Measuring Bidimensional Identity and Acculturation of Immigrants in South Korea

Background: South Korea’s increasing labor demand along with the aging population and a low birthrate has led to substantial immigration from other countries.  The largest immigrant group in South Korea is from China, the majority of whom are Chinese-born ethnic Koreans. During the Japanese colonial period (1910-1945), many Koreans migrated and established residence in the northeastern area of China, and their descendants are now returning to South Korea because their Korean language proficiency and cultural heritage help them to find jobs and marriage partners. Most of them are predominantly employed in low-paying, labor-intensive occupations that many Koreans shun, such as construction and healthcare aide. Given their history and diasporic experience, this study examined the identity status and acculturation patterns of Chinese-born Korean immigrants in South Korea.  

Methods: Data were collected using a cross-sectional survey design. A total of 229 female healthcare aides completed the survey, who were born and raised in China and immigrated to South Korea after the age of 18. Cultural identity was measured by Adapted Abbreviated Multidimensional Acculturation Scale (AMAS;Zea et al., 2003). The original AMAS contains 12 items with 6 items measuring American identity and 6 items measuring Latino identity. By translating the terms ‘American’ and ‘Latino’ to ‘Korean’ and ‘Chinese,’ the adapted scale consists of the two parallel sets of 6 questions; one set for Korean identity (KI) and another set for Chinese identity (CI).

The underlying structures of the adapted AMAS were tested by exploratory factor analysis. Varimax rotation was used because of the bidimensional theoretical assumption: that each identity develops independently. Factor analysis yielded two factors consistent with the scale’s construct accounting for 53.14% of the total variance: 6 items for KI and 6 items for CI. Cluster analysis was performed to identify the participants’ acculturation patterns.  After obtaining clusters, MANOVA and ANCOVA were performed in order to determine whether there were any differences in identity status among clusters.

Results: Two-step clustering procedure suggested three clusters. There was a significant difference on identity status among clusters, Pillai’s Trace = 1.17, F (4, 452) = 161.01, p < .001, η² = .58. The first cluster showed significantly lower scores on KI (M=2.82, SE= .30) than the other clusters, p<.001. The second cluster showed significantly lower scores on CI (M=2.63, SE= .30) than the other clusters, p<.001. The third cluster exhibited significantly higher scores on both CI (M =3.79, SE=.21) and KI (M=3.87, SE= .50), p<.001.

Implications: The results of the factor analysis confirmed the presence of bidimensional identity, and clustering procedures identified three meaningful patterns of acculturation: separated, assimilated, and integrated patterns. The immigrants clustered in the ‘separated’ group reported the lowest scores on Korean identity, while the ‘assimilated’ group showed the lowest score on Chinese Identity. The ‘integrated’ group had the highest scores on both Korean identity and Chinese Identity, suggesting that they had formed a strong attachment to both cultures.