Examining the Relations Between Rumination and Adjustment: A Focus on Ethnicity

While numerous studies have found significant findings on the maladaptive nature of rumination, few studies have examined ethnic variations and differences. Therefore, the present research sought to examine ethnic differences in rumination between Asian and European Americans. In Study 1, 184 Asian American and 238 European American college students participated in the study. Consistent with our expectations, Asian Americans were found to ruminate more than European Americans. However, despite Asian Americans’ greater frequency of rumination, rumination in Asian Americans was found to have weaker associations with measures of psychological functioning (viz., affectivity, depressive symptoms, anxious symptoms, & life satisfaction) than rumination in European Americans. Additionally, regression analysis showed that rumination is a more unique and useful predictor of functioning in Asian Americans than European Americans. In Study 2, we sought to examine the mechanism through which rumination affects psychological functioning, as well as any potential cultural differences in rumination. In total, 125 Asian American and 150 European American college students participated in the study. Path-analytic results indicated that social problem-solving completely or partially mediated the link between rumination and psychological functioning for both Asian and European Americans. Overall, our findings demonstrate important ethnic differences and similarities in rumination that need to be considered in studying rumination in Asian Americans. RUMINATION AND ETHNICITY 3 Examining the Relations between Rumination and Adjustment: A Focus on Ethnicity Research and interest in rumination has grown steadily over the years, resulting in hundreds of scholarly articles and scientific publications to date (see Nolen-Hoeksema, 2008, for a review). As proposed by Nolen-Hoeksema’s (1987) Response Styles Theory, rumination is characterized by self-reflection, as well as the repetitive and passive focus on one’s own negative emotions (Nolen-Hoeksema, 1991, 2000). The ruminative response style refers to a stable tendency to respond to negative life events and negative mood states with ruminative thinking and negative thoughts, thus resulting in an increased vulnerability to experience prolonged and more severe episodes or symptoms of depression (Nolen-Hoeksema, Morrow, & Fredrickson, 1993). Consistently, research on rumination has shown it to be maladaptive in nature, often having significant associations with depressive symptoms (Nolen-Hoeksema, 2000), greater anxious symptoms (Abbott & Rapee, 2004), increased suicide ideation (Miranda & NolenHoeksema, 2007), and greater hopelessness (Smith, Alloy, & Abramson, 2006). Additionally, rumination has been associated with less life satisfaction (Ysseldyk, Matheson, & Anisman, 2007), fewer expectations for positive events (Lyubomirsky & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1995), and lower levels of happiness (Elliott & Coker, 2008). While these studies provide significant and robust findings (Smith & Alloy, 2009), a crucial yet often neglected aspect in studying psychological constructs is the examination of these constructs across different cultural groups. Indeed, within the rumination literature, few studies compare ethnicities. As the previously described studies have largely focused on Westerners, typically European Americans, there is reason to believe that those findings may not extend to all populations. In fact, research by Markus and Kitayama (1991) provide a compelling portrait of fundamental group differences between Easterners and Westerners. Historically, Eastern cultures foster a view of the individual RUMINATION AND ETHNICITY 4 as interdependent with society, where fitting in is not only valued, but often required and expected. On the other hand, Western cultures foster a view of the individual as an independent, self-contained, autonomous entity that is the result of his or her own actions (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). More specifically, the difference lays in the perceived notion of the self: the Eastern view reflects interdependence, while the Western view reflects independence (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Considering this difference in the fundamental perception of the self and pairing it with the idea that the self forms the basis of how individuals may act, feel, and ultimately behave, we can expect Easterners to differ from Westerners with regard to affect, cognitions, and behavior (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1995). Stemming from the contrasting views of interdependence versus independence, the notion of self-criticism versus self-enhancement, respectively, is introduced. From individualistic cultures that support self-enhancement, empirical research revealed that a heightened sense of self-efficacy and optimism often results in enhanced achievements (Taylor & Brown, 1988; Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992). While research suggests that self-enhancement, or a positive focus, may improve the self, research that is specifically crosscultural in nature has found that a negative focus, such as self-criticism, may also be effective for improving oneself (Heine et al., 2001). Instead of assuming that all self-critical behaviors are maladaptive, research by Kitayama, Markus, Matsumoto, and Norasakkunkit (1997) found that self-criticism can be a constructive process for the Japanese. More specifically, Kitayama et al. (1997) argued that by being self-critical, Japanese individuals obtain information vital for maintaining and supporting the group, as well as helping oneself focus on areas of weakness. In addition, researchers have found that Easterners tend to have a pessimistic bias, whereas Westerners to have a more optimistic bias (Chang & Asakawa, 2003). In further support of RUMINATION AND ETHNICITY 5 group differences, greater pessimism was associated with greater problem-solving activity when Easterners faced stressful situations, while greater pessimism was associated with lesser problem-solving when Westerners faced similar situations (Chang, 1996). Recent cross-cultural studies have found differences between Easterners’ and Westerners’ levels of affectivity and various psychological constructs (Chang, Sanna, & Yang, 2003; Okazaki, 2002). For example, Asian Americans score significantly higher on popular measures of depressive symptoms (Okazaki, 2002) and measures of pessimism (Chang et al., 2003). In aggregate, previous research may suggest an elevated level of rumination for Asian Americans. Specifically, Asian Americans may report greater frequencies of rumination given their tendency to self-criticize, whereas European Americans may report relatively lesser frequencies of rumination given their tendency to self-enhance. Indeed, in a study of anger rumination, Maxwell, Sukhodolsky, Chow, and Wong (2005) found that Chinese students reported greater anger rumination than British students. However, because their study focused on anger rumination, and not rumination associated with negative mood (Nolen-Hoeksema, 2000), direct implications toward the present research cannot be made. Therefore, the function of rumination in Asian Americans remains unclear. Similar to the findings of Kitayama et al. (1997) that not all self-critical behaviors and cognitions are maladaptive, Okazaki (2002) and Chang (1996) found that increased levels of depressive symptoms and pessimistic bias do not translate to more maladjustment. Instead, these findings suggest a difference in the baseline level of these psychological constructs. On a broader level, rumination has been found to be significantly associated with depressive symptoms (e.g., rs = .33 to .63; Chang, 2003; Ciesla & Roberts, 2007; Nolen-Hoeksema, 2000; Spasojevic & Alloy, 2001). In an experimental study by Lyubomirsky and Nolen-Hoeksema RUMINATION AND ETHNICITY 6 (1995), dysphoric participants induced to ruminate endorsed negatively biased interpretations of hypothetical situations, were more pessimistic about positive events in the future, and generated less effective solutions to interpersonal problems than participants who were induced to be distracted from their mood. However, non-dysphoric participants who were induced to ruminate did not show differences in post-test scores. As a result, dysphoria can be inferred as an important precursor for rumination to be effective in bringing about depressive symptoms in individuals. By extension, given the importance of dysphoria in the functionality of rumination, the existing disparities between Asian and European Americans in research on negative affectivity and depressive symptoms may suggest functional differences in rumination between the two groups. Given the elevated levels of depressive symptoms in Asian Americans, it is unclear whether induced rumination on already dysphoric Asian Americans will impair social problemsolving. In other words, if dysphoria for Asian Americans does not posit greater maladjustment, then rumination may not impact social problem-solving as well. According to D’Zurilla, Nezu, and Maydeu-Olivares (2004), social problem-solving refers to problem-solving as it occurs in the real world. As social problem-solving is defined as the self-generated, cognitive-affectivebehavioral process by which a person attempts to discover effective ways of coping, its relationship with rumination seems inseparable. Therefore, it may be useful to investigate a model of functioning involving social problem-solving. While research has shown that rumination may impair social problem-solving in European Americans, rumination and social problem-solving may utilize similar processes and mechanisms that serve as an adaptive coping style for Asian Americans. Overall Goals of the Present Research RUMINATION AND ETHNICITY 7 Given the potential differences between Easterners and Westerners on rumination, the purpose of the present research is to examine ethnic group differences between Asian an