Based upon these categorization criteria, result indicated that 41% of participants endorsed the integration strategy, 14% preferred the separation strategy, 11% endorsed the assimilation strategy, and 33% preferred the marginalization strategy. Participants were then categorized into four acculturation groups based on their implicit IAT D scores for comparison purposes. Similarly to the way the VIA explicit measure was used to categorize individuals, participants received two implicit IAT D scores for the American vs. Korean IAT and Mexican vs. Korean IAT. A median split was performed on the two implicit IAT D scores in order to determine the four acculturation groups. For the American vs. Korean IAT, the median score was .223. For the Mexican vs. Korean IAT, the median score was .406. Cross-tabbed methodology that was used to categorize participants based on their explicit scores was also used to categorize participants based on their implicit scores. Based upon the aforementioned categorization criteria, result indicated that 28% of participants categorized as integrationists, 22% were categorized as separatists, 22% were categorized as assimilationists, and 27% were categorized as marginalized. Upon comparing the categorizations based upon the explicit and implicit data,large pot with drainage results indicated that the categorizations for both the integration and marginalization strategies were higher for the explicit categories relative to the implicit categories .

Categorizations for both the separation and assimilation strategies were lower for the explicit categories compared to the implicit categories . These results indicated that the Mexican American participants tend to assess the self in relation to explicit and implicit acculturation strategies quite differently. To further examine the validity of the implicit acculturation measures, three one way ANOVAs were performed in order to examine the differences among the four explicit acculturation groups on the three IAT measures . Overall results indicated that there was a marginal difference among the four acculturation groups for the Mexican vs. Korean IAT, F=2.54, p=.051. Tukey post-hoc comparisons of the four acculturation groups indicated that the integration group marginally differed from the separation group , however not from the assimilation and marginalized groups . There were no other significant differences among the four acculturation groups for the other two IATs. In all, Study 1 offered an examination of the acculturation strategies through assessments of thoughts that cannot be consciously controlled. In particular, results from this sample of Mexican American participants showed that the Self + Mexican association was stronger than the Self + American association. This argument is corroborated by the fact that overall participants strongly self-identified with Mexican culture when compared to both American and Korean culture. It is not surprising that participants implicitly self-identified with Mexican culture relative to Korean culture, but what is surprising is that participants implicitly self-identified stronger with Mexican culture relative to American culture.

This particular result is different to what Devos found. Recall that the participants in Devos’s study showed that self identifications cancelled each another out when Mexican and American cultures were pitted against each other. This was not the case in the current study. Results from the current study showed that the strongest association was the Mexican vs. Korean IAT , followed by the American vs. Mexican IAT , and finally the American vs. Korean IAT was the weakest association . Correlational analyses further support the argument that the Self + Mexican association was stronger than the Self + American association. In particular, responses on the American vs. Mexican IAT were more driven by identification with Mexican culture than identification with American culture given that this IAT was significantly correlated with the Mexican vs. Korean IAT and showed a lack of correlation with the American vs. Korean IAT. Furthermore, correlation analyses revealed that an explicit attachment to the Mexican culture accounts for a weaker implicit Self + American association. In particular, the less Mexican American participants implicitly self identified with American culture, the less proficient they were in using English, the more proficient they were in using Spanish, the more affirmation, belonging, and commitment was felt towards their Mexican identity, and the more they identified with their Mexican culture. Also, for the Mexican vs. Korean IAT, results showed that the more Mexican American participants implicitly self-identified with Mexican culture, the less they explicitly self-identified with American culture. It is important to note that the correlations with this IAT were usually in the opposite direction of the American vs. Korean IAT . Taken together, these results showed the usefulness of the 3 IATs design to examine implicit acculturation. Given that the Self + Mexican association was stronger than the Self + American association across all three IATs suggests that the Mexican American participants implicitly showed a stronger preference for the separation strategy relative to the other three acculturation strategies.

This finding is particularly interesting given that using this type of methodology yields findings not only for an implicit bicultural identity as Devos found but also for other acculturation strategies, namely the separation strategy. Devos concluded, “Having provided firm evidence for implicit bicultural identification, it is a matter for future research to test more specific prediction about the structure and process underlying bicultural identities” . Devos calls for future research that examines the underlying dynamics of bicultural identity at an implicit level. Hong and colleagues provide a useful socio-cognitive model for how biculturals shift between their dual cultural orientations. For example, Hong et al. revealed that Asian biculturals possess both East Asian and Western cultural meaning schemes and that each scheme can be separately activated by culturally relevant icons or primes. In these studies, Chinese American bicultural participants were randomly exposed to either American cultural primes or Chinese cultural primes . Subsequently after, these bicultural participants completed an unrelated attributional task. The results showed that exposure to the cultural icons activated the cultural frame switching process. In particular, biculturals exposed to American primes made more internal attributions , while biculturals exposed to Chinese primes made more external attributions . In all, Hong et al.’s work provides persuasive evidence that biculturals can move between their dual cultural frameworks. To account for the process of cultural-frame switching, Benet-Martinez and her colleagues empirically coined the theoretical construct of Bicultural Identity Integration . BII is an individual difference variable, which posits that all biculturals identify with their ethnic and mainstream cultures, however differ in their ability to create a synergistic, integrated cultural identity. Some biculturals view their two cultural orientations as complimentary and compatible , whereas, others view them as contradictory and oppositional . In these studies, Chinese American biculturals followed the same experimental procedures that Hong and colleagues used, however, BII was measured as a dependent variable. Results showed that Chinese American biculturals high on BII showed culturally congruent behaviors when presented with external primes associated with one of their cultural backgrounds . On the other hand, Chinese American biculturals low on BII exhibited Chinese-congruent behaviors in response to American primes and American-congruent behaviors in response to Chinese primes. In all, high and low BIIs respond to cultural cues in different ways and differences in BII moderated the cultural-frame switching process. To further unpack the concept of BII, Benet-Martinez and Haritatos showed that this construct encompasses two psychometrically independent and reliable components: cultural blendedness and cultural harmony each representing unique and separate aspects of the dynamic intersection between mainstream and ethnic cultural identities in bicultural individuals. For instance,drainage collection pot cultural blendedness captures the degree of overlap vs. dissociation or compartmentalization perceived between the two cultural orientations. Cultural harmony, on the other hand, captures the degree of harmony vs. tension or clash perceived between the two cultures. In all, the intersection of cultural harmony and blendedness make biculturals high BII while the merging of cultural distance and conflict make biculturals low BII. Benet-Martınez and Haritatos’s examination of the demographic, contextual, and personality correlates of BII showed that cultural blendedness and harmony encapsulate different psychological components of the bicultural experience. In this study, cultural harmony was negatively linked to Neuroticism and interpersonal types of acculturation stress , and was quite independent from traditional demographic, attitudinal, and performance-related acculturation variables such as amount of cultural exposure, acculturation attitudes, and linguistic skills. Cultural blendedness, on the other hand, was positively associated with Openness to Experience, negatively with linguistic/structural types of acculturation stress , and positively related to traditional demographic, attitudinal, and performance-related acculturation variables . As discussed in Benet-Martınez and Haritatos , these above patterns of associations suggest that blendedness captures the more perceptual , and performance related elements of the acculturation experience , whereas cultural harmony captures the more affect driven, interpersonal component .

Thus, when a bicultural individual high on cultural blendedness states that he or she feels part of a combined culture , his/her self-concept is placed in proximity to both cultures and orientations . On the other hand, when a bicultural individual high on cultural harmony states that his/her ethnic and mainstream cultural identities are quite compatible, he or she is expressing rapport and compatibility between each cultural orientation and membership . Subsequent research on BII revealed that it encompasses two orthogonal components and encapsulates different psychological components of the bicultural experience. Given that BII is an individual difference variable that underlies the dynamics of bicultural identification, to what extent could BII be examined at an implicit level? Recall that the IAT measures individual differences which are derived from cultural influences in the environment. Thus, the IAT is an optimal tool to assess BII at an implicit level. To best examine the negotiation or integration of the two cultural identities would require the use of the BII dimensions . That is, examining the extent to which biculturals make automatic associations between the bipolar-pair harmony and blendedness with selfrelated words for high BIIs and the bipolar-pair conflict and distance with self-related words for low BIIs. By examining identification with the BII target concepts independently should show the degree to which both cultural orientations are integrated into the implicit self-concept of bicultural individuals.The purpose of Study 2 was to use the IAT to examine individual differences in the implicit self-concept among biculturals varying in degree of BII. Given the exploratory aims of this study and the limited literature on this topic, it is difficult to make precise predictions about how our Mexican American biculturals will differ in their strength of identification with the BII dimensions . Therefore, no predictions were made for this study. This study was a between-subjects design. Using similar procedures derived from Benet-Martinez et al. , participants were randomly assigned to one of two priming conditions. The first condition consisted of cultural primes that were presented to the bicultural participants at the same time in a randomized order that was determined by the computer. The importance of priming bicultural individuals with both cultural orientations was to activate both cultural meaning systems simultaneously . Since there were a total of 10 cultural icons , there were a total of 25 combination patterns that bicultural individuals viewed for 3 seconds each. The second condition consisted of culturally neutral primes that were presented to the bicultural participants at the same time in a randomized order that was determined by the computer. The purpose of this condition was to act as a control. Similarly to the experimental condition, there were a total of 10 geometric icons which resulted in a total of 25 combination patterns that bicultural individuals viewed for 3 seconds each. Participants were seated individually in front of a desktop computer screen that was separated by partitions to reduce distractions. After participants were seated they were given informed consent. Subsequently following the priming technique, participants were asked to briefly write about either their cultural orientations or the geometric figures depending on the condition they were randomly assigned to. Implicit association tests. The initial presentation of the stimulus was identical to Study 1 in order to familiarize participants with the stimuli. Participants were told to engage in an unrelated categorization task by having bicultural individuals complete two IATs assessing the relative strength of associations made between the bipolar dimensions of BII paired with pronoun terms that represent relevant “self” concept and four pronoun terms that represent the “other” concept used to designate other people or objects, respectively .