TABLE OF
          	CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

PART 1

Health Locus of Control
Psychosomaticism
Psychosomaticism and Psychoimmunology
HLC and Psychosomaticism

PART 2

Health Reality Models
The (Cultural) Etiology of Illness
Mode of Acculturation
Well-Being and Mode of Acculturation
Mode of Acculturation and HLC
CONCLUSIONS

METHODS

Participants
Materials
Design
Procedure

RESULTS

DISCUSSION

Discussion of Results
Confluence Approach
Cultural Competence
Creativity Amidst Disillusionment
Stress in the 90's
Regaining Control
When Externality is Better
Future Studies

REFERENCES

APPENDIXES

Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C

SPECIAL THANKS

PREVIOUS SECTION PREVIOUS PAGE NEXT PAGE NEXT SECTION

Methods

Participants

The sample was one of convenience comprised of 166 students at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Six subjects were removed from the final analysis because they did not complete the survey, leaving 160. The majority of subjects received extra credit toward psychology classes for participating. The final sample included 28 (18%) males and 132 (83%) females. This disproportionate distribution reflects the ratio of males to females enrolled in the psychology major and in psychology classes. Subjects fell into the following age groups: 3 (2%) were younger than eighteen, 26 (16%) were eighteen, 34 (21%) were nineteen, 39 (24%) were twenty, 29 (18%) were twenty one, and 29 (18%) were older than twenty one. Most subjects considered themselves to be middle class, with only 4% falling into the lower or upper class category: 5 (3%) lower class, 17 (11%) lower middle class, 92 (58%) middle class, 44 (28%) upper middle class, and 2 (1%) upper class. Subjects identified themselves according to the following racial/ ethnic designations, with an overwhelming majority as Caucasian/ European American: 9 (6%) as African/African Americans, 14 (9%) as Asian/Asian Americans, 116 (73%) as Caucasian/ European Americans, 11 (7%) as Hispanic/ Hispanic Americans, 0 as Native Americans, and 10 (6%) as other. Most subjects fell into the Integrated mode of acculturation: 33 (21%) Assimilated, 102 (64%) Integrated, 21 (13%) Separated, and 4 (3%) Marginalized.

TOP

PREVIOUS SECTION PREVIOUS PAGE NEXT PAGE NEXT SECTION