). Although Asian American men 
were not included in those studies, similar findings were expected in this study. 
Hypothesis 3: Significant positive relationships exist between Dissonance, 
Immersion-Emersion, and Internalization racial identity statuses and gender-role 
conflict. 
 The prior studies were somewhat consistent with regard to the relationship 
between racial identity and gender role conflict. According to Wade (1996), the statuses 
indicative of psychological strain (Pre-encounter, Encounter, Immersion-Emersion) were 
related to gender role conflict. However, in his study of Asian American men, Liu (2000) 
found that Dissonance, Immersion and Resistance (also known as Immersion-Emersion) 
and Internalization were significantly positively related to gender-role conflict. With the 
population in this study having similar demographics to Liu?s participants, the hypothesis 
was based on his findings. 
Hypothesis 4: There are distinct and significant relationships between the statuses 
of racial identity development and the subscales of gender-role conflict with self-
esteem for Asian American undergraduate men. 
 Prior studies have shown a moderate relationship between racial identity and 
gender-role conflict (Liu, 2000, 2002; Wade, 1996). There were not strong enough 
relationships to indicate multicollinearity (Liu, 2000; Wade). Therefore, the hypothesis 
would follow that racial identity and gender-role conflict would not be significantly 
 
 58 
 
related to each other and would have distinct relationships with self-esteem. The prior 
studies on racial identity with self-esteem (Parham & Helms, 1985) and gender-role 
conflict with self-esteem (Sharpe & Heppner, 1991) indicate that racial identity and 
gender-role conflict would both be significantly related to self-esteem as well as 
predictive. 
 Hypothesis 5a: There are no differences by ethnic region and location of 
institution (East coast and West coast) in racial identity development and gender-
role conflict. 
Hypothesis 5b:  There are no relationships between generational status and 
socioeconomic status with racial identity development and gender-role conflict. 
 The literature has not addressed differences based on location of institution or 
regions based on the experiences of Asian Americans in the East Coast and the West 
Coast. Additionally, generational statuses that have been taken into consideration in past 
studies did not account for 1.5 generation Asian Americans, those who immigrated to the 
United States at a young age. Socioeconomic status also has not been included in the 
research around Asian American men so therefore a null hypothesis was proposed. 
Research Design 
 The study conducted was a non-experimental, correlational, quantitative study on 
Asian American undergraduate men?s racial identity, gender-role conflict, and self-
esteem. In a non-experimental design, there is no manipulation of conditions as a method 
of examining relationships between variables (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001). One 
method used in non-experimental designs is correlational research. Correlational research 
measures the degree of the relationship between phenomena and thus cannot determine 
 
 59 
 
causality. The independent variables in this study were racial identity and gender-role 
conflict whereas the dependent variable was self-esteem. 
The sampling procedure used was a simple random selection among Asian 
American undergraduate men from two large, public, research institutions in the East 
Coast and West Coast. Random sampling ensures an unbiased sample in which each 
member of the population has an equal probability of being selected to participate in the 
study (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001). By reducing bias, McMillan and Schumacher 
asserted that there is a high probability for various population characteristics to be 
represented.  
Research Context 
 One institution was on the East Coast in the Mid-Atlantic with a 14% Asian 
American undergraduate population of which 51.5% were men. The Mid-Atlantic 
institution had an Asian American Studies Certificate Program, over 20 recognized Asian 
American student organizations, and professional staff to work with the Asian American 
population. The second institution, on the West Coast, had 34.9% Asian Americans in the 
undergraduate population of which 44.4% were men. The West Coast institution had over 
60 recognized Asian American student organizations and a center for Asian American 
Studies with full-time staff. 
 With both institutions having similar structural support for Asian American 
students, the samples were assumed to have similar characteristics. However, a 
preliminary analysis was conducted to determine whether the responses from participants 
at the two institutions were significantly different from one another. 
 
 60 
 
Participants 
 For the purposes of this study, the participants were self-identified Asian 
American undergraduate men (N = 173), a population distinct from the institutions? Asian 
international student population. Based on an anticipated response rate of 39.6% from 
web-based surveys (Cook, Heath, & Thompson, 2000) and a recommended 30 
participants per variable, a random sample of 500 Asian American undergraduate men, 
not to include international students, was requested from the Registrar?s Office at each of 
the institutions for a total of 1000 Asian American men sampled. 
 Of the 500 students sampled from the East Coast institution, 115 students 
completed the survey resulting in a response rate of 23%. One student survey was 
discarded because he did not meet the minimum age requirement of 18 years old. 
Participants were given the option to identify their ethnic and racial backgrounds. 
Participants were given the choice to identify as Asian American (n = 109) or Bi-/Multi-
racial (n = 7) along with an open text box to submit any additional information. In 
addition, ethnic data were gathered in which the researcher provided a list of options. 
However, the ethnic data were collapsed into ethnic regional groups: (a) East Asian (n = 
55), (b) South Asian (n = 25), (c) Southeast Asian (n = 13), (d) Multi-ethnic Asian (n = 
16), and (e) Multi-racial (n = 7). 
Participants from the West Coast institution (n = 58) completed the survey 
resulting in a response rate of 11.6%. The regional ethnic backgrounds of students were 
grouped into: (a) East Asian (n = 29), (b) South Asian (n = 5), (c) Southeast Asian (n = 
13), (d) Multi-ethnic Asian (n = 8), and (e) Multi-racial (n = 3). 
Due to the small sample size from the West Coast and lack of significant 
difference through Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), the two samples were collapsed into 
 
 61 
 
a single data set. For the total sample, 163 participants identified as Asian American and 
10 identified as Multiracial, including one Asian adoptee (Table 1). The mean age of 
participants (n = 167) was 20.99 years (SD = 2.89), with a range of 18 ? 44 years (Table 
2). The participants were overwhelmingly East Asian American (48.6%) with South 
Asian Americans (17.3%) being the next largest group, followed by Southeast Asian 
Americans (14.5%), Multi-ethnic Asian Americans (13.9%), and Multiracial students 
(5.8%) (Table 1).  
Over half of the participants identified as second generation Asian American, 
being born in the United States with parents who immigrated to the U.S. The breakdown 
by generation was as follows: (a) 1
st
 generation (16.2%) - foreign born and immigrated to 
the United States (U.S.); (b) 1.5 generation (23.7%) - foreign born but raised primarily in 
the U.S. (immigrated at age 12 or younger); (c) 2
nd
 generation (54.9%) - born in the U.S.; 
parents immigrated to the U.S.; (d) 3
rd
 generation (0.6%) - born in the U.S.; parents born 
in the U.S.; (e) 4
th
 generation or higher (2.9%) - born in the U.S.; parents, grandparents 
(or more) born in the U.S. (Table 1). Participants who listed ?other? indicated various 
generational statuses depending on the parent or identified as fifth generation. Of the 
students who identified as 1
st
 generation, the number of years spent in the U.S. were M = 
11.09, SD = 6.67 (Table 2). For statistical analyses of hypotheses including generational 
status, generational statuses of 2
nd
 and higher were collapsed for comparisons with 1
st
 and 
1.5 generational statuses due to the limited cell sizes of 3
rd
 generation and higher. 
Generational status was treated as continuous variable in all analyses. 
Socioeconomic status was classified from lower class to upper class with 
participants self-identifying. The largest group was middle class (43.4%), then upper-
 
 62 
 
middle class (34.7%), lower-middle class (13.9%), lower class (5.8%), and upper class 
(1.7%). Socioeconomic status was also treated as a continuous variable in all analyses. 
 
 63 
 
Table 1 
 
Participants? Demographic Information 
Variable n % 
Institution 
 East Coast 115 66.5    
 West Coast 58 33.5  
 
Race 
 Asian American 163 94.2 
 Bi-/Multi-Racial 10  5.8 
 
Regional Ethnic Background 
 East Asian 84 48.6 
 South Asian  30 17.3 
 Southeast Asian 25 14.5 
 Multi-Ethnic Asian 24 13.9 
 Multi-Racial 10   5.8 
 
Generational Status 
 First 28 16.2 
 1.5 41 23.7 
 Second 95 54.9 
 Third 1   0.6 
 Fourth or higher 5  2.9 
 Other 3  1.7 
 
Mother?s Education 
 High school or less 47 27.2 
 Some college 28 16.2 
 Associate?s Degree 6   3.5 
 Bachelor?s Degree 59 34.1 
 Master?s, Doctorate, or 32 18.5 
  Professional Degree 
 Missing 1   0.6 
 
Father?s Education 
 High school or less 31 17.9 
 Some college 21 12.1 
 Associate?s Degree 4   2.3 
 Bachelor?s Degree 49 28.3 
 Master?s, Doctorate, or 66 38.2 
  Professional Degree 
 Missing 2   1.2
 
 64 
 
Table 1 (continued) 
Variable n % 
Mother?s Occupation 
 Unemployed/Not working 36 20.9 
 Manual laborer 11   6.4 
 Service Worker 42 24.3 
 Skilled Worker 38 22.0 
 Professional or top administrator 45 26.0 
 Missing 1   0.6 
 
Father?s Occupation 
 Unemployed/Not working 10   5.8 
 Manual laborer 18 10.4 
 Service Worker 23 13.3 
 Skilled Worker 33 19.1 
 Professional or top administrator 87 50.3 
 Missing 2   1.2 
 
Socioeconomic Status 
 Lower class 10   5.8 
 Lower-middle class 24 13.9 
 Middle class 75 43.4 
 Upper-middle class 60 34.7 
 Upper class 3   1.7 
 Missing 1   0.6 
 
Class Year 
 1
st
 24 13.9 
 2
nd
 35 20.2 
 3
rd
  44 25.4 
 4
th
  51 29.5 
 5
th
 + 18 10.4 
 Missing 1   0.6 
 
Sexual Orientation 
 Heterosexual 154
a
 90.2 
 Gay 9   5.2 
 Bi-sexual 6   3.5 
 Missing 2   1.1 
 
Relationship Status 
 Single 130 75.1 
 Partnered 36 20.8 
 Married 4   2.3 
 Widowed 1   0.6 
 Missing 2   1.2 
 
 65 
 
Table 1 (continued)  
Variable n % 
Religious Affiliation 166 96.0 
 Agnostic   10   5.8 
 Atheist    8   4.6 
 Buddhist  14   8.1 
 Catholic  28 16.2 
 Christian
b
  57 32.9 
 Daoist   1  0.6 
 G.o.D.   1  0.6 
 Hindu 18 10.4 
 Humanism   1  0.6 
 Jain   1  0.6 
 Multiple
c
   3  1.7 
 Muslim   2  1.2 
 None
d
 19 11.0 
 Sikh   1   0.6 
 Taoism   1  0.6 
 Zoroastrian   1  0.6 
 
Student Status 
 Full-time 167 96.5 
 Part-time     6   3.5 
 
Employment Status 
 Full-time    4   2.3 
 Part-time  39 22.5 
a
2 participants responded ?straight? in the ?other? category. Researcher placed them in 
the heterosexual category. 
b
Christian ? collapsed identifications in denominations 
(Baptist, Presbyterian, Evangelical, Episcopalian, Protestant, United Methodist). 
c
Participants who identified with more than one religion were placed in the multiple 
category. 
d
None includes responses such as ?N/A,? ?No religion.? 
 
 
 66 
 
Table 2 
 
Participants? Age and Years in the U.S. for 1st Generation Students 
Variable   N  Mean   Standard Range  
         Deviation 
 
Age of respondents  167  20.99  2.89  18-44   
Years in the U.S. 27 11.09 6.67 2.5-30 
1
st
 Generation 
 
Instrumentation 
People of Color Racial Identity Attitude Scale 
 The People of Color Racial Identity Attitude Scale (PRIAS; Appendix A) is a 50-
item instrument with a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) 
(Appendix A). The instrument measures four statuses in Helms?s (1995) People of Color 
racial identity theory: Conformity, Dissonance, Immersion-Emersion, and Internalization.  
Integrative Awareness, the most mature status in the model, is combined with 
Internalization in the instrument. Scores for each subscale were determined by summing 
the scores in the corresponding items. The sums were then transformed to T scores (M = 
50, SD = 10) for comparison across subscales. Although Helms (personal 
communication, December 14, 2004) recommended using the T scores in plot profiles to 
interpret scores, for the purposes of the research questions, plot profiles were not 
necessary. However, scores from each status were compiled and used for analyses.  
The degree to which an individual identified and drew from a certain status was 
exhibited by how high the score was; therefore, if the Immersion-Emersion status 
received a higher score than Dissonance, then the respondent was more likely to manifest 
characteristics found in the Immersion-Emersion status as opposed to the Dissonance 
status. 
 
 67 
 
The following range of Cronbach alphas for each subscale were taken from prior 
studies on Asian Americans measuring internal consistency: Conformity .71 - .78; 
Dissonance .72 - .78; Immersion-Emersion .74 - .83; and Integrative Awareness .61 - .86 
(Alvarez & Helms, 2001; Kohatsu, 1992; Liu, 2002; Naik, 2003). McMillan and 
Schumacher (2001) noted that an acceptable range of reliability for instruments was .70 
to .90. Although the Internalization subscale?s range is moderate to acceptable, it has 
been used frequently in studies on racial identity development (Alvarez & Helms, 2001; 
Kohatsu, 1992; Liu, 2000; Naik, 2003; Parham & Helms, 1985). Validity for the PRIAS 
can be found in its consistency across studies, indicated earlier, to measure racial identity 
development. ?Test validity is the extent to which inferences and uses made on the basis 
of scores from an instrument are reasonable and appropriate? (McMillan & Schumacher, 
2001, p. 181). For the Asian American population, the PRIAS has been shown to be a 
reliable instrument. The small range in Cronbach alphas across studies revealed a 
consistency in what was measured, with the exception of the Internalization subscale. 
In the current study, the PRIAS had the following Cronbach alphas: (a) 
Conformity = .85; (b) Dissonance = .83; (c) Immersion/Emersion = .85; and (d) 
Internalization = .80. The results for reliability were higher than what was previously 
found in other studies (Liu, 2000; Naik, 2003). The higher reliabilities may be due to the 
random sampling method used in the current study as compared to the convenience 
sampling in both Liu?s and Naik?s studies which involved students primarily from Asian 
American student organizations and Asian American studies courses. 
Gender-Role Conflict Scale 
 The Gender Role Conflict Scale (GRCS; Appendix B), which measures the 
internal conflict with gender-roles, is a 37-item instrument with a 6-point Likert scale (1 
 
 68 
 
= strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree) and four subscales: (a) Success, Power, and 
Competition (SPC); (b) Restrictive Emotionality (RE); (c) Restrictive Affectionate 
Behavior Between Men (RABBM); and (d) Conflict Between Work and Family 
Relations (CBWFR) (O'Neil et al., 1986). To calculate subscale scores, the corresponding 
statements to each subscale were summed then divided by the number of statements in 
that subscale. The total GRCS score was calculated by summing the scores on all the 
items then divided by 37, which was the total number of items. Higher gender-role 
conflict corresponded with higher total scores. 
 The GRCS has been utilized in numerous studies to determine the existence of 
conflict in men with the prescribed gender role norms (Good et al., 1995; Good & Wood, 
1995; Stillson et al., 1991). The GRCS has been determined to have convergent validity 
with the Brannon Masculinity Scale and the Fear of Intimacy Scale (Good et al., 1995). 
The instrument was also tested for social desirability and was not associated with the 
Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Good et al.). The construct validity of GRCS 
has shown a significant positive correlation with other measures on psychological distress 
(Good et al.; Sharpe & Heppner, 1991). With regard to internal consistency, across 
studies of 10 diverse samples, O?Neil (2004) reported the average GRCS Cronbach alpha 
as .88. Across 20 diverse samples, the average GRCS subscale Cronbach alphas were .83 
for SPC, .82 for RE, .83 for RABBM, and .78 for CBWFR. O?Neil et al. (1986) found, 
for a sample of 14 participants in a four-week interval, test-retest reliabilities ranging 
from .72 to .86. In relation to Asian American men, Liu (2002) reported Cronbach alphas 
of .90 for the GRCS and for each of the subscales: .84 for SPC, .82 for RE, .81 for 
RABBW, and .77 for CBWFR. 
 
 69 
 
 The current study had Cronbach alphas of .92 for the total scale, .84 for Success, 
Power, and Competition, .88 for Restrictive Emotionality, .87 for Restrictive Affectionate 
Behavior Between Men, and .85 for Conflict Between Work and Family Relations. The 
results were consistent with previous findings and showed higher internal consistency in 
CBWFR than previously. Similar to the PRIAS, the random sampling technique may 
have contributed to the higher reliabilities. 
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale 
 The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE; Appendix C) is a 10-item instrument 
used to measure global self-regard (Rosenberg, 1965). The instrument uses a 4-point 
Likert scale (1 = strongly agree to 4 = strongly disagree). Half of the items in the scale 
are reverse scored (Items 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7). Scores are summed for all the items so that the 
range is 10 ? 40 with 40 representing the highest score possible and high self-esteem. 
There is no cut-off that delineates high and low self-esteem in the RSE. 
The RSE has demonstrated adequate validity and reliability and is the most 
widely-used instrument for global self-esteem (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991; Byrne, 
1983; Silber & Tippett, 1965; Wylie, 1989). In a review of the RSE, the alpha co-
efficients in studies ranged from .77 to .88 (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991). The test-retest 
correlation was .85 for 28 participants for a two-week interval (Silber & Tippett, 1965). 
The RSE has also shown convergent validity with other self-esteem scales, such as the 
Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory, and a negative relationship with tests on low self-
regard (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991). The internal consistency rating in one study of 
race, coping, life satisfaction, and self-esteem had a Cronbach alpha of .83 (Utsey et al., 
2000). Discriminant validity has also been shown for the RSE in previous correlations of 
RSE with grade point averages, locus of control, gender, or work experience (Blascovich 
 
 70 
 
& Tomaka, 1991). For a sample of Asian Americans (N = 264), Chen (2005) found a 
Cronbach alpha of .87 for the RSE. The internal consistency for the Rosenberg Self-
Esteem Scale in this study was .86. 
Demographic Questionnaire 
 Demographic questions (Appendix D) were created to provide a richer description 
of the participants and for additional analyses. Included in the questionnaire were 
questions on race, ethnicity, age, generational status, socioeconomic status, sexual 
orientation, year in school, parents? education, parents? occupation, and religious 
affiliation. 
Comments Section 
 At the end of the survey, a section for comments was included to allow for 
feedback from survey respondents. The area was a text box in the online survey and was 
an optional component to completion of the survey. 
Conclusion of Survey 
 Participants were given the option to enter a drawing for the raffle and receive 
results of the study (Appendix E). 
Procedures 
 The universities? registrar?s offices were contacted to generate a random list of 
500 Asian American undergraduate male students per institution. The East coast 
institution provided an email list to the researcher whereas the West coast institution sent 
correspondence on behalf of the researcher. Only the East coast sample was given codes 
to correspond with their email addresses for follow-ups. Email invitations were sent on 
March 17, 2005 to the East coast institution (Appendix F) and March 22, 2005 to the 
West coast institution (Appendix G) with a brief introduction to the study, link to the web 
 
 71 
 
survey, notice of the selectivity of the survey, deadline for responses, contact information 
for further questions, and notice of drawing for prizes. A two-week window was given 
for students to complete the survey. Follow-up emails were sent a week after initial 
contact to the remaining participants (Appendices H & I), with a final follow-up email 
three days before the deadline (Appendices J & K). Within a week following the 
completion of data collection, the winners of the drawing were notified and the gift cards 
mailed out. Porter and Whitcomb (2003) found that inclusion of a deadline for the web 
survey as well as a notice that the participants were a select group would increase 
response rates by 7.6%. 
However, the response rate for the East coast sample was 23% and for the West 
coast sample was 11.9%. Possible reasons for the low response rates include: (a) the 
timing of the surveys since invitations were sent out around institutional breaks due to 
mitigating circumstances; (b) certain populations possibly being sent multiple surveys 
from other studies at the same time; (c) lack of personal relationship with researcher, 
particularly for the institution that the researcher was not affiliated with; and (d) possible 
technical difficulties where invitations may have been filtered out as junk mail in the 
student accounts. 
 Surveys were created through a reputable on-line survey instrument, 
SurveyMonkey.com, with data collected on a secure encrypted server. Survey responses 
were backed up hourly internally and nightly on the backup server. Once students clicked 
onto the web survey, the first item was the consent form. The consent form (Appendices 
L and M) included a list of expectations and contact information of the researcher and 
faculty advisor. Separate consent forms had to be created since the West Coast institution 
requested that the institution?s faculty sponsor be included. At the end of the survey, 
 
 72 
 
participants were given instructions on how to be entered into the raffle. Students could 
submit their email address at the conclusion of the survey (Appendix E) to be entered into 
the drawing for one of two $50 American Express Gift Cards or one of two $25 
American Express Gift Cards. 
The order of the instruments in the survey was as follows: (a) Rosenberg Self-
Esteem Scale (RSE), (b) Gender-Role Conflict Scale (GRCS), (c) People of Color Racial 
Identity Attitude Scale (PRIAS), and the demographic questionnaire. To reduce test bias, 
the RSE was placed first. The researcher did not want to prime the participants by 
providing cues on racial and gender identity and thereby influencing their responses on 
self-esteem. The purpose of this method of controlling bias was to create a more accurate 
evaluation of racial identity and gender-role conflict on self-esteem.  
The GRCS was placed before the PRIAS so as to not prime the participants to 
think about racial implications on gender roles. Finally, the demographic questionnaire 
was placed at the end since participants would be able to answer with relative ease.  
Data Analysis 
 All data were collected through a web-based survey instrument, allowing for data 
to be imported into SPSS. Descriptive and frequency statistics were conducted in order to 
determine characteristics of the sample population. Preliminary analyses were conducted 
to see if the two institutional samples could be combined.  
For the PRIAS, GRCS, and RSE, Cronbach alphas were computed to assess 
internal consistency of scales on the instruments. Computing Cronbach alphas follows a 
precedent set by other researchers who have modified the PRIAS scale for the Asian 
American student population (Alvarez & Helms, 2001; Kohatsu, 1992; Naik, 2003). The 
PRIAS was modified by replacing ?race? with ?Asian American.? Cronbach alphas were 
 
 73 
 
calculated for all GRCS subscales and for the total scale. Pearson correlations were then 
computed to identify relationships between demographic variables and instruments.  
Blocked hierarchical multiple regression was used to determine the amount of 
variance accounted for in self-esteem by racial identity and gender role conflict. For 
multiple regression analyses to be conducted, assumptions related to multicollinearity 
must be met (Lomax, 2000). In the multiple regression, collinearity diagnostics were run 
which produced an intercorrelation matrix and variance inflation factor (VIF). As 
recommended by K. Inkelas (Personal communication, February 4, 2005), the 
intercorrelation matrix was examined for r > .60, a more conservative criterion than what 
was outlined by Lomax. Following the identification of one correlation, Restrictive 
Emotionality and Restrictive Affectionate Behavior Between Men (r = .628), the 
researcher consulted the VIF numbers that were computed through the collinearity 
diagnostics in the regression analysis. The VIF numbers for each block did not reach 10 
or higher, which would have indicated high collinearity between items and violated 
assumptions needed for multiple regression (Gro?, 2003).  
In order to control for demographic characteristics, the first block entered 
included generational status, socioeconomic status, ethnic region, and coast (East and 
West coasts based on the initial institutional samples). Based on prior literature related to 
racial identity, gender-role conflict, and self-esteem, the second block entered included 
the gender role conflict subscales and the third block included the racial identity 
subscales (Liu, 2000; Parham & Helms, 1985; Sharpe & Heppner, 1991). Since Liu 
(2002) found that racial identity accounted for 14% of the variance in gender-role 
conflict, the researcher decided to measure the impact racial identity had on self-esteem 
beyond gender-role conflict. The dependent variable in the analysis was self-esteem. 
 
 74 
 
Finally, Multiple Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) tests were conducted to 
determine any differences in the PRIAS and GRCS scores by ethnic region and coast. 
The results would be used to supplement existing research on racial identity and gender-
role conflict as it relates to these demographic variables. Coast, referring to the 
institutional samples from the East Coast and West Coast, was included in the analyses 
following findings that there were significant differences in the experiences with racism 
of Asian Americans depending on the region they were located (A.N. Alvarez, personal 
communication, March 29, 2005). Independent MANOVAs were conducted with each 
individual demographic variable since the cell sizes were too small for testing interaction 
effects.  
Finally, Pearson correlations were conducted to identify any relationships 
between generational status, socioeconomic status, racial identity development, and 
gender-role conflict. 
Delimitations 
 Although the study attempted to have greater generalizability of the results 
through a random sampling technique, there were several limitations of the study. 
Regional differences between the East and West coast were not significant which may be 
due to the small sample size. In addition, since the sample was randomly selected, there 
was no guarantee of adequate sample sizes of different ethnic regional groups (South 
Asian, Southeast Asian, East Asian). The expectation for using randomization was that 
the method would produce representative numbers of ethnic regional groups in the two 
universities or in the national population. Another limitation may be that South Asian 
American students may not identify themselves as Asian American and not be 
represented in the findings. 
 
 75 
 
 Another concern with the random sampling technique was its effectiveness in 
reaching the Asian American community. Difficulties arising from the process led to 
possible historical effects on the low response rates. 
 There were also limitations through the use of established instruments. The use of 
instruments that were normed on White men may have created additional limitations 
although both the Gender Role Conflict Scale and Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale have 
been used with diverse populations (O'Neil, 2004; O'Neil et al., 1986; Rosenberg, 1965; 
Sharpe & Heppner, 1991; Smith & Betz, 2002; Yip, 2003). With the People of Color 
Racial Identity Attitude Scale, generational differences within the Asian American 
population may not have been reflected. In addition, the phrasing of some statements was 
confusing to some respondents. However, the internal consistency reliabilities were all 
high. 
Summary of the Methodology 
 Asian American men from the East and West coasts were randomly selected to 
complete an online survey, which included instruments that measured racial identity 
development, gender-role conflict, and self-esteem, as well as a demographic 
questionnaire.  
 This chapter has summarized the methods used in this study. The remaining 
chapters present analyses and findings of the study, discussion of the results, limitations, 
and implications. 
 
 76 
 
CHAPTER 4 ? RESULTS 
The purpose of the study was to answer the following research question: Do racial 
identity and gender-role conflict relate to Asian American undergraduate men?s self-
esteem?  The chapter provides results of the preliminary analyses and results of the 
analyses to test the five hypotheses. 
Preliminary Analyses 
 The research was conducted using samples from two different institutions. An 
analysis by institution was conducted to determine if the sample could be combined for 
future analyses. One institution was a large public Mid-Atlantic university, the other a 
large public West coast university. A significance level of p < .05 was used in the 
Analysis of Variance test with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale as the dependent 
variable and coast of the institution as the independent variable. The findings were not 
significant, F (1, 172) = 1.295, p > .05. Thus, the data were combined into a single data 
set.  
 Descriptive statistics, i.e., means and standard deviations, were calculated for all 
independent and dependent variables and are presented in Table 3. Scores for the People 
of Color Racial Identity Attitude Scale (PRIAS) were transformed into T-scores to 
standardize scores for each status, as recommended by Helms (personal communication, 
December 14, 2004).  
 For purposes of comparison with previous studies, the Gender-Role Conflict 
Scale was the only instrument in which scoring procedures were comparable. As 
mentioned earlier, PRIAS in this study used T-scores in the analyses. However, in 
comparing the scores with earlier studies, means were calculated for each status. For the 
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE), Chen (2005) used a 5-point Likert scale and used 
 
 77 
 
the overall means as opposed to the 4-point Likert scale used in this study and summing 
the scores for each person then arriving at the mean score. Chen?s findings on Asian 
American men (n = 70) revealed a mean score of 4.06 (SD = 0.63). The mean age of 
Chen?s sample on Asian American men was 28.55 years (SD = 8.84). The current study 
found a mean of 30.05 based on a 4-point scale (SD = 4.95) (Table 3). 
Table 3 
 
Descriptive Statistics for Gender Role Conflict Scale, People of Color Racial Identity 
Attitude Scale, and Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (N = 173) 
 
Instrument   M SD Range of Scores     
 
Gender Role Conflict Scale  
Success, Power, and Competition 4.22   0.72   1.75 ?   6.00  
Restrictive Emotionality 3.41   0.92   1.00 ?   6.00 
Restrictive Affectionate Behavior 3.46   0.99   1.00 ?   6.00  
 Between Men 
Conflict Between Work and 4.07   0.99   1.33 ?   6.00  
 Family Relations 
Total Score 3.79   0.67   1.80 ?   6.00  
 
People of Color Racial Identity Attitude Scale 
Conformity 49.98 10.02 27.52 ? 87.53 
Dissonance 49.99 10.02 25.77 ? 88.53 
Immersion 50.71   9.99 27.65 ? 91.43 
Internalization 49.93   9.99 16.29 ? 65.91 
 
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale 30.03   4.95 15.00 ? 40.00  
 
 78 
 
Analyses of Hypotheses 
Hypothesis 1: There is no relationship between each racial identity status and self-esteem 
for Asian American undergraduate men. 
 The relationships between each racial identity status and self-esteem were 
determined through a correlation analysis. The correlation table revealed significant 
relationships between each racial identity status and self-esteem. The Pearson 
correlations for each subscale were: Conformity (r = -.32, p < .001), Dissonance (r = -.42, 
p < .001), Immersion (r = -.23, p < .001), and Internalization (r = .30, p < .001). The 
results indicated that Conformity, Dissonance, and Immersion were all significantly 
negatively related to self-esteem and that Internalization was positively related to self-
esteem. The null hypothesis was rejected in the correlation analysis.   
Hypothesis 2: A significant negative relationship exists between gender role conflict and 
self-esteem for Asian American undergraduate men. 
 The hypothesis was partially supported by the correlation analysis. Three of the 
four gender-role conflict subscales had significant negative relationships with self-
esteem: Restrictive Emotionality (r = -.36, p < .001), Restrictive Affectionate Behavior 
Between Men (r = -.18, p < .01), and Conflict Between Work and Family Relations  
(r = -.24, p < .001). The Success, Power, and Competition subscale was not significantly 
related to self-esteem (r = -.12, p > .05).   
 A Pearson correlation was also computed to determine the relationship between 
total gender-role conflict scores and self-esteem scores. The correlation was -.31 (p < 
.001). Thus, higher gender-role conflict was significantly negatively related to self-
esteem.  
 
 79 
 
Hypothesis 3: Significant positive relationships exist between the Dissonance, 
Immersion-Emersion, and Internalization racial identity statuses and gender-role 
conflict. 
 In order to test for relationships between the racial identity statuses and gender-
role conflict, Pearson correlations were calculated between each racial identity status and 
gender-role conflict subscales and gender-role conflict total score.  Significant positive 
relationships (Table 4) existed between three of the racial identity statuses (Conformity, 
Dissonance, and Immersion) with Gender-role Conflict total score, Success, Power, and 
Competition, Restrictive Emotionality, Restrictive Affectionate Behavior Between Men, 
and Conflict Between Work and Family Relations. The only significant relationship with 
Internalization was with Conflict Between Work and Family Relations (r = .13, p < .05). 
The hypothesis was partially supported by the findings although Internalization was not 
found to have significant positive relationships with all GRCS subscales. 
Table 4 
 
Pearson Correlations of Racial Identity Statuses, Gender-Role Conflict Total Scale and 
Subscales (N = 173) 
  
 
Racial Identity GRCS Total SPC RE RABBM CBWFR 
 
Conformity .32** .29** .31** .24** .13* 
Dissonance .42** .31** .45** .23** .28** 
Immersion .33** .20** .29** .28** .22** 
Internalization .06 .10 -.05 .00 .13* 
Note. GRCS = Gender-Role Conflict Scale. SPC = Success, Power, and Competition. RE 
= Restrictive Emotionality. RABBM = Restrictive Affectionate Behavior Between Men. 
CBWFR = Conflict Between Work and Family Relations. 
* p < .05, ** p < .01 
 
 
 80 
 
Hypothesis 4: There are distinct and significant relationships between the statuses of 
racial identity development and the subscales of gender-role conflict with self-esteem for 
Asian American undergraduate men. 
 A blocked hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted to test for 
significant and distinct relationships between the statuses of racial identity development 
and the subscales of gender-role conflict with self-esteem. Results of the multiple 
regression analysis are presented in Table 5. Variables were entered in three blocks. The 
first block included demographic variables to control for selected demographic 
characteristics, namely, location of institution (East coast or West coast), ethnic region, 
generational status, and socioeconomic status. Ethnic region was inputted as dummy 
variables using the designations of East Asian, South Asian, Southeast Asian, and Multi-
ethnic Asian. Multiracial Asian Americans were not entered due to the limited sample 
size (n = 10) and were used as the referent group for the regression.  The first block 
explained 9.5% (p < .05) of the variance in self-esteem. Within the block, identifying as 
East Asian American (? = -.379, p < .05) in reference to Multiracial Asian Americans 
was significantly negatively related to self-esteem.  
 The second block entered included the gender-role conflict subscales: Success, 
Power, and Competition; Restrictive Emotionality; Restrictive Affectionate Behavior 
Between Men; and Conflict Between Work and Family Relations. The first and second 
blocks together explained 23.0% (p < .001) of the total variance in self-esteem, with the 
second block accounting for ?  R
2
 = .135, p < .001. Therefore, gender-role conflict 
subscales explained 13.5% of the variance (p < .001) in self-esteem above and beyond the 
demographic variables. Two items were significant predictors in the regression which 
 
 81 
 
included the first and second blocks: socioeconomic status (? = .141, p < .05) and 
Restrictive Emotionality (? = -.360, p < .001).  
 The third block entered included the four racial identity subscales: Conformity, 
Dissonance, Immersion/Emersion, and Internalization. The combination of the three 
blocks explained 36.8% (p < .001) of the total variance in self-esteem. The racial identity 
scales collectively explained 13.8% of the variance (p < .001) in self-esteem above and 
beyond the demographic variables and gender-role conflict subscales. Three variables 
were significant predictors of self-esteem in the overall regression equation:  Restrictive 
Emotionality (? = -.197, p < .05), Dissonance (? = -.291, p < .01), and Internalization (? 
= .219, p < .01). It should be noted that, although East Asian American in reference to 
Multiracial Asian Americans was a significant predictor in the first block, when gender-
role conflict subscales and racial identity subscales were entered, East Asian American 
was not significant. Similarly, socioeconomic status was significant with the addition of 
the second block of gender-role conflict subscales, but not with the addition of the racial 
identity scales.  
The overall regression equation, using all three blocks, was significant in 
predicting variance in self-esteem with F (15, 172) = 6.085, p < .001. Thus, the 
hypothesis was supported by the regression analysis.  
 
 82 
 
Table 5 
 
Multiple Regression Summary of Demographic Variables, Racial Identity, and Gender-
Role Conflict in Relationship to Self-Esteem (N = 173) 
Blocks ? R
2 
Adj. R
2 
?  R
2 
 
Regression with Block 1    .095* .057 .095* 
 Coast  .058 
 East Asian -.379* 
 South Asian -.086 
 Southeast Asian -.173 
 Multi-ethnic Asian -.125 
 Generational Status   .020 
 Socioeconomic Status   .147 
 
Regression with Blocks 1 and 2  .230*** .178 .135*** 
 Coast  .016 
 East Asian -.290 
 South Asian -.033 
 Southeast Asian -.084 
 Multi-ethnic Asian -.026 
 Generational Status   .010 
 Socioeconomic Status   .141* 
 SPC  .084 
 RE -.360*** 
 RABBM  .000 
 CBWFR -.110 
 
Regression with Blocks 1, 2, and 3 . .368*** .307 .138*** 
 Coast  .005 
 East Asian -.208 
 South Asian   .037 
 Southeast Asian -.056 
 Multi-ethnic Asian  .013 
 Generational Status   .009 
 Socioeconomic Status   .108 
 SPC  .093 
 RE -.197* 
 RABBM -.045 
 CBWFR -.120 
 Conformity -.045 
 Dissonance -.291** 
 Immersion/Emersion  .066 
 Internalization  .219** 
Note. Multiracial Asian Americans were used as a referent category for ethnic regions. 
SPC = Success, Power, and Competition. RE = Restrictive Emotionality. RABBM = 
Restrictive Affectionate Behavior Between Men. CBWFR = Conflict Between Work and 
Family Relations. 
* p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001 
 
 83 
 
Hypothesis 5a: There are no differences by ethnic region and location of institution (East 
coast and West coast) in racial identity development and gender-role conflict. 
 The null hypothesis was partially supported through MANOVAs, ANOVA, and 
correlation analyses. Multiple Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) analyses were 
conducted to explore possible differences in racial identity development and gender-role 
conflict by location of institution (East Coast and West Coast) and ethnic region. 
Independent MANOVAs were conducted using location or ethnic region as the 
independent variable and the subscales for each instrument as the dependent variables. 
Interaction effects between the demographic variables were not accounted for due to 
limited cell sizes.  
Results of the MANOVAs (Table 6) for the four racial identity subscales showed 
no significant differences for location of institution (East coast and West coast),  
Wilks? ?  = .968, p > .05, or participants? ethnic region, Wilks? ?  = .935, p > .05. 
Table 6 
MANOVA Summary of Differences in Racial Identity Development Statuses by Location 
of Institution and Participants? Ethnic Region (N = 173) 
Effect Value F Hyp. Df Error df  
 
Location 
 Wilks? Lambda .968 1.367 4.000 168.000 
 
Ethnic Region 
 Wilks? Lambda .935 .704 16.000 504.721  
 
 For the MANOVAs using the GRCS subscales (Table 7), there was a significant 
difference between the coast of the institutional samples and gender-role conflict 
subscales, Wilks? ?  = .93, p < .05; however, in follow-up ANOVAs there were no 
significant differences by subscale. In addition, there were significant differences in 
gender-role conflict subscales by ethnic region, Wilks? ?  = .85, p < .05. In follow-up 
 
 84 
 
ANOVAs, the only subscale which demonstrated a significant difference was Restrictive 
Affectionate Behavior Between Men, F (4, 172) = 2.694, p < .05. Through a Tukey post 
hoc test (Table 8), there was a significant difference between East Asian Americans and 
Multi-Ethnic Asian Americans (p < .05), with East Asian Americans scoring lower in 
Restrictive Affectionate Behavior Between Men than Multiethnic Asian Americans.  
Table 7 
MANOVA Summary of Differences in Gender-Role Conflict Subscales by Location of 
Institution and Participants? Ethnic Region (N = 173) 
Effect Value F Hyp. df Error df  
 
Location 
 Wilks? Lambda .933 3.034* 4.000 168.000 
 
Ethnic Region 
 Wilks? Lambda .849 1.732* 16.000 504.721  
 
* p < .05 
Table 8 
Post Hoc Analysis of Ethnic Regional Differences in Restrictive Affectionate Behavior 
Between Men (N = 173) 
Regional Ethnicity n M 
 
East Asian 84 3.34* 
South Asian 30 3.51 
Southeast Asian 25 3.48 
Multi-ethnic Asian 24 3.98* 
Multi-racial Asian 10 2.98 
 
* p < .05 using Tukey?s HSD 
Hypothesis 5b:  There are no relationships between generational status and 
socioeconomic status with racial identity development and gender-role conflict. 
 The null hypothesis was supported by the findings. Pearson correlations were 
conducted for generational status and socioeconomic status with the gender-role conflict 
subscales and racial identity scales (Appendix P). Generational statuses for 2
nd
 and higher 
 
 85 
 
were combined due to the limited cell sizes of higher generational statuses. Both 
generational status and socioeconomic status were treated as continuous variables. None 
of the relationships was significant (p > .05).   
Summary 
In this chapter, the results of analyses relating to demographic variables, racial 
identity statuses, gender-role conflict, and self-esteem in Asian American undergraduate 
men were presented. The following chapter will relate the findings to the literature, 
outline limitations to the study, explore implications for practice, and identify areas for 
further research. 
 
 86 
 
CHAPTER 5 - DISCUSSION 
 This chapter provides an overview of the findings, relates them to the literature, 
outlines limitations, explores implications for professional practice, and identifies areas 
for further research. 
Summary of Findings 
The purpose of the study was to examine the relationships of racial identity and 
gender-role conflict to self-esteem of Asian American undergraduate men. The study 
included 173 Asian American undergraduate men from a large mid-Atlantic public, 
research university and a large West coast public, research university. Participants in the 
study responded to the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965), Gender-Role 
Conflict Scale (O'Neil et al., 1986), and People of Color Racial Identity Attitude Scale 
(Helms & Carter, 1990) through an online survey. The three instruments used 
demonstrated high reliabilities, slightly higher than previous studies. The higher 
Cronbach alphas may be due to the random sampling technique used in this study as 
opposed to the less rigorous sampling techniques used in other studies. 
Hypothesis 1: Racial Identity and Self-Esteem 
The hypothesis of no relationship between each racial identity status and self-
esteem in Asian American undergraduate men was rejected. There were significant 
correlations between all statuses of racial identity and self-esteem. Previous studies 
(Alvarez & Helms, 2001; Parham & Helms, 1985; Poindexter-Cameron & Robinson, 
1997; Pyant & Yanico, 1991) presented conflicting results with regard to racial identity 
statuses and self-esteem in undergraduate students. This study found that Conformity, 
Dissonance, and Immersion/Emersion were significantly negatively related to self-
esteem. Most studies (Parham & Helms, 1985; Poindexter-Cameron & Robinson, 1997; 
 
 87 
 
Pyant & Yanico, 1991) agree with the idea that Conformity, or Pre-Encounter, is 
negatively related to self-esteem because the reference group is the majority group and 
there is a general unawareness of one?s own racial identity in this status.  
The results of the study found a significant relationship between Dissonance and 
self-esteem. Although Parham and Helms? (1985) study on African American women 
indicated a significant positive relationship between Encounter and self-esteem, other 
studies (Poindexter-Cameron & Robinson, 1997; Pyant & Yanico, 1991) found 
significant negative relationships to self-esteem. The Encounter status in Black racial 
identity development is equivalent to the Dissonance status in the People of Color Racial 
Identity Attitude Scale. Whereas Dissonance is the status where confusion is heightened 
and persons begin to question the dominant paradigm, self-doubt may enter into their 
minds and relate to lower self-esteem. 
Immersion/Emersion status was significantly negatively related to self-esteem in 
this study, which is different from Alvarez and Helms? (2001) study. In a study of Asian 
American college students, Alvarez and Helms found that Immersion/Emersion was 
related to higher collective self-esteem. Since Alvarez and Helms measured collective 
identity rather than personal global self-esteem, the differing relationship with 
Immersion/Emersion is reasonable and not contradictory to this study. The positive 
relationship with collective self-esteem is consistent with the notion of a heightened 
awareness of group identity and affiliation; however, the negative relationship with 
global self-esteem may be indicative of an increased awareness of the racial minority 
status in being Asian American and a heightened sensitivity to racism. Although 
Immersion and Emersion schemata typically involve a greater showing of pride in 
anything Asian American (Alvarez & Yeh, 1999), the psychological influence in doing so 
 
 88 
 
may negatively affect a personal sense of self-worth within the broader dominant and 
oppressive environment. Another perspective is presented in Parham and Helms? (1985) 
study on African American women, where Immersion was also inversely related to self-
esteem. Parham and Helms suggested that the immersion into African American 
women?s racial identity may be explained by the reactionary nature of this status. Now 
that the students have explored their racial identity, they may feel guilt over their 
previous ignorance or denial, which may result in lower self-esteem (Parham & Helms). 
The positive relationship between Internalization and self-esteem was consistent 
with other studies (Alvarez & Helms, 2001; Poindexter-Cameron & Robinson, 1997). 
The newfound balance and reconciliation of racial self-attitudes in the Internalization and 
Integrative Awareness statuses are related to an increased self-esteem. This demonstrates 
the importance of achieving more mature racial identity statuses in Asian American 
undergraduate students (Alvarez, 1999, 2001, 2002; Kohatsu, 1992; Liu, 2000). By 
achieving a more positive self-concept, Asian American students are then able to 
understand and appreciate the complexities not only within their own racial group but in 
other racial groups. The increased comfort and security in identity may lead to greater 
participation in the university community (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pederson, & Allen, 
1999). Hurtado et al. recommended that institutions of higher education create and 
support diverse learning environments not only structurally, through enrollment numbers, 
but by creating a campus climate that encourages diversity. The support of cultural and 
racial student organizations and ethnic studies programs further promotes mature racial 
identity statuses by providing increased opportunities for students to explore issues of 
race. 
 
 89 
 
The significant relationships between racial identity development and self-esteem 
make evident the salience of racial identity in undergraduate Asian American men?s 
lives. Implications for institutions of higher education will be explored further in this 
chapter. 
Hypothesis 2: Gender-Role Conflict and Self-Esteem 
 The hypothesis that gender-role conflict was significantly negatively related to 
self-esteem was partially supported by this study. Three of the gender-role conflict 
subscales and the overall score were significantly negatively related to self-esteem which 
supports O?Neil et al.?s (1986) and Sharpe and Heppner?s (1991) assertions that gender 
roles have a negative influence on men leading to internal conflict. As noted in previous 
studies (Good et al., 1996; Good & Wood, 1995), the Conflict Between Work and Family 
Relations subscale, which was negatively related to self-esteem but not significant, may 
illustrate the lack of applicability to the college-aged, undergraduate population. 
However, the primary disagreement around the significance of CBWFR with this 
particular sample and not with others demonstrates a heightened awareness of possible 
conflicts between work and family, which relates to their self-esteem. Over 75% of the 
sample identified as single, and 96.5% were full-time students with only 24.8% working 
part-time or full-time. Contrary to other studies (Good et al.; Good & Wood) the concept 
of having to choose between a work life and family obligations seems to be a salient issue 
for this particular sample of undergraduate Asian American men. 
 No significance between Success, Power, and Competition (SPC) and self-esteem 
was a surprising finding considering the model minority stereotype (Suzuki, 2002) and 
pressures placed on Asian Americans (Alvarez & Yeh, 1999; Cress & Ikeda, 2003). A 
 
 90 
 
possible rationale for the non-significant finding may be that SPC was seen as outside of 
their personal self-concept and therefore did not relate to their personal self-esteem. 
Hypothesis 3: Racial Identity and Gender-Role Conflict 
 The hypothesis of significant positive relationships between racial identity 
statuses and gender-role conflict was partially supported by the study. There were 
significant positive relationships between Conformity, Dissonance, and 
Immersion/Emersion with all gender-role conflict subscales and the total score. However, 
Internalization was significantly positively related only to the Conflict Between Work 
and Family Relations (CBWFR) subscale. Although Liu (2000) in his study of Asian 
American men found positive relationships between Dissonance, Immersion, and 
Internalization with gender-role conflict total score, in this study Conformity, 
Dissonance, and Immersion were positively related to gender-role conflict total score. 
The difference in the findings included the lack of significance of Conformity in Liu?s 
study and the lack of significance of Internalization in the current study with total gender-
role conflict score.  
With regards to subscales, Liu (2000) discovered significant positive relationships 
between Conformity and Restrictive Emotionality (RE); Dissonance and RE, Restrictive 
Affectionate Behavior Between Men (RABBM), and Conflict Between Work and Family 
Relations (CBWFR); Immersion/Resistance and RE, RABBM, and CBWFR; and 
Internalization and Success, Power, and Competition, and CBWFR. The current study 
revealed a greater number of significant positive relationships, as stated earlier and in 
Table 4, between racial identity statuses and gender-role conflict subscales. A possible 
rationale for the positive relationship between the less mature racial identity statuses and 
the GRCS subscales and total scale may be that, while Asian American undergraduate 
 
 91 
 
men are struggling with understanding who they are racially, they are still finding 
conflicts with the gender-roles they are expected to play, especially if they are getting 
conflicting messages about what Asian American men are supposed to be.  
Earlier studies on gender role expectations of Asian American men by Chan 
(1998) and Cheng (1996) detailed how hegemonic masculinity, the dominant form of 
masculinity, has structured how Asian American men, particularly students, respond. For 
queer Asian American men, the racist expectations of being effeminate and subordinate 
also influence the quality of interactions they have (Kumashiro, 1999). There is an 
increased awareness of multiple social identities by Asian American men and a salience 
in which gender and race play related roles (Chen, 2005; Kumashiro, 1999).  
The mean scores for the subscales and total scores (Table 9) are similar to other 
studies using the GRCS, although the means were slightly higher in the current study 
than the one conducted by Liu (2000) on a similar Asian American undergraduate male 
population. The similarities may show that Asian American undergraduate men, 
regardless of their racial identity status, experience gender-role conflict, thereby 
indicating the pressures Asian American men undergo in constructing racial and gender 
identities. 
In comparing mean scores for each status (Table 10) of racial identity with other 
studies, the current sample had similar scores with earlier research on racial identity 
(Naik, 2003; Toya, 1996; Yeh, 1997). The Conformity subscale scores were slightly 
higher in this study than the other studies; however, as indicated earlier, the preferred 
method for analyzing racial identity statuses is to plot profiles of T-scores (J.E. Helms, 
personal communication, December 14, 2004). 
 
 92 
 
Table 9 
Means and Standard Deviations for Gender-Role Conflict Scale in Current Study and  
Previous Studies 
Variable Current Liu (2000) Kim et al. (1996) Wade (1996) 
 CA JA KA African Americans 
N 173 323 42 41 42 95 
   
SPC
 Mean 4.22 3.85 4.24 3.66 4.02 3.61 
 SD 0.72 0.82 0.93 0.94 0.88 0.88 
 
RE 
 Mean 3.41 3.21 3.16 2.99 3.23 2.92 
 SD 0.92 0.84 1.04 0.84 0.98 0.93 
 
RABBM 
 Mean 3.46 3.37 3.79 3.35 3.51 3.18 
 SD 0.99 0.95 1.17 1.02 1.01 1.00 
 
CBWFR 
 Mean 4.07 3.60 3.76 3.96 3.47 3.39 
 SD 0.99 0.98 1.02 0.92 0.88 1.09 
 
Total Score  
 Mean 3.79 3.53 N/A N/A N/A 3.28 
 SD 0.67 0.65    0.34 
________________________________________________________________________ 
Note. CA = Chinese American. JA = Japanese American. KA = Korean American. 
 
 93 
 
Table 10 
 
Means and Standard Deviations for POCRIAS Statuses in Current Study and Previous 
Studies 
Variable   Current Naik (2003) Toya (1996) Yeh (1997) 
  
N 173 137 125 116   
Conformity  
 Mean 2.50 1.87  1.79 1.84 
 SD 0.67 0.51      0.49 0.52 
 
Dissonance 
 Mean 2.72 2.75 2.60 2.60 
SD 0.59 0.51 0.49 0.52 
 
Immersion/Emersion 
 Mean 2.59 2.69 2.70 2.71 
SD 0.58 0.59 0.53 0.52 
 
Internalization 
 Mean 4.16 4.45 4.37 4.37 
SD 0.52 0.39 0.48 0.49 
________________________________________________________________________
Note. For purposes of comparison, means for each subscale in the current study were 
calculated although the recommended scoring method is to transform scores into 
standardized T-scores. 
 
 94 
 
Hypothesis 4: Racial Identity, Gender-Role Conflict, and Self-Esteem 
The hypothesis of distinct and significant relationships between the statuses of 
racial identity and gender-role conflict with self-esteem in Asian American undergraduate 
men was supported by the study. Prior studies have shown moderate correlations between 
racial identity and gender-role conflict (Liu, 2000, 2002; Wade, 1996) so correlation 
diagnostics were conducted to ensure assumptions for multiple regression were met. 
Through the correlation analysis between gender-role conflict subscales and racial 
identity statuses and analysis of VIF score, assumptions of multicollinearity were not 
violated.  
The hierarchical multiple regression included three blocks. The first block entered 
included demographic variables and contributed significantly to the variance in self-
esteem. The gender-role conflict subscales were entered into the second block and 
contributed significantly to the variance in self-esteem. The third block included racial 
identity statuses and also contributed significantly to the variance in self-esteem. 
In this study, three scales were significant predictors of self-esteem in Asian 
American undergraduate men. Restrictive Emotionality and Dissonance were negative 
predictors of self-esteem, and Internalization was a positive predictor of self-esteem. In 
an earlier study by Pyant and Yanico (1991), Pre-Encounter and Encounter were 
significant predictors of self-esteem in Black female students and non-students. For Black 
female college students, only Pre-Encounter was a significant negative predictor of self-
esteem. The PRIAS equivalent of Pre-Encounter, Conformity, was not a significant 
predictor in the current study. The difference in findings may be a result of the different 
reference groups.  
 
 95 
 
The significance in racial identity as a predictor for self-esteem support both 
Pyant and Yanico?s (1991) study as well as Utsey et al.?s (2000) findings that racism and 
gender account for some variance in self-esteem. Although racial identity and racism are 
two different concepts, the saliency of race in the experiences of individuals may be 
accounted for in both studies. 
Gender-role conflict as a significant predictor for self-esteem supported other 
studies done on male students and adult men, gender-role conflict, and psychological 
well-being (Blazina & Watkins, 1996; Good & Wood, 1995; Sharpe & Heppner, 1991). 
Sharpe and Heppner found that gender-role conflict accounted for some variance in 
psychological well-being, where well-being included self-esteem. The negative 
relationships between gender-role conflict subscales and self-esteem were supported in 
this study and further illustrate the detrimental influence of traditional gender-roles on 
Asian American undergraduate men. 
 This study combined two important social identity elements, racial identity and 
gender-role conflict, to examine the unique experiences of Asian American men as a 
racialized gender group and how both variables related to their self-esteem. The 
combination of demographic variables, gender-role conflict subscales, and racial identity 
statuses accounted for 36.8% of the variance in self-esteem. Over one-third of the 
variance in self-esteem scores was accounted for by the variables in this study. Although 
interaction effects between variables were not accounted for in the regression due to 
limited sample size, the findings still indicated significant predictors of the variance in 
self-esteem.  
 The three significant predictors of self-esteem were Restrictive Emotionality 
(RE), a subscale of the Gender-Role Conflict Scale, and two racial identity statuses, 
 
 96 
 
Dissonance and Internalization. RE was negatively related to self-esteem indicating that 
Asian American undergraduate men who have difficulty expressing their emotions 
reported lower self-esteem. For Asian Americans, RE is a difficult concept to deconstruct 
since there may be various contextual cues such as ethnic cultural norms as well as 
hegemonic masculinity. However, the negative predictive relationship supports O?Neil et 
al.?s (1986) gender-role conflict construct regarding the harmful nature of traditional 
gender-roles. 
 Dissonance was a significant negative predictor of self-esteem, which is 
consistent with Helms? (1995) theory that the status is marked by confusion and 
conflicting feelings. The positive predictive relationship of Internalization to self-esteem 
is consistent with Helms & Cook?s (1999) belief that more mature racial identity statuses 
promote a better self-concept and self-esteem.    
Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables, Racial Identity, and Gender-Role Conflict 
 The hypothesis of no relationships between demographic variables, racial identity 
statuses, and gender-role conflict was partially supported by the findings. Significant 
differences in Restrictive Affectionate Behavior Between Men (RABBM) by ethnic 
region were found, with the significant difference between East Asian American 
undergraduate men and Multi-ethnic Asian American undergraduate men. East Asian 
American undergraduate men had lower RABBM scores than Multi-ethnic Asian 
American undergraduate men. The applicability of the findings on ethnic regional groups 
and self-esteem are limited in generalizability. The formation of ethnic regions, as a form 
of classification, was based on governmental categories rather than on self-identifications 
by Asian Americans (Liu, 2000). The rationale for forming ethnic regional groups was to 
 
 97 
 
collapse data into broader categories for analyses, similar to Liu?s methodology in his 
study on Asian American masculinity.  
A possible rationale for the lower RABBM scores in East Asian American 
undergraduate men may be that there is stronger gender role socialization reflective of 
East Asian Americans. The presence of East Asian Americans in the United States has 
heavily influenced the way Asian Americans are viewed overall. Therefore, it is logical 
that the reflection of the Fu Manchu and Long Duck Dong stereotypes, described in 
Chapter 1, may serve as stronger influences on how East Asian American undergraduate 
men view behavior between men than on other ethnic regional groups (J. Chan, 2001; J. 
W. Chan, 1998). In addition, the groups represented under the Multi-ethnic Asian 
category are so varied that there may be limited socialization influences on this group 
which includes undergraduate men who identify as both Chinese and Samoan, and others 
who identify as Indian and Iranian.  
Another demographic variable included coastal representation in the sample of 
Asian American undergraduate men. Samples were acquired from both an East Coast 
institution and a West Coast institution to serve as proxies for experiences and 
socialization by coasts. The larger presence of Asian Americans on the West Coast as 
opposed to the East Coast (Hune, 2002) may lend itself to a different socialization 
process that affects the racial identity, gender-role conflict, and self-esteem of Asian 
American undergraduate men. For the purposes of the current study, samples from both 
coasts are referred to as West coast and East coast.  
According to a study on how Asian American students experience racism, there 
were significant differences in how East Coast Asian American college students and 
West Coast Asian Americans college students experience racism (A.N. Alvarez, personal 
 
 98 
 
communication, March 29, 2005). East Coast Asian American college students reported 
fewer perceptions of racism and lower levels of stress than students on the West Coast. 
(A.N. Alvarez, personal communication, May 7, 2005). Alvarez explained the differences 
in experiences in the larger presence of Asian Americans on the West Coast, which leads 
to greater sensitivity to racism and greater exposure to stereotypes such as the Yellow 
Peril.  
Although the current study did not show significant differences by coast in racial 
identity development statuses, the ANOVA analyzing GRCS by coast did indicate 
significant differences. The results did not indicate where the significant differences 
were. The inability to identify the significant differences by coast in gender-role conflict 
scales may be due to the limited sample size from the West coast. However, the overall 
differences by coast in gender-role conflict may illustrate an overall variation in 
experiences with masculinity by coast. This presupposition of Asian American 
undergraduate men experiencing masculinity differently on the East coast compared to 
the West coast would be comparable to the findings by Alvarez and Liang?s study on 
Asian American college student experiences with racism where variation was discovered 
(A.N. Alvarez, personal communication, March 29, 2005). Further study on how Asian 
American undergraduate men view masculinity, depending on their location and 
socializing influences, may provide insight into not only reactions to racism but what 
may shape their self-concept. 
 With regard to the insignificant relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) 
of Asian American undergraduate men and gender-role conflict, interactions between 
SES and other demographic variables were not accounted for in the study. Stillson et al. 
(1991) examined the effects of class on gender-role conflict and found significant 
 
 99 
 
relationships in low socioeconomic status of Black men with certain subscales in GRCS. 
Stillson et al. noted that there may be relationships between race and class that produce 
greater gender-role conflict. Since Asian American men are in similar situations as 
African American men in being racial minorities and stereotyped, although in very 
different ways, studying the relationships of race, class, and gender-role conflict may be 
another area for further exploration. Although SES was not found to be significant in this 
analysis, interactions between SES and other demographic variables such as generational 
status, coast, or ethnic region may reveal additional predictive relationships on self-
esteem. 
Limitations 
The limitations in the current study range from sampling strategies, 
correspondence with Asian American undergraduate students, historical effects, 
instrumentation, and methodology. Since the current study attempted to be highly 
rigorous in its sampling technique, equal numbers were sampled from the East Coast 
institution and the West Coast institution. The response rate for Asian American 
undergraduate men on the East Coast was 23% whereas for those on the West Coast, the 
response rate was 11.6%. The low response rate from the West Coast sample may have 
resulted from the lack of an explicit institutional relationship with the researcher. Perhaps 
a direct endorsement from a faculty member or administrator could have encouraged 
more students to respond. Although a faculty member at UCLA sponsored the research, 
students who received email invitations to participate would not have readily known the 
institutional connection. Additionally larger monetary incentives, greater than $50 
American Express Gift Cards, may have increased the number of responses overall; 
however, due to financial constraints larger incentives were not possible.  
 
 100 
 
The sensitivity of the topics became evident through the institutional review board 
process. Racial identity and gender-role conflict were interpreted as particularly sensitive, 
which led to the delay in sending the survey to participants and historical effects which 
were particularly relevant to the West coast sample. Students were bombarded with 
survey requests (J. Richlin-Klonsky, personal communication, March 9, 2005), which 
may have distracted students? attention from the current study. In addition, invitations 
and reminders were sent during breaks in the academic calendar, which could have 
contributed to the low response rate. Unfortunately, the timing of the correspondence was 
dependent on other factors such as the institutional review board process. 
Additional sampling limitations include the self-selective nature of the 
participants. Students who self-identified as Asian Americans may have been more likely 
to complete the survey than those who did not identify with the racial term of Asian 
American. If participants ascribed to the racialization concept, this may help to explain 
the high Cronbach alphas for the People of Color Racial Identity Attitude Scale. For 
individuals who may find their ethnic identity to be more salient and those who do not 
follow the racial identity development outlined by Helms (1995), their experiences may 
be not represented in the study.  
One method to improve sampling would be to increase the numbers of Asian 
American undergraduate men sampled. The increase may capture additional Asian 
American undergraduate men, particularly from the West Coast, as well as from later 
generational statuses, to provide a richer description of the experiences of Asian 
American undergraduate men. 
Differences between the two institutions may not have been significant due to the 
small sample sizes. Other possible areas of difference may have been by ethnic region or 
 
 101 
 
ethnicity. However, there was no guarantee of representation by certain ethnic regions or 
ethnicities because of the random sampling technique. As indicated earlier, student 
identification with the term Asian American, particularly by South Asian Americans, 
may also limit the generalizability of the study. Asian American undergraduate men, who 
do not identify racially and are in less mature statuses of their racial identity 
development, may not be represented in the study.  
One of the challenges in conducting an online survey is technical difficulty. The 
surveys were inaccessible for one day during the two-week interval, resulting in students 
being unable to complete the survey. Another technical limitation may be the junk mail 
filters available in various email programs. If the correspondence was sent in bulk or 
from an unknown email address, there was a possibility that it was filtered into a separate 
junk mail folder.  
Methodologically, there were several limitations in how items were measured. 
Socioeconomic status and generational status were potentially limiting. Socioeconomic 
status in particular was self-reported with most people identifying as middle-class. 
Although students were asked about their parents? educational and occupational statuses, 
the data were not entered into the regression. The overall sample size of 173 Asian 
American undergraduate men created a limitation in the number of variables that may be 
entered in a regression for the study to be methodologically sound.  
 The instruments used in this study provide additional potential limitations 
although the Cronbach alphas for the current study were higher than in the studies 
reviewed. The Gender-Role Conflict Scale (O?Neil et al., 1986) and Rosenberg Self-
Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) had been initially normed on White men, thereby 
reflecting White cultural norms such as hegemonic masculinity and valuing an individual, 
 
 102 
 
global self-esteem over a collective self-esteem and self-concept. The instruments 
therefore may not capture the complexity of cultural variations and the interactions of 
power and oppression, particularly related to race and gender roles. However, both 
instruments have been used with diverse populations and demonstrated adequate internal 
consistencies (O'Neil, 2004; O'Neil et al., 1986; Rosenberg, 1965; Sharpe & Heppner, 
1991; Smith & Betz, 2002; Yip, 2003). The People of Color Racial Identity Attitude 
Scale (Helms & Carter, 1990) may not provide accurate profiles for Asian Americans 
who identify as first or 1.5 generation. Additionally, Helms (1995) People of Color racial 
identity development model may not provide adequate descriptions of racial identity 
development for Asian Americans who have transnational identities, where the United 
States is only one of multiple national cultures they experience. 
Survey questions for certain instruments were also phrased in somewhat 
confusing ways. Comments from respondents at the end of the survey brought up 
concerns with the phrasing of the PRIAS and GRCS. Some of the concerns expressed by 
the Asian American undergraduate men may have been reflective of their racial identity 
development status and gender-role conflict rather than the phrasing. For example, one 
student commented, ?This survey had a lot of questions related to homosexuality and 
White Asians (Wasians). Horrible!? (Appendix N). The subscale which measured 
homophobia, RABBM, seemed to agitate this student as he was filling out the survey. 
The comment on White Asians is unclear; although, this may be in reaction to the 
PRIAS, which used Whites as the dominant and reference group in some of the questions.  
However, this further supports the PRIAS in what it is attempting to measure, how 
individuals respond to broader systems of racialization and oppression. Considering both 
 
 103 
 
the GRCS and PRIAS are well-established instruments, the validity of the statements are 
widely accepted.  
In the analysis, interactions between the demographic variables were not 
accounted for in the regression or the MANOVAs. The limited sample size restricted the 
number of variables accounted for in the analyses. By not including the interactions 
between variables such as ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and generational status, the 
analyses provided an incomplete picture of the population. Larger sample sizes would 
assist in allowing for more complex analyses, especially considering the diversity within 
the Asian American population (Alvarez & Yeh, 1999). More complex analyses, such as 
analysis of covariance, could have been conducted to test for main and interaction effects 
(K. Inkelas, personal communication, May 18, 2005). 
As with any study targeting the Asian American population, the cultural 
appropriateness of the instruments may be questioned. For Asian American 
undergraduate men, all instruments have been used with this population and had adequate 
reliabilities (Chen, 2005; Kim et al., 1996; Liu, 2000; Naik, 2003; Yip, 2003). However, 
the diversity within the Asian American undergraduate male population may not have 
been adequately reflected in those studies as well as in the current study to truly test the 
appropriateness of the GRCS, PRIAS, and RSE.  
The research done on Asian American undergraduate men were typically 
conducted on students attending large public or private institutions (Chen; Kim et al.; 
Naik; Yip) with the exception of one study which included community college students 
(Liu, 2000). The level of access to the large public and private institutions may draw 
Asian American undergraduate men who may be at different racial identity statuses and 
 
 104 
 
gender-role conflict levels from those at smaller public institutions, community colleges, 
for-profit institutions, or private liberal arts colleges. 
Another limitation in the study is the lack of attention given to Asian ethnic 
values. In attempting to understand what may explain variance in gender-role conflict, 
Liu (2000) proposed a greater attention on Asian cultural values. Although the researcher 
questions the idea of the categorization of Asian cultural values as an umbrella concept, 
there may be specific ethnic, as well as religious, heritages that relate to how Asian 
American men define masculinity. The idea of a monolithic Asian cultural values scale is 
misrepresentative of the varied ethnic heritages represented in the political term of Asian 
American (Hirabayashi, 1998). A more appropriate term to get at the spirit of what Liu 
may have intended would be ethnic cultural values to make the distinction between Asian 
ethnic groups and their values, which may or may not overlap (Helms, 1996). The 
differences in Asian ethnic values may also help explain variance in self-esteem; 
however, it was not included in this study because the focus was on racialization and 
systems of oppression and privilege (Helms, 1995, 1996). 
A final limitation may be the assumptions implicit in using racial identity as a 
measure to predict self-esteem. There is an assumption that Asian American 
undergraduate men, regardless of generational status, coast, ethnic region, or class, will 
go through a process of racialization which places them at a subordinate status compared 
with Whites. The racialization also includes a perceived pan-Asian identity by Asian 
American undergraduate men (Alvarez, 2002; Chen, 2005) and an assumption that there 
is a distinction between ethnic and racial identity (Helms, 1996). Although the People of 
Color Racial Identity Attitude Scale may not capture all the nuances in Asian American 
 
 105 
 
experiences with racial identity development, it is the most widely used and tested 
instrument to measure the racial identity developmental process.  
Implications for Practice 
The results of this study have implications for the Asian American community, 
student affairs professionals, and higher education. Asian American is a socially 
constructed term that stemmed out of political movements and governmental regulations 
(Hune, 2002). Although there is a rich Asian American history (S. Chan, 1991; Takaki, 
1990), the stories that have been told and are predominant have focused on East Asian 
Americans. As studies continue to examine the various communities within the broader 
Asian American community, Alvarez and Yeh (1999) stressed the importance of 
institutions recognizing this complexity despite broader society?s desire to create a 
singular Asian American experience. Naik (2003) attempted to identify any 
differentiation in racial identity development between South Asian American, East Asian 
American, and Southeast Asian American undergraduate students. Although Naik was 
unable to find any significant differences, greater research needs to be conducted with 
broader samples to either support or contradict her findings. The current study was able 
to demonstrate the salience of racial identity in Asian American undergraduate men?s 
lives across ethnic regions and other demographics such as socioeconomic status, coast, 
and generational status, thereby challenging popular model minority myths on college 
campuses today. 
Beyond exploring racial identity as an isolated variable, the connections between 
racial identity, gender-role conflict, and self-esteem in this study illustrate a greater need 
for institutions to attend to Asian American undergraduate men holistically. 
Approximately 27% of the variance in Asian American undergraduate men?s self-esteem 
 
 106 
 
was accounted for by racial identity and gender-role conflict.  When attempting to 
understand what may affect Asian American undergraduate men?s self-esteem, 
undergraduate Asian American men cannot be seen as one-dimensional beings ? either 
solely by race or by gender ? but as complex individuals negotiating multiple social 
identities in an environment that is constantly challenging their self-concepts (Chen, 
2005; Lagdameo et al., 2002). Although being male is a dominant identity in society, 
what it means to be male and masculine needs to be given greater attention so that 
gender-role conflicts may be exposed and critically examined, especially as gender-role 
conflict interacts with race.  
 Additionally, there is an importance in promoting mature racial identity 
development in Asian American undergraduate men that not only needs to be 
communicated to student affairs practitioners but also to faculty and students. The 
significant positive relationship between Internalization, the more mature racial identity 
status in the People of Color Racial Identity Attitude Scale (PRIAS), and self-esteem 
demonstrates the benefit of attending to racial identity development in Asian American 
undergraduate men. The predictive relationship between racial identity development and 
self-esteem, with 13.5% of the variance in self-esteem explained by PRIAS statuses, is 
another facet of looking at holistic education and student development. Although prior 
studies on Asian Americans have shown relationships between racial identity and 
collective self-esteem (Alvarez & Helms, 2001), this is one of the first studies to show 
the relationship with global self-esteem in Asian American undergraduate men.  
 In understanding the salience of racial identity to personal well-being, it is 
therefore the responsibility of institutions of higher education to incorporate mechanisms 
that promote mature racial identity development in Asian American undergraduate 
 
 107 
 
students (Alvarez & Yeh, 1999). The significant predictive relationships of Dissonance 
and Internalization statuses to self-esteem in Asian American undergraduate men outline 
two critical points in racial identity development that institutions need to attend to. 
Dissonance is the status where Asian American undergraduate men experience confusion 
and begin to question their previous naivet? around issues of race (Alvarez, 2002). The 
Dissonance status was negatively related to self-esteem of Asian American undergraduate 
men and because of its level of significance, initiatives that focus on encouraging 
students to move past the Dissonance status into more mature racial identity statuses 
would be beneficial to their development. 
Internalization is one of the more mature statuses where Asian American 
undergraduate men begin to internalize a more balanced view of being Asian American 
by developing a personally meaningful definition rather than using external criteria and 
dualistic characteristics (Alvarez, 2002). The significant and positive predictive 
relationship between Internalization and self-esteem demonstrate the value of assisting 
students in more complex ways of thinking of race. The status not significant in the 
regression, Immersion/Emersion, still needs to be considered since it is a transitional 
status for Asian American undergraduate men as they achieve more mature racial identity 
statuses and its subsequent positive predictive relationship to self-esteem.  
In order to encourage mature racial identity development, institutions may seek to 
integrate Asian American history, culture, and society throughout the curriculum and 
student affairs programs (Alvarez & Yeh, 1999). More importantly, the ability to view 
Asian American studies curriculum through a gender lens may allow room for critical 
insights into the experiences of Asian American undergraduate men. As indicated in prior 
studies on Asian American undergraduate men (J. W. Chan, 1998; Chang & Yeh, 2003; 
 
 108 
 
Chua & Fujino, 1999), there needs to be a space to openly discuss their experiences. 
Institutions, through orientation programs, residence halls, faculty, and student affairs 
professionals can demystify the counseling process for Asian American undergraduate 
men. The institutions can also create more programs geared towards Asian American 
men, such as leadership programs, discussion groups, or speakers.  
One of the significant predictors in Asian American undergraduate men?s self-
esteem was Restrictive Emotionality. Whether the forums are online groups (Chang & 
Yeh, 2003) or in Asian American studies courses (J. W. Chan, 1998), Asian American 
undergraduate men need avenues to be more expressive with their emotions to improve 
their personal self-esteem. The internalization of racist ideologies and stereotypes of 
Asian American men may be connected with the Restrictive Emotionality (RE) and 
Dissonance statuses that are significant predictors of self-esteem. Cultural expectations 
from specific ethnic groups may also contribute to the restraint in emotionality exhibited 
in Asian American undergraduate men. However, it should be noted that the mean score 
for RE in this sample was 3.41 on a 6-point scale, which indicates slightly lower than the 
mid-point in gender-role conflict.  
Positive role modeling, from an increased presence of Asian American men, may 
serve as another avenue for promoting active exploration of students? racial identity 
(Alvarez & Yeh, 1999; Hurtado et al., 1999; Laker, 2005). For student affairs, an increase 
in the number of men in the profession would be one avenue to support undergraduate 
men (Laker, 2005). By moving away from stereotypical images and messages, 
institutions can promote more complex understandings of the Asian American 
community, which is indicative of the more mature racial identity statuses outlined by 
Helms (1995) and related to higher self-esteem as indicated in the current study. 
 
 109 
 
Institutions can encourage participation in student leadership by Asian American men 
and include the Asian American community in university-wide ?mainstream? programs. 
By purposefully incorporating Asian American culture and issues, Asian American 
undergraduate men will be exposed to positive reflections of their communities while 
non-Asian American students become accustomed to Asian American issues as part of a 
broader community context.  
 Overall, this study served to expand the available research on Asian American 
students and Asian American men. With Gender Studies now moving to explore 
masculinity and experiences of men (Kellum, 2005), this contributes to the broader body 
of information. Previous studies on men have had limited samples of Asian Americans to 
the point where they were not included in the analysis (O'Neil et al., 1986; Stillson et al., 
1991). This study supports the validity of the gender-role conflict scale for the 
undergraduate Asian American men, similar to Liu (2000) and Kim et al. (1996).  
Additionally, this study provided a psychological well-being perspective around 
race and gender for Asian American undergraduate men, which is helpful considering the 
increased attention to the quality of life on college campuses for Asian American students 
(Alvarez & Yeh, 1999; Cress & Ikeda, 2003). One variable in operationalizing 
psychological well-being is self-esteem (Blazina & Watkins, 1996; Cress & Ikeda, 2003; 
Pyant & Yanico, 1991; Sharpe & Heppner, 1991; Yip, 2003). By focusing on self-esteem 
as a measure of psychological well-being, the current study attempts to expand the 
discourse on Asian American undergraduate students beyond the model minority 
paradigm (Suzuki, 2002).  
 For institutions that have resources designed specifically for Asian American 
students, the relationships between racial identity, gender-role conflict, and self-esteem 
 
 110 
 
provide possible areas for emphasis. The significant relationships found in the correlation 
analyses and hierarchical multiple regression of this study present new focal points for 
services. In the presence of programs geared towards Asian American women, Asian 
American men may need similarly focused programs.  For the institutions that do not 
provide services specifically for Asian Americans, this study may help reveal the need for 
specialized, or more informed and comprehensive, services to support the development of 
this population (Alvarez & Yeh, 1999). 
Recommendations for Further Research 
This research examined the relationships of racial identity and gender-role 
conflict to self-esteem of Asian American undergraduate men. The assumptions of Asian 
American undergraduate men as racialized gendered beings responding to broader forces 
of socialization framed the study and research questions. The findings seemed to support 
the framework although the limitations addressed earlier may affect the generalizability 
to Asian American undergraduate men nationally. 
The experiences of Asian American undergraduate men in the East coast and 
West coast were not shown to be significantly different in this study. However, the idea 
that different socialization processes may occur depending on the region in the United 
States students are currently in may be an area for further study. A. Alavarez (personal 
communication, May 7, 2005) has already empirically demonstrated the differences in 
East coast and West coast Asian American undergraduate students? experiences with 
racism. Taking into consideration the varying findings related to experiences by East 
coast and West coast Asian American undergraduate students, future examinations can 
focus on how coasts may relate to different measures of race, racial identity, and racism. 
The difference between the study by Alvarez and the current study is the focus of the 
 
 111 
 
research question. The research question in the current study involved racial identity 
development, which is different from experiences with racism and the level of stress 
associated with racism. A future study may incorporate racial identity, experience with 
racism, and level of stress associated with racism to identify any potential differences in 
experiences by coast. Results from those studies may provide insight into what could be 
learned from different regions in how to approach issues of race and Asian Americans in 
particular. For institutions of higher education, interventions that are tailored to the 
experiences of Asian American undergraduates may take into consideration their culture 
based on coast to create more appropriate outreach and support mechanisms (Alvarez & 
Yeh, 1999).  
The current study focused on large, public research institutions. Future research to 
focus on the experiences of Asian American men in community college settings as well 
as other institution types such as comprehensive universities, private institutions, and 
liberal arts colleges is recommended. In addition, institutions may consider collecting 
ethnic data as supplementary information to racial data gathered during admissions. An 
important note is that racial identifications are optional so there would not be any 
guarantee of the accuracy of such reported information. 
 Another way to expand the research on Asian American undergraduate men 
would be to purposefully sample students from different regions in the U.S. (Midwest, 
South, etc.), ethnic groups, socioeconomic statuses, and institution types. The current 
study was narrowly focused on East Coast and West Coast large, public, research 
universities. Experiences of Asian American undergraduate men who may have to juggle 
additional responsibilities such as work and family may provide greater validity to the 
Conflict Between Work and Family Relations (CBWFR) subscale in the Gender-Role 
 
 112 
 
Conflict Scale. Rather than assuming that CBWFR is not as applicable to the college 
population, perhaps the type of institution may be related to the weaker relationships with 
college students in earlier studies (Blazina & Watkins, 1996; Good et al., 1995). The 
current study had a higher reliability (Cronbach alpha = .85) than other studies with 
college students so further research needs to be conducted to test the reliability of the 
CBWFR subscale with the college population. 
 Another factor that may be explored further is socioeconomic status (SES) and its 
relationship to Asian American undergraduate men?s self-esteem. When the first block of 
demographic variables, which included SES, was combined with the second block of 
gender-role conflict subscales, SES was a significant predictor of self-esteem. When 
combined with the third block of racial identity statuses, SES was no longer significant in 
predicting self-esteem. The findings indicate that further examination of SES and 
possible interactions need to be conducted with regards to self-esteem of Asian American 
undergraduate men. Could additional variance in self-esteem be explained by the 
interaction of demographic variables, gender-role conflict, and racial identity? Stillson et 
al. (1991) has already identified intersections of race and class with gender-role conflict 
in African American adult men. Would there be similar findings with Asian American 
undergraduate men? How would this relate to the experiences of working Asian 
American men who may or may not be traditionally aged college students? 
 The scope of the Asian American undergraduate male population may also be 
expanded in future research to include greater numbers of gay, bisexual, and transgender-
identified individuals. The current study was over 90% heterosexual men, 5.2% gay men, 
and 3.5% bisexual men. There were no students who identified as transgender. The lack 
of diversity within this sample identifies an area for further study on racial identity, 
 
 113 
 
gender-role conflict, and self-esteem in Asian American undergraduate men. How 
representative and applicable are the current findings to Asian American gay and bi-
sexual men? One gay male student commented, ?My answers for showing affection to 
males is of course going to be skewed because I am gay so I completely disagreed many 
times.? A lesbian and gay identity development model could be an additional component 
to studies on self-esteem, racial identity, and gender-role conflict to understand how they 
may relate to each other. The Inclusive Model of Lesbian/Gay Identity Formation 
developed by Fassinger (1998) identifies two areas for development, an individual sexual 
identity and group membership identity. Although Chen (2005) attempted to measure 
multiple social identities in her mixed methods study, one challenge she encountered was 
lack of an instrument to measure multiple social identities adequately. Chen?s findings 
included Asian American undergraduate men who felt the need to explain their sexual 
identity regardless of their sexual orientation. For Asian American undergraduate men, 
this intersection of race, gender, and sexual orientation could be examined further to 
understand how the different identities relate to each other, as well as other social 
identities mentioned previously (SES and religious orientation).  
 Although this study focused on global self-esteem, other indicators of 
psychological well-being may be another area for future research (Blazina & Watkins, 
1996; Cress & Ikeda, 2003; Pyant & Yanico, 1991; Sharpe & Heppner, 1991; Yip, 2003). 
Studies on depression, satisfaction of life, and self-efficacy may be other indicators to 
examine with racial identity and gender-role conflict. How strong of a predictor is racial 
identity with depression, satisfaction of life, and self-efficacy? Cress and Ikeda (2003) 
noted the importance of a supportive campus climate for Asian Americans as a way to 
address issues of depression in Asian American college students. For Asian American 
 
 114 
 
undergraduate men, what contributes to feelings of depression? Do issues of race and 
gender-role conflict play heavily in the likelihood of Asian American undergraduate men 
who experience depression? 
With regards to self-esteem, although the study accounted for 36.8% of the 
variance, what contributes to the rest of the variance? Possible factors may include Asian 
ethnic values, religious orientation, sexual orientation, and self-efficacy. Asian ethnic 
values may be an area for further study with self-esteem because of the variability within 
the Asian American community (Alvarez & Yeh, 1999; Hune, 2002; Liu, 2000). 
Religious orientation was considered in Chen?s (2005) study on multiple social identities 
and self-esteem and would be interesting to study using developed instrumentation on 
religious identity combined with racial identity, and gender-role conflict with self-esteem.  
Sexual orientation, similar to gender-role conflict, may also relate to self-esteem 
in Asian American undergraduate men. If more mature racial identity statuses are 
significant predictors of more positive self-esteem, it would seem to follow that another 
social identity status that is oppressed in society would have similar relationships with 
self-esteem. The current study indicated a positive predictive relationship between 
Internalization and self-esteem as well as negative predictive relationships between 
Conformity, Dissonance, and Immersion/Emersion with self-esteem. Parallel statuses in 
lesbian and gay identity development may lead to similar findings.  
Self-efficacy as a variable to study with self-esteem was identified due to the 
perception that Asian American students are goal-oriented (Suzuki, 2002), which may 
influence their global self-esteem. Future studies that seek to identify the other factors 
predictive of self-esteem in Asian American undergraduate men may seek to use the 
recommended social identities and self-efficacy as a starting point.  
 
 115 
 
 By broadening the focus even further, how do institutional programs and policies 
relate to the gender-role conflict, racial identity, and self-esteem in Asian American 
undergraduate men? Liu (2000) examined how multicultural education may be related to 
gender-role conflict and racial identity development. Hurtado et al. (1999) identified 
benefits of diverse learning environments for students but how all of those factors relate 
to the psychological well-being of Asian American undergraduate men and Asian 
American undergraduate students could be areas for further research. What are the areas 
of personal development that are influenced by such policies, curriculum, and programs? 
 Finally, what became evident through the research process was a need for 
qualitative or mixed-method approaches to exploring the experiences of Asian American 
undergraduate men. The survey allowed for comments and suggestions from respondents 
(Appendix N), which spanned the range of racial identity development and gender-role 
conflict that was measured. However, through all the comments, it was clear that Asian 
American undergraduate men had stories to share and did not necessarily feel like their 
experiences, thoughts, and opinions could be limited by the confines of the instruments 
used. Therefore, individual interviews and focus groups may elicit a more revealing and 
insightful picture into the lives of Asian American undergraduate men. 
 In conclusion, the results of this study indicate a need for greater research on 
Asian American undergraduate men and how institutions may be responsive to this 
population of students. 
 
 
 116 
 
APPENDIX A: PEOPLE OF COLOR RACIAL IDENTITY ATTITUDE SCALE 
(Helms & Carter, 1990) 
Modified by Liu (2000) 
Instructions: This questionnaire is designed to measure people?s social and political 
attitudes concerning race and ethnicity. Since different people have different opinions, 
there are no right or wrong answers. Use the scale below to respond to each statement 
according to the way you see things. Be as honest as you can. Beside each item number, 
mark the number that best describes how you feel. 
 
5  4  3  2  1 
                       Strongly              Agree         Uncertain        Disagree            Strongly  
                       Agree                                                                                  Disagree 
 
Mark here 
 
5 4 3 2 1 1. In general, I believe that Anglo-Americans (Whites) are superior to 
   other racial groups. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 2. I feel more comfortable being around Anglo-American (Whites)  
   than I do being around Asian Americans. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 3. In general, Asian Americans have not contributed very   
   much to American society. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 4. Sometimes, I am embarrassed to be Asian American. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 5. I would have accomplished more in life if I had been born an  
   Anglo-American (White). 
 
5 4 3 2 1 6. Anglo-Americans (Whites) are more attractive than Asian   
   Americans. 
 
5 4 3 2 1  7. Asian Americans should learn to think and act like Anglo-  
   Americans (Whites). 
 
5 4 3 2 1 8. I limit myself to White activities. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 9. I think Asian Americans blame Anglo-Americans (Whites)   
   too much for their problems. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 10. I feel unable to involve myself in Anglo-Americans? (Whites)  
   experiences, and am increasing my involvement in experiences  
   involving Asian Americans. 
 
 
 117 
 
1  2  3  4  5 
                       Strongly          Disagree         Uncertain        Agree            Strongly  
                       Disagree                                                                                  Agree 
 
5 4 3 2 1 11. When I think about how Anglo-Americans (Whites) have treated  
   Asian Americans, I feel an overwhelming anger. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 12. I want to know more about my culture. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 13. I limit myself to activities involving Asian Americans. 
 
5 4 3 2 1  14. Most Anglo-Americans (Whites) are untrustworthy. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 15. American society would be better off if it were based on the  
   cultural values of Asian Americans. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 16. I am determined to find my cultural identity. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 17. Most Anglo-Americans (Whites) are insensitive. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 18. I reject all Anglo-American (White) values. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 19. My most important goal in life is to fight the oppression of Asian  
   Aericans. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 20. I believe that being Asian American has caused me to have   
   many strengths. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 21. I am comfortable wherever I am. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 22. People, regardless of their race, have strengths and limitations. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 23. I think Asian and White cultures differ from each other in some  
   ways, but neither group is superior. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 24. My Asian cultural background is a source of pride to me. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 25. People of Asian culture and White culture have much to learn from 
   each other. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 26. Anglo-Americans (Whites) have some customs that I enjoy. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 27. I enjoy being around people regardless of their race. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 28. Every racial group has some good people and some bad people. 
 
 
 118 
 
1  2  3  4  5 
                       Strongly          Disagree         Uncertain        Agree            Strongly  
                       Disagree                                                                                  Agree 
 
5 4 3 2 1 29. Asian Americans should not blame Anglo-Americans   
   (Whites) for all of their social problems. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 30. I do not understand why Anglo-Americans (Whites) treat   
   Asian Americans as they do. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 31. I am embarrassed about some of the things I feel about Asian  
   Americans. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 32. I?m not sure where I really belong. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 33. I have begun to question my beliefs. 
 
5 4 3 2 1  34. Maybe I can learn something from Asian Americans. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 35. Anglo-American (White) people can teach me more about   
   surviving in this world than Asian Americans can, but   
   Asian Americans can teach me more about being human. 
  
5 4 3 2 1 36. I don?t know whether being Asian American is an asset or   
   a defict. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 37. Sometimes I think Anglo-Americans (Whites) are superior and  
   sometimes I think they?re inferior to Asian Americans. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 38. Sometimes I am proud to be Asian American and    
   sometimes I am ashamed of it. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 39. Thinking about my values and beliefs takes up a lot of my time. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 40. I?m not sure how I feel about myself. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 41. White people are difficult to understand. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 42. I find myself replacing old friends with new ones who are Asian  
    American. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 43. I feel anxious about some of the things I feel about Asian   
    Americans. 
 
 
 
 119 
 
1  2  3  4  5 
                       Strongly          Disagree         Uncertain        Agree            Strongly  
                       Disagree                                                                                  Agree 
 
5 4 3 2 1 44. When an Asian American does something embarrassing in   
   public, I feel embarrassed. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 45. When both White people and Asian Americans are present   
   in a social situation, I prefer to be with Asian Americans.  
 
5 4 3 2 1 46. My values and beliefs match those of Anglos (Whites) more than  
   they do Asian Americans. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 47. The way Anglos (Whites) treat Asian Americans makes me  
   angry. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 48. I only follow the traditions and customs of Asian Americans. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 49. When Asian Americans act like Anglos (Whites) I feel   
   angry. 
 
5 4 3 2 1 50. I am comfortable being Asian American.  
 
 120 
 
APPENDIX B: GENDER-ROLE CONFLICT SCALE 
(O'Neil et al., 1986) 
 
Instructions: In the space to the left of each sentence below, write the number which most 
closely represents the degree that you Agree or Disagree with the statement. There is no 
right or wrong answer to each statement; your own reaction is what is asked for. Please 
note the change in scaling for this survey. 
 
Strongly         Strongly 
Agre          Disagre 
 6  5  4  3  2    1 
 
1. _____ Moving up the career ladder is important to me. 
2. _____ I have difficulty telling others I care about them. 
3. _____ Verbally expressing my love to another man is difficult for me. 
4. _____ I feel torn between my hectic work schedule and caring for my health. 
5. _____ Making money is part of my idea of being a successful man. 
6. _____ Strong emotions are difficult for me to understand. 
7. _____ Affection with other men make me tense. 
8. _____ I sometimes define my personal value by my career success. 
9. _____ Expressing feelings makes me feel open to attack by other people. 
10. _____ Expressing my emotions to other men is risky. 
11. _____ My career, job, or school affects the quality of my leisure or family life. 
12. _____ I evaluate other people?s value by their level of achievement and success. 
13. _____ Talking (about my feelings) during sexual relations is difficult for me. 
14. _____ I worry about failing and how it affects my doing well as a man. 
15. _____ I have difficulty expressing my emotional needs to my partner. 
16. _____ Men who touch other men make me uncomfortable. 
 
 121 
 
 
Strongly         Strongly 
Agre          Disagre 
 6  5  4  3  2    1 
 
17. _____ Finding time to relax is difficult for me. 
18. _____ Doing well all the time is important to me. 
19. _____ I have difficulty expressing my tender feelings. 
20. _____ Hugging other men is difficult for me. 
21. _____ I often feel that I need to be in charge of those around me. 
22. _____ Telling others of my strong feelings is not part of my sexual behavior. 
23. _____ Competing with others is the best way to succeed. 
24. _____ Winning is a measure of my value and personal worth. 
25. _____ I often have trouble finding words that describe how I am feeling. 
26. _____ I am sometimes hesitant to show my affection to men because of how 
others might perceive me. 
27. _____ My needs to work or study keep me from my family or leisure more than I 
would like. 
28. _____ I strive to be more successful than others. 
29. _____ I do not like to show my emotions to other people. 
30. _____ Telling my partner my feelings about him/her during sex is difficult for 
me. 
31. _____ My work or school often disrupts other parts of my life (home, family, 
health, leisure). 
 
 122 
 
 
Strongly         Strongly 
Agre          Disagre 
 6  5  4  3  2    1 
 
32. _____ I am often concerned about how others evaluate my performance at work 
or school. 
33. _____ Being very personal with other men makes me feel uncomfortable. 
34. _____ Being smarter or physically stronger than other men is important to me. 
35. _____ Men who are overly friendly to me, make me wonder about their sexual 
preference (men or women). 
36. _____ Overwork and stress, caused by a need to achieve on the job or in school, 
affects/hurts my life. 
37. _____ I like to feel superior to other people. 
 
 
 123 
 
APPENDIX C: ROSENBERG SELF-ESTEEM SCALE 
(Rosenberg, 1965) 
 
Instructions:  Below is a list of statements dealing with your general feelings about 
yourself. Please mark the circle corresponding with how you feel about the statement. 
 
 Strongly Strongly
 Agree Agree Disagree Disagree 
1. I feel that I?m a person of worth  
 at least on an equal plane with others. 
 
2. I feel that I have a number of good   
 qualities. 
 
3. All in all, I am inclined to feel  
 that I am a failure. 
 
4. I am able to do things as well  
 as most other people. 
 
5. I feel I do not have much to be  
 proud of. 
 
6. I take a positive attitude toward   
 myself. 
 
7. On the whole, I am satisfied   
 with myself. 
 
8. I wish I could have more respect   
 for myself. 
 
9. I certainly feel useless at times.    
 
10. At times I think I am no good   
 at all. 
 
 124 
 
APPENDIX D: DEMOGRAPHICS 
I attend school on the: 
  East Coast     West Coast  
I am: 
  Asian American     Bi-/Multi-racial (please specify): ___________  
My ethnic background includes: (please check all that apply)
  Bangladeshi 
  Burmese 
  Cambodian 
  Chinese 
  Filipina/o 
  Hmong 
    Indian 
    Indonesian 
    Japanese 
    Korean 
    Laotian 
    Malaysian 
    Pakistani 
    Taiwanese 
    Thai 
    Vietnamese 
    Other:  
 _____________ 
Gender:    Male     Female     Transgender 
Generational Status: 
    1
st
 generation ? foreign born and immigrated to the United States (U.S.) 
 Please note how many years you have lived in the U.S. ________ 
 
    1.5 generation ? foreign born but raised primarily in the U.S. (immigrated at age 
12 or younger)  
Please note how many years you have lived in the U.S. ________ 
 
 2
nd
 generation ? born in the U.S.; parents immigrated to the U.S. 
 ___  one parent immigrated to the U.S.  ___ both parents immigrated to the U.S. 
 
 3
rd
 generation ? born in the U.S.; parents born in the U.S. 
 
 4
th
 generation or higher ? born in the U.S.; parents, grandparents (or more) born in 
the U.S. 
 
Which of the following best describes your mother?s highest educational attainment? 
 High school or less 
 Some college 
 Associate?s degree 
 Bachelor?s degree 
 Master?s, Doctorate or professional degree (JD, MD, PhD) 
 
Which of the following best describes your father?s highest educational attainment? 
 High school or less 
 Some college 
 Associate?s degree 
 Bachelor?s degree 
 Master?s, Doctorate or professional degree (JD, MD, PhD) 
 
 125 
 
 
Which of the following best describes your mother?s current occupational status? 
 Unemployed/not working 
 Manual laborer 
 Service worker 
 Skilled worker 
 Professional or top administrator 
 
Which of the following best describes your father?s current occupational status? 
 Unemployed/not working 
 Manual laborer 
 Service worker 
 Skilled worker 
 Professional or top administrator 
 
I would consider the home I grew up in:  
 Lower class  Lower-middle class 
 Middle class  Upper-middle class  Upper class  
Current Status:    Full-time Student    Part-time Student 
(check all that apply)    Full-time Employed   Part-Time Employed 
Age: _______ 
Class Year:   1
st
   2
nd
      3
rd
       4
th
   5
th 
+    Graduate 
Major: __________________ 
Religious Orientation (e.g. Buddhist, Catholic, Hindu, Muslim, etc.): 
Sexual Orientation:   Heterosexual      Gay      Bisexual   Asexual    Other: 
______ 
Relationship Status:   Single   Partnered   Married   Divorced  Widowed 
Please feel free to make comments or suggestions in this space: 
  
 
 126 
 
APPENDIX E: CONCLUSION OF SURVEY 
 
Thank you for your responses to this survey! 
 
In appreciation of completing the survey, you are eligible to enter a prize drawing for gift 
certificates! 
   Yes, please enter me in the prize drawing. Enter your e-mail address:  ______ 
   No, I do not wish to enter the prize drawing. 
 
Winners will be notified by the e-mail address entered above after Friday, March 25, the 
last day of the survey. 
 
Would you like a summary of this study?s results when they become available? 
   Yes, please send me a summary of the study?s results to my e-mail address:   
   _________________________ 
   No, I do not want a summary of the study?s results. 
 
?Continue? [to next screen of survey] 
 
Your responses have been successfully submitted. If you have any questions or concerns 
about this research study, we would like to hear from you. Please feel free to contact us:  
 
Yen Ling Shek 
Graduate Student 
University of Maryland 
ylshek@umd.edu 
(240) 461-4092 
 
 
Faculty Advisor 
Dr. Marylu McEwen 
Counseling and Personnel Services 
3214 Benjamin, University of Maryland 
College Park, MD 20742 
mmcewen@umd.edu 
(301) 405-2871 
 
Remember to close or exit your Internet browser. 
 
 
Thank you! 
 
 127 
 
  
APPENDIX F: EAST COAST INITIAL CONTACT EMAIL 
Subject: Your thoughts are needed 
 
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?[Custom ID] 
 
Dear [Name of Participant], 
 
You have been contacted as part of a select group of students to participate in a study on 
the social and personal attitudes of Asian American undergraduate men as part of 
research for the College Student Personnel Program.  
 
The survey will take 20 minutes to complete. You will be entered into a drawing to win a 
$50 or $25 American Express Gift Card. The deadline for survey completion is March 
31, 2005. Winners will be notified by April 30, 2005. 
 
I would greatly appreciate your participation in this study as it would expand the 
scholarship on Asian American undergraduate men. The link to the website is below: 
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?[Custom ID] 
 
If you have difficulties connecting to the website, please copy and paste the link onto 
your browser. Once you are on the website you will see an informed consent form which 
will provide you with further information on the survey. 
 
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at ylshek@umd.edu or 
(240) 461-4092. Information for the faculty sponsor is also included below. Thank you 
for your consideration. 
 
Sincerely, 
Yen Ling Shek  
University of Maryland, College Park 
College Student Personnel 
Candidate for Master of Arts, 2005 
 (240) 461-4092 
ylshek@umd.edu 
 
Faculty Sponsor  
Marylu McEwen, Ph.D. 
Associate Professor 
College of Education 
3214 Benjamin Building 
College Park, MD 20742 
(301) 405-2871  
mmcewen@umd.edu 
 
 
 128 
 
Please note: Two follow-up emails will be sent within the next two weeks as a friendly 
reminder for those who have not completed the survey. If you do not wish to receive 
further emails, please click the link below, and you will be automatically removed from 
the list. 
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r.asp?[Custom ID] 
 
 129 
 
APPENDIX G: WEST COAST INITIAL CONTACT EMAIL 
Date for Release: March 22, 2005 
 
Subject: Your thoughts are needed 
 
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=51772940062 
 
You are invited to participate in a study on the social and personal attitudes of Asian 
American undergraduate men for my master?s thesis.  
 
The survey will take 20 minutes to complete. You will be entered into a drawing to win a 
$50 or $25 American Express Gift Card. Winners will be notified a week following the 
conclusion of the survey. The deadline for survey completion is April 5, 2005.  
 
I would greatly appreciate your participation in this study as it would expand the 
scholarship on Asian American undergraduate men. The link to the website is below: 
 
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=51772940062 
 
If you have difficulties connecting to the website, please copy and paste the link onto 
your browser. Once you are on the website you will see an informed consent form which 
will provide you with further information on the survey. 
 
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at ylshek@umd.edu or 
(240) 461-4092. Information for the faculty sponsors are also included below. Thank you 
for your consideration. 
 
Sincerely, 
Yen Ling Shek   
University of Maryland, College Park     
College Student Personnel 
Candidate for Master of Arts, 2005 
(240) 461-4092 
ylshek@umd.edu 
 
UMD Faculty Sponsor  
Marylu McEwen, Ph.D. 
Associate Professor 
College of Education 
University of Maryland 
3214 Benjamin Building 
College Park, MD 20742 
(301) 405-2871  
mmcewen@umd.edu  
 
UCLA Faculty Sponsor  
Mitchell Chang, Ph.D. 
Associate Professor 
UCLA Graduate School of Education & 
Information Studies 
Box 951521, 3038 MH 
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521 
(310) 825-0504 
mjchang@gseis.ucla.edu
 
130  
Please note: Two follow-up emails will be sent within the next two weeks as a friendly 
reminder for those who have not completed the survey.  
 
131  
APPENDIX H: EAST COAST FIRST FOLLOW-UP EMAIL 
(One week prior to deadline) 
 
Subject: Reminder: Your thoughts are needed 
 
Dear [Name of Participant], 
 
Last week, you received an email message about participating in the College Student 
Personnel survey on social and personal attitudes of Asian American undergraduate men. 
You are part of a select group contacted for this important research. There is one more 
week until the deadline for the survey, March 31
st
 and your help would be greatly 
appreciated. 
 
The survey will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. You can access the survey 
through the following website: 
 
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?[Custom ID] 
     
If you have any difficulties accessing or completing the survey, please feel free to contact 
me. As a reminder, you could be the recipient of a $50 or $25 American Express Gift 
Card. Thank you for your participation. 
 
Sincerely, 
Yen Ling Shek 
University of Maryland, College Park 
College Student Personnel 
Candidate for Master of Arts, 2005 
(240) 461-4092 
ylshek@umd.edu 
 
Faculty Sponsor  
Marylu McEwen, Ph.D. 
Associate Professor 
College of Education 
3214 Benjamin Building 
College Park, MD 20742 
(301) 405-2871  
mmcewen@umd.edu 
 
Please note: There will be one last friendly reminder sent three days before the deadline 
for survey completion. If you do not wish to receive further emails, please click the link 
below, and you will be automatically removed from the list. 
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r.asp?[Custom ID] 
 
 
132  
APPENDIX I: WEST COAST FIRST FOLLOW-UP EMAIL 
(One week prior to deadline) 
 
Date for Release: March 29, 2005 
 
Subject: Reminder: Your thoughts are needed 
 
If you have already completed the survey, please disregard this email. 
 
Last week, you received an email message about participating in my survey on social and 
personal attitudes of Asian American undergraduate men. There is one more week until 
the deadline for the survey, April 5
th
, and I would greatly appreciate your help with my 
thesis research.  
 
The survey will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. You can access the survey 
through the following website: 
 
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=51772940062 
 
If you have any difficulties accessing or completing the survey, please feel free to contact 
me. As a reminder, you could be the recipient of a $50 or $25 American Express Gift 
Card. Thank you for your participation. 
 
Sincerely, 
Yen Ling Shek 
University of Maryland, College Park 
College Student Personnel 
Candidate for Master of Arts, 2005 
(240) 461-4092 
ylshek@umd.edu 
 
UMD Faculty Sponsor  
Marylu McEwen, Ph.D. 
Associate Professor 
College of Education 
University of Maryland 
3214 Benjamin Building 
College Park, MD 20742 
(301) 405-2871  
mmcewen@umd.edu  
 
UCLA Faculty Sponsor  
Mitchell Chang, Ph.D. 
Associate Professor 
UCLA Graduate School of Education & 
Information Studies 
Box 951521, 3038 MH 
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521 
(310) 825-0504 
mjchang@gseis.ucla.edu
Please note: There will be one last friendly reminder sent three days before the deadline 
for survey completion.  
 
133  
APPENDIX J: EAST COAST SECOND FOLLOW-UP EMAIL 
 
(Three days prior to deadline) 
 
Subject: Last Reminder: Your thoughts are needed 
 
Dear [Name of Participant], 
 
The deadline to contribute to new research on the social and personal attitudes of Asian 
American undergraduate men is in three days. The survey will take approximately 20 
minutes to complete. You can access the survey through the following website: 
 
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?[Custom ID] 
 
If you have any difficulties accessing or completing the survey, please contact me. As a 
reminder, you could be the recipient of a $50 or $25 American Express Gift Card. Thank 
you for your participation. 
 
Sincerely, 
Yen Ling Shek 
University of Maryland, College Park 
College Student Personnel 
Candidate for Master of Arts, 2005 
(240) 461-4092 
ylshek@umd.edu 
 
Faculty Sponsor  
Marylu McEwen, Ph.D. 
Associate Professor 
College of Education 
3214 Benjamin Building 
College Park, MD 20742 
(301) 405-2871  
mmcewen@umd.edu 
 
 
134  
APPENDIX K: WEST COAST SECOND FOLLOW-UP EMAIL 
(Three days prior to deadline) 
 
Date for Release: April 2, 2005 
 
Subject: Last Reminder: Your thoughts are needed 
 
If you have already completed the survey, please disregard this email. 
 
The deadline to contribute to new research on the social and personal attitudes of Asian 
American undergraduate men is in three days, April 5
th
. The survey will take 
approximately 20 minutes to complete. You can access the survey through the following 
website: 
 
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=51772940062 
 
If you have any difficulties accessing or completing the survey, please contact me. As a 
reminder, you could be the recipient of a $50 or $25 American Express Gift Card. Thank 
you for your participation. 
 
Sincerely, 
Yen Ling Shek 
University of Maryland, College Park 
College Student Personnel 
Candidate for Master of Arts, 2005 
(240) 461-4092 
ylshek@umd.edu 
 
Faculty Sponsor  
Marylu McEwen, Ph.D. 
Associate Professor 
College of Education 
University of Maryland 
3214 Benjamin Building 
College Park, MD 20742 
(301) 405-2871  
mmcewen@umd.edu  
 
UCLA Faculty Sponsor  
Mitchell Chang, Ph.D. 
Associate Professor 
UCLA Graduate School of Education & 
Information Studies 
Box 951521, 3038 MH 
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521 
(310) 825-0504 
mjchang@gseis.ucla.edu
 
135  
APPENDIX L: EAST COAST INFORMED CONSENT FORM 
 
Welcome to the survey on your social and personal attitudes as an Asian American 
undergraduate man. 
 
Before you begin, please review this page. It contains information on your rights as a 
participant. 
 
null By clicking the ?Begin Survey? link below, you state that you are over 18 years of 
age and wish to participate in a program of research being conducted by Yen Ling 
Shek under the faculty advisement of Dr. Marylu McEwen in the Department of 
Counseling and Personnel Services at the University of Maryland, College Park. 
null The purpose of this research study is to study the social and personal attitudes of 
Asian American undergraduate men.  
null If you choose to participate in this research study, you will be asked to complete a 
survey about your social and personal attitudes. It will take approximately 20 minutes 
to complete. 
null All information collected in this study is confidential. The information you provide 
will be grouped with information other people provide for reporting and presentation, 
and your name will not be used. Data will be stored on a private computer owned by 
the student researcher and will be password protected. 
null Due to the public nature of the Internet, the possibility of someone intercepting your 
data is possible, but highly unlikely. If you do not exit or close your Internet browser 
when you have completed your survey, it is possible that another person using your 
computer at a later time could view your responses. It is therefore important that you 
exit your browser after you have submitted your survey. 
null I understand that the questions may ask for me to reflect on my personal experiences 
and opinions and may be sensitive in nature which may result in some discomfort. 
null I understand that my participation is voluntary. 
null I also understand that I do not have to answer any question I feel uncomfortable with 
and that I may withdraw from the study at any time. 
null The following are sample questions from the survey: 
o I feel that I have a number of good qualities.  
o Moving up the career ladder is important to me. 
o Finding time to relax is difficult for me.  
o I am comfortable wherever I am.  
null The research is not designed to help you personally, but the benefits to participation 
include contributing to research on an important, understudied topic. This research 
may help us understand the social and personal attitudes of Asian American 
undergraduate men. 
null Following completion of the survey, you may follow instructions to be entered into a 
drawing for a $50 or $25 American Express Gift Card. 
null If you have any questions about participating in this project, please contact me (Yen 
Ling Shek at ylshek@umd.edu or 240-461-4092) or my faculty advisor, Dr. Marylu 
McEwen (mmcewen@umd.edu, 301-405-2871, or 3214 Benjamin).  
 
 
 136 
 
If you have questions about your rights as a research subject or wish to report a research-
related injury, please contact: Institutional Review Board Office, University of Maryland, 
College Park, Maryland, 20742; (e-mail) irb@deans.umd.edu; (telephone) 301-405-4212 
 
  I wish to participate in this research study. ?Begin Survey? 
  I do not wish to participate in this research study. ?Log Out? 
 
 137 
 
APPENDIX M: WEST COAST INFORMED CONSENT FORM 
Welcome to the survey on your social and personal attitudes as an Asian American 
undergraduate man. 
 
Before you begin, please review this page. It contains information on your rights as a 
participant. 
 
null By clicking the ?Begin Survey? link below, you state that you are over 18 years of 
age and wish to participate in a program of research being conducted by Yen Ling 
Shek under the faculty advisement of Dr. Marylu McEwen in the Department of 
Counseling and Personnel Services at the University of Maryland, College Park. 
null The purpose of this research study is to study the social and personal attitudes of 
Asian American undergraduate men.  
null If you choose to participate in this research study, you will be asked to complete a 
survey about your social and personal attitudes. It will take approximately 20 minutes 
to complete. 
null All information collected in this study is confidential. The information you provide 
will be grouped with information other people provide for reporting and presentation, 
and your name will not be used. Data will be stored on a private computer owned by 
the student researcher and will be password protected. 
null Due to the public nature of the Internet, the possibility of someone intercepting your 
data is possible, but highly unlikely. If you do not exit or close your Internet browser 
when you have completed your survey, it is possible that another person using your 
computer at a later time could view your responses. It is therefore important that you 
exit your browser after you have submitted your survey. 
null I understand that the questions may ask for me to reflect on my personal experiences 
and opinions and may be sensitive in nature which may result in some discomfort. 
null I understand that my participation is voluntary. 
null I also understand that I do not have to answer any question I feel uncomfortable with 
and that I may withdraw from the study at any time. 
null The following are sample questions from the survey: 
o I feel that I have a number of good qualities.  
o Moving up the career ladder is important to me. 
o Finding time to relax is difficult for me.  
o I am comfortable wherever I am.  
null The research is not designed to help you personally, but the benefits to participation 
include contributing to research on an important, understudied topic. This research 
may help us understand the social and personal attitudes of Asian American 
undergraduate men. 
null Following completion of the survey, you may follow instructions to be entered into a 
drawing for a $50 or $25 American Express Gift Card. 
null If you have any questions about participating in this project, please contact me (Yen 
Ling Shek at ylshek@umd.edu or 240-461-4092), my UMD faculty advisor, Dr. 
Marylu McEwen (mmcewen@umd.edu, 301-405-2871, or 3214 Benjamin), or UCLA 
 
 138 
 
faculty advisor, Dr. Mitchell Chang (mjchang@gseis.ucla.edu, 310-825-0504, 3038 
MH). 
 
If you have questions about your rights as a research subject or wish to report a research-
related injury, please contact: Institutional Review Board Office, University of Maryland, 
College Park, Maryland, 20742; irb@deans.umd.edu; 301-405-4212 or the UCLA Office 
for the Protection of Research Subjects, 1401 Ueberroth Building, UCLA, Box 951694, 
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1694, 310-825-8714.  
 
  I wish to participate in this research study. ?Begin Survey? 
  I do not wish to participate in this research study. ?Log Out? 
 
 139 
 
APPENDIX N: COMMENTS FROM SURVEY 
The following are comments from Asian American undergraduate men who participated 
in the study on the relationships of racial identity and gender-role conflict to self-esteem 
of Asian American undergraduate men. Comments below are in their original format and 
spelling. [] - Indicates an omission to protect respondent?s confidentiality. 
 
1. I hope this survey will make more people confident about themselves.  
2. The one question I was taken back by is the 'white activities.'  What exact would 
constitute a white activity? Eating at applebees instead of a pho restaurant?  Be 
more specific.     My answers for showing affection to males is of course going to 
be skewed because I am gay so I completely disagreed many times.    Good Luck 
on this design!  Would like to know how your Master's turns out and when/where 
it will be published if possible.  
3. I think most of the statements in the survey are accurately stereotypical of an 
average Asian American male that I know due to the fact that I attended high 
school with a good number of Asian Americans. 
4. could not answer race questions due to my opinions on race are very 'fluid'.  
5. I liked this survey, it was well written, and i like the large number of options 
available for areas like sexual orientation, and gender.  thank you 
6. For the question 'People, regardless of their race, have strengths and limitations.'  i 
said disagree because i don't completely believe in setting limitations. 
7. I would like to know more about your findings from this study. Can you please let 
me know a bit more about your research? Can you please provide me with a copy 
of your research proposal? my email address is [] Thanks! 
8. Some questions could be improved by reformulating. 
9. The quality of the questions are superficial and the scope of the survey was poorly 
defined, limiting to self esteem, homophobia, and anglo/asian relations issues 
only in a fairly shallow way.  Example of ways to improve such as replacing the 
whether anglo are attractive to whether you find other race more/less attractive 
and whether you think of yourself are more/less attractive to own/other race and 
etc.     
10. I definitely feel in the world, there are prejudices and hidden barriers that make it 
more difficult for asian americans to succeed.  Nevertheless, I believe these 
prejudices come not only because of racism from whites but from a sort of 
internalized self-deprecation by fellow asian americans.  Moreover, I feel for 
asian americans in general, there is a an awkward need to justify or prove oneself 
as a credible source of information or knowledge that is a complex combination 
of social injustices and a problem to articulate thoughts in a collected, confident, 
and persuasive manner.      Hope this helps a little.  sorry it took me so long. []    
11. in the part two, you have to put an option as 'i don't know', because when the 
questions talk about sexual relations and feelings i'm single i don't know.    
12. I hadn't realized that Anglo-Americans and Asian Americans had so many issues.  
I have never experienced any tension between the two cultures and I think that the 
racials issues are minimal. 
 
 140 
 
13. thank you very much for the survey. it made me think about my personal thoughts 
and feelings about being an asian american. hopefully, i can reflect on this later in 
life and use it for the betterment of my life. thanks =) 
14. This survey had a lot of questions related to homosexuality and White Asians 
(Wasians). Horrible! 
15. growing up in predominantly black schools and being the only asian often made 
me the source of childrens cruelty , i began to develop a shame for my asian 
heritage and sometimes wouldnt even acknowledge other asians. as i grew older 
and more confident that shame quickly turned into pride and now i feel there is 
nothing better than being half white and half asian. i do however feel angry when 
i see asians misstreated by other races. 
16. answer choices were too extreme in a few instances, didn't give option for middle 
ground response. 
17. There were some questions that seemed loaded.  There were other questions also, 
that weren't true for me, but when I say strongly disagree, it doesn't make the 
statment correct for me either. 
18. This survey was really dumb 
19. Asian Americans have the hardest time to create their identity in the United States 
because a majority of them adapt to Anglo-American ways faster than the other 
groups.  So, sometimes we are considered 'white' in a sense, and we lose identity 
quickly.  The problem then comes when other whites don't see that we are 
assimiliating into American culture for our own benefit of survival and career 
movement, and the loss comes when many of Asian Americans forget their 
cultural background and their rich heritage.  The prejudice against us can be very 
tough because no one sees that we are the fastest to adapt and be successful, yet 
the stereotype remains in the minds of other races, even among Asians. 
20. I think that this survey was very indescript. I'm not necessarily sure what the aims 
of this survey were trying to accomplish, but the questions seemed very vague and 
too general to actually accumulate a scientific response or formula. Many of them 
were repetative and could seemed be interpreted in a number of ways.  
21. Keep preaching it brotha. 
22. the questions should be able to be unchecked in the case a person answers a 
question and then chooses not to answer a question 
23. I feel this survey is very limited in that it gives you words that you have to use to 
look at a certain situation, and you can only pick the degree that you agree with it.  
I feel that there is a bias and that if some of the words were not so blunt or 
opiniated 'I feel i'm a failure' i may have answered differetnly.  I feel there is a 
need for more specific language in this situation b/c no one will feel 'I'm a 
failture'.  Feelings are more complicated than that and the simplicity and opiniated 
nature of the word choice most likely affect my answers.  All in all, thank you for 
asking me to fill in this quesionaire.  Take care. 
24. I believe this survey in itself was very bias in itself and made the person taking 
the survey pick between anglo americans and asian americans based on how the 
questions were worded, I do not think that this survey will convey any sort of 
reality based on how the questions were asked.  I was tempted several times to not 
complete the survey I believed it was that rediculous. 
 
 141 
 
APPENDIX O: ETHNICITIES OF PARTICIPANTS  
Table O1  
 
Ethnicities of Participants (N = 173) 
Ethnicity n 
Bangladeshi   3 
Burmese   2 
Cambodian   4 
Chinese 56
Filipina/o 15
Hmong   0 
Indian 32 
Indonesian   1 
Japanese   4 
Korean 40 
Laotian   1 
Malaysian   2 
Pakistani   1 
Taiwanese 25
Thai   2 
Vietnamese 11 
Other   7 
 Anglo/European/White   3 
 Canadian   1 
 Iranian   1 
 Nepalese   1 
 Samoan   1 
Note. Participants were given the option to indicate as many ethnic group identifications 
as applicable, therefore, the numbers will not total N = 173. 
 
 142 
 
APPENDIX P: CORRELATIONAL MATRIX OF DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES 
AND INDEPENDENT VARIABLES 
Table P1 
 
Correlations of Demographic Variables, Gender-Role Conflict Scale, and People of 
Color Racial Identity Attitude Scale 
Variable Generational Status Socioeconomic Status 
Success, Power, and Competition   .015   .000 
 
Restrictive Emotionality - .023 - .005 
 
Restrictive Affectionate Behavior - .094   .043 
 Between Men  
Conflict Between Work and Family   .033 - .111 
 Relations 
 
GRCS Total Score - .026 - .026 
 
Conformity  - .011 - .057 
 
Dissonance    .029 - .093 
 
Immersion  - .030 - .010 
 
Internalization    .069   .005 
Note. No correlations were significant at p < .05 
 
 143 
 
REFERENCES   
Alvarez, A. N. (2002). Racial identity and Asian Americans: Supports and challenges. In 
M. K. McEwen, C. M. Kodama, A. N. Alvarez, S. Lee & C. T. H. Liang (Eds.), 
Working with Asian American college students (New Directions for Students 
Services no. 97, pp. 33-43). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
Alvarez, A. N., & Helms, J. E. (2001). Racial identity and reflected appraisals as 
influences on Asian Americans' racial adjustment. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic 
Minority Psychology, 7, 217-231. 
Alvarez, A. N., & Yeh, L. Y. (1999). Asian Americans in college: A racial identity 
perspective. In D. Sandhu (Ed.), Asian and Pacific Islander Americans: Issues 
and concerns in counseling and psychotherapy (pp. 105-119). Comstock, NY: 
Nova Science Publishers. 
Barnes, J. S., & Bennett, C. E. (2002). Census 2000 Brief (No. C2KBR/01-16). 
Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of self-esteem. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. 
Shaver & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social 
psychological attitudes (pp. 115-160). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 
Blazina, C., & Watkins, C. E. (1996). Masculine gender role conflict: Effects on college 
men's psychological well-being, chemical substance usage, and attitudes toward 
help-seeking. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 461-465. 
Bowker, L. H. (Ed.). (1998). Masculinities and violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 
Byrne, B. M. (1983). Investigating measures of self-concept. Measurement and 
Evaluation in Guidance, 16, 115-126. 
 
 144 
 
Chan, J. (2001). Chinese American masculinities: From Fu Manchu to Bruce Lee. New 
York: Routledge. 
Chan, J. W. (1998). Contemporary Asian American men's issues. In L. R. Hirabayashi 
(Ed.), Teaching Asian America: Diversity and the problem of community (pp. 93-
102). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 
Chan, S. (1991). Asian Americans: An interpretive history. New York: Twayne. 
Chang, T., & Yeh, C. J. (2003). Using online groups to provide support to Asian 
American men: Racial, cultural, gender, and treatment issues. Professional 
Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 634-643. 
Chen, G. A. (2004, December). The complexity of ?Asian American Identity?: The 
intersection of multiple social identities. Paper presented at the Counseling Center 
Research and Development Presentation, University of Maryland, College Park. 
Chen, G. A. (2005). The complexity of "Asian American identity": The intersection of 
multiple social identities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of 
Texas, Austin, TX. 
Cheng, C. (1996). "We choose not to compete": The "merit" discourse in the selection 
process, and Asian and Asian American men and their masculinity. In C. Cheng 
(Ed.), Masculinities in organizations (pp. 177-200). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 
Chua, P., & Fujino, D. C. (1999). Negotiating new Asian-American masculinities: 
Attitudes and gender expectations. The Journal of Men's Studies, 7, 391-413. 
College enrollment by racial and ethnic group, selected years. (2004). Retrieved 
November 30, 2004, from 
http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/almanac/2004/nation/0101603.htm 
 
 145 
 
Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in 
web- or internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 
821-836. 
Cress, C. M., & Ikeda, E. K. (2003). Distress under duress: The relationship between 
campus climate and depression in Asian American college students. NASPA 
Journal, 40, 74-97. 
Espiritu, Y. L. (1997). Asian American women and men: Labor, laws, and love. 
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 
Fassinger, R. E. (1998). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identity and student development 
theory. In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender 
college students: A handbook for faculty and administrators (pp. 13-22). 
Westport, CT: Greenwood. 
Good, G. E., Robertson, J. M., Fitzgerald, L. F., Stevens, M., & Bartels, K. M. (1996). 
The relation between masculine role conflict and psychological distress in male 
university counseling center clients. Journal of Counseling & Development, 75, 
44-49. 
Good, G. E., Robertson, J. M., O'Neil, J. M., Fitzgerald, L. F., Stevens, M., DeBord, K. 
A., et al. (1995). Male gender role conflict: Psychometric issues and relations to 
psychological distress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 3-10. 
Good, G. E., & Wood, P. K. (1995). Male gender role conflict, depression, and help 
seeking: Do college men face double jeopardy? Journal of Counseling & 
Development, 74, 70-75. 
Gro?, J. (2003). Linear regression. Berlin: Springer. 
 
 146 
 
Helms, J. E. (1993). Black and White racial identity: Theory, research, and practice. 
Westport, CT: Praeger. 
Helms, J. E. (1995). An update of Helms' White and People of Color racial identity 
models. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casa, L. A. Suzuki & M. Alexander (Eds.), 
Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 181-198). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 
Helms, J. E. (1996). Toward a methodology for measuring and assessing racial as 
distinguished from ethnic identity. In G. R. Sodowsky & J. C. Impara (Eds.), 
Multicultural assessment in counseling and clinical psychology (pp. 143-192). 
Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. 
Helms, J.E., & Carter, R.T. (1990). People of Color racial identity attitude scale. 
Unpublished manuscript. University of Maryland, College Park, MD. 
Helms, J. E., & Cook, D. A. (1999). Using race and culture in counseling and 
psychotherapy: Theory and practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. 
Hirabayashi, L. R. (1998). Introduction. In L. R. Hirabayashi (Ed.), Teaching Asian 
America: Diversity and the problem of community (pp. 1-12). Lanham, MD: 
Rowman & Littlefield. 
Hune, S. (2002). Demographics and diversity of Asian American college students. In M. 
K. McEwen, C. M. Kodama, A. N. Alvarez, S. Lee & C. T. H. Liang (Eds.), 
Working with Asian American college students (New Directions for Student 
Services no. 97, pp. 11-20). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pederson, A., & Allen, W. (1999). Enacting diverse 
learning environments: Improving the climate for racial/ethnic diversity in higher 
 
 147 
 
education. Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University, Graduate 
School of Education and Human Development. 
Joshi, K. Y. (n.d.). South Asian Americans and race relations. Retrieved March 28, 2005, 
from http://www.project-impact.org/iapac/guide/storyideas.pdf 
Kellum, G. (2005). Report on the Center for Men's Leadership and Service. Paper 
presented at the American College Personnel Association National Convention, 
Nashville, TN. 
Kim, E. J., O'Neil, J. M., & Owen, S. V. (1996). Asian-American men's acculturation and 
gender-role conflict. Psychological Reports, 79, 95-104. 
Kodama, C. M., McEwen, M. K., Liang, C. T. H., & Lee, S. (2002). An Asian American 
perspective on psychosocial student development theory. In M. K. McEwen, C. 
M. Kodama, A. N. Alvarez, S. Lee & C. T. H. Liang (Eds.), Working with Asian 
American college students (New Directions for Students Services no. 97, pp. 43-
59). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
Kohatsu, E. (1992). The effects of racial identity and acculturation on anxiety, 
assertiveness, and ascribed identity among Asian American college students. 
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD. 
Kumashiro, K. K. (1999). Supplementing normalcy and otherness: Queer Asian 
American men refect on stereotypes, identity, and oppression. Qualitative Studies 
in Education, 12, 491-508. 
Lagdameo, A., Lee, S., Nguyen, B., Liang, C. T. H., Lee, S., Kodama, C. M., et al. 
(2002). Voices of Asian American students. In M. K. McEwen, C. M. Kodama, 
A. N. Alvarez, S. Lee & C. T. H. Liang (Eds.), Working with Asian American 
 
 148 
 
college students (New Directions for Student Services no. 97, pp. 5-10). San 
Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
Laker, J. (2005). Beyond "Bad Dog!": Employing gendered lenses in our work with male 
students. Paper presented at the American College Personnel Association National 
Convention, Nashville, TN. 
Liu, W. M. (2000). Exploring the lives of Asian American men: Racial identity, male role 
norms, gender role conflict, and prejudicial attitudes. Unpublished doctoral 
dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD. 
Liu, W. M. (2002). Exploring the lives of Asian American men: Racial identity, male role 
norms, gender role conflict, and prejudicial attitudes. Psychology of Men and 
Masculinity, 3, 107-118. 
Liu, W. M., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1999). Differences in leadership and co-curricular 
perception among entering male and female Asian-Pacific-American college 
students. Journal of the First-Year Experience, 11, 93-114. 
Lomax, R. G. (2000). Statistical concepts: A second course for education and the 
behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in education (5th ed.). New York: 
Addison Wesley Longman. 
Naik, D. P. (2003). Distinguishing racial identity development among South Asian, 
Southeast Asian, and East Asian American college students. Unpublished master's 
thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, MD. 
Omi, M. (2000). Racial identity and the state: Contesting the federal standards for 
classification. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, R. Castaneda, H. W. Hackman, 
 
 149 
 
M. L. Peters & X. Zuniga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice (pp. 73-
78). New York: Routledge. 
O'Neil, J. M. (1990). Assessing men's gender role conflict. In D. Moore & F. Leafgren 
(Eds.), Problem solving strategies and interventions for men in conflict (pp. 23-
38). Alexandria, VA: American Association for Counseling and Development. 
O'Neil, J. M. (2004). Internal consistencies reliabilities for 20 diverse samples using the 
GRCS across factors and total score. Retrieved October 25, 2004, from 
http://web.uconn.edu/joneil/DiverseSamples.pdf 
O'Neil, J. M., Helms, B. J., Gable, R. K., David, L., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1986). Gender 
Role Conflict Scale: College men's fear of femininity. Sex Roles, 14, 335-350. 
Parham, T. A., & Helms, J. E. (1985). Attitudes of racial identity and self-esteem of 
Black students: An exploratory investigation. Journal of College Student 
Personnel, 26, 143-147. 
Pleck, J. H. (1981). The myth of masculinity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 
Poindexter-Cameron, J. M., & Robinson, T. L. (1997). Relationships among racial 
identity attitudes, womanist identity attitudes, and self-esteem in African 
American college women. Journal of College Student Development, 38, 288-296. 
Pope, R. L. (2000). The relationship between psychosocial development and racial 
identity of college students of color. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 
304-314. 
Porter, S. R., & Whitcomb, M. E. (2003). The impact of contact type on web survey 
response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 579-588. 
 
 150 
 
Prashad, V. (2000). The Karma of Brown Folk. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota 
Press. 
Pyant, C. T., & Yanico, B. J. (1991). Relationship of racial identity and gender role 
attitudes to Black women's psychological well-being. Journal of Counseling 
Psychology, 38, 315-322. 
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton 
University Press. 
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books. 
Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the adolescent self-image (Rev. ed.). Middletown, 
CT: Wesleyan University Press. 
Sabo, D., & Gordon, D. F. (1995). Rethinking men's health and illness: The relevance of 
gender studies. In D. Sabo & D. F. Gordon (Eds.), Men's health and illness: 
Gender, power, and the body (pp. 1-21). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 
Sharpe, M. J., & Heppner, P. P. (1991). Gender role, gender-role conflict, and 
psychological well-being in men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 323-330. 
Silber, E., & Tippett, J. S. (1965). Self-esteem: Clinical assessment and measurement 
validation. Psychological Reports, 16, 1017-1071. 
Smith, H. M., & Betz, N. E. (2002). An examination of efficacy and esteem pathways to 
depression in young adulthood. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 438-448. 
Solberg, V. S., Ritsma, S., Davis, B. J., Tata, S. P., & Jolly, A. (1994). Asian-American 
students' severity of problems and willingness to seek help from university 
counseling centers: Role of previous counseling experience, gender, and ethnicity. 
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41, 275-279. 
 
 151 
 
Stillson, R. W., O'Neil, J. M., & Owen, S. V. (1991). Predictors of adult men's gender-
role conflict: Race, class, unemployment, age, instrumentality-expressiveness, and 
personal strain. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 458-464. 
Sue, S. (1994). Mental health. In N. Zane, D. Takeuchi & K. Young (Eds.), Confronting 
critical health issues of Asian & Pacific Islander Americans (pp. 266-288). Los 
Angeles: Sage. 
Suzuki, B. H. (2002). Revisiting the model minority stereotype: Implications for student 
affairs practice and higher education. In M. K. McEwen, C. M. Kodama, A. N. 
Alvarez, S. Lee & C. T. H. Liang (Eds.), Working with Asian American college 
students (New Directions for Student Services no. 97, pp. 21-32). San Francisco: 
Jossey-Bass. 
Takaki, R. (1990). Strangers from a different shore: A history of Asian Americans. New 
York: Penguin Group. 
Takaki, R. (1993). A different mirror: A history of multicultural America. New York: 
Little, Brown and Company. 
Toya, G. J. (1996). The relationship between career aspirations and racial identity 
development of Asian Pacific American college students by ethnicity, generation, 
gender and career certainty. Unpublished master's thesis, University of 
Maryland, College Park. 
Utsey, S. O., Ponterotto, J. G., Reynolds, A. L., & Cancelli, A. A. (2000). Racial 
discrimination, coping, life satisfaction, and self-esteem among African 
Americans. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78, 72-80. 
 
 152 
 
Wade, J. C. (1996). African American men's gender role conflict: The significance of 
racial identity. Sex Roles, 34, 17-33. 
Wah, L. M. (1998). Asian men and violence. In R. Carrillo & J. Tello (Eds.), Family 
violence and men of color: Healing the wounded male spirit. New York: Springer. 
Wong, S. (1993, November 1, 1993). Beyond Bruce Lee. Essence, 24, 64. 
Wylie, R. C. (1989). Measures of self-concept. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 
Yeh, T. H. (1997). Distinguishing between racial identity and ethnic identity for Asian 
Americans. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Maryland, College Park. 
Yip, T. (2003). Situational variation in ethnic identity and psychological well-being: A 
palm pilot study of Chinese American students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, 
New York University, New York.