4 hrs

PSYC 3650 Experimental Methods Article Critique Form

Experimental Methods Article Critique Form

Section I: Filling Out the Form

Save this file as a Word document on your computer. Fill in the blanks, then save and upload to Canvas.

Section II: General Information

Type only in the blue fields, and closely follow all stated length limits. Handwritten forms will not be accepted.

Article Critique #

Your Name

Citation

List the full citation for this article using APA format.

Section III: Introduction

Research Question

In one sentence, state the primary research question the article is trying to answer.

Section IV: Hypotheses

List all hypotheses that were included in the article.

Section V: Method

This section will include Participants, Materials, and Procedures subsections.

Participants

Overall N =

List any inclusionary/exclusionary criteria (if applicable).

Demographics

Age Range

Age Mean

Age SD

Gender Breakdown (i.e. 70% Female)

Sample Breakdown: Ethnicity (i.e. 34% Caucasian) and what population was sampled from (i.e. college students, military veterans). Use this space to list any other demographics collected as well.

Measures

List each measure included in the analyses. A citation should also be included for each, as well as a short description of the purpose of each measure.

Independent and Dependent Variables

Make a list of all the IVs and a list of all the DVs in the study.

Procedures

Describe the design of the study (i.e. experimental vs. nonexperimental, control, manipulation). Also, describe how the data was collected (i.e. via an online survey, in-lab study, self-report, observation).

Strengths and Weaknesses

Identify one major strength and one major weakness to this study design, providing a specific reason or consequence related to control, validity, or reliability (Saying “it was a well done method” is not enough).

Section VI: Results

Type of overall statistical analysis used.

☐ T-test t(df) = X.XX, p = .XXX or < .001, d = .XX

☐ ANOVA F(df1, df2) = X.XX, p = .XXX or < .001, ηp2 = .XX

☐ Regression F(df1, df2) = X.XX, p = .XXX or < .001, R2 = .XX

☐ Other

Report the overall statistics and effect size using the format above.

Do the results support the hypotheses? (i.e. Hypothesis 1 was supported, Hypothesis 2 was not.)

Tables

Were tables included in this article?

☐ Yes ☐ No

If “Yes,” specify all necessary tables below (i.e. Table 1 = Demographics Table, Correlation Table, Regression Table, or Mediation):

Section VII: Discussion

Summarize the results (Was the research question answered? What did the researchers find? Has this study advanced the field?)

Identify one potential extraneous variable that could affect the outcome of this study, and describe how it could have been controlled for.

Summarize Limitations: 1-2 Sentences

Summarize Future Directions: 1-2 Sentences

What is one real world application to this article?

Page 1 of 5

Page 4 of 4

Acculturation and Language Use in Intimate and Sexual Relationships
Among Chinese Bilinguals

Tianyi Xie and Renee V. Galliher
Utah State University

This study explored ethnic identity and acculturation experiences of bilingual individuals of Chinese
descent living in the United States, along with their engagement with English and Chinese languages in
sexual and romantic relationships. Chinese bilingual young adults in the United States (n � 190)
completed an online survey assessing acculturation levels and sexual attitudes and behaviors. After
controlling for covariates and other acculturation factors, mainstream U.S. acculturation (�), bicultural
identity conflict (�), and preference for heritage language (�) were all associated with sexual commu-
nication. Mainstream acculturation (�) and preference for heritage language (�) were associated with
sexual assertiveness. Approximately half of the sample also provided open-ended descriptions of their
use of Chinese and English, clarifying the ways they use different languages to accomplish different
relationship goals. Language proficiency was the best predictor of language preference, regardless of the
context or the topic of conversation. However, an association between language and cultural values was
observed, such that participants tended to be more comfortable with English for sexual communication,
stating that Chinese lacks sexual vocabulary. In addition, when expressing negative feelings, Chinese
appeared to convey more intense emotion than English for many participants. The current study has
implications for culturally adapting sexuality education for Chinese bilinguals in the United States.

What is the public significance of this article?
The study suggests that cultural identity, acculturation experiences, and language proficiency all
relate to Chinese bilinguals’ sexual and romantic attitudes and behaviors. Cultural adaptations for
sexual education based on these factors may be relevant for Chinese bilinguals in the United States.

Keywords: ethnic identity, acculturation, Chinese American, bilingual, sexual relationships

Chinese and Chinese American young adults in the United
States may experience conflict, as they navigate contradictory
cultural norms about sexual and romantic interactions. The extent
to which young adults of Chinese descent are embedded in Chi-
nese and mainstream American cultures is expected to have im-
plications for their attitudes and expectations about romantic and
sexual relationships. Previous research also suggests that the use of
heritage and English language might influence bilingual individ-
uals’ values, self-perception, and emotional expression by eliciting
heritage and mainstream cultural mind-sets, respectively (Benet-
Martínez, Leu, Lee, & Morris, 2002; Boucher & O’Dowd, 2011;
Chen & Bond, 2010; Chen, Lam, Buchtel, & Bond, 2014). Lan-
guage may be linked to a cultural mind-set for sexual attitudes and
values; communication skills and sexual knowledge learned in
English in a mainstream American setting may not be transferrable
to Chinese bilinguals’ interaction with partners in Chinese. This
study used survey methodology to evaluate relationships among

heritage culture and mainstream American culture identification
and sexual attitudes and behaviors among Chinese bilinguals in the
United States. In addition, analysis of open-ended descriptions of
the use of Chinese and English in romantic interactions assessed
the beliefs that Chinese heritage young adults hold about language
use with their romantic partners, exploring bilingual partners’
perceptions of the utility of different languages for different rela-
tionship goals.

Cultural Context

Ancient Chinese philosophies held a positive attitude toward sex
and egalitarian views on gender. Pre-Qin (before 211 BC) canonic
texts from both Confucianism and Daoism invoked the concept of
yin–yang to conceptualize sex and gender roles (Wang, 2016).
Yin–Yang is a dichotomous concept used to depict any pair of
concepts that are considered to be equal opposites. However, over
the past 2,000 years, a number of major philosophies and religious
transitions contributed to the gradual endorsement of more sub-
missive female roles (Woo, 2016). In Han Dynasty (202 BC–220
AD), early Confucianist work implied women’s inferiority to men,
as Yin was often associated with negative qualities and Yang with
positive ones. The rise of Buddhism profoundly impacted the role
of women during the post-Han wartime (220 –581 AD) and Tang
Dynasty (618 –907 AD), leading to widespread fear of feminine

This article was published Online First April 26, 2018.
Tianyi Xie and Renee V. Galliher, Department of Psychology, Utah

State Universit

y.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Tianyi

Xie, Department of Psychology, Utah State University, 2810 Old Main
Hill, Logan, UT 84322. E-mail: tianyi.xie@aggiemail.usu.edu

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t

is
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
P

sy
ch

ol
og

ic
al

A
ss

oc
ia

ti
on

or
on

e
of

it
s

al
li

ed
pu

bl
is

he
rs

.
T

hi
s

ar
ti

cl
e

is
in

te
nd

ed
so

le
ly

fo
r

th
e

pe
rs

on
al

us
e

of
th

e
in

di
vi

du
al

us
er

an
d

is
no

t
to

be
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
br

oa
dl

y.

Asian American Journal of Psychology © 2018 American Psychological Association
2018, Vol. 9, No. 3,

227

–236 1948-1985/18/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/aap0000116

227

mailto:tianyi.xie@aggiemail.usu.edu

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/aap0000116

seduction and perception of women as “pollution” that interferes
with enlightenment, which was soon adopted by Confucian and
religious Daoism. In Song Dynasty (960 –1127 AD), under the
influence of neo-Confucianism, the asceticism and puritanism
were increasingly merged with a political agenda of social stability
and national security. The trend peaked in the Ming Dynasty
(1368 –1644 AD) and resulted in the devaluation of sexual plea-
sure for both men and women and increasing fear of feminine
seduction in the mainstream culture. The imperial government
developed systematic repressive policies, which continued throughout
Ming and Qing Dynasties (1644 –1912 AD) and exert great influence
in the modern day (Ruan, 1991).

Like many Confucianism-based collective cultures in East Asia,
Confucianism and neo-Confucianism still influence the current
Chinese society. Marriage is viewed as a union of families instead
of individuals; thus, parents’ permission and even arrangement for
marriage are important (Kim, Edwards, Sweeney, & Wetchler,
2012; Lee & Mock, 2005). Discussing sexual topics is taboo and
parents usually use indirect ways to convey sexual values and
expectations to their children (Cheng, 1997; Kim & Ward, 2007).
Conservative values and communication styles toward sex may
decrease Chinese bilingual youth’s exposure to sexuality education
and lower their ability to talk about sex-related topics. Compared
with White Americans in several studies, Eastern Asian immi-
grants reported later sexual initiation (Grunbaum, Lowry, Kann, &
Pateman, 2000), more conservative sexual attitudes, and less va-
riety of sexual activities (Meston, Trapnell, & Gorzalka, 1998).

Compared with Asian cultures, American culture holds a more
open and liberal view on sexuality. However, historically Western
societies such as Europe and England still considered sex outside
marriage as illegal and immoral, and these behaviors (by women)
were punished (Dabhoiwala, 2012). American social norms on
sexuality started to shift in the 1960s from more conservative
sexual values to increasing acceptance of sexual behaviors outside
heterosexual wedlock (Robinson, Ziss, Ganza, & Katz, 1991).
Today, sex has become increasingly central to mainstream Cana-
dian and U.S. popular culture, due to the proliferation of mass
media and the Internet (Garlick, 2011; McNair, 2002). Various
media forms, including advertising, TV shows, movies and art,
contain sexual elements, which reflects the increasing openness to
sexuality in the Canadian and the U.S. society.

Globalism and modernization have spread Western values to
Asian countries, including the Greater China region, via mass
media, but the differences in sexual norms between the United
States and Greater China region likely remain significant. Al-
though the influence of mass media is consistently associated with
Greater Chinese adolescents’ sexual attitudes and behaviors, the
exposure to the Western media differs among Greater Chinese
individuals such that adolescents from mainland China showed a
preference for Asian movies and videos, whereas those from
Taiwan preferred Western ones (Lou et al., 2012). Furthermore,
the increasingly strict censorship in mainland China in recent years
has hindered individuals’ accessibility to Western media, espe-
cially those containing sexual content, further dividing the cultural
norms on sexuality between mainland China and America. How-
ever, in regions not impacted by governmental censorship, such as
Taiwan and Vietnam, the influence of Western mass media on
sexual attitudes also showed gender difference (Lou et al., 2012).
Even for Asian American adolescents who are constantly exposed

to Western mass media, they are under strong influence from their
parents because of the interdependent and patriarchal structure of
traditional Asian families (Kim, 2009). For example, it is common
for Asian parents to enforce rules to limit daughters’ social lives or
exposure to media programs with sexual content. It is in this
complex cultural context that Chinese bilinguals in the United
States negotiate romantic and sexual relationships. Given the po-
tential for conflicting values and variable socialization experi-
ences, it is important to understand the subjective experiences of
Chinese bilinguals as they navigate the developmental task of
intimacy.

Acculturation and Sexual Attitudes/Behaviors Among
Asian American Young Adults

Models of acculturation articulate the changes and challenges
individuals face when they come into prolonged contact with a
new cultural context. The acculturation process is influenced by
the attitudes of the host or dominant culture toward the accultur-
ating group, as well as the intensity of difference in terms of
language, values, and traditions. Bidimensional models of accul-
turation independently assess endorsement of both mainstream and
heritage cultures (Brotto, Chik, Ryder, Gorzalka, & Seal, 2005;
Woo & Brotto, 2008; Woo, Brotto, & Gorzalka, 2011). A core
tenet of bidimensional models is that identification with main-
stream and heritage cultures is independent or orthogonal. Those
who exist in the space between two cultures must navigate some
sort of bicultural adaptation, as they strive to integrate a heritage
culture with a dominant or host culture. The construct of bicultural
identity integration (BII; Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005) ad-
dresses the extent to which individuals experience culture distance
(the degree of dissociation vs. fusion between two cultural iden-
tities) and culture conflict (the degree of opposition vs. compati-
bleness of the two cultures).

In research stemming from bidimensional models of accultura-
tion, East Asians’ conservative sexual beliefs have consistently
been positively associated with endorsement of heritage culture
and liberal sexual beliefs with mainstream cultural orientation. For
Asian individuals in the United States, lower endorsement of
mainstream culture was associated with increases in sexual prob-
lems, sexual noncommunication, sexual avoidance, and nonsexu-
ality (Woo & Brotto, 2008). Lower mainstream orientation was
associated with more sex guilt in Asian women (Woo et al., 2011).
Sex guilt mediated the effect of mainstream acculturation on
sexual desire. Furthermore, higher endorsement of heritage culture
was linked to more sexual avoidance. These studies indicate that
the bidimensional model has great utility in studying Asian sexual
behaviors and attitudes because it provides a more comprehensive
framework for understanding cultural identity correlates.

Language Priming and Cultural Mind-Set

Language use has long been considered a core aspect of the
acculturation process, with many studies using language profi-
ciency or preference as a primary measure of level of accultura-
tion. However, for bilingual individuals, language preference may
be a more intentional and calculated decision-making process, as
they decide which language best conveys the messages they are
trying to send in the moment. Cultural mind-set is a mental

T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.

228 XIE AND GALLIHER

representation involving culture-congruent content, procedures,
and goals (Oyserman & Lee, 2008). Lee, Oyserman, and Bond
(2010) suggested that the collective cultural mind-set is distinct
from that of individualistic cultures on cultural perceptive. As part
of culturally bound values, sexual attitudes and gender roles are
derived from, and thus influenced by, the cultural mind-set.

Language is frequently used to prime the cultural mind-set for
Chinese bilinguals in experiments. Chen et al. (2014) observed the
effect of language priming on expressed personality, as well as
self-perceived adherence to the presumed social norm of the
primed culture. Hong Kong bilinguals reported higher self-ratings
on competence and conscientiousness in English than in Chinese,
which is consistent with the norms of self-perception in Western
culture and Chinese culture. In a review of language and bicultural
identity among bilinguals, Chen (2015) suggested that the cultural
mind-set underlies the language effect and bilingual individuals
change the language they use according to the linguistic context.
Languages activate the cultural mind-set that drives individuals to
assimilate to the corresponding social norm in their particular
context. Because sexual and gender norms are somewhat opposing
in traditional Chinese and mainstream American value systems,
bilingual individuals may behave differently when different cul-
tural mind-sets are activated by Chinese and English. Moreover,
memories encoded in one cultural context are more likely to be
triggered by the culturally corresponding language (Marian &
Neisser, 2000). It is possible that receiving sex education in
English may increase bilinguals’ ability to interact effectively with
partners in English contexts, but not Chinese ones.

Summary and Research Questions

Chinese bilingual individuals experience complex cultural con-
texts, as they are exposed to potentially conflicting sets of values
from U.S. mainstream and Chinese cultures. Acculturation expe-
riences are likely associated with attitudes toward sexual and
intimate relationships, as well as interactions with partners. We
hypothesized that heritage ethnicity orientation would be associ-
ated with conservative sexual beliefs and actions, whereas U.S.
mainstream orientation would be associated with liberal sexual
attitudes and behaviors in Chinese bilinguals in the United States.
Because U.S. and Chinese cultural contexts socialize men and
women very differently regarding their roles in sexual and roman-
tic relationships, we included biological sex as a moderating vari-
able. Moreover, Chinese and English languages may represent
different cultural values and contextual expectations for bilingual
young adults. We also investigated how Chinese/Chinese Ameri-
can young adults use their heritage language and English in inter-
personal communication about sexuality or romance.

Method

Participants

Participants were 18 –30-year-old young adults who reported
ethnic heritage from the Greater China region (mainland China,
Hong Kong, Macau, or Taiwan). Eligibility requirements included
speaking both English and Chinese and having at least one roman-
tic/sexual relationship experience. A priori power analysis was
conducted to determine the sample size for the study using

G�Power. Assuming medium effect size and � of .05, the study
required 68 men and 68 women to obtain power of .80. The sample
consisted of 190 participants (M � 97, F � 93) who met eligibility
criteria. The average age of the participants was 24.99 (SD �
3.97); 52.60% of the participants reported heritage from mainland
China, 34.20% from Hong Kong, 12.60% from Taiwan, and 0.50%
from Macau; 25.3% of the participants were multiracial. Time
spent in the heritage country ranged from 0 to 31 years (M � 7.60,
SD � 7.59) and time spent in the United States ranged from 0.25
to 31 years (M � 14.11, SD � 8.73). Participants reported 30
different current states of residence, with the most common states
of residence being California (17.4%), Illinois (10.5%), New York
(13.1%), and Texas (9.5%). Demographic information, including
age, time in the United States, and relationship status by gender, is
presented in Table 1. Compared with female participants, male
participants had been in the United States for shorter period and
were more likely to have partners within their heritage culture.

Procedure

This study was reviewed and approved by the university insti-
tutional review board. Participants were recruited through a Qual-
trics participant panel. Eligibility criteria were provided to Qual-
trics and their system recruited and compensated participants. Data
collection took place on their secure system, and data were deliv-
ered to researchers in an anonymous form. Potential participants
received a form e-mail notifying them that a survey was available
for which they might be eligible. A link from the e-mail sent
potential participants to the online survey. The survey started with
a screening tool to screen out ineligible participants (i.e., have no
heritage from the Greater China region, no romantic history, not
bilingual, and not 18�30 years old). After the screening page, a
letter of information explained the purpose of the study, the struc-
ture of the survey, and the terms of informed consent. Participants
were forwarded to the survey if they met inclusion criteria and
agreed to the informed consent.

Table 1
Demographic Information for Participants by Gender

Variables

Women
M (SD)

Men
M (SD) t(df)

Age 24.16 (4.07) 25.79 (3.73) 2.88 (188)��

Time in the United States 16.80 (8.35) 11.81 (8.43) �3.80 (163)���

Partners within their heritage
ethnicity 5.69 (3.15) 7.34 (2.18) 4.27 (188)���

Women Men
N (%) N (%) —

Relationship status
Single not dating 14 (15.1) 16 (16.5) —
Dating 53 (57.0) 22 (22.7) —
Cohabiting or married 26 (27.9) 59 (60.8) —

Number of partners
1–2 sexual partners 53 (57.0) 44 (45.4) —
3–4 sexual partners 14 (15.1) 18 (18.5) —
5� sexual partners 26 (27.9) 35 (36.1) —

�� p � .01. ��� p � .001.

T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.

229ACCULTURATION AND SEXUAL ATTITUDES

Measures

Acculturation. The Vancouver Index of Acculturation (Ry-
der, Alden, & Paulhus, 2000) measures acculturation with 10
mainstream and 10 heritage items (e.g., participation in cultural
traditions, choice of marital partner, enjoyment of entertainment,
and endorsement of cultural practices). Sample items from the
heritage subscale and mainstream subscale include “I often partic-
ipate in my heritage cultural tradition” and “I would be willing to
marry a White American person.” Participants report agreement
with each statement on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). Scores are averaged for
each subscale (Heritage subscale and Mainstream subscale), and a
high score on each subscale indicates high endorsement of the
relevant culture. Multiple studies have used the Vancouver Index
of Acculturation to measure acculturation for Asian American
samples to predict sexual function, sexual desires, and sexual
experiences (Brotto et al., 2005; Woo & Brotto, 2008; Woo et al.,
2011). It was highly internally consistent (Cronbach �s � .91–.92)
in the norm sample of individuals from Chinese, non-Chinese East
Asian, and non-English-speaking non-East Asian descent (Ryder
et al., 2000). Concurrent validity has been demonstrated by sig-
nificant relationships with percentage of time lived in the West,
percentage of time educated in the West, generational status,
anticipation of remaining in the West, using English as the first
language, self-identification as a Westerner, and the mean score of
the Suinn–Lew Asian Self-Identity Acculturation Scale. For this
study, the Cronbach’s � for Heritage and Mainstream acculturation
subscales was .85 and .83, respectively.

Bicultural identity integration. The Bicultural Identity Inte-
gration Scale—Version 1 (as cited in Benet-Martínez et al., 2002)
is an eight-item self-report measure that assesses cultural conflict
and cultural distance. Each item is a statement about the respon-
dent’s engagement or attitudes toward mainstream and heritage
culture. Participants report agreement with each statement on a
scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). The
scores (cultural conflict and cultural distance) are calculated by
averaging the items within the subscales. A high score on each
subscale suggests high endorsement of BII distance/conflict. Sam-
ple items include “I am simply a Chinese who lives in North
America” (distance) and “I am conflicted between the American
and Chinese ways of doing things” (conflict). The BII was used
with bilingual Chinese/Chinese Americans with acceptable inter-
nal consistency (�conflict � .74 and �distance � .69; Benet-Martínez
& Haritato, 2005). The Cronbach’s � for the Distance and Conflict
subscales in these data was .52 and .62, respectively. Evaluation of
interitem correlations and scale statistics indicated that deleting the
last item in the Conflict subscale (“I don’t feel trapped between the
Asian and American cultures”—reverse scored) increased the re-
liability of BII conflict to .86. Therefore, the Conflict subscale was
recalculated with Items 5 through 7. No item modifications im-
proved reliability for the Distance subscale, and thus, the Distance
subscale was not included in the analyses.

Sexual variables. The Hurlbert Index of Sexual Assertiveness
(Hurlbert, 1991) is a 25-item self-report instrument that measures
the degree of sexual assertiveness of respondents in a relationship
with a partner. A sample item is “I feel uncomfortable talking
during sex.” Participants rate how often they experience the feel-
ings or situations described in the statements on a scale from 0 (all

of the time) to 4 (never). Positively worded items are reverse
scored. The scale was normed with a nonclinical sample of 18 –
31-year-old women. A total scale score is calculated by summing
all items, and a high score on the scale indicates high level of
sexual assertiveness. Because the original sample included only
women, reliability was calculated separately for men and women
in this sample. Cronbach’s � was .820 for men and .913 for women
in the current sample.

The Double Standard Scale (Caron, Davis, Halteman, & Stickle,
1993) consists of 10 self-report items that assess respondents’
degree of acceptance of traditional sexual double standards. Par-
ticipants reported their agreement for each item on a 5-point Likert
scale (1 � strongly agree, 5 � strongly disagree), such that higher
scores indicate more egalitarian attitudes or less endorsement of
sexual double standards. A sample item is “It is expected that a
woman be less sexually experienced than her partner.” A total
score is obtained by summing all items, and a high score indicates
high endorsement of sexual double standards. It demonstrated
acceptable Cronbach’s � (.72) in a norm sample of 330 college
male and female students (Caron et al., 1993). All items were
reverse scored to be consistent with the face value of the scale
(high score represents high double standard). Face validity and
convergent validity tests showed that scale scores are consistent
with expectations on the double standards of men and women’s
use of condoms. The Cronbach’s � in the current sample was .92.

The Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale (Catania, 1998) is a
13-item self-report scale that measures respondents’ perceptions
about discussing sexual topics with a romantic partner on a Likert-
type scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 6 (strongly disagree).
A sample item is “My partner rarely responds when I want to talk
about our sex life.” A total score is obtained by summing all items,
and a higher score suggests better perceived abilities to talk about
sex with partners. The DSC demonstrated moderate Cronbach’s
� (.81) and good test–retest reliability (.89) in a pilot sample of
144 college students (Catania, 1998). A single scale score is
calculated by summing all items. The Cronbach’s � in the
current sample was .89.

Heritage language preferences. Nineteen items measured
participants’ language use in different situations, with different
topics, and to serve different purposes on a 9-point Likert-type
scale (1 � English only, 9 � heritage language only). Examples of
language use topics and contexts include reading, speaking, with
family, with friends, at school, relationship topics, or negotiating
differences. Principal components factor analysis of the 19 items
assessing language preferences yielded one factor with an eigen-
value of 14.09, which accounted for 74.18% of the variance among
the language use items. Thus, all items were strongly intercorre-
lated, and participants reported consistency across contexts, con-
versation partners, and topics in their preferred language of com-
munication. The scores of all items were averaged to calculate a
total score. A high total score represents preference for heritage
language, whereas a low score represents preference for English.
The Cronbach’s � for the scale was high (� � .98).

Finally, open-ended questions asked participants to write spe-
cific examples of language use during their interactions with their
sexual/romantic partners (e.g., “Describe any differences in how
and when you use English vs. Chinese to discuss decision-making
with your partner.”). Specific items addressed language preference
when (a) expressing positive and negative emotions, (b) making

T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.

230 XIE AND GALLIHER

decisions as a couple, and (c) discussing sexual topics. Of the 190
total participants, the number of valid responses for the open-
ended items ranged from 71 to 86. Many participants left the
open-ended items blank, whereas some left nonsense responses
(e.g., random letters or nonsense words). The open-ended re-
sponses about decisions to use Chinese or English in different
relational and task settings were reviewed to determine patterns of
language use. Participant responses were brief—a few words to
one sentence indicating reasons for language choice. The first
author reviewed every response, organizing similar responses to
create preliminary categories. Preliminary categories were dis-
cussed with the second author, and codes were refined and clari-
fied. Upon agreement of primary categories of response, the first
author returned to the data and assigned codes to each response.
Categories were straightforward, given the brief and concise nature
of the responses, and included categories such as “use English
only,” “English (or Chinese) is more emotional,” or “English (or
Chinese) is more effective.”

Demographic and relationship history information. Partici-
pants reported ethnicity, age, gender, length in America/heritage
country, current and past relationship status, length of longest
relationship, length of current relationship, ethnicity of current or
most recent partner, the heritage culture of the current or most
recent partner, sexual orientation, number of romantic relation-
ships, current and past total sexual partners, and the ethnicity of the
partners.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Table 2 presents means, standard deviations, and independent
samples t tests assessing differences between men and women for
all cultural and sexual variables. Men endorsed more mainstream
cultural orientation, as well as more conflict between cultural
identities, than women. Women reported higher sexual assertive-
ness, lower sexual double standards, and better sexual communi-
cation than men. Women also reported preference for English, on
average, and almost equal percentage of partners within and out of
their heritage culture, whereas men preferred both languages
equally and had more partners within their own heritage ethnicity
than out of their heritage ethnicity.

Table 2 also presents bivariate correlations among all study
variables for both men and women. Statistically significant corre-
lations are noted in the table, but interpretation focuses on corre-

lations that attained a medium effect size or larger (r � .30). For
women, heritage cultural orientation was associated with more
sexual double standard, mainstream cultural orientation was
associated with more sexual assertiveness, BII—Conflict was
associated with less sexual communication, and heritage lan-
guage preference was associated with less sexual assertiveness
and communication but higher sexual double standard. For men,
both heritage and mainstream cultural orientation were associ-
ated with higher double standards and lower sexual communi-
cation, and BII—Conflict and heritage language preference
were both associated with less assertiveness and communica-
tion but higher double standards.

Primary Analyses

Table 3 presents the results of three multiple regression models
conducted to examine effects of covariates, acculturation, and
preference for heritage language and the moderating effects of
gender. The dependent variables for the three models were scores
for sexual assertiveness, sexual double standard, and sexual com-
munication. The covariates, time in the United States and ethnicity
of partners (higher scores indicate that partners were more likely to
be of the same ethnicity), were significant in the first step in all
three models. More time in the United States was associated with
higher sexual assertiveness and better communication but lower
sexual double standard. Having a higher proportion of partners of
the same ethnicity was associated with lower sexual assertiveness
and sexual communication but higher sexual double standard. In
the second step of the model, main effects for gender and all of the
cultural variables were assessed. Mainstream acculturation was
associated with more sexual assertiveness and less sexual commu-
nication. BII—Conflict was associated with less sexual communi-
cation, and preference for heritage language was associated with
less sexual assertiveness and sexual communication. Although
there was a trend of gender moderating sexual communication and
heritage acculturation, no significant interaction effect was found
for gender.

Review of Open-Ended Descriptions of

Language Use

Table 4 summarizes the coding categories, and illustrative ex-
amples are provided in text. Of those who provided valid responses
to the open-ended items, approximately half reported using mainly
English with their romantic partner regardless of the topic, either
because they were more fluent in English or because their partner

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations for Cultural and Sexual Variables

Variables Women M (SD) Men M (SD) t(df) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Heritage acculturation 6.87 (1.18) 7.01 (1.09) 0.90 (188) — .303�� .174 .402�� .087 .280� �.140
2. Mainstream acculturation 6.95 (1.04) 7.31 (0.97) 2.45 (188)� .690�� — .065 �.030 .320�� .042 �.168
3. BII conflict 5.53 (2.06) 6.45 (1.85) 3.21 (186)�� .566�� .330�� — .339� �.160 .217� �.300��

4. Heritage language preference 3.59 (2.39) 5.19 (2.39) 4.81 (179)��� .362�� .105 .580�� — �.349�� .489�� �.492��

5. Assertiveness 90.23 (15.48) 75.52 (11.27) 7.00 (166)��� .031 .156 �.298�� �.437�� — �.520�� .298��

6. Double sexual standards 25.88 (9.39) 37.30 (7.99) 8.95 (187)��� .483�� .444�� .556�� .507�� �.460�� — �.563��

7. Sexual communication 45.87 (9.99) 32.47 (13.40) 7.79 (188)��� �.470�� �.506�� �.552�� �.469�� .393�� �.812�� —

Note. BII � bicultural identity integration. Correlations for men below the diagonal, correlations for women above the diagonal.
� p � .05. �� p � .01. ��� p � .001.

T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.

231ACCULTURATION AND SEXUAL ATTITUDES

only spoke English. It is consistent with the result of factor
analysis that language proficiency is the best predictor for heritage
language preferences across all topics, and English appeared to be
the dominant language for the majority of the sample. Among
those who reported using Chinese to express positive emotions,
Chinese was described as more expressive, intimate, and explicit.
However, the same reasons were listed by participants who pre-
ferred English to express positive emotions, suggesting again that
language proficiency drives decisions about language use.

However, among those who described different patterns of use
of Chinese and English with their partners, interesting patterns did
emerge. Across topics, participants reported that they tend to use
Chinese when it is culturally relevant, such as talking about
Chinese-related topics and “words in Chinese that have no English
equivalent” (Female, 27 years old). Participants reported using
Chinese in culturally dependent contexts such as talking about
“Chinese culture or food” (Male, 22 years old), “shared experience
or background in China” (Female, 24 years old), family topics
involving parents or relatives from China, “political issues related
to Chinese government or society” (Female, 22 years old), “jokes
or puns that rely on the Chinese language” (Female, 19 years old),
or when “Chinese-speaking relatives are around” (Female, 20
years old). Interestingly, seven participants reported that they use
Chinese with their partner so that they can have a private conver-
sation in public without other people overhearing it, especially for
“topics that may not be appropriate in public” (Female, 23 years
old).

In contrast, English preference had more to do with its precision
and effectiveness for communication—“can explain more of the
nuances” (Female, 24 years old), and is “emotional wise” (male,
28 years old). English was considered more issue-focused and
often used when “trying to work out an issue with my partner”
(Female, 24 years old) to express negative emotion, because,
“[using] English is more willing to talk about it [the problem] and
[using] Chinese is kind of a blame game what went wrong” (Male,
29 years old). Similarly, with regard to decision-making discus-

sions, English is considered as more effective and concise than
Chinese because English “is better for convincing” (Female, 27
years old) and “more specific” (Male, 18 years old).

The belief that English is more effective was especially notable
in conversations about sexual topics. For example, participants
reported that they use English because it is “more comfortable”
(Female, 18 years old), “more vocal and expressive” (Male, 19
years old), or more concise than Chinese because there is no
vocabulary for sex in Chinese, “[I] don’t know how to say any-
thing sexually related in Chinese” (Female, 25 years old). Partic-
ipants also noted that it is “more embarrassing” (Female, 30 years
old) and awkward to talk about sex in Chinese such that “It’s
harder to talk about sexual activities in Chinese because Chinese
people view talking about sex as taboo” (Female, 18 years old).

In general, participants tended also to focus on the tone and
intensity of each language in their descriptions of language choice.
For example, in the expression of negative emotion, “Chinese [has
a] more aggressive tone [than English]” (Male 19 years old),
“Chinese words are stronger” (Female, 25 years old), and “more
negativity with Chinese” (Female, 25 years old). Specifically with
regard to sexual communication, participants described Chinese as
more “authoritative” (Male, 26 years old) and “aggressive and
loud” (Female, 29 years old), whereas English is more “submis-
sive” (Male, 26 years old) and “calmer” (Female, 29 years old).

Discussion

The study aimed to understand Chinese bilingual individuals’
acculturation and heritage language preference with partners in
romantic relationships, in the hope to highlight links to sexual
attitudes and interactions with romantic partners. In addition, we
explored bilingual young adults’ use of heritage and English
language in various relational contexts. Chinese and American
cultures on sexuality and gender roles are mostly in contrast
(Brotto et al., 2005; Dabhoiwala, 2012; Garlick, 2011; Kim et al.,

Table 3
Predicting Sexual Variables From Covariates, Acculturation, and Heritage Language Preference

Variables

Sexual assertiveness Sexual double standard Sexual communication

� t � t � t

Block 1 Covariates R2 � .20��� R2 � 20��� R2 � .14���

Time in the United States .33 4.07��� �.29 �3.77��� .28 3.59���

Ethnicity of partners �.22 �2.71�� .27 3.53��� �.18 �2.24�

Block 2 Main effects R2 change � .22��� R2 change � 34��� R2 change � .39���

Heritage acculturation .11 1.13 .14 1.81^ �.01 �0.13^
Mainstream acculturation .20 2.34� .05 0.78 �.22 �3.16��

BII—Conflict .08 �1.01 .15 2.18� �.22 �3.13��

Heritage language �.32 �3.21�� .33 3.99��� �.39 �4.57���

Gender .35 4.56��� �.40 �6.29��� .32 4.94���

Block 3 Interactions R2 change � .02 R2 change � .01 R2 change � .02

Heritage Acculturation Gender �.03 �.04 �.14 �0.26 .23 0.43
Mainstream Acculturation Gender .75 1.17 �.86 �1.62 .99 1.87^
BII—Conflict Gender .30 1.28 �.07 �0.34 .09 0.46
Heritage Language Gender �.27 �1.08 .27 1.25 �.19 �0.88

Note. BII � bicultural identity integration.
^ p � .10. � p � .05. �� p � .01. ��� p � .001.

T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.

232 XIE AND GALLIHER

2012; McNair, 2002; Robinson et al., 1991); thus, navigating
through the two cultures to develop sexual beliefs and a style of
romantic interactions is a unique challenge for Chinese young
adults in the United States. In addition, previous cognitive studies
suggested that linguistic contexts activate the cultural mind-set,
which impacts individual’s cognitive and emotional responses
(Boucher & O’Dowd, 2011; Chen et al., 2014; Hong, Morris,
Chiu, & Benet-Martínez, 2000; Oyserman & Lee, 2008) and
potentially influences bilingual individuals’ interactions with their
romantic/sexual partners. The current study builds on previous
literature by examining associations among acculturation, BII, and
sexual/romantic attitudes, as well as the heritage language prefer-
ence of bilingual individuals in these topics.

Acculturation, Gender, and Sexual Relationship

Our evidence supports the hypothesis that heritage and main-
stream acculturation and BII—Conflict are all significantly asso-
ciated with sexual attitudes. In particular, Chinese bilinguals who
endorse Western values are more likely to describe themselves as
sexually assertive with partners, and those who perceive Western
and Chinese cultures as oppositional may communicate less effec-
tively with partners on sex-related topics. The result fits the overall
pattern in the literature that mainstream acculturation is consis-
tently positively associated with egalitarian sexual values and
sexual permissiveness among Asian Americans (Brotto et al.,
2005; Woo & Brotto, 2008).

It is surprising that higher mainstream acculturation was asso-
ciated with lower reports of sexual communication in current
study, which was not consistent with our hypothesis and previous
findings that mainstream acculturation is positively associated
with sexual communication (Woo & Brotto, 2008). It is important
to note that the DSC (Catania, 1998) used in the current study is
designed to capture an individual’s perception on how well the
couple is able to communicate with each other (e.g., items like
“My partner rarely responds when I want to talk about our sex
life.”), whereas Woo and Brotto (2008) used the noncommunica-
tion subscale of Golombok Rust Inventory of Sexual Satisfaction
(Rust & Golombok, 1986), which focuses on whether individuals
are able to communicate with their partners about their sexual
experience. It is possible that mainstream acculturation is associ-
ated with increased individual ability to express sexual prefer-
ences, but it may not necessarily improve the couple’s ability to
communicate, negotiate, and carry out a plan together. Sense of
distress, discouragement, and frustration from disagreements may
increase conflict in relationships (Papp, Goeke-Morey, & Cum-
mings, 2007), further hindering their ability to effectively commu-
nicate.

This explanation appeared to be supported by further examina-
tion of the interactions, which suggested that there was a trend of
gender moderating the relationship between mainstream accultur-
ation and sexual communication such that the negative association
was particularly strong for male participants in the sample. Inde-
pendent t tests suggested that although men, on average, showed
significantly more endorsement of mainstream acculturation than
women, and they also reported significant lower ability in sexual
communication than women. The gender difference might be
associated with the fact that the male participants in the current
study had more partners from within Chinese culture than women,
which is consistent with the general pattern of partner preference
in Asian Americans (Mok, 1999). Compared with women, men
were more likely to have Chinese partners who endorse heritage
values; thus for men, increased mainstream acculturation may
contribute to increased cultural conflicts with partners on the
aspect of sexual communication. This association between accul-
turation mismatch and couple’s negativity is consistent with pre-
vious findings on Mexican American adolescents (Williams &
Rueda, 2016). Therefore, addressing the cultural conflicts that
arise from acculturation mismatch may be particularly important
for Chinese men. However, future research is needed to further
examine the finding by assessing a sample with both partners and
reexamining gender as a moderator to parse out the relationships
among these variables.

Table 4
Open-Ended Responses Regarding Language Use

Language difference in . . . N (%)

Expressing positive emotions (valid responses N � 85)
Partner only speaks English/participant is more fluent in

English 38 (44.7)
English is more expressive/intimate/explicit 11 (12.9)
Chinese is more expressive/intimate/explicit 5 (5.8)
Context-dependent/cultural difference 9 (10.6)
Other difference (tone, expression, etc.) 5 (5.8)
No/little difference 11 (12.9)

Expressing negative emotions (valid responses N � 81)
Partner only speaks English/participant is more fluent in

English 40 (49.4)
English has clearer labels for emotion/is issue focused 10 (12.3)
Chinese expresses stronger emotion/is emotion focused 15 (18.5)
Context-dependent/cultural difference 3 (3.7)
Other difference (tone, emotional distance, etc.) 12 (14.8)
No/little difference 7 (8.6)

Making decisions (valid responses N � 79)
Partner only speaks English/participant is more fluent in

English 40 (50.6)
English is more compromising/effective communication 10 (12.7)
Chinese is more compromising/effective communication 3 (3.8)
Context-dependent/cultural difference 7 (8.9)
Other difference (tone, expression, etc.) 8 (10.1)
No/little difference 11 (13.9)

Sexual topics (valid responses N � 75)
Partner only speaks English/participant is more fluent in

English 40 (53.3)
English is more comfortable/concise/clam 8 (10.7)
Chinese is more implicit/authoritarian/aggressive 6 (8.0)
There is no language for sex in Chinese 8 (10.7)
Other difference (tone, cultural difference, etc.) 10 (13.3)
No/little difference 9 (12.0)

English topics (valid responses N � 65)
Mostly/all English/daily communication 58 (67.4)
Sex/relationship 7 (8.1)
Complex topics/school/work/finance 8 (9.3)
Other (context-dependent, in public, cultural topics, etc.) 13 (15.1)

Chinese topics (valid responses N � 71)
Mostly/all Chinese/daily communication 9 (12.7)
Sex/relationship/emotion related 12 (16.9)
Context-dependent (family-related, private conversation,

etc.) 28 (39.4)
Other (simple phrases, making plans, etc.) 10 (14.1)
All English (N/A) 27 (38.0)

Note. Codes do not add up to 100% because some responses have
multiple code.

T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.

233ACCULTURATION AND SEXUAL ATTITUDES

Language Use

Higher preference for heritage language was associated with
lower sexual assertiveness and lower ability in sexual communi-
cation after controlling for acculturation and BII, which is consis-
tent with our hypothesis. Asserting desires and/or boundaries and
communicating effectively on sex-related topics with a partner are
linguistic tasks; thus, language proficiency is an important factor
driving language preference (supported by the factor analysis of
the heritage language preference scale). In addition, literature on
language and memory suggests that memories encoded in one
cultural context could be retrieved faster and more accurately by
the language correspondent to the culture (French & Jacquet, 2004;
Marian & Neisser, 2000). This argues for practicing sexual com-
munication and assertive skills in the language Chinese bilinguals
commonly use for relationship interaction when receiving sexual
education.

Inconsistent with our hypothesis and literature on priming and
cultural mind-set (Benet-Martínez et al., 2002; Chen, 2015; Chen
et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2010; Oyserman & Lee, 2008), no pattern
of language use emerged that was consistent with cultural cues
across context and topics in the quantitative analysis. One possible
reason is that many participants were English language dominant,
and those responses might have influenced the overall pattern
substantially. Although it was unclear how many participants in
total speak only English with partners, among participants who
answered open-ended questions (86 out of 190), approximately
half of them reported that they only speak English with their
partners. Our bilingual sample was likely skewed toward high
English proficiency, with a smaller number of individuals who
were either dominant in Chinese or who spoke both languages
equally fluently. Furthermore, the cross-sectional design of the
current study might not able to detect the nuances of culturally
based language decision-making. Previous studies on priming and
cultural mind-set were all conducted in the laboratory with exper-
imental designs. Our data collection relied on participants’ ability
to observe and recognize their language use patterns and choices in
daily life. Because the effect of the cultural mind-set is often
automatic and takes place outside conscious awareness (Oyserman
& Lee, 2008), participants might not able to report effects of
cultural context.

However, despite the fact that a substantial portion of partici-
pants only spoke English with their partners, open-ended descrip-
tions from those who spoke both languages with bilingual partners
yielded some interesting themes. Descriptions of language use on
sexual topics were consistent with the linguistic pattern associated
with language priming and cultural mind-set. Sexual topics are
long-standing taboos in Chinese culture (Kim & Ward, 2007),
which contends that sex is a private matter that should not be a
topic of conversation (Kim, 2009). Sexual topics are perceived to
cause discomfort and embarrassment; thus, direct discussion of sex
is replaced by indirect and subtle methods without verbally refer-
ring to sex-related words (Kim, 2009; Zhang, Li, & Shah, 2007).
In the open-ended descriptions, multiple participants mentioned
their unwillingness to use Chinese to discuss sex and stated that
doing so would be “embarrassing” and awkward. One of the
participants specifically noted that sexual talk is taboo in Chinese
culture, suggesting a connection between Chinese language and
the cultural value. The lack of acceptable vocabulary was also

mentioned. Contrary to the conservative sexual values associated
with Chinese, participants demonstrated more open and commu-
nicative values by stating that English is “vocal” on the sexual
topics and they were “comfortable” talking about sex in English.
However, language, either English or Chinese, is neutral and does
not contain characteristics such as “vocal” or “tabooed.” It is the
cultural mind-set associated with the language that influences
bilinguals’ perception and use of the language.

However, similar patterns of attributing the effect of the cultural
mind-set to linguistic characteristics were not observed in other
aspects of communication with partners. Chinese culture values
emotional moderation and control, and intense emotion expression
in social interactions is generally discouraged (Bond, 1993; Tsai &
Levenson, 1997); thus, Chinese should be associated with calmer
and less intense emotion expression. But in the themes of open-
ended descriptions, Chinese was associated with strong and inten-
sified emotion expression. Chinese was considered as “more ag-
gressive,” “more negative,” and emotionally “stronger” than
English with regard to expressing negative feelings. Literature on
bilingualism and emotion suggested that first-obtained language is
consistently more emotional than later acquired languages (Harris,
Gleason, & Aycicegi, 2006), which may explain why some par-
ticipants experienced stronger emotions with Chinese than with
English. In the context of expressing negative emotions, the in-
creased emotionality associated with the language might eclipse
the cognitive schema of the cultural mind-set.

Summary and Limitations

There are several limitations that can be addressed in future
studies. First, the current study did not include having a Chinese
bilingual partner as an inclusion criterion in the hope to obtain a
relatively broad sample of bilinguals and their partners. However,
the bilingualism in the current sample was skewed to high English
proficiency and many partners were not bilingual, which made it
difficult to collect information on their bilingual experience with
partners. Future research may wish to recruit a sample of bilingual
couples in which both partners speak both languages. Second, the
range of sexual behaviors and experiences was broad in the current
study. The inclusion criterion for the study was at least one sexual
or romantic relationship, which resulted in the fact that the rela-
tionship experiences in the sample ranged from married and mo-
nogamous to very limited relationship histories. Relatedly, the
definition of sexual and romantic partner is relatively broad and
nonspecific in the current study. As research on this understudied
topic develops, studies with more narrow inclusion criteria may
choose to study specific relationship status groups in more depth.
In addition, the Hurlbert Index of Sexual Assertiveness used in the
study was normed with only women. Although the Cronbach’s �
was calculated for men and women separately in this study, and
yielded acceptable internal consistency, the suitability of this mea-
surement for men is undetermined and future research may wish to
norm the scale with men.

The majority of our sample identified as heterosexual, and
same-sex relationships were minimally represented. According to
2013 National Health Interview Survey data, 96.6% of adults in
the United States identified as heterosexual, 2.3% identified as
gay, lesbian, or bisexual, and 1.1% identified as “something else”
or did not provide an answer (Ward, Dahlhamer, Galinsky, &

T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.

234 XIE AND GALLIHER

Joestl, 2014). In the current sample, 90.5% identified as hetero-
sexual, 3.2% identified as gay or lesbian, 4.2% identified as
bisexual, and 1.6% indicated “other” or “prefer not say.” Thus,
representation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer indi-
viduals may have been slightly higher than the general population,
but was not large enough to make any meaningful interpretation of
results specific for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer
population. Future research may wish to address relationship ex-
periences of sexual minorities specifically, through an intersec-
tional lens.

Last but not least, this study focused on only Chinese ethnicity;
it is unclear if these conclusions can be extended to other Asian
bilinguals. East Asian countries like Korea and Japan traditionally
adopted a neo-Confucian doctrine that espoused more conservative
values on sexuality and gender roles from China (Brotto et al.,
2005; Kim et al., 2012; Woo, 2016; Youn, 2001). It is likely that
bilinguals with heritage from Korea and Japan would experience
similar conflicting cultural identities and communication patterns.
Future research should investigate how other ethnic bilinguals
navigate through various relational contexts.

Overall, language proficiency emerged as the best single pre-
dictor of heritage language preference regardless of the contexts or
the topics. A pattern of language use that was congruent with the
cultural mind-set was observed in open-ended description on sex-
ual topics, highlighting the importance of language use in sexual
relationship. Both women and men’s sexual attitudes and behav-
iors were associated with heritage language preference, main-
stream and heritage cultural orientations, and conflict in their BII;
thus, young bilingual Chinese may benefit from practicing sexual
communication skills in the language they commonly use for
relationship interaction when receiving sexual education.

References

Benet-Martínez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural identity integration
(BII): Components and psychosocial antecedents. Journal of Personal-
ity, 73, 1015–1049. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00337.x

Benet-Martínez, V., Leu, J., Lee, F., & Morris, M. W. (2002). Negotiating
biculturalism cultural frame switching in biculturals with oppositional
versus compatible cultural identities. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychol-
ogy, 33, 492–516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022102033005005

Bond, M. H. (1993). Emotions and their expression in Chinese culture.
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 17, 245–262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
BF00987240

Boucher, H. C., & O’Dowd, M. C. (2011). Language and the bicultural
dialectical self. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17,
211–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023686

Brotto, L. A., Chik, H. M., Ryder, A. G., Gorzalka, B. B., & Seal, B. N.
(2005). Acculturation and sexual function in Asian women. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 34, 613– 626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-005-
7909-6

Caron, S. L., Davis, C. M., Halteman, W. A., & Stickle, M. (1993). Double
Standard Scale. In T. D. Fisher, C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, & S. L.
Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 182–183).
New York, NY: Routledge.

Catania, J. A. (1998). Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale. In T. D.
Fisher, C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of
sexuality-related measures (pp. 129 –131). New York, NY: Routledge.

Chen, S. X. (2015). Toward a social psychology of bilingualism and
biculturalism. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 1–11. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12088

Chen, S. X., & Bond, M. H. (2010). Two languages, two personalities?
Examining language effects on the expression of personality in a bilin-
gual context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1514 –
1528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167210385360

Chen, S. X., Lam, B. C., Buchtel, E. E., & Bond, M. H. (2014). The
conscientiousness paradox: Cultural mindset shapes competence percep-
tion. European Journal of Personality, 28, 425– 436. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/per.1923

Cheng, H. (1997). ‘Holding up half of the sky’? A sociocultural compar-
ison of gender-role portrayals in Chinese and U.S. advertising. Interna-
tional Journal of Advertising, 16, 295–319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
02650487.1997.11104698

Dabhoiwala, F. (2012). The origins of sex: A history of the first sexual
revolution. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

French, R. M., & Jacquet, M. (2004). Understanding bilingual memory:
Models and data. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 87–93. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.12.011

Garlick, S. (2011). A new sexual revolution? Critical theory, pornography,
and the Internet. Canadian Review of Sociology, 48, 221–239. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-618X.2011.01264.x

Grunbaum, J. A., Lowry, R., Kann, L., & Pateman, B. (2000). Prevalence
of health risk behaviors among Asian American/Pacific Islander high
school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27, 322–330. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X(00)00093-8

Harris, C. L., Gleason, J. B., & Aycicegi, A. (2006). When is a first
language more emotional? Psychophysiological evidence from bilingual
speakers. Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 56, 257.

Hong, Y. Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C. Y., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2000).
Multicultural minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and
cognition. American Psychologist, 55, 709 –720. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0003-066X.55.7.709

Hurlbert, D. F. (1991). The role of assertiveness in female sexuality: A
comparative study between sexually assertive and sexually nonassertive
women. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 17, 183–190. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1080/00926239108404342

Kim, H., Edwards, A. B., Sweeney, K. A., & Wetchler, J. L. (2012). The
effects of differentiation and attachment on satisfaction and accultura-
tion in Asian-White American international couple relationships: As-
sessment with Chinese, South Korean, and Japanese partners in relation-
ships with White American partners in the United States. American
Journal of Family Therapy, 40, 320 –335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
01926187.2011.616409

Kim, J. L. (2009). Asian American women’s retrospective reports of their
sexual socialization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 334 –350.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/036168430903300308

Kim, J. L., & Ward, L. M. (2007). Silence speaks volumes: Parental sexual
communication among Asian American emerging adults. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 22, 3–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/074355840
6294916

Lee, E., & Mock, M. R. (2005). Asian families: An overview. In M.
McGoldrick, J. Giordano, & N. Garcia-Preto (Eds.), Ethnicity and Fam-
ily Therapy (pp. 269 –289). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Lee, S. W., Oyserman, D., & Bond, M. H. (2010). Am I doing better than
you? That depends on whether you ask me in English or Chinese:
Self-enhancement effects of language as a cultural mindset prime. Jour-
nal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 785–791. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jesp.2010.04.005

Lou, C., Cheng, Y., Gao, E., Zuo, X., Emerson, M. R., & Zabin, L. S.
(2012). Media’s contribution to sexual knowledge, attitudes, and behav-
iors for adolescents and young adults in three Asian cities. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 50, S26 –S36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth
.2011.12.009

T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.

235ACCULTURATION AND SEXUAL ATTITUDES

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00337.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022102033005005

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00987240

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00987240

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023686

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-005-7909-6

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-005-7909-6

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12088

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12088

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167210385360

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.1923

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.1923

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02650487.1997.11104698

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02650487.1997.11104698

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.12.011

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.12.011

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-618X.2011.01264.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-618X.2011.01264.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X%2800%2900093-8

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X%2800%2900093-8

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.7.709

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.7.709

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00926239108404342

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00926239108404342

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2011.616409

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2011.616409

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/036168430903300308

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0743558406294916

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0743558406294916

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.04.005

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.04.005

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.12.009

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.12.009

Marian, V., & Neisser, U. (2000). Language-dependent recall of autobio-
graphical memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129,
361–368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.129.3.361

McNair, B. (2002). Striptease culture: Sex, media and the democratization
of desire. New York, NY: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780
203469378

Meston, C. M., Trapnell, P. D., & Gorzalka, B. B. (1998). Ethnic, gender,
and length of residency influences on sexual knowledge and attitudes.
Journal of Sex Research, 35, 176 –188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0022
4499809551931

Mok, T. A. (1999). Asian American dating: Important factors in partner
choice. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 5, 103–117.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.5.2.103

Oyserman, D., & Lee, S. W. (2008). Does culture influence what and how
we think? Effects of priming individualism and collectivism. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 134, 311–342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134
.2.311

Papp, L. M., Goeke-Morey, M. C., & Cummings, E. M. (2007). Linkages
between spouses’ psychological distress and marital conflict in the
home. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 533–537. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0893-3200.21.3.533

Robinson, I., Ziss, K., Ganza, B., & Katz, S. (1991). Twenty years of the
sexual revolution, 1965–1985: An update. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 53, 216 –220. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353145

Ruan, F. F. (1991). Sex in China: Studies in sexology in Chinese culture.
New York, NY: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0609-0

Rust, J., & Golombok, S. (1986). The GRISS: A psychometric instrument
for the assessment of sexual dysfunction. Archives of Sexual Behavior,
15, 157–165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01542223

Ryder, A. G., Alden, L. E., & Paulhus, D. L. (2000). Is acculturation
unidimensional or bidimensional? A head-to-head comparison in the
prediction of personality, self-identity, and adjustment. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 79, 49 – 65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.79.1.49

Tsai, J. L., & Levenson, R. W. (1997). Cultural influences on emotional
responding: Chinese American and European American dating couples

during interpersonal conflict. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28,
600 – 625. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022197285006

Wang, E. H. (2016). Moral reasoning: The female way and the Xunzian
way. In A. A. Pang-White (Ed.), The Bloomsbury research handbook of
Chinese philosophy and gender (pp. 141–156). New York, NY: Blooms-
bury Publishing.

Ward, B. W., Dahlhamer, J. M., Galinsky, A. M., & Joestl, S. S. (2014).
Sexual orientation and health among U.S. adults: National Health Inter-
view Survey, 2013. National Health Statistics Report, 15, 1–10.

Williams, L. R., & Rueda, H. A. (2016). Mexican American adolescent
couples’ vulnerability for observed negativity and physical violence:
Pregnancy and acculturation mismatch. Journal of Adolescence, 52,
170 –181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.08.001

Woo, J. S., & Brotto, L. A. (2008). Age of first sexual intercourse and
acculturation: Effects on adult sexual responding. Journal of Sexual
Medicine, 5, 571–582. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007
.00740.x

Woo, J. S., Brotto, L. A., & Gorzalka, B. B. (2011). The role of sex guilt
in the relationship between culture and women’s sexual desire. Archives
of Sexual Behavior, 40, 385–394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-010-
9609-0

Woo, T. T. (2016). Discourse on women from the classical period to the
Song: An integrated approach. In A. A. Pang-White (Ed.), The Blooms-
bury research handbook of Chinese philosophy and gender (pp. 37– 68).
New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Youn, G. (2001). Perceptions of peer sexual activities in Korean adoles-
cents. Journal of Sex Research, 38, 352–360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00224490109552106

Zhang, L., Li, X., & Shah, I. H. (2007). Where do Chinese adolescents
obtain knowledge of sex? Implications for sex education in China.
Health Education, 107, 351–363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/096542
80710759269

Received August 29, 2017
Revision received February 26, 2018

Accepted February 26, 2018 �

T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.

236 XIE AND GALLIHER

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.129.3.361

http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203469378

http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203469378

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499809551931

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499809551931

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.5.2.103

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.311

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.311

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.3.533

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.3.533

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353145

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0609-0

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01542223

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.1.49

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.1.49

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022197285006

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.08.001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00740.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00740.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-010-9609-0

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-010-9609-0

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490109552106

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490109552106

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09654280710759269

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09654280710759269

• Acculturation and Language Use in Intimate and Sexual Relationships Among Chinese Bilinguals

Cultural Context
Acculturation and Sexual Attitudes/Behaviors Among Asian American Young Adults
Language Priming and Cultural Mind-Set
Summary and Research Questions
Method
Participants
Procedure
Measures
Acculturation
Bicultural identity integration
Sexual variables
Heritage language preferences
Demographic and relationship history information

Results
Preliminary Analyses
Primary Analyses
Review of Open-Ended Descriptions of Language Use
Discussion
Acculturation, Gender, and Sexual Relationship
Language Use
Summary and Limitations
References