Asian/Pacific Islanders

Asian and Pacific Islander Americans in the United States

The Chinese were among the first API immigrants to the United States. The increasing rate of Chinese immigration, initially fueled by the gold rush, was rapidly stifled with the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. As the number of immigrants from other API nations (e.g., Japan, Korea, and India) began to steadily increase, a number of parallel legislative acts were passed during the early 1900s to restrict their immigration as well. As a result, API immigration slowed to a trickle until the enactment of the 1965 Immigration Act, which eased restriction on immigration from API nations, catalyzing a resurgence of API immigration. Although the majority of APIA arrived after 1965, there are substantial numbers of APIA refugees and American-born APIA.

Current data suggest that there are more than 12.5 million APIA residing in the United States, representing nearly 4.5% of the nation's population. The majority of APIA have taken residence in the western United States (51%), and the remainder are spread throughout the South and Northeast (19% each), as well as the Midwest (12%). It is estimated that there are approximately 43 different ethnicities represented by API in the United States, displaying a tremendous diversity in terms of language, culture, religion, level of education, and socioeconomic status.

Issues in the Research concerning Asian and Pacific Islander Americans

Although significant advances have been made within the last 20 years in regard to ethnic minority research, research within the field of psychology using APIA participants remains sparse, and the literature that does exist is often inconclusive. There have been numerous attempts to illuminate the reasons for the paucity of research, as well as the inconsistencies within the existing literature, involving this group of people.

[Page 53]Some researchers argue that the discriminatory and exclusionary tactics aimed at APIA tend to be greater than those directed at other ethnic minority groups. These biases are believed to stem from the fact that API decided to immigrate to the United States, unlike other minorities, who had little choice. Thus, the sentiment suggests that APIA do not deserve to be studied until other groups have been given their due attention. Although some may consider this a rather extreme point of view, it should not be too quickly dismissed, regarded as an extremist position, or viewed as an impossibility. It is quite possible that at some level, these erroneous beliefs have the power to influence or even tarnish one's view of various ethnic groups, hence reducing interest in the conduction of research on those groups.

Additionally, many researchers have suggested that common (mis)perceptions of APIA as professionally and financially successful may lead to a lack of interest in research on this population. Such perceptions may contribute to a mistaken belief that these enhanced financial resources are accompanied by superior psychological resources, thus better equipping these individuals to combat the stresses typically associated with immigration and acculturation. Such unsubstantiated thinking may lead to the unfounded belief that APIA, because of their financial success, simply do not suffer from psychological distress, or if they do, they are in possession of superior coping resources that allow them to better deal with distress. Thus, their status as “worthwhile” and “important” subjects for research is further made subordinate.

...