Japanese American reactions to World War II incarceration redress: Just world belief, locus of control, and coping.

Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 2015, Vol. 21, No. 3, 345–357

© 2014 American Psychological Association 1099-9809/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037629

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Japanese American Reactions to World War II Incarceration Redress: Just World Belief, Locus of Control, and Coping Jackie H. J. Kim and Donna K. Nagata

Mark Akiyama

University of Michigan

Diablo Valley College

This study examines second generation (Nisei) Japanese Americans’ reactions to government redress for their unjust incarceration during World War II. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to explore the roles of individual difference factors—Belief in a Just World (BJW), Locus of Control (LOC)—and Incarceration-Related Coping in predicting (a) reported redress-related Suffering Relief and (b) Positive Redress Impacts. Findings show that BJW was a stronger predictor of redress reactions than LOC, with higher BJW associated with more affirmative views of redress. In addition, Incarceration-Related Coping mediated a majority of the relationships between the individual difference factors and redress reactions. Keywords: Japanese American(s), incarceration, just world, locus of control, redress

Policies of the U.S. government have often resulted in the unjust treatment of ethnocultural minority groups. Although the suffering associated with such injustices cannot be erased from victims’ memories, studies indicate that official apologies can bring significant repair to the victimized group’s view of the government (Barkan, 2000; Blatz, Schumann, & Ross, 2009; Brooks, 1999; Minow, 1998). In particular, expressions of genuine remorse and acknowledgment of rule breaking may help to restore some sense of justice. An examination of governmental redress efforts is important given these findings. The U.S. government has belatedly acknowledged a small portion of the injustices inflicted upon ethnic minority groups, including the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy (U.S. Public Law 103–150, 1993) and the Tuskegee syphilis study (“Tuskegee Apology,” 1997). However, the governmental redress for Japanese Americans wrongly incarcerated during World War II was unique in the large number of eligible recipients and because an apology was accompanied by Congressapproved monetary reparation. This study examines how individual differences are associated with responses to receiving this redress among Japanese Americans.

Japanese American Incarceration Redress On December 7, 1941, the Imperial Japanese Navy attacked Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, killing thousands of Americans and resulting in the United States’ declaration of war against the Empire of Japan. Ten weeks afterward, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which led to the removal and mass incarceration of all persons of Japanese ancestry, regardless of age or citizenship, from Western portions of the United States.1 This imprisonment of approximately 120,000 Japanese Americans in desolate U.S. concentration camps stands as one of the country’s most striking examples of discrimination and social injustice. Although the United States was also at war with Italy and Germany, neither German Americans nor Italian Americans were subjected to mass incarceration. As often continues to be the case for Asian Americans today, Japanese Americans were perceived as foreigners in their own land (Sue, Bucceri, Lin, Nadal, & Torino, 2007) and the government’s actions overrode standards of due process and constitutional rights.2 Psychological, economic, and physical repercussions of this event affected the lives of Japanese Americans over time and across generations (Maki, Kitano, & Berthold, 1999; Nagata & Takeshita, 1998). By the 1970s, Japanese Americans began efforts to seek redress from the U.S. government. In 1981, a presidential commission designated to investigate the facts surrounding Executive Order 9066 concluded that the incarceration was a “grave injustice” (Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians;

This article was published Online First September 1, 2014. Jackie H. J. Kim and Donna K. Nagata, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan; Mark Akiyama, Department of Psychology, Diablo Valley College. This research was supported in part by the University of Michigan Center for Japanese Studies, the United States Civil Liberties Public Education Fund, and the University of Michigan Office of the Vice President for Research. We express appreciation to Yuzuru Takeshita for assistance with survey development and data-collection efforts and to Laura Klem and Missy Plegue for statistical consultation. We also thank those Nisei who kindly volunteered to participate in this research and share their perspectives. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jackie H. J. Kim, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, 2269 East Hall, 530 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1043. E-mail: jhjkim@ umich.edu

1 Targeting of Japanese civilians actually began just four days after Pearl Harbor when 1,370 first generation (Issei) immigrant leaders of the Japanese American communities, classified as “dangerous enemy aliens,” were rounded up and detained by the FBI (Daniels, Taylor, & Kitano, 1991, p. xvi). All Japanese descendants were soon declared to be a potential military threat simply because of their heritage and geographic proximity to the Pacific Ocean (Japan). However, the government’s actions did not corroborate this reasoning: less than 1% of ethnic Japanese living in Hawaii— geographically much closer to Japan—were ordered into camps (Ogawa & Fox, 1986). 2 Two thirds of the incarcerated were U.S. citizens.

345


346

KIM, NAGATA, AND AKIYAMA

CWRIC, 1997, p.18). This, in conjunction with the efforts of Japanese American community groups and activists, paved the way for the 1988 passage of the Civil Liberties Act. The Act acknowledged that Japanese Americans had suffered injustices and allocated a payment of $20,000 symbolic redress to each surviving incarceree (CWRIC, 1997). The commission and redress efforts process provided former incarcerees the first opportunity to publicly share their wartime traumas and helped relieve the internalized stigma many carried; self-blame and self-doubt could be replaced with public-systems blame (Loo, 1993). Responses toward redress among U.S.-born, second generation Japanese Americans (Nisei) are of particular interest. The Nisei, the largest group of incarcerees suffered unjust imprisonment by their own country during their formative years as teens and young adults. Nagata and Takeshita (2002) found that most Nisei reported moderately positive reactions to receiving redress, particularly in relation to increasing their faith in the government. However, redress had less impact in reducing negative feelings about their past incarceration and in relieving physical suffering stemming from those years. Women, older respondents, those with lower income, and those with a greater preference for Japanese Americans reported the greatest redress benefits. The findings suggested that it is inadequate to simply ask whether or not Japanese Americans, as a whole, benefited from receiving redress; it is important to assess variations in redress response within the group. In this study, we further explore this variation by investigating how individual differences in cognitions about the world are associated with positive redress responses. Particularly relevant individual differences are belief in a just world (BJW; Lerner, 1980) and locus of control (LOC; Rotter, 1954). They speak to two hallmark characteristics of the incarceration: (a) the injustice of being wrongfully imprisoned by one’s own country, and (b) the complete loss of control over one’s life and future.

Belief in a Just World The well-researched construct BJW (Furnham & Procter, 1989; Lerner, 1980; Rubin & Peplau, 1975) posits that, “people need to believe in a just world in which everyone gets what they deserve and deserves what they get;” it is what helps people feel that their world has order (Dalbert, 2009). Generally, maintaining a BJW is thought to be adaptive and is associated with higher well-being and better coping (Dalbert, 2001; Dalbert, 2009; Lipkus, Dalbert, & Siegler, 1996). Recent research has framed BJW as a distinctive personality disposition that develops early and remains relatively stable throughout the life span (Dalbert, 2009; Furnham, 2003; Schmitt, 1997), affected only when unjust experiences strongly contradict the upheld belief that the world is just (Adoric & Kvartuc, 2007), for example, after significant life events such as a long-term imprisonment (Otto & Dalbert, 2005). Just world beliefs among Japanese Americans post-redress are likely to have varied. While the incarceration challenged their belief in a just world, redress had the potential of restoring justice beliefs. We hypothesized that Nisei who hold stronger just world beliefs would report more positive redress effects: Former incarcerees who view the world as a just place would view redress as a confirmatory example of justice and more readily acknowledge its benefits.

Locus of Control LOC, a construct reflecting how much a person believes that things are under his or her personal control or in the hands of external forces (Rotter, 1954), is also examined as the incarceration removed personal control from Japanese Americans on multiple levels. In addition to the overriding loss of freedom and rights, which roused uncertainty about the future, communal eating, bathing, and housing conditions within the camps eroded control over privacy. Broadly, internal LOC has been thought to be indicative of higher well-being and better coping (e.g., Langer & Rodin, 1976; Lefcourt, 1976; Menec & Chipperfield, 1997) and external LOC to be contraindicative of positive outcomes. Nevertheless, for some situations truly beyond control, adopting external attributions can help regain emotional stability and thus allow for more subsequent internal control (Valins & Nisbett, 1971). For collectivistic Asian cultures in particular, psychological well-being appears to be less related to perceived personal control (Sastry & Ross, 1998), with reports of lower internal LOC when compared with European Americans (Krampen & Wieberg, 1981; Lao, 1978; Mahler, Greenberg, & Hayashi, 1981; Park & Harrison, 1995). In fact, for Asian Americans, personal outcomes are viewed as resulting from powerful others’ control (Bjorck, Lee, & Cohen, 1997) or chance (Guagnano, Acredolo, Hawkes, Ellyson, & White, 1986). Nagata and Tsuru’s (2007) work on former Nisei incarcerees supported this notion by finding that external LOC was associated with better incarceration coping. For this study, two discrete subtypes of external LOC, powerful others (PO) LOC and chance LOC (Levenson, 1972), are necessary because the incarceration resulted from the power of governmental authorities—specific external others. Those with a PO LOC maintain a sense of personal agency, as they are able to strategize within a system “with enough regularity,” but are controlled by others (Levenson, 1981). In contrast, those with a chance LOC may have a lower sense of personal agency, if any, as they perceive a world with completely random outcomes (Levenson, 1981). Based on past LOC research with this population (e.g., Nagata & Tsuru, 2007), we predicted that Nisei who attributed outcomes in life to powerful others would perceive the government’s redress as consistent with their view of control and be likely to acknowledge positive redress effects.

Belief in a Just World and Locus of Control BJW and LOC are distinct but highly correlated (e.g., Lipkus, 1991; Muller, Caldwell, & Hunter, 1994), and found correlates of internal LOC have been hypothesized to be more readily explained by BJW (Zuckerman & Gerbasi, 1977). In addition, BJW was found to be incrementally predictive of positive psychological outcomes when LOC was accounted for (Sutton & Douglas, 2005). BJW may be a stronger predictor because it is an earlier-developed and relatively stable disposition (Dalbert, 2009; Furnham, 2003), whereas LOC is a generalized tendency more subject to shifts in circumstance (Glass & Singer, 1972; Lefcourt, 1982; Parks, Becker, Chamberlain, & Crandell, 1975). We tested the hypothesis that BJW would be stronger than LOC in predicting reactions to redress.

BELIEF IN A JUST WORLD AND RESPONSE TO REDRESS


Incarceration-Related Coping In addition to justice and control beliefs, individual perceptions of incarceration-related coping may be linked to redress reactions. Nagata and Tsuru (2007) found that Nisei reported, on average, having coped moderately well with their wartime imprisonment (M ⫽ 5.09, on a 7-point rating scale (1 ⫽ very poorly and 7 ⫽ very well)). They also noted that individual differences in self-esteem, locus of control, negative incarceration emotions and communications, and a preference for associating with Japanese Americans affected these ratings. These findings, as well as the dearth of research on the relationship between coping and reactions to redress, suggested the value of investigating whether Nisei coping levels might further explain the relationships that might exist between individual difference factors (BJW, LOC) and redress outcomes. Presuming that better incarceration coping provides a foundation for more positive appraisals of ensuing events, we hypothesized that higher coping levels would also be associated with more affirmative views of redress.

The Present Study To explore how individual differences in beliefs about justice, control, and coping influence reactions to governmental redress among Japanese American former incarcerees we developed the conceptual model displayed in Figure 1 to explore the following predictions. 1. BJW will have a stronger association with redress outcomes and reported coping levels compared with all LOC domains. Specifically, a. Higher BJW and higher PO LOC will be associated with reports of more affirmative views of redress (relief from incarceration-related suffering and positive redress impacts). b. Higher BJW and higher PO LOC will be associated with better coping. 2. Higher levels of self-reported coping will be associated with more affirmative views of redress (relief from incarcerationrelated suffering and positive redress impacts). An additional exploratory aim was to examine the degree to which coping mediates the aforementioned relationships between BJW views of redress and LOC views of redress.

Figure 1. Conceptual structural model of individual difference factors influencing redress reactions, with incarceration coping as a mediator.

347 Method

Participants The study sample was from a national survey of Nisei former incarcerees conducted three years after the passage of redress (1995–96). Potential participants were contacted through mailing lists of organized incarceration camp reunions that convened on a regular a basis. Voluntary mail-back surveys were sent to names randomly selected from camp reunion lists. Of the 1,700 surveys that were sent, 589 (35%) were returned. Sixty-nine of the surveys were excluded (due to lateness of the returned survey, unclear generational status, or no incarceration experience), resulting in a total of 520 study participants (51% female, 49% male, Mage ⫽ 69.69 years, age range: 50 –99 years, Mage at incarceration ⫽ 15.97 years). Of the 520, nine were excluded prior to analyses due to abundant missing data. Respondents had been incarcerated in the following camps: Tule Lake, CA (20.6%), Gila River, AZ, (13.5%), Poston, AZ (11.5%), Topaz, UT (10.4%), Rohwer, AK (9.8%), Heart Mountain, WY (8.7%), Manzanar, CA (8.3%), Crystal City,3 TX (7.7%), Minidoka, ID (6.7%), other (1.7%), and Jerome, AZ (1.2%). Average length of incarceration was 17.6 months (range: 4 –50 months). Average annual individual income was $25,000 –$35,000 and the average level of education was “some college attendance.” Religious affiliation was predominantly Christian (45.5%) and Buddhist (42.4%).

Measures BJW. Rubin and Peplau’s (1975) Just World Scale–Revised (JWS-R) is a 20-item measure that assesses how much people subscribe to the belief that the world is a just place and people get what they deserve. The scale includes 11 just-world items (e.g., “It is rare for an innocent man to be wrongly sent to jail”) and nine unjust-world items (e.g., “Many people suffer through absolutely no fault of their own”), which were rated on a 7-point scale (1 ⫽ strongly disagree and 7 ⫽ strongly agree). Two factors were extracted for the present sample, “Just” and “Unjust,” which accounted for 30% of the variance. Items with factor loadings ⬍ .50 were suppressed. Internal consistency for the present sample was near acceptable (Just, ␣ ⫽ .69; Unjust, ␣ ⫽ .61), meeting the recommended minimum of ␣ ⫽ .60 for exploratory studies (Nunnally, 1978). LOC. Levenson’s (1973) original IPC (Internal/Powerful Others/Chance) multidimensional LOC scale is a 24-item measure evaluating how much a person endorses that his or her life is controlled by the self, powerful others, or chance. The three subscales include eight items each—I (e.g., “My life is determined by my own actions”), P (e.g., “My life is chiefly controlled by powerful others”), and C (e.g., “When I get what I want, it’s usually because I am lucky”)—which are rated on 6-point scales. The current study used a 7-point scale (1 ⫽ strongly disagree and 7 ⫽ strongly agree), for consistency in presentation with other survey measures, and omitted one item from each scale that was geared toward a psychiatric population, resulting in 21 items. 3 A U.S. Justice Department Immigration and Naturalization camp specifically designed to detain enemy aliens, primarily male Japanese nationals and their families (Culley, 1991; Daniels, 1995).


348


Three factors based on Levenson’s model were extracted for the present sample: I, P, and C, which accounted for 42% of the variance. Items with factor loadings ⬍ .50 were suppressed. Internal consistency for each of the factored subscales was acceptable (I, ␣ ⫽ .70; P, ␣ ⫽ .77; and C, ␣ ⫽ .68). Coping. Three items assessed how well participants felt they had coped with their incarceration experience in each of three areas (economically, emotionally, and physically) using a 7-point rating scale (1 ⫽ very poorly and 7 ⫽ very well). Internal consistency was good with ␣ ⫽ .81. Redress outcomes. Nine items examined post-redress attitudinal outcomes. Questions were developed from a pilot focus group of Nisei former incarcerees and supported by research describing post-redress reactions (Takezawa, 1995). Respondents indicated for each presented statement how much the passage of the redress had affected them personally on a 7-point scale (1 ⫽ not at all and 7 ⫽ a great deal) or “not applicable.” Items were factored into two subscales: Redress Suffering Relief. Three items assessed the degree to which redress helped relieve specific types of suffering: economic, emotional, and physical. Internal consistency for these items was good with ␣ ⫽ .84. Positive Redress Impact. Six items assessed the degree to which redress led to more general positive impacts: (a) increased faith in the government, (b) reduced negative feelings about the incarceration4 (c) resulted in a sense of relief, (d) increased willingness to discuss the incarceration experience with others, (e) increased willingness to discuss the incarceration experience with children, (f) brought a sense of closure to Japanese Americans. Internal consistency was good with ␣ ⫽ .85.

Data Analysis Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the stated hypotheses regarding the relationships among BJW, LOC, incarceration coping, and reported views of redress. Amos 20 was used to run the analyses testing model fit and estimation of direct and indirect effects. We also controlled for known confounding variables identified through previously cited studies on Japanese American former incarcerees—age, gender, income, religious affiliation (Buddhist or Christian), time incarcerated self-esteem, Japanese American preference, negative incarceration emotions, negative incarceration communication, degree of involvement in redress activity, and support for monetary compensation (Fugita & Fernandez, 2004; Nagata & Takeshita, 2002; Nagata & Tsuru, 2007). See Appendix A for bivariate correlations of the variables included. The measurement component of our model estimates latent constructs of BJW, incarceration coping, Redress Suffering Relief, and Positive Redress Impact. Given that Rubin and Peplau’s (1975) unidimensional Just World Scale was not high in reliability, and additional previous findings suggesting that just-world belief and unjust-world belief are differentiated conceptually (Dalbert, Lipkus, Sallay, & Goch, 2001; Loo, 2002), we created BJW as a formative factor. The formative factor was composed of two variables—just-world belief and unjust-world belief— composed by averaging together 11 just-world items and nine unjust-world items, respectively. The Incarceration-Coping factor was composed of three items specific to economic, emotional, and physical

coping with the incarceration experience. Redress Suffering Relief was composed of three items indicating relief from redress for economic, emotional, physical suffering. Positive Redress Impact was composed of six items indicating positive impacts for respondents. Latent constructs were scaled by fixing the raw regression coefficient of one indicator variable to the value of 1.00. Table 1 displays the measurement models. The three types of LOC (PO, internal, and chance) were not formed into a factor as suggested by Levenson (1981). Prior to running the SEM analysis, power was determined using MacCallum, Browne, and Sugawara’s (1996) guidelines. With an N ⬎ 132 and 206 degrees of freedom, we met the criteria to achieve power of .80 for the associations found. Intraclass correlations (ICC) and design effects were also calculated, for all the camp sites and outcome variables, to test for cluster effects (McCoach & Adelson, 2010). All ICC’s were immaterial (⬍ .05) and we determined that there was no need to adjust for clustering, as the design effects would be minimal (Thomas & Heck, 2001). A covariance matrix was entered for the maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) and significance levels were found using the Monte Carlo parametric bootstrapping method. Since MLE assumes that there is no multivariate kurtosis present, kurtosis was checked on all examined variables. Model fit was determined using root-mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI), and the standardized root-mean square residual (SRMR). Generally, values between .05 and .08 are considered a good fit for the RMSEA (MacCallum et al., 1996), ⱖ .90 for the CFI and IFI (Hu & Bentler, 1999), and ⬍ .08 for the SRMR (Hu & Bentler). The original conceptual model was modified by comparing nested models using difference in ␹2 significance tests and the final model excludes only four error covariance paths originally hypothesized. The model fit statistics did not change considerably by eliminating these paths. All results are based on the final model.

Results The model appears to fit the data well: RMSEA is .053; CFI is .94; IFI is .94; and the SRMR is .038. As expected with our sample size, the ␹2 statistic was significant, ␹2(206, 511) ⫽ 497.56, p ⬍ .001.

Measurement Components The results for the three reflective constructs—Incarceration Coping, Redress Suffering Relief, Positive Redress Impact—in the model indicate that all of the indicator variables loaded significantly, with most having strong standardized coefficients (bⴱ ⬎ 0.60). Two variables for Positive Redress Impact are an exception (bⴱ ⱖ 0.49), with the “increase in faith in the government” item having the weakest influence on the Positive Redress Impact factor. For BJW, a formative factor, the “just world” variable appears to be driving the relationships found (see Table 1). 4 The word “internment” was used on the survey as participants were more familiar with this terminology. “Incarceration” has recently emerged as a more accurate term.


349

Table 1 Parameter Estimates for the Measurement Model


90% CI Observed variable

Latent construct

bⴱ

b

Just world itemsa Unjust world itemsa Economic coping Emotional coping Physical coping Relief from economic hardship suffered Relief from emotional hardship suffered Relief from physical hardship suffered Increased faith in government Reduced negative feelings Increased willingness discuss with others Resulted in feeling of relief Increased willingness discuss with children Brought closure

BJW BJW Incarceration coping Incarceration coping Incarceration coping Redress suffering relief Redress suffering relief Redress suffering relief Positive redress impact Positive redress impact Positive redress impact Positive redress impact Positive redress impact Positive redress impact

0.26ⴱⴱ 0.12 0.62ⴱⴱⴱ 0.95ⴱⴱⴱ 0.77ⴱⴱⴱ 0.74ⴱⴱ 0.78ⴱⴱⴱ 0.86ⴱⴱⴱ 0.49ⴱⴱⴱ 0.63ⴱⴱⴱ 0.69ⴱⴱⴱ 0.86ⴱⴱⴱ 0.81ⴱⴱⴱ 0.58ⴱⴱⴱ

1.00 0.43 1.00 1.34 1.04 1.00 1.09 1.14 1.00 1.43 1.72 2.01 2.06 1.49

SE

Lower

Upper

0.32

0.09

1.05

0.10 0.08

1.19 0.92

1.52 1.17

0.08 0.06

0.97 1.04

1.22 1.25

0.14 0.19 0.19 0.21 0.16

1.23 1.42 1.73 1.75 1.27

1.68 2.04 2.36 2.45 1.79

Note. BJW ⫽ belief in a just world; bⴱ ⫽ standardized beta coefficient. a Causal indicator for the formative factor BJW. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⱕ .001.

Structural Components Results for the structural components of the model are presented in Table 2. The squared multiple correlations, R2, indicate that the model explains 56% of the variance in Coping, 93% of the variance in Redress Suffering Relief, 67% of the variance in Positive Redress Impact. Direct effects. Overall, BJW had a stronger association with Incarceration Coping and redress outcomes than any LOC. A higher BJW predicted higher Incarceration Coping, more Redress Suffering Relief, and Positive Redress Impact. Only a greater PO LOC predicted higher Incarceration Coping. Relationships between internal LOC–Incarceration Coping and chance LOC– Incarceration Coping trended toward significance. Having a greater internal LOC and PO LOC predicted more relief from past suffering and Positive Redress Impact, but chance LOC only had a trend toward significance with redress outcomes. Better Incarceration Coping was predictive of both less Suffering Relief due to redress and less experienced Positive Redress Impact. Lastly, when we examined the control variables, some significant associations emerged (see Appendix B). Indirect and total effects. Incarceration Coping was a significant inconsistent mediator for almost all relationships between predictors and redress outcome factors, with the exception of chance LOC. For chance LOC, Incarceration Coping was a significant full mediator for the association between chance LOC and redress outcome factors. The indirect effect between chance LOC and Redress Suffering Relief as well as redress positive impact was significant. In comparison to the previously mentioned significant direct effects, the indirect component showed weaker associations. With Incarceration Coping included as a mediator, the total effects show that BJW is a stronger predictor than any LOC domain for redress outcomes. Chance LOC’s associations with redress outcome factors are significant only when Incarceration Coping is considered. In addition, when the indirect effects are combined with the direct effects, powerful others and internal LOC

had no significant association with Redress Suffering Relief. Only significant paths with their coefficients are shown in Figure 2, but all coefficients are reported in Table 2.

Discussion This study examined the influence of individual differences in BJW and LOC on views of governmental redress among Japanese Americans unjustly incarcerated during World War II. As predicted, BJW had a stronger association with affirmative views of redress (i.e., greater relief and more positive impacts experienced from receiving redress), than any LOC (internal, PO, chance). BJW remained the strongest predictor after accounting for any mediating influence of Incarceration Coping. Some literature suggests that BJW is a stronger predictor as a result of its constant influence as a personality disposition throughout various developments in the life span (Dalbert, 2009; Furnham, 2003). Another explanation, however, could be that the redress items in this study more closely mirror concepts of justice than concepts of control. As expected, a higher BJW and higher PO LOC directly predicted more affirmative views of redress. Former incarcerees who believe the world is just, or acknowledge that to some extent others are in control, may conceptualize governmental reparation positively since it validates (a) a just world that does not ignore injustices and (b) their self-efficacy in addressing injustice through systems run by powerful others. Unexpectedly, a higher internal LOC also directly predicted more affirmative views of redress. Former incarcerees with a higher sense of personal control may have experienced redress as self-empowering, enabling one to make positive changes in life with more certainty and support. Interestingly, when combined with the indirect effects through coping, both PO LOC and internal LOC only predicted more Positive Redress Impacts and not relief from suffering, suggesting that coping may have a stronger influence on experienced relief post-redress. When examining only the direct effect of Incarceration Coping on redress reactions, we were surprised to see that better Coping


350 Table 2 Parameter Estimates From the Structural Model

90% CI


Model Direct BJW ¡ Incarceration coping Powerful others LOC ¡ Incarceration coping Internal LOC ¡ Incarceration coping Chance LOC ¡ Incarceration coping BJW ¡ Redress suffering relief Incarceration coping ¡ Redress suffering relief Powerful others LOC ¡ Redress suffering relief Internal LOC ¡ Redress suffering relief Chance LOC ¡ Redress suffering relief BJW ¡ Positive redress impact Incarceration coping ¡ Positive redress impact Powerful others LOC ¡ Positive redress impact Internal LOC ¡ Positive redress impact Chance LOC ¡ Positive redress impact Indirect (through incarceration coping) BJW ¡ Redress suffering relief BJW ¡ Positive redress impact Powerful others LOC ¡ Redress suffering relief Powerful others LOC ¡ Positive redress impact Internal LOC ¡ Redress suffering relief Internal LOC ¡ Positive redress impact Chance LOC ¡ Redress suffering relief Chance LOC ¡ Positive redress impact Total BJW ¡ Redress suffering relief BJW ¡ Positive redress impact Powerful others LOC ¡ Redress suffering relief Powerful others LOC ¡ Positive redress impact Internal LOC ¡ Redress suffering relief Internal LOC ¡ Positive redress impact Chance LOC ¡ Redress suffering relief Chance LOC ¡ Positive redress impact

bⴱ

b

SE

Lower

Upper

R2

0.56ⴱⴱⴱ 0.14ⴱ 0.09, p ⫽ .056 ⫺0.12, p ⫽ .053 0.95ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺0.76ⴱⴱⴱ 0.16ⴱ 0.12ⴱ 0.12 0.72ⴱⴱ ⫺0.45ⴱⴱⴱ 0.16ⴱⴱ 0.17ⴱⴱ 0.09

0.16 0.11 0.11 ⫺0.11 0.40 ⫺1.06 0.19 0.23 0.16 0.16 ⫺0.38 0.11 0.17 0.07

0.04 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.33 0.08 0.12 0.10 0.06 0.11 0.04 0.06 0.05

0.10 0.04 0.02 ⫺0.20 0.25 ⫺1.61 0.07 0.06 ⫺0.02 0.07 ⫺0.60 0.05 0.09 ⫺0.01

0.24 0.19 0.20 ⫺0.02 0.55 ⫺0.54 0.32 0.44 0.31 0.27 ⫺0.24 0.19 0.27 0.15

0.56

⫺0.39ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺0.26ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺0.09ⴱⴱ ⫺0.06ⴱⴱ ⫺0.06ⴱ ⫺0.04ⴱ 0.08ⴱ 0.05ⴱ

⫺0.17 ⫺0.06 ⫺0.12 ⫺0.04 ⫺0.12 ⫺0.04 0.04 0.11

0.07 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.08 0.03 0.07 0.03

⫺0.31 ⫺0.12 ⫺0.24 ⫺0.09 ⫺0.29 ⫺0.10 0.03 0.01

⫺0.08 ⫺0.03 ⫺0.05 ⫺0.02 ⫺0.03 ⫺0.01 0.27 0.10

0.56ⴱⴱⴱ 0.47ⴱⴱⴱ 0.07 0.10ⴱ 0.06 0.13ⴱⴱ 0.19ⴱⴱ 0.14ⴱⴱ

0.23 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.11 0.13 0.27 0.11

0.06 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.04

0.13 0.04 ⫺0.03 0.02 ⫺0.01 0.07 0.16 0.05

0.33 0.21 0.16 0.13 0.23 0.21 0.39 0.18

0.93

0.67

Note. BJW ⫽ belief in a just world; LOC ⫽ locus of control; bⴱ ⫽ standardized beta coefficient. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⱕ .001.

was associated with less Positive Redress Impact. This inverse trend could be framed within what is known about meaning making as an aspect of coping post-trauma. Meaning making is the process of making sense of significant events or stages in life, including lessons that are learned or insights that are gained (e.g., Bluck & Glück, 2004; McLean, 2005; McLean & Pratt, 2006). The passage of redress was much delayed for the former incarcerees with a span of more than four decades between incarceration and

Figure 2. Significant standardized total effects for the final model.

redress. During this large time gap, survivors attempted to make sense of what had happened in their own ways. Their reported coping likely included self-initiated meaning making efforts over the preceding decades, which possibly reduced the healing process influence of redress—a belated and externally provided resource for meaning making. Furthermore, although meaning making can trigger persisting distress or PTSD among some (Waters, Shallcross, & Fivush, 2013), it is often followed by positive adjustment (e.g., Park, 2010; Pennebaker & Chung, 2011). The Nisei’s selfreported coping may indicate such positive adjustment but it could also signify a repeated meaning making process that retains distress from the past. Reporting adequate coping does not mean that the process was easy nor does it mean that full healing has been achieved. Residual distress may explain why the associated response to redress is less positive. Finally, respondents reported their views for this study three years post-redress. The passage of time may have reduced their initial level of positivity toward redress. It may have also led to framing reductions in suffering from the incarceration and other markers of reconciliation (e.g., increased faith in the government, willingness to discuss the incarceration) as more attributable to their personal coping and strengths rather than redress.



Why did self-reported coping have a significant impact on explaining reactions to redress, in addition to personal dispositions such as BJW and LOC? Qualitative interviews with former incarcerees offer some insights to the question. The Nisei coped using a range of strategies, during and after their incarceration, which were strongly influenced by Japanese cultural values (Kinoshita, 2001; Nagata & Takeshita, 1998) including: gaman (persevering through hardships), shikata ga nai (acceptance of events as “it cannot be helped”), and enryo (self-restraint discouraging emotional expression; Homma-True, 1997). Such Japanese cultural values are associated with coping well, and the reported levels of coping may indicate particular cultural values. For example, when considering the inverse relationship between coping and positive views of redress within a cultural context, enryo may have led the Nisei to suppress emotional expression and communication about the incarceration in the past and present. In other words, reports of coping well may reflect more enryo as an internal resource. Those holding true to enryo may not be inclined to acknowledge a reduction of negative feelings from redress nor an increase in willingness to discuss the incarceration. The idea that Incarceration Coping is linked to cultural values may also help to explain the finding that coping accounted for some of BJW and LOC’s impact on redress views. Though personality dispositions hold substantial weight in individual responses toward events, it may be that learned cultural values underlie the strong influence of these dispositions. Just as Japanese cultural values impact the Nisei’s conscious behaviors and cognitions of coping, it is possible that these same values would interact with their world beliefs and affect their understanding of redress. For example, having a chance LOC could result in viewing redress as an impersonal random outcome; however, if one also holds the cultural stance of shikata ga nai (which implies a fatalistic outcome of events) redress might be framed as good fortune that one simply accepts. In addition, having an internal LOC may be insignificant in deciding whether redress had positive impacts because one has the control over adopting resilient behaviors or cognitions related to the incarceration. However, if one also upholds the cultural virtue of gaman (perseverance) as an internal resource, one may feel greater closure from redress as an external acknowledgment of personal endurance and strength. It is also plausible that individually held cultural values, which may underlie reported coping, influence the level of BJW held and the type of LOC endorsed. More research is needed to determine the degree to which the Nisei’s self-reported levels of Incarceration Coping are reflective of cultural values and whether specific values explain existing personality dispositions as well as diverse reactions to reparations and redress. Lastly, specific Redress Impact items used in this study reflect aspects of forgiveness (such as reduced negative emotions and cognitions, relief from psychological pain, and enhanced image of the offender) that can catalyze growth and reconciliation (Williamson & Gonzales, 2007; Worthington & Scherer, 2004). Future studies on former incarcerees’ self-reported coping and reactions to redress may help elucidate the process of forgiveness when dealing with transgressions. Although coping is a crucial component of reaching forgiveness (Strelan & Wojtysiak, 2009), only a handful of studies have linked the two (Konstam, Holmes, & Levine, 2003; Maltby, Day, & Barber, 2004). In the case of the Nisei, it would be helpful to assess the degree to which aspects of

351

forgiveness are associated with reported levels of coping, dispositional beliefs, and redress impacts.

Limitations The findings of this study should be considered with some limitations in mind. The sample did not include Japanese Americans who passed away prior to redress, and those recruited had chosen to remain in contact with fellow incarcerees via camp reunions. Data was collected only several years after the passage of redress (1995–1996), but nearly 50 years postincarceration overall, a timeframe that affected participants’ retrospective reports. The survey had a 38% response rate, an expected rate for a mailed paper-and-pencil survey, and we do not have information on nonresponders. Also, it is unclear why we have a nearly even number of men and women in our study when the 2000 U.S. Census data for Japanese ethnicity indicates that females outnumbered males (1.8: 1) for the age group of 65 and over (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). In addition, due to the cross-sectional data, the mediating role of coping presented only one potential explanation for the views of redress. Another possibility is that BJW and LOC mediate relationships between Incarceration Coping and redress outcomes. Future studies should test alternative models that would question whether self-evaluated coping from past experiences better predicts current beliefs of the world. BJW and LOC have yet to be studied in-depth over long periods of time, thus the extent of these constructs’ stability remains unknown. Reports on test– retest reliabilities (rs ⫽ .14⫺.92) have been limited to a range of 5 weeks to 2 years (e.g., Bègue & Bastounis, 2003; Reichle & Schmitt, 2002; Trice, 1985; Wehmeyer, 1994), and no test– retest scores from the Nisei are available. Longitudinal research is needed to validate the comparative stability of these individual difference constructs across the life span. Future studies should ideally measure reactions at multiple time points (i.e., pre-, during, and post-redress) to examine the potential ebb and flow in the relationship between these differences and positivity toward redress.

Conclusion and Implications This study contributes to the literature by demonstrating that individual differences in beliefs about justice and control, particularly BJW, among Nisei former incarcerees predicted responses toward governmental reparation beyond known associated demographic variables. Our findings also support the idea that both internal and a particular kind of external LOC, attributed to powerful others, can be associated with Positive Redress Impacts. In addition, we propose the potential significance of cultural values in shaping the Nisei’s self-reported coping as well as their attitudes toward acts of apology and redress. Alongside present results, additional factors warrant consideration in examining reactions to redress. First, the timing of implementing redress is important. While immediate redress may call into question the genuineness of an apology (Blatz et al., 2009), too long of a delay can reduce the impact of redress efforts. By the time Japanese American redress was approved and distributed, most of the Issei (first generation) who were in camps had passed away and positive Nisei responses to redress


352


were tempered by regrets that their parents did not live to receive the government’s apology and payment (Nagata & Takeshita, 1998). Second, crucial components of a government apology that can facilitate the victimized group’s sense of justice have been identified (Blatz et al., 2009) and should be incorporated appropriately. For example, praise for the victimized group is one component that allows for a restoration of pride in group identity. The redress letter sent by President George H. W. Bush (see Appendix C) omitted an explicit acceptance of responsibility and praise for the Japanese Americans. Given the high level of discrimination resulting from incarceration, including these components could have heightened the level of Positive Redress Impacts experienced by former incarcerees, by affirming their blamelessness publicly. With the knowledge that BJW is strongly associated with interpretations of governmental reparations, we emphasize two conclusions for future efforts. First, one-time governmental redress is not a panacea that restores all that has been lost by wrongdoing, nor does it fully heal inflicted pains. In particular, it appears that it is much less likely that redress will ameliorate the suffering and broken trust among those with a lower BJW. For these individuals, deliberate efforts to acknowledge and explore the past injustice may be most helpful in validating their experiences. This can occur privately in psychotherapy as well as publically through social justice movements and community events, such as pilgrimages to sites of historical trauma, screenings of documentaries on the subject, museum exhibits, and commemorative landmarks. Elevating broader public awareness about the injustice serves not only to validate former victims’ experiences but also to prevent a repetition of similar injustices by sensitizing greater numbers of individuals outside the victimized group. Second, our study suggests that one-time governmental redress can be perceived as having positive impacts for victims, particularly those with higher BJW. This provides support for the value of future reparations efforts; redress can affirm that the world is just, despite wrongdoings experienced. To affirm a sense of justice, it will be important to learn what may be the most relevant, helpful, and meaningful way to make reparations for that particular population. Moreover, when these reparations are implemented, there should be a cognizance that redress will impact how the victimized group is viewed by others in society. Redress should clearly communicate that the recipients justly deserve governmental reparations to avoid perceptions that they are marginalized individuals who are receiving special consideration for past events. It is recognized that certain injustices are considered “unforgivable.”5 Regardless of the reality that an apology and compensation cannot fully restore relations between the victim and the aggressor, a sincere apology with action is necessary on principles of social justice. This is relevant to other groups in the United States including Native Americans experiencing historical and continuing trauma, African Americans faced with ongoing discrimination and longstanding consequences of slavery, Arab Americans subjected to suspicions of disloyalty and discrimination post-9/11, as well as various immigrant and refugee populations subject to inhumane detainment under inadequate conditions. Many varied factors will determine different groups’ reactions to redress and individuals’ reactions

within those groups, but redress can be an essential step for healing and growth.

5 Injustices that destroy all control and prior beliefs about oneself and others (Flanigan, 1992, p. 288).

References Adoric, V. C., & Kvartuc, T. (2007). Effects of mobbing on justice beliefs and adjustment. European Psychologist, 12, 261–271. doi:10.1027/ 1016-9040.12.4.261 Barkan, E. (2000). The guilt of nations: Restitution and negotiating historical injustices. New York, NY: Norton. Bègue, L., & Bastounis, M. (2003). Two spheres of belief in justice: Extensive support for the bidimensional model of belief in a just world. Journal of Personality, 71, 435– 463. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.7103007 Bjorck, J. P., Lee, Y. S., & Cohen, L. H. (1997). Control beliefs and faith as stress moderators for Korean American versus Caucasian American protestants. American Journal of Community Psychology, 25, 61–72. doi:10.1023/A:1024645824829 Blatz, C. W., Schumann, K., & Ross, M. (2009). Government apologies for historical injustices. Political Psychology, 30, 219 –241. doi:10.1111/j .1467-9221.2008.00689.x Bluck, S., & Glück, J. (2004). Making things better and learning a lesson: experiencing wisdom across the lifespan. Journal of Personality, 72, 543–572. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00272.x Brooks, R. L. (1999). When sorry isn’t enough: The controversy over apologies and reparations for human injustice. New York, NY: University Press. Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians. (1997). Personal justice denied. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. Culley, J. (1991). The Santa Fe internment camp and the Justice Department program for enemy aliens. In R. Daniels, S. C. Taylor, & H. H. L. Kitano. Japanese Americans, from relocation to redress (pp. 51–71). Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. Dalbert, C. (2001). The justice motive as a personal resource: Dealing with challenges and critical life events. New York, NY: Plenum Press. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3383-9 Dalbert, C. (2009). Belief in a just world. In M. Leary & R. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 288 –297). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Dalbert, C., Lipkus, I. M., Sallay, H., & Goch, I. (2001). A just and an unjust world: Structure and validity of different world beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 561–577. doi:10.1016/S01918869(00)00055-6 Daniels, R. (1995). The internment of Japanese nationals in the United States during World War II. Halcyon: A Journal of the Humanities, 17, 65–75. Daniels, R., Taylor, S. C., & Kitano, H. H. L. (Eds.). (1991). Japanese Americans: From relocation to redress. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press. Flanigan, B. (1992). Forgiving the Unforgivable. New York, NY: Macmillan. Fugita, S., & Fernandez, M. (2004). Altered lives, enduring community: Japanese Americans remember their World War II incarceration. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. Furnham, A. (2003). Belief in a just world: Research progress over the past decade. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 795– 817. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00072-7 Furnham, A., & Procter, E. (1989). Belief in a just world: Review and critique of the individual difference literature. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 365–384. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1989 .tb00880.x


BELIEF IN A JUST WORLD AND RESPONSE TO REDRESS Glass, D. C., & Singer, J. E. (1972). Urban stress: Experiments on noise and social stressors. New York, NY: Academic Press. Guagnano, G., Acredolo, C., Hawkes, G. R., Ellyson, S., & White, N. (1986). Locus of control: Demographic factors and their interactions. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 1, 365–380. Homma-True, R. (1997). Japanese American families. In E. Lee (Ed.), Working with Asian American families: A guide for clinicians (pp. 165–174). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 Kinoshita, L. M. (2001). The Japanese internment during World War II and the second-generation Nisei: An examination of their past and present coping and adjustment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pacific Graduate School of Psychology, Palo Alto, CA. Konstam, V., Holmes, W., & Levine, B. (2003). Empathy, selfism, and coping as elements of the psychology of forgiveness: A preliminary study. Counseling and Values, 47, 172–183. doi:10.1002/j.2161-007X .2003.tb00264.x Krampen, G., & Wieberg, H. J. W. (1981). Three aspects of locus of control in German, American, and Japanese university students. Journal of Social Psychology, 113, 133–134. doi:10.1080/00224545.1981 .9924357 Langer, E. J., & Rodin, J. (1976). The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for the aged: A field experiment in an institutional setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 191– 198. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.34.2.191 Lao, R. C. (1978). Levenson’s IPC (Internal-External Control) Scale: A comparison of Chinese and American Students. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 9, 113–124. doi:10.1177/002202217891009 Lefcourt, H. M. (1976). Locus of control and the response to aversive events. Canadian Psychological Review/Psychologie Canadienne, 17, 202–209. doi:10.1037/h0081839 Lefcourt, H. M. (1982). Locus of control: Current trends in theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: a fundamental delusion. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Levenson, H. (1972). Distinctions within the concept of internal-external control; Development of a new scale. In Proceedings of the 80th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI (Vol. 7, pp. 261–262). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Levenson, H. (1973). Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41, 397– 404. doi:10.1037/h0035357 Levenson, H. (1981). Differentiating among internality, powerful others, and chance. In H. M. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the locus of control construct (pp. 15– 63). New York, NY: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/ B978-0-12-443201-7.50006-3 Lipkus, I. M. (1991). The construction and preliminary validation of a global belief in a just world scale and the exploratory analysis of the multidimensional Belief in a Just World Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 1171–1178. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(91)90081-L Lipkus, I. M., Dalbert, C., & Siegler, I. C. (1996). The importance of distinguishing the belief in a just world for self versus for others: Implications for psychological well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 666 – 677. doi:10.1177/0146167296227002 Loo, C. M. (1993). An integrative-sequential treatment model for posttraumatic stress disorder: A case study of the Japanese American internment and redress. Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 89 –117. doi:10.1016/ 0272-7358(93)90036-L Loo, R. (2002). Belief in a just world: Support for independent just world and unjust world dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 703–711. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00185-4

353

MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130 –149. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.1.2 .130 Mahler, I., Greenberg, L., & Hayashi, H. (1981). A comparative study of rules of justice: Japanese versus American. Psychologia, 24, 1, 1– 8. Maki, M. T., Kitano, H. H. L., & Berthold, S. M. (1999). Achieving the impossible dream: How Japanese Americans obtained redress. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Maltby, J., Day, L., & Barber, L. (2004). Forgiveness and mental health variables: Interpreting the relationship using an adaptational-continuum model of personality and coping. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1629 –1641. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.02.017 McCoach, D. B., & Adelson, J. L. (2010). Dealing with dependence: Part I. Understanding the effects of clustered data. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 152–155. doi:10.1177/0016986210363076 McLean, K. C. (2005). Late adolescent identity development: Narrative meaning making and memory telling. Developmental Psychology, 41, 683– 691. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.4.683 McLean, K. C., & Pratt, M. W. (2006). Life’s little (and big) lessons: Identity statuses and meaning making in the turning point narratives of emerging adults. Developmental Psychology, 42, 714 –722. doi:10.1037/ 0012-1649.42.4.714 Menec, V. H., & Chipperfield, J. G. (1997). Remaining active in later life. The role of locus of control in seniors’ leisure activity participation, health, and life satisfaction. Journal of Aging and Health, 9, 105–125. doi:10.1177/089826439700900106 Minow, M. (1998). Between vengeance and forgiveness: Facing history after genocide and mass violence. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Muller, R. T., Caldwell, R. A., & Hunter, J. E. (1994). Factors predicting the blaming of victims of physical child abuse or rape. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 26, 259 –279. doi:10.1037/0008-400X.26.2.259 Nagata, D. K., & Takeshita, Y. J. (1998). Coping and resilience across generations: Japanese Americans and the World War II internment. Psychoanalytic Review, 85, 587– 613. Nagata, D. K., & Takeshita, Y. J. (2002). Psychological reactions to redress: Diversity among Japanese Americans interned during World War II. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8, 41–59. doi:10.1037/1099-9809.8.1.41 Nagata, D. K., & Tsuru, G. (2007). Psychosocial correlates of self-reported coping among Japanese Americans interned during World War II. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77, 221–230. doi:10.1037/0002-9432 .77.2.221 Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGrawHill. Ogawa, D. M., & Fox, E. C., Jr. (1986). Japanese American internment and relocation: The Hawaii experience. In R. Daniels, S. C. Taylor, and H. H. L. Kitano (Eds.), Japanese Americans: From relocation to redress (pp. 135–138). Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press. Otto, K., & Dalbert, C. (2005). Belief in a just world and its functions for young prisoners. Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 559 –573. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2005.01.004 Park, C. L. (2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: An integrative review of meaning making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 257–301. doi:10.1037/a0018301 Park, S. E., & Harrison, A. A. (1995). Career-related interests and values, perceived control, and acculturation of Asian American and Caucasian American college students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1184 –1203. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb02613.x Parks, C., Becker, W. M., Chamberlain, J. M., & Crandell, J. M. (1975). Eliminating self-defeating behaviors and change in locus of control. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 91, 115–120. doi:10.1080/00223980.1975.9915804


354


Pennebaker, J., & Chung, C. (2011). Expressive writing and its links to mental and physical health. In H. S. Friedman (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of health psychology (pp. 417– 437). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Reichle, B., & Schmitt, M. (2002). Helping and rationalization as alternative strategies for restoring the belief in a just world: Evidence from longitudinal change analyses. In M. J. Lerner, M. Ross, & D. T. Miller (Eds.), The justice motive in everyday life (pp. 127–148). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. New York, NY: Prentice Hall. Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1975). Who believes in a just world? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 65– 89. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1975.tb00997.x Sastry, J., & Ross, C. E. (1998). Asian ethnicity and the sense of personal control. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 101–120. doi:10.2307/2787064 Schmitt, M. (1997). Challenges to the construct validity of belief in a just world scales. Berichte aus der Arbeitsgruppe Verantwortung, Gerechtigkeit, Moral, 107, 1–52. Retrieved from http://www.gerechtigkeitsforschung.de/berichte/ beri107.pdf Strelan, P., & Wojtysiak, N. (2009). Strategies for coping with interpersonal hurt: Preliminary evidence for the relationship between coping and forgiveness. Counseling and Values, 53, 97–112. doi:10.1002/j.2161007X.2009.tb00117.x Sue, D. W., Bucceri, J., Lin, A. I., Nadal, K. L., & Torino, G. C. (2007). Racial microaggressions and the Asian American experience. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13, 72– 81. doi:10.1037/ 1099-9809.13.1.72 Sutton, R. M., & Douglas, K. M. (2005). Justice for all, or just for me? More evidence of the importance of the self-other distinction in justworld beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 637– 645. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.010 Takezawa, Y. I. (1995). Breaking the silence: Redress and Japanese American ethnicity. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Thomas, S. L., & Heck, R. H. (2001). Analysis of large-scale secondary data in higher education research: Potential perils associated with complex sampling designs. Research in Higher Education, 42, 517–540. doi:10.1023/A:1011098109834

Trice, A. D. (1985). An academic locus of control scale for college students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 1043–1046. doi:10.2466/pms .1985.61.3f.1043 U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder. (2000). Profile of general demographic characteristics: 2000. Retrieved from http://factfinder2 .census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid⫽ DEC_00_SF2_QTP1&prodType⫽table U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1997, May 16). U.S. Public Health Service syphilis study at Tuskegee: Presidential apology. Retrieved from http:// www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/clintonp.htm U.S. Public Law 103–150. (1993). Apology for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Retrieved from http://www.hawaii-nation.org/ publawall.html Valins, S., & Nisbett, R. E. (1971). Attribution processes in the development and treatment of emotional disorders. New York, NY: General Learning Press. Waters, T. E. A., Shallcross, J. F., & Fivush, R. (2013). The many facets of meaning making: Comparing multiple measures of meaning making and their relations to psychological distress. Memory, 21, 111–124. doi:10.1080/09658211.2012.705300 Wehmeyer, M. L. (1994). Reliability and acquiescence in the measurement of locus of control with adolescents and adults with mental retardation. Psychological Reports, 75, 527–537. doi:10.2466/pr0.1994.75.1.527 Williamson, I., & Gonzales, M. H. (2007). The subjective experience of forgiveness: Positive construals of the forgiveness experience. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 407– 446. doi:10.1521/jscp.2007 .26.4.407 Worthington, E. L., & Scherer, M. (2004). Forgiveness is an emotionfocused coping strategy that can reduce health risks and promote health resilience: Theory, review, and hypotheses. Psychology & Health, 19, 385– 405. doi:10.1080/0887044042000196674 Zuckerman, M., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1977). Belief in internal control or belief in a just world: The use and misuse of the I-E scale in prediction of attitudes and behavior. Journal of Personality, 45, 356 –378. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1977.tb00158.x


355

Appendix A


Correlation Matrix for Study Variables (N ⴝ 511)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

Just world mean Unjust world mean Religious affiliation Time incarcerated Japanese American preference Negative Communication Negative Emotions Chance LOC mean Powerful Others LOC mean Internal LOC mean Income Self Esteem mean Sex Monetary support Redress Advocacy Age Redress brought closure Willing to discuss (children) Redress brought relief Willing to discuss (others) Reduced negative feelings Increased faith in govt. Relieve emotional suffering Relieve physical suffering Relieve economical suffering Physical coping Emotional coping Economical coping

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

— 0.09ⴱ ⫺0.11ⴱ 0.07 0.12ⴱⴱ 0.04 0.07 0.11ⴱ ⫺0.05 0.31ⴱⴱ ⫺0.11ⴱⴱ 0.02 ⫺0.01 ⫺0.07 0.09ⴱ 0.16ⴱⴱ 0.18ⴱⴱ 0.28ⴱⴱ 0.28ⴱⴱ 0.28ⴱⴱ 0.24ⴱⴱ 0.18ⴱⴱ 0.21ⴱⴱ 0.24ⴱⴱ 0.27ⴱⴱ 0.05 0.09 ⫺0.07

— ⫺0.06 0.04 ⫺0.06 ⫺0.13ⴱⴱ ⫺0.18ⴱⴱ ⫺0.38ⴱⴱ ⫺0.39 ⫺0.04 0.13ⴱⴱ 0.19ⴱⴱ 0.07 0.07 0.00 ⫺0.08 ⫺0.09ⴱ ⫺0.06 ⫺0.06 ⫺0.05 0.02 0.02 ⫺0.04 ⫺0.08 ⫺0.09 0.04 0.13ⴱⴱ 0.07

— ⫺0.19ⴱⴱ ⫺0.11ⴱ ⫺0.09 ⫺0.09 ⫺0.13ⴱⴱ ⫺0.01 ⫺0.03 ⫺0.04 0.13ⴱⴱ ⫺0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 ⫺0.04 ⫺0.04 ⫺0.06 ⫺0.04 ⫺0.03 ⫺0.03 ⫺0.11ⴱ ⫺0.18ⴱⴱ ⫺0.16ⴱⴱ 0.07 0.06 0.09

— 0.09 0.05 ⫺0.03 ⫺0.05 ⫺0.02 0.02 0.12ⴱⴱ ⫺0.05 0.06 ⫺0.01 ⫺0.03 ⫺0.28ⴱⴱ ⫺0.06 ⫺0.03 ⫺0.04 ⫺0.03 ⫺0.06 ⫺0.02 0.00 0.04 0.06 ⫺0.01 ⫺0.06 ⫺0.09ⴱ

— 0.28ⴱⴱ 0.19ⴱⴱ 0.16ⴱⴱ 0.15ⴱⴱ 0.06 0.01 ⫺0.14ⴱⴱ ⫺0.10ⴱ ⫺0.08 0.10ⴱ 0.00 0.09ⴱ 0.10ⴱ 0.19ⴱⴱ 0.15ⴱⴱ 0.08 0.05 0.11ⴱ 0.14ⴱⴱ 0.16ⴱⴱ ⫺0.13ⴱⴱ ⫺0.20ⴱⴱ ⫺0.18ⴱⴱ

— 0.45ⴱⴱ 0.26ⴱⴱ 0.23ⴱⴱ ⫺0.05 ⫺0.13ⴱⴱ ⫺0.31ⴱⴱ 0.01 ⫺0.14ⴱⴱ 0.06 0.03 0.21ⴱⴱ 0.23ⴱⴱ 0.26ⴱⴱ 0.20ⴱⴱ 0.24ⴱⴱ 0.17ⴱⴱ 0.28ⴱⴱ 0.34ⴱⴱ 0.31ⴱⴱ ⫺0.28ⴱⴱ ⫺0.33ⴱⴱ ⫺0.16ⴱⴱ

— 0.26ⴱⴱ 0.21ⴱⴱ 0.05 ⫺0.11ⴱ ⫺0.14ⴱⴱ ⫺0.02 ⫺0.16ⴱⴱ 0.24ⴱⴱ 0.11ⴱ 0.15ⴱⴱ 0.26ⴱⴱ 0.25ⴱⴱ 0.25ⴱⴱ 0.05 0.10ⴱ 0.33ⴱⴱ 0.35ⴱⴱ 0.27ⴱⴱ ⫺0.20ⴱⴱ ⫺0.24ⴱⴱ ⫺0.07

— 0.54ⴱⴱ ⫺0.13ⴱⴱ ⫺0.23ⴱⴱ ⫺0.42ⴱⴱ 0.03 0.00 0.07 0.15ⴱⴱ 0.22ⴱⴱ 0.24ⴱⴱ 0.26ⴱⴱ 0.24ⴱⴱ 0.21ⴱⴱ 0.05 0.25ⴱⴱ 0.35ⴱⴱ 0.35ⴱⴱ ⫺0.25ⴱⴱ ⫺0.23ⴱⴱ ⫺0.22ⴱⴱ

9

10

— ⫺0.07 — ⫺0.08 0.02 ⴱⴱ ⫺0.28 0.31ⴱⴱ ⫺0.05 0.04 ⫺0.04 ⫺0.11ⴱⴱ ⫺0.06 0.05 ⫺0.02 ⫺0.04 0.13ⴱⴱ 0.08 0.14ⴱⴱ 0.10ⴱ 0.16ⴱⴱ 0.15ⴱⴱ 0.11ⴱ 0.08 0.15ⴱⴱ 0.06 0.08 0.14ⴱⴱ 0.19ⴱⴱ 0.08 0.19ⴱⴱ 0.06 0.16ⴱⴱ 0.01 ⫺0.07 0.24ⴱⴱ ⫺0.10ⴱ 0.17ⴱⴱ ⫺0.06 0.07

11

12

— 0.19ⴱⴱ ⫺0.38ⴱⴱ ⫺0.01 ⫺0.08 ⫺0.10ⴱ ⫺0.09 ⫺0.23ⴱⴱ ⫺0.21ⴱⴱ ⫺0.20ⴱⴱ ⫺0.12ⴱⴱ ⫺0.06 ⫺0.16ⴱⴱ ⫺0.25ⴱⴱ ⫺0.34ⴱⴱ 0.14ⴱⴱ 0.15ⴱⴱ 0.23ⴱⴱ

— 0.03 ⫺0.10ⴱ 0.03 ⫺0.08 ⫺0.06 ⫺0.05 ⫺0.09 ⫺0.10ⴱ ⫺0.09 0.01 ⫺0.10ⴱ ⫺0.20ⴱⴱ ⫺0.28ⴱⴱ 0.29ⴱⴱ 0.33ⴱⴱ 0.25ⴱⴱ

Note. Coding for categorical control variables were as follows: Religious affiliation (1 ⫽ Buddhist, 2 ⫽ Christian), Sex (1 ⫽ Male, 2 ⫽ Female), Monetary support (1 ⫽ For, 2 ⫽ Undecided/Opposed). Description of other control variables can be found in other listed publications (Nagata & Takeshita, 2002; Nagata & Tsuru, 2007). ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

(Appendices continue)


356


13

— ⫺0.04 ⫺0.02 ⫺0.19ⴱⴱ 0.14ⴱⴱ 0.17ⴱⴱ 0.12ⴱⴱ 0.10ⴱ 0.12ⴱⴱ 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.12ⴱ 0.02 0.01 0.00

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

— ⫺0.22ⴱⴱ — 0.04 0.11ⴱ — ⫺0.12ⴱⴱ 0.21ⴱⴱ 0.06 — ⫺0.24ⴱⴱ 0.35ⴱⴱ 0.12ⴱⴱ 0.47ⴱⴱ — ⫺0.25ⴱⴱ 0.36ⴱⴱ 0.08 0.45ⴱⴱ 0.71ⴱⴱ — ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⫺0.20 0.36 0.07 0.33 0.79ⴱⴱ 0.64ⴱⴱ — ⫺0.08 0.12ⴱⴱ 0.09ⴱ 0.43ⴱⴱ 0.51ⴱⴱ 0.53ⴱⴱ 0.38ⴱⴱ — ⫺0.15ⴱⴱ 0.15ⴱⴱ 0.03 0.36ⴱⴱ 0.32ⴱⴱ 0.42ⴱⴱ 0.28ⴱⴱ 0.43ⴱⴱ ⫺0.28ⴱⴱ 0.27ⴱⴱ 0.14ⴱⴱ 0.40ⴱⴱ 0.50ⴱⴱ 0.54ⴱⴱ 0.45ⴱⴱ 0.43ⴱⴱ ⫺0.19ⴱⴱ 0.23ⴱⴱ 0.13ⴱⴱ 0.42ⴱⴱ 0.48ⴱⴱ 0.48ⴱⴱ 0.40ⴱⴱ 0.39ⴱⴱ ⫺0.13ⴱⴱ 0.18ⴱⴱ 0.15ⴱⴱ 0.31ⴱⴱ 0.41ⴱⴱ 0.44ⴱⴱ 0.42ⴱⴱ 0.35ⴱⴱ 0.01 ⫺0.04 ⫺0.04 ⫺0.08 ⫺0.12ⴱ ⫺0.08 ⫺0.14ⴱⴱ ⫺0.06 ⫺0.01 ⫺0.05 ⫺0.01 0.00 ⫺0.05 ⫺0.09ⴱ ⫺0.13ⴱⴱ ⫺0.02 0.02 0.00 ⫺0.06 ⫺0.01 ⫺0.05 ⫺0.10ⴱ ⫺0.12ⴱ ⫺0.03

23

24

25

26

27

28

— 0.42ⴱⴱ — 0.29ⴱⴱ 0.67ⴱⴱ — 0.23ⴱⴱ 0.54ⴱⴱ 0.66ⴱⴱ — 0.07 ⫺0.11ⴱ ⫺0.21ⴱⴱ ⫺0.22ⴱⴱ — 0.06 ⫺0.05 ⫺0.15ⴱⴱ ⫺0.19ⴱⴱ 0.73ⴱⴱ — ⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ 0.03 ⫺0.11 ⫺0.21 ⫺0.27 0.46ⴱⴱ 0.60ⴱⴱ —

Appendix B Significant Direct Effects for Control Variables 90% CI Direct effect

bⴱ

b

SE

Lower

Upper

Self-esteem ¡ Coping Income ¡ Coping Japanese American preference ¡ Coping Negative emotions ¡ Coping Negative communication ¡ Coping Redress activism ¡ Redress suffering relief (RSR) Support monetary compensation ¡ RSR Age ¡ RSR Redress activism ¡ Positive redress impact (PRI) Support monetary compensation ¡ PRI Sex ¡ PRI

0.14ⴱⴱ 0.10ⴱ ⫺0.12ⴱⴱ ⫺0.13ⴱⴱ ⫺0.22ⴱⴱⴱ 0.18ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺0.17ⴱⴱⴱ 0.09ⴱ 0.31ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺0.15ⴱⴱⴱ 0.15ⴱⴱ

0.34 0.03 ⫺0.20 ⫺0.08 ⫺0.17 0.13 ⫺0.50 0.24 0.14 ⫺0.27 0.24

0.12 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.12 0.12 0.02 0.08 0.08

0.16 0.10 ⫺0.33 ⫺0.13 ⫺0.24 0.09 ⫺0.71 0.05 0.11 ⫺0.40 ⫺0.01

0.53 0.06 ⫺0.08 ⫺0.04 ⫺0.12 0.19 ⫺0.30 0.43 0.18 ⫺0.15 0.22

Note. bⴱ ⫽ standardized beta coefficient. p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

ⴱ


357

Appendix C Letter of Apology From the President of the United States


The White House, Washington A monetary sum and words alone cannot restore lost years or erase painful memories; neither can they fully convey our Nation’s resolve to rectify injustice and to uphold the rights of individuals. We can never fully right the wrongs of the past. But we can take a clear stand for justice and recognize that serious injustices were done to Japanese Americans during World War II. In enacting a law calling for restitution and offering a sincere apology, your fellow Americans have, in a very real sense,

renewed their traditional commitment to the ideals of freedom, equality, and justice. You and your family have our best wishes for the future.

Sincerely, George Bush President of the United States October 1990

Members of Underrepresented Groups: Reviewers for Journal Manuscripts Wanted If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts for APA journals, the APA Publications and Communications Board would like to invite your participation. Manuscript reviewers are vital to the publications process. As a reviewer, you would gain valuable experience in publishing. The P&C Board is particularly interested in encouraging members of underrepresented groups to participate more in this process. If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts, please write APA Journals at [email protected]. Please note the following important points: • To be selected as a reviewer, you must have published articles in peer-reviewed journals. The experience of publishing provides a reviewer with the basis for preparing a thorough, objective review. • To be selected, it is critical to be a regular reader of the five to six empirical journals that are most central to the area or journal for which you would like to review. Current knowledge of recently published research provides a reviewer with the knowledge base to evaluate a new submission within the context of existing research. • To select the appropriate reviewers for each manuscript, the editor needs detailed information. Please include with your letter your vita. In the letter, please identify which APA journal(s) you are interested in, and describe your area of expertise. Be as specific as possible. For example, “social psychology” is not sufficient—you would need to specify “social cognition” or “attitude change” as well. • Reviewing a manuscript takes time (1– 4 hours per manuscript reviewed). If you are selected to review a manuscript, be prepared to invest the necessary time to evaluate the manuscript thoroughly. APA now has an online video course that provides guidance in reviewing manuscripts. To learn more about the course and to access the video, visit http://www.apa.org/pubs/authors/reviewmanuscript-ce-video.aspx.

World War II and Mayo.

Belief in a just world and attitudes toward AIDS sufferers.

A 'German world' shared among doctors: a history of the relationship between Japanese and German psychiatry before World War II.

U.S. responses to Japanese wartime inhuman experimentation after World War II.

Belief in a just what? Demystifying just world beliefs by distinguishing sources of justice.

American Surgeons at Musgrave Park Hospital in World War II: Surgical Giants.

First World War.

Example of human individual identification from World War II gravesite.

Clinical presentation of PTSD in World War II combat veterans.

World war on smoking.

Seventy years after the end of World War II.

The lifelong struggle of Finnish World War II veterans.

The role of just world belief and anger issues in self-defeating personality.

The impact of World War II on U.S. medicine.

Cognitive and Affective Empathy, Personal Belief in a Just World, and Bullying Among Offenders.

Imperial War Museum--First World War centenary.

World War I psychoneuroses: hysteria goes to war.

Lung cancer after employment in shipyards during World War II.

Looking to the Future From the Past: Take Home Lessons From Japanese World War II Medical Atrocities.

Belief in a just world lowers perceived intention of corruption: the mediating role of perceived punishment.

Postcards during World War I.

Allied against sin: American and British responses to venereal disease in World War I.

Tobacco: the Third World war.

The Battle of the Atlantic and American Preparations for World War II in Northern Ireland, 1940-1941 (before Pearl Harbor).