Running Head: Assessing Cultural Adaptation The Cultural Adaptation and Adjustment Scale (CAAS): A Multidimensional Approach to Assessing Ethnic and Gender Social Identities

A revised instrument for assessing cultural adaptation and psychological adaptation across diverse groups is reported. The Cultural Adaptation and Adjustment Scale (CAAS) was designed as a research tool in counseling and education to examine various facets of human development and adjustment based on the empirical literature. The exploratory factor analytic study builds on an earlier pilot and describes the CAAS psychometric properties with larger diverse samples. This scale examines how social interactions and contact with diverse people generally lead to attitudinal, affective and other changes in development and adjustment that can be explored cross-culturally. The CAAS assesses the degree of personal adjustment, perceived discrimination, cultural sensitivity and social distance that may be related to mental distress and social context. Factor analyses revealed four (bipolar) factors in the scale. Four subscales were derived which had acceptable reliability (alpha) coefficients. This final revision provides a multidimensional assessment of adjustment that is appropriate for youth and adults from diverse groups. The major constructs indexed by the scale are integrated with current theory and models of cultural adaptation and ethnic identity development. Introduction Research suggests that not only ethnic minorities but also mainstream persons face difficult circumstances in adapting to new contexts and in experiencing inter-cultural contact. Psychological distress is often linked to acculturation and/or adaptation even for non-immigrant groups in multicultural societies. Acculturation to the lifestyle of dominant culture can generate serious distress if a person does not have the necessary skills to adjust with the mainstream culture. Racism and discrimination are part of daily life for many people and its presence can generate stress that can lead to emotional distress (Clark, Anderson, Clark & Williams, 1999) and adjustment problems. Ethnic minorities face stressors based on differences in cultural values and practices from the mainstream majority culture (National Advisory Mental Health Council, 1998) and the added stresses of facing the challenges of economic survival, feelings of isolation, and difficulties with language. A review of several studies on acculturation and assimilation suggests both positive and negative relationships between high acculturation and psychological distress (Williams & Harris-Reid, 1999). On one hand, minority group males and females may confront adjustment issues differently in a multicultural society. On the other hand, their majority counterparts are often excluded in models and instruments that assess cultural adaptation and acculturation. Very little is known empirically about the extent of those differences. From a cultural-historical perspective (Vygotsky, 1978), it is important to study development on terms of “wholes” or holistically and to consider both objective and subjective stances. Unfortunately, the literature remains fragmented in terms of a variety of models of acculturation and identity development that differ by group and context (Dion & Dion, 2001; Phinney,2003; Skinner, Edge, Altman & Sherwood, 2003; Tajfel & Turner,1896) Acculturation takes place when members from different cultures are in contact (Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 1992; Bochner, 1982). InterCultural encounters often occur through travel, studies abroad, voluntary and involuntary migration and demographic changes. Individuals of different cultures and gender experience inevitable psychological changes when they interact with new others (Cassidy, O’Connor, Howe & Warden, 2004; Furnham & Bochner, 1986; Taft, 1977; Utsey & Ponterotto, 1996). The dynamics of acculturation suggest that there are generally two distinct groups, a "dominant group" that has greater influence and power and a second "acculturating group" that undergoes more intense adaptation. The first deliberately or undeliberately inflicts added stress by the changes and adaptation required while the second willingly or unwillingly becomes subject to new pressures or stigma. The "acculturating group" also impacts the dominant group, depending on social and political context. Yet this impact has rarely been considered in relation to psychological adjustment and measurement. The impact may be experienced collectively but varies at an individual level (Berry, et al., 1992). When a person experiences adverse social situations, s/he may often experience feelings of helplessness and the sense that no matter how hard one tries, it is not possible to succeed, or change the situation. Such a feeling may make the person accept the situation and acknowledge that others are more powerful. A depressed person under such circumstances feels weak, inferior, and subject to depression (Gilbert, 2000; Noh et al, 1999)). According to Berry (1998), members of the ethnic minority groups may use four strategies to handle acculturative stress: assimilation (wish to keep their cultural identity as they are immersed in the dominant one), separation (wish to maintain their cultural values and avoid interaction with others), integration (maintain their culture but also interact with others), and marginalization (have little interest in new culture and in having relationships with others). Adaptation to the cultural values, norms, and behaviors of the dominant group generally causes unavoidable psychological distress for the members of the acculturating group (Portes, 1990). As a consequence, threats to (cultural) identity, powerlessness, feelings of marginality, sense of inferiority, loneliness, hostility, and perceived alienation and discrimination become major mental health risks (Rutter & Tienda, 2005). This psychological phenomenon is well-documented in anthropology, social, counseling and cross-cultural psychology as "acculturative stress" (Anderson, 1991; Barry and Kim, 1988; Graves, 1967; Krishnan & Berry, 1992; Sandhu & Asrabadi (1998); Williams & Berry, 1991). To emphasize its intensity and highlight the debilitating effects of adaptations that render individuals dysfunctional at multilevels: the physical, psychological, and social, the authors refer to this syndrome as psychological "pain". The literature in multicultural counseling tends to support the hypothesis that this syndrome emerges with any inter-group contact where power and status differentials are prevalent.