The Oxford Handbook of Multicultural Identity (Oxford Library of Psychology) [1 ed.] 9780199796694, 2014006430, 0199796696

Multiculturalism is a prevalent worldwide societal phenomenon. Aspects of our modern life, such as migration, economic g

242 49 27MB

English Pages 560 [561] Year 2014

Report DMCA / Copyright


Polecaj historie

The Oxford Handbook of Multicultural Identity (Oxford Library of Psychology) [1 ed.]
 9780199796694, 2014006430, 0199796696

Table of contents :
The Oxford Handbook of Multicultural Identity
Short contents
Oxford Library of Psychology
About the Editors
1 Introduction: The Psychology of Multicultural Identity and Experiences
Part 1 Definitional Issues and Basic Processes
2 Dynamic Multiculturalism: The Interplay of Socio-Cognitive, Neural, and Genetic Mechanisms
3 The Bilingual Brain: Language, Culture, and Identity
4 The Identity Dynamics of Acculturation and Multiculturalism: Situating Acculturation in Context
Part 2 The Social-Psychological Context
5 Multicultural Societies
6 The Social Psychology of Multiculturalism: Identitty and Intergroup Relations
7 Exploring the Identity Autonomy Perspective (IAP): An Integrative Theoretical Approach to Multicultural and Multiracial Identity
8 Multiple Groups, Multiple Identities, and Intersectionality
9 Psychological Science of Globalization
Part 3 Measurement and Validity Issues
10 Assessment of Psychological Acculturation and Multiculturalism: An Overview of Measures in the Public Domain
11 Implicit Multicultural Identities
Part 4 Individual Differences
12 Personality and Multicultural Effectiveness
13 Variations in Multicultural Experience: Influence of Bicultural Identity Intergration on Socio-Cognitive Processes and Outcomes
14 Multiculturalism and Adjustment
Part 5 Development, Education, and Counseling
15 Identity Formation in Bicultural Youth: A Developmental Perspective
16 Childhood Socialization and Academic Performance of Bicultural Youth
17 Multicultural Education and Global Citizens
18 Multicultural Counseling and Therapy Counseling for Social Justice
Part 6 Applied Perspectives
19 Bridging Cultural Divides: Traversing Organizational and Psychological Perspectives on Multiculturalism
20 Cultural Diversity and Marketing: The Multicultural Consumer
21 Policies for Managing Cultural Diversity
22 Managing Identity Issues in Intercultural Conflict Communication: Developing a Multicultural Identity Attunement Lens
Author Index
subject Index

Citation preview

The Oxford Handbook of Multicultural Identity


Editor-in-Chief Peter E. Nathan Area Editors:

Clinical Psychology David H. Barlow

Cognitive Neuroscience Kevin N. Ochsner and Stephen M. Kosslyn

Cognitive Psychology Daniel Reisberg

Counseling Psychology Elizabeth M. Altmaier and Jo-Ida C. Hansen

Developmental Psychology Philip David Zelazo

Health Psychology Howard S. Friedman

History of Psychology David B. Baker

Methods and Measurement Todd D. Little

Neuropsychology Kenneth M. Adams

Organizational Psychology Steve W. J. Kozlowski

Personality and Social Psychology Kay Deaux and Mark Snyder




Editor in Chief


peter e. nathan

The Oxford Handbook of Multicultural Identity Edited by

Verónica Benet-Martínez and Ying-yi Hong


1 Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016

© Oxford University Press 2014 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The Oxford handbook of multicultural identity / edited by Veronica Benet-Martinez, Ying-yi Hong. pages cm.—(Oxford library of psychology) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978–0–19–979669–4 1. Assimilation (Sociology)  2. Group identity.  3. Ethnicity.  4. Ethnopsychology.  5. Identity (Psychology) 6.  Transnationalism—Psychological aspects.  7.  Multiculturalism—Psychological aspects.  I.  Benet-Martinez, Veronica. II.  Hong, Ying-yi, 1964– HM843.O94 2014 305—dc23 2014006430

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper


Oxford Library of Psychology vii About the Editors ix Contributors xi Contents xv Chapters 1–506 Index 507



The Oxford Library of Psychology, a landmark series of handbooks, is published by Oxford University Press, one of the world’s oldest and most highly respected publishers, with a tradition of publishing significant books in psychology. The ambitious goal of the Oxford Library of Psychology is nothing less than to span a vibrant, wide-ranging field and, in so doing, to fill a clear market need. Encompassing a comprehensive set of handbooks, organized hierarchically, the Library incorporates volumes at different levels, each designed to meet a distinct need. At one level are a set of handbooks designed broadly to survey the major subfields of psychology; at another are numerous handbooks that cover important current focal research and scholarly areas of psychology in depth and detail. Planned as a reflection of the dynamism of psychology, the Library will grow and expand as psychology itself develops, thereby highlighting significant new research that will impact on the field. Adding to its accessibility and ease of use, the Library will be published in print and, later on, electronically. The Library surveys psychology’s principal subfields with a set of handbooks that capture the current status and future prospects of those major subdisciplines. This initial set includes handbooks of social and personality psychology, clinical psychology, counseling psychology, school psychology, educational psychology, industrial and organizational psychology, cognitive psychology, cognitive neuroscience, methods and measurements, history, neuropsychology, personality assessment, developmental psychology, and more. Each handbook undertakes to review one of psychology’s major subdisciplines with breadth, comprehensiveness, and exemplary scholarship. In addition to these broadly conceived volumes, the Library also includes a large number of handbooks designed to explore, in depth, more specialized areas of scholarship and research, such as stress, health and coping, anxiety and related disorders, cognitive development, or child and adolescent assessment. In contrast to the broad coverage of the subfield handbooks, each of these latter volumes focuses on an especially productive, more highly focused line of scholarship and research. Whether at the broadest or most specific level, however, all the Library handbooks offer synthetic coverage that reviews and evaluates the relevant past and present research and anticipates research in the future. Each handbook in the Library includes introductory and concluding chapters written by its editor to provide a roadmap to the handbook’s table of contents and to offer informed anticipations of significant future developments in that field. An undertaking of this scope calls for handbook editors and chapter authors who are established scholars in the areas about which they write. Many of the nation’s


and world’s most productive and best-respected psychologists have agreed to edit Library handbooks or write authoritative chapters in their areas of expertise. For whom has the Oxford Library of Psychology been written? Because of its breadth, depth, and accessibility, the Library serves a diverse audience, including graduate students in psychology and their faculty mentors, scholars, researchers, and practitioners in psychology and related fields. Each will find in the Library the information they seek on the subfield or focal area of psychology in which they work or are interested. Befitting its commitment to accessibility, each handbook includes a comprehensive index, as well as extensive references to help guide research. And because the Library was designed from its inception as an online as well as a print resource, its structure and contents will be readily and rationally searchable online. Further, once the Library is released online, the handbooks will be regularly and thoroughly updated. In summary, the Oxford Library of Psychology will grow organically to provide a thoroughly informed perspective on the field of psychology, one that reflects both psychology’s dynamism and its increasing interdisciplinarity. Once published electronically, the Library is also destined to become a uniquely valuable interactive tool, with extended search and browsing capabilities. As you begin to consult this handbook, we sincerely hope you will share our enthusiasm for the more than 500-year tradition of Oxford University Press for excellence, innovation, and quality, as exemplified by the Oxford Library of Psychology. Peter E. Nathan Editor-in-Chief Oxford Library of Psychology


Oxford Library of Psychology


Verónica Benet-Martínez is currently an ICREA professor in the Department of Political and Social Sciences at Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), Barcelona, Spain, where she leads the Behavioral and Experimental Social Sciences group. Before joining ICREA and UPF, she held faculty positions at the University of California, Riverside and the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and was a funded postdoctoral fellow at the Institute for Personality and Social Research of the University of California, Berkeley. She obtained a PhD in Social-Personality Psychology from the University of California, Davis. Dr.  Benet-Martínez is appointed fellow of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP), associate editor for the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and member of the editorial board for several psychology journals.  She has also been an executive committee member for the International Association of Cross-Cultural Psychology (IACCP), SPSP, and the Association for Personality Psychology. Her research has been funded by government and private extramural grants from the U.S., Catalonia, and the European Union. Dr. Benet-Martínez’s research interests center on the study of multi/bicultural identity, including individual differences in bicultural identity structure, the interplay of social networks and acculturation, and the personality, socio-cognitive, and adjustment-related outcomes of multiculturalism. She is also interested in the role of culture and language in personality structure and processes, and in cross-cultural research methods. She has published extensively on these issues, and her published work is highly cited. Dr. Benet-Martínez was born in Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain) and raised in a Catalan-Spanish multilingual family before moving to the United States, where she lived for 21 years. The cultural and linguistic juxtapositions and dynamics she experienced living in Spain and later in the United States gave her insight into the culturally influenced and dynamic nature of individuals’ social identities and personalities. Her passion for studying these issues scientifically, because they are both socially relevant and also informative regarding many basic processes in cultural and social-personality psychology, continues to this day. Ying-yi Hong is currently a professor at the Nanyang Business School of Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. As a Hong Kong native, she grew up in a Chinese family and was exposed to western cultures in public schools during the British colonial period. After receiving undergraduate education at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, she studied overseas, and subsequently received a PhD degree from Columbia University, specializing in Personality and Social Psychology. She has taught at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign before moving to NTU. Her main


research interests include culture and cognition, self, identity, and intergroup relations. She has published over 100 journal articles and book chapters mainly on culture and cognition, multiculturalism, and identity. Her published work has been cited widely in the fields of psychology, business, and education. Dr. Hong is the recipient of the Otto Klineberg Intercultural and International Relations Award in 2001, International Society for Self and Identity Outstanding Early Career Award in 2004, and Nanyang Award for Research Excellence in 2014, and was elected Fellow of the Association for Psychological Science and member of the Society of Experimental Social Psychology. She is also a co-director of the Culture Science Institute, a research body housed at Nanyang Business School that aims to conduct cutting edge, interdisciplinary research on culture.


About the Editors


James A. Banks

College of Education Center for Multicultural Education University of Washington Seattle, WA

Verónica Benet-Martínez

ICREA and Department of Political and Social Sciences Universitat Pompeu Fabra Barcelona, Spain

John W. Berry

Department of Psychology Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada

Mary Yoko Brannen

Centre for Asia Pacific Initiatives and Department of International Business Peter B. Gustavson School of Business University of Victoria Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Rupert Brown

School of Psychology University of Sussex Brighton, UK

Melissa G. Bublitz

College of Business University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, WI

Nicole T. Buchanan

Department of Psychology Michigan State University East Lansing, MI

Ozgur Celenk

Department of Cross-Cultural Psychology Tilburg University Tilburg, the Netherlands

Chi-Ying Cheng

School of Social Sciences Singapore Management University Singapore

Chi-Yue Chiu

Nanyang Business School Nanyang Technological University Singapore and Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Beijing, China

Mariah M. Contreras

Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Development Tufts University Medford, MA

Kay Deaux

Department of Psychology New York University New York, NY

Thierry Devos

Department of Psychology San Diego State University San Diego, CA

Alexander W. Fietzer

Department of Psychiatry New York Presbyterian Hospital – Weill Cornell Medical College White Plains, NY

Adrián García-Sierra

Department of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences University of Connecticut Storrs, CT and The Institute of Learning and Brain Sciences University of Washington Seattle, WA

Ying-yi Hong

Nanyang Business School Nanyang Technological University Singapore and School of Psychology Beijing Normal University Beijing, China


Que-Lam Huynh

Department of Psychology California State University, Northridge Northridge, CA

Mark Khei

Department of Psychology Queen’s University Ontario, Canada

Fiona Lee

Department of Psychology University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI

Angela K.-Y. Leung

School of Social Sciences Singapore Management University Singapore

David Luna

Baruch College City University of New York New York, NY

Jayanthi Mistry

Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Development Tufts University Medford, MA

Fathali M. Moghaddam

Joseph G. Ponterotto

Graduate School of Education Division of Psychological and Educational Services Fordham University at Lincoln Center New York, NY

Jean S. Phinney

Emeritus Professor Department of Psychology California State University, Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA

Elizabeth Pufall-Jones

Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Development Tufts University Medford, MA

Lin Qiu

Division of Psychology School of Humanities and Social Sciences Nanyang Technological University Singapore

Nairán Ramírez-Esparza

Department of Psychology University of Connecticut Storrs, CT

David L. Sam

Department of Psychosocial Science University of Bergen Bergen, Norway

Department of Psychology & Department of Government Georgetown University Washington, DC

Diana T. Sanchez

Department of Psychology Georgetown University Washington DC

Seth J. Schwartz

Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences University of Groningen Groningen, the Netherlands

Isis H. Settles

Sheldon B. Lubar School of Business University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee Milwaukee, WI

Margaret J. Shih

Cristina Novoa

Jan Pieter van Oudenhoven

Laura A. Peracchio

Leyla M. Pérez-Gualdrón

Department of Counseling Psychology University of San Francisco San Francisco, CA

xii Contributors

Department of Social Psychology Rutgers University New Brunswick, NJ Department of Public Health Sciences University of Miami School of Medicine Miami, FL Michigan State University Department of Psychology East Lansing, MI Anderson School of Management University of California Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA

Stella Ting-Toomey

Department of Human Communication Studies California State University at Fullerton Fullerton, CA

Paul Vedder

Rommert Casimir Institute of Developmental Psychopathology Leiden University Leiden, the Netherlands

Maykel Verkuyten

ERCOMER, Department of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences Utrecht University Utrecht, the Netherlands

Vivian L. Vignoles

School of Psychology University of Sussex Brighton, UK

Fons J. R. van de Vijver

Department of Cross-Cultural Psychology Tilburg University Tilburg, the Netherlands and School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia and WorkWell Unit North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa

ThuyLoan Vu

Department of Psychology San Diego State University San Diego, CA

Leigh S. Wilton

Department of Psychology Rutgers University New Brunswick, NJ

Christine J. Yeh

Department of Counseling Psychology University of San Francisco San Francisco, CA

Hanna Zagefka

Department of Psychology Royal Holloway University of London Egham, UK

Karen I. van der Zee

Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences University of Groningen Groningen, the Netherlands




  1. Introduction: The Psychology of Multicultural Identity and Experiences  1 Verónica Benet-Martínez and Ying-yi Hong 

Part One  •  Definitional Issues and Basic Processes   2. Dynamic Multiculturalism: The Interplay of Socio-cognitive, Neural, and Genetic Mechanisms  11 Ying-yi Hong and Mark Khei   3. The Bilingual Brain: Language, Culture, and Identity  35 Nairán Ramírez-Esparza and Adrián García-Sierra   4. The Identity Dynamics of Acculturation and Multiculturalism: Situating Acculturation in Context  57 Seth J. Schwartz, Vivian L. Vignoles, Rupert Brown, and Hanna Zagefka

Part Two  •  The Social-Psychological Context   5. Multicultural Societies  97 John W. Berry and David  L. Sam   6. The Social Psychology of Multiculturalism: Identity and Intergroup Relations  118 Kay Deaux and Maykel Verkuyten   7. Exploring the Identity Autonomy Perspective (IAP): An Integrative Theoretical Approach to Multicultural and Multiracial Identity  139 Diana T. Sanchez, Margaret J. Shih, and Leigh S. Wilton   8. Multiple Groups, Multiple Identities, and Intersectionality  160 Isis H. Settles and Nicole T. Buchanan   9. Psychological Science of Globalization  181 Angela K.-Y. Leung, Lin Qiu, and Chi-Yue Chiu

Part Three  •  Measurement and Validity Issues 10. Assessment of Psychological Acculturation and Multiculturalism: An Overview of Measures in the Public Domain  205 Ozgur Celenk and Fons J. R. van de Vijver 11. Implicit Multicultural Identities  227 Thierry Devos and ThuyLoan Vu


Part Four  •  Individual Differences 12. Personality and Multicultural Effectiveness  255 Karen I. van der Zee and Jan Pieter van Oudenhoven 13. Variations in Multicultural Experience: Influence of Bicultural Identity Integration on Socio-Cognitive Processes and Outcomes   276 Chi-Ying Cheng, Fiona Lee, Verònica Benet-Martínez, and Que-Lam Huynh 14. Multiculturalism and Adjustment  300 Joseph G. Ponterotto and Alexander W. Fietzer

Part Five  •  Development, Education, and Counseling 15. Identity Formation in Bicultural Youth: A Developmental Perspective  335 Paul Vedder and Jean S. Phinney  16. Childhood Socialization and Academic Performance of Bicultural Youth  355 Jayanthi Mistry, Mariah M. Contreras, and Elizabeth Pufall-Jones 17. Multicultural Education and Global Citizens  379 James A. Banks 18. Multicultural Counseling and Therapy Counseling for Social Justice  396 Leyla M. Pérez-Gualdrón and Christine J. Yeh

Part Six  •  Applied Perspectives 19. Bridging Cultural Divides: Traversing Organizational and Psychological Perspectives on Multiculturalism  417 Mary Yoko Brannen and Fiona Lee 20. Cultural Diversity and Marketing: The Multicultural Consumer  438 Laura A. Peracchio, Melissa G. Bublitz, and David Luna  21. Policies for Managing Cultural Diversity  462 Cristina Novoa and Fathali M. Moghaddam 22. Managing Identity Issues in Intercultural Conflict Communication: Developing a Multicultural Identity Attunement Lens  485 Stella Ting-Toomey Author Index  507 Subject Index  527

xvi Contents



Introduction: The Psychology of Multicultural Identity and Experiences

Verónica Benet-Martínez and Ying-yi  Hong

Abstract This Oxford Handbook, which comprises 22 chapters written by some of the most accomplished scholars on the topic, reviews cutting-edge empirical and theoretical work on the psychology of multicultural identities and experiences (and related topics). The chapters are organized into six thematic groupings: Definitional Issues and Basic Processes (Part I); The Social-Psychological Context (Part II); Measurement and Validity Issues (Part III); Individual Differences (Part IV); Developmental, Educational, and Counseling Issues (Part V); and Applied Perspectives (Part VI). As a whole, the volume addresses some important basic (e.g., measurement of multicultural identity, links between multilingualism and multiculturalism, psychological reactions to globalization) and applied issues (e.g., how to address multiculturalism in marketing and organizational science), and reviews relevant research from diverse traditions within psychology (i.e., social, personality, developmental, acculturation, educational, political) and managerial sciences (i.e., organizational, marketing). This chapter introduces the volume, its background and goals, describes the emphasis and take-home message of each chapter, and explains how the progression of chapters weaves a coherent tapestry of all that is relevant to the psychological study of multiculturalism. Key Words:  multicultural, bicultural, multiculturalism, culture, identity, globalization, acculturation, ­intergroup relations

Globalization, terrorism, Facebook, big data . . . These were some of the buzzwords to characterize the beginning of the new millennium. We are currently over a decade into the new millennium, and it seems as if these buzzwords are getting even more pervasive in people’s everyday lives and conversations all around the globe. A  driving force underlying these buzzwords is an unprecedented rate of connectivity among people from different parts of the world, people who traditionally were separated because of various kinds of limits, such as geographical distance, limited means of global mobility, language and cultural barriers, and so forth. In other words, more people from different cultural background are connecting together, and at

the same time, more people are being exposed to multiple cultures. We live in a world defined by cultural diversity, and thus multicultural experiences have become a regular component of many individuals’ lives. The cultural contact and mixing resulting from migration, colonization, economic globalization, multicultural policies, multi-nation states (e.g., Belgium, Spain), as well as fast travel and media exposure explains why more and more individuals describe themselves as bicultural or multicultural.1 For instance, in the U.S., multicultural individuals may include the 13% who are foreign-born, the 37% who are non-White, the 20.3 % who speak a language other than English at home, and the 1

2.8 % who are multiracial (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). High numbers of multicultural individuals can also be found in other nations where migration has been historically strong (e.g., Canada, Australia, Germany, Singapore) or where there is a history of colonization (e.g., Hong Kong). These impressive statistics do not always include ethnic and cultural minorities who are descendants of immigrants, or people in cross-cultural relationships, all people for whom identification and involvement with a second culture, in addition to the majority culture, may also be the norm. At the same time, the benefits and challenges of multiculturalism have become a hot topic for contestations. On the one hand, some individuals perceive multiculturalism largely as a negative societal challenge. For example, in a landmark speech in 2010, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel claimed that multiculturalism had “utterly failed” in Germany. She concluded that the so-called “multikulti” concept— where people would “live side-by-side” happily—did not work, and immigrants needed to do more to integrate—including learning German. Her comments came amid rising anti-immigration feelings in Germany. Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron followed suit by criticizing “state multiculturalism” and arguing that the UK needed a stronger national identity to prevent people from turning to all kinds of extremism (see the-staggers/2011/02/terrorism-islam-ideology). On the other hand, there are many uplifting successful stories of multiculturalism. Amini Kajunju, who took the job of President and CEO of the African-American Institute in 2012, has attributed her success to her having a dual cultural identity. While she was born in Congo and has lived a large part of her life on the African continent, she has also lived in the United States for years, including those dedicated to obtaining a higher education. She said in an interview by CNN (“Africa’s secret weapon: The diaspora,” 2013) that some Americans see her as very African and some Africans see her as very American. . . “I have that duality.” In this interview she talks about this cultural duality as a niche that brings benefits to her career and life. In fact, she thinks that this duality is the reason she was hired. U.S. President Obama is another example of someone who successfully straddles countries and cultures. As the son of a Kenyan and an American, he studied the Quran in his youth and as an adult he was baptized. His multicultural and multiracial background enables him to speak the language of a globalized world, in which people of diverse origins 2 Introduction

and races encounter each other and negotiate common meaning across shrinking cultural divides (Saleh, 2009). These contrasting reactions to and experiences with multiculturalism have made it ever more pressing for world leaders, policy makers, educators, business-men and women, and social scientists to understand the nuances of multiculturalism and the state-of-the-art findings. However, there has not been a comprehensive review of the theoretical and empirical work on the psychology of multiculturalism so far conducted by the main scholars researching on this topic. The present Oxford Handbook seeks to fill this void.

Studying Multicultural Identities and Experiences: Goals and Approach of the Handbook

Like the picture shown in the book cover, a type of mosaic called trencadis and made of broken pieces of ceramic from tiles and dinnerware, many multicultural individuals construct their social identities as a mosaic built with different “pieces” representing culturally diverse experiences, knowledge, and relationships.2 How can psychologist best study these processes and their consequences? Multiculturalism as an individual and collective phenomenon was formally examined by some social and acculturation psychologists in the 80s and 90s (e.g., Berry, 1990; Hermans & Kempen, 1998; LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993; Padilla, 1994), but empirical work on multicultural identities did not surface until more recently (e.g., Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005; Hong, Morris, Chiu & Benet-Martínez, 2000; Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997; Verkuyten & Pouliasi, 2002). However, the scientific study of multicultural identities has exciting implications for psychology and other social sciences, as the issue of how individuals develop a sense of national, cultural, ethnic, and racial group membership becomes particularly meaningful in situations of cultural clashing, mixing, and integration (Baumeister, 1986; Phinney, 1999). Furthermore, the dynamics of multicultural identity negotiation provide researchers a window to study individual variations in self-concept and social identity development. In fact, as eloquently stated by Phinney (1999), ‘ ‘increasing numbers of people find that the conflicts are not between different groups but between different cultural values, attitudes, and expectations within themselves’’ (p. 27; italics added). Lastly, as the number of multicultural individuals increases, the implications of

understanding this type of identity for applied fields such as education, marketing, management, and organizational studies are also large. The goal of this book as a volume in the Oxford Handbook series is to (1)  provide the first comprehensive review of the scholarly empirical and theoretical work on the psychology of multicultural identities and experiences (and related topics) conducted to date by some of the most recognized scholars on this topic, and (2)  address some important basic (e.g., measurement of multicultural identity, links between multilingualism and multiculturalism, psychological reactions to globalization) and applied issues (e.g., how to address multiculturalism in marketing and organizational science) that have yet to receive the necessary attention. To best accomplish the above goals, we have enlisted the very best researchers in the psychological study of multiculturalism. This international and intellectually diverse list of distinguished researchers represents different traditions within psychology (i.e., social, personality, developmental, acculturation, educational, political) and managerial sciences (i.e., organizational, marketing). These contributors are known as much for their substantive contributions as for their innovative and sophisticated approaches to research and theory in the psychology of multiculturalism. Importantly, we have ensured that each author or team of authors presents their unique vision of the pertinent research topic while also providing a comprehensive (and yet synthetic) review of the relevant literature beyond their own studies. Some of the chapters also address policy implications and prospective interventions. The diversity of the chapters presented in this book will hopefully evidence that one of the strenghts and hallmarks of the psychological study of multiculturalism (and related issues, such as globalization, bilingualism, intersectionality, multiracial experiences, or multicultural policy) is the breadth and sophistication of its methods and theoretical approaches. There is no standard psychological study of multiculturalism—rather, as our book shows, one finds longitudinal studies on the identity formation and academic performance of bicultural youth, experimental and correlational studies of multicultural identity dynamics, genetic and neuroimaging cross-cultural studies, large multi-country acculturation studies, and narrative studies of bicultural life stories, among several others. This diversity also reflects the integration of laboratory and field studies, individual difference and general processes, and intra-person and intergroup perspectives. We

believe this breath speaks of the complexity of multicultural experiences, the diversity of internal and external factors that influence them, and the different ways in which this phenomenon can be examined, appraised, and quantified.


We hope that aspiring and established researchers and practicioners, regardless of their respective social science sub-disciplines (e.g. acculturation studies, ethnic and racial studies, cultural and cross-cultural psychology, social and/orpersonality psychology, political science, education, organizational studies, marketing, clinical and counseling, etc.) will find in this book a unique, comprehensive, and well organized source of information and guidance. This volume can also be used as a source book in advanced undergraduate and graduate courses on acculturation, inter-group dynamics, social identity, cultural psychology, and cultural diversity management, and as a supplement to more traditional courses in psychology. As mentioned earlier, our main goal with this volume was to create a “one-stop” source that described, in a scholarly and comprehensive manner, the relevant research accumulated to date on the various processes and outcomes relevant to the psychology of multicultural experiences and identity. This volume thus includes overviews of classic topics in the study of multicultural experiences, such as multicultural policies, multicultural societies, multiculturalism in counseling and education, as well as more recent topics of inquiry and methodolgoies such as the relevance of multiculturalism to marketing and organizational studies, and the use of brain imaging and implicit measures to study multicultural identieties.

Structure and Content

The chapters are organized into six thematic groupings that highlight the range of societal and psychological processes relevant to the study of multicultural identities and experiences: Definitional Issues and Basic Processes (Part I); The Social-Psychological Context (Part II); Measurement and Validity Issues (Part III); Individual Differences (Part IV); Developmental, Educational, and Counseling Issues (Part V); and Applied Perspectives (Part VI). These groupings illustrate how all these domains are relevant to the psychological study of multiculturalism, and also provide the basis for drawing connections within and across these disciplinary and topical boundaries. As an overview, below we briefly outline the Benet-Martíne z, Hong


emphasis and take-home message of each chapter and show how the progression of chapters weaves a coherent tapestry of all that is relevant to the psychological study of multiculturalism.

Part I: Definitional Issues and Basic Processes

Chapter  2 (Dynamic Multiculturalism:  The Interplay of Socio-Cognitive, Neural, and Genetic Mechanisms, by Hong and Khei) provides excellent definitions for key constructs such culture and cultural processes, and discusses who can be considered multicultural, and the difference between multicultural identity and multicultural experiences. The chapter also describes the basic tenets of the dynamic constructivist approach to culture, discusses the important distinction between processes such as cultural frame switching, that fall under the rubric of the multicultural mind (i.e., how an individual acquires and applies knowledge from multiple cultures) and processes such as bicultural identity dynamics, that represent instead the multicultural self (i.e., how an individual makes sense of the multicultural influences on oneself ). In discussing and illustrating all these issues, this chapter integrates findings and theory from the social cognition literature and the young field of cultural neuroscience. The chapter also discusses how genetic predispositions play a role in affecting individuals’ adaptation to multicultural contacts and mixing. Chapter 3 (The Bilingual Brain: Language, Culture, and Identity, by Ramírez-Esparza and García-Sierra) delineates the links and boundaries between two topics, multilingualism and multiculturalism, that have traditionally been kept separate; for instance, can bilinguals also be considered bicultural and vice versa? To answer questions like this, the authors review studies from developmental psychology, speech and hearing sciences, linguistics, and educational, social-personality, and cultural psychologies. The reader will also find a description of the bilingual brain and its development from infancy to adulthood. Chapter  4 (The Identity Dynamics of Acculturation and Multiculturalism: Situating Acculturation in Context, by Schwartz, Vignoles, Brown, and Zagefka) provides a nice transition to Part II in the book, the social-psychological context of multiculturalism, by situating acculturation and identity dynamics within the context of intergroup relations. Because so much of the social psychological literature on multicultural identities and experiences to date represents the social cognition perspective (and to a lesser extent, the individual differences and 4 Introduction

acculturation perspectives), this chapter’s emphasis on inter-group dynamics provides a welcome and needed theoretical advance. This chapter shows that cultural identifications (and the meanings people ascribe to them) are fluid and context dependent, and inherently driven by the changing nature of the power held by majority group members (this perspective is reaffirmed and extended in Chapter 6).

Part II: The Social Psychological Context

Chapter 5 (Multicultural Societies, by Berry and Sam) discusses the nature, dynamics, and both benefits and challenges of multiculturalism (defined as policies and practices supportive of cultural diversity, intercultural contact, and equality); it also reviews impressive cross-national data (e.g., Multiculturalism Policy Index, Migrant Integration Policy Index) reflecting the differential presence of multicultural policies and practices in many contemporary democracies. Theory and research on acculturation strategies—examined at the individual, group, and societal level—is also presented as a guide to understanding variations in public policy and attitudes towards multiculturalism. Chapter 6 (The Social Psychology of Multiculturalism:  Identity and Intergroup Relations, by Deaux and and Verkuyten) provides a thorough and synthetic discussion of two key aspects of multiculturalism:  (1)  the intersection and dynamics of immigrants’ multiple social identities (e.g., culture, ethnicity, gender, religion, class), noting that these intersections are not only structural in nature but also have implications for behavior (a point that is the theme of Chapter 8); and (2)  the attitudes of majority group members towards multiculturalism, and the conditions that lead majority members to either support or resist cultural diversity and group-based equality. Importantly, this chapter reminds us that attention to the above social identities should not come at the expense of ignoring both super-ordinate identities (e.g. national and community commitments) and individual choices. Chapter 7 (Exploring the Identity Autonomy Perspective:  An Integrative Theoretical Approach to Multicultural and Multiracial Identity, by Sanchez, Shih, and Wilton) provides an overview of the growing body of research on multiracial individuals, a very timely topic—e.g., 20% of the U.S. population is projected to be multiracial. The chapter discusses these issues from both the target’s and perceiver’s perspectives, while also highlighting points of overlap, distinction, and synthesis between the multiracial and multicultural identity literatures. Notably, the chapter discusses the importance

of allowing multiracial individuals autonomy in their identity formation and negotiation, and describes particular societal and personal attributes that thwart this autonomy. Chapter  8 (Multiple groups, Multiple Identities, and Intersectionality, by Settles and Buchanan) discusses intersectionality theory, which stresses the importance of considering an individual’s combination of group memberships and identities—e.g. those related to culture, race, gender, profession, class, etc., and also describes the particular ways in which this theory can inform the study of multiculturalism. This integrative approach effectively portrays the dynamic, valenced, and multi-layered nature of social identity:  even when particular identity intersections (e.g., being a female scientist) are at the core of an individual’s self-concept, providing a stable lens from which to see and react to the social world, additional identities and combination of identities (e.g., being an Asian-American, being upper-class) also become salient in different situations and guide behavior. This section ends with Chapter  9 (Psychological Science of Globalization, by Leung, Qiu, and Chiu), which describes how the rapid increase in interdependence among regional economies, societies, and cultures, is resulting in unprecedented opportunities for multicultural interactions and multicultural identities. The authors provide an overview of the important and emerging psychological science of globalization, while identifying major relevant research questions (e.g., what are some of the main psychological reactions individuals have to the inflow of global or foreign cultures? What contextual and personal factors moderate these reactions?), and reviewing recent empirical attempts to answer these questions.

Part III: Measurement and Validity Issues

Chapter  10 (Assessment of Psychological Acculturation and Multiculturalism, by Celenk and van de Vijver) deals with the issue of how best to measure both psychological acculturation (including the experience of having bicultural or multicultural identities, behaviors, and values) and multicultural attitudes (support for cultural diversity in institutions and society at large). The authors review the conceptual (e.g. domains and dimensionality) and psychometric properties of a large collection of available measures. The chapter also provides guidelines for choosing or developing measures of acculturation and multiculturalism, and includes a useful internet site where these measures can be downloaded and selected according to a meaningful

set of criteria. Chapter  11 (Implicit Multicultural Identities, by Devos and Vu) breaks new ground in the measurement and conceptualization of multiculturalism by (1) showing that self-related mental processes underlying multicultural identities often operate at a largely automatic or non-conscious (i.e., implicit) level, and (2)  describing techniques and studies that assess implicit multicultural identities. The chapter discusses also the links between implicit and explicit cultural identities, and the plasticity and context-dependent nature of implicit multicultural knowledge and selves. Implicit cultural identity measures are useful not only for their capacity to access thoughts and feelings outside consciousness, or to bypass social desirability or demand characteristics, but also because they provide important theoretical and empirical insights.

Part IV: Individual Differences

Chapter  12 (Personality and Multicultural Effectiveness, by van der Zee and van Oudenhoven) presents a framework linking personality dispositions to how individuals select, perceive, and react to intercultural situations, and how they develop dynamic and complex cultural identities. The authors review the relevant growing literature on this topic, focusing on the Big Five, intercultural traits, core self-evaluations, coping styles, learning orientations, and attachment styles. Findings are integrated to propose key personality-related intercultural competencies that predict intercultural success among expatriates, immigrants, and majority members. The issue of variations in multicultural experiences and identities is also the topic of Chapter  13 (Variations in Multicultural Experience: Influence of Bicultural Identity Integration on Socio-Cognitive Processes and Outcomes, by Cheng, Lee, Benet-Martínez, and Huynh). This chapter proposes the Integrative Psychological Model of Biculturalism (IPMB) as a theoretical framework to understand biculturalism’s socio-cognitive processes and individual differences. It reviews accumulated research on Bicultural Identity Integration (BII)— the degree to which biculturals perceive their two cultural identities as harmonious vs. conflictual and fused vs. compartmentalized—including BII’s links to a wide range of acculturation, personality, interpersonal, socio-cognitive, and adjustment outcomes. The chapter also outlines a future research program examining the developmental, cultural, and socio-historical antecedents of these variations in bicultural experience. Chapter  14 (Multiculturalism and Adjustment, by Ponterotto Benet-Martíne z, Hong


and Fietzer) explores the links between psychological multiculturalism—broadly defined here as individuals’ particular orientation towards the diversity resulting from differences in nationality, race, ethnicity, gender, religion/spirituality, social class, and sexual orientation, among others—and personal adjustment. The authors review several models tapping multicultural values, multicultural personality, racial identity development, and biculturalism, and link these constructs to an individual’s cognitive, behavioral, and emotional abilities to adapt to and thrive in changing life circumstances.

Part V: Developmental, Educational, and Counseling Perspectives

Chapter  15 (Identity Formation in Bicultural Youth: A Developmental Perspective, by Vedder and Phinney) waves an integrative picture showing that although bicultural youth are agents in the construction of their complex cultural identities—through processes such as commitment, exploration, reconsideration, and negotiation—these processes nevertheless are strongly influenced by the attitudes, values, and practices of the cultural settings where these youth reside. The chapter also highlights the need for both micro-level research (e.g., case studies, interviews, narratives, vignettes) to adequately reveal individual instances of identity-relevant challenges and decisions that shape bicultural identity development, as well as multi-level research and nested designs that reveal valid information about the context dependence of bicultural identity development. The developmental perspective is also emphasized in Chapter 16 (Childhood Socialization and Academic Performance of Bicultural Youth, by Mistry, Contreras and Pufall-Jones). The authors review the extant literature showing that racial and ethnic socialization messages provided by the family and the larger context impact bicultural youth’s educational outcomes, indirectly and directly through their impact on racial-ethnic identity and self-esteem. The salience of being an underrepresented minority, having a sense of belonging to the relevant educational and community settings, and the diversity of these settings emerge as critical features of these developmental and academic processes. Chapter  17 (Multicultural Education and Global citizens, by Banks) addresses the issue of how to develop educational policies and practices that not only are fair and appropriate in representing society’s cultural diversity, including the experiences and traditions of marginalized groups, but also effectively nurture and rip the benefits of 6 Introduction

this diversity. The author reviews assimilationist and multiculturalist (or interculturalist) conceptions of citizenship education, and describes the five dimensions that encompass the later (content integration, knowledge construction process, prejudice reduction, equity pedagogy, an empowering school culture and social structure). The chapter persuasively argues that effective multicultural education enables both minority and majority students to develop a synergistic balance between cultural, national, regional, and global identifications, and that this balance and recognition is precisely what makes individuals become successful local and global citizens. This section ends with Chapter 18 (Multicultural Counseling and Therapy, by Perez-Gualdron and Yeh). This chapter reviews theory and practice behind the counseling of multicultural individuals, and highlights the effectiveness of strength-based approaches that incorporate the client’s cultural backgrounds. The authors propose models and practices where both the counselor and client can become positive agents of social change and justice. Counselors become agents of change when they develop self-awareness about their worldviews and identities, and provide individual, community, and advocacy counseling interventions that are contextualized in the sociopolitical realities of the populations they serve.

Part VI: Applied Perspectives

Chapter 19 (Bridging Cultural Divides: Traversing Organizational and Psychological Perspectives on Multiculturalism, by Brannen and Lee) draws from theories and findings in the organizational literature to effectively (1)  expand our definitions of both culture and biculturalism (e.g., biculturalism might involve specific cultural knowledge and attachments, but defining it instead as a “mindset” has more explanatory power), and (2)  deepen our understanding of the psychological antecedents, mechanisms, outcomes and significance of multiculturalism. The authors discuss how to best leverage multicultural individuals and multicultural settings as a strategic resources that lead to positive organizational-relevant performance outcomes such as negotiation effectiveness, leadership of multinational teams, knowledge sharing across cultural contexts, and even better job satisfaction, commitment to the organization, and tenure. The timely topic of Chapter 20 (Cultural Diversity and Marketing: The Multicultural Consumer, by Peracchio, Bublitz, and Luna) is one of growing importance to organizations, as the size of multicultural and multilingual

consumers and their spending power grows. The authors discuss how culture and identity influence consumption patterns, and how these processes change when consumers adopt different cultural and linguistic frames. The chapter also includes discussions of how consumers, in turn, have the ability to influence culture, and how branding, advertising, and other marketing efforts may be received by multicultural consumers. The issue of what are the best policies for managing cultural, ethnic, religious, and linguistic diversity is the focus of Chapter  21 (Policies for Managing Cultural Diversity, by Novoa and Moghaddam). The authors discuss how accelerating globalization is resulting in sudden local, national, and global contact between groups with little preparation for contact, and how this in some cases results in collective identity threats (including those leading to radicalization and even terrorism). Adequate policies for managing this diversity are then essential for minimizing and overcoming collective identity threats. The chapter describes and evaluates the dominant policies of multiculturalism and assimilation, both in terms of their foundational assumptions regarding intergroup relations and also with regards to some its psychological and sociological consequences. Alternative approaches to addressing diversity, such as polyculturalism and omniculturalism, are also briefly discussed. The last chapter in the volume, Chapter 22 (Managing Identity Issues in Intercultural Conflict Communication: Developing a Multicultural Identity Attunement Lens, by Ting-Toomey) deals with the topics of inter-cultural encounters broadly speaking, and intercultural conflict and intercultural communication more specifically. The author proposes the multicultural identity attunement (MIA) lens as an integrative model to understand and effectively manage these issues. Developing multicultural identity attunement involves acquiring cultural knowledge and interpersonal responsiveness concerning the identity-relevant issues in self and others, the cultivation of mindfulness, and having appropriate, effective, and adaptive communication styles. The chapter also describes the steps needed to develop MIA and some of its applications. With this preview of what is to come, we invite readers to start reading the Handbook of Multicultural Identity:  Basic and Applied Perspectives.


We thank Abby Grossman for her encouragment and guidance throughout the project, and for her

wisdom in recognizing the importance and timeliness of the topic. We also thank Jennifer Vafidis, Anne Dellinger, and the other members of the OUP staff who assisted us in creating the final product. Above all, we deeply thank each of the contributors to this volume for their scholarship, hard work, vision, their diligence in incorporating our feedback, and for their tested patience in dealing with the ourdurous (and always slow) task of asembling a volume like this. It has been a privilege to work with these experts and learn from their accumulated knowledge and expertise on the various topics. By means of designing the structure and content of this volume, reviewing and editing each chapter, and writing our own chapters, we have learned a great deal of information about the multi-level processes, outcomes, and moderating factors involved in the experiene of multiculturalism. We have also renewed our enthusiasm for the topic and our faith on its importance within basic and applied psychological science. We trust the readers of this book will as well.


1. For the sake of simplicity and consistency, in our writing we will favor the broader term “multicultural” or “multiculturalism” over the term “bicultural.” Regardless of the term used, we always refer to individuals and societies who position themselves between two (or more) cultures and incorporate this experience (i.e., values, knowledge, and feelings associated to each of these identities and their intersection) into their sense of who they are. 2. Trencadis originates in Catalan Modernism, with architects Antoni Gaudí and Josep-Maria Jujol. Interestingly, the mosaic theme became a part of Canadian 1970s multiculturalism policy early on, as Canada was envisioned as an integrated “cultural mosaic,” rather than a melting pot (Gibbon, 1938).


Africa’s secret weapon: The diaspora. (2013). Retrieved November 1, 2013, from africas-secret-weapon-diaspora/index.html Baumeister, R. (1986). Identity: Cultural change and the struggle for self. New York: Oxford University. Benet-Martínez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural identity integration (BII):  Components and psychosocial antecedents. Journal of Personality, 73, 1015–1050. Berry, J. W. (1990). Psychology of acculturation. In J. Berman (Ed.), Cross-Cultural Perspectives:  Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 201–234). Lincoln, NE:  University of Nebraska. Gibbon, J. (1938). The Canadian Mosaic, McClelland & Stewart Limited, Toronto. Hermans, H. J. M., & Kempen, H. J. G. (1998). Moving cultures: The perilous problem of cultural dichotomies in a globalizing society. American Psychologist, 53, 1111–1120. Hong, Y. Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C. Y., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2000). Multicultural minds:  A  dynamic constructivist

Benet-Martíne z, Hong


approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55, 709–720. LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H. L., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 395–412. Padilla, A. M. (1994). Bicultural development: A theoretical and empirical examination. In R. G. Malgady & O. Rodriguez (Eds.), Theoretical and conceptual issues in Hispanic mental health (pp. 20–51). Melbourne, FL:  Krieger Publishing Co., Inc. Phinney, J. S. (1999). An intercultural approach in psychology: Cultural contact and identity. Cross-Cultural Psychology Bulletin, 33, 24–31.

8 Introduction

Phinney, J. S., & Devich-Navarro, M. (1997). Variations in bicultural identification among African American and Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 7, 3–32. Saleh, N. (2009, January 29). The world’s first global president. Miller-Mccune. Retrieved from politics/the-worlds-first-global-president-3979/ U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Retrieved March 11, 2013, from Verkuyten, M. & Pouliasi, K. (2002). Biculturalism among older children:  Cultural frame switching, attributions, self-identification and attitudes. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 596–609.


Definitional Issues and Basic Processes




Dynamic Multiculturalism: The Interplay of Socio-Cognitive, Neural, and Genetic Mechanisms

Ying-yi Hong and Mark Khei

Abstract This chapter seeks to understand multicultural experiences by integrating literature from social cognition and cultural neuroscience. We start the chapter by defining culture and cultural processes. Then we discuss the differentiation between the multicultural mind (i.e., how an individual acquires and applies knowledge from multiple cultures and how the human mind is flexible in making use of multiple cultural knowledge systems as tools to navigate the social world) and the multicultural self (i.e., how an individual makes sense of multicultural influences on oneself and their implications for one's identity). Empirical findings from cultural priming, neuroscience, and lay theory of race are discussed. We end the chapter with a discussion of how the human mind and sense of self may evolve with the exponential prevalence of multicultural contacts and mixing, and how genetic predispositions play a role in affecting individuals' adaptation in an era of multicultural contacts and mixing. Key Words:  multiculturalism, identity, cultural priming, essentialism, gene

The pandit spoke first. “Mr. Patel, Piscine’s piety is admirable. In these troubled times it’s good to see a boy so keen on God. We all agree on that.” The imam and the priest nodded. “But he can’t be a Hindu, a Christian and a Muslim. It’s impossible. He must choose.” “I don’t think it’s a crime, but I suppose you’re right,” Father replied. The three murmured in agreement and looked heavenward, as did Father, whence they felt the decision must come. Mother looked at me. A silence fell heavily on my shoulders. “Hmmm, Piscine?” Mother nudged me. “How do you feel about the question?” “Bapu Gandhi said, ‘All religions are true.’ I just want to love God,” I [Piscine] blurted out, and looked down, red in the face. Life of Pi, Yann Martel (1.23.49-54)

Although Piscine’s encounter here takes place in Yann Martel’s (2001) work of fiction, Life of Pi, his experience is likely to strike a chord among people in real life. In the wake of the exponential prevalence of cultural contacts and mixing resulting from migration, travel, media exposure, and Internet connection,

an ever-increasing number of individuals around the world describe themselves as bicultural or multicultural. Under this backdrop, Piscine’s experience is arguably widely shared among individuals who are negotiating multicultural identities and are challenged by the belief that these identities (not necessarily 11

Figure 2.1  Cultural frame switching III. Painted by: Ying-yi Hong. Acrylic & alkyd on wood, 2008, 76 × 61 cm. Photo by Chris Brown.

religious identities) are mutually exclusive and insoluble. This type of tension can also be illustrated by a painting done by the senior author of this chapter (Ying-yi Hong). Figure 2.1. shows this painting, in which an image of Marilynn Monroe, an American cultural icon, is superimposed on the feminine face of the Goddess of Mercy, a ubiquitous Buddhist symbol. Over the years, the author has received a wide range of reactions toward this painting, ranging from admiration and appreciation to umbrage at the merger of an image of a popular sexual figure and iconography associated with a noble religious figure. The painter (author) did not have any intention of offending any persons or religions when she created the painting, and was surprised by the responses.1 These polarized responses, nevertheless, have intrigued our interests, and motivated us to devote this chapter to exploring the psychological processes underlying people’s responses to multicultural influences. Unlike the conventional usage of the term multiculturalism, which refers to policy or ideology in dealing with cultural diversity, we define multiculturalism in this chapter as the acquisition and usage of multicultural knowledge and/or assimilation of multicultural identities within a single individual. 12

Dynamic Multiculturalism

When defining multicultural individuals, we adopt a liberal definition, which comprises individuals who possess multicultural demographic or sociological characteristics such as a mixed racial or ethnic background, residence in more than one country, immigration to another country, and exposure to societies in which they are exposed to multiple cultural traditions (e.g., in postcolonial societies, such as Hong Kong and Singapore) (see also Cheng, Lee, Benet-Martínez, & Huynh, this volume, for a discussion of biculturalism and bicultural individuals). Drawing from social-cognitive theories and the emerging field of cultural neuroscience, this chapter will discuss how to conceptualize multicultural experiences. We will start with a definition of culture and cultural processes. Then we will discuss the differences between multicultural mind and multicultural self. The term multicultural mind, on the one hand, is used to describe how individuals acquire and apply knowledge derived from multiple cultures and use more than one cultural knowledge systems to navigate in the social world. The term multicultural self, on the other hand, is used to capture how individuals make sense of multicultural influences on one’s self and their

implications on identity. Questions pertaining to the latter term include “Who am I?” “Is it possible for me to claim identities from multiple cultures?” “How do others view me?” ‘Do others accept me as a “true” member of a cultural group?’ “Do I feel emotionally attached to multiple cultures and feel secure within them?” We will discuss how individuals’ lay theories and beliefs about race and ethnicity have implications for their experiences upon such encounters. We will end the chapter with a discussion of how the human mind and self may evolve with the exponential prevalence of multicultural contacts and mixing. That is, we will explore whether multicultural contacts and mixing affect the cognitive and neurological underpinnings of human and genetic predispositions and how they play a role in affecting individuals’ adaptation in an era of multicultural contacts and mixing.

Definition of Culture and Cultural Processes

Culture is not an easy concept to define. There are many ways to define culture (see review by Chiu & Hong, 2006), but a widely adopted definition of culture in anthropology is well captured by Kroeber & Kluckhohn’s (1963) analogy: Culture is to society what memory is to individuals. That is, culture is a network of shared systems of knowledge, consisting of learned routines of thinking, feeling, and interacting with other people, as well as a corpus of substantive assertions and ideas about aspects of the world (Barth, 2002; see Hong, 2009, for a review). Importantly, culture is a unique type of knowledge system in that it is (a) shared (albeit incompletely) among a collection of interconnected individuals, who are often, but not necessarily, demarcated by race, ethnicity, or nationality, (b)  externalized in (a)

rich symbols, artifacts, social constructions, and social institutions (e.g., cultural icons, advertisements, and news media), (c) used to form common ground for communication among members of a cultural group, (d) transmitted from one generation to the next or from old members to new members, and (e) subject to continuous modifications because aspects of the knowledge system may be falsified or deemed not applicable by newer social orders and realities. To the extent that culture represents a collection of shared beliefs, norms, and practices among a group of people, culture can be acquired through learning. When someone has been immersed in a particular culture for an extended period of time, he or she will likely pick up and acquire knowledge of that culture either through implicit learning (through media exposure or social interactions in that country, for instance) or explicit learning (by attending a foreign language class, for instance). Having that arsenal of shared beliefs, norms, and practices, coupled with the culture’s language, allows an individual to interact and function normally in their daily discourse with the local, native people in the culture. Importantly, these processes explain how human mind and cognition are shaped. For an illustration of these ideas, take a look at panel (a) of Figure 2.2. Most people see three protruding dots and an array of dents. Why do people perceive those dots as protruding and dented? It’s because we assume that light comes from above, just as we might experience it under the sun or in a lit room. This background assumption sets up a framework within which we infer a three-dimensional percept from a two-dimensional picture. So when the bottom half is in the dark, we think that the dot is protruding (because light travels in a straight line, (b)

Figure 2.2  Illustrations of how shared lay assumptions affect perception of the world.

Hong, Khei


and since the top half is bright and the bottom half is in the dark, we think it is protruding). However, if we turn the previous picture 180 degrees, the top half is in the dark and the bottom half is bright, as shown in the (b) panel of Figure 2.2. and we will see the protruding dots as dented and the dented as protruding. This illustration demonstrates how the background assumption about the location of the light source shapes our basic cognition and perception of the world. People living together in the same environment are likely to hold similar assumptions. The environment is not limited to the physical environment; it stretches to the socio-political-historical environment. Transmissions can happen horizontally, meaning assumptions/beliefs can be communicated through mass media and daily discourse in the group. And transmissions can happen vertically as well, meaning that the assumptions/beliefs can be transmitted from one generation to another. These assumptions/lay beliefs have functions:  They help individuals to survive (e.g., three-dimensional perception helps individuals not to fall over a cliff when they see one) and the group to coordinate in coping with environmental demands. The lay beliefs, norms, values, and other practices shared among a group of individuals constitute the core of culture (see a review by Hong, 2009). Taking this perspective can help us understand the vast research findings on cross-cultural differences in individualism-collectivism (Triandis, 1989; Triandis, & Gelfand, 1998), self-construals (e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1991), values (e.g., Schwartz, 2009), cognitions (e.g., attribution; Norenzayan, Choi, & Peng, 2007; thinking style, Nisbett, 2003; Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001; and categorization and reasoning, Medin, Unsworth, & Hirschfeld, 2007), and subjective well-being (Tov & Diener, 2007). For more information, see the review by Fiske, Kitayama, Markus, & Nisbett (1998), Handbook of Cultural Psychology edited by Kitayama & Cohen (2007), and the Oxford Handbook of Chinese Psychology edited by Bond (2010). The majority of these studies involve comparisons between Western (mainly North American, Canadian, and European) and Eastern (Japan, Chinese, Indian, Korean, and Southeast Asian) cultures. Findings from these comparisons generally characterize Westerners as more individualistic, independent in self-construal, and analytic in information processing, whereas Easterners are more collectivistic, interdependent in self-construal, and holistic in information processing. Over the 14

Dynamic Multiculturalism

years, the value and validity of these seemingly binary characterizations has been questioned. These debates mainly center on the following points:  (a)  These cross-cultural comparisons focus mostly on the aggregated mean group differences and thus ignore within-group variations (Chiu & Hong, 2006). (b)  Individualism-collectivism is too broad a construct; it often conflates domain-specific similarities or differences across cultures. For instance, in Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier’s (2002) meta-analysis of studies on individualism-collectivism, Japanese were not necessarily less individualistic than North Americans and Chinese were more collectivistic than North Americans only on the in-group loyalty dimension of collectivism. (c) There are no internally coherent links among the various “cultural characteristics” within a given cultural group. That is, characteristics found to differ across North American and Asian cultural groups, such as self-construals and information-processing styles are not correlated within each cultural group (Na et  al., 2010). For instance, a Japanese who has an interdependent self-construal is not necessarily also more holistic in information processing. The association between independent versus interdependent self-construal and analytic versus holistic information processing only appears when cross-cultural aggregates are used or when the accessibility of one of the self-construals is activated using the experimental priming method (Oyserman & Lee, 2008a; which will be discussed later). (d) Finally, the comparison of Eastern cultures with Western cultures is seen by some as a manifestation of Orientalism—a perpetrated ethnocentric bias of the West from the colonial era and motivated by Imperialism of the West (Said, 1979; see also Mateo, Cabanis, Stenmanns, & Krach, 2013). To these critics, cross-cultural studies essentialize (i.e., attribute unalterable core essences to) Eastern and Western people and legitimize the continuous oppression of Western power upon Eastern nations/cultures. In an attempt to resolve these debates, we conceptualize cultural processes as the operation of shared cultural knowledge systems (see Figure 2.3). To elaborate, our framework postulates that people facing the same environment (may it be physical, socio-political, and so forth) come up with lay theories to understand the world, akin to the notion of lay people as naïve scientists who generate and test lay theories in order to make sense of the world (Heider, 1958; Kelly, 1955; Medin, 1989; Murphy & Medin, 1985), and that these theories are often

Shared lay theories, values, norms, collective representations Group (ethnicity/race/ gender)

Cognitive and neural activation


Associative, probabilistic Causal Figure 2.3  Cultural processes.

shared, communicated, and transmitted among group members. For example, Nisbett and colleagues (Uskul, Kitayama, & Nisbett, 2008) have shown that the methods of subsistence (herding, fishing, and farming) of three Turkish communities have systematically afforded more analytic versus holistic cognitive tendencies (in attention, categorization, and reasoning). Members of the farming and fishing communities, which emphasize harmonious social interdependence, exhibited greater holistic cognitive tendencies than members of the herding communities, which emphasize individual decision making and social independence. Aside from methods of subsistence, threats in the environment (e.g., risk of epidemics, scarcity of resources, invasion by outgroups) can instill pressure to implement in-group norms and punish deviants (akin to Gelfand et al.’s, 2011, notion of tight cultures). Conversely, groups that face relatively fewer threats in the environment may not pressure their members to conform to a limited set of in-group norms as much (loose culture) (see review by Cheon & Hong, in press). Moreover, within each group, members who have a high need for cognitive closure (NFCC) (i.e., close-minded, low tolerance for ambiguity, Kruglanski & Webster, 1996; Webster & Kruglanski, 1994) are more likely to adhere to the cultural norms than those who have a lower NFCC (Chiu, Morris, Hong, & Menon, 2000). People form mental representations of the cultural knowledge shared within groups (akin to Kashima’s (2009) notion of distributed representations) that are typically demarcated by race, ethnicity, religion, gender, and socioeconomic classes. However, to the extent that each member has a unique personal history, set of experiences, and personality, the cultural knowledge is hardly shared uniformly or completely by every single member of the group. Therefore,

the link between shared cultural knowledge and a certain (racial, ethnic, religious, gender) group is probabilistic and should not be conceptualized as a deep core essence of the group (see the dotted line between the group and its shared cultural knowledge in Figure 2.3). Indeed, it has been shown that some well-established cross-cultural differences between Chinese and Americans appeared or disappeared as a function of the NFCC of the members in the two cultures (Chiu et  al., 2000). This is because, as we noted earlier, members who have high NFCC (as a personality trait or a temporary state induced by situation such as time pressure) are more likely to adhere to cultural norms than those who have low NFCC. Therefore, cross-cultural differences are more likely to be evident when comparing group members experiencing chronic or temporary heightened levels of NFCC. Second, our framework further postulates that the activation of certain shared cultural knowledge can bring about specific cognitive and neural consequences, which, in turn, can result in corresponding behavioral manifestations (if the situation permits it). These pathways function as causal links (see the solid lines between shared cultural knowledge and cognitive and neural consequences and neural consequences and behaviors in Figure 2.3). There is ample empirical evidence that supports these postulations, which we will review throughout the rest of this chapter. Finally, there is mounting evidence supporting racial/ethnic differences in cognition and neurological responses (e.g., a special issue on cultural neuroscience of Progress in Brain Research, Vol. 178, 2009, edited by Joan Y.  Chiao). Our framework sees these cross-cultural differences as resulting from lay theories that are shared among cultural-group members rather than a reflection of differences in Hong, Khei


Family obligation

Mexican group

Greater cognitive control

Lower risktalking

Associative, probabilistic Causal Figure 2.4  Cultural processes as illustrated by Telzer, Fuligni, Lieberman, & Galvan (2013).

the core essence or unalterable dispositions of these racial/ethnic groups. That is, we see cross-cultural cognitive and neural differences as emerging from the probabilistic association between the racial/ ethnic groups and its resulting shared lay theories. Therefore, the cross-cultural evidence should be taken as probabilistic as well. This point is important because it helps to avoid essentializing race, ethnicity, gender, and so forth. Research has shown that essentializing race has negative ramifications for both majority and minority racial/ethnic group members. We will discuss research on lay theory of racial essentialism later in this chapter. To further illustrate our framework, we use research by Telzer and colleagues (Telzer, Masten, Berkman, Lieberman, & Fuligni, 2011; see Figure 2.4). Evidence from psychology, anthropology, history, and literature has consistently shown that Mexican culture values family and emphasizes family obligations. Given these shared cultural values and norms, Telzer, Fuligni, Lieberman, & Galvan (2013) examined how the activation of family obligations would bring about greater cognitive control and its associated neurological correlates among Mexican teens. In their experiments, Telzer et al. (2013) asked Latino adolescents to complete a risk-taking and cognitive control task while their brains were scanned. Results suggested that adolescents with greater family-obligation values showed decreased activation in the ventral striatum when receiving monetary rewards and increased dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (PFC) activation during behavioral inhibition. Reduced ventral striatum activation was correlated with less real-life risk-taking behavior and enhanced dorsolateral PFC activation was correlated with better decision-making skills. Thus, it appears family obligation may decrease reward sensitivity and enhance cognitive control, thereby reducing risk-taking behaviors, such as drug 16

Dynamic Multiculturalism

and alcohol abuse and stealing, among Mexican teens. Although Telzer and colleagues have focused on Mexican participants, their research arguably can be extended to other cultures that value family obligations as well, such as Chinese and Korean cultures. Note that, if activation of family obligations can stimulate greater cognitive control, then any individual (regardless of his/her cultural heritage) who is effectively reminded of his/her family obligations should also show increases in cognitive control. In sum, these results provide good illustrations of how shared cultural values can stimulate certain neural activation patterns, which, in turn, can lead to certain behavioral manifestations. On the one hand, members of more than one cultural group may share similar values; on the other hand, not all members in the same cultural group would endorse similar values to the same extent. As a result, the association between cultural group memberships and neural activation patterns (and their resulting behavioral manifestations) is probabilistic in nature. Importantly, our framework can be extended to understand multicultural influences. Because the core of culture—shared cultural knowledge system—is not a core essence, it is possible for individuals to acquire and internalize multiple shared cultural knowledge systems associated with multiple groups (e.g., acquiring both American and Chinese cultural knowledge systems at the same time). We call them bicultural or multicultural individuals. The cultural knowledge systems acquired can be conceptualized as tools for these individuals to understand their social world. As a result, bicultural or multicultural individuals are equipped with multiple sets of tools in their toolbox (cf. DiMaggio, 1997). To understand the psychology underlying biculturalism or multiculturalism is to understand the mechanism through which people with multiple cultural knowledge systems navigate

their acquired systems. This was the main goal of the dynamic-constructivist approach (proposed by Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martínez, 2000). The dynamic-constructivist approach posits that culture is internalized within individuals in the form of a loose network of domain-specific knowledge structures, such as categories and lay theories (Bruner, 1990; D’Andrade, 1984; Shore, 1996; Strauss, 1992). Individuals can acquire more than one such cultural knowledge system, even if these systems contain conflicting theories. That is, it is possible for bicultural individuals to possess contradictory or conflicting culture-based constructs, even though these conflicting constructs may not simultaneously guide the individuals’ affect, cognition, or behavior in a context. The key is that having a particular construct does not entail relying on it continuously; only a small subset of a bicultural individual’s cultural knowledge comes to the fore (becomes salient) and guides responses in a situation. The context and the environment can cue one set of cultural knowledge and render it more salient (or accessible) than the other set of cultural knowledge that the bicultural individuals have acquired. If the aforementioned postulations are true, there should be evidence showing bicultural individuals’ acquisition, activation, and application of cultural knowledge systems. In our framework, we conceptualize these mechanisms under the rubric of Multicultural Mind with the assumption that the human mind is flexible in making use of the multiple cultural knowledge systems as tools to navigate the social world. However, at the same time, a smooth navigation between cultural frames is not inevitable. Numerous studies have shown that bicultural or multicultural individuals face difficulties (e.g., discrimination and identity denial) when adjusting to multiple cultures, which can undermine their integration of both identities (e.g., Cheng et al.’s, this volume, discussion of variations in Bicultural Identity Integration and their effects; see also Sam & Berry, this volume). We conceptualize the mechanisms involved here under the rubric of multicultural self with the assumption that people make sense of their multicultural experiences and reflect on how the experiences have implications for their identity. The multicultural mind and multicultural self can mutually influence each other to give rise to dynamic responses toward multicultural influences (see reviews by Hong, 2011, Hong, Chao, & No, 2009; Tadmor, Hong, Chiu, & No, 2010). We elaborate these concepts next.

The Multicultural Mind

To understand how bicultural individuals can adjust their thoughts, affect, and behaviors spontaneously and appropriately in different cultural contexts, Hong and colleagues (Hong & Chiu, 2001; Hong, Chiu, & Kung, 1997; Hong et  al., 2000) have examined the social and cognitive underpinnings of navigating between cultural frames, a process we term “cultural frame switching.”

Cultural Frame Switching and Cultural Priming

Since cultural beliefs, norms, and practices are knowledge systems, they should operate according to the principles of knowledge activation (Higgins, 1996; Wyer & Srull, 1986): availability, accessibility, and applicability. After individuals have been exposed to multiple cultures and have acquired the different knowledge systems, these systems will become available in their cognitive inventory. With this availability, priming (prompting the culture imperceptibly by exposing individuals to the respective cultural icons) can activate the associated cultural knowledge system, which in turn becomes accessible temporarily. Hence, individuals who are being primed can possibly have thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that correspond to the most accessible cultural knowledge system at that point in time. The final factor is whether the most accessible cultural knowledge system is seen as applicable in the context. The accessible cultural knowledge system will affect subsequent responses if it is seen as applicable, but not if it is seen as not applicable. Hong and colleagues (1997; 2000) developed an experimental method called cultural priming to validate these ideas. Usually, it involves three experimental conditions in cultural priming. Take a Chinese-American bicultural as an example. In that case, the three conditions would include a Chinese culture prime condition, an American culture prime condition, and a control condition. The Chinese-American bicultural participants would be randomly assigned to one of the three conditions. Those in the Chinese culture priming condition would be exposed to Chinese cultural icons (e.g., Confucius, Chinese Opera, The Great Wall of China), whereas those in the American culture priming condition would be exposed to American cultural icons (e.g., Abraham Lincoln, Statue of Liberty, Western opera). Participants in the control condition would be exposed to pictographic stimuli that are neutral in culture (e.g., geometric figures, landscapes, or clouds). After the priming conditions, Hong, Khei


participants’ responses on some relevant dependent (e.g., attribution, cognitive, affective, or behavioral) measures would be assessed. Their responses from this task would then be compared with those typically found among Chinese versus American samples. In various experiments conducted by Hong and colleagues (see reviews in Hong, 2009; 2011), participants in the Chinese-culture priming condition have been shown to respond in ways that are typical of Chinese people and participants in the American-culture priming conditions respond in ways that are typical of the Americans. For example, in the original cultural-priming study (Hong et al., 1997; 2000), bicultural Chinese Americans were asked to interpret an ambiguous event (e.g., a picture of a fish swimming in front of a school of fish or a story about an obese boy eating cake while on a diet) after being exposed to the Chinese, American, or neutral primes. This ambiguous “event” could either be explained in terms of the target actor’s internal attributes (e.g., the fish in front is a leader or the obese boy lacks self-control) or the attributes of the target’s external environment, such as the group in which the target is embedded (e.g., the fish is being chased by the group of fish behind him or the obese boy is influenced and persuaded by friends to eat the cake). Results revealed that participants who were primed with Chinese icons made more external or group attributions (typical of Chinese) and fewer internal attributions (typical of Americans) than participants who were primed with American icons. Participants who were primed with neutral pictures made attribution patterns that lay in between those of the Chinese and American cultural prime conditions. A study conducted by No et al (2008) similarly showed that cultural priming can elicit different outcomes in individuals, this time in their affect. No and colleagues made use of Cohen and Gunz’s (2002) emotional projection research. Cohen and Gunz (2002) found that European-Canadians tend to display a more egocentric projection, projecting the emotion they themselves felt onto others (e.g., feeling anger and projecting anger onto others), whereas Asian-Canadians tend to display a more relational projection, perceiving others as experiencing the complementary emotion felt by themselves (e.g., feeling anger and projecting fear onto others). As such, in accordance with the cultural frame-switching paradigm, Korean American bicultural participants should show more egocentric projection when primed with American icons and more relational projection when primed with Asian 18

Dynamic Multiculturalism

(Korean) icons. Indeed, No et  al. (2008) found that Korean Americans primed with Korean icons exhibited more relational projection than egocentric projection relative to those who were primed with American icons. Cultural priming has also been used to understand consumer behavior. For example, Chen, Ng, and Rao (2005) used cultural priming to examine the Western versus East Asian cultural influences on consumer’s willingness to pay more for faster consumption (e.g., pay additional fee for express shipping) than to wait longer (e.g., pay regular shipping). Previous study has shown that, because of the Confucian teaching, many East Asian cultures value perseverance and long-term (versus short-term) orientation more than Western cultures (Hofstede, 2001; Hofstede & Bond, 1988). Based on these findings, Chen et al. (2005) predicted that Singaporean bicultural participants would show more patience, and thus would be less willing to pay more to obtain immediate consumption after being primed with Asian cultural icons (using similar procedures as those in Hong et al. 2000 study). Indeed, the researchers found that compared with participants in the Western prime condition, participants in the Asian prime condition were less likely to opt for the faster shipping when they purchased a new novel. It is crucial to understand that the activation of cultural knowledge is not a “kneejerk” reaction in response to any situational cues, although the response may seem spontaneous. The accessible cultural construct will only be able to impact one’s judgments and behaviors if it is applicable to the current task. Indeed, Hong and colleagues have demonstrated that the cultural priming effects on Chinese-American biculturals only occur when the group (versus individual) causality perspective is pertinent to the situation, that is, when one needs to make a judgment in a context in which the intergroup dimension is salient (Hong, Benet-Martínez, Chiu, & Morris, 2003). Likewise, in a Prisoner’s Dilemma game, individuals can either choose to behave cooperatively or competitively. Interestingly, when being primed with Chinese cultural icons, the cooperative script only becomes applicable when the interaction partners are friends, but not strangers. Specifically, in Wong and Hong’s (2005) study, before playing the Prisoner’s Dilemma game, the Chinese-American bicultural participants were either being primed with American or Chinese culture icons to make the respective competitive or cooperative knowledge system more available.

When playing the game with friends, participants who were primed with Chinese cultural icons were more cooperative than the participants who were primed with American cultural icons. However, when playing with strangers, the cultural priming effects did not occur; the participants in the Chinese prime condition did not cooperate more with the strangers than their counterparts in the American prime condition. To the extent that the Chinese group believes that they can only count on friends to reciprocate favors, the cultural primes will only have the expected effects in the friend condition. Taken as a whole, these findings suggest that accessibility of a particular cultural knowledge system is essential, but not sufficient, as the sole condition in which cultural priming can have any effect. The applicability of the accessible cultural knowledge respective to its immediate context is also important. Cultural priming effects have been shown on a multitude of domains, ranging from personality self-views and evaluations, ethnic identity, emotional experience, self-construals, acculturation, values, cooperation, autobiographical memory, decision making, and word-meaning associations, among others. Detailed citations of these studies can be found in Cheng et al.’s chapter (this volume). Not only have cultural priming effects been shown along a large range of domains, the effects can be obtained in various bicultural samples using various methods. For example, the studies showing cultural priming effects on spontaneous self-construals (Ross, Xun, & Wilson, 2002), representations about work and family (Verkuyten & Pouliasi, 2002), and managerial decisions (Friedman, Liu, Chi, Hong, & Sung, 2012) using different bicultural samples (Chinese-Canadians, Dutch-Greek biculturals, and managers from Taiwan who had studied or worked abroad, respectively) and a variety of cultural primes (language, experimenter’s cultural identity, and “environmental” primes, such as decoration, music, and general room ambiance, respectively). Moreover, the cultural-priming effects can be shown when the cultural cues were presented explicitly (i.e., above participants’ level of conscious awareness, Pouliasi & Verkuyten, 2007) and implicitly (i.e., below participants’ level of conscious awareness, Devos, 2006). In conclusion, the cultural-priming effects are robust. Taken as a whole, the cultural frame switching and cultural priming results have illustrated the dynamic constructivist approach (Hong et al. 2000), which claims that the use of cultural knowledge

among bicultural individuals is a dynamic process contingent upon the individual’s cultural experiences, the unfolding cultural milieu, and how appropriate the knowledge is for the situation. As demonstrated, culture does not rigidly determine human behaviors, nor are individuals passive recipients of their cultural environment. Instead, individuals flexibly shift their responses and use culture as a cognitive resource for grappling with their experiences. In particular, cultural knowledge can provide a good heuristic of how, why, what, and to whom certain social events occur. Although traditional cross-cultural psychology focuses on similarities and differences between groups of individuals demarcated by race, ethnicity, or nationality, the dynamic constructivist approach views cultural systems as experiential, open, and ever changing. Individuals are not limited by their racial, ethnic, or national identities in making their responses. Moreover, the cultural priming procedures we developed make it possible to study the causal effects of culture, as bicultural participants are randomly assigned into different cultural priming conditions, making it possible to infer culture as a cause of the subsequent responses.2

Situated Cognition Approach

Aside from the dynamic-constructivist approach, the situated-cognition approach (e.g., Oyserman & Lee, 2008a) also uses priming methods to activate cultures. The basic postulation of the situated-cognitive approach is that there are two main cultural syndromes:  individualism and collectivism. These two cultural syndromes underlie the cross-cultural differences typically found between Western and Eastern cultures. However, instead of emphasizing variations across different national or cultural groups, the situated cognition approach posits that individuals from any cultural background can be primed to display the individualist or collectivist behaviors, including the corresponding cultural values, self-construals, and cognitive styles. It assumes that each individual can be experimentally induced to think about oneself in an independent manner, disjoint from others, or to think about oneself in an interdependent manner, conjoint with others. Consequently, it can create, at least temporarily, a psychological state that resembles that of people who live in the individualist and collectivist cultures. Although this approach shares some commonalities with the dynamic constructivist approach, the two approaches differ on how they understand and study multiculturalism. Before Hong, Khei


we discuss the differences, we will next first review three categories of commonly used priming methods:  group-level priming, relational-level priming, and both relational and group-level priming (see review by Oyserman & Lee, 2008b). Group-level priming entails inducing a group or individual focus by putting the participants in a group or lone situation (e.g., Briley & Wyer, 2002). Specifically, in the collectivist priming condition, the participants would be usually assigned to a group in the lab or asked to imagine that they are part of a collective. They would be seated at a five-person table working together as a group or working as a team against another five-person group. In the individualist priming condition, participants usually would be seated alone, partitioned, and asked to imagine competing with other lone participants. Relational-level priming entails inducing individuals to construe the self as independent and disjoint from close others or interdependent and conjoint with close others (i.e., independent versus interdependent self-construal; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). There are two common methods. One method is Trafimow, Triandis, and Goto’s (1991, Study 1)  similarities and differences with family and friends task (SDFF), in which participants are instructed to “think of what makes you different from your family and friends” in order to prime independent self-construal or “think of what you have in common with your family and friends” to prime interdependent self-construal. Another widely used relational-priming method is Brewer and Gardner’s (1996) pronoun circling task. In this task, participants are given a paragraph, usually a fictitious travel log, and are asked to circle the I, me, and my pronouns in the independent self-construal condition or the we, us, and ours pronouns in the interdependent self-construal condition. For both relational and group-level priming, usually one of these three tasks is used:  the scrambled-sentence task (Srull & Wyer, 1979), subliminal priming, or the Sumerian-warrior story. The scrambled-sentence task involves asking participants to arrange some scrambled words into meaningful sentences. To prime individualism/ independent self-construal, the sentences usually convey independent self-views and typically contain words such as I, me, mine, distinct, different, competitive, own, free, and unique. To prime collectivism/interdependent self-construal, the sentences usually convey interdependent self- views and typically contain words such as we, us, ours, join, similar, alike, share, cooperative, agreeable, and help. For 20

Dynamic Multiculturalism

subliminal priming, similar words are used, but instead of asking participants to arrange scrambled words into meaningful sentences, they are exposed to the prime words on a computer screen at a very fast speed (e.g., 35 ms.). Because of the fast presentation speed, participants should not be consciously aware of the words, but the words can still activate the respective cultural syndrome. Lastly, in the Sumerian-warrior story developed by Trafimow et al. (1991), participants were asked to read a story about a warrior being chosen to lead an army to war. The warrior was chosen on the basis of either individual talent and achievement (in the individualism/independent self-construal condition) or tribe membership and family honor (in the collectivism/ interdependent self-construal condition). These priming methods have been applied mainly to monocultural samples (in contrast to bicultural individuals in the dynamic-constructivist approach); the results, in general, showed the predicted priming effects on values, self-concept, relationality (social obligation, perceived social support from others, social sensitivity, and prosocial orientation), well-being, and cognitive style (e.g., inclusion/exclusion, assimilation/contrast, connect/pull apart, and prevention/promotion) in a meta-analysis (Oyserman & Lee, 2008b). Furthermore, the meta-analysis also found that the priming effects were largest and most homogeneous (i.e., consistent across studies) using the SDFF task and the Sumerian-warrior story, and the priming effects were strongest on the relationality and cognitive-style outcome measures. It is noteworthy that the priming effects were significantly stronger on European-American and European monoculturals than Asian monoculturals, and the priming effects using language were heterogeneous (i.e., the effects were in the predicted direction in some studies but in the opposite direction in other studies).

Similarities and Differences between Situated-Cognition Approach and Dynamic-Constructivist Approach

Thus far, we have introduced a number of methods to prime different multicultural orientations, and they were categorized mainly under the situated-cognition approach (the group-level and relational-level priming methods we just reviewed) or under the dynamic-constructivist approach (using mainly cultural icons/symbols). However, these categorizations should not be seen as rigid or mutually exclusive. That is, it does not mean that researchers endorsing the dynamic-constructivist

approach would not use, for instance, the SDFF task or the Sumerian-warrior story to prime cultural knowledge, given that the priming methods commonly used by either approach have been found to be effective. Indeed, both approaches agree that shared cultural representations are the key active ingredients in causing cultural differences and using either of the aforementioned empirical methods is a valid way to prime shared cultural representations. That said, the two approaches differ on some fundamental views of multicultural influences (see also Hong, 2009). The dynamic-constructivist approach emphasizes the importance of studying the effects of cultural priming on bicultural and multicultural individuals. By contrast, the situated-cognition approach assumes that both individualistic and collectivistic cultural syndromes can be primed among monocultural individuals. In fact, the situated-cognitive approach argues against using bicultural participants: As Oyserman and Lee write, “when comparisons focus on distinct subgroups, those who are bilingual and/or bicultural, they do not allow clear generalization about the fluidity of culture as a situated process; rather, they subtly reinforce the focus on culture as an “in-the-head” within-person variable like other traits or personality factors.” (Oyserman & Lee, 2008a, p.  248). That is, Oyserman and Lee argued that because bicultural individuals are a distinct subgroup, they do not allow as clear a generalization of the priming effects as monocultural individuals (who are often the majority group). The dynamic-constructivist approach holds a different view—First, it contends that priming bicultural individuals is crucial to understand the dynamics and fluidity of culture because the key ingredients of culture are more than construing oneself in an independent manner, disjoint from others, or in an interdependent manner, conjoint with others. Cultural representations also contain many other facets, such as the collective historical memory, cultural identification, and intergroup dynamics (see Chiu & Hong, 2006). Therefore, studying bicultural participants who have a fair amount of direct or indirect experiences with the respective cultures is necessary (e.g., Fu et al., 2007). Moreover, given its focus on priming independent or interdependent self-construal (or individual or relational/collective self ) of monocultural individuals, the situated-cognitive approach is studying the effects of the tripartite self (individual, relational, and collective self; Brewer & Gardner, 1996) as individual difference, rather than studying the effects of culture.

Second, the SCA postulates only assimilative responses (i.e., responses that are typical of the culture primed, for instance, higher conformity when primed with we than I), but not contrastive responses (i.e., responses that are in the opposite direction of the culture primed, such as lower conformity when primed with we than I). It is important to note, however, that there is ample evidence of contrastive effects. For example, Bond and Yang (1982; Yang & Bond, 1980) have shown that Hong Kong Chinese participants endorsed more Western (versus Chinese) cultural values when they filled out a questionnaire in Chinese language conducted by a mainland Chinese investigator than when they filled out a questionnaire in English language conducted by a Western investigator. The situated-cognitive would have predicted the opposite pattern of findings. Similarly, using cultural icons as primes, other studies have shown contrastive priming effects among bicultural participants who have low bicultural identity integration (Benet-Martínez, Leu, Lee, & Morris, 2002; Cheng, Lee, & Benet-Martínez, 2006) and those who believe in racial essentialism (No et al., 2008, Study 4). In these studies, the cultural primes (cultural icons and symbols and language) could activate identity concerns (e.g., seeing American icons could make an Asian-American aware that he or she is not a full-fledged American), and as a result, individuals may display contrastive (i.e., responses that are opposite to the culture primed) responses. As such, although the situated cognitive approach may explain influences in independent/interdependent self-construal (or individual versus relational/collective self ), it does not fully account for processes underlying multicultural influences. Importantly, the dynamic-constructivist approach maintains that multicultural influences are not deterministic and switching between cultural frames smoothly is not inevitable. In fact, as stated earlier, identity and identification concerns can often derail the cultural frame-switching process. In fact, even neural activation can be affected by identity and identification concerns. Next, we will first review recent findings in cultural neuroscience, and then discuss how culture priming can elicit cultural frame switching in neural activities and how identity concerns can derail such processes.

Cultural Neuroscience

In our framework (as shown in Figure 2.3), we propose that activation of shared cultural knowledge systems can affect neural responses. Indeed, recent Hong, Khei


exciting advancements in cultural neuroscience (Goh et  al., 2007; Gutchess, Welsh, Boduroglu, & Park, 2006; Han and Northoff, 2008; Hedden, Ketay, Aron, Markus, & Gabrieli, 2008; also see review by Chiao, Cheon, Bebko, Livingston, & Hong, 2012) support this premise. To give an example, Nisbett and colleagues (Chua, Boland, & Nisbett, 2005; Masuda, & Nisbett, 2001) consistently have shown that Westerners tend to engage in context-independent and analytical perceptual processes by focusing on a salient object independent of its context, whereas Asians tend to engage in context-dependent and holistic perceptual processes by attending to the relationship between the object and the context in which the object is located. Goh et  al. (2007) further examined the neurological basis of these cross-cultural differences. Specifically, they used an fMR-adaptation paradigm in which participants were exposed to quartets of pictures quickly (i.e., sets of four pictures one at a time) while their brain activities were scanned. The participants were instructed only to view the picture quartets and were not required to respond. In general, brain activity will habituate (quiet down) when processing identical images in rapid repetition, so by systematically changing the focal objects and/or background images in the picture quartets, the researchers can discern the brain areas in which the participants process the focal objects and background. Indeed, Goh et  al. (2007) were able to identify the lateral occipital complex (LOC) regions for object processing, and the parahippocampal place area (PPA) for background processing. Importantly, they also found that elderly Caucasian American participants showed significantly more adaptation than did elderly Singaporean Chinese participants in the LOC regions, suggesting that elderly Caucasian Americans process object information more extensively than elderly Singaporean Chinese. However, no significant difference was found between the young Caucasian American and young Singaporean Chinese samples. To examine the lack of differences between the young cohorts, Jenkins and associates (Jenkins, Yang, Goh, Hong, & Park, 2010) modified the task to focus on the relation between the focal object and the background context. That is, Chinese and Caucasian American young adults were shown picture quartets in which the focal objects and the background contexts were either congruent (e.g., a camel in the desert or a deer in the jungle) or incongruent (e.g., a cow in the elevator lobby or a ram in a concert hall). Because Chinese participants have 22

Dynamic Multiculturalism

been shown to focus more on the thematic relations between objects than Americans (Ji, Zhang, & Nisbett, 2004), Jenkins et al. predicted that the Chinese participants would take significantly longer to habituate when seeing incongruent picture quartets than Caucasian American participants. Nevertheless, the two groups were not expected to differ significantly in their habituation rate toward the congruent pictures. Indeed, researchers found that Chinese participants showed significantly more adaptation in the LOC areas toward incongruent picture quartets than Caucasian American participants, but no significant differences were found toward congruent pictures quartets. Taken as a whole, these results suggest that, on the one hand, there is no constitutional difference because the same LOC regions were recruited during the tasks for both Chinese and Caucasian Americans. On the other hand, cultural experiences can modulate neural activity. In other words, cultural experiences affect the strategies and focus employed in information processing, thereby giving rise to different patterns of neural activation. Can cultural priming methods prime neural activation as well? Indeed, they can. For example, Chiao et al. (2010) have shown that Asian American biculturals’ neural activations toward different types of self-judgments were modulated by cultural primes (the differences versus similarities with friends and family and the Sumerian warrior story). Specifically, prior research has shown that medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) plays a critical role in self-relevant judgments and cognitions (Amodio & Frith, 2006). In addition, Chiao et al. (2009) also found that independent self-construal is associated with a greater recruitment of the MPFC during self-judgment in general (e.g., “I am talkative in general,”), whereas interdependent self-construal is associated with a greater recruitment of the MPFC during self-judgment in specific contexts (e.g., “I am polite when talking to my professor”). Given these findings, Chiao et  al. (2010) further found that Asian American biculturals showed more activation in the MPFC during general self-judgment tasks in the independent self-construal priming condition than during the contextual self-judgment tasks. The reverse was shown in the interdependent self-construal priming condition. Similarly, some recent studies (Ng & Han, 2009; Ng & Lai, 2009; Sui, Hong, Liu, Humphreys, & Han, 2013) have shown that cultural priming modulates neural substrates of self-referencing. In one study, after activating participants’ Chinese

or Western cultural knowledge using pictures of cultural icons, Ng and Lai (2009) asked Hong Kong Chinese college students to judge whether certain adjectives could be used to describe themselves (self-referencing), their mother (mother-referencing), or a person with whom they are familiar but do not identify (not-identify-person (NIP)-referencing). As a control, in some trials, the participants were asked about the font type in which the adjectives were printed. Later, participants were given a surprise recall and recognition test of the adjectives they had seen earlier. Participants in the Western priming condition remembered more of the adjectives that appeared in the self-referencing questions than those in the other three question types, which suggests a relatively distinctive self-construal (typical of Western culture). By contrast, participants in the Chinese priming condition remembered adjectives in the mother—and NIP-referencing questions equally well as those in the self-referencing questions, suggesting a relatively socially connected self-construal (typical of Chinese culture). Importantly, because these two patterns of recall have been linked with distinct neurological activation (Zhu, Zhang, Fan, & Han, 2007), some researchers have suggested that cultural priming may have led to the corresponding neurological activations. Indeed, Ng, Han, Mao, & Lai (2010) have reported evidence supporting this argument. Specifically, these researchers found that Hong Kong bicultural participants in the Western priming condition showed greater ventral medial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) activity when processing information referencing the self than referencing mother or NIP. By contrast, participants in the Chinese priming condition showed no significant differences in VMPFC activity when processing information referencing the self, mother, or NIP. Furthermore, a recent study (Huff, Yoon, Lee, Mandadi, & Gutchess, 2013) has shown that the bicultural identity integration of Asian American participants modulates their self-versus-mother referencing patterns. Specifically, the researchers measured the Asian American participants’ neural activity while they judged whether some trait adjectives were applicable to the self, mother, and Gandhi, as a familiar person who was not personally known. Subsequently, the participants were tested on whether they could remember the adjectives via a surprise recognition task. Participants with high bicultural identity integration showed a stronger mother-referencing effect than those with low bicultural identity integration. In particular,

participants with high bicultural identity integration showed greater activation in the dorsal MPFC for the mother-relevant adjectives that were later remembered (versus forgotten) relative to the self-referenced items. The pattern was reversed for participants who were low in bicultural identity integration, such that they engaged the dorsal MPEC more for the self-relevant adjectives that were later remembered (versus forgotten) compared with mother-relevant items. These results show that identity concerns (e.g., bicultural identity integration) can moderate bicultural individuals’ neural underpinning of culturally typical responses (e.g., mother-referencing effect among Asians). The emergent evidence that cultural priming modulates neural activities is exciting. Again, these results suggest that the neurological correlates are skin deep rather than essentialist dispositions of any particular racial/ethnic groups. Importantly, “even though the same brain region might be recruited by different cultural groups during the same cognitive task, two cultures might have different meanings for the concepts involved in a task” (Han & Northoff, 2008, p.  652). Indeed, recent research has shown that the magnitude of neural activation varies as a function of individuals’ cultural identification. For instance, as mentioned earlier, Huff et  al. (2013) showed that Asian Americans with high bicultural identity integration showed stronger neural activity related to mother referencing than their low bicultural identity integration counterparts. Also, Hedden et  al.’s (2008) study of cultural influences on neural substrates of attentional control showed that the more acculturated East Asian participants were to American culture, the stronger their American pattern of neural activation. These results suggest that an individual’s experience in and identification with a cultural context may shape brain responses. Identity processes appear to play an important role in linking the mind and body. In the next section on multicultural self, we will further discuss how identity processes underlie people’s inclusionary and exclusionary responses toward multicultural exposure (see also Schwartz, Vignoles, Brown, & Zagefka’s chapter on identity processes in this volume).

The Multicultural Self

Aside from leading to culture-related knowledge acquisition and use, multicultural interactions can also impel identity-relevant reflection and evaluations, leading to queries such as “Who am I?” and Hong, Khei


“Who are we?” In a situation like this, individuals might use the new culture as a reference to appraise their selves (or their collective selves). Their minds may become clouded with questions such as, “am I  qualified to be a member of this new cultural group?” “Will this new cultural group question my membership?” “Can I  meaningfully define myself in terms of the new culture?” and “Can I find comfort or a safe haven in this new culture?” Previous research has revealed that for immigrants and their progeny, constructing a “secure” identity in the host culture is often a challenge (Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005; Deaux, 2006; Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001; see review by Sam & Berry, this volume). Hong and colleagues (Hong, Roisman, & Chen, 2006) have contended that individuals’ attachment to a culture is analogous to children’s attachment to their mothers/caregivers. In this model, a secure (versus insecure) attachment would help individuals to cope with stress and threat better. Indeed, among a group of Indonesian undergraduate students studying in Singapore, those who showed greater secure attachment (i.e., showing secure-based schema in a subliminal priming task) also showed less perceived discrimination and acculturation stress in the host country and greater subjective well-being (Hong, Fang, Yang, & Phua, 2013; see also Bakker, van Oudenhoven, & van der Zee, 2004). The experiences of negotiating multicultural identities and the possibility of experiencing bicultural or multicultural identity confusion and conflict have been widely expressed in literary and artistic productions. There are numerous well-known examples, such as Eric Liu’s (1998) The Accidental Asian, and Amin Maalouf ’s (2000) In the Name of Identity. In art, Frida Kahlo’s (1932) “Self Portrait on the Borderline between Mexico and the United States” (1932) is a case in point ( After living in the United States for nearly three years, Frida was growing homesick for Mexico. In this painting, Frida expresses her ambivalent feelings toward the United States and her emotional tie to Mexican culture. In an elegant pink dress and white gloves, she stands like a statue on a pedestal at the center of the painting with a Mexican flag in one hand and a cigarette in the other. The background is split into two halves that symbolize the two worlds that she was living in: In one section, there is an ancient Mexican landscape, its exotic plants and pieces of Aztec sculpture are portrayed in rich, warm earthy colors; in the other section, Ford’s factory chimneys and other 24

Dynamic Multiculturalism

technology-dominated landscapes of the United State are portrayed in dull grey and blue colors. This painting is a vivid testimony of a sojourner’s multicultural experiences, and the complex feelings and attitudes often associated to them. Another good example is Pacita Abad’s (1992) “A Racial Identity Crisis” ( pacitaabad/1.html). This painting expresses Pacita’s identity conflict about being both a Spanish colonial and a Filipina native. The canvas is split into two halves, with a different self-portrait of Pacita on each half. One self-portrait shows her wearing an elegant western dress, and the other shows her wearing indigenous clothing. The painting uses bright and contrastive colors, conveying a clash in identities. As portrayed in these artistic productions, there are often two opposing forces in multicultural exposures—a tendency to include and make creative usage of the new/foreign/host cultural influences and a tendency to exclude and reject the new/ foreign/host cultural influences. Incidentally, the movie director of Life of Pi, Ang Lee, is exemplary of an inclusionary response toward multicultural influences. Lee grew up in Tainan, a traditional Chinese town in southern Taiwan, and later pursued higher education at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign and New York University. He is famous for both his portrayal of Chinese culture in movies such as Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Pushing Hands, and The Wedding Banquet and his portrayal of Western culture in movies such as Brokeback Mountain and Sense & Sensibility. He is someone who has successfully made creative usage of both Asian and Western cultural knowledge and reaped the benefits of multiple cultural experiences. But Ang Lee is not typical. Exclusionary responses toward the new/foreign/host cultural influences are not uncommon in multicultural encounters. Sometimes the exclusionary response can contribute to violent, devastating outcomes. Sheikh Omar Saeed, a British-born terrorist of Pakistani descent, masterminded the 2002 kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. In his youth, Sheikh attended Forest School, a prestigious institution in North-East London, and later matriculated at the London School of Economics, where he studied applied mathematics and economics. Although Sheikh was undeniably steeped in Western culture, he did not seem to have embraced Western culture, nor had he built a secure identity

around it. The clash between his native identity and mainstream British culture may have made him susceptible to radical terrorist ideologies. Understanding the factors underlying inclusionary and exclusionary responses in multicultural encounters is vital. Several chapters in this volume discuss these possible factors through the perspective of globalization (see Leung, Qiu, and Chiu, this volume) and bicultural identity integration (see Benet-Martínez, 2012; Cheng et al., this volume). We will not repeat the contents of these chapters here. Instead, we will focus on the lay theory of race as a moderator of inclusionary and exclusionary responses.

Lay Theory of Race

In many societies around the globe, existing social disparities are linked with groups of people with distinct outer physical characteristics (e.g., skin tone, hair and eye colors, body type, and so forth), social categories (e.g., gender, age), behavioral tendencies, performance outcomes, and personality traits. To understand these disparities and make sense of the social world in general, people, as naïve scientists (Heider, 1958), come up with folk explanations, or personal theories for why certain racial groups are behaving in certain ways. This is a basic cognitive process through which humans learn, acquire knowledge, and make predictions about future events. For example, we learn that natural categories such as animals or elements (e.g., “tiger” and “gold”) are defined by some core essence or collection of properties that are independent of human perception (see also Gelman, & Hirschfeld, 1999; Haslam, Rothschild, & Ernst, 2000; Medin, & Ortony, 1989). Conversely, human artifacts, such as a “chair” or a “table,” are categories that do not possess unalterable, inherent properties (e.g., an overturned crate can be considered a chair), but are created by human perceivers for ease of utility (e.g., to find a place to sit). Lay theory of race refers to people’s folk beliefs about the nature of race and racial categories (see Hong, Chao, & No, 2009, for a review). These theories provide a framework within which individuals interpret and organize information related to race, ethnicity, and culture. In general, there are two opposing beliefs of race that are often contested in social discourse and scientific debates (Celious & Oyserman, 2001; Gossett, 1997; Ossorio & Duster, 2005; Tate & Audette, 2001). One theory contends that race is determined by some nonmalleable, deep-seated essence, defined as something

genetic or otherwise biological, or by other “essence placeholders” such as ancestry or normative cultural practices. According to this theory, termed the essentialist theory of race, racial essence gives rise to personality traits and abilities that are stable over time and across situations such that race is not only “real” and not only has a material basis, but is also diagnostic of a multitude of human characteristics. The opposing theory, discussed in our work under the rubric of social-constructionist theory of race, denies the “real” existence of a racial essence. In fact, scientists have not found genetic markers for race in the human genome (Bonham, Warshauer-Baker, & Collins, 2005). For people endorsing the social-constructivist theory, racial taxonomies are either socially constructed (often by members of the dominant group) to justify and rationalize existing inequalities between groups, or just convenient labels people use in certain societies or cultures. As such, a person may be categorized differently depending on where he or she goes in the world (e.g., in the United States versus Brazil), and the meaning of the racial categories to which he or she belongs can be altered when social circumstances change (Fairchild, Yee, Wyatt, & Weizmann, 1995; Zuckerman, 1990). In both cases, race is a social construction that is arbitrarily created for social and political reasons and in a particular historical context. Because racial categorization from this perspective is conceptualized as fluid, differences observed between racial groups do not reflect deep-seated differences. Which of the aforementioned two lay theories holds more truth? That is, which one is better supported by objective evidence? This question is hard, if not impossible, to answer because all human behaviors are arguably results of the dynamic interaction of nature and nurture (i.e., environment). Despite this, people tend to subscribe to one of these lay theories over the other. More importantly, individual differences in the extent to which one buys into the theory of essentialist theory of race or the social-constructivist theory of race can give rise to a wide range of outcomes, including race-based categorization and cognition, identification with the mainstream culture, switching between cultural frames, and creativity. We review the evidence for these effects after we briefly discuss how to measure and prime the lay theory of race first.

Measuring and priming lay theory of race

To assess an individual’s endorsement of the two different race-related beliefs (racial essentialist or Hong, Khei


social constructionist), Hong and colleagues (No et al., 2008) developed an eight-item questionnaire. This questionnaire requires participants to rate their degree of agreement with statements such as, “To a large extent, a person’s race biologically determines his or her abilities and traits”; “How a person is like (e.g., his or her abilities, traits) is deeply ingrained in his or her race. It cannot be changed much”; and “Races are just arbitrary categories and can be changed if necessary” (reverse item). Using this questionnaire, the researchers have surveyed a large number of undergraduate Caucasian American and Asian American college students. In general, the scale shows a single factor, with higher score indicating stronger endorsement of essentialist theory. Also, the scale has high internal reliability and appropriate nomological properties (i.e., see report in No et  al., 2008, Study 1). Moreover, the scale scores of over a thousand American college students were normally distributed, that is, nearly equal proportions of participants endorsed the essentialist theory and the social-constructionist theory (see review in Hong, Chao, & No, 2009), respectively. Besides examining people’s own endorsement of the lay theory of race as an individual difference, Hong and colleagues (Chao, Hong, Chiu, 2013; No et  al. 2008) have also manipulated this construct using a bogus essay (a scientific essay ostensibly published in Time magazine) as a prime. That is, by asking the participants to read an essay that supports an essentialist theory of race (with a heading such as, “There is essence underlying racial groups. The concept of race has divided humankind into meaningful social groups based on differences in their innate qualities”) or social constructionist theory of race (with a heading such as, “The meaning of race is socially constructed. It is used to characterize different social groups”), the corresponding theory will become temporarily more accessible in the mind of the participants, overriding the participants’ own prior endorsement of the theory. Using this priming method, researchers were able to discern the causal effects of the lay theory of race (see review of evidence next).

Race-based categorization and cognition

Individuals holding the essentialist theory of race are more likely to use race to categorize others than those holding the social-constructionist theory of race. For example, in Chao, Hong, & Chiu (2013, Studies 1 & 2), American undergraduate students were asked to pick two out of three things that they think are closely related, such as 26

Dynamic Multiculturalism

“Jimmy Carter,” “Martin Luther King,” “Barrack Obama.” The stronger the participants endorse the essentialist theory of race, the more likely they were to pick “Martin Luther King” and “Barrack Obama,” suggesting that they focus on race rather than the alternative, president, to categorize (Chao et al, 2013, Study 2). These results were replicated by priming participants’ lay theory of race (Chao et  al, 2013, Study 1). In Studies 3 through 5 of Chao et al. (2013), participants who held the essentialist theory of race also showed higher efficiency in learning race-related categories (in an implicit learning task), greater sensitivity to discerning phenotypic racial differences when performing racial categorization, and greater tendency to adhere to the hypodescent principle in perceiving racial groups (i.e., excluding targets from the White category when they show any, even minimal, features associated with the Black category) than their social constructionist counterparts. Interestingly, similar findings were found among Black, Caucasian, and Asian American participants, suggesting that the lay theory of race is a framework used by people to process social information regardless of the person’s own race.

Identification with mainstream culture

Holding the essentialist theory of race orients racial minority members (Asian Americans) to perceive a more rigid, impermeable interracial boundary than holding the social-constructionist theory of race. Under the essentialist theory framework, racial-minority members feel that they can never become full-fledged members of the mainstream, host cultural group (American), and thus would show a lower identification with the mainstream culture. Indeed, No et  al., (2008, Study 2)  have shown that Asian-American participants who were primed with the essentialist theory of race showed lower identification with mainstream American culture than those who were primed with the social-constructivist theory of race. What is interesting is that both groups of participants were not significantly different from each other in identifying with their Asian identity. As such, the essentialist theory of race seems to have created a cognitive barrier that prevented the racial minority participants from passing into the mainstream American culture.3

Switching between cultural frames

To the extent that individuals holding an essentialist theory of race may also think of different

cultures as separate entities with impermeable interracial and intercultural boundaries, it should follow that these individuals would also find it hard to switch between multiple cultural frames. This perception should make it difficult for minority group members to switch to the mainstream cultural frame, and would eventually affect real-life outcomes, such as immigrants’ adaptation to their adopted culture and cross-cultural management, in which bicultural managers adjust their management practices in different cultural contexts. Chao, Chen, Roisman, and Hong’s (2007) work shows that essentialist theory of race moderates the ability to culturally frame switch. In Chao et  al.’s (2007) first study, Chinese-American participants were presented with a sequential priming task in which they were shown a prime (a Chinese cultural prime, American cultural primes, and neutral prime) followed by a string of letters and then asked to judge if those letters were real words or not (Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, & Williams, 1995). Basically, the primes were paired with either cultural words (Chinese target words or American target words) or nonwords. Participants were required to answer as quickly as possible. Results showed that the stronger the participants’ endorsement of an essentialist theory of race, the longer they took to answer trials that require them to switch between cultural frames (i.e., American prime/Chinese word and Chinese prime/American word), suggesting more difficulty in switching between cultural frames. Likewise, in their second study, Chao et al. (2007) found heightened electro-dermal activity (skin conductance) during an interview focused on Chinese American bicultural individuals’ experiences in their two cultures. Both these studies showed that racial essentialism influenced individuals’ cognition (study 1), and emotional reactivity (study 2), making it cognitively harder and more stressful to switch between cultural frames. This is consistent with our contention that an essentialist race theory sets up a framework within which the Chinese and American cultures are seen as discrete and nonoverlapping, which in turn leads to more difficulty in switching between cultural frames. Immigrants’ adaptation can also be modulated by their lay theory of race. Many expatriates not only face the challenge of living and working in a new culture, but they also might become a racial minority in the host country. Therefore, these individuals’ lay theory of race should also affect their tendency to approach or avoid the new host culture. To understand these processes, Chao, Takeuchi,

Farh, Zhang, & Hong (2013) conducted a survey in Beijing, China, to examine the acculturative tendencies of Caucasian expatriates from Western countries (America, Europe, and Australia). The participants were asked to respond to the lay theories of race measure, together with a measure of Chinese language proficiency, length of stay in China, and their extent of engagement in Chinese cultural practices and activities in the past 6 months (e.g., “When I  listened to music, _____% of the time I listened to Chinese music”; “During the past 6  months, _____% of the films I  watched were in Chinese”; “When I  ate at home, _____% of the time the food was prepared in Chinese style”; “Now, _____% of my friends are Chinese”). The results revealed that the stronger the expatriates held an essentialist theory of race, the less likely they were to engage in Chinese cultural practices and activities. This correlation remained significant even when proficiency in the Chinese language and length of residence in China were statistically controlled. These findings suggest that the essentialist theory of race also hinders Caucasian expatriates’ acculturation into Chinese (the host) culture. More importantly, these results suggest that the effects of endorsing an essentialist theory of race not only apply to Asian Americans, who typically possess less sociopolitical power and status than Caucasian Americans, but also to Western expatriates, a racial minority group that enjoys relatively high status in China. As such, the essentialist theory of race appears to set up an impermeable interracial boundary for groups regardless of their relative power.

Essentialist theory of race dampens creativity

Since individuals holding an essentialist theory of race tend to rely on rigid categorization processes (e.g., reliance on race-based categorization and viewing different racial/cultural groups as nonoverlapping), they could be less likely to combine seemingly unrelated concepts to form novel ideas or products. To test this prediction, in Tadmor, Chao, Hong, and Polzer (2012, Study 1), Jewish Israeli participants were randomly assigned to one of the two lay theories of race priming conditions (essentialist theory or social-constructionist theory) or a no-prime control condition. Subsequently, participants’ creativity was measured using the Remote Association Test (RAT; Mednick, 1962), in which participants were asked to identify a single target word that was strongly associated with three distinct stimuli words (e.g., given the words manner, Hong, Khei


round, and tennis, the correct answer would be table). As predicted, participants primed with the essentialist theory of race solved fewer RATs than did participants in the social constructionist theory or no-prime condition. Tadmor, Chao et  al.’s (2012) Study 2 replicated the same pattern of findings using a different creativity task (i.e., Duncker’s candle problem, 1945)  and also showed that the dampening effect of an essentialist theory of race on creativity was mediated through close-mindedness (a subscale of need for cognitive closure, Webster & Kruglanski, 1994). This mediation is consistent with previous findings showing that multicultural exposure enhances creativity only for participants who are high in openness to experience (Leung & Chiu, 2008; see also Leung et al., this volume). Taken as a whole, the research reviewed here has shown, across a wide range of methods, that people’s lay theory of race can impact their experiences in navigating among multiple cultures. Results consistently show that an essentialist theory of race is associated with close-mindedness and rigid social categorization, which, in turn, make it more difficult to navigate between cultural frames, thereby dampening creativity and causing other potential negative intergroup consequences (e.g., avoiding intergroup contacts, Goff, Eberhardt, Williams, & Jackson, 2008; more stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination, e.g., Haslam, Rothschild, & Ernst, 2002). It is important to note that people also can hold an essentialist theory of other social categories, such as gender. Previous research has shown that the more strongly a female holds an essentialist theory of gender, the more likely she is to buy into (benign) gender stereotypes and self-stereotype with those traits (Coleman & Hong, 2008). By the same token, the more Israelis and Palestinians believe that the nature of social group is fixed (versus malleable), the less likely they believe that the long standing Israeli-Palestinian conflicts can ever be resolved, and thus less likely to compromise for peace (Halperin, Russell, Trzesniewski, Gross, & Dweck, 2011). In short, the lay theory of race, gender, or social group set up a framework within which people perceive the social world and their own relations with the social groups around them.

Emergent New Research Directions

How might the human mind and self co-evolve with the exponential prevalence of multicultural contacts and mixing? Could multicultural contacts and mixing affect the cognitive and neurological underpinnings of people? If yes, could the changes 28

Dynamic Multiculturalism

in people’s cognitive and neurological underpinnings affect their identity and responses toward cultural influences? At first glance, these questions seem farfetched. However, next we review some recent findings that seem to suggest that such dynamic processes are plausible. There is burgeoning research showing multicultural exposure effects on cognitive styles. For example, Tadmor and colleagues (Tadmor, Hong, Chao, Wiruchnipawan, & Wang, 2012) have conducted six studies to systematically explore the ameliorative effects of multicultural experience on cognitive dimensions of intergroup bias. The researchers used different types of manipulation of multicultural exposure, including exposing participants to video clips that depict two cultures (Chinese and American) versus a single culture (Chinese or American culture as control conditions) and asking participants to recall experiences when interacting with foreign cultures versus spending time at a local beach (control condition). Across different studies, participants who were in the multicultural exposure condition consistently showed lower stereotype endorsement, symbolic racism, and discriminatory hiring decisions than participants in the control conditions. Furthermore, these studies showed that experimental exposure to multicultural experience causes a reduction in the need for cognitive closure (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994), and that the ameliorative effects of multicultural experience on intergroup bias are fully mediated by lower levels of need for cognitive closure. The beneficial effects of multicultural exposure were found regardless of the targeted stereotype group (African-Americans, Ethiopians, homosexuals, native Israelis), regardless of whether multicultural experience was measured or manipulated, and regardless of the population sampled (Caucasian-Americans, Asian-Americans, Jewish-Israelis), demonstrating the robustness of this phenomenon. Overall, these results demonstrate that multicultural experience plays a critical role in increasing social tolerance by increasing open-mindedness and cognitive flexibility. Research in neuroscience has revealed that the human brain is malleable, as its structure and function can be reorganized following environmental demands—an attribute termed brain plasticity. In a groundbreaking study, Maguire et al. (1999) showed that the volume of the hippocampus (a brain area responsibility for spatial reasoning) of a London taxi driver is positively correlated with the driver’s tenure on the job, suggesting that the brain changes in response to practices and learning. Likewise,

Draganski et  al. (2004) have shown that regular jugglers have denser grey matter than individuals who do not juggle. To the extent that multicultural exposure brings about new practices and learning, the experience can also contribute to cultural brain plasticity, that is, functional and structural changes in the human brain, due to exposure to different cultures. A case in point is the well-documented “bilingual advantage,” whereby proficiency in two or more languages is associated with better executive control functioning in the medial prefrontal lobe (see review by Ramirez-Esparza and Garcia-Sierra, this volume). Multicultural exposure also brings about other cognitive benefits. As noted, multicultural exposure also leads to greater creativity (see Leung et al., this volume; Cheng, Sanchez-Burks, & Lee, 2008). That said, it is important to note that the beneficial effects are not inevitable. Participants’ personal beliefs, such as bicultural identity integration or lay theory of race, also moderate the outcomes (Cheng, Darling, et  al., 2008; Saad, Damian, Benet-Martínez, Moons, & Robins, 2013; Tadmor, Chao, et al., 2012). In addition, bicultural individuals who endorse an integrative acculturation strategy show greater integrative complexity than bicultural individuals who endorse a separation or assimilation strategy (Tadmor, Galinsky, & Maddux, 2012). In short, the individual is not a passive recipient of multicultural influences, as we have emphasized throughout this chapter. This also highlights the possibility that a person’s own predispositions (e.g., genetic predispositions) interacts with his or her sociocultural environment to affect the outcomes of multicultural exposure.

Gene X Environment Interaction

Previous research has shown that some individuals are more emotionally reactive to and affected by social experiences than others, and that such individual differences are associated with individuals’ genetic variations (e.g., Champagne & Curley, 2005). Specifically, individuals with certain variants of the dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) gene are more sensitive to social influences (e.g., Bakermans-Kranenburg, van Ijzendoorn, Pijlman, Mesman, & Juffer, 2008). People with the sensitive variant of the gene show more reactivity to prosocial behavior cues (Sasaki, et al., 2011), peers’ influence on their own political ideology (Settle, Dawes, Christakis, & Fowler, 2010) and smoking cues (McClernon, Hutchison, Rose, & Kozink, 2007). Second, in addition to the DRD4, single nucleotide polymorphism of the oxytocin receptor gene

(OXTR rs53576) has also been implicated in one’s degree of social sensitivity. Relative to their counterparts with the A allele, individuals with the G allele of this gene behaved more normatively in their emotional support seeking (Kim, et al., 2010) and emotional regulation behaviors (Kim, et al., 2011). Third, the short allele (versus long allele) of the serotonin transporter (5-HTTLPR) gene is commonly associated with emotional reactivity to stresses and stronger negative impact of childhood maltreatment on persistent depression (Uher, et al., 2011), current life events on neuroticism (Pluess, Belsky, Way, & Taylor, 2010), and depression (Caspi, et al., 2003). In short, these candidate genetic polymorphisms seem to predict negative responses in stressful, threatening environments. Therefore, to the extent that intercultural encounters are stressful and threatening, individuals who possess these genetic predispositions could display maladaptive adjustments in the new culture. In addition to individuals’ genetic predispositions, actual experience in the new cultures is also a crucial factor in determining adjustment outcomes. However, actual experience is not determined solely by the external sociocultural environment; rather, as we have illustrated throughout this chapter, lay theories and beliefs set up expectations and determine the meanings of social situations (e.g., regardless of whether a situation is race related). Since much information in our social environment is ambiguous and subject to diverse interpretations, individuals’ responses are often driven by how they think and feel about the social stimuli. Therefore, the outcomes of intercultural encounters would be a result of the interaction of the individuals’ genetic dispositions and their perceptions of the sociocultural environment. These ideas are consistent with some recent findings. For example, Cheon, Livingston, Hong, & Chiao (in press) examined how 5-HTTLPR and environmental factors signaling potential out-group threat dynamically interact to shape intergroup bias. Across two studies, the researchers found evidence for a gene-environment interaction on intergroup bias and prejudice. Specifically, Study 1 revealed that greater signals of out-group threat, such as negative prior contacts with the out-group or a belief in a dangerous world (Altemeyer, 1988), were associated with stronger intergroup bias among participants possessing at least one short allele (S/S or S/L) of 5-HTTLPR. However, the association between perceived out-group threat and intergroup bias was not significant among participants possessing two Hong, Khei


long alleles (L/L) of 5-HTTLPR. In Study 2, participants played a behavioral game with two novel outgroups—one threatening and the other not. Participants possessing at least one short allele (but not those with L/L alleles) were affected by the intergroup situation such that the stronger the participants’ beliefs in a dangerous world, the less reward they allocated to a new member of the threatening out-group, suggesting that the short allele of 5-HTTLPR predispose individuals to be sensitive and reactive toward threatening cues in multicultural contacts and mixing. These findings attest to the possibility that genes (e.g., 5-HTTLPR) and environment (e.g., external:  negative intergroup contacts or a threatening out-group; internal:  a belief in a dangerous world) interact to affect the outcomes of multicultural exposure. Interestingly, Cheon et al.’s (in press) study also found that those short-allele carriers of 5-HTTLPR who had positive intergroup contacts or believed that the social world was relatively safe showed less intergroup bias and prejudice than those possessing L/L alleles of 5-HTTLPR. That is, participants who possess short alleles of the serotonin transporter genes displayed more negative outcomes in an unfavorable, threatening environment than their counterparts with long-alleles. However, the short-allele carriers also showed more positive outcomes in a favorable, secure environment. This pattern is called differential plasticity. These findings show that one’s genetic predisposition does not determine one’s outcomes. Rather, the processes involved are of high complexity. People are not passive recipients of the environment; they can also choose and/or modify their socio-cultural environment. But how might people’s genetic predispositions affect these processes? Moreover, since the gene-environment interaction may bring about certain outcomes, including behavioral tendency, which then can feedback to affect genetic expression (epigenetics, Meaney, 2010), how might these processes address the co-evolution of culture and human biological underpinnings (genes and brain)? These questions open up some exciting new directions in future research.

Concluding Remarks

We have moved a long way from early beliefs that multicultural individuals are marginalized people with a divided self, that individuals should ideally have a single cultural identity, and that involvement with more than one culture is psychologically undesirable because it leads to identity confusion (Park, 30

Dynamic Multiculturalism

1928). With the exponential rate of intercultural contacts and mixing via mass media and the World Wide Web, among other means, being or becoming multicultural seems more normative than being monocultural. Monoculturalism may soon be a rare case and, as such, described as a thing of the past. It is ever more pressing to understand how people navigate among cultures, form bi- or multicultural identities, and adapt to new cultural environments cognitively and biologically.

Author note

The preparation of this manuscript was partially supported by an Academic Research Fund Tier 2 grant (MOE2012-T2-1-051) from the Singapore Ministry of Education awarded to Ying-yi Hong. We would like to thank Bobby Cheon, Verónica Benet-Martínez, Ben Zalkind, and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments.


1. The main purpose of the painting is two-fold. First, by juxtaposition, an American iconic figure (Marilynn Moore) and a Chinese iconic figure (Goddess of Mercy), the painting invites viewers to experience switching between American and Chinese cultures when they focus on one figure at a time; second, it represents the juxtaposition of two contentious female figures. On the one hand, Marilynn Moore is a controversial sexual symbol in American culture; on the other hand, the gender of the Goddess of Mercy is ambiguous, as she is sometimes portrayed as a male figure in Chinese culture. 2. Would cultural icons activate people’s stereotypes of a culture? Yes, because stereotypes are generalized schemas of certain groups of people and they are often widely shared within a society. Therefore, priming monocultural individuals with icons of a foreign country/culture can activate their stereotypes of that country/culture, thereby affecting the individuals’ behaviors if the stereotypes are seen as relevant and applicable to the self (cf. DeMarree, Wheeler, & Petty, 2005). 3. At the end of the survey, participants were debriefed properly and it was ensured that the study did not jeopardize their identification with the American culture.


Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Amodio, D. M., & Frith, C. D. (2006). Meeting of minds: the medial frontal context and social cognition, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7, 268–277. doi:10.1038/nrn1884 Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Pijlman, F. T. A., Mesman, J., & Juffer, F. (2008). Experimental evidence for differential susceptibility:  Dopamine D4 receptor polymorphism (DRD4 VNTR) moderates intervention effects on toddlers’ externalizing behavior in a randomized controlled trial. Developmental Psychology, 44(1), 293–300. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.293 Bakker, W., van Oudenhoven, J. P. and van der Zee, K. I. (2004), Attachment styles, personality, and Dutch emigrants’ intercultural adjustment. European Journal of Personality, 18, 387–404. doi: 10.1002/per.515

Barth, F. (2002). An anthropology of knowledge. Current Anthropology, 43, 1–18. Benet-Martínez, V. (2012). Multiculturalism: Cultural, personality, and social processes. In K. Deaux & M. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology (pp. 623– 648). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Benet-Martínez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural Identity Integration (BII):  Components and Psychosocial Antecedents. Journal of Personality, 73(4), 1015–1050. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00337.x Benet-Martínez, V., Leu, J., Lee, F, & Morris, M. W. (2002). Negotiating biculturalism:  Cultural frame switching in biculturals with oppositional versus compatible cultural identities. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 33, 492–516. Bond, M. H. (2010). (Ed.) Oxford handbook of Chinese psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Bond, M. H., & Yang, K. S. (1982). Ethnic affirmation versus cross-cultural accommodation: The variable impact of questionnaire language on Chinese bilinguals from Hong Kong. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13, 169–185. Bonham, V., L., Warshauer-Baker, E., & Collins, F. S. (2005). Race and ethnicity in the genome era: The complexity of the constructs. American Psychologist, 60, 9–15. Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “We”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83–93. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.83 Briley, D. A., & Wyer, R. S. (2002). The effect of group membership salience on the avoidance of negative outcomes: Implications for social and consumer decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 400–415. Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Caspi, A., Sugden, K., Moffitt, T. E., Taylor, A., Craig, I. W., Harrington, H., . . . Poulton, R. (2003). Influence of life stress on depression: Moderation by a polymorphism in the 5-HTT gene. Science, 301(5631), 386–389. doi:  10.1126/ science.1083968 Celious, A., & Oyserman, D. (2001). Race from the inside: An emerging heterogenous race model. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 149–165. Champagne, F. A., & Curley, J. P. (2005). How social experiences influence the brain. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 15(6), 704–209. Chao, M. M., Chen, J., Roisman, G., & Hong, Y. (2007). Essentializing race:  Implications for bicultural individuals’ cognition and physiological reactivity. Psychological Science, 18, 341–348. Chao, M. M., Hong, Y., & Chiu, C. (2013). Essentializing race:  Its implications on racial categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 619–634. Chao, M., Takeuchi, R., Farh, J., Zhang, Z., & Hong, Y. (2013). A tale of two perspectives: The role of essentialist beliefs on cultural adjustment and cultural intelligence development. Unpublished Manuscript: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Chen, H., Ng, S., & Rao, A. R. (2005). Cultural differences in consumer impatience. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(3), 291–301. Cheng, C.-Y., Darling, E., Lee, F., Molina, K., Sanchez-Burks, J., Sanders, M, & Zhao, L. (2008). Reaping the rewards of cultural diversity: The role of identity integration. Personality and Social Psychology Compass, 2, 1182–1192. Cheng, C.-Y., Lee, F., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2006). Assimilation and contrast effects in cultural frame-switching:  Bicultural

Identity Integration (BII) and valence of cultural cues. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 742–760. Cheng, C. Y., Sanchez-Burks, J., & Lee, F. (2008). Connecting the dots within: Creative performance and identity integration. Psychological Science, 19, 1178–1184. Cheon, B. K., & Hong, Y. (in press). Cultural diversity of group processes as adaptation to threats:  The interplay of social, neural, and genetic mechanisms. In J. Chiao, S-C. Li, R. Seligman, & R. Turner (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of cultural neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press. Cheon, B. K., Livingston, R. W., Hong, Y., & Chiao, J. Y. (in press). Gene x environment interaction on intergroup bias: The role of 5-HTTLPR and perceived outgroup threat. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. Chiao, J. Y. (2009). Edit, Progress in Brain Research, Vol. 178, 3–287. Chiao, J. Y., Cheon, B. K., Bebko, G. M., Livingston, R. W., & Hong, Y. (2012). Gene X Environment interaction in social cognition. In S. T.  Fiske & C. N.  Macrae (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Social Cognition. 523–542. Chiao, J. Y., Harada, T., Komeda, H., Li, Z., Mano, Y., Saito, D. N., . . . Iidaka, T. (2009). Neural basis of individualistic and collectivistic views of self. Human Brain Mapping, 30(9), 2813–2820. Chiao, J. Y., Harada, T., Komeda, H., Zhang, L., Mano, Y., Saito, D. N., . . . Iidaka, T. (2010). Dynamic cultural influences on neural representations of the self. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(1), 1–11. Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (2006). The social psychology of culture. New York: Psychology Press. Chiu, C., Morris, M. W., Hong, Y., & Menon, T. (2000). Motivated cultural cognition: The impact of implicit cultural theories on dispositional attribution varies as a function of need for closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 247–259. Chua, H. F., Boland, J. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (2005). Cultural variation in eye movements during scene perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 12629–12633. Cohen, D., & Gunz, A. (2002). As seen by the other: Perspectives on the self in the memories and emotion perceptions of Easterners and Westerners. Psychological Science, 13, 55–59. Coleman, J., & Hong, Y. (2008). Beyond nature and nurture: The influence of lay gender theories on self-stereotyping. Self & Identity, 7(1), 34–53. D’Andrade, R. G. (1984). Cultural meaning systems. In R. A.  Shweder & R. A.  LeVine (Eds.), Culture theory:  Essays on mind, self and emotion (pp. 88–119). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Deaux, K. (2006). To be an immigrant. New York: Sage. DeMarree, K. G., Wheeler, S. C., & Petty, R. E. (2005). Priming a new identity:  Self-monitoring moderates the effects of nonself primes on self-judgments and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(5), 657–671. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.5.657 Devos, T. (2006). Implicit bicultural identity among Mexican American and Asian American college students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12, 381–402. DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 263–287. Draganski, B., Gaser, C., Busch, V., Schuierer, G., Bogdahn, U., & May, A. (2004). Neuroplasticity: Changes in grey matter induced by training. Nature, 427 (Jan 22) (6972), 311–312. Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving (L. S.  Lees, Trans.). Psychological Monographs, 58(5, Whole No. 270).

Hong, Khei


Fairchild, H. H., Yee, A. H., Wyatt, G. E., & Weizmann, F. M. (1995). Readdressing psychology’s problems with race. American Psychologist, 50, 46–47. Fazio, R. H., Jackson, J. R., Dunton, B. C., & Williams, C. J. (1995). Variability in automatic activation as an unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes: A bona fide pipeline? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1013–1027. Fiske, A. P., Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Nisbett, R. E. (1998). The cultural matrix of social psychology. In D. T.  Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 915–981). New York: McGraw-Hill. Friedman, R., Liu, W., Chi, S., Hong, Y., & Sung, L. (2012). Cross-cultural management and bicultural identity integration:  When does experience abroad lead to appropriate cultural switching? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 130–139. Fu, H-y., Morris, M. W., Lee, S-l. Chao, M-c., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (2007). Epistemic motives and cultural conformity:  Need for closure, culture, and context as determinants of conflict judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 191–207. Gelfand, M. J. et al. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332, 1100–1104. Gelman, S. A., & Hirschfeld, L. A. (1999). How biological is essentialism? In D. L. Medin & S. Atran (Eds.), Folkbiology (pp. 403–446). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Goff, P. A., Eberhardt, J. L., Williams, M. J., & Jackson, M. C. (2008). Not yet human:  Implicit knowledge, historical dehumanization, and contemporary consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 292–306. Goh, J. O., Chee, M. W., Tan, J. C., Venkatraman, V., Hebrank, A., Leshikar, E. D., . . . Park, D. (2007). Age and culture modulate object processing and object-scene binding in the ventral visual area. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 44–52. Gossett, T. F. (1997). Race: The history of an idea in America (rev. ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Gutchess, A. H., Welsh, R. C., Boduroglu, A., & Park, D. C. (2006). Cultural differences in neural function associated with object processing. Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 6, 102–109. Halperin, E., Russell, A. G., Trzesniewski, K. H., Gross, J. J., & Dweck, C. S. (2011). Promoting the Middle East peace process by changing beliefs about group malleability. Science, 333, 1767–1769. Han, S., & Northoff, G. (2008). Culture-sensitive neural substrates of human cognition:  a transcultural neuroimaging approach. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 646–654. Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2000). Essentialist belief about social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 113–127. Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2002). Are essentialist beliefs associated with prejudice? British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 87–100. Hedden, T., Ketay, S., Aron, A., Markus, H. R., & Gabrieli, J. D. (2008). Cultural influences on neural substrates of attentional control. Psychological Science, 19, 12–17. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley. Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability and salience. In E. T.  Higgins & A. E.  Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology:  Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133–168). New York: Guilford.


Dynamic Multiculturalism

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences:  Comparing values, Behaviors, institutions and organizations across cultures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 4–18. Hong, Y. (2009). A dynamic constructivist approach to culture:  Moving from describing culture to explaining culture. In Wyer, R. S. Jr., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (Eds.) Understanding culture:  theory, research and application. (pp. 3–23). New York: Psychology Press. Hong, Y. (2011). The dynamics of multicultural identities. In S. Wiley, T. Revenson, & G. Philogène (Eds). Social categories in everyday experience. (pp. 165–186). Amercian Psychological Association Press. Hong, Y., Benet-Martínez, V., Chiu, C., & Morris, M. W. (2003). Boundaries of cultural influence: Construct activation as a mechanism for cultural differences in social perception. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 453–464. Hong, Y., Chao, M., & No, S. (2009). Dynamic interracial/ intercultural processes:  The role of lay theories of race. Journal of Personality, 77, 1283–1309. Hong, Y., & Chiu, C. (2001). Toward a paradigm shift: From cross-cultural differences in social cognition to social-cognitive mediation of cultural differences. Social Cognition, 19, 181–196. Hong, Y., Chiu, C., & Kung, M. (1997). Bringing culture out in front:  Effects of cultural meaning system activation on social cognition. In K. Leung, U. Kim, S. Yamaguchi, & Y. Kashima (Eds.), Progress in Asian social psychology, (Vol. 1, pp. 139–150) Singapore: Wiley. Hong, Y., Chiu, C., & Kung, M. (1997). Bringing culture out in front:  Effects of cultural meaning system activation on social cognition. In K. Leung, U. Kim, S. Yamaguchi, & Y. Kashima (Eds.), Progress in Asian social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 139–150) Singapore: Wiley. Hong, Y., Fang, Y., Yang, Y., & Phua, D. P-L (2013). Cultural attachment—A new theory and method to understand cross-cultural competence. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 1024–1044. Hong, Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C. & Benet-Martínez, V. (2000). Multicultural minds:  A  dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55, 709–720. Hong, Y., Roisman, G. I., & Chen, J. (2006). A model of cultural attachment: A new approach for studying bicultural experience. In M. H. Bornstein & L. R. Cote (Eds.) Acculturation and parent-child relationships: Measurement and development. (pp. 135–170). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Huff, S., Yoon, C., Lee, F., Mandadi, A., & Gutchess, A. H. (2013). Self-referential processing and encoding in bicultural individuals. Culture and Brain, 1, 16–33. Jenkins, L. J., Yang, Y. J., Goh, J., Hong, Y., & Park, D. C. (2010). Cultural differences in the lateral occipital complex while viewing incongruent scenes. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5(2–3), 236–241. Ji, L., Zhang, Z., & Nisbett, R. E. (2004). Is it culture or is it language? Examination of language effects in cross-cultural research on categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 57–65. Kashima Y. (2009). Cultural comparison and cultural priming: A critical analysis. In Wyer, R. S. Jr., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (Eds.) Understanding culture: theory, research and application. (pp. 53–77). New York: Psychology Press.

Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton. Kim, H. S., Sherman, D. K., Mojaverian, T., Sasaki, J. Y., Park, J., Suh, E. M., & Taylor, S. E. (2011). Gene–culture interaction:  Oxytocin receptor polymorphism (OXTR) and emotion regulation. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(6), 665–672. doi: 10.1177/1948550611405854 Kim, H. S., Sherman, D. K., Sasaki, J. Y., Xu, J., Chu, T. Q., Ryu, C., . . . Taylor, S. E. (2010). Culture, distress, and oxytocin receptor polymorphism (OXTR) interact to influence emotional support seeking. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(36), 15717–15721. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1010830107 Kitayama, S., & Cohen, D. (2007). Handbook of cultural psychology. New York: Guilford. Kroeber, A. L., & Kluckhohn, C. (1963). Culture:  A  critical review of concepts and definition. New York: Vintage Books. Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: “Seizing” and “freezing,” Psychological Review, 103, 263–283. Leung, A. K.-y., & Chiu, C-y. (2008). Interactive effects of multicultural experiences and openness to experience on creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 376–382. Liu, E. (1998). The Accidental Asian:  Notes of a Native Speaker (Hardcover). New  York, N.Y.:  Random House. ISBN 978-0-679-44862-4. Maalouf, A. (2000). In the name of identity:  Violence and the need to Belong. (Barbara Bray, Trans.). New  York:  Arcade Publishing. Maguire, E. A., Gadian, D. G., Johnsrude, I. S., Good, C. D., Ashburner, J., Frackowiack, R. S. J., & Frith, C. D. (1999). Navigation-related structural change in the hippocampi of taxi drivers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Arts and Sciences in America, 97, 4398–4403. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self:  Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253. Mateo, M. M., Cabanis, M., Stenmanns, J., & Krach, S. (2013). Essentializing the binary self: Individualism and collectivism in cultural neuroscience. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00289 Martel, Y. (2001). Life of Pi. Canada: Knopf Canada. Masuda, T., & Nisbett, R. E. (2001). Attending holistically versus analytically:  Comparing the context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 922–934. McClernon, F., Hutchison, K., Rose, J., & Kozink, R. (2007). DRD4 VNTR polymorphism is associated with transient fMRI-BOLD responses to smoking cues. Psychopharmacology, 194(4), 433–441. doi:  10.1007/ s00213-007-0860-6 Meaney, M. J. (2010). Epigenetics and the Biological Definition of Gene × Environment Interactions. Child Development, 81(1), 41–79. Medin, D. L. (1989). Concepts and conceptual structure. American Psychology, 44, 1469–1481. Medin, D. L., & Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological essentialism. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 179–195). New  York:  Cambridge University Press. Medin, D. L., Unsworth, S. J., & Hirschfeld, L. (2007). Culture, categorization, and reasoning. In S. Kitayama, & D. Cohen (Eds.). Handbook of cultural psychology. New York: Guilford. Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220–232.

Murphy, G. L., & Medin, D. L. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review, 92, 289–316. Na, J., Grossmann, I., Varnum, M. E.  W., Kitayama, S., Gonzalez, R., Nisbett, R. E. (2010). Cultural differences are not reducible to individual differences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. Ng, S. H., & Han, S. (2009). The bicultural self and the bicultural brain. In Wyer, R. S. Jr., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (Eds.) Understanding culture:  theory, research and application. (pp. 3–23). New York: Psychology Press. Ng, S. H., Han, S., Mao L., & Lai, J. C. (2010). Dynamic bicultural brains: fMRI study of their flexible neural representation of self and significant others in response to culture primes. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 83–91. Ng, S. H., & Lai, J. C. L. (2009). Effects of cultural priming on the social connectedness of the bicultural self: A self-reference approach. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 40, 170–186. Nisbett, R. D. (2003). The geography of thought. New York: Free Press. Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291–310. No, S., Hong, Y., Liao, H., Lee, K., Wood, D., & Chao, M. (2008). Lay theory of race affects and moderates Asian Americans’ responses toward American culture. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 991–1004. Norenzayan, A., Choi, I., & Peng, K. (2007). Perception and cognition. In S. Kitayama, & D. Cohen (Eds.). Handbook of cultural psychology. New York: Guilford. Ossorio, P., & Duster, T. (2005). Race and genetics: Controversies in biomedical, behavioral, and forensic sciences. American Psychologist, 60, 115–128. Oyserman D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism:  Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–72. Oyserman, D. & Lee, S. W.  S. (2008a). A situated cognition perspective on culture: Effects of priming cultural syndromes on cognition and motivation. In R. M.  Sorrentino, & S. Yamagushi (Eds). Handbook of Motivation and Cognition Across Cultures. (pp. 237–265). Academic Press. Oyserman, D. & Lee, S. W. S. (2008b). Does culture influence what and how we think? Effects of priming individualism and collectivism. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 311–332. Park, R. E. (1928). Human migration and the marginal man. American Journal of Sociology, 33, 881–893. Pluess, M., Belsky, J., Way, B. M., & Taylor, S. E. (2010). 5-HTTLPR moderates effects of current life events on neuroticism:  Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 34(6), 1070–1074. doi:  10.1016/j. pnpbp.2010.05.028 Pouliasi, K., & Verkuyten, M. (2007). Networks of meaning and the bicultural mind:  A  structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 955–963. Ross, M., Xun, W. Q. E., & Wilson, A. E. (2002). Language and the bicultural self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1040–1050. Saad, C., Damian, K., Benet-Martínez, V., Moons, W. G., & Robins, R. (2013). Multiculturalism and creativity: Effects of cultural context, bicultural identity, and cognitive fluency. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 368–374.

Hong, Khei


Said, E. (1979). Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books. Sasaki, J. Y., Kim, H. S., Mojaverian, T., Kelley, L. D. S., Park, I. Y., & Janušonis, S. (2011). Religion priming differentially increases prosocial behavior among variants of the dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) gene. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsr089 Schwartz, S. H. (2009). Culture matters:  National value cultures, sources, and consequences. In Wyer, R. S., In Wyer, R. S. Jr., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (Eds.) Understanding culture:  theory, research and application. (pp. 127–150). New York: Psychology Press. Settle, J. E., Dawes, C. T., Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2010). Friendships moderate an association between a dopamine gene variant and political ideology. The Journal of Politics, 72(04), 1189–1198. doi:  doi:10.1017/ S0022381610000617 Shore, B. (1996). Culture in mind:  Cognition, culture, and the problem of meaning. New York: Oxford University Press. Strauss, C. (1992). Models and motives. In R. G. D’Andrade & C. Strauss (Eds.), Human motives and cultural models (pp. 1–20). New York: Cambridge University Press. Sui, J., Hong, Y., Liu, C. H., Humphreys, G. W., & Han, S. (2013). Dynamic cultural modulation of neural responses to self-face recognition. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8(3), 326–332. Srull, T. K., & Wyer, R. S. (1979). The role of category accessibility in the interpretation of information about persons: Some determinants and implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1660–1672. doi: 10.1037/0022-3 514.37.10.1660 Tadmor, C. T., Chao, M. M., Hong, Y., & Polzer, J. T. (2012). Not just for stereotyping anymore:  Racial essentialism reduces domain-general creativity. Psychological Science, 24, 99–105. Tadmor, C. T., Galinsky, A. D., & Maddux, W. W. (2012). Getting the most out of living abroad:  Biculturalism and integrative complexity as key drivers of creative and professional success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/a0029360 Tadmor, C. T., Hong, Y., Chao, M. M., Wiruchnipawan, F., & Wang, W. (2012). Multicultural experiences reduce intergroup bias through epistemic unfreezing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 750–772. Tadmor, C. T., Hong, Y., Chiu, C., & No, S. (2010). What I Know in My Mind and Where My Heart Belongs:  Multicultural Identity Negotiation and Their Cognitive Consequences. In Richard Crisp (Ed.). The Psychology of Social and Cultural Diversity. Blackwell. Tate, C., & Audette, D. (2001). Theory and research on “race” as a natural kind variable in psychology. Theory and Psychology, 11, 495–520.


Dynamic Multiculturalism

Telzer, E. H., Fuligni, A. J., Lieberman, M. D., & Galvan, A. (2013). Meaningful family relationships:  Neurocognitive buffers of adolescent risk taking. Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(3), 374–387. Telzer, E. H., Masten, C. L., Berkman, E. T., Lieberman, M. D., & Fuligni, A. J. (2011). Neural regions associated with self control and mentalizing are recruited during prosocial behaviors towards the family. Neuroimage, 58(1), 242–249. Tov, W., & Diener, E. (2007). Culture and subjective well-being. In S. Kitayama, & D. Cohen (Eds.). Handbook of cultural psychology. New York: Guilford. Trafimow, D., Triandis, H., & Goto, S. (1991). Some tests of the distinction between the private and collective self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 649–655. Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506–520. Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 118–128. Uher, R., Caspi, A., Houts, R., Sugden, K., Williams, B., Poulton, R., & Moffitt, T. E. (2011). Serotonin transporter gene moderates childhood maltreatment’s effects on persistent but not single-episode depression: Replications and implications for resolving inconsistent results. Journal of Affective Disorders, 135(1–3), 56–65. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2011.03.010. Uskul, A. K., Kitayama, S., & Nisbett, R. E. (2008). Ecocultural basis of cognition: Farmers and fishermen are more holistic than herders. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 8552–8556. Verkuyten, M., & Pouliasi, K. (2002). Biculturalism among older children:  Cultural frame switching, attributions, self-identification and attitudes. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 596–608. Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049–1062. Wong, R. Y-M., & Hong, Y. (2005). Dynamic Influences of Culture on Cooperation in the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Psychological Science, 16, 429–434. Wyer, R. S., & Srull, T. K. (1986) Human cognition in its social context. Psychological Review, 93, 322–359. Yang, K. S., & Bond, M. H. (1980). Ethnic affirmation by Chinese bilinguals. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 11, 411–425. Zhu, Y., Zhang, L., Fan, J., & Han, S. (2007). Neural basis of cultural influence on self representation. Neuroimage, 34, 1310–1317. Zuckerman, M. (1990). Some dubious premises in research and theory on racial differences:  Scientific, social, and ethical issues. American Psychologist, 45, 1297–1303.



The Bilingual Brain: Language, Culture, and Identity

Nairán Ramírez-Esparza and Adrián García-Sierra

Abstract This chapter reviews studies of the bilingual brain from a variety of disciplines, employing multiple theoretical approaches and methodologies. For example, developmental psychologists and speech and hearing scientists focus on the development of the bilingual brain in infants and children using cognitive tasks, brain measurements, and observational techniques. Linguists and educational psychologists study the impact of bilingualism on language development and in the society at large with in-depth interviews, longitudinal-observational studies, and parental reports. Social psychologists and cultural scientists investigate the effects of switching languages on thoughts and feelings utilizing self-reports, observational techniques, priming, and laboratory studies. The goal of this chapter is to provide an in-depth analysis of the fascinating world of the bilingual brain, from infancy to adulthood. Key Words:  bilingualism, biculturals, cultural identity, language development, speech perception, ­executive control, personality, emotion, LENA

Young Henry Lee stopped talking to his parents when he was twelve years old. Not because of some silly childhood tantrum, but because they asked him to. That was how it felt anyway. They asked—no, told—him to stop speaking their native Chinese. It was 1942, and they were desperate for him to learn English. “No more. Only speak your American.” The words came out in Chinglish. “I don’t understand” Henry said in English. “Hah?” his father asked. Since Henry couldn’t ask in Cantonese and his parents barely understood English, he dropped the matter, grabbed his lunch and book bag and headed down the stairs and out into the salty fishy air of Seattle’s Chinatown. Excerpt from the book Hotel on the Corner of Bitter and Sweet (pp-12–13)

Although the United States has been historically populated by immigrants from all over the world, parents taught their children to speak only English as soon as they arrived in the United States. Parents believed one must speak English to be an American, and that English is the gateway to becoming a part of American society (Fillmore, 2000). However,

this trend has changed in recent years. As parents who are raising two bilingual children in the United States, we see that the advantages of bilingualism are beginning to be recognized by the larger society. For example, many of our friends and neighbors mention that they wished their children could become bilingual; and bilingual day care, 35

immersion schools, and bilingual nannies are very popular among monolingual parents. Not only is this trend apparent in everyday life, there has been increasing scientific interest in understanding the bilingual brain. In this chapter, we discuss three characteristics of bilingualism:  age of second language acquisition, competence in first and second languages, and cultural identity. We first review research on infant bilingualism. This research provides information about the bilingual brain early in development as well as implications for raising a bilingual child. Then, we concentrate on research that has attempted to understand the effects of language mode on perception, personality and emotion in bilinguals. Specifically we discuss the role of culture and cultural identity in the relationship between thoughts and feelings in bilinguals as they alternate between their two languages. This is particularly relevant to the goals of this handbook demonstrating the close coupling of language, culture, and cultural identity, which together influence thought and emotion. Please note that the experience of bilingualism can be different across cultures, and in this chapter we focus on bilingualism from an American perspective. However, we also consider international research, which provides information about the bilingual brain and insight into raising a bilingual child.

Bilingualism and Biculturalism

Bilingualism is the ability of an individual to speak two languages. This broad definition is difficult to operationalize, and researchers have specified a variety of definitions. For example Hamers and Blanc (1989) identify different dimensions of bilingualism, including competence, cognitive organization, age of acquisition, the usage of the second language in the community, social status of the two languages and group membership. In this chapter we ask the question: How does an individual become bilingual? We attempt to answer this question by considering three characteristics of second language acquisition: Age of acquisition, language competence, and cultural identity. Some bilinguals learn two languages simultaneously from birth and are described as simultaneous bilinguals (Genesee, Paradis, & Grago, 2004). For example, our children have been exposed to both English and Spanish from birth: They listen to English from their nanny and Spanish from their parents. In this case Spanish would be considered the children’s mother tongue because that is the family language. 36

The Bilingual Brain

The mother tongue is the first language and, in the case of our children, English is considered their second language. Simultaneous bilinguals are the focus of many developmental studies since they provide an opportunity to study the effects of exposure to two languages on the representation of language in the brain. Defining simultaneous bilingualism has been a challenge for researchers, which we will discuss later in this chapter. Second language learners are bilinguals who learn a second language after the mother tongue has been established. We are second language learners. We learned English as a second language in a bilingual school in Mexico after our first language was very well established, around 5  years of age. Although second language learners can become bilinguals at any point in development, there is some consensus that second language learners are those who learn the second language after 3  years of age (Genesee et al., 2004). Language competency also has various definitions. McNamara (1967), for example, proposes that a bilingual possesses a minimal competence in one of four language skills (i.e., listening comprehension, speaking, reading, and writing) and in a language other than the mother tongue. Simultaneous bilinguals and second language learners may or may not be fully competent in each of their languages. Many bilinguals can speak two languages fluently but have difficulty writing in their second language. For some researchers, the most important characteristic of bilingualism is language competency regardless of age of acquisition. For example, many bilingual studies discussed in this chapter required reading proficiency in both languages from bilingual participants. Other studies required bilingual participants to be competent speaking two languages, focusing on social interactions in which spoken language confidence was required. Cultural identity is a third characteristic of bilingualism. Bilingualism can also be associated with multiculturalism (LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993). Many simultaneous bilinguals learn two languages while also learning about the cultures associated with the languages. These two cultures may be internalized as part of their identity. Individuals who have been exposed to, and have internalized, two cultures are referred to as bicultural (Benet-Martínez, Leu, Lee, & Morris, 2002, Chapter 13 in this volume). For example, we expect our children to be bilingual (Spanish-English), and also bicultural (Mexican-American). However, not all bilinguals necessarily internalize two cultures.

For instance, in Europe many individuals become second language learners of English and are highly proficient in that language, yet they do not necessarily identify consciously with an English dominant culture. Therefore, they are considered monocultural. Here in the United States, however, many bilinguals are bicultural, and each language is associated with a culture. This is the case in the excerpt Hotel on the Corner of Bitter and Sweet. Young Henry Lee is bicultural: English is associated with the American culture, Cantonese with the Chinese culture. Relative ability to speak two languages can be related to the degree that bilinguals “perceive their mainstream and ethnic cultural identities as compatible and integrated vs. oppositional and difficult to integrate” (Benet-Martínez, Leu, Li, & Morris, 2002, p. 9). Bilinguals who have high bicultural identity integration (BII; i.e., they are able to integrate their two cultures and see them as compatible, Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005) are more likely to use the languages of their two cultures in their everyday lives. In contrast, bilinguals who have low BII (i.e., they see their two cultures in opposition and in conflict, Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005) are less likely to maintain the languages of both cultures. In many instances, the integration of two languages and two cultures is related to the degree that the mother tongue is associated with low or high social status. In the United States, English would be the high status language and it is associated with socioeconomic power, whereas Spanish would be the low status language and it is associated with less or no socioeconomic power (Genesee et al., 2004). Thus, language fluency in bilinguals is

associated with assimilation of their two cultures, and the social status of first and second languages. This linkage between culture and language is crucial to investigations of the bilingual/bicultural brain from the perspective of social and psychological phenomena including studies of language as a cultural identity capable of affecting personality and emotion. For example, Hong and colleagues (Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martínez, 2000, see also c­ hapter 2 in this volume) showed that biculturals are able to switch their perceptions in response to cultural cues: Chinese-American biculturals display more internal attributions when primed with American icons (e.g., American flag, Superman), and more external attributions when primed with Chinese icons (e.g., Chinese dragon, Great Wall). In this study culture and identity interacted affecting the attributions of bicultural individuals. In many of the studies that will be addressed in this chapter, the bilingual brain is investigated from the perspective of language as a cultural identity. How language influences personality switch in bilinguals and how that switch matches personality differences across cultures. Or how emotions change when using two languages and how those emotions are an expression of their two internalized cultures. Conclusion. The characteristics of bilingualism just outlined are relevant to the research reported in this chapter (Table 3.1). Bilinguals may learn their two languages concurrently from birth (simultaneous bilinguals), or later in their life (second language learners). They vary in proficiency in each of their languages and may be considered monocultural or bicultural.

Table 3.1  Bilinguals and biculturals: Characteristics and terms used in this chapter. Characteristics

Types of Bilinguals

Terms Used in this Chapter

Age of Acquisition Genesee et al. (2004)

Both languages were acquired simultaneously from birth.

Simultaneous bilinguals

Second language is acquired after the first language (or mother tongue) is established.

Second language learners

Competence McNamara (1967)

Individuals who possess a minimal competence in one of four language skills and in a language other than the mother tongue.

Bilinguals who are competent in writing in both languages Bilinguals who are competent in speaking both languages

Cultural Identity Benet-Martínez and Haritatos (2005)

Individuals who identify themselves with one culture and speak two languages.

Monocultural bilinguals

Individuals who identify themselves to two cultures and speak two languages.

Bicultural bilinguals

Ramíre z-Espar z a, García-Sierra


Bilingualism in Infancy: Language Development and Cognitive Advantages

In many countries, bilingualism is the norm. For instance, in 2006 the European commission reported that more than 50% of individuals living in the European Union are able to hold a conversation in a second language, and close to 30% are able to use a third language. In contrast, according to the U.S. census 80% of the U.S. population speaks only English at home. Although there has been a steady increase in the number of individuals that speak a second language at home in the past three decades, the United States is a generally monolingual culture. This is surprising since the United States population is largely multicultural. For instance, a recent report from the United States census shows that 50.4% of the population under one year of age were minorities as of July 1, 2011 (Bernstein, 2012). What accounts for this combination of monolingualism and multiculturalism? One reason, discussed earlier, is the relatively lower status of a non-English mother tongue, which may cause families and institutions to suppress the lower status language (Genesee et  al., 2004; Hamers & Blanc, 1989). However, the most salient reason may be the prevalent misconception that learning two languages will cause speech and cognitive delay (King & Fogle, 2006). For example, until recently switching back and forth between their two languages in simultaneous bilinguals, sometimes called code-switching, was interpreted as a sign of confusion (Werker & Byers-Heinlein, 2008). Parents, therefore, instructed their children to speak only the dominant language, even when communication was disrupted within the family, as was the case with young Henry Lee. Although simultaneous bilinguals effortlessly acquire two or more languages early in life, some parents and educators still view bilingualism as an impediment in language development. Petitto and colleagues called this phenomenon “the bilingual paradox” (Petitto, 2009; Petitto, Katerelos, Levi, Gauna, Tetreault, & Ferraro, 2001). This idea of “language contamination” (i.e., exposure to another language before the first language is fully established) is reflected in contemporary educational practice (Crawford, 1999). For instance, in the United States, many children start formal instruction in another language in high school, after they have already established their first language (Petitto, 2009). Because opportunities to learn second languages in schools are limited for young children in the United States, it is more difficult for parents of bilingual children to 38

The Bilingual Brain

support their cultural traditions by maintaining and expanding their children’s proficiency in the mother tongue. As a result, most children become English dominant or English monolingual when they start their school years (Fillmore, 2000). In this section, we discuss research that has emerged in recent years questioning the notion that bilinguals experience difficulties due to early exposure to two languages. Specifically, we review investigations that compared monolingual and bilingual infants and children at different stages in their language development—from the perception of speech sounds to the production of words. Do bilinguals perceive speech sounds differently than monolinguals? Is vocabulary growth faster in monolinguals than bilinguals? Although the answers to these questions are not simple and straightforward, they have provided insight into similarities and differences in monolingual and bilingual speech and language development. Furthermore, we also review research that showed some cognitive advantages for simultaneous bilinguals and second-language learners.

Speech production in monolingual and bilingual children

The idea that learning two languages will affect developmental milestones of speech and language in the bilingual child is a misconception that persists among parents and educators (De Houwer, 1990). Empirical studies carried out in recent years examined the effects of learning two languages on language development in the bilingual child. The results from these studies have shown that monolinguals and bilinguals do not differ in the achievement of developmental milestones in a variety of areas, from babbling (Oller, Eilers, Urbano & Cobo-Lewis, 1997) to word production (e.g., Holowka, Brosseau-Lapré, & Petitto, 2002; Pearson, Fernández & Oller, 1993; Petitto et al., 2001). Oller and colleagues (1997) carried out a longitudinal study of the effects of early bilingual experience on early babbling, known to be related to later speech development (e.g., Oller, Eilers, Neal, & Schwartz, 1999). Monolinguals and simultaneous bilinguals were recruited at four months and followed until they were one-and-half years old. Monolinguals and bilinguals did not differ in canonical babbling (or production of well-formed syllables). Other studies have reached similar conclusions when comparing vocabulary in monolingual and simultaneous bilingual children. Researchers often use the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory (CDI)

old. The monolingual families filled out the English version of the CDI, and the bilingual families filled out both the English and Spanish versions of the CDI. The number of words produced was based on the vocabulary checklist section of the CDI in English and in Spanish. The results showed that monolinguals produced significantly more words in English than the bilinguals across the five ages measured (see F ­ igure 3.1, Graph A), but if words produced in English and in Spanish are summed for the bilinguals, then both groups show similar patterns of language development (see ­Figure  3.1, Graph B). These results are consistent with previous work demonstrating that linguistic milestones are comparable in monolinguals and bilinguals when both languages are included (Holowka et  al., 2002; Pearson et  al., 1995, Petitto et  al, 2001). Please note that there are multiple approaches to creating combined language measures in bilinguals. The data reported in ­Figure 3.1 summed the words produced in English and Spanish. Other investigators have employed word quantification from video-recorded interactions among parents and their infants (e.g., Holowka et al., 2002; Petitto et al., 2001). Another approach utilizes translations equivalents—words in each language that refer to the same concept (e.g, water in English and agua in Spanish). The average percentage of translation equivalents at the first-50-word milestone in bilingual infants is approximately 30% (Pearson et  al., 1995; Petitto et  al., 2001). Researchers argue that the fact that




600 Mean words produced

Mean words produced

(Fenson et  al., 2007) to assess language development. This survey has been proven to be reliable and valid for children between the ages of 8–36 months. Parents report the number of words the child produces based on the vocabulary checklist section of the CDI. The CDI also measures other communication skills in different sections such as First Communicative Gestures and Sentence Complexity. The CDI has been translated to other languages and current research has shown that if both languages are included when comparing the vocabulary to monolingual norms, then bilinguals show the same developmental pattern as monolinguals. For example, vocabulary size in Spanish-English bilinguals’ is comparable to monolinguals when words in both Spanish and English are combined to assess total vocabulary (e.g., Pearson et  al.,1993). More recent studies show that the first-word milestone and first-50-word milestone are commensurate to the monolingual norms in simultaneous bilinguals if first and second language vocabularies are combined (Holowka et al., 2002; Petitto et al., 2001). We also replicate the preceding findings in CDI data we collected as part of an ongoing large-scale study at the Institute for Learning & Brain Sciences (e.g., García-Sierra, Ramírez-Esparza, & Kuhl, 2010; Ramírez-Esparza, García-Sierra, & Kuhl, 2010; in press). Specifically, we collected CDI Words and Sentences surveys from English monolingual infants (N = 26) and Spanish-English bilingual infants (N = 21), at five different points: when the participants were 18, 21, 24, 27, and 30 months

500 400 300 200

500 400 300




100 18

21 24 27 Age in months Graph A



27 21 24 Age in months Graph B


Group Monolingual


Figure 3.1  Word count for monolingual and bilingual infants across time.

Ramíre z-Espar z a, García-Sierra


bilinguals are able to use different words for the same concept demonstrates that bilinguals are able to separate their two language systems and do not confuse them (Holowka et al., 2002; Pearson et al., 1995, Petitto et  al, 2001). The research on word production in bilingual children has been pivotal in the ongoing slow improvement of negative attitudes toward bilingualism in early childhood; however, there are still some concerns about bilingualism in children with disabilities in speech and language. It has been argued that children with language impairments are not capable of learning two languages. However, Paradis, Crago, Genesee, and Rice (2003) find that monolingual and bilingual children with language impairments do not differ in their acquisition of language morphology at 7 years of age. This suggests that children with language disabilities who are learning two languages may not be disadvantaged in comparison to those with similar language disabilities who are exposed to only one language. Conclusion. Studies of speech production in bilingual infants and children demonstrate that they are similar to their monolingual counterparts in the achievement of developmental milestones. Language acquisition, however, begins with speech perception long before the production of the first word. Thus, there is strong interest in speech perception of preverbal simultaneous bilinguals, especially the representation of speech sounds in bilingual infants and its relationship to later word production. We focus on the studies in this area that employ electrophysiological methods; however, there is a substantial body of work using behavioral methods (see Werker & Byers-Heinlein, 2008 for review).

Speech perception and speech production in monolingual and bilingual infants

Research has shown that exposure to a particular language reduces infants’ abilities to discriminate speech sounds foreign to that language. Infants around 6-months of age are able to discern differences among the phonetic units used in the worlds’ languages (Eimas, Siqueland, Jusczyk, & Vigorito, 1971). For example, American and Japanese infants are equally good at discriminating the acoustic properties that distinguish the sound “ra” from “la” when they are 6 months, but Japanese infants lose this ability as they grow older because “la” is not part of their native language. Researchers interpret this as evidence of neural commitment during the first year of life, with infants showing increasing sensitivity to native speech sounds and 40

The Bilingual Brain

decreasing sensitivity to non-native speech sounds (Best & McRoberts, 2003; Kuhl, Stevens, Hayashi, Deguchi, Kiritani, & Iverson 2006; Werker & Tees, 1984; for reviews see Kuhl et al., 2008 and Werker & Curtin, 2005). Neural commitment depends on language exposure:  The more infants are exposed to their native language, the faster they will lose their ability to perceive non-native sounds. This view leads to the prediction that infants whose early discrimination abilities are better for native as opposed to non-native contrasts will initially show more rapid language development than infants who continue to show sensitivity to contrasts that do not occur in the native language. Researchers first tested this hypothesis using a behavioral method, the well-established conditioned head-turn procedure, in which the infant is conditioned to turn his head in response to a change in speech sounds (see Kuhl, 1985; Werker, Polka, & Pegg, 1997). Infants who show commitment to their native language at 6  months produce more words when they are two years of age (Kuhl, et al., 2008; Tsao, Liu, & Kuhl, 2004). The association between neural commitment and word production was confirmed in follow-up studies in which event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were used (Kuhl et al., 2008; Rivera-Gaxiola, Klarman, García-Sierra, & Kuhl, 2005). Event-related brain potentials provide some advantages over behavioral methods; it controls for potential contribution of cognitive factors, such as attention, to experimental results. Discriminatory abilities in ERPs are measured by means of phonetic changes in the form of the mismatch negativity (MMN) in both infants and adults (e.g., Näätänen et  al., 1997; Cheour et al., 1998; Rivera-Gaxiola, Silva-Pereyra, & Kuhl, 2005; Rivera-Gaxiola et  al., 2007). The MMN is elicited by presenting a repetitive sound that establishes an auditory memory trace for that sound. Then, a new sound that differs from the memory trace (in frequency, localization, duration, intensity, etc.) is presented. The degree of deviance between the memory trace and the new sound is reflected by the ERP amplitude, so that the MMN response increases as the acoustic differences between standard (memory trace) and deviant increase (Tiitinen, May, Reinikainen, & Näätänen, 1994). The ERP studies showed that the ability to discriminate native speech sounds in infancy was related to later word production. Interestingly the ability to discriminate non-native speech sounds was related negatively to later word production (Kuhl et al., 2008; Rivera-Gaxiola, Klarman et al., 2005).

That is, if infants are still uncommitted and “open,” as evidenced by better non-native speech sound discrimination, then language advancement is slower. This pattern of perceptual change raises questions regarding the development of speech perception in infants who are exposed to two languages. Do bilinguals follow the same pattern as the monolinguals? García-Sierra et al. (2011) carried out an electrophysiological study of neural commitment to both native languages in simultaneous bilingual infants and compared them to a monolingual group. They recruited Spanish-English bilingual families from the San Antonio, TX area and assessed bilingualism using a questionnaire administered during in-home interviews. The questionnaire included questions about the amount of exposure to English and Spanish the infant received from the nuclear family, extended family and other adults living in the home. Infants’ brain responses were assessed using electrophysiology while they listened to native and non-native speech sounds. Discriminatory abilities were assessed by means of the MMN (mismatch negativity). The results revealed that bilingual infants do not show the same pattern of commitment to the speech sounds of their native languages (i.e., Spanish and English) seen in monolinguals (Rivera-Gaxiola, Silva Pereyra et al., 2005; Rivera-Gaxiola, Klarman et  al., 2005). This suggests that bilinguals remain more “open”—that is, less neurally committed— compared to monolingual infants at the same time in development. This investigation also replicated the relationship between neural commitment and later word production. That is, bilingual infants who showed more commitment to English speech sounds produced more words in English as toddlers. Likewise, infants who showed more commitment to Spanish speech sounds produced more words in Spanish as toddlers. One interesting finding of this investigation was the relationship between language exposure and neural commitment. Infants who had high exposure to English were better able to discriminate native English sounds, whereas infants who had high exposure to Spanish were better able to discriminate native Spanish sounds. In a recently published study, Petitto and colleagues (2012) also found that bilingual and monolingual infants show a different developmental pattern in a neuroimaging study. Petitto et  al. recruited monolingual and bilingual infants from different age groups:  younger (i.e., approximately 4  months of age) and older (i.e., approximately 12  months of age). Bilingual infants were defined by rigorous assessment and validation

of parental language input. Parents completed an on-line screening questionnaire, an extensive bilingual background questionnaire and were also assessed by experimenters in the lab. All participants listened to either native or non-native speech sounds, whereas their neural activity was assessed using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). The fNIRS is similar to its well-known cousin, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), but with some key advantages. The fNIRS is portable and virtually silent; it is also more comfortable for participant families—the infant can sit on their parent’s lap as their brain activity is being measured. The results of this investigation showed that there was robust neural activation in the left superior temporal gyrus across language group and age, which Petitto and colleagues describe as the area attuned to the basic units of language. On the other hand, the left inferior frontal cortex (which includes Broca’s area) showed a difference for age and group. Specifically there was an increase in neural activation in the left inferior frontal cortex in the older, compared to younger, monolingual and bilingual infants. Furthermore, for the older bilingual infants, this area of the brain showed activation for both native and non-native speech sounds, whereas the monolingual infants showed robust activation only for the native speech sound, and not for the non-native speech sound. This latter finding provides evidence that bilingual infants remain uncommitted to their native speech sounds and open to language input for a longer period of time than monolingual infants. We propose here that in order to better understand the bilingual brain in simultaneous bilinguals, other variables must be taken into account, such as socioeconomic status and the amount and characteristics of language input to infants. For example, in a recent study we found a relationship between language input to infants in everyday natural social interactions and language development (Ramírez-Esparza et  al., in press). Our results show that increased exposure to “parentese” (i.e., higher pitch, slower tempo, and exaggerated intonation contours, Grieser & Kuhl, 1988) and increased interaction in a one-on-one context (i.e., infant is alone with the parent) in infancy results in larger productive vocabulary when children are toddlers. On the other hand, increased exposure to adult-directed speech (i.e., normal, everyday voice) and increased interaction in a group environment (i.e., the infant and the parent are with other people) results in a smaller productive vocabulary. Ramíre z-Espar z a, García-Sierra


Previous work by García-Sierra et  al. (2011) described earlier is, to our knowledge, one of the few studies that has attempted to understand the bilingual brain in infancy by combining contextual variables (e.g., language exposure at home) with brain measures. However, in order to investigate speech perception and speech production in bilinguals, it is important to assess language exposure in a systematic way in order to capture broader contextual variables (Werker & Byers-Heinlein, 2008). In our lab, we implemented LENA technology (LENA foundation, Boulder Colorado) to assess language exposure in monolingual and Spanish-English bilingual families. The LENA system includes a digital language processor (DLP) that can store up to 16 hours of digitally recorded sound. The DLP weighs 3 ounces and can be snapped into a chest pocket in children’s clothing, allowing the recorder to be “out of sight, out of mind.” The audio recordings are downloaded to a computer and analyzed by LENA software to characterize the acoustic environment over time, allowing efficient identification of segments with language activity, which are then coded for social behaviors. We can quantify the numbers of words that the infants heard in both English and Spanish, yielding a more accurate assessment of language exposure as well as other social variables (Ramírez-Esparza et al., 2010, in press). The goal is to understand the bilingual brain in infants by combining language input, brain measurement of speech perception, and later word production (Box 3.1). This will permit investigation of the relationship between language exposure and neural commitment to non-native speech sounds in bilingual infants. The overall approach will allow comparison of speech and language development in monolingual and bilingual infants, identifying similarities and differences. Conclusion. In this section we discussed attempts to understand the bilingual brain by investigating the perception of speech sounds in preverbal infants. These studies suggest that the bilingual brain remains more open (not neurally committed) for a longer period of time than the monolingual brain. Importantly, the terms open and uncommitted do not suggest that bilinguals show delayed language development; rather they indicate that bilingual and monolingual infants differ in the pattern of early commitment to the sounds of their native language(s). In this section, we also propose that by using advanced technologies, such as LENA, we can capture more information about the bilingual environment, which will shed some light about the bilingual brain. 42

The Bilingual Brain

Advantages of bilingualism: Executive Control

Although research has shown that bilinguals do not have an advantage or disadvantage in language development compared to monolinguals, studies over the last four decades have shown cognitive advantages in bilinguals. Specifically, studies since the early 1960s have reported that bilinguals have increased mental flexibility compared to monolinguals (e.g., Peal & Lambert, 1962). Bialystok and colleagues called this cognitive advantage executive control and they define it as “the set of cognitive skills based on limited cognitive resources for such functions as inhibition, switching attention and working memory” (Bialystok, Craik, & Luk, 2012, p. 241). In a classic study, Bialystok (1999) finds that bilingual children show an advantage in solving problems that require construction of complex representations of rules. She recruited Mandarin/ Cantonese-English bilingual preschoolers who were as competent in English as a group of monolinguals who also participated in the study. The task consisted of sorting cards into two different containers according to different criteria using a target stimulus. For instance, one container would have the target stimulus of a red circle, and another container the target stimulus of a blue square. The children are given a set of cards with red circles or blue squares and they are asked to sort the cards according to color (e.g., to sort all the red cards in the container with the red stimulus or all the blue cards in the container with the blue stimulus). After completing this task children are asked to sort according to shape (e.g., to sort all the circles in the container with the stimulus circle or all the squares in the container with the stimulus square). The sorting tasks are counterbalanced so that half of the participants sort according to shape first, and half of the participants sort according to color first. The challenge of the task is to follow the second instruction. Typically it is extremely difficult for children to sort the cards according to the second criterion; they use the first criterion to sort the cards even after the instructions have been changed. The results of this study showed that bilinguals performed better on this task than the monolinguals. In another classic study, Bialystok (1988) finds that bilinguals outperform monolinguals in an arbitrariness of language task. Children of approximately 7 years of age were tested on their ability to understand the arbitrary connection between linguistic form and reference in the world. The task consisted of telling the children “suppose

Box 3.1  Understanding the Bilingual Brain: Assessing Infants’ Language Development Using Multiple Techniques

you were making up names for things, could you then call the sun ‘the moon’ and the moon ‘the sun’ (p.  562). The children were persuaded that this was possible and then they were told, “Now suppose that happened and everybody decided to call the sun ‘the moon’ and the moon ‘the sun’ ” (p. 562). Then the participants were given points if they correctly gave the answer “sun” when they were asked:  What would you call the thing in the sky when you go to bed at night? And the answer “dark” when they were asked what would

the sky look like when you are going to bed? Bilinguals outperformed monolinguals in this activity. Bilingual children are constantly alternating between their two languages systems that label the same conceptual system, providing a cognitive advantage when they interchange labels to name the same concept (Bialystok, 1988). A recently published study Barac and Bialystok (2012) demonstrated that the advantages of bilingualism in executive control were not related to other variables that may themselves influence Ramíre z-Espar z a, García-Sierra


performance. For example, it has been suggested that Asian children may have an advantage on tests of executive control (Sabbagh, Xu, Carlson, Moses, & Lee, 2006). The authors recruited bilingual 6-year-olds (English plus Chinese, Spanish, or French) and compared them with an English-speaking monolingual group. The comparison of the Chinese-English bilingual group with the other bilingual groups allowed testing the idea that cultural background could have an effect on performance. Likewise all groups were matched for socioeconomic status to control for the possibility that this variable influenced executive control. The results showed that all bilingual groups performed better at a color-shape switching task than the monolinguals. Furthermore, there were no differences among the bilingual groups. Most studies of executive control have studied children; however, Sebastián-Gallés and colleagues (Sebastián-Gallés, Albareda-Castellot, Weikum, & Werker, 2012) recently published a study demonstrating cognitive advantages in bilinguals over monolinguals as early as 8  months of age. The authors assessed the capacity of Spanish-Catalan bilinguals and Catalan monolinguals to discriminate French and English by watching silent video-clips of speakers’ faces. The results showed that bilinguals are able to discriminate change in language much better than monolinguals. Moreover, Spanish-Catalan bilinguals and French-English bilinguals (a sample assessed in a previous study by Weikum et al., 2007) are equally good at the discrimination task. The authors interpreted the fact that Spanish-Catalan bilinguals are good at discriminating non-native languages as evidence of a perceptual attentiveness advantage of bilinguals over monolinguals. They also concluded that their results show that bilingual infants are not at risk for confusing their two languages, and are better prepared than monolinguals to discriminate two unknown languages. Conclusion. In this section we discussed the advantages of speaking two languages. We provided examples of studies that have shown that bilinguals have the ability to resolve tasks that require them to manage attention, to understand concepts such as the difference between form and meaning, and to resolve problems requiring attention to the task while ignoring misleading information. Indeed, the advantages of executive control among bilinguals are now well established in the literature. Adesope and colleagues, for example, show medium to large effect sizes in a recent meta-analysis (Adesope, Lavin, Thompson, & Ungerleider, 2010). Why is 44

The Bilingual Brain

bilingualism related to executive control? Bialystok et al. (2012) reviewed studies using various methodologies (e.g., EEG, fMRI, magnetoencephalography or MEG) to understand the neural correlates that may help explain the relationship between bilingualism and cognitive control. They conclude that “lifelong experience in managing attention to two languages reorganizes specific brain networks, creating a more effective basis for executive control and sustaining better cognitive performance throughout the life span (p.  241).” Research investigating the effects of bilingualism on the onset of dementia and other age-related diseases is consistent with this interpretation of the neural correlates of bilingualism. Bialystok, Craik, and Morris (2007) collected data from monolingual and bilingual people with dementia. The results were staggering:  Symptoms started to appear in the bilingual people 4 years later than their monolingual peers. These findings were replicated on a sample of people with Alzheimer’s disease—bilinguals had a 5-year delay in the onset of symptoms (Craik, Bialystok, & Morris, 2010). Although early research on executive control in bilinguals was published three decades ago, media interest has just begun. Bialystok was interviewed by Catherine de Lange, a reporter for the New Scientist, in May of 2012 and said “For 30  years I’ve been sitting in my little dark room doing my thing and suddenly in the last five years it’s like the doors have swung open.” Indeed de Lange’s report titled One brain, two minds: The Surprising Impact of Speaking Another Language was featured in the cover of the New Scientist magazine (de Lange, 2012). In the same month, the cover story in the Observer was Speaking Your Mind:  Bilingual Language, Culture, and Emotion (Fields, 2012). As Americans are learning about the benefits of bilingualism they are beginning to show an interest in raising their children bilingually. If raising bilingual children becomes a laudable family goal in the United States, it is possible that opportunities for early instruction in a second language will become more available in schools and negative stigmas about non-English languages will change in the near future.

Bilingualism in adulthood: Language context and the bilingual brain

Although there is evidence that fluent bilinguals show activation of both languages and some interaction between their languages at all times, there are contexts that activate one language more than the other. Grosjean (2001) proposes that bilinguals function along a continuum that reflects the state of

activation of a given language at a given point in time during their everyday activities. At one end of the continuum, bilinguals are in monolingual mode and at the other end of the continuum, bilinguals are in bilingual mode. In the monolingual mode, bilinguals use one language while deactivating the other language to the greatest extent possible. In the bilingual mode, bilinguals choose a base language and activate the other language as needed. However, and importantly, Grosjean hypothesizes that bilinguals are governed by a “base language” that controls language processing at any given time. Therefore, in Grosjean’s view, bilinguals must be immersed in a specific language to establish the “base language.” In this section, we discuss studies of language-mode activation in bilinguals by immersing them in the language of interest, investigating the influence of language mode on speech perception, as well as more advanced constructs such as personality and emotions.

Speech Perception Switch in Bilinguals

Studies assessing bilingualism and speech perception seek to understand whether bilinguals have two language systems or a single language system. Perceptions of speech sounds are used to investigate this complex idea because they are typically perceived categorically (Liberman, Harris, Kinney, & Lane, 1961). The acoustic information in speech sounds is perceptually grouped into phonetic categories. For example, Abramson and Lisker (1967) demonstrated that the interval between the release of the articulation and the onset of voicing (voice onset time or VOT) differentiates /b-p/, /d-t/, and /g-k/. They also showed that speakers of different languages categorize these speech sounds differently. Accordingly, Abramson and Lisker (1967) synthesized a total of 37 speech sounds, varying in physically equal VOT steps, and presented the speech sounds to monolingual speakers of different languages. The results showed that listeners grouped the speech sounds into no more than three phoneme categories. Interestingly, the listeners’ native language influenced category boundaries. These findings suggested two things: First, the ability to discriminate a set of stimuli varying along one dimension is limited to the ability to identify them as different sounds (Liberman et  al., 1961). Second, native language influences the way speech sounds are categorized in individuals. Later research has supported the finding that native language deeply influences the way speech sounds are perceived (Best, McRoberts, & Sithole, 1988; Kuhl, Williams, Lacerda, Stevens, & Lindblom, 1992). If

native language influences the perception of speech sounds, then how do bilinguals with two language systems perceive speech sounds? Research assessing bilingualism and speech perception began in the seventies studying the effects of language context on perception across a continuum of speech sounds in bilinguals. Researchers hypothesized that the perceptual boundary dividing a voiced-voiceless continuum would be consistent with the language a bilingual subject was using at the moment. That is, researchers asked if bilinguals show a double phonetic representation. Caramazza, Yeni-Komshian, Zurif, and Carbone (1973) asked bilingual speakers of French and English to identify the same set of speech sounds in two conditions. In one experimental session, English was emphasized by having a brief conversation in English before the experiment, whereas, in the second session, the conversation occurred in French. Monolinguals, on the other hand, were only exposed to English conversations before the identification task. The results showed no differences in bilinguals’ perceptual boundaries across language contexts; however, bilinguals’ phonetic boundaries were at intermediate VOT values compared to those of monolingual speakers of English and French. Williams (1977) showed a similar result; that is, bilinguals differed from the monolinguals, but their phonetic boundaries did not change across language contexts. However, follow-up studies suggested that the double phonetic boundary might emerge if bilinguals are focused on the language of interest throughout the entire experiment. In order to accomplish this focus, researchers used precursor sentences in the language of interest (e.g., Which sound do you hear? see Elman, Diehl, & Buchwald, 1977). Indeed, phonetic boundaries do shift depending on the language context established by precursor sentences (Flege & Eefting, 1987; García-Sierra, Diehl, & Champlin, 2009; Hazan & Boulakia, 1993). However, Bohn and Flege (1993) found that language context shifted the voicing boundary in a similar way for both bilinguals and monolinguals. These results suggested that the shift in the voicing boundary might be the consequence of biases caused by precursor sentences. In order to control for biases that may be caused by precursor sentences, researchers investigated bilingual’s access to their language systems using ERPs. Specifically García-Sierra and colleagues examined whether the relationship between language mode and speech perception observed in behavioral tests persisted during ERP testing, when bilinguals do Ramíre z-Espar z a, García-Sierra


not attend to the speech sounds (García-Sierra, Ramírez-Esparza, Silva-Pereyra, Siard, & Champlin, 2012). Speech perception was assessed in the form of the mismatch negativity or MMN. The results showed that the MMN changed as a function of the language context. For example, when bilinguals were reading Spanish, the new sound was perceived as belonging to a different category (i.e., there was an MMN response); but when bilinguals were reading English, the same new sound was not perceived as belonging to a different category (i.e., there was no MMN response). These results provide evidence that the basic sounds of a language can be processed differently by the bilinguals depending on language mode. Peltola and colleagues (Peltola, Tamminen, Toivonen, Kujala, & Näätänen, 2012) also tested the idea that the perception of speech sounds in bilinguals depends on the language context. However, in this investigation, different types of bilinguals were assessed:  Simultaneous bilinguals and second language learners. The authors hypothesized that simultaneous bilinguals have a single system and, therefore, their perception of sounds would not be influenced by the language context, whereas second language learners would be more strongly influenced by the context, and their perception of speech sounds would change accordingly. They collected ERPs from Finnish-Swedish simultaneous bilinguals and Finnish second language learners of Swedish while they listened to a standard and a deviant speech sound in an oddball paradigm (i.e., the standard is presented repetitively and the deviant is presented infrequently). The speech sounds were members of the same category in Swedish, but members of different categories in Finnish. As in García-Sierra and colleagues’ study (2012), an MMN indicated the two sounds were perceived as belonging to different categories (in this case in the Finnish language context, because the two sounds are in different categories in Finnish); in contrast, the MMN would be absent if the two sounds were perceived as belonging to the same category (in this case in the Swedish language context because the two sounds are in the same category in Swedish). The results confirmed the authors’ hypotheses: the MMN was stronger in the the second language learners of Swedish in the Finnish language context. Conclusion. Researchers in the area of speech perception and bilingualism are attempting to understand how bilinguals access their language systems. The basic idea is that bilinguals alternate between their languages, depending on the language mode. The original and later studies that tested this idea 46

The Bilingual Brain

using behavioral techniques showed contradictory findings. However, recent studies, using electrophysiological measures, show that bilinguals do, indeed, alternate between their languages according to the language mode. That is, bilinguals’ brain responses are more like a Spanish-speaker when they are inmersed in a Spanish language context and more like an English-speaker when they are inmersed in a English language context (García-Sierra et  al., 2012). However, Peltola and colleagues (2012) provide an intriguing theory, that simultaneous bilinguals have merged their two language systems so that they no longer switch between language modes. It is as if they are always in bilingual mode (Grosjean, 2001). Research in this area is just beginning, and more important questions remain. For example, what is the effect of immersing monolinguals in two language modes? Do their brain responses also switch? Recall that, in a behavioral study, monolinguals also showed a switch associated with language context (Bohn & Flege, 1993). Therefore, more studies establishing language modes in monolinguals are also important in the understanding of the bilingual brain.

Personality Switch in Bilinguals

When we moved from Mexico to Austin, TX to start our PhD programs, we had the opportunity to interact for the first time with people who were simultaneous Spanish-English bilinguals. It was striking to observe students shift between their languages with ease. It was even more interesting to observe how their behaviors changed when they were speaking English or Spanish. I asked simultaneous bilinguals if they felt differently when they spoke English and when they spoke Spanish. Virtually all said that they felt their personality changed as they switched between languages. Dewaele and Pavlenko (2001– 2003) asked this question in a systematic way. They conducted an online study in which 1039 informants responded the question “Do you feel like a different person sometimes when you use your different languages?” Of those questioned, 65% gave affirmative answers. Likewise, Ozanska-Ponikwia (2012) provided some interesting examples from writers who describe being a different person while using different languages: Green (1993) and Tzvetan Todorov (1994) show that the same story takes a very different shape when writing in two languages. Green (1993, [p]‌. 62) writes that there was so little resemblance between the texts describing the same thing in English and French that

it might be doubted that the same person wrote those two pieces of work. (p. 218)

Although the experience of feeling like a different person when switching languages is commonly reported in bilinguals, this idea has been empirically tested only in the last decade. In fact, when I began studying this topic, I  found only two studies that specifically addressed the question:  Do bilinguals change personality when they alternate languages? Ervin (1964) examined whether French-English bilinguals showed different personalities when responding to the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) in English versus French. Her results showed that bilinguals use different themes when responding to the TAT, depending on language. For example, bilinguals use more verbal aggression toward peers in French stories than in English stories. She suggested that was a reflection of French educational practices, which emphasize the use of oral argument in defense of insults from others. Hull (1996) evaluated personality changes in Spanish-English bilinguals responding to the California Psychological Inventory (CPI). The results demonstrated a relationship between personality switch and language use. For example, bilinguals’ scores in the Good Impression factor were higher in Spanish than in English. Hull speculated that this is due to greater concern about interpersonal harmony and pleasing others in the Spanish-speaking culture, as in other collectivist cultures (Marín & Marín, 1991). Although these two studies provided results indicating that bilinguals do change personality with different language modes, they also suffered from a number of limitations. First, as Hull himself points out, the CPI has been criticized as lacking a factorial foundation (see Domino, 1985; Eysenk, 1985; Goldberg, 1972). In addition, no clear comparative evidence is provided regarding CPI and TAT differences in monolinguals (i.e., French-speaking monolinguals response to the TAT in French or English-speaking monolinguals response to the TAT in English). Finally, the findings have not been replicated in multiple samples. In a series of investigations, Ramírez-Esparza and colleagues (Ramírez-Esparza, Gosling, BenetMartínez, Potter, & Pennebaker, 2006) attempted to address these limitations by testing personality change in several samples of bilinguals and by including personality differences among English speaking and Spanish speaking monolinguals. The authors asked the questions: Do bilinguals change personality depending on the language they are

using at the moment? Are any observed personality differences consistent with personality differences associated with their two languages and cultures? Spanish-English bilinguals of Mexican descent were asked to participate in two language sessions. In the Spanish session, the participants were interviewed in Spanish and then completed the Big Five Inventory in Spanish (Benet-Martínez & John, 1998). The same procedure was repeated in the English session and the participants responded to the Big Five Inventory in English (John & Srivastava, 1999). Ramírez-Esparza et al. (2006) found that responses on the personality questionnaire depended on the language mode. Specifically, bilinguals were more extraverted, agreeable, and conscientious in English than in Spanish and these differences were consistent with the personality displayed in each culture. That is, Americans also scored higher in extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness than the Mexicans. These findings were robust since replicated across three different samples of bilinguals. The results from this study were in agreement with the Cultural Frame Switching effect (Hong, Chiu, & Kung, 1997; Hong et al., 2000, ­chapter 2 in this volume), where bicultural individuals shift values and attributions in the presence of culture-relevant stimuli. By using the language of the questionnaire as a cultural prime, it was possible to switch bilinguals’ own standing in a trait. However, it is important to note that the correlations between the Spanish and English versions of the questionnaire are very strong (mean r  =  0.80, also see Benet-Martínez & John, 1998). This suggests that individuals tend to retain their rank ordering within a group but the group as a whole shifts. Thus, an extrovert does not suddenly become an introvert as she switches languages; instead a bilingual becomes more extraverted when she speaks English rather than Spanish but retains her rank ordering within each of the groups. Ramírez-Esparza et  al. (2006) demonstrated that personality changes, depending on the language mode; however, the personality differences between Americans and Mexicans were inconsistent with well-known stereotypes about these cultures. Mexicans are polite and kind; they show respect toward others, avoid conflict, emphasize positive behaviors and deemphasize negative behaviors. Cultural scientists have used the cultural script Simpatía to label this kind of social interaction among Mexicans and Latinos (Díaz-Loving & Draguns, 1999; Holloway, Waldrip, & Ickes, 2009; Triandis, Marín, Lisansky, & Betancourt, 1984). However, on self-reports, Mexicans and bilinguals Ramíre z-Espar z a, García-Sierra


(when responding to the questionnaire in Spanish) saw themselves as less agreeable than Americans and bilinguals (when responding to the questionnaire in English). What could account for this paradoxical finding? Ramírez-Esparza, Gosling, & Pennebaker (2008) observed behavior in bilinguals when they switch languages in order to resolve the paradox. Spanish-English bilinguals of Mexican descent were recruited to participate in two language sessions, in one session they provided answers to a personality questionnaire in Spanish and participated in a social interview task in Spanish. During a second session, the same tasks were completed in English. In order to control for the possibility that bilingual interviewers might themselves change their behavior as they spoke different languages, a “videotaped interview” was created in which a fluent Spanish-English bilingual was videotaped giving instructions and outlining the questions in both English and Spanish. The recorded bilingual interviewer had a neutral face and position when doing the interviews in both English and Spanish. This “videotaped interview” was presented to the bilinguals while they were in a room alone, and they responded to the questions while looking into a video camera. Judges rated the participants’ behavioral agreeableness by observing the videotaped interview with the volume off. Five judges coded the videotaped interview when the participants were speaking in Spanish and a different group of five judges coded the same participants speaking in English. The results replicated previous findings on self-reports:  bilinguals saw themselves as less agreeable when responding to the questionnaire in Spanish than when responding to the questionnaire in English. However, bilinguals’ behavior was rated as more agreeable during the interview in Spanish than during the interview in English. Ramírez-Esparza and colleagues proposed that an underlying characteristic of the cultural script Simpatía is modesty. In other words response to self-reports interacts with cultural values in bilinguals. When bilinguals read a question in Spanish, the modesty cultural value is activated and they show modesty by diminishing their standing on this trait. This set of findings suggests that language and culture interact in bilinguals—cultural values are activated along with language mode. Two more recent studies test personality change in bilinguals by taking into consideration cultural norms. Chen and Bond (2010) recruited 76 female Chinese-English bilinguals to participate in a social 48

The Bilingual Brain

interaction task. To avoid for possible gender effects these participants were interviewed by 4 males, 2 Caucasians, and 2 Hong Kong Chinese. Using interviewers with different ethnic background allowed observation of the interplay between cultural norms and behavioral personality. The participants provided self-reports of personality in both languages with a 2- or 3-week delay between reports (counterbalanced). They were then interviewed in English and in Chinese by one Chinese interviewer, and in English and in Chinese by a one Caucasian interviewer (each interview lasted 10 minutes). Observers rated the participants’ personality in terms of extroversion and openness. The results showed some interesting interactions between behavioral personality and the interviewer’s ethnic background. Specifically, participants were rated as significantly more extroverted, and open to experience when talking with Caucasian interviewers than when talking with Chinese interviewers, independent of language. When talking with a Chinese interviewer, they were perceived as more extroverted and open to experience in English than in Chinese. Interestingly, there were not significant differences on self-rated personality across languages for these dimensions. The personality differences across languages and interviewers were in accordance to expected cultural differences. For example, native English speakers whose cultural norms are from more individualistic cultures are expected to behave as more extroverted and open to experience than Chinese speakers whose cultural norms are from more collectivistic cultures. Chen and Bond’s study is noteworthy because it provides evidence that personality switch in bilinguals is dependent not only on language, but also on cultural norms. However, this study has a limitation that is difficult to address. Since the interviewers were also bilingual, it is possible that their personality switched with interview language, which in turn influenced the personality of the bilingual participants. Likewise the Caucasian interviewer may have acted more extroverted and open to experience than the Chinese interviewer, influencing the participants’ personality. Thus, it is especially difficult to separate the effects of culture and language in this study, since both variables have potential effects in both the interviewers and the participants. Ramírez-Esparza et  al. (2008) controlled for these effects by engaging the bilingual participants in a social interaction task using a prerecorded interview. This approach made it possible to observe the effects of language rather than cultural norms.

Although researchers attempt to control for cultural and language effects in investigations of personality switching, there is no doubt that these two variables are interrelated. The effects of culture on personality can be observed by using cultural primes other than immersion in a language mode. Mok and Morris (2009) investigated changes in self-perceived personality as a function of cultural primes in biculturals. The authors also observed the effects of bicultural identity. In a previous study, Benet-Martínez and colleagues (Benet-Martínez et al., 2002, see c­ hapter 13 in this volume) provided evidence that the degree of integration of two cultural identities within the individual (BII) moderates the effects of attributional bias. For example, attributions in Asian-Americans with an integrated identity (high BII) change in the expected direction after being exposed to a cultural prime: They make external attributions in response to American primes and internal attributions in response to Chinese primes. In contrast, biculturals with conflicting identities (low BII) show the opposite pattern:  They make internal attributions in response to American primes and external attributions in response to Chinese primes. Mok and Morris tested the role of cultural identity in the context of personality in two studies. In Study 1, Asian American students completed self-reports on the Need for Uniqueness after they were randomly assigned to view four book covers from American or East Asian culture. In Study 2 Asian-American students completed self-reports on extroversion after a more subtle priming manipulation:  Participants were asked to play the role of a manager in North America or East Asia. Students in the American condition saw employees with Western names, whereas participants in the Asian condition saw employees with Asian names. In both studies, the participants were measured in terms of their bicultural identity. The results showed that highly integrated Asian Americans perceived themselves as more uniqueness seeking and extroverted following the American prime than the Chinese prime. In contrast, the opposite pattern was found in individuals with low integration: that is, the participants perceived themselves as less uniqueness seeking and extroverted following the American prime than the Chinese prime. In other words, those participants with strong and integrated cultural identities changed their personality in response to American primes to be more congruent to the stereotyped “American personality”—they saw themselves as more unique and extroverted. However,

those participants who felt a disassociation between their two cultural identities changed their personality in opposition to the “American personality.” The authors concluded “Thus, integrated biculturals can follow the lead of cultural cues without feeling that they are leaving part of themselves behind. Conversely, conflicted biculturals are more likely to experience a cultural cue as threatening to their other cultural identity, spurring a need to retreat, or affirm that other identity to restore equilibrium in the bicultural identities” (p. 888). Conclusion. In general, research suggests that bilinguals switch personality when they switch languages in a way that is consistent with the cultures associated with each language. However the relationship is not simple. When bilinguals are immersed in a language, cultural values associated with that language are activated which influences response to self-reports (Ramírez-Esparza et al., 2008). Studies of personality shift in bilinguals that combine self-reports and measurements of social behaviors also indicate that bilinguals do change personality when they switch languages (Chen & Bond, 2010; Ramírez-Esparza et al., 2008). Furthermore, personality shift is also associated with cultural identity and can be observed by activating culture using subtle primes other than language in biculturals (Mok & Morris, 2009). These studies reveal the association between personality, cultural norms, and language, as well as the difficulty in separating language and culture. Overall personality in bilinguals is dependent on both language and culture. How can we separate the role of language and culture in bilinguals? One possible approach is to ask bilinguals to describe their personality in Spanish and in English, and identify the most salient themes in each of their languages. Ramirez-Esparza and colleagues (Ramírez-Esparza, Chung, Sierra-Otero, & Pennebaker, 2012) demonstrated that Mexicans and Americans differ in the themes they use when describing their personality. For example, Mexicans use words about being nice and agreeable (i.e, affectionate, responsible, help, honest, sensible), whereas Americans use words related to being outgoing and sociable (i.e., outgoing, shy, open, meet, laugh, friendly). If bilinguals living in the United States are similar to Mexicans when describing their personality in Spanish, and are similar to Americans when describing their personality in English, we can infer that personality in bilinguals is more language dependent: Even if the bilinguals are living in the United States, just by switching languages they switch their personality. On the other Ramíre z-Espar z a, García-Sierra


hand, if bilinguals are similar to Americans when describing their personality in both languages, we can infer that personality in bilinguals is more culture dependent:  The American cultural context influences the way they describe their personality in both languages. Such studies could be informative in this regard (see Ross, Xun, & Wilson, 2002 for a relevant study), and much work remains to be done in this area.

Emotion Switch in Bilinguals

Another area of research that has been increasingly popular in the past years is emotional response to language in bilinguals. For example, most bilinguals indicate that they experience more emotional weight in response to the phrase “I love you” in their first language (Dewaele, 2008). Cursing or taboo words generally produce more emotional intensity in the first language (Dewaele, 2004). This area of research, however, is also limited by the methodological issues discussed in the previous section, and other weaknesses such as the definition of emotional experience. Caldwell-Harris and colleagues at Boston University employ an interesting definition of emotional weight:  skin conductance (for a review see Harris, Gleason, & Ayҫiҫegi, 2006). This approach overcomes the methodological concerns related to self-report in bilinguals: The method is not subject to translation concerns and response-style biases. Furthermore, it has been well established that emotionally charged words, such as taboo words, produce higher skin conductance than neutral words in monolingual participants (e.g., Mathews, Richards, & Eysenck, 1989). The association of skin conductance and emotion makes it a good tool for studying language mode in bilingual participants, allowing the evaluation of relationships between language and emotion. Caldwell-Harris and colleagues recorded skin conductance activity in bilinguals associated with taboo words, reprimands, aversive words, positive words, and neutral words in their first and second language (Caldwell-Harris & Ayҫiҫegi-Dinn, 2009; Harris, 2004; Harris, Ayҫiҫegi & Gleason, 2003). In one of the earliest studies, Turkish learners of English showed higher electrodermal activity in the first language than the second language, but only to childhood reprimands (e.g., “Don’t do that!” or “Shame on you” or “Go to your room”) (Harris et al., 2003). The authors argued that these findings were congruent with the idea that bilinguals can categorize autobiographical memories as occurring in their first or their second languages. The phrases 50

The Bilingual Brain

in Turkish were associated with memories from their childhood, whereas the phrases in English were not associated with any childhood memories. In a follow-up study Harris (2004) recruited Spanish-English bilinguals who acquired both languages in early childhood and compared them to Spanish-English bilinguals who learned English later in their life. Interestingly, only the late learners of English showed significant skin conductance differences to reprimand phrases. That is, the reprimand phrases in Spanish elicited significantly higher skin conductance than reprimand phrases in English in late learners of English—differences were not significant in the early learners of English. These finding suggest that reprimands do not necessarily have more emotional weight in one language or the other. The early English learners almost certainly grew up listening to reprimands in both languages, and, therefore, autobiographical memory was not associated with a specific language. In a series of follow-up studies, the authors investigated the linkage between memory and emotions (Ayҫiҫegi & Harris, 2004; Ayҫiҫegi-Dinn & Caldwell-Harris, 2009). They used a standard emotion-memory measure, in which emotionally charged words are better remembered than neutral words, that has been successfully tested in monolinguals. In the first study, they recruited Turkish-English bilinguals who arrived in the United States after age 17 to test emotion-memory effects in first and second languages (Ayҫiҫegi & Harris, 2004). The task consisted of reading words on a computer screen, including childhood reprimands, taboo words, negative words, positive words and neutral words in both English and Turkish. Each word was rated for emotional intensity and a surprise recall task was performed at the end. The authors expected bilinguals to remember more words in Turkish because reading the word in their first language would have more emotional effect. The results were in the opposite direction! Participants’ percentage recall was higher in their second language than in their first language, especially for reprimand and taboo words. Furthermore, their findings were not consistent with the results of their earlier studies using skin conductance (Harris et al., 2003). The authors attempted to disambiguate these conflicting findings in a more recently published study (Ayҫiҫegi-Dinn & Caldwell-Harris, 2009). Specifically they made two methodological changes to the 2004 study. First, bilingual participants living in Turkey were recruited. The authors hypothesized

that residing in an English-speaking context affected emotional recall. Second, they performed different incidental memory tasks:  The authors argued that perhaps the English words were more amusing or novel and, therefore, the English words were processed more deeply. The incidental memory tasks now varied on the degree of emotional processing. For example a shallow task such as counting the number of letters that are contained in a closed circle was compared to tasks with deeper emotional processing such as translating a word into the other language or associating as many words as possible with a target word. The bilinguals living in Turkey remembered significantly more reprimand words in English than in Turkish. Other word categories did not show significant differences across languages and/or did not show a consistent pattern across tasks. The authors concluded that the memory-emotion effect for reprimand words cannot be attributed to the language context of the current environment in bilinguals, nor can they be attributed to the depth of emotional processing. What could account for these paradoxical findings? A  group of researchers in Spain suggested that the differences could be the result of methodological issues and the type of bilinguals (Ferre et al., 2010). Ferre and colleagues (2010) tested the ­emotionalmemory effects of positive, negative, and neutral words in Spanish-Catalan bilinguals who acquired their second language (i.e., Catalan) early in their lives and Spanish-English bilinguals who acquired their second language (i.e., English) later in their lives. They implemented a new selection of words based on a well-validated inventory that categorizes English words according to emotional dimensions, which has been translated into Spanish. In this study, one group of bilinguals performed the emotion-memory task in Spanish and another group of bilinguals performed the task in Catalan. Both groups recalled emotion category words better than neutral words. However when the task was completed across languages in early bilinguals (i.e., Spanish-Catalan bilinguals) and late bilinguals (Spanish-English bilinguals), there were no differences in recall of word categories for the first and second language. Thus, there were no relationships between remembering emotionally charged words and language in either early or late bilinguals. Unfortunately, childhood reprimands were not included in the inventory, limiting the use of this study in the interpretation of earlier work. Do bilinguals switch emotion with language? Well, yes and no, it all depends on measurement. In

Dewaele’s studies, hundreds of bilinguals responded to his online questionnaire, and most reported that emotionally charged words produce an stronger emotional impact in their first language, however this difference disappears in bilinguals who acquired two languages early in life (Dewaele 2004; 2008). The studies of Caldwell-Harris and colleagues using skin conductance are consistent with this finding:  bilinguals who acquire their second language later in life show higher skin conductance for some emotionally charged words (i.e., childhood reprimand phrases) (Harris et al., 2003). This difference in electrodermal activity disappears in late bilinguals (Harris, 2004), and no consistent differences are found in other emotionally charged word categories (Harris et  al., 2003; Harris, 2004). Furthermore, other methodologies, like the emotion-memory task, produce differences in the unexpected direction:  bilinguals have better recall of reprimand phrases in their second language than in their first language (Ayҫiҫegi & Harris, 2004; Ayҫiҫegi-Dinn & Caldwell-Harris, 2009), and no clear differences are found for the other word categories (Ayҫiҫegi & Harris, 2004; Ayҫiҫegi-Dinn & Caldwell-Harris, 2009; Ferre et al., 2010) even in simultaneous bilinguals (Ferre et al., 2010). Here we argue that in order to capture real emotional differences across languages in bilinguals, it is important to immerse the person in the language of interest, allowing the bilingual to “switch on” a language by “turning off” the other language (Grosjean, 2001). In other words, in order to activate the emotions associated with a language it is important that the participant is in a monolingual mode for that language; feeling and thinking in one language so that memories associated with that language will be more accessible along with associated emotional response. We know of two studies that took this approach in different ways. Marian and Kaushanskaya (2004) recruited Russian-English bilinguals who immigrated to the United States when they were about 14 years old to participate in a recorded interview. The interviews were divided in two parts: The first part was done in Russian and the second part in English (counterbalanced). The interview was done with the cue word technique to access autobiographical memories by using key words (e.g., summer, neighbors, cat). The key words were used once and different words were used in each language. After all memories were recorded, participants had to indicate in which language the memory occurred (i.e., in Russian, English or both). Finally raters coded Ramíre z-Espar z a, García-Sierra


all narratives as a function of emotion defined by two variables:  Emotional intensity (i.e., from no emotion to extremely high intensity), and by the valence of the emotion (i.e., from narratives that expressed completely negative affect to narratives that expressed completely positive affect). The results showed that autobiographical memories were scored higher in emotional intensity when the language in which the memory occurred and the language used in the interview matched than when they did not match. Furthermore, memories that occurred in the Russian language were rated as less positive that memories that occurred in English. The authors explained the results in terms of cultural differences associated with each language. For example, individualistic cultures such as the United States tend to be more positive in their emotions than collectivist cultures such as Russia. Perunovic and colleagues (Perunovic, Heller, & Rafaeli, 2007) tested emotion switch in East-Asian Canadian biculturals living in Canada using a diary approach. The participants completed a self-report emotional experience questionnaire (PANAS, Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988) 3 times a day over 10 days. The questionnaire asked the participants to rate the extent to which each item described mood in the specific moment (items include positive emotions, such as excited, strong, and negative emotions such as, upset, strong, guilty). Then the participants answered questions about cultural identification and language use. For example, they were asked “during the past 2 hr, which specific cultural group did you most identify with?” (p. 609), and “during the past 2 hr think of the person or group you spent most of the time with. What language did you speak most of that time” (p. 609). The authors hypothesized that when the participants were immersed in a Western context, they would respond the PANAS as westerners do, whereas, when the participants were immersed in an Asian context, they would respond the questionnaire as the Asians do. Previous studies have shown that East Asians are more dialectical in their emotional experience than westerns (Bagozzi, Wong, & Yi, 1999). This means that East Asians are able to experience both positive and negative emotions in any given moment, which suggests that the correlation between positive and negative affect should be less negative, or even positive, whereas Westerners tend to experience either positive emotions or negative emotions, which results in negative correlations between positive and negative affect. The results supported the hypotheses; when 52

The Bilingual Brain

the biculturals were immersed in a Western context a negative correlation between positive and negative affect was found, but when they were immersed in an Asian context the correlation disappeared. Conclusion. In this section we reviewed literature about the association between language and emotion. The literature is complex, employing a variety of research questions and methodologies including large-scale online single-question studies, physiological measures, memory tasks, and social-interaction tasks. The involvement of memory increases the complexity. Since there are strong associations between emotions and memory, it follows that emotions associated with language are most likely linked to autobiographical memories. We believe that the methodological approach used by Marian and Kaushanskaya (2004) is the most productive approach. By using an extensive interview task it is possible to immerse bilinguals in the language of interest and affect their emotions in different ways. If the participants are thinking in Russian and they are remembering aspects of their lives that occurred in a Russian-speaking context, then the autobiographical memory has more emotional intensity. This finding is consistent with the idea that bilinguals change their emotions across languages and that emotions are experienced more strongly in the first language. A pivotal follow-up study would use the approach of Marian and Kaushanskaya to evaluate simultaneous bilinguals. For example, do bilinguals who grew up in the United States listening to both languages simultaneously also change their emotions as function of language? It is possible that the differences will disappear, but it is also possible that memories will be associated with a context (e.g., Spanish with the family context, and English with the school context) and a similar pattern of differences will emerge. On the other hand, Perunovic and colleagues (2007) observed language immersion using a diary technique. This approach allowed assessment of the cultural contexts that bicultural individuals encounter in their everyday life. Although this study is not related to memory, it does provide support for the idea that bilinguals do change their emotions depending on the language.

General Conclusion

Being born in an English-speaking culture is advantageous in many ways. As the editorial in the New Scientist write in their piece Oh, to Be Bilingual: “There are many reasons to be grateful for being part of the ‘Angloshpere’. English is the world’s lingua franca, the language of science, technology,

business, diplomacy and popular culture” (May 2012, p. 3). For these reasons and others, English is a door to opportunities. Since our children are growing up in an English-dominant culture, why would we want to raise them bilingually? As we reviewed in this chapter, being bilingual has powerful advantages in cognitive function across various domains such as attention, working memory, and multitasking. This is the kind of “brain work” that may protect them from age-related cognitive problems (such as dementia and Alzheimer). Furthermore, research shows that our children will reach language milestones at the same rate as the monolinguals. Although misconceptions about bilingualism are still prevalent in the United States, bilingualism has been increasingly valued in recent years. As more parents want to raise bilingual children, bilingual education will become more available in the United States school system. These changes in attitudes toward bilingualism will help our children to embrace their mother tongue even if it is associated with a low-status culture. The bilingual brain is indeed fascinating and research focused on the mechanisms associated with the way bilinguals function in the world is just beginning. Here we reviewed studies that have attempted to understand integration of two languages in bilinguals using the basic units of language. We also reviewed studies of the bilingual brain from the perspective of more complex psychological phenomena such as personality and emotion. A reporter once asked me: “Do you think bilinguals have greater emotional/behavioral flexibility and, therefore, they have better ability to adapt to different social situations?” I had to acknowledge that I  did not know of any research that could answer this question, but I  wanted to say yes. I  like to imagine that bilingualism will be a tool that will help our children walk strong in this increasingly multicultural-multilingual world. As the editorial from the New Scientist ends “In a fiercely competitive world, being born into an Anglophone culture is not quite the blessing it may first appear.”

Author note

Some of the work reported in this chapter was supported by a National Science Foundation Science of Learning Program grant to the LIFE Center (SBE-0354453, Patricia K.  Kuhl, PI). The authors are grateful to Patricia Kuhl and Yasmin Wisecarver for their assistance and special thanks to Denise Padden for her valuable input regarding the chapter.


Abramson, A. S., & Lisker, L. (1967). Discriminability along the voicing continuum: Cross language tests. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of Phonetical Science, Prague. Adesope, O. O., Lavin, T., Thompson, E., & Ungerleider, C. (2010). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the cognitive correlates of bilingualism. Review of Educational Research, 80, 207–245. Ayҫiҫegi-Dinn, A., & Caldwell-Harris, C. L. (2004). Bilinguals’ recall and recognition of emotion words. Cognition and Emotion, 18, 977–987. Ayҫiҫegi-Dinn, A., & Caldwell-Harris, C. L. (2009). Emotionmemory effects in bilingual speakers: A  levels-of-processing approach. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 291–303. Bagozzi, R. P., Wong, N., & Yi, Y. (1999). The role of culture and gender in the relationship between positive and negative affect. Cognition and Emotion, 13, 641–672. Barac, R., & Bialystok, E. (2012). Bilingual effects on cognitive and linguistic development: Role of Language, cultural background, and education. Child Development, 83, 413–422. Benet-Martínez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural Identity Integration (BII):  Components and psychosocial antecedents. Journal of Personality, 73, 1015–1050. Benet-Martínez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los Cinco Grades across cultures and ethnic groups:  Multitrait-multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 729–750. Benet-Martínez, V., Leu, J., Lee, F., & Morris, M. W. (2002). Negotiating biculturalism:  Cultural frame switching in biculturals with oppositional versus compatible cultural identities. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 492–516. Bernstein, R. (2012). Most children younger than age 1 are minorities:  Census Bureau Reports. United States Census Bureau. population/cb12-90.html Best, C. T., & McRoberts, G. W. (2003). Infant perception of non-native consonant contrasts that adults assimilate in different ways. Language and Speech, 46, 183–216. Best, C. T., McRoberts, G. W., & Sithole, N. M. (1988). Examination of perceptual reorganization for nonnative speech contrasts:  Zulu click discrimination by English-speaking adults and infants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 345–360. Bialystok, E. (1988). Levels of bilingualism and levels of linguistic awareness. Developmental Psychology, 24, 560–567. Bialystok, E. (1999). Cognitive Complexity and Attentional Control in the Bilingual Mind. Child Development, 70, 636–644. Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., & Luk, G. (2012). Bilingualism: Consequences for mind and brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 240–250. Bialystok, I., Craik, F. I. M., & Morris, F. (2007). Bilingualism as a protection against the onset of symptoms of dementia. Neuropsychologia, 45, 459–464. Bohn, O. S., & Flege, J. E. (1993). Perceptual switching in Spanish-English bilinguals. Journal of Phonetics, 21(3), 267–290. Caldwell-Harris, C. L., & Ayҫiҫegi-Dinn, A. (2009). Emotion and lying in a non-native language. International Journal of Psycholophysiology, 71, 193–204. Caramazza, A., Yeni-Komshian, G. H., Zurif, E. B., & Carbone, E. (1973). The acquisition of a new phonological contrast: The cast of stop consonants in French-English

Ramíre z-Espar z a, García-Sierra


bilinguals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 54, 421–428. Chen, S. X., & Bond, M. H. (2010). Two languages, two personalities? Examining language effects on the expression of personality in a bilingual context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1514–1528. Cheour, M., Ceponiene, R., Lehtokoski, A., Luuk, A., Allik, J., Alho, K., & Näätänen, R. (1998). Development of language-specific phoneme representations in the infant brain. Nature Neuroscience, 1, 351–353. Craik, F. I. M., Bialystok, E., & Morris, F. (2010). Delaying the onset of Alzheimer disease: Bilingualism as a form of cognitive reserve. Neurology, 75, 1726–1729. Crawford, J. (1999). Bilingual education: History, politics, theory, and practice. Bilingual Education Services: Los Angeles, CA. De Houwer, A. (1990) The acquisition of two languages from birth:  A  case study. Cambridge, UK:  Cambridge University Press. de Lange, C. (2012). My two minds. New Scientist, 214, 31–33. Dewaele, J.-M. (2004). The emotional force of swearwords and taboo words in the speech of multilinguals. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 25, 204–222. Dewaele, J.-M. (2008). The emotional weight of I love you in multilinguals’ languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1753–1780. Dewaele, J.-M., & Pavlenko, A. (2001–2003). Web questionnaire bilingualism and emotions. London: University of London. Díaz-Loving, R., & Draguns, J. G. (1999). Culture, meaning, and personality in Mexico and in the United States. In Y.-T. Lee, C. R.  McCauley, & J. G.  Draguns (Eds.), Personality and person perception across cultures (pp. 103–126). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Domino, G. (1985). A review of the California Psychological Inventory. In D. J.  Keyser, & R. C.  Sweetland (Eds.), Test critiques (Vol 1.  pp. 146–157). Kansas City, MO:  Test Corporation of America. Editorial. (2012). Oh, to be bilingual. New Scientist, 214, 3. Eimas, P. D., Siqueland, E. R., Jusczyk, P., & Vigorito, J. (1971). Speech Perception in Infants. Science, 171, 303–306 Elman, J. L., Diehl, R. L., & Buchwald, S. E. (1977). Perceptual switching in bilinguals. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 62(4), 971–974. Ervin, S. M. (1964). Language and TAT content in bilinguals. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 500–507. European Commision (2006). Europeans and their languages. Special Eurobarometer, 243/Wave 64.3. public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_243_en.pdf Eysenk, H. (1985). Review of the California Psychological Inventory. In J. V.  Mitchell, Jr. (Ed.), The ninth mental measurements yearbook (Vol. 1, pp.  252-253). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Fenson, L., Marchman, V. A., Thal, D., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., & Bates, E. (2007). MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories:  User’s guide and technical manual (2nd ed.) Baltimore, MD: Brooks. Ferre, P., Garcia, T., Fraga, I., Sanchez-Casas, R., & Molero, M. (2010). Memory intensity for emotional words in bilinguals:  Do words have the same emotional intensity in the first and in the second language? Cognition and Emotion, 24, 760–785. Fields, H. (2012). Speaking your mind: Bilingual language, culture, and emotion. Observer, 25, 15–19. Fillmore, W. L. (2000). Loss of family languages: Should educators be concerned? Theory into Practice, 39, 203–210.


The Bilingual Brain

Flege, J. E., & Eefting, W. (1987). Cross-language switching in stop consonant perception and production by Dutch speakers of English. Speech Communication, 6(3), 185–202. García-Sierra, A., Diehl, R. L., & Champlin, C. (2009). Testing the double phonemic boundary in bilinguals. Speech Communication, 51, 369–378. García-Sierra, A., Ramírez-Esparza, N., & Kuhl, K. P. (November, 2010). Bilinguals’ and monolinguals’ electric brain responses associated to native and no-native speech sounds. Paper presented at the 2nd Pan-American/Iberian Meeting on Acoustics, Cancun, Mexico. García-Sierra A., Ramírez-Esparza, N., Silva-Pereyra, J., Siard, J., & Champlin, C. (2012). Assessing the double phonemic representation in bilingual speakers of Spanish and English:  An electrophysiological study. Brain & Language, 121, 194–205. García-Sierra, A., Rivera-Gaxiola, M., Percaccio, C. R., Conboy, B. T., Romo, H., Klarman, L., Ortiz, S., & Kuhl, P. (2011). Bilingual language learning: An ERP study relating early brain responses to speech, language input, and later word production. Journal of Phonetics, 39, 546–557. Genesee, F., Paradis, J., & Grago, M. B. (2004). Dual language development and disorders:  A  handbook on bilingualism and second language learning. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Goldberg, L. R. (1972). Some recent trends in personality assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 36, 547–560. Grieser, D. L., & Kuhl, P. K. (1988). Maternal speech to infants in a tonal language: support for universal prosodic features in motherese. Developmental Psychology, 24, 14–20. Grosjean F. (2001). The bilingual’s language modes. In:  J. L. Nicol (Ed.) One mind, two languages: Bilinguals language processing (pp. 1–22). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Hamers, J. F., & Blanc, M. H. (1989). Bilinguality and bilingualism. New York: Cambridge University Press. Harris [Caldwell-Harris], C. L. (2004). Bilingual speakers in the lab:  Psychophysiological measures of emotional reactivity. Journal of Multilingual, and Multicultural Development, 25, 223–247. Harris [Caldwell-Harris], C. L., Ayҫiҫegi, [Ayҫiҫegi-Dinn ]A., & Gleason, J. B. (2003). Taboo words and reprimands elicit greater autonomic reactivity in a first than in a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 561–579. Harris [Caldwell-Harris], C. L., Gleason, J. B., & Ayҫiҫegi [Ayҫiҫegi-Dinn], A. (2006). When is the first language more emotional? Psychophysiological evidence from bilingual speakers. In A. Pavlenko (Ed.), Bilingual minds:  Emotional experience, expression and representation. Clevedon, United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters. Hazan, V. L., & Boulakia, G. (1993). Perception and production of a voicing contrast by French-English bilinguals. Language and Speech, 36, 17–38. Holloway, R. A., Waldrip, A. M., & Ickes, W. (2009). Evidence that a Simpático self-schema accounts for differences in the self-concepts and social behavior of Latinos versus Whites (and Blacks). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1012–1028. Holowka, S., Brosseau-Lapré, F., & Petitto, L.A. (2002). Semantic and conceptual knowledge underlying bilingual babies’ First signs and words. Language Learning, 52, 205–262. Hong, Y. –Y., Chiu, C.-Y., & Kung, T. M. (1997). Bringing culture out in front: Effects of cultural meaning system activation on social cognition. In K. Leung, Y. Kashima, U. Kim,

& S. Yamaguchi (Eds.), Progress in Asian social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 135-146). Singapore: Wiley. Hong, Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2000). Multicultural minds:  A  dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55, 709–720. Hull, P. V. (1996). Bilingualism:  Some personality and cultural issues. In D. I.  Slobin, J. Gerhardt, A. Kyratzis, & J. Guo. (Eds.), Social interaction, social context, and language:  Essays in honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp (pp. 419–434). New Jersey: Erlbaum. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy:  History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A.  Pervin & O. P.  John (Eds.), Handbook of personality:  Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford Press. King, K., & Fogle, L. (2006). Bilingual parenting as good parenting:  Parents’ perspectives on family language policy for additive bilingualism. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9, 695–712. Kuhl, P. K. (1985). Methods in the study of infant speech perception. In G. Gottlieb & N. Krasnegor (Eds.), Measurement of audition and vision in the first year of postnatal life:  A  methodological overview (pp. 223–251). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Kuhl, P. K., Conboy, B. T., Coffey-Corina, S., Padden, D., Rivera-Gaxiola, M., & Nelson, T. (2008). Early phonetic perception as a pathway to language:  New data and native language magnet theory, expanded (NLM-e). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 363, 979–1000. Kuhl, P. K., Stevens, E., Hayashi, A., Deguchi, T., Kiritani, S., & Iverson, P. (2006). Infants show a facilitation effect for native language phonetic perception between 6 and 12  months. Developmental Science, 9, F13–F21. Kuhl, P. K., Williams, K. A., Lacerda, F., Stevens, K. N., & Lindblom, B. (1992). Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by six-months of age. Science, 255, 606–608. LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H. L., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 395–412. Liberman, A. M., Harris, K. S., Kinney, J. A., & Lane, H. (1961). The discrimination of relative onset-time of the components of certain speech and nonspeech patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 379–388. Marín, G., & Marín, B. V. (1991). Research with Hispanic populations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Marian, V., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2004). Self-construal and emotion in bicultural bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 190–201. Mathews, A., Richards, A., & Eysenck, M. (1989). Interpretation of homophones related to threat in anxiety states. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 98, 31–34. McNamara, J. (1967). The bilingual’s linguistic performance. Journal of Social Issues, 23, 58–77. Mok, A., & Morris, M. W. (2009). Cultural chamaleons and iconoclasts:  Assimilation and reactance to cultural cues in biculturals’ expressed personalities as a function of identity conflict. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 884–889. Näätänen, R., Lehtokoski, A., Lennes, M., & et  al. (1997). Language-specific phoneme representations revealed by electric and magnetic brain responses. Nature, 385, 432–434.

Oller, D. K., Eilers, R. E., Neal, A. R., & Schwartz, H. K. (1999). Precursors to speech in infancy:  The prediction of speech and language disorders. Journal of Communication Disorders, 32, 223–246. Oller, D. K., Eilers, R. E., Urbano, R., & Cobo-Lewis, A. B. (1997). Development of precursors to speech in infants exposed to two languages. Journal of Child Language, 27, 407–425. Ozanska-Ponikwia, K. (2012). What has personality and emotional intelligence to do with “feeling different” while using a foreign language? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15, 217–234. Paradis, J., Crago, M., Genesee, F., Rice, M. (2003) French-English bilingual children with SLI:  How do they compare with their monolingual peers? Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 46, 113–127. Peal, E., & Lambert, W. E. (1962). The relation of bilingualism to intelligence. Psychological Monographs, 76, 1–23. Pearson, B. Z., Fernández, M. C., & Oller, D. K. (1993). Lexical development in bilingual infants and toddlers: Comparison to monolingual norms. Language Learning, 43, 93–120. Peltola, J. S., Tamminen, H., Toivonen, H., Kujala, T., & Näätänen, R. (2012). Different kinds of bilinguals-Different kids of brains: The neural organization of two languages in one brain. Brain and Language, 121, 261–266. Perunovic, W. Q.  E., Heller, D., & Rafaeli, E. (2007). Within-person changes in the structure of emotion: The role of cultural identification and language. Psychological Science, 18, 607–613. Petitto, L. A., Berens, M. S., Kovelman, I., Dubins, M. H., Jasinska, K., & Shalinsky, M. (2012). The “Perceptual Wedge Hypothesis” as the basis for bilingual babies’ phonetic processing advantage: New Insights from fNIRS brain imaging. Brain and Language, 121, 130–143. Petitto, L. A., Katerelos, M., Levi, B.G., Gauna, K., Tetreault, K., Ferraro, V. (2001). Bilingual signed and spoken language acquisition from birth:  Implications for the mechanism underlying early bilingual language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 28, 453–496. Petitto, L. S. (2009). New discoveries from the bilingual brain and mind across the life span:  Implications for education. Mind Brain and Education, 3, 185–197. Ramírez-Esparza, N., Chung, K. C., Sierra-Otero, G., & Pennebaker J.  W. (2012). Cross-cultural constructions of self-schemas:  Americans and Mexicans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 233–250. Ramírez-Esparza, N., García-Sierra, A., & Kuhl, K. P. (November, 2010). Naturalistic social communication and speech development in monolingual and bilingual infants. Paper presented at the 2nd Pan-American/Iberian Meeting on Acoustics, Cancun, Mexico. Ramírez-Esparza, N., García-Sierra A., & Kuhl, K. P. (in press). Look who’s talking: Speech style and social context in language input to infants is linked to concurrent and future speech development. Developmental Science. Ramírez-Esparza, N., Gosling, S. D., Benet-Martínez, V., Potter, J., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). Do bilinguals have two personalities? A special case of cultural frame switching. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 99–120. Ramírez-Esparza, N., Gosling, S. D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2008). Paradox lost:  Unraveling the puzzle of Simpatía. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 703–715. Rivera-Gaxiola, M., Klarman, L., García-Sierra, A., & Kuhl, P. (2005). Neural patterns to speech and vocabulary growth in American infants. Neuroreport, 16, 495–498.

Ramíre z-Espar z a, García-Sierra


Rivera-Gaxiola, M., Silva-Pereyra, J., Klarman, L., García-Sierra, A., Lara-Ayala, L., Cadena-Salazar, C., & Kuhl, P. (2007). Principal components analyses and scalp distribution of the auditory P150-250 and N250-550 to speech contrasts in Mexican and American infants. Developmental Neuropshychology, 31, 363–378. Rivera-Gaxiola, M., Silva-Pereyra, J., & Kuhl, P. (2005). Brain potentials to native and non-native speech contrasts in 7and 11-month-old American infants. Developmental Science, 12, 874–887. Ross, M., Xun, W. Q. E., & Wilson, A. E. (2002). Language and the bicultural self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1040–1050. Sabbagh, M. A., Xu, F., Carlson, S. M., Moses, L. J., & Lee, K. (2006). The development of executive functioning and theory of mind:  A  comparison of Chinese and U.  S. Preschoolers. Psychological Science, 17, 74–81. Sebastián-Gallés, N., Albareda-Castellot, B., Weikum, W. M., & Werker, J. F. (2012). A bilingual advantage in visual language discrimination in infancy. Psychological Science, 23, 994–999. Tiitinen, H., May, P., Reinikainen, K., & Näätänen, R. (1994). Attentive novelty detection in humans is governed by pre-attentive sensory memory. Nature, 372, 90–92. Triandis, H. C., Marín, G., Lisansky, J., & Betancourt, H. (1984). Simpatía as a cultural script of Hispanics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1363–1375.


The Bilingual Brain

Tsao, F. M., Liu, H. M., Kuhl, P. (2004). Speech perception in infancy predicts language development in the second year of life:  A  longitudinal study. Child Development, 75, 1067–1084. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect:  The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. Weikum, W. M., Vouloumanos A., Navarra J., Soto-Faraco S., Sebastián-Gallés N., & Werker J. F. (2007). Visual language discrimination in infancy. Science, 316, 1159. Werker, J. F., Byers-Heinlein, K. (2008). Bilingualism in infancy: First steps in perception and comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 144–151. Werker, J. F., & Curtin, S. (2005). PRIMIR:  a developmental framework of infant speech processing. Language Learning and Development, 1, 197–234. Werker, J. F., Polka, L., & Pegg, J. E. (1997) The conditioned head turn procedure as a method for testing infant speech perception. Early Development and Parenting, 6, 171–178. Werker, J. F., & Tees, R. C. (1984). Cross-language speech perception:  Evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. Infant Behavior and Development, 7, 49–63. Williams, L. (1977). The perception of stop consonant voicing by Spanish-English bilinguals. Perception and Psychophysics, 21(4), 289–297.



The Identity Dynamics of Acculturation and Multiculturalism: Situating Acculturation in Context 1

Seth J. Schwartz,Vivian L. Vignoles, Rupert Brown, and Hanna Zagefka

Abstract This chapter discusses the identity processes involved in acculturation and multiculturalism, drawing on insights from various social psychological theories of identity. According to self-categorization theory, people are especially likely to view their cultural values and practices as self-defining in situations of intercultural contact. Social identity theory suggests that members of cultural majorities and minorities will find various ways of maintaining the positive distinctiveness of their cultural identities: for example, migrants may compete directly with receiving-society individuals (e.g., Asian Americans in science and mathematics), or they may find creative ways of affirming cultural differences (e.g., opening restaurants specializing in heritage-culture cuisine). However, multicultural national contexts can be understood not only in terms of intergroup relations, but also in terms of intragroup dynamics by which members of different cultural groups negotiate and defend competing definitions of a superordinate national identity. Drawing on integrated threat theory and on motivated identity construction theory, the authors suggest that these intergroup and intragroup dynamics will bring a wider range of identity motives and processes into play. Moreover, the elaborated social identity model emphasizes the importance of viewing majority and minority groups’ identity processes as reciprocally related over time, rather than treating them separately. This analysis helps to explain why migrants and receiving-society members often behave in ways that seemingly contradict the predictions of earlier theories of acculturation and of intergroup relations. Key Words:  acculturation, international migration, social identity, intergroup relations, cultural identity

International migration is at an all-time high, with more than 200  million people now residing in countries other than the ones in which they were born (United Nations, 2009). Many of these international migrants have left developing countries to settle in postindustrial nations (Steiner, 2009), where the prevailing cultural values, beliefs, and practices may be very different from what they were previously accustomed to. As a result of these differences, not only migrants (who are usually, but not always, smaller and less dominant groups), but also members of the receiving society (who are usually, but not always, the larger and more dominant group), will need to adapt to life in a changed

(multi)cultural context—a process known as acculturation (for reviews, see Berry, 1980, 1997; Brown & Zagefka, 2011; Sam & Berry, 2010; Schwartz, Unger, Zamboanga, & Szapocznik, 2010). Our chapter is guided by an intergroup perspective on acculturation, seeking to understand the acculturation processes among minority and majority members with the help of theories of social identity and intergroup relations (see also Bourhis, Moïse, Perreault, & Senécal, 1997; Rohmann, Florack, & Piontkowski, 2006; Ward, 2001). We begin with a brief historical review of mainstream perspectives on acculturation. We trace the evolution of acculturation as a target for scholarly 57

attention and illustrate some key trends in the acculturation literature on which we attempt to expand in the current chapter. In particular, we review what we regard as the content of acculturation: changes in the domains of cultural practices, values, and identifications. Although these three domains have been discussed in the literature, only recently have they begun to be integrated under the umbrella of acculturation (e.g., Costigan, 2010; Schwartz, Unger, Zamboanga, & Szapocznik, 2010). We then discuss the value of adopting a social identity perspective (see Spears, 2011) to examine acculturation processes. Briefly, our argument is as follows:  Acculturation contexts are, by definition, contexts of intergroup relations, and are typically characterized by substantial differences in size and status between the groups involved (Berry, 2006). In such contexts, perceived differences in cultural practices and values are likely to become salient, creating a basis for people to categorize themselves as members of “cultural groups” (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). Thus, aspects of culture that previously may have been largely taken for granted are transformed into the components of “cultural identities,” infused with symbolic meaning and affective significance for their members, and subject to motivational dynamics of identity threat and maintenance (Breakwell, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Vignoles, 2011). This suggests that a crucial determinant of acculturation processes and outcomes will be the extent to which members of the groups involved perceive their cultural identities to be threatened by the presence or the actions of other groups (Licata, Sanchez-Mazas, & Green, 2011; Stephan, Ybarra, & Bachman, 1999). We review various strategies that migrants and receiving-culture individuals use to maintain their identities against perceived threats in the intergroup space in which acculturation occurs, including cases in which individuals in certain social positions may not categorize themselves neatly into “majority group members” and “migrants.” Majority group members may feel threatened by migrants whom they perceive as either “diluting” or potentially “taking over” the national ingroup (Caldwell, 2008). Members of smaller or less dominant cultural groups in a given context often have to negotiate multiple cultural identities, based on their membership and participation in both their heritage-cultural group and the receiving society (Huynh, Nguyen, & Benet-Martínez, 2011). Finally, we emphasize that all these processes occur within the context of the evolving historical 58

relations between the groups involved, and thus the identity maintenance strategies of one group may often be perceived as undermining the cultural identities of another group. As emphasized by Drury and Reicher (2009), people do not just categorize and position themselves into groups; they also categorize and position each other. These processes may potentially lead to escalating cycles of identity threat and defense in the interactive relations between the groups (Licata, Sanchez-Mazas, & Green, 2011).

Dimensionality of Acculturation Unidimensional and Bidimensional models

One of the earliest research programs on acculturation began in Chicago in the 1920s as scholars at the University of Chicago attempted to understand how Southern and Eastern European migrants were adjusting to their new lives in the United States (Park, 1928; Thomas & Znaniecki, 1927). Redfield, Linton, and Hershkovits (1936), in their call for more acculturation research based on the Chicago studies, suggested that immigrants might adapt to contact with the receiving culture in a number of ways, including adopting the receiving culture, integrating the receiving culture with their cultural heritage, or rejecting the receiving culture and maintaining their cultural heritage. Gordon (1964), working almost 30 years later, cast acculturation as a process of assimilation, or “culture shedding,” in which migrants acquired receiving-cultural orientations and discarded those from their country or region of origin. More or less, Gordon acknowledged only the “receiving-culture adoption” alternative put forth by Redfield et  al. (1936). Gordon’s theoretical approach was guided—at least implicitly—by American assimilationist policies that effectively stripped European migrants of their cultural heritage and pushed them to “become American” (Stepick, Dutton Stepick, & Vanderkooy, 2011). Other countries (e.g., Australia; Taft, 1953) also adopted similar policies designed to encourage or enforce rapid assimilation of migrants and of indigenous minorities. However, assimilationist policies in the United States and elsewhere decreased during the second half of the 20th century, largely in response to the American civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King, Jr. (Caldwell, 2008; Huntington, 2004). More or less, the acceptance of people of color within the existing American social system also led the United States to open its borders to immigrants of color (e.g., Mexicans and Chinese)

The Identit y Dynamics of Acculturation and Multiculturalism

who had previously been denied entry. Around this same time, many European countries opened their borders to labor migration from former colonies as well as from nations in the Middle East and North Africa. The “melting pot” metaphor, in which migrant cultures were largely discarded or absorbed into the dominant national culture, was replaced with a “salad bowl” or “mosaic” metaphor, where a plethora of cultural streams could coexist within a given context (Caldwell, 2008; Stepick, et  al., 2011). The stage was thus set for policies to emerge that emphasized pluralism and respect for cultural diversity, which came to be subsumed under the general term multiculturalism. Indeed, the term multiculturalism entered the common parlance of many Western nations in the 1980s and 1990s, once the new waves of ethnic minority migrants had begun to assert their desires for full recognition and incorporation into the societies in which they had settled (Day, 2000; Takaki, 1993; Werbner, 2005). The last decades of the 20th century witnessed a number of attempts to conceptualize and measure the process of acculturation (see Berry & Sam, this volume, for an in-depth review). Berry (1980, 1997), for example, proposed that desiring contact with the majority culture and wishing to maintain aspects of the heritage culture should be considered as separate dimensions of acculturation. He developed a four-category scheme in which desire for contact with the receiving culture and heritage-culture retention were crossed to form four categories:  “assimilation” (desires contact with the receiving culture and discards the heritage culture), “separation” (rejects contact with the receiving culture and retains the heritage culture), “integration” (desires contact with the receiving culture and retains the heritage culture), and “marginalization” (rejects both the heritage and receiving cultures). Subsequent approaches have suggested that the “desire for contact” dimension in Berry’s scheme might usefully be replaced by a “desire for majority culture adoption” (Bourhis et al., 1997; Ward & Kennedy, 1994), and there has been some discussion about whether these two conceptualizations should be regarded as synonymous (Berry & Sabatier, 2010; Liebkind, 2001; Snauwaert, Soenens, Vanbeselaere, & Boen, 2003). A  great deal of research has been conducted using these models of acculturation (see Sam & Berry, 2010, for a review). A critical difference between unidimensional and bidimensional acculturation models lies in how biculturalism is framed. Within unidimensional models (e.g., Gordon, 1964),

biculturalism—labeled as “integration” within Berry’s (1980, 1997) model—represents an intermediate step between being completely attached to one’s cultural heritage and being completely assimilated to the receiving cultural context. Compared to biculturalism, assimilation is, therefore, viewed as a “more advanced” form of acculturation, and biculturalism is not viewed as beneficial to individual migrants. Within bidimensional models, however, biculturalism represents the highest degrees of endorsement of both one’s heritage and receiving cultural streams—in other words, living in both worlds. Within bidimensional models of acculturation, rather than serving as an intermediate point on the route to assimilation, biculturalism is usually regarded as the most adaptive approach to acculturation. Berry (1997) does, however, qualify this conclusion by noting that the adaptiveness of any given acculturation approach may depend on the prevailing cultural climate in question. Berry and Sam (this volume) provide a more in-depth review of the conditions under which biculturalism is most adaptive. According to Berry (1980, 1997; Sam & Berry, 2010), biculturalism is likely to be adaptive because it permits individuals to interact successfully both with their heritage-cultural community (e.g., family, neighborhood) and with the larger society in which their ethnic group is embedded. Although research suggests that biculturalism is usually adaptive (Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2013), Rudmin (2003) has argued that biculturalism may be a precarious condition in which the person is “caught between two worlds”—pressured against acquiring the receiving culture by the heritage-cultural community, and against retaining the heritage culture by the receiving-cultural community. Such a portrayal is consistent with some anecdotal evidence about the lives of bicultural individuals such as Richard Rodriguez (1982), a Mexican American man who struggled to reconcile his Mexican roots with his American experiences. The men who perpetrated the July 7, 2005 suicide-bombing attacks on the London Underground were born and raised in Britain, and anecdotal evidence suggests that they may have experienced difficulty reconciling their Pakistani Muslim heritage with the secular British context in which they grew up (cf. Bolognani, 2007). Although these men appeared to function well in British society prior to the attacks, conflicts between their British and Muslim identities may have been troubling to them. These two examples—one from the United States and one from

Schwartz, Vignoles, Brown, Zagefka


Europe—suggest that biculturalism is not always easy (or possible) to achieve. Therefore, there seems to be some degree of confusion regarding the extent to which biculturalism involves trying to reconcile incompatible identities versus integrating one’s heritage and receiving identities into an adaptive and coherent whole (Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005). We will return to the question of bicultural identity integration later in this chapter. Although the bidimensional models of acculturation introduced by Berry and others were taken as a clear advance over the unidimensional models formulated in the 1920s and synthesized by Gordon (1964), the focus was still on the experiences of the individual migrant. Berry (1997) has referred to his categories as “acculturation strategies,” which implies that migrants choose how they will acculturate, and that individual differences in acculturation have their roots in individual-level determinants (e.g., age at the time of migration, length of time spent in the receiving country; Cheung, Chudek, & Heine, 2011). Although Berry (1974) had already discussed the importance of public policies and attitudes in the larger society, most early iterations of bidimensional acculturation models paid relatively little consideration to the role of intergroup relations generally, and of the interface between the migrant group and the receiving society specifically. More recently, these dynamics are beginning to receive more attention (Berry, 1997; Brown & Zagefka, 2011; Montreuil & Bourhis, 2001). Interactionist acculturation models increased in prominence during the late 20th century (e.g., Berry, 1997; Bourhis, Moïse, Perreault, & Senécal, 1997; Piontkowski, Rohmann, & Florack, 2002). These models considered the extent of match versus mismatch between the acculturation orientations of migrants and the receiving society’s expectations for how migrants “should” acculturate. For example, Piontkowski et al. (2000) studied members of the dominant cultural group and migrant group members in Germany, Switzerland, and Slovakia, and they found that each of these countries was characterized by different types of attitudes toward migrants. German respondents were generally most insistent that former Yugoslavians, and especially Turks, conform to the German way of life and discard their cultural heritage. Swiss respondents appeared to be more supportive of former Yugoslavian migrants maintaining their cultural heritage, as did Slovak respondents regarding Hungarian migrants. However, one consistent pattern emerged across the three receiving countries—the extent of perceived 60

cultural similarity between the immigrant group and the receiving society emerged as a consistent predictor of favorable attitudes toward migrants, and the extent to which migrants were perceived as a threat to the receiving country emerged as a consistent predictor of unfavorable attitudes (see Berry & Sam, this volume; Pfafferott & Brown, 2006). As a result of these interactionist models, some writers began to understand acculturation processes through the lens provided by theories of social identity and intergroup relations (e.g., Liebkind & Kosonen, 1998; Ward, 2001). For example, Jasinskaja-Lahti, Mähönen, and Liebkind (2012) found that, among Russian migrants to Finland, quality of contact with Finns predicted endorsement of Finnish national identity and attitudes toward Finns indirectly through experiences of discrimination and rejection from Finnish people. From the receiving-society perspective, Leong and Ward (2011) found that it is essential to consider the specific receiving group in question (e.g., Whites versus Maoris in New Zealand) when determining receiving-society members’ attitudes toward migrants. In this chapter, we extend the consideration of acculturation as an instance of intergroup relations. The next section reviews some of the domains of acculturation that have been introduced.

Domains of Acculturation

As we noted earlier in this chapter, the term acculturation has been used as an umbrella for many adjustment-related processes following migration. The majority of acculturation research has focused on public and private cultural behaviors such as language use, choice of friends, ways of celebrating holidays and special occasions, and culinary preferences (e.g., Arends-Tóth & van de Vijver, 2007). Indeed, a great deal of research (e.g., Allen et  al., 2008; Caetano, Ramisetty-Mikler, Wallisch, McGrath, & Spence, 2008; Epstein, Botvin, & Diaz, 1998, 2000) has utilized language preference as the only marker of acculturation. Certainly, language is an essential component of a cultural stream, and studies (e.g., Guo, Suarez-Morales, Schwartz, & Szapocznik, 2009; Kang, 2006) have found that language use is empirically separate from other types of cultural behaviors. Language is an important dimension of national identity (Schildkraut, 2011) in that it unifies members of a region or nation. In terms of intergroup relations, migrants who cannot speak the language of the country or region in which they have settled often meet with hostility from established residents of that country or region (e.g.,

The Identit y Dynamics of Acculturation and Multiculturalism

Barker et al., 2001; Cornelius, 2002). Nonetheless, language use alone is not sufficient for measuring acculturation, as we discuss in more detail below. Acculturation is multidimensional not only in the separation of heritage and receiving cultural orientations, but also in the domains in which acculturation occurs. As Sam and Berry (2010) suggest, echoing some early conceptualizations of the phenomenon (Redfield et al., 1936), acculturation represents a change process that occurs following migration. However, what it is that changes as a result of acculturation has rarely been clearly specified. Recent work has begun to move in the direction of greater specificity, and we outline some of this emerging knowledge here. Broadly speaking, acculturation occurs in three general domains, sometimes labeled as the “ABC’s” of acculturation (Ward, 2001)—affective, behavioral, and cognitive. However, these terms have been used somewhat differently by different groups of authors. For example, Ward (2001) labels “affective” acculturation in terms of stress and coping, “behavioral” acculturation in terms of learning the practices (including language) associated with a given receiving cultural context, and “cognitive” acculturation in terms of intergroup dynamics and attachments to one’s cultural heritage and to the new receiving culture. Castillo and Caver (2009) have used these same labels to index somewhat different domains of acculturation:  affective acculturation refers to social identity processes and attachments to one’s heritage and receiving cultural groups; behavioral acculturation refers to acquiring the practices of the culture of settlement and/or retaining the practices of one’s heritage culture; and cognitive acculturation refers to specific values and beliefs (e.g., individualism, collectivism, familism) associated with one’s heritage and receiving cultural contexts. Costigan (2010) and Schwartz et al. (2010) have followed Castillo and Caver’s demarcation and have proposed that acculturation is comprised of three general domains—practices, values, and identifications. Cultural Practices. As we stated earlier, the vast majority of acculturation research has focused on cultural practices—language use, culinary preferences, media use, and choice of friends and romantic partners. Research suggests that, among migrants in the United States and elsewhere, endorsement of both heritage and receiving cultural practices is associated with donating to charitable causes, stopping to help others in need, and other prosocial behavioral tendencies (Schwartz, Zamboanga, &

Jarvis, 2007), affiliation with friends from both the heritage and receiving cultural communities (Mok, Morris, Benet-Martínez, & Karakitapoğlu-Aygün, 2007), and fewer mental health problems (Bhui et  al., 2005). Moreover, among first- and second-generation migrants, continued engagement in heritage practices (including use of the heritage language and association with heritage-culture friends) has been shown to protect against a number of problematic and health-compromising outcomes, including depressive symptoms (Yoon, Langrehr, & Ong, 2011), drug and alcohol use (Allen et al., 2008), cigarette smoking (Epstein et  al., 1998, 2000), physical inactivity (Unger et al., 2004), and poor diet (Corral & Landrine, 2008). Language may serve as an especially powerful transmitter of cultural lineage and traditions. Indeed, research has identified language as a prime that cues specific cultural mindsets. For example, Lee, Oyserman, and Bond (2010) found that Hong Kong Chinese participants who were assessed in English emphasized competition, whereas those who were assessed in Chinese emphasized harmony and cooperation. Lechuga (2008), in a sample of Mexican Americans, found that those assessed in Spanish scored higher in collectivism compared to those assessed in English. Ramirez-Esparza, Gosling, Benet-Martínez, Potter, and Pennebaker (2006) found that bilingual individuals’ personality configurations (using the Big Five traits) were different in Spanish than in English. Language may, therefore, provide an important index of cultural orientation and may be conceptually and empirically distinct from other types of cultural practices (Guo, Suárez-Morales, Schwartz, & Szapocznik, 2009; Kang, 2006). Indeed, commentators (e.g., Huntington, 2004) and empirical studies (e.g., Barker et  al., 2001) have emphasized the importance of a shared language in maintaining the cultural integrity of a nation or cultural group. Cultural Values. A  largely separate literature has focused on cultural values—including transcultural values such as individualism and collectivism (Triandis, 1995) as well as group-specific values such as filial piety, saving face, humility, conformity, and self-control in East Asians (Bedford, 2004; Kim, Atkinson, & Yang, 1999; Yeh & Bedford, 2003); familism, machismo, respect, and simpatía (emotional warmth) in Latin Americans (Arciniega, Anderson, Tovar-Blank, & Tracey, 2008; Galanti, 2003; Sabogal, Marin, Otero-Sabogal, Marin, & Perez-Stable, 1987); and communalism (orientation toward social ties over individual achievements) in

Schwartz, Vignoles, Brown, Zagefka


the African Diaspora (Boykin et al., 2005). A number of studies (e.g., Schwartz, Weisskirch, et al., 2010; Unger et al., 2002) have suggested that some of the values from these various non-European-descent groups—such as communalism, familism, and filial piety—are strongly related to one another under the heading of collectivism and interdependence. Dwairy (2002, 2004) has also characterized Middle Eastern cultural streams as collectivistic—and indeed, in Islam, the umma, or community, takes precedence over the individual person. It should be noted, however, that the specific types of collectivism expressed in different parts of the world are often quite distinct from one another (Kim, 1994), and that generalities between and among cultures should be drawn with extreme caution. Although few published longitudinal studies have examined change in cultural values over time, a number of studies have found reliable individual differences in cultural values. For example, supporting the contention that minority ethnic groups in the United States are more collectivistic and less individualistic than White Americans, Schwartz, Weisskirch, et  al. (2010) found that Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians scored significantly higher than Whites on measures of communalism, familism, and filial piety. Collectivistic value systems deemphasize individual goals and achievements and place emphasis on the well-being, desires, and needs of family members and friends (Triandis, 1995). In contrast, among cultural majority groups in the United States, and in many European countries, “getting ahead” is framed in terms of individual successes and achievements. Individualism and collectivism are relevant to the intergroup dynamics surrounding acculturation because the majority of the world’s migrants have origins in largely collectivistic cultures, whereas many of the societies in which these migrants are settling are mainly individualistic. As detailed in a report by the United Nations (2009), regions from which individuals are most likely to migrate include Latin America, Southern and Eastern Asia, the Middle East, North and sub-Saharan Africa, and the Caribbean—areas that have been characterized primarily by collectivist and interdependent value orientations. It stands to reason that migrant adjustment includes incorporating at least some of the values of the country or region of settlement—and yet one of the fears expressed by commentators and in public opinion polls both in the United States (Buchanan, 2006; Cornelius, 2002) and in Europe (Bawer, 2004; Bleich, 2009) is that migrants will 62

not integrate themselves into the local culture, but will rather create their own subcultures and eventually “take over” whole regions of the receiving nation or region (Caldwell, 2008; Huntington, 2004). Buchanan (2006) derisively refers to “Eurabia” and “Mexifornia” as examples of such potentially “conquered” territories. Thus, claims about a clash of values, as well as behaviors and identifications, between migrants and the communities that are receiving them, represent an important component of the immigration debates on both sides of the Atlantic. Cultural Identifications. A  somewhat separate literature has emerged for cultural identifications— with the majority of this literature focusing on ethnic or heritage-cultural identity. In this context, heritage-cultural identity refers to one’s identification with one’s (or one’s family’s) culture of origin, whereas ethnic identity refers to identifying with a socially constructed group within the receiving society (Helms, Jernigan, & Mascher, 2005; Zagefka, 2009). For example, many Hispanic individuals in the United States identify with their countries of familial origin (e.g., Cuban, Mexican, Colombian), whereas others identify with pan-ethnic terms that have meaning largely in the United States (e.g., Hispanic or Latino; Portes & Rumbaut, 2006). Terms such as “Hispanic” or “Latino” are rarely used in Latin America—indeed, some of the countries grouped together under these headings have engaged in feuds or wars with one another (e.g., Colombia and Venezuela, Peru and Ecuador, Chile and Argentina). We deliberately do not use the term “race”, because the use of this term to describe different groups of people arises from the commonly held, but scientifically unfounded, assumption that a majority of differences observed between ethnic and cultural groups have a genetic basis (Hirschman, 2004). The prevailing perspective on ethnic identity is a blend between social-identity and neo-Eriksonian perspectives (Phinney & Ong, 2007; UmañaTaylor, Yazedjian, & Bámaca-Gómez, 2004), in which ethnic identity is assumed to represent a confluence of having considered the subjective meaning of one’s ethnic group (ethnic identity exploration), deciding on the subjective importance of one’s ethnic group (ethnic identity commitment), and feeling attached to and proud of that ethnic group (ethnic identity affirmation:  Phinney & Ong, 2007). Ethnic identity is important for migrants and their immediate descendants because it keeps them psychologically

The Identit y Dynamics of Acculturation and Multiculturalism

attached to their heritage cultures and communities (Umaña-Taylor, 2011). Ethnic identity has been studied in a wide variety of ethnic groups and receiving societies (Phinney, Berry, Vedder, & Liebkind, 2006), and stronger ethnic identity among migrants is generally linked to adaptive and health-promoting outcomes (e.g., self-esteem, life satisfaction; see Smith & Silva, 2011, for a recent meta-analytic review). However, the links between ethnic identity and psychosocial outcomes tend to be rather modest—in a study of more than 7,000 migrant adolescents in 13 countries of settlement, Sam, Vedder, Ward, and Horenczyk (2006) found Pearson correlations below |.20| between ethnic identity and a number of adjustment variables, including self-esteem, life satisfaction, distress, school adjustment, and behavior problems. Indeed, the association between ethnic identity and adjustment reported by Sam et al. (2006) is similar to the association between biculturalism and adjustment reported by Phinney et al. (2006) using the same dataset. Ethnic identity is also the dimension of acculturation that has most often been examined longitudinally. In a sample of Black and Hispanic early-to-middle adolescents in New York City, Pahl and Way (2006) found that ethnic identity exploration tended to level off in middle adolescence— unless adolescents perceived discrimination from their peers (in which case ethnic identity exploration remained high). Ethnic identity affirmation remained high throughout the study period. Syed and Azmitia (2009) found that ethnic identity exploration and affirmation both increased during the college years. Knight et  al. (2009) found that ethnic identity affirmation, but not exploration, increased over time in their sample of Mexican American juvenile offenders. In those studies that included majority group members (Whites) as well as migrant and ethnic minority groups, Whites’ ethnic identity scores were significantly lower at all timepoints compared to those of immigrant or minority participants. In any case, ethnic identity tends to be highly endorsed, and to increase over time, for many migrant and ethnic-minority adolescents. In terms of bidimensional models of acculturation, national identity is the counterpart to ethnic or heritage-cultural identity. In other words, migrants may identify to a greater or a lesser extent with their ethnic or cultural group, and they may also identify to a greater or lesser extent with the nation in which they reside (Phinney et al., 2006).

National identity has been somewhat less well studied in migrants and minority group members (for exceptions, see Schildkraut, 2010, 2011). More commonly, national identification has been studied among cultural majority groups, and one finding that has been replicated in several countries is that majority group members who are highly identified with their nation tend to be the least tolerant of migrants (e.g., Barrette, Bourhis, Personnaz, & Personnaz, 2004; González, Verkuyten, Weesie, & Poppe, 2008; Leong, 2008; Morrison, Plaut, & Ybarra, 2010). However, as we discuss later, this appears to be more true of some nations than of others, depending on how the national ingroup is defined (Pehrson, Vignoles, & Brown, 2009). Differences across Domains. Given our contention (cf. Costigan, 2010; Schwartz, Unger, et al., 2010) that acculturation consists of heritage and receiving cultural practices, values, and identifications, it stands to reason that biculturalism can emerge in any of the three domains. Moreover, the fact that a migrant is bicultural in one domain, such as cultural practices, does not necessarily signify that she or he is also bicultural in terms of values and identifications. A Hispanic migrant in the United States may learn English out of necessity, for example, and associate with some American friends—but still not identify as American or adopt individualistic values. Similarly, as Schildkraut (2011) has found in her national polls of U.S. residents, many Hispanics who cannot speak English nonetheless identify with the United States as well as with their countries of origin. Data collected in the United States, for example, suggest a moderate correlation (between .15 and .40) between cultural values and identifications (Schwartz, Weisskirch, et  al., 2011). Practices and identifications were more strongly related (.56 for U.S.  acculturation and .47 for heritage acculturation) but were not related strongly enough to suggest a unitary construct. Moreover, each of the three domains was differentially related to health risks such as illicit drug use, unsafe sexual behavior, and drunken driving. So, in our view, acculturation should be regarded as a multidimensional phenomenon—although some domains of acculturation may prompt the consideration of others, as we discuss below (see also Navas et al., 2005).

Processes of Acculturation: An Identity-Based Perspective

The literature reviewed earlier has demonstrated ways in which conceptions of acculturation have

Schwartz, Vignoles, Brown, Zagefka


become increasingly sophisticated over the past 50  years, moving away from a single dimension of cultural assimilation to a more nuanced current view that allows for separate dimensions of heritage-culture maintenance and receiving-culture acquisition. Moreover, it is now recognized that there may be several different variants of biculturalism—which may be manifested differently across the multiple domains of cultural practices, values and identifications. Furthermore, some individuals will display different cultural profiles in public situations than in their private lives (see Arends-Tóth & van de Vijver, 2007; Navas et al., 2005). Despite the increasingly complex and sophisticated differentiation of dimensions and domains of acculturation, we contend that an understanding of the social and psychological processes and antecedents underlying acculturation has lagged behind (Tip, Zagefka, González, Brown, & Cinnirella, 2012; Zagefka, Brown, Broquard, & Leventoglu Martin, 2007). In other words, we believe that a better understanding is needed regarding the social and psychological processes that lead individuals or groups to occupy particular positions on the various acculturation dimensions that have been identified, as well as regarding the processes linking these different forms of acculturation to favorable or unfavorable individual and societal outcomes (Brown & Zagefka, 2011). Like several previous reviewers of the acculturation literature (e.g., Liebkind, 2001; Ward, 2001), we believe that a valuable a first step toward addressing this knowledge gap is to interpret existing findings from the acculturation literature through the lens of theoretical perspectives on social identity and intergroup relations (e.g., Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987; see Spears, 2011, for a recent review). Acculturation situations are, by definition, cases of intergroup relations (Berry, 2006; Brown & Zagefka, 2011). The social psychological literature on intergroup relations has much to say about the impact of particular kinds of intergroup contexts on identity construction, and about the complex interplay of identity threat and maintenance processes with intergroup relations. Our discussion of identity construction within intergroup contexts will draw initially on self-categorization theory (Turner et al., 1987), and we will then consider the issue of identity threat and maintenance from the perspective of social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Going beyond previous identity-based accounts of acculturation, we will also draw on several more recent perspectives 64

within the identity literature, including motivated identity construction theory (Vignoles, 2011), and the elaborated social identity model (Drury & Reicher, 2000, 2009). We briefly introduce each of these perspectives as they become relevant to our identity-based account of acculturation processes.

From “Cultures” to “Cultural Identities”

As a starting point for an identity-based analysis of acculturation, we draw on the insight from self-categorization theory (Turner et  al., 1987) that people are especially likely to see themselves as members of particular social groups when they find themselves in situations in which their group is compared with other relevant groups—such as when groups come into contact. In such situations, the salience of one’s group identity is predicted to depend on a combination of three factors:  perceiver readiness (including one’s preexisting level of identification with the specific ingroup in question), comparative fit (the extent to which perceived between-group differences are greater than perceived within-group differences), and normative fit (the extent to which observed differences between groups are consistent with prior expectations about the groups concerned) (e.g., Oakes, Turner, & Haslam, 1991; for a recent discussion, see Spears, 2011). Notably, situations of acculturation commonly involve contact between members of groups that differ markedly in observable practices (e.g., language, food, clothing, music, etc.) as well as in their social values and identifications— although values and identifications may be harder to observe directly. Because differences in cultural practices are often very noticeable when members of different cultural groups come into contact, based on the principle of comparative fit, these differences can be expected to form a basis for members of each cultural group to self-categorize. Moreover, to the extent that these differences are elaborated in social discourse and that they are associated with further real or imagined differences in underlying beliefs and values, the distinction among the groups will also come to represent normative fit—further enhancing the salience of these differences as a basis for self-categorization. These propositions carry a number of important implications for the acculturation literature. Firstly, they provide a basis for theorizing about relationships among the three domains of acculturation discussed earlier:  practices, values, and identifications. Self-categorization theory suggests that the relationships among these three domains will be

The Identit y Dynamics of Acculturation and Multiculturalism

fluid and dynamic, but that they will function in a predictable way. When people observe differences in practices and values between their cultural group and others in a given context, they will be more likely to categorize themselves in terms of their cultural group memberships. For example, when coming into contact with North African migrants and observing the migrants’ behavior, French people may strongly classify themselves as “French” and “not North African.” If this intercultural context is maintained over a period of time—as will typically be the case when “migrant” groups and “dominant” groups live together in a shared national context— then individuals will probably come to see themselves more chronically in terms of their cultural group memberships: in other words, they will evidence an increase in cultural identification. Thus, cultural practices and values—to the extent that these are observably contrasted with those of one or more relevant outgroups—will be used to define the content of cultural identities that individuals will use to define themselves. An important implication of this depiction of the acculturation process is that not only will people’s levels of cultural identification be somewhat fluid and context dependent, but the meanings that people give to their cultural identities—their self-stereotypes as cultural members—will be fluid and contextually dependent as well. In particular, self-categorization theory predicts that people’s stereotypes of their own and of others’ social groups will be influenced by the comparative frame of reference (Spears, Doosje, & Ellemers, 1997). Thus, when defining the meaning of their Indian cultural identity, Indian migrants in Great Britain are likely to give greater emphasis to those aspects of Indian culture that they perceive differ from British culture, and Indian migrants in the United Arab Emirates are likely to emphasize those aspects of Indian culture that they perceive differ from Emirati culture. This principle may help to explain why cross-cultural researchers have often found differences in cultural orientation when studying migrant groups within a single nation, whereas the same differences do not necessarily emerge when participants of the same nationalities are studied in their countries of origin (e.g. Heine, Lehman, Peng, & Greenholz, 2002). It may also help to explain why dominant group members and social commentators often perceive the existence of a “clash of values” between themselves and members of migrant groups (e.g., Huntington, 2004), even when the absolute size of differences in value endorsement among cultural groups may be

relatively small (cross-cultural studies typically show much greater variance within groups than between groups, e.g., Fischer & Schwartz, 2011). Understanding the dynamic nature of self-­ categorization may also help to explain the surprising emergence of novel cultural identities in highly diverse contexts. An example of this is the emergence of a “pan-Hispanic” cultural identity in the United States that draws together individuals from many highly diverse national origins (Portes & Rumbaut, 2006). Indeed, the U.S. Census Bureau originally coined the term Hispanic to refer to individuals of Spanish-speaking descent—and this term is rarely (if ever) used in Latin America. In their countries of origin, groups such as Mexicans, Colombians, Argentines, Peruvians, and Cubans would be less apt to see themselves as sharing a common identity. Such a categorization only makes sense within the context of ethnic relations in the United States, because these groups share some common differences from the dominant White American culture, and because they are often treated similarly by majority group members. Perhaps most important of all, self-categorization theory helps to explain why people often display so much investment in defending their cultural practices, values, and identifications. A crucial outcome of the self-categorization process is that what previously may have been taken-for-granted aspects of one’s “cultural background” (i.e., what one does) take on an added symbolic and motivational significance as salient and self-defining properties of one’s “identity” (who one is). This has the important implication that acquiring new cultural practices or shedding old ones is not just a practical question—instead, changes that superficially might seem quite trivial may carry enormous motivational significance because they are perceived as threatening or undermining people’s identities as members of particular cultural communities. Hence, members of both cultural minorities and majorities will often vigorously defend their cultural practices, values, and identifications against change or “contamination,” because they see such defense as the only way to maintain their cultural identities—to protect their sense of who they are. It is possible, then, that people’s endorsement of cultural practices, values, and identifications may become more strongly correlated under conditions of perceived identity threats from other cultural groups. We now focus on these processes of identity threat and maintenance, drawing on social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), as well as subsequent extensions

Schwartz, Vignoles, Brown, Zagefka


(e.g., Breakwell, 1988; Drury & Reicher, 2000, 2009; Vignoles, 2011).

Identity Management in Multicultural Situations: Symbolic Threats and Defense Strategies

Central to social identity theory is the claim that people typically strive for social identities that are characterized by a sense of positive group distinctiveness (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), a process that has subsequently been understood to be driven by identity motives for self-esteem, distinctiveness, and/or meaning (e.g., Abrams & Hogg, 1988; Hogg, 2007; Spears, 2011). According to Tajfel and Turner, when people experience their social identity as lacking in positive distinctiveness—for example, belonging to a socially devalued minority group—they may respond by using a number of identity management strategies. Depending on specific features of the intergroup context, such as the permeability of the group boundaries, and the perceived stability and legitimacy of the status differences between the groups, they might attempt to move to a more positively distinctive group (individual mobility) or try to improve the positive distinctiveness of their own group, either by engaging in direct competition with the outgroup (social competition), or by seeking to reframe the comparison between the groups in a more positive light (social creativity) (Mummendey, Klink, Mielke, Wenzel, & Blanz, 1999; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). As an example of individual mobility, some migrants—especially those who arrived in the country of settlement at an early age (or who were born in the country of settlement and raised by foreign-born parents)—may try to “blend in” with receiving-society individuals to whom they are phenotypically similar. For instance, some young Haitian migrants in Miami attempt to pass themselves as African American, believing that African Americans hold a higher social position than Haitians do (e.g., Stepick, Dutton Stepick, Eugene, Teed, & Labissiere, 2001). As an example of social competition, many East Asian migrants in the United States, Canada, and Western Europe outperform their host-national peers in math and science (e.g., Lowell, 2010). As an example of social creativity, many Italian and Greek migrants to other countries open restaurants specializing in their native cuisine, rather than competing with majority group members for other types of work. At the same time, other ethnic groups—such as Afro-Caribbeans in the United Kingdom and Turks in Belgium— choose to highlight, rather than disguise or reframe, 66

their cultural identities. It is not clear precisely why different groups use different social-creativity strategies. Subsequent research and theorizing has extended the range of motives that are thought to underlie social-identity processes. Based on a review of multiple perspectives in the identity literature, motivated identity construction theory proposes that, in addition to motives for self-esteem, distinctiveness, and meaning, people are also motivated to establish and maintain feelings of continuity, efficacy, and belonging within their personal and social identities (Vignoles, 2011; see also Easterbrook & Vignoles, 2012; Vignoles, Regalia, Manzi, Golledge, & Scabini, 2006). Researchers have also suggested a wider range of identity management strategies (or “coping strategies”) that people may employ when their ability to satisfy their identity motives is threatened or undermined (see, e.g., Blanz, Mummendey, Mielke, & Klink, 1998; Breakwell, 1986, 1988; Carr & Vignoles, 2011; Gregg, Sedikides, & Gebauer, 2011). Hence, a full understanding of the identity dynamics underlying acculturation processes would need to consider a variety of identity threats that might be experienced by migrants, majority group members, and members of other migrant groups (e.g., in many situations, some migrant groups are favored over others; Steiner, 2009), as well as a variety of possible strategies that members of these groups might invoke in response to such threats. However, as a precursor to such an analysis, we should also emphasize an important feature of the intergroup context in most situations of multicultural contact that differs from how intergroup contexts are more commonly represented within the social identity literature. Classic theorizing and research within the social-identity perspective has tended to focus on relations between mutually exclusive social categories defined in terms of some “equivalent” but different characteristics. Such categories include memberships within different nations, ethnicities, genders, or university majors, as well as artificially created “minimal groups” based on letters of the alphabet, colors, et cetera. These categories may be nested within larger, superordinate categories, such as different nations within the European Union or psychology and business students within the same university (see, e.g., Hornsey & Hogg, 2000), but the prevailing theoretical models tend to assume—at least implicitly—that these nested group or category memberships fit within a neat, logical, and hierarchical structure.

The Identit y Dynamics of Acculturation and Multiculturalism

In principle, the categories involved in multicultural societies also can be represented in this way:  for example, one might think of British Whites and British Indians as subordinate groups (“cultural groups”) within the superordinate group of British people (“national group”). Crucially, however, this neat theoretical model may not be an accurate reflection of how these identities are typically conceptualized in everyday life by the groups concerned. For example, apart from a few members of far-right political groups, most members of the White majority in Britain probably spend very little time thinking of themselves as “British Whites”; more likely, they will label themselves as “British,” because it is common for members of majority ethnic groups more generally to label themselves with national rather than ethnic identities (Devos & Banaji, 2005; Devos & Heng, 2009). Moreover, the use of a common label may hide substantial differences in how “Britishness” is defined—and this may be done in such a way as to include or to exclude members of migrant groups (Pehrson, Brown, & Zagefka, 2009). A more exclusive definition of Britishness, based on shared genetic ancestry, would create an ingroup (those people whose families have been in Britain for centuries) and an outgroup (migrants, or those whose parents or grandparents were born outside of Britain). A more inclusive definition of Britishness, referring to anyone who resides in Britain, would create a superordinate ingroup (cf. the ingroup projection model; Wenzel, Mummendey, & Waldzus, 2007). Thus, what is at stake here is not simply the social comparison between majority and minority ethnic groups, but also the relationship between the minority ethnic identities (e.g., British Indian) and the superordinate national identity (here, British). In other words, the most salient identity threat posed by a multicultural society for British White majority members may lie not in seeing British Indians as a competing ethnic outgroup (although this may sometimes be a concern), but in the implications for their sense of British identity of including British Indians (and other migrants) within a shared national ingroup. Similarly, although members of cultural minorities may be somewhat more aware than majority members of the status and power differentials between and among cultural groups, they also have to face the task of reconciling their dual identities as ethnic and national members—identities that may often be portrayed as conflicting, or even mutually exclusive, in popular discourse.

We now discuss these issues in greater depth. Although not all of the ideas we propose have been tested explicitly, we aim to illustrate our arguments with findings from the acculturation literature where such findings are available. First, we consider the perspective of cultural majorities; second, we examine the perspective of cultural minorities; and finally, we attempt to create an integrative perspective that considers the dynamic relationships between cultural majorities and minorities, both of whom may potentially be experiencing identity threats and attempting to manage their identities, as these processes unfold over time (for a similar approach, see Licata et al., 2011).

Identity Processes among Cultural Majorities

Hostility toward cultural minorities. In the United States, which has been receiving large migrant flows since its inception, nearly every migrant group has been persecuted—starting with the Irish and Germans in the 19th century (Galenson, 1997) and continuing through the Southern and Eastern Europeans in the early 20th century (Sterba, 2003) and the current wave of largely non-European migrants (Stepick et  al., 2011). All these groups were viewed as fundamentally different from the American cultural mainstream and were marginalized, likely as a result of this “otherness.” In Europe, although many non-European migrants in the 1960 and 1970s were from former colonies or had been invited as guest workers, as the migrant populations have increased dramatically in the decades since, many Europeans began to perceive that the migrants pose a threat to the identity and solidarity of the receiving nations (cf. Coenders, Lubbers, Scheepers, & Verkuyten, 2008). Reactions in Europe are, at times, similar to those of Americans, with some elites and liberal-leaning individuals celebrating the growing diversity, but with a substantial proportion of the general public feeling threatened and overrun by the ever-growing presence of “foreigners.” There is evidence that one’s political ideology moderates the extent to which migrants are viewed as enriching or invading the receiving society: compared to individuals with conservative political beliefs, individuals with liberal beliefs are more likely to welcome culturally dissimilar migrants and to advocate for them (Bierbrauer & Klinger, 2002). Yet, notably, hostility does not extend indiscriminately to all migrants. In the United States, individuals of European descent—whether they arrive directly from Europe or from a third country

Schwartz, Vignoles, Brown, Zagefka


such as Canada, Australia, or Israel—are implicitly regarded as the “highest-status” group because they can blend in with the dominant White American mainstream (Devos & Banaji, 2005; Devos & Heng, 2009). Hispanics, especially Mexicans and Central Americans, are regarded as the most “unwanted” group because they are overwhelmingly poor, often enter the country illegally, and send a large portion of their earnings back to their countries of origin (Cornelius, 2002; Hondagneu-Sotelo, 2007). In Europe, migration within the European Union generally meets with less resistance (Licata et al., 2011), but migration from outside the European Union— especially from Muslim countries—is viewed as a considerable threat to the cultural and religious hegemony of Europe (e.g., Adida, Laitin, & Valfort, 2010; Bawer, 2004). In one Dutch study, approximately half the adolescents surveyed reported negative feelings toward Muslim migrants (González, Verkuyten, Weesie, & Poppe, 2008), and evidence suggests that many Germans view Turkish Muslims unfavorably (Piontkowski, Rohmann, & Florack, 2002). Further, Brüβ (2008) surveyed large samples of Bangladeshi Muslims in London, Turkish Muslims in Berlin, and Moroccan Muslims in Madrid—and he found that many of these individuals reported being verbally harassed or otherwise disrespected on a regular basis. How can we understand the incidence of hostility toward cultural minorities? A  full account is beyond the scope of this chapter (for a more comprehensive treatment, see Brown, 2010). However, we focus here on a subset of identity processes that we believe are especially important antecedents of intergroup hostility. In particular, research suggests that hostility very often occurs as a defensive reaction to the perceived presence of symbolic threats to the identity of the majority group (e.g., González et al., 2008; Stephan et al., 1999). Realistic and symbolic threats. In their integrated threat theory, Stephan et  al. (1999) have argued for the importance of considering both realistic and symbolic threats together in studies of intergroup relations. By “realistic threats,” Stephan and his colleagues refer to perceived or actual competition for limited jobs, housing, or political influence that are available within a given national or local context (see also Sherif, 1966). In many cases, perceived realistic threats do not reflect objective reality—for example, undocumented migrants are essential for a number of industries, including meat packing, farming, landscaping, and housekeeping (Hondagneu-Sotelo, 2007; Ramirez 68

& Hondagneu-Sotelo, 2009). “Symbolic threats,” on the other hand, refer to perceived threats to the ingroup identity, largely attributable to beliefs that the ingroup’s core cultural beliefs and values are endangered by those of the outgroup (e.g., the belief that prototypical components of American culture—such as the English language and the country’s Anglo-Protestant heritage—are “under attack” by the mass migration of Hispanics). Some studies (e.g., González et  al., 2008) have found that realistic threats do not predict intergroup hostility, after accounting for the influence of symbolic threats (which we discuss below); others find both to be reliable correlates of anti-outgroup sentiment (e.g., Curşeu, Schoop, & Stalk, 2007; McLaren & Johnson, 2007). Realistic threats may be more potent in some contexts than in others. For example, undocumented migrants might pose the most realistic threat—in terms of competition for jobs—to lower-income majority group members (Stoll, Melendez, & Valenzuela, 2002). In contrast, higher-income majority group members might actually be the employers who are hiring undocumented workers, and thus, far from their interests being threatened, they stand to benefit in material terms from the availability of this cheaper source of labor. As one can probably deduce, realistic threats differ from symbolic threats in that they are focused on the potential loss of material resources rather than on the potential loss of a positive and satisfactory group identity. However, we should emphasize that realistic threats are nonetheless grounded in identity processes, because they focus on the distribution of resources between socially defined ingroups and outgroups. In other words, irrespective of the objective economic circumstances, people will perceive that “they” are coming and taking “our” jobs only if they categorize themselves and the incoming workers as members of different—and competing—social groups (“them” versus “us”). Thus, the groups around which judgments of realistic threat are based are subjectively defined, and these definitions change over time. Irish, Jewish, and Italian migrants to the United States in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries were considered as separate “races” from mainstream White Americans. However, by the middle of the 20th century, all these migrants and their descendants were considered as White Americans (Huntington, 2004). However, a distinction is still made between members of White and non-White ethnic groups, where these categories are social constructs rather than

The Identit y Dynamics of Acculturation and Multiculturalism

objective realities—for example, in the United States, even Spanish speakers who are phenotypically White are classified as Hispanic and are differentiated from White Americans. In a public opinion poll conducted in the late 1990s, Simon and Lynch (1999) found that, across several Western nations, White migrants were preferred over migrants from non-White ethnic groups. Thus, even if realistic threats often stem from the existence of objective conflicts of interest, identity processes still determine whose interests are taken into account, and on which side of the “us versus them” balance sheet they appear. Depending on which identity categories are important and salient, the same immigrant workers might be represented as “taking jobs away from members of the cultural majority” (i.e., realistic threat) or they might be represented as “helping our country to run more efficiently and compete internationally” (i.e., realistic gain). Identity Threat. Without denying that realistic threats drive hostility against cultural minorities in some circumstances, we believe that it is especially important to focus on the symbolic threats that the presence of cultural minorities can pose to cultural majority members. In particular, there are several ways in which the mere presence of cultural minorities in a nation may potentially be perceived to undermine the cultural or national identity of the majority group. (As we have discussed earlier, for majority groups, national and cultural identities may be experienced as more or less interchangeable.) Notably, however, different theoretical perspectives provide conflicting views about what exactly constitutes a threat to the majority identity; and these differences lead to diverging predictions about which types of minority groups and which types of minority behaviors will be experienced as most threatening, as well as how the cultural majorities are, therefore, likely to react. As discussed earlier, social identity theory predicts that people will experience identity threat—and thus engage in identity maintenance strategies—to the extent that the positive distinctiveness of their social identities is undermined by a given situation (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). This suggests that people will feel threatened if the image of their group is insufficiently positive and/or insufficiently distinctive in relation to relevant comparison groups. Thus, people would be expected to engage in identity maintenance strategies in situations in which their group is compared with a higher-status outgroup (undermining self-esteem), or with a group that is highly similar to their own (undermining

distinctiveness—but see later). Thus, members of higher-status cultural groups should be motivated to avoid such comparisons by preserving the lower status of cultural minority groups in their society and by maintaining clear boundaries between and among the different groups. This seems to entail that powerful majority groups will typically be most comfortable with a segregationist political stance, encouraging a separationist acculturation strategy among minority groups, and thus maintaining the distinctiveness (through the impermeability of boundaries) and the positive evaluation (through the differential social status) of their group identity. Some salient examples of this include events during the segregationist era in the United States, and the apartheid era in South Africa. In direct contrast with social identity theory, integrated threat theory proposes that people will feel threatened especially by groups that are different rather than similar to their own group (e.g., Stephan et al., 1999). Indeed, in most contemporary multicultural societies, the behavior of cultural majorities does not seem to match the pattern predicted by social identity theory. Seemingly against the interests of preserving positive group distinctiveness, cultural majorities typically seem to be more comfortable with the presence of relatively high-status minority groups, especially those that are similar to themselves in their practices and values. For example, some Slovakian and Romanian communities near the Hungarian border are comprised heavily of Hungarian migrants. Through the end of the 20th century, the Irish were the largest migrant group in Great Britain. However, most of these migrant-majority interactions are characterized by relatively low degrees of threat and animosity (e.g., Piontkowski et al., 2000). In contrast, cultural majorities tend to reserve the greatest hostility for those minorities that they perceive as dissimilar to themselves, and they sometimes even require these groups to adopt an assimilationist acculturation strategy that will make them more similar to the mainstream culture. Examples of these differing perceptions on the part of receiving-society members are evident in a number of countries. In many European nations, migration by other Europeans is not viewed as a threat, but migration by individuals from outside the European Union—especially from Muslim nations—is viewed negatively by many Europeans (Licata & Klein, 2002; Licata et  al., 2011). In France, the influx of North African migrants prompted the French Parliament to ban Muslim headscarves in schools

Schwartz, Vignoles, Brown, Zagefka


(BBC News, 2004), and in the UK, immigrants are now required to take a “citizenship test” in order to demonstrate their acquisition of what the government judges to be important aspects of British culture (BBC News, 2010). These observations and findings seem very difficult to reconcile with the “classic” version of social identity theory. If members of cultural majorities were primarily concerned with maintaining the positive distinctiveness of their ethnic/cultural groups, then one might expect a much wider incidence of segregationist social policies, in which cultural minorities would be allowed or even encouraged to maintain their different (and supposedly “backward” or “inferior”) cultural practices and values in order to highlight the distinctiveness and superiority of the cultural majority. So why does this not happen? As we have suggested earlier, we believe that the crucial point making the difference is that, from the perspective of cultural majority members, immigrant minorities are not simply members of a cultural outgroup but they are also members of the national ingroup. Thus, what is at stake here is not just the competitive intergroup relations between ethno-cultural groups, but also the intragroup processes of negotiating the meaning and boundaries of membership in a common national group (cf. ingroup projection theory; Wenzel et  al., 2007). Viewed from a purely interethnic perspective, immigrant minorities might simply be viewed as outgroup members—different and perhaps inferior, but certainly not threatening. However, viewed within the context of national identity, cultural minorities have the status of ingroup members. Research into subjective group dynamics (e.g., Marques, Abrams, & Serodio, 2001) has shown very clearly that ingroup members who deviate from the norms of the group tend to be evaluated much more harshly than are outgroup members who display the same characteristics or behaviors—the so-called “black sheep effect.” The black sheep effect is understood to occur because the opinions or behavior of the deviant individual threaten to undermine the perceived definition or meaning of the group identity in question. Thus, once immigrant minorities are viewed in terms of their status as national ingroup members rather than as cultural outgroup members, it is much easier to understand why minorities who are more different should be perceived by majorities as threatening (undermining the meaning of the national identity) rather than affirming (supporting the positive distinctiveness of the majority ethnic 70

group), as well as why majority members might seek to restore the clarity of their national identity by pressuring minority members to conform with national group norms—an assimilationist policy. In this respect, beyond the focus on self-esteem and distinctiveness in social identity theory, we believe that another identity motive—the need for continuity—plays an especially important role in these processes. Various perspectives on identity processes suggest that people typically need, and are motivated to maintain, a sense of connection between past, present, and future in their personal and group identities (e.g., Breakwell, 1986; Chandler, Lalonde, Sokol, & Hallett, 2003; Sani, 2008; Vignoles, 2011). This shifts the motivational emphasis away from social comparison of one’s group with other competing groups toward a focus on temporal comparison among past, present, and possible future identities of one’s own group (see also Brown & Zagefka, 2006). In this case, perceived threat will depend on the extent to which the inclusion of cultural minorities changes (or threatens to change) the perceived meaning of national group membership: Can such changes be reconciled with the historical roots of the national identity in question, or is the identity “changed beyond recognition”? This suggests that cultural groups will feel most threatened to the extent that they feel that the existence of their ingroup per se is endangered, for example following large waves of migration or in situations in which there is a perceived danger of a “hostile takeover,” resulting in the ingroup as they know it ceasing to exist (González et al., 2008; Wohl, Branscombe, & Reysen, 2010). If the motivational focus is on protecting continuity of one’s national identity rather than positive distinctiveness of one’s ethnic identity, then the perceived size of the cultural minority becomes at least as important as their perceived difference from the majority. Thus, hostility toward Hispanics in the U.S. may be exacerbated by well-publicized census projections estimating that, by 2050, White Americans will represent only half of the U.S. population, and that Hispanics will comprise a quarter of the population (Bernstein & Edwards, 2008). These changing demographics represent a symbolic threat to a country that has long celebrated its Anglo-European roots (Schildkraut, 2007). Notably, both popular anti-immigrant discourse and research findings suggest that this is a salient concern for those who are hostile toward cultural minorities. The presence of migrants is often characterized as resulting in a “cultural clash” that carries

The Identit y Dynamics of Acculturation and Multiculturalism

risks of transforming the national identity beyond recognition in the future. In the United States, the “cultural clash” between mainstream American culture and the current wave of migrants centers on ethnicity and language (Buchanan, 2006; Huntington, 2004). Thus, the spread of Spanish is taken as a threat to American national identity, which is closely tied to the English language (Barker et  al., 2001; Citrin, Lerman, Murakami, & Pearson, 2007). Indeed, empirical evidence suggests that Hispanic migrants and their descendants are more likely than other U.S.  migrant groups to retain their heritage language into the second and even third generation (Kasinitz, Mollenkopf, Waters, & Holdaway, 2008; Portes & Rumbaut, 2006; Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, & Todorova, 2008). However, in contrast to the concerns expressed by social commentators, Spanish-language retention does not appear to interfere with the acquisition and use of English (Tran, 2010). In Europe, the perceived “cultural clash” centers largely on religion and cultural history. The influx of migrants who do not share the cultural history of a given nation—or of Europe as a whole—can represent a threat to the distinctiveness and to the continuity of the majority group members’ sense of identity (Licata & Klein, 2002). Moreover, increases in the size of Muslim immigrant groups pose both symbolic and realistic threats in the minds of some Europeans, especially those who identify strongly with their countries of residence or with Europe as a whole (Verkuyten, 2009), or who perceive their nation to be defined by its Christian heritage (Smeekes, Verkuyten, & Poppe, 2011). These perceived threats can lead to real consequences for migrants from Muslim groups. For example, Adida et al. (2010) demonstrated empirically that, in France, Muslims are less than half as likely as non-Muslims to receive a callback for a job interview. Following recent terrorist attacks committed by Muslim individuals, many Europeans worry that the influx of Muslim migrant groups into their countries will lead to an increased risk of terrorism (Pargeter, 2008). In turn, the ambivalent reception that these migrant groups have encountered may be responsible for their relatively low levels of identification with their countries of settlement (e.g., Brüβ, 2008; Verkuyten & Yildiz, 2007). The intergroup dynamics that surround acculturation may also be a function of the size of the migrant flow at any given time. Coenders et  al. (2008), reviewing Dutch attitudes toward international migration between 1979 and 2002, noted that

perceptions of migrants were most negative and hostile during times of heavy migration. Similar trends have occurred in the United States:  Huntington (2004) noted that native-born Americans were most hostile toward migrants during years and decades when large numbers of migrants were arriving— most notably the early 20th century, when millions of Southern and Eastern Europeans came through Ellis Island, and the late 20th and early 21st centuries, which have been characterized by mass migration of Hispanic, Asian, and Caribbean individuals to the United States. The degree of perceived threat appears to increase when the migrant flow is seen to be dominated by a single ethnic group. Zolberg and Woon (1999) exemplify this principle by drawing parallels between Hispanics in the United States and Muslims in Europe. Although, in reality, the migrants who are classed in each group may come from very disparate cultural origins, both migrant groups are perceived as representing a cohesive “invasion” in the eyes of many native-born residents of these countries or regions. Indeed, Huntington (2004) warns of the dangers to English as the official language of the United States when he notes that “never before in American history has close to a majority of immigrants spoken a single non-English language” (p.  18). Buchanan (2006) warns of the Mexican “invasion” of the United States and claims that the United States is “headed toward its death” if the invasion is not stopped. In his book While Europe Slept, Bawer (2006) describes the threat of radical Islam in Europe and claims that European cultures could be eradicated if the “Islamic invasion” is allowed to continue. These are all clear examples of perceived threats to collective continuity emanating from mass immigration of individuals from what are perceived to be single ethnic groups. Are higher identifiers more hostile? Clearly, not every majority cultural group member reacts in the same way toward immigrant groups. One likely predictor of reaction to immigrants is the strength of national identification. If an individual does not identify strongly with her nation, then she is likely to feel much less threatened by changes to the meaning of the national identity than would someone who identified more highly. Some research supports this, suggesting that identity threats may be experienced more strongly by majority group members who are most strongly attached to their country’s identity, history, and culture—which they view as “under attack” by migrant cultural streams (e.g., Morrison et al., 2010). Nevertheless, recent research

Schwartz, Vignoles, Brown, Zagefka


suggests that the link between national identification and anti-immigrant prejudice is far from inevitable. Instead, the presence of cultural diversity may be perceived as more or less threatening, depending on how the relevant national identity and the boundaries of national membership are defined (Pehrson & Green, 2010). Knowing the strength of someone’s national identification may not be informative about their likely attitudes toward immigrants unless we know also something about the subjective meaning that they give to their national identity, that is, the content that they are identifying with. Pehrson, Brown, and Zagefka (2009) reported two studies conducted in England into the interplay of national identification with national definitions as predictors of attitudes toward asylum seekers. In both studies, they found that identification was linked to more negative attitudes toward asylum seekers only among those individuals who adopted an essentialist definition of Englishness—those who felt that Englishness depended primarily on ancestry. This suggests that even people who identify strongly with their nation will only feel threatened by the presence of immigrants from diverse cultural backgrounds if they define their nation in a way that would be undermined by increasing diversity. Among those who disagreed with an essentialist definition of Englishness, there was no link between identification and negative attitudes, presumably because their view of Englishness would not be undermined by the idea of people of different ancestries and cultural origins being part of the English nation. Extending this line of research, Pehrson, Vignoles, and Brown (2009) analyzed international survey data from 31 nations, including measures of national identification, prejudice toward immigrants, and endorsement of three different criteria for being a “true” national member:  national ancestry (ethnic definition), speaking the national language (cultural definition), and having national citizenship (civic definition). They found that the relationship between national identification and prejudice varied significantly across nations:  in many countries, such as Venezuela, Canada, Israel, New Zealand, and the Czech Republic, identification and prejudice were completely unrelated, whereas in other countries, such as Denmark, West Germany, Switzerland, Norway, and Spain, identification was moderately correlated with prejudice. Crucially, these differences could be explained by variation in the criteria typically endorsed for being a “true” national member:  For nations in which 72

people assigned greater importance to a common language, the link between identification and prejudice was stronger, whereas for nations in which people gave greater importance to legal citizenship, the link between identification and prejudice was weaker. Notably, in contrast to the previous studies conducted in England, here the key moderating variables were not individuals’ personal endorsement of the different criteria for membership, but the average endorsement in each nation (although personal endorsement of ancestry as a basis for national membership was also directly related to greater prejudice, irrespective of national identification). This pattern suggests that the meanings and boundaries of national identity are constructed socially, presumably through processes of social discourse, although this is not to deny that individuals will take up different positions within the discursive contexts that are available to them. Understanding the socially shared meanings of national identities may also help to explain why some groups are considered more acceptable than others—typically those groups that are not perceived to undermine this shared meaning. National identity in the United States, for example, tends to be defined in terms of European heritage, the English language, and the Anglo-Protestant values brought by the Pilgrims who founded the original British colonies (Huntington, 2004; Schildkraut, 2007). Perhaps for this reason, migrants from Europe, Canada, or other parts of the world where European heritage and Judeo-Christian values are prominent—with the exception of Latin America—tend to be regarded as nonthreatening (Steiner, 2009). Similarly, in many European countries, migrants from elsewhere in Europe—excluding Muslim countries in the Balkans—are often accepted as “one of us” (Caldwell, 2008; Licata et  al., 2011). On the other hand, groups who are seen as potentially altering the cultural fabric of a country are labeled as outgroups and as threatening. Differences in the meaning of national identities are likely to be closely linked to national policies toward cultural diversity. Countries vary in the extent to which they are oriented toward multiculturalism (encouraging migrants to celebrate and remain faithful to their cultural heritage) versus assimilationism (encouraging migrants to adopt the ways and means of the country of settlement). For example, within North America, Canada has adopted an explicitly multicultural policy in which (most) migrants are viewed as enriching the country’s diversity (Soroka &

The Identit y Dynamics of Acculturation and Multiculturalism

Roberton, 2010). The United States, on the other hand, is home to opposing factions—a liberal group that believes in celebrating diversity and a conservative group that views the country in terms of its European roots and sees the current wave of largely Hispanic, Asian, and Caribbean migrants as a threat to, and a drain on, American cultural traditions and economic power (see Schildkraut, 2011, and Huntington, 2004, for reviews of the positions taken by these two factions). Although, to our knowledge, this proposition has not been empirically tested, it stands to reason that intergroup processes between migrants and majority group members will be guided—at least to some extent—by the policies adopted by the country in which these intergroup processes are occurring. This principle may be at least somewhat responsible for the low levels of hostility and discrimination reported by migrants to New Zealand, which is highly welcoming to migrants (Ward, Masgoret, & Vauclair, 2011). Notably, people in positions of leadership or social influence may be able to harness these identity dynamics in order to influence attitudes and behaviors toward immigrants for better or worse. Reicher and Hopkins (1996; Reicher, Haslam, & Hopkins, 2005) describe leaders who use such techniques as “entrepreneurs of identity,” manipulating the meanings of identity categories in such a way as to place themselves in a favorable position within the group and/or to selectively include or exclude different others from group membership. Although we are unaware of any formal research into identity entrepreneurship in the sphere of multiculturalism, anecdotal examples abound, including conservative politicians and writers such as Patrick Buchanan and Samuel Huntington in the United States; and Pim Fortuyn, Jean-Marie Le Pen, and Enoch Powell in Europe. Similarly, The Danish People’s Party, the French National Front, the British National Party, and the Vlaams Blok in Belgium have all campaigned on “protecting” Europe against the Muslim “invasion” and have led efforts to draw sharp distinctions between who is eligible for inclusion in the national ingroup and who is not. As applied to international migration, the concept of identity threats may also convey the impression that majority group members will automatically display a defensive response toward the minority group that is perceived as the source of threat. However, there may be other—and perhaps more constructive—ways of responding to perceived threats. One such possibility is identifying with a

superordinate group that encompasses both the host-national and minority groups (Wenzel et  al., 2007), and where migrants are treated as individual people, rather than as group members (Bourhis et  al., 1997). Such an individualistic approach to intergroup relations helps to move away from the stereotyping that often occurs when migrants and majority group members come into contact with one another. For example, an American might believe that not all Mexican migrants are “freeloaders,” or a French person might believe that not all Muslim migrants are intent on turning France into an Islamic state. Research suggests that personal interaction with someone from an outgroup results in decreased hostility and stereotyping toward that group (e.g., Hammack, 2006). Indeed, such personal contact may result in “humanity” being designated as the ingroup—where there is no corresponding outgroup. However, the intergroup context can also backfire if it leads to heightened anxiety. For instance, when contact conditions are suboptimal (unequal status, noncooperative), they may not result in reduced intergroup anxiety (for an extensive discussion of intergroup contact, see Brown & Hewstone, 2005). It is also worth noting that contact seems to be more effective in changing the attitudes of majorities than those of minorities (Binder et al., 2009; Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005).

Acculturation and Intergroup Dynamics from the Perspective of Cultural Minorities

Thus far, we have focused on the identity dynamics taking place within the receiving society—such as threats posed by migrants, self-protective strategies enacted by majority group members, and ways in which these intergroup dynamics can be exacerbated or reduced. We now consider the acculturation process from the migrant’s (or migrant group’s) perspective. The identity dynamics that operate for majority group members interact with those that operate for migrants, and in many cases, these dynamics may be different for lower-status or “unwanted” migrants than for higher-status, “desirable” migrants (Montreuil & Bourhis, 2001). Because large migrant groups tend to occupy lower-status positions (e.g., Mexicans in the United States, North Africans in France, Turks in Germany, Pakistanis in Great Britain), we will focus primarily on identity processes that take place among lower-status migrants. Clearly, lower-status migrants are typically faced with a number of realistic threats in their everyday lives, as a result of the demands of living in societies

Schwartz, Vignoles, Brown, Zagefka


that often do not offer them the same recognition as majority group members in economic, political, or legal spheres (Licata et  al., 2011). Realistic threats—such as lack of access to jobs—are often part of everyday reality for migrant groups. For example, in the United States in November 2011, 11.4% of Hispanics, compared to 7.6% of Whites, were unemployed (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011). The situation in the UK is similar. In February 2011, 7.0% of all White Britons were unemployed, compared to a 13.3% rate for all ethnic minorities combined (UK Office for National Statistics, 2011; ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=t cm%3A77-222445). However, our focus here will be on the symbolic threats faced by these groups. We argue that members of these minority groups are typically faced with threats to their identities on a number of different levels. Members of these groups very commonly face situations that threaten to undermine the positive distinctiveness and continuity of their cultural identities, as well as their feelings of personal self-continuity and belonging. These identity threats typically lead to the employment of adaptive or maladaptive identity management strategies, and cultural minority group members may engage in a variety of such strategies while attempting to resolve the identity threats that they face. Threats to cultural identity. Adding to the realistic threats posed by their lesser access to material resources, the situation faced by cultural minority members is likely to frustrate a number of identity motives that have been proposed in the literature. As we discussed earlier, motivated identity construction theory (Vignoles, 2011) proposes that people typically strive to construct and maintain identities that are characterized by feelings of self-esteem, continuity, distinctiveness, meaning, belonging, and efficacy. Identity threat occurs when one or more of these motives is at risk of not being satisfied (after Breakwell, 1988). Such threats typically lead to some kind of coping strategy designed to establish or restore satisfaction of the relevant motive(s). We suggest that the low-status position of many migrant groups in their nations of residence is likely to be threatening to several of the identity motives listed earlier. Self-esteem is threatened among migrants by the low status they typically occupy in their respective host cultures (e.g., Major & Eliezer, 2011). This may be especially problematic for migrants from collectivist cultural backgrounds, given the high value and emphasis placed 74

on hierarchy and social status in traditionally collectivist cultures (e.g., Hofstede, 1980). Feelings of efficacy are also likely to be undermined by occupying a low-status position, which may lead to feelings of helplessness or incompetence, perhaps especially among migrant men, who often find it harder to find employment than migrant women, thus failing to fulfill their expected gender role as family breadwinner (e.g., Hondagneu-Sotelo, 2007). Lower-status groups are often unwanted and derogated in the receiving society (Kosic & Phalet, 2006), and this experience of social rejection is likely to frustrate the identity motive for belonging. However, additional pressure is placed on many acculturating minority groups by assimilationist ideologies and policies in their receiving nations, which typically ask them to shed or change important aspects of their ethnocultural identities in order to gain acceptance by the majority group. Such policies and ideologies have become increasingly prevalent in Western Europe (and to a lesser extent in North America) in recent years, fueled in part by recent terrorist attacks by radical Islamic groups. Assimilationist policies and pressures from the majority, even when these are well intentioned, aim, by definition, to reduce the distinctiveness of the minority group’s identity (see Berry, 1997; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000). These policies and pressures require significant—and often unwanted— cultural change on the part of the minority group, potentially undermining feelings of collective continuity (see Chandler et al., 2003). As a result of these changes, members of minority groups may often end up uncertain of what it means to be members of their groups in the larger national or regional context in which they reside, and this uncertainty may undermine the sense of meaning that minority group members might otherwise derive from their cultural-group identity. Thus, Licata et  al. (2011) characterize the situation of cultural minorities as a “struggle for recognition.” In addition to a need for recognition in terms of material resources and social status, Licata et al. argue that minority group members need to have their cultural identities acknowledged and supported by the cultural majority if successful integration into mainstream society is to be possible. Paradoxically, assimilationist policies and pressures often have the opposite effect to that which was intended—minority groups may resist identifying with the majority cultural group. This paradoxical pattern has been labeled as reactive ethnicity (Rumbaut, 2008), and we will return to this concept in the forthcoming sections.

The Identit y Dynamics of Acculturation and Multiculturalism

Coping with cultural identity threat. As discussed earlier, a key concern of social identity theory is the implications of membership in a disadvantaged or socially devalued group (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). The theory specifies a number of strategies that people can use to establish or restore a satisfactory social identity when such an identity is seen to be lacking:  individual mobility, social competition, and various forms of social creativity. Although social identity theory focuses on positive group distinctiveness (i.e., self-esteem and distinctiveness motives), these strategies may also help with reestablishing satisfaction of the other identity motives mentioned earlier, namely, efficacy, belonging, continuity, and meaning (Vignoles, 2011)—as well as for the more general goal of gaining “recognition” of one’s cultural identity within a multicultural context (Licata et  al., 2011). As we discuss next, viewing the acculturation styles of migrants as strategies for coping with identity threats helps to explain which styles they adopt, as well as the emergence of more complex and diverse strategies than the four possibilities initially identified by Berry (1980) and others. Individual mobility, where a person attempts to become or to be accepted as a member of the higher-status group, is analogous to assimilation within Berry’s (1980) typology. For example, to the extent to which their physical features and foreign accents will allow, migrants may try to behave like majority group members. This option is available to individuals who can “pass as White” in European countries or in countries in which the majority ethnic group is of European descent; but it is less available to visible-minority individuals. This is similar to the situation facing some stigmatized groups, especially those for whom the stigmatizing attributes are “hidden”—for example, one’s sexual orientation and HIV status. As Jones and colleagues (1984) and Crocker and Major (1989) have noted, such “invisible” stigmata can offer advantages to their members, because they can choose whether or not to reveal these stigmata. However, there are also psychological costs associated with such a strategy, given that one is then deprived of potentially valuable sources of ingroup support (Major & Gramzow, 1999). In contrast, among visible-minority individuals, even those who were born in the society of settlement may be treated as foreigners, a phenomenon that Wu (2001) refers to as perpetual foreigner syndrome (see also Huynh, Devos, & Smalarz, 2011). In his book, Wu relates some of his personal experiences of being asked where he was from and what life in

China was like—even though he was born in the United States and had never set foot in China. Perpetual foreigner syndrome is a subtle, and often unintentional, form of discrimination, but it reminds the person that she or he is not considered as a member of the larger society (Lee, 2005). This suggests that the mobility strategy may rarely be an option for individuals who can be visually classified into migrant or minority groups. A variation on perpetual foreigner syndrome is the situation in which migrants are mistaken for native minorities whom they physically resemble. An instance of this phenomenon is the case of Haitian, West Indian, and African immigrants to the United States, who are “Black upon arrival” (Waldinger & Feliciano, 2004) and treated as though they were African American. Waters (1999), for example, in her ethnographic research on West Indian migrants in New York, notes how these migrants are viewed with suspicion, followed closely in stores, and assumed to be lazy and illiterate. Stepick et al., (2001) have found similar trends among Haitian migrants in Miami. More or less, many Black migrants to the United States are marginalized and treated as part of the “underclass,” which may decrease the likelihood that a given migrant will identify strongly with mainstream American culture as well as with her or his culture of origin. As a result of this stereotyping and stigma process, the “American culture” to which these migrants are most often exposed is most likely to be African American culture rather than mainstream White American culture. This can lead to a phenomenon known as segmented assimilation (Alba & Nee, 2006; Stepick & Dutton Stepick, 2010), whereby migrants adopt the practices, values, and identifications of the native ethnic groups to whom they are most similar or with whom they have the most contact, rather than engaging in acculturation processes and strategies in relation to the “dominant culture,” as is typically assumed in classic assimilation and acculturation literature (including both unidimensional and bi-dimensional models:  e.g., Berry, 1980, 1997; Berry & Kim, 1988; Gordon, 1964). Many migrants, especially those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, settle in inner-city neighborhoods (Beiser, Hou, Hyman, & Tousignant, 2002; Musterd & Deurloo, 2003). In many urban neighborhoods in the United States and Europe, migrants are more likely to encounter other migrants, and members of ethnic minority groups, than they are to encounter ethnic majority

Schwartz, Vignoles, Brown, Zagefka


group members. In the United States, for example, a number of ethnic minority groups—such as African Americans—have been established for decades and even centuries. Many migrants are more likely to interact with African Americans and other minorities (e.g., Mexican Americans who have lived in the Southwestern United States for many generations) than they are with White Americans. As a result, many migrants may acculturate to African American culture rather than to White American culture. For example, many inner-city Hispanics use what linguists call “African American vernacular English” (e.g., Dunstan, 2010) rather than standard American English. Similarly, West Indian and Haitian immigrants tend to acculturate to an African American, rather than White American, behavioral and value system (Stepick et  al., 2001; Waters, 1999). Segmented assimilation signifies that there are multiple receiving cultural streams—not just one— to which migrants can acculturate. However, acculturating toward a given native ethnic group implies that one will be treated and regarded similarly to members of that ethnic group. African American culture has become popular in terms of music and other forms of entertainment, but the use of African American vernacular English is generally considered uneducated, and individuals who use it may be viewed as members of an underclass (Labov, 2010). Nevertheless, assimilation to an ethnic culture that is more established and more prevalent than one’s culture of origin may provide a greater opportunity to use additional identity maintenance strategies, which we discuss next. When individual mobility is not a viable option, social identity theory predicts that members of disadvantaged groups will be more likely to use group-based strategies to establish positive distinctiveness, either engaging directly in social competition with the majority group or using social creativity to reframe the social comparison in a more positive light. In terms of Berry’s (1980) model, both strategies involve maintaining identification with one’s culture of origin:  hence, they will typically be linked to acculturation styles of integration or separation. However, from a social identity perspective, it can be predicted that those migrants whose identities are under threat—and who are unable to engage in individual mobility—may not just maintain but actually increase identification with their cultural groups. This is the reactive ethnicity phenomenon that Rumbaut (2008) has discussed, in which migrants show heightened attachment to 76

their cultural groups as a consequence of actual or perceived rejection by the dominant ethnic group. In a similar vein, Branscombe, Schmitt, and Harvey (1999) found that perceptions of discrimination led to heightened ethnic identification among African Americans, and that this ethnic identification in turn led to greater well-being—thereby buffering the otherwise negative implications of perceiving oneself to be a victim of discrimination (see also Jetten, Branscombe, Schmitt, & Spears, 2001; Schmitt, Spears, & Branscombe, 2003). Hence, a separated approach to acculturation may be adopted not necessarily because the person does not “want” to be a member of the larger society, but because that alternative is not available to her or him (Schwartz, Unger, et  al., 2010). The most reasonable course of action in this case might be to align oneself strongly with one’s ethnic group and to function outside the mainstream culture. Given that migrant groups are typically in a disadvantaged position in material as well as symbolic terms, direct competition with the majority group is often very difficult, especially if “success” is measured in terms of reestablishing positive distinctiveness. Nevertheless, salient examples of disadvantaged cultural or ethnic groups engaging in collective action to improve their social status include the Civil Rights movement in the United States and the anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa. Such actions may serve to reduce negative distinctiveness, thereby increasing equality, even if they do not necessarily lead to an inversion of the previous status differential (positive distinctiveness). On a less political note, the increasing academic achievement of Asian Americans provides an example of a minority group competing successfully to achieve positive distinctiveness even in terms of the values of the majority—and this positive distinctiveness seems to be increasingly emphasized in Asian Americans’ discourse about the meaning of their own cultural identity (i.e., the “model minority” stereotype; Chua, 2011). As an alternative to direct competition, members of minority groups may reestablish their cultural identities through various forms of “social creativity,” that is, essentially reinterpreting the situation so that their group is no longer perceived in negative terms. Social identity theory suggests a number of ways in which people may change the frame of social comparisons with other groups, so that their group comes out as positively distinct. One approach is to change the frame of reference for social comparison: thus, if one belongs to a low status group, one

The Identit y Dynamics of Acculturation and Multiculturalism

might compare one’s group with other low-status minorities, rather than comparing with the majority group, or one might isolate one’s group in order to avoid intergroup comparison entirely and focus on intragroup comparisons. One way of avoiding social comparisons with the majority group is to adopt a separationist acculturation strategy—or perhaps even to live in ethnic enclaves, where the migrant group has a greater amount of social and political power. Although there is a great deal of variability in the extent to which these enclaves can realistically compete with the host-national group for important resources, the enclave provides residents with a context in which they can function, at least to some extent, as though they never left their countries of origin. For example, in some European cities such as Bradford (England), Marseille (France), and Duisburg (Germany), migrants and their immediate descendants comprise considerable proportions of the population, and these cities are home to large ethnic enclaves dominated by migrant cultures. Similar cities in the United States include Miami, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Dallas, and Houston. Adult migrants settling in these enclaves can go about their daily business without learning the language of the larger country to which they have migrated (Caldwell, 2008; Portes & Rumbaut, 2006; Schwartz, Pantin, Prado, Sullivan, & Szapocznik, 2006). Ethnic enclaves in these (and other) cities are large enough such that minority groups can challenge policies and decisions enacted by the larger nation in which the enclave is located. For example, in Los Angeles, Mexican migrants held demonstrations to protest Proposition 187, which would have denied health care and education to undocumented migrants and their children; Cuban Americans in Miami staged violent protests against the U.S. government’s decision to send Elián Gonzalez, a Cuban boy rescued at sea, back to his father in Cuba (Stepick et al., 2011). A number of factors besides minority group size or density have been identified as influencing whether such collective action can be expected (for more on this, see e.g., van Zomeren, Postmes, & Spears, 2008). Migrants also might engage in group-based identity management strategies from the position of their new ethnic group, following segmented assimilation. Especially for members of the smallest groups, identifying with a larger “pan-ethnic” group (e.g., Hispanics in the United States, Muslims in Europe) may provide greater opportunities for collective action or “voice” than would otherwise be possible from the position of one’s group of origin.

For example, French Muslims in Islamic enclaves in or near Paris have protested, sometimes violently, against various laws and policies that have been adopted by the local and national governments (Caldwell, 2008). It is important to recognize that intragroup dynamics within migrant communities play an important role here, not just intergroup relations with the majority. As we discussed earlier, group leaders may sometimes act as “identity entrepreneurs,” advocating a particular version of social reality that makes particular social categories salient, or that emphasizes particular intergroup contrasts and thus defines the ingroup in a way that suits their personal goals or interests (Reicher & Hopkins, 1996; Reicher et  al., 2005). Just as leaders within the majority community may attempt to sway public opinion by portraying migrants as a threat to the larger society, leaders within the migrant community may also seek to gain favorable social position by portraying the majority ethnic group as the enemy. For example, after Elián Gonzalez was sent back to Cuba against the wishes of the Miami Cuban community, leaders in the Miami Cuban enclave orchestrated a number of rallies against the United States government. Ultimately, these rallies influenced public opinion to the point where they helped to propel George W. Bush to the U.S. presidency in 2000. So, for cases in which migrants have built up sufficient power through the formation of ethnic enclaves, they can exert a powerful influence on the course of events in the larger country. The distinction between individual (i.e., mobility) and collective (i.e., social competition and creativity) identity management strategies in social identity theory is somewhat reminiscent of the early, unidimensional view of acculturation as a straightforward choice between assimilation and separation. Yet, several decades of acculturation research have shown that this is not the case:  It is equally possible—and Berry (2006) and other theorists have argued that it is more desirable—to adopt an integrated (or bicultural) approach to acculturation, that is, participating fully in the majority society while identifying with one’s culture of origin and maintaining its values and practices. On the surface, biculturalism may seem to be an obviously preferable strategy, offering the “best of both worlds” to the acculturating migrant. Yet, as we have noted earlier, Rudmin, (2003) has put forth the opposite suggestion: that bicultural migrants may often find themselves “caught between two worlds.” Although social identity theory itself has little to say about

Schwartz, Vignoles, Brown, Zagefka


these issues, subsequent research within the social identity tradition may be helpful in understanding some of the barriers to adopting a bicultural or integrated acculturation style, as well as some of the pitfalls for those who do adopt such an approach. Although biculturalism (integration) is often considered the acculturation strategy with the most favorable outcomes in Berry’s model (Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2013; Phinney et  al., 2006; Schwartz & Zamboanga, 2008), perceived rejection by the majority group will often interfere with the development of biculturalism. It is difficult for a person to identify with a society that discriminates against him or against the group to which he belongs, or with a society that simply does not view him as “one of us,” as is the case with visible-minority individuals experiencing perpetual foreigner syndrome. Equally, especially where migrant groups have adopted a largely separationist or a segmented assimilationist approach, migrant group members who exhibit values, practices, or identifications of the majority group may be viewed with suspicion—as impostors or deviants. As we have discussed earlier, a substantial body of research in the social identity tradition has documented how ingroup members who are perceived as impostors or who deviate from group norms are often derogated or excluded by other group members, and they are frequently treated more harshly than outgroup members who exhibit the same behaviors, because their actions are seen as undermining the distinctiveness or the continuity of the group’s identity (see, e.g., Hornsey & Jetten, 2004; Marques et al., 2001). Thus, for many people, integrating their heritage and receiving cultures into an individualized mosaic may simply not be a realistic option. Biculturalism may be especially unlikely to occur in situations in which migrants are expected to assimilate, that is, to “leave their cultural baggage at the door.” When assimilationist expectations are present, the distinctiveness and continuity of the migrant group’s cultural identity are threatened (cf. Sam & Berry, 2010; Vignoles, 2011). Hence, not only will the majority group be sensitive to behaviors by an individual migrants that might suggest that they are “not one of us,” but the minority group will also be especially sensitized to behaviors that deviate from their cultural norms and may potentially reject or punish individuals who exhibit signs of biculturalism in order to protect the continuity, distinctiveness, and meaning of their group membership. For example, U.S. Hispanics who “act American” may be labeled with the derisive 78

term “Oreo”:  brown on the outside but white on the inside. Thus, the “melting pot,” in which various migrant cultural streams are incorporated into the larger receiving culture, can become a “pressure cooker” (Berry, 2006, p.  36). Migrants may react to such stressful receiving contexts by withdrawing from the larger society altogether and interacting largely with other members of their ethnic group, or with members of other minority groups (see Roysircar-Sodowsky & Maestas, 2000). For example, as detailed in Caldwell (2008), many minority groups in Europe identify with the oppressed plight of African Americans—and some have created rap songs (an African American cultural invention) about their experiences with discrimination. In another sense, however, almost every migrant is forced to be bicultural at least to some extent. In most cases, majority group members expect migrants to adopt at least some of the ways and means of the receiving culture (Piontkowski et al., 2002; Rohmann et al., 2006). Moreover, in many cases, migrants elect to preserve their cultural heritage in their homes and to transmit this heritage to their children (e.g., Juang & Syed, 2010; Umaña-Taylor, Bhanot, & Shin, 2006). In some cases, majority group members may even want migrants to continue their cultural heritage, as long as heritage-culture retention is accompanied by a desire for contact with the majority group (Matera, Stefanile, & Brown, 2011). Thus, most migrants and their children must straddle two cultures—their heritage culture in the home (and perhaps in the community), and the receiving culture outside the home (Arends-Tóth & van de Vijver, 2007). Of course, the extent to which migrants must interact with the receiving culture depends on the extent to which they reside in ethnic enclaves that insulate them from the larger society, and adults who settle in ethnic enclaves and who do not attend formal schooling in the society of settlement may have little or no involvement with the receiving culture (Schwartz, Pantin, et  al., 2006). Nevertheless, in most cases—and in almost all cases involving children, adolescents, and young adults— migrants must reconcile, or at least balance, their heritage and receiving cultures. Bicultural identity integration. Although the term bicultural indicates that people endorse aspects of both their heritage and receiving cultural contexts, the term does not speak to the extent to which they are able to reconcile these contexts and to live successfully “in two worlds.” Clearly, some bicultural individuals are better able than others to

The Identit y Dynamics of Acculturation and Multiculturalism

reconcile and integrate their two cultural streams (e.g., Benet-Martínez, Leu, Lee, & Morris, 2002). Perhaps in response to criticisms of the construct of biculturalism (e.g., Rudmin, 2003), as well as to the observed heterogeneity within the bicultural category, a number of researchers have theorized and empirically identified multiple forms of biculturalism (e.g., Chia & Costigan, 2006; LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993; Schwartz & Zamboanga, 2008; Simon & Ruhs, 2008). Generally speaking, these forms of biculturalism can be distinguished based on people’s ability to integrate the various cultural streams to which they are exposed. Benet-Martínez and colleagues (e.g., BenetMartínez & Haritatos, 2005; Haritatos & Benet-Martínez, 2005; Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2007) have gone a step further, proposing the construct of bicultural identity integration (BII). Bicultural identity integration has two facets, representing distinct dimensions of individual variation. Even within the same migrant group, individuals differ in the extent to which they perceive their heritage and receiving cultures as harmonious or conflicting (BII harmony), and they may also differ in the extent to which they attempt to blend their cultural identities into an integrated whole or try to keep the two identities in separate “compartments” (BII blendedness; for recent reviews, see Benet-Martínez, this volume; Huynh, Nguyen, & Benet-Martínez, 2011). Individuals low in BII harmony tend to see their two cultural streams as opposing and irreconcilable. For example, a Chinese American individual may feel that the family-oriented and collectivist orientation underlying Chinese culture is incompatible with the individualism and self-determination underlying American culture. In contrast, individuals high in BII harmony may find it easier to integrate aspects of their two cultural backgrounds into a unique, individualized mosaic. A  biculturally integrated person might, for instance, combine the interdependent orientation from Chinese culture with the ingenuity and creativity from American culture. Empirical evidence suggests that high-BII-­ harmony individuals report more favorable adjustment (e.g., higher self-esteem, fewer depressive symptoms) compared to their low-BII-harmony counterparts (Chen, Benet-Martínez, & Bond, 2008). Moreover, experimental studies suggest that individuals high in BII harmony are better able than those low in BII harmony to respond appropriately to contextual stimuli, for example, providing

characteristically Chinese cultural responses to Chinese primes, and characteristically American cultural responses to American primes (e.g., Benet-Martínez et al., 2002). In low-BII-harmony individuals, there appears to be some confusion regarding which cultural stream to activate in a given situation, whereas high-BII-harmony individuals do not appear to manifest such confusion. In some cases, then, biculturalism is “greater than the sum of its parts.” Rather than simply representing additive effects of endorsing the heritage and receiving cultural streams, biculturalism—at least in the case of high BII harmony—represents creating an individualized culture using elements from one’s heritage and receiving cultural streams. The BII construct has also been extended to situations in which more than two cultural streams are available (i.e., multicultural identity integration; Downie, Koestner, ElGeledi, & Cree, 2004; Downie, Mageau, Koestner, & Liodden, 2006). Examples of such contexts include multi-ethnic countries and regions such as Quebec, Belgium, Switzerland, South Africa, and Singapore. For example, migrants to Montreal must reconcile their cultural heritage with both Francophone and Anglophone Canadian cultural streams. Although this task may be more difficult than integrating only two cultural streams, the principles and processes through which this integration is achieved—and the consequences of successfully versus unsuccessfully navigating this integration—are thought to be similar to those espoused within the BII model. Migrants who are high in BII typically seem to fare more favorably on indices of self-esteem and well-being compared to migrants who are low in BII or who do not adopt bicultural approaches at all (Chen et al., 2008; Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2007). However, the mechanisms responsible for the link between integrated biculturalism and well-being are not well understood. Vignoles, Ashforth, and Stubbs (2013) conducted two studies among multicultural individuals to try to understand better the motivational dynamics underlying the link between BII and well-being. They were particularly interested in comparing two alternative accounts of why low BII might be problematic for individuals. On the one hand, living with compartmentalized and conflicting cultural identities might result in a lack of self-continuity or unity in one’s sense of identity (see Amiot, de la Sablonnière, Terry, & Smith, 2007). On the other hand, individuals may be relatively comfortable with shifting identities across contexts (e.g. Arends-Tóth &

Schwartz, Vignoles, Brown, Zagefka


van de Vijver, 2007; Turner et al., 1987), but those experiencing greater conflict between their cultural identities may experience social difficulties, because they risk being perceived as an impostor or a deviant by both cultural groups involved. Replicating the previous studies, in a correlational study conducted among individuals who had lived in more than three cultures, participants lower in BII reported lower psychological well-being across a range of indices and, in an experimental study conducted among individuals of mixed ethnicity, participants who had been asked to recall an instance of cultural identity conflict—when their cultural identities “pulled them in opposite directions”—reported more negative and less positive affect compared to a control group. Crucially, in both studies, Vignoles et  al. measured two potential mediating variables: perceptions of self-continuity and the sense of belonging. In both studies, effects of perceived identity conflict on well-being were mediated by a lower sense of belonging, and not by lower self-continuity.

Putting the Pieces Together: Acculturation as a Dynamic Intergroup Process

In the preceding sections, we have discussed the identity processes operating in multicultural societies—first from the perspective of majority group members, and then from the perspective of cultural minorities. From this discussion, it should already be apparent that the two sets of processes are very closely interwoven, and that, in reality, it is somewhat artificial to attempt to separate them—despite the fact that doing so may be necessary for the purpose of empirical study. We now attempt to put the pieces together and frame acculturation as a dynamic, historically evolving, intergroup process. In doing so, we believe that it is useful to draw some theoretical insights from another extension of social identity theory: the elaborated social identity model (Drury & Reicher, 1999, 2000, 2009). Although developed and tested mainly in the context of crowd events, especially political demonstrations, we believe that this model can be useful for understanding the emergence and transformation of identities in other intergroup settings, including relations between cultural groups. Unlike traditional theories of identity and intergroup relations, which tend to focus separately on the perspective of each group, this model conceptualizes the intergroup relationship as a dynamically evolving “whole,” with its own internal logic and emerging properties. Crucially, this involves re-thinking the nature and 80

role of “context” in social identity processes, as well as the processes by which identity categories emerge and are transformed. In the following paragraphs, we expand on these two key insights, illustrating their relevance to the understanding of acculturation processes. Reconceptualizing “context.” Social-psychological theories have often tended to view context in rather static terms: as an “independent variable” constraining and shaping identity dynamics. Thus, the analysis of identity processes begins with the individual or group responding to a particular context that is seen as preexisting or external to the identity dynamics that are going on. In contrast, the elaborated social identity model views context as an emerging—and dynamically changing—­property of the intergroup relationship itself. Thus, the identity management strategies of the majority provide the context for the identity processes of cultural minorities, and, in turn, the identity management strategies of cultural minorities create the context for the identity processes in the majority group. The process of intergroup negotiation is iterative rather than static. Specifically, there are certain group processes that place migrants and majority group members “at odds” with one another and prevent migrants from entering (or being perceived as part of ) the receiving culture, and these processes are based on identity threats as perceived by both parties. Earlier in this chapter, we reviewed interactive acculturation models that focus on the match versus mismatch between migrants’ approaches to acculturation and the ways in which majority group members would like to see migrants acculturate (e.g., Berry, 2006; Bourhis et  al., 1997; Piontkowski et  al., 2002). However, intergroup relations are not a static phenomenon. They change with world events, over generations, and across historical epochs (Licata et  al., 2011; Stepick et  al., 2011). The ways in which majority group members perceive threats posed by minorities, and the actions that majority group members take based on these perceived threats, serve to establish the context in which minorities live their lives. In many cases, when majority group members perceive threats from migrants or other minority groups, they put into place policies to reduce these threats, but often these policies wind up creating identity threats for migrant or minority groups. In turn, the ways in which minority groups respond to identity threats influence how the minority groups are perceived by majority group members. So the process is iterative, where threatened majorities impose laws and policies to distance themselves from migrant

The Identit y Dynamics of Acculturation and Multiculturalism

and minority groups or cultures, and where minority groups respond in ways that either increase or decrease the extent of threat perceived by the majority group. A reactive ethnicity response is likely to inflame tensions between groups, whereas a more peaceful and measured response (such as Nelson Mandela’s nonviolent campaign against apartheid in South Africa) may lead to permanent changes in the dynamics between minority and majority group members. Reactive ethnicity can be understood as a migrant group’s defensive response to defensive policies or behaviors initiated by the majority ethnic group in response to perceived identity threats. For example, Proposition 187 in California was designed to deny any public services to illegal immigrants or their children. The law was proposed as a way of limiting the “invasion” of undocumented and unwanted immigrants, who were seen as posing both realistic and symbolic threats to the local population (Lee, Ottati, & Hussain, 2001). In response, Mexicans and Mexican Americans in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and other California cities engaged in demonstrations in which they waved the Mexican flag—the flag of a country that they or their ancestors had voluntarily left (Stepick et al., 2011). Both Proposition 187 and the reaction from the Mexican American community represent clear instances of identity defense. White and Black Americans, who were largely behind the crafting and passage of the law, sought to protect the identity of their country as well as to ensure that illegal immigrants would not bring down wages for—and take jobs from—low-income Americans. Mexican Americans, on the other hand, sought to protect the right for their compatriots to enter the United States and to maintain access to education, health care, and other social services. It can be understood, then, that the goal of each group (White/ Black Americans and Mexican Americans) was to protect its own interests, rather than to deliberately harm the other group. Brewer’s (1999) argument that groups seek primarily to reward and protect their own members, rather than to harm other groups, applies here. For White and Black Americans, keeping “them” (illegal Mexican immigrants) out of the United States would serve as a way of protecting the interests of the ingroup (native-born White and Black Americans). That illegal immigrants already residing in California would be denied any and all social services was simply “collateral damage.” The French ban on Muslim headscarves serves as another example of this iterative process of

interacting perceptions of threat. Many Europeans view Islam, and the Muslim “invasion” of Europe, as a threat to their national and pan-European identities (Licata et al., 2011; Pehrson & Green, 2010). To the French parliament, and to many other French people, Muslim headscarves were symbolic of the culture that was threatening to overtake their country without their consent (van der Noll, 2010). In contrast, many French Muslims perceive themselves as targets for discrimination (Adida, Laitan, & Valfort, 2010). Although there have been few, if any, reports of mass demonstrations in Europe regarding bans on Muslim religious attire, Muslims in Europe have, in some instances, reacted angrily— sometimes violently—to what they perceive as an “unwelcome reception” and overt hostility toward them and their faith (Bleich, 2009). At least some of this anger is rooted in a perceived lack of recognition (Licata et al., 2011)—that is, the dominant society’s unwillingness to legitimize the migrant group and to acknowledge and grant its desires. We must, however, return to Brewer’s (1999) point that the intent of majority group members is to protect themselves from threat, and not to intentionally harm Muslim migrants. From the perspective of the majority group, the headscarf ban represents an attempt by the French majority to decrease the symbolic presence of Muslim cultures in public spaces. Forcing Muslim women to take off their veils means that French people do not have to look at veiled women, but it does not decrease the women’s religious faith. What is important, from the majority group’s perspective, is not the extent to which Muslim women value or endorse their faith, but rather that the veil—as a symbolic threat—is no longer present in public intergroup space. It is through this iterative process that the boundaries between “French identity” and “Muslim identity” are negotiated and renegotiated over time. Indeed, as the number of Muslims in France continues to grow, the balance of power between Muslims and non-Muslims may change, and the country’s ability to impose anti-Muslim policies like the headscarf ban may decrease. The construct of reactive ethnicity contraindicates biculturalism and integration with the majority group. Specifically, rejection by the dominant society may lead members of the rejected group to dis-identify with that society. The “failure” of Muslims to integrate into European societies—at least as perceived by many Europeans—may be perceived by Muslims as a lack of opportunity to integrate themselves into the societies to which they

Schwartz, Vignoles, Brown, Zagefka


have migrated (Hargreaves, 2007). So BII is more than simply an individual-difference construct, as posited by Benet-Martínez and colleagues (e.g., Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005; Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2007). Beyond the individual differences that undoubtedly exist between and among members of a given ethnic group within a given receiving society, BII can be facilitated or inhibited by dynamics between migrant groups and the societies that are receiving them—especially when these dynamics are highly politicized (as is the case for Mexican Americans in the United States and for many Muslim groups in European countries). As long as perceived threats to the national ingroup persist, migrants who are seen as posing such threats are likely to be viewed with suspicion— even if the migrants identify with the national ingroup (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001) or if their motives are benevolent (e.g., seeking recognition for their needs and desires; Licata et al., 2011). In fact, migrants who attempt to assimilate, but who are still viewed as threatening, are likely to be viewed with even more suspicion compared to migrants who hold onto their cultural heritage (Guimond, De Oliveira, Kamiesjki, & Sidanius, 2010). Portes and Rumbaut (2001) cite the example of a young Korean American woman who states that she “identifies with Americans, but Americans do not identify with me” (p. 191). Similarly, migrants seeking to become citizens of the countries in which they have settled may have their motives questioned: Are they just looking to bring their family members here, or are they looking to gain access to our social services? Such mistrust is likely to lead to grievances on both sides. Take, for instance, the 2009 law passed in Arizona that permits police officers to request legal immigration documentation from individuals whom they suspect to have violated laws. Many White Americans view the law as enforcing U.S. immigration policies and keeping illegal immigrants out of the country (Pew Research Center, 2010a). On the other hand, many Hispanics view the law as “racial profiling” and as unfairly targeting individuals of Hispanic descent (Pew Research Center, 2010b). Regardless of which perspective a given individual adopts, it can be agreed that the law has served to exacerbate tensions—and identity threats—in both White and Hispanic Americans. In turn, identity threats from the larger society may lead migrant groups to feel threatened themselves—and to become defensive toward ­ the dominant/receiving society. Among Turkish Muslims interviewed in the Netherlands by 82

Verkuyten and Yildiz (2007), perceived rejection by majority Dutch people was associated with rejection of Dutch identity, and with stronger identification with participants’ Turkish heritage and with Islam. Likewise, the immigration debate in the United States, which largely centers on Hispanics, has led some Hispanic individuals to become more ethnically identified (Roehling, Jarvis, Sprik, & Campbell, 2010). Similarly, experiences of discrimination may lead Mexican American adolescents to more strongly endorse Mexican cultural values such as familism and religiosity (Berkel et  al., 2010). Simply put, migrants may defensively identify with their cultures of origin when they perceive themselves as unwanted or threatened by majority group members. In essence, the intergroup dynamics that underlie acculturation are guided by (a)  the extent of cultural differences between migrants and majority group members (i.e., the larger the cultural divide, the greater the threats that are experienced on both sides); (b)  the size and continuity of the migrant flow (the more migrants who are arriving, and the greater their presence, the more threat that is experienced on both sides); (c) the extent to which a given migrant group is phenotypically different from the host-national group (phenotypic differences tend to exacerbate threats on both sides); (d) actions taken by majority group members that increase threats to migrant groups, as well as the migrant groups’ responses to these threats; and (e) changing demographics and historical currents that may influence who is regarded as being within the national ingroup and who is not. Identities as emergent phenomena. In addition to reconceptualizing context, the elaborated social identity model also views identity categories as emerging from the intergroup relationship. Thus, self-categories are not simply generated autonomously and in a bottom-up manner by the groups concerned, as is suggested by self-categorization theory; it is also the case that groups can position each other into certain social categories, and that the meanings of the social categories are negotiated both within and between the groups concerned. Perhaps the most obvious instance of this is the emergence of new cultural identities through segmented assimilation processes, as we discussed earlier. To the extent that majority group members view and treat cultural minorities from diverse origins as a homogeneous group, members of these cultural minorities will come to experience a sense of common fate, and this common fate may lead them to

The Identit y Dynamics of Acculturation and Multiculturalism

see themselves in terms of a superordinate group membership—such as Hispanic Americans—that did not previously exist. Thus, initially erroneous perceptions by the majority group can result in a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby a new social category is created (see Drury & Reicher, 2000, for a discussion of similar processes occurring between police and protestors). Ironically, this very process may be expected to exacerbate the identity threat experienced by majority group members, because members of small, diverse, and relatively powerless immigrant groups are seen—and will thus come to see themselves—as members of a much larger and thus more powerful pan-ethnic group. As we have discussed earlier, this is precisely the kind of group that is likely to be maximally threatening to the cultural majority, because it presents the possibility of a “hostile takeover” of the national identity. Moreover, the elaborated social identity model suggests that the sense of solidarity arising from the newly emerging identity may be experienced by the minority members themselves as empowering, giving them a greater voice in national debates and greater opportunities to effect genuine transformations of the national context in which they find themselves (see Drury & Reicher, 2009). So how will segmented assimilation affect a country’s cultural profile over time? In the United States, for example, the majority (about 85%) of the current migrant stream is from non-European countries (Hernandez, Denton, & Macartney, 2007). According to the principle of segmented assimilation, many of these migrants are acculturating to something other than White America. White Americans are reproducing just above the replenishment rate (2.1 children per family) needed to sustain a population over generational time. In many European countries, however, Whites are reproducing far below the replenishment rate, suggesting that not only will the proportion of Whites decrease in future generations, but their absolute numbers will also decrease (United Nations, 2009). Combined with mass migration and high fertility rates among ethnic minority groups, these trends suggest that Whites will represent only about half the population in the United States and many European countries by the middle of the 21st century. The majority-minority balance, at least in terms of population shares, is rapidly changing. White Americans, especially those who define the United States in terms of its ethnic heritage, may consider themselves an “endangered species” (e.g.,

Buchanan, 2006) and may seek to enact official and unofficial policies to curb immigration and to force those migrants already in the country to assimilate to White American culture. Similar dynamics are occurring in Europe (e.g., Licata et  al., 2011). As discussed earlier, however, such efforts are likely to backfire—and will likely produce even more division between native and migrant groups. Biculturalism is an important part of acculturation, especially given competing pressures from the receiving-cultural community (to endorse receiving-cultural orientations) and from the heritage-cultural community (to retain heritage-cultural orientations). In migrant families, differential endorsement of the heritage or receiving cultural streams between parents and children or adolescents can lead to family conflict and to behavior problems and substance abuse among the youth (Smokowski, Rose, & Bacallao, 2008; Unger, Ritt-Olson, Wagner, Soto, & Baezconde-Garbanati, 2009). As a result, it is often essential for youth to be bicultural, so that they can relate both to traditionally oriented family members and to receiving-culture individuals. It may, therefore, not be a reasonable expectation for migrant youth to fully assimilate and discard their cultural heritage. Although individuals with bicultural identifications (e.g., Cuban American, Pakistani Briton) are more likely to be accepted by majority group members than are individuals who identify only with their cultures of origin (Verkuyten & Thijs, 2010), hard-line conservatives are likely to insist that migrants identify only with the country of settlement. In the United States, for example, Buchanan (2006) and others have labeled biculturalism as a problem. Their argument is that prior waves of immigrants to the United States did not insist on labeling themselves as Irish American, Italian American, or Jewish American— and, consequently, contemporary migrants should also discard their heritage-cultural identities. The missing piece in this argument, however, is that earlier waves of migrants to the United States— especially the Southern and Eastern Europeans who arrived between 1880 and 1924—were subjected to intense Americanization programs at school and in the community, where their cultural heritage was denigrated as inferior, and becoming fully American was the only available option (Huntington, 2004). Moreover, at the time when those migrants were arriving, ships were the primary mode of crossing the Atlantic, and visiting the homeland was difficult, if not impossible. Today’s migrants can communicate with their friends and relatives in their

Schwartz, Vignoles, Brown, Zagefka


home countries by e-mail, through social media and online chatting, and during frequent visits. The “transnational” nature of migration, where many families move back and forth between the heritage and receiving countries and where migrants can remain involved with their countries of origin, has facilitated the rise of biculturalism (e.g., Kasinitz et al., 2008). For example, a recent Dominican election was decided largely by voters in New York City, and the economies of many Mexican and Central American villages are supported almost completely by remittances sent from the United States (Portes & Rumbaut, 2006). Comparing past and present waves of migration is problematic because the circumstances in which migrants live have changed exponentially. The challenge for biculturalism, in any of its forms, then, is the development of an integrated bicultural self. Rudmin (2003) and others (Knight et al., 2009) have portrayed biculturalism as a difficult condition in which the contrasting demands and expectations of the heritage and receiving cultural communities are impossible to reconcile. This depiction of biculturalism calls to mind the classic fairy tale, in which the bat is rejected by the beasts because they think he is a bird, and rejected by the birds because they think he is a beast. Although the contrasting expectations of the heritage and receiving cultural communities are likely to be the same for individuals low and high on bicultural identity integration, the difference is the stress (or lack thereof ) that the individual perceives as a result of these incompatible expectations (cf. Schwartz & Zamboanga, 2008). Indeed, an integrated bicultural identity is likely to strengthen both the heritage and receiving cultural identities—for example, in the United States, migrants who identify strongly with their heritage cultures are more likely than other migrants to participate in American civic activities (Stepick & Dutton Stepick, 2010). Further, Schwartz and Zamboanga (2008) found that, among a sample of Hispanic young adults in Miami, participants classified as “full bicultural” according to latent class analytic procedures were more strongly ethnically identified, were more strongly individualistic and collectivistic, and perceived less acculturative stress compared to participants classified as “partial bicultural.” So biculturalism, in its fullest and most integrated form, suggests more comfort with both cultural streams, as well as less perceived pressures from the heritage and receiving cultural groups. As a case in point, Matera et al. (2011) found that Italian majority group members 84

were more favorably predisposed toward highly bicultural migrants than toward those who were less bicultural. Migrants cannot be fully integrated into the receiving culture until these threats are reduced or eliminated—as the American and European cases have illustrated (see Caldwell, 2008; Huntington, 2004; Schildkraut, 2007, for further discussion). For example, in the United States during the early 20th century, Jewish and Italian migrants were labeled as “foreigners,” “unassimilable,” and the like (Sterba, 2003). These groups were perceived as racially separate from White Americans until the mass Southern and Eastern European migration had stopped, and until the perceived threats to the United States population had passed (Stepick et al., 2011). Indeed, mass migration of individuals from a given country or region is probably one of the strongest predictors of the extent to which dominant group members will label that group as a threat (Coenders et al., 2008). In the past, migrant groups have been “absorbed” into the national ingroup over time, as the threats posed by the migrant groups declined and, in some cases, eventually disappeared. However, in most of these prior cases, cultural and phenotypic differences between migrants and majority group members were seen as far smaller in past generations than is the case currently in most countries and regions that are receiving large numbers of migrants. Jewish and Italian migrants to the United States were phenotypically White and shared the Judeo-Christian cultural background underlying American culture. The majority of today’s immigrants are much more phenotypically, religiously, and culturally different from the societies in which they are settling. Can Mexican migrants in the United States, Pakistani migrants in Britain, Algerian migrants in France, or Turkish migrants in Germany ever fully integrate into the larger national societies? Although this remains an open empirical question—these migrant flows are still ongoing, and at least in the European cases, most migrants are first or second generation—the “perpetual foreigner” syndrome suggests that full incorporation of these migrant groups will be more difficult and problematic than was the case with European migrants to the United States. Will the majority of British people ever look at a Pakistani Briton and see just another Briton? Research in the United States suggests that the label “American” is reserved primarily for Whites (e.g., Devos & Banaji, 2005; Devos & Heng, 2009). Even Japanese Americans whose families have

The Identit y Dynamics of Acculturation and Multiculturalism

been in the United States for four generations are nonetheless perceived as foreigners. These patterns suggest that, for visible-minority migrant groups, intergroup threats will continue long after the migrants and their descendants have incorporated themselves into the receiving society. It remains to be determined whether today’s Mexicans become tomorrow’s Americans, whether today’s Pakistanis become tomorrow’s Britons, and whether today’s Turks become tomorrow’s Germans. Will these intergroup threats become stronger or weaker as minority groups represent progressively larger shares of the American and European populations? Will the growing numbers of cultural and ethnic minorities in Western societies lead to the acceptance of minorities as equals, or will they cause the shrinking White populations to feel even more threatened? Although the answer to this question is not yet known, it may lie in how the national ingroup is defined. If a country’s national identity is defined in terms of shared cultural history or ancestry, then individuals who do not share that history or ancestry are unlikely to be fully accepted into the national ingroup (Pehrson et al., 2009). On the other hand, if a country’s national identity is defined in terms of current endorsement of a given set of cultural practices, values, and identifications with the nation, then later-generation minority group members are likely to be accepted into the national ingroup (Flannery, Reise, & Yu, 2001). Of course, the national ingroup is characterized by multiple definitions, and there often are disagreements regarding who is a member of that ingroup and who is not (e.g., Rodriguez, Schwartz, & Whitbourne, 2010). However, as long as a group of migrants represent threats to the distinctiveness and continuity of the national ingroup’s identity— in terms of how that identity is consensually defined (i.e., what the majority of majority group members, or at least those in leadership positions, believe that the national ingroup is)—that migrant group will remain outside the national ingroup.


In conclusion, we have argued here that acculturation among migrants is, in fact, a special case of intergroup relations, and that larger social-psychological forces work to guide the specific acculturation approaches that migrants adopt (and that majority group members expect). Although migrants have a choice regarding some aspects of their acculturation, the reception afforded to them by majority group members, as well as the threats

that they perceived as a result of this reception, determine much of how migrants will acculturate (Schwartz, Unger, et al., 2010; Zagefka, González, & Brown, 2011). Individual-level perspectives on acculturation, which focus primarily (or exclusively) on the experiences of the individual migrant, do not capture the richness and complexity of the intergroup relations between migrants and the societies that are receiving them. Even interactional views of acculturation, which focus on the degree of match versus mismatch between migrants’ approaches to acculturation and majority group members’ expectations, assume that these preferences are largely static. We contend that what is needed is a dynamic model of intergroup relations that considers the changing nature of the extent of power held by majority group members, inroads made by the migrant group in establishing a foothold within the receiving society, and the ways in which migrants and majority group members respond to perceived threats from one another. Will migrants comply with the defensive policies enacted by majority group members, such as Muslim women taking off their veils in France, or will they “fight back,” as in the case of Mexican migrants staging marches and rallies to protest the withdrawal of social services from children of unauthorized migrants in the United States? The specific intergroup dynamics between migrants and majority group members differ between and among countries (Pehrson & Green, 2010; Staerklé, Sidanius, Green, & Molina, 2010), so migrants’ and majority group members’ reactions to perceived threats may not be the same across contexts. Nonetheless, the broader set of principles that we have articulated here may hold in most situations. Most notably, the casting of acculturation as an intergroup process suggests that group outcomes, as well as adjustment outcomes in individual migrants, should be considered in acculturation research (Brown & Zagefka, 2011). Thus, collective self-esteem may be as important as individual self-esteem, intergroup anxiety as important as personal well-being, and the quality of intergroup relationships as important as one’s interpersonal relationships, when considering the consequences of acculturation orientations, identity threats, discriminatory laws and policies, and other interactions between migrant and host-national groups. Majority group members who support defensive policies vis-à-vis migrants are not only acting to preserve their own individual self-interests, but they are also acting to preserve the interests of their ingroup.

Schwartz, Vignoles, Brown, Zagefka


Similarly, migrants who protest against policies enacted by majority group members, or who engage in violent behavior toward them, are acting on behalf of their ethnic, cultural, or national group as a whole, not simply on their own behalf. Surely Mohammad Siddique Khan, the leader of the terrorist group that perpetrated the July 2005 bombings in London, was not acting out of self-interest when he blew himself up on a train. Rather, he was probably seeking to defend his cultural and religious group against perceived threats from the non-Muslim British community (see Moshman, 2011; and Post, 2005, for further discussion of group motives in terrorist activities). In summary, in this chapter we have situated acculturation within the context of intergroup relations. Following Berry (2006), Bourhis et  al. (1997), Rohmann et  al. (2006), and others, we view the acculturation orientations of migrant groups as interacting with those of the receiving society. However, we take this principle several steps further. First, we have reviewed evidence that this interaction between migrants’ acculturation orientations and the expectations of receiving-society individuals is further moderated by the migrant group and receiving society in question. Second, we have cast acculturation as a social identity process marked by realistic and symbolic threats and by attempts by migrants to manage their identities in relation to the receiving society. The emergence of new groupings, such as “Hispanic” or “Latino,” within the receiving society is one example of this kind of identity management. Third, we have drawn on a wide range of identity theories to illustrate the cultural dynamics between migrants and receiving-society individuals. In particular, we have argued that receiving-society individuals are more likely to perceive migrants as a threat to the extent that they are perceived to undermine the continuity and distinctiveness of the national ingroup—rather than because they represent a competing ethnic outgroup. These perceptions will depend crucially on how the receiving-society defines itself (e.g., in ethnic terms or in civic terms). When national identity is defined in more ethnic terms, it may be especially difficult for migrants and their descendants to gain acceptance; in contrast, when the national identity is defined in more civic terms, it may be more possible for migrants and their descendants to be accepted as members of the nation. Finally, our perspective views migrant-majority relations as constantly evolving. Today’s migrants are not acculturating to the same society that existed 100 years 86

ago. Perhaps the clearest indication of this dynamic process is the shift in the groups who are migrating. Whereas much of the world’s migration in the 19th and early 20th centuries involved Europeans moving to the United States, Canada, and Australia, most of today’s migrants are coming from primarily collectivist regions such as Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa, Southern and Eastern Asia, and the Middle East. Further, the receiving societies in migrant-receiving countries or regions include the descendants of earlier migrants, and many of these societies have adopted more multicultural policies than were in place 100  years ago. Acculturation is a dynamic interplay between migrant and receiving groups, and in some cases the boundaries between these groups are not completely clear. We hope that the perspective that we have introduced here will inspire more research on acculturation as a special case of intergroup relations.


1. We are extremely grateful to David Sam, Ron Fischer, and an anonymous reviewer for their valuable comments on a previous version of this chapter.


Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1988). Comments on the motivational status of self-esteem in social identity and intergroup discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 317–334. Adida, C. L., Laitin, D. D., & Valfort, M. (2010). Identifying barriers to Muslim integration in France. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 22384–22390. Alba, R. D., & Nee, V. (2006). Remaking the American mainstream: Assimilation and contemporary integration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Allen, M. L., Elliott, M. N., Fuligni, A. J., Morales, L. S., Hambarsoomian, K., & Schuster, M. A. (2008). The relationship between Spanish language use and substance use behaviors among Latino youth: A social network approach. Journal of Adolescent Health, 43, 372–379. Amiot, C. E., de la Sablonnière, R., Terry, D. J., & Smith, J. R. (2007). Integration of social identities in the self: Toward a cognitive-developmental model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 364–388. Arciniega, G., Anderson, T. C., Tovar-Blank, Z. G., & Tracey, T. G. (2008). Toward a fuller conception of Machismo: Development of a traditional Machismo and Caballerismo Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 19–33. Arends-Tóth, J., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2007). Acculturation attitudes: A comparison of measurement methods. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1462–1488. Barker, V., Giles, H., Noels, K., Duck, J., Hecht, M., & Clément, R. (2001). The English-only movement: A communication analysis of changing perceptions of language vitality. Journal of Communication, 51, 3–37. Barrette, G., Bourhis, R. Y., Personnaz, M., & Personnaz, B. (2004). Acculturation orientations of French and North African undergraduates in Paris. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28, 415–438.

The Identit y Dynamics of Acculturation and Multiculturalism

Bawer, B. (2006). While Europe slept: How radical Islam is destroying the West from within. New York: Broadway. BBC News. (2004, September 2). French scarf ban comes into force. Retrieved May 31, 2011 from hi/3619988.stm. BBC News. (2010, May 27). British citizenship test: One in three immigrants fails. Retrieved December 16, 2011 from http:// Bedford, O. A. (2004). The individual experience of guilt and shame in Chinese culture. Culture and Psychology, 10, 29–52. Beiser, M., Hou, F., Hyman, I., & Tousignant, M. (2002). Poverty, family process, and the mental health of immigrant children in Canada. American Journal of Public Health, 92, 220–227. Benet-Martínez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural Identity Integration (BII):  Components and psychosocial antecedents. Journal of Personality, 73, 1015–1050. Benet-Martínez, V., Leu, J., Lee, F., & Morris, M. W. (2002). Negotiating biculturalism:  Cultural frame switching in biculturals with oppositional versus compatible cultural identities. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 492–516. Berkel, C., Knight, G. P., Zeiders, K. H., Tein, J., Roosa, M. W., Gonzales, N. A., & Saenz, D. (2010). Discrimination and adjustment for Mexican American adolescents:  A  prospective examination of the benefits of culturally related values. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 893–915. Bernstein, R. & Edwards, T. (2008). An older and more diverse nation by midcentury. Retrieved from Press-Release/www/realeases/archives/population/011910. html Berry, J. W. (1974). Psychological aspects of cultural pluralism:  Unity and identity reconsidered. Topics in Culture Learning, 2, 17–22. Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. M. Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, models, and some new findings (pp. 9–25). Boulder, CO: Westview. Berry, J. W. (1997). Constructing and expanding a framework:  Opportunities for developing acculturation research. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 62–68. Berry, J. W. (2006). Contexts of acculturation. In D. L.  Sam & J. W.  Berry (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 27–42). Cambridge, UK:  Cambridge University Press. Berry, J. W., & Kim, U. (1988). Acculturation and mental health. In P. R. Dasen, J. W. Berry, & N. Sartorius (Eds.), Health and cross-cultural psychology: Toward applications (pp. 207–236). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Berry, J. W., & Sabatier, C. (2010). Acculturation, discrimination, and adaptation among second generation immigrant youth in Montreal and Paris. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 191–207. Bhui, K., Stansfeld, S., Head, J., Haines, M., Hillier, S., Taylor, S., & . . . Booy, R. (2005). Cultural identity, acculturation, and mental health among adolescents in east London’s multiethnic community. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59, 296–302. Bierbrauer, G., & Klinger, E. W. (2002). Political ideology, perceived threat, and justice towards immigrants. Social Justice Research, 15, 41–52. Binder, J., Zagefka, H., Brown, R., Funke, F., Kessler, T., Mummendey, A., & . . . Leyens, J. (2009). Does contact reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis among majority and

minority groups in three European countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 843–856. Blanz, M., Mummendey, A., Mielke, R., & Klink, A. (1998). Responding to negative social identity:  A  taxonomy of identity management strategies. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 697–729. Bleich, E. (2009). Where do Muslims stand on ethno-racial hierarchies in Britain and France? Evidence from public opinion surveys, 1988–2008. Patterns of Prejudice, 43(3–4), 379–400. Bolognani, M. (2007). Islam, ethnography and politics:  Methodological Issues in researching amongst West Yorkshire Pakistanis in 2005. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 10, 279–293. Bourhis, R. Y., Moïse, L., Perreault, S., & Senécal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model:  A  social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology, 32, 369–386. Boykin, A., Albury, A., Tyler, K. M., Hurley, E. A., Bailey, C. T., & Miller, O. A. (2005). Culture-based perceptions of academic achievement among low-income elementary students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 11, 339–350. Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 135–149. Breakwell, G. M. (1986). Coping with threatened identities. London: Methuen. Breakwell, G. M. (1988). Strategies adopted when identity is threatened. Revue Internationale De Psychologie Sociale, 1(2), 189–203. Brewer, M. B. (1999). Multiple identities and identity transition:  Implications for Hong Kong. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 187–197. Brown, R. (2010). Prejudice:  Its social psychology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In M. P. Zanna, (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 255–343). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. Brown, R., & Zagefka, H. (2006). Choice of comparisons in intergroup settings:  the role of temporal information and comparison motives. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 649–671. Brown, R., & Zagefka, H. (2011). The dynamics of acculturation: An intergroup perspective. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 44, pp. 129–184). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. Brüβ, J. (2008). Experiences of discrimination reported by Turkish, Moroccan, and Bangladeshi Muslims in three European cities. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34, 875–894. Buchanan, P. J. (2006). State of emergency: The Third World invasion and conquest of America. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Caetano, R., Ramisetty-Mikler, S., Wallisch, L. S., McGrath, C., & Spence, R. T. (2008). Acculturation, drinking, and alcohol abuse and dependence among Hispanics on the Texas-Mexico border. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 32, 314–321. Caldwell, C. (2008). Reflections on the revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West. New York: Doubleday. Carr, H. L., & Vignoles, V. L. (2011). Keeping up with the Joneses:  Status projection as symbolic self-completion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 518–527.

Schwartz, Vignoles, Brown, Zagefka


Castillo, L. G., & Caver, K. A. (2009). Expanding the concept of acculturation in Mexican American rehabilitation psychology research and practice. Rehabilitation Psychology, 54, 351–362. Chandler, M. J., Lalonde, C. E., Sokol, B. W., & Hallett, D. (2003). Personal persistence, identity development, and suicide: A study of Native and non-Native North American adolescents. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 68(2, Serial No. 273). Chen, S. X., Benet-Martínez, V., & Bond, M. H. (2008). Bicultural identity, bilingualism, and psychological adjustment in multicultural societies:  Immigration-based and globalization-based acculturation. Journal of Personality, 76, 803–838. Cheung, B. Y., Chudek, M., & Heine, S. J. (2011). Evidence for a sensitive period for acculturation: Younger immigrants report acculturating at a faster rate. Psychological Science, 22, 147–152. Chia, A., & Costigan, C. L. (2006). Understanding the multidimensionality of acculturation among Chinese Canadians. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 38, 311–324. Chua, A. (2011). Battle hymn of the tiger mother. New  York:  Penguin. Citrin, J., Lerman, A., Murakami, M., & Pearson, K. (2007). Testing Huntington:  Is Hispanic immigration a threat to American identity? Perspectives on Politics, 5, 31–48. Coenders, M., Lubbers, M., Scheepers, P., & Verkuyten, M. (2008). More than two decades of changing ethnic attitudes in the Netherlands. Journal of Social Issues, 64, 269–285. Cornelius, W. (2002). Ambivalent reception:  Mass public responses to the “new” Latino immigration to the United States. In M. M.  Suárez-Orozco & M. M.  Páez (Eds.), Latinos: Remaking America (pp. 165–189). Berkeley: University of California Press. Corral, I., & Landrine, H. (2008). Acculturation and ethnic-minority health behavior: A test of the operant model. Health Psychology, 27, 737–745. Costigan, C. L. (2010). Embracing complexity in the study of acculturation gaps:  Directions for future research. Human Development, 53, 341–349. Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608–630. Curseu, P., Stoop, R., & Schalk, R. (2007). Prejudice toward immigrant workers among Dutch employees:  Integrated threat theory revisited. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 125–140. Day, R. J. F. (2000). Multiculturalism and the history of Canadian diversity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Devos, T., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). American = White? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 447–466. Devos, T., & Heng, L. (2009). Whites are granted the American identity more swiftly than Asians: Disentangling the role of automatic and controlled processes. Social Psychology, 40, 192–201. Downie, M., Koestner, R., ElGeledi, S., & Cree, K. (2004). The impact of cultural internalization and integration on well-being among tricultural individuals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 305–314. Downie, M., Mageau, G. A., Koestner, R., & Liodden, T. (2006). On the risk of being a cultural chameleon: Variations in collective self-esteem across social interactions. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12, 527–540.


Drury, J., & Reicher, S. (1999). The intergroup dynamics of collective empowerment:  Substantiating the social identity model of crowd behaviour. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 2, 1–22. Drury, J., & Reicher, S. (2000). Collective action and psychological change: The emergence of new social identities. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 579–604. Drury, J., & Reicher, S. (2009). Collective psychological empowerment as a model of social change: Researching crowds and power. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 707–725. Dunstan, S. B. (2010). Identities in transition: The use of AAVE grammatical features by Hispanic adolescents in two North Carolina communities. American Speech, 85, 185–204. Dwairy, M. (2002). Foundations of psychosocial dynamic personality theory of collective people. Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 343–360. Dwairy, M. (2004). Culturally sensitive education:  Adapting self-oriented assertiveness training to collective minorities. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 423–436. Easterbrook, M., & Vignoles, V. L. (2012). Different groups, different motives: Identity motives underlying changes in identification with novel groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1066–1080. Epstein, J. A., Botvin, G. J., & Diaz, T. (1998). Linguistic acculturation and gender effects on smoking among Hispanic youth. Preventive Medicine, 27, 583–589. Epstein, J. A., Botvin, G. J., & Diaz, T. (2000). Alcohol use among Hispanic adolescents:  Role of linguistic acculturation and gender. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 45, 18–32. Fischer, R., & Schwartz, S. H. (2011). Whence differences in value priorities? Individual, cultural, or artifactual sources. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 1127–1144. Flannery, W., Reise, S. P., & Yu, J. (2001). An empirical comparison of acculturation models. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1035–1045. Galanti, G. (2003). The Hispanic family and male-female relationships: An overview. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 14, 180–185. Galenson, D. W. (1997). Neighborhood effects on the school attendance of Irish immigrants’ sons in Boston and Chicago in 1860. American Journal of Education, 105, 261–293. González, K., Verkuyten, M., Weesie, J., & Poppe, E. (2008). Prejudice toward Muslims in the Netherlands: Testing integrated threat theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 667–685. Gordon, M. (1964). Assimilation in American life. New  York: Oxford University Press. Gregg, A. P., Sedikides, C., & Gebauer, J. E. (2011). Dynamics of identity:  Between self-enhancement and self-assessment. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 305–327). New  York: Springer. Guimond, S., De Oliveira, P., Kamiesjki, R., & Sidanius, J. (2010). The trouble with assimilation: Social dominance and the emergence of hostility against immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 642–650. Guo, X., Schwartz, S. J., & McCabe, B. E. (2008). Aging, gender, and self:  Dimensionality and measurement invariance analysis on self-construal. Self and Identity, 7, 1–24. Guo, X., Suarez-Morales, L., Schwartz, S. J., & Szapocznik, J. (2009). Some evidence for multidimensional biculturalism: Confirmatory factor analysis and measurement invariance

The Identit y Dynamics of Acculturation and Multiculturalism

analysis on the Bicultural Involvement Questionnaire–Short Version. Psychological Assessment, 21, 22–31. Hammack, P. L. (2006). Identity, conflict, and coexistence: Life stories of Israeli and Palestinian adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21, 323–369. Hargreaves, A. G. (2007). Muslims in France:  The quest for social justice. Global Dialogue, 9(3/4), 47–55. Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Peng, K., & Greenholtz, J. (2002). What’s wrong with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales? The reference-group effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 903–918. Helms, J. E., Jernigan, M., & Mascher, J. (2005). The meaning of race in psychology and how to change it: A methodological perspective. American Psychologist, 60, 27–36. Hernandez, D. J., Denton, N. A., & Macartney, S. E. (2007). Family circumstances of children in immigrant families: Looking to the future of America. In J. E. Lansford, K. Deater-Deckard, & M. H. Bornstein (Eds.), Immigrant families in contemporary society (pp. 9–29). New York: Guilford. Hirschman, C. (2004). The origins and demise of the concept of race. Population and Development Review, 30, 385–415. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. London: Sage. Hogg, M. A. (2007). Uncertainty-identity theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 39, pp. 69–126). San Diego, CA: Elsevier. Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (2007). Domésticas: Cleaning and caring in the shadows of affluence. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hornsey, M. J. & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 143–156. Hornsey, M. J., & Jetten, J. (2004). The individual within the group: Balancing the need to belong with the need to be different. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 248–264. Huntington, S. P. (2004). Who are we? The challenge to America’s national identity. New York: Simon and Schuster. Huynh, Q., Devos, T., & Smalarz, L. (2011). Perpetual foreigner in one’s own land: Potential implications for identity and psychological adjustment. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 30, 133–162. Huynh, Q., Nguyen, A. D., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2011). Bicultural identity integration. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 827–843). New York: Springer. Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Mähönen, T. A., & Liebkind, K. (2012). Identity and attitudinal reactions to perceptions of inter-group interactions among ethnic migrants: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 312–329. Jetten, J., Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Spears, R. (2001). Rebels with a cause:  Group identification as a response to perceived discrimination from the mainstream. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1204–1213. Jones, E. E., Farina, A., Hastorf, A. H., Markus, H., Miller, D. T., & Scott, R. A. (1984). Social stigma:  the psychology of marked relationships. New York: Freeman. Juang, L., & Syed, M. (2010). Family cultural socialization practices and ethnic identity in college-going emerging adults. Journal of Adolescence, 33, 347–354 Kang, S. (2006). Measurement of acculturation, scale formats, and language competence:  Their implications for adjustment. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 669–693. Kasinitz, P., Mollenkopf, J. H., Waters, M. C., & Holdaway, J. (2008). Inheriting the city: The children of immigrants come of age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kim, B. S. K., Atkinson, D. R., & Yang, P. H. (1999). The Asian Values Scale:  Development, factor analysis, validation, and reliability. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 342–352. Kim, U. (1994). Individualism and collectivism:  Conceptual clarification and elaboration. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism:  Theory, method, and applications (pp. 19–40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Knight, G. P., Vargas-Chanes, D., Losoya, S. H., Cota-Robles, S., Chassin, L., & Lee, J. M. (2009). Acculturation and enculturation trajectories among Mexican-American adolescent offenders. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19, 625–653. Kosic, A., & Phalet, K. (2006). Ethnic categorization of immigrants:  the role of prejudice, perceived acculturation strategies and group size. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 769–782. Labov, W. (2010). Unendangered dialect, endangered people:  The case of African American Vernacular English. Transforming Anthropology, 18(1), 15–27. LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H. L., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 395–412. Lechuga, J. (2008). Is acculturation a dynamic construct? The influence of method of priming culture on acculturation. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 30, 324–339. Lee, R. M. (2005). Resilience against discrimination:  Ethnic identity and other-group orientation as protective factors for Korean Americans. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 36–44. Lee, S. W.  S., Oyserman, D., & Bond, M. H. (2010). Am I doing better than you? That depends on whether you ask me in English or Chinese: Self-enhancement effects of language as a cultural mindset prime. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 785–791. Lee, Y., Ottati, V., & Hussain, I. (2001). Attitudes toward “illegal” immigration into the United States:  California Proposition 187. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 23, 430–443. Leong, C.-H. (2008). A  multilevel research framework for the analyses of attitudes toward immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 115–129. Leong, C.-H., & Ward, C. (2011). Intergroup perceptions and attitudes toward immigrants in a culturally plural society. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60, 46–65. Licata, L., & Klein, O. (2002). Does European citizenship breed xenophobia? European identification as a predictor of intolerance towards immigrants. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 323–337. Licata, L., Sanchez-Mazas, M., & Green, E. G.  T. (2011). Identity, immigration, and prejudice in Europe: A recognition approach. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 895– 916). New York: Springer. Liebkind, K. (2001). Acculturation. In R. Brown & S. Gaertner (eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology (Vol. IV, pp. 386–406). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Liebkind, K., & Kosonen, L. (1998). Acculturation and adaptation:  A  case of Vietnamese children and adolescents in Finland. In J.-E. Nurmi (Ed.), Adolescents, cultures and conflicts: Growing up in contemporary Europe (pp. 199–224). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press. Lowell, B. L. (2010). A long view of America’s immigration policy and the supply of foreign-born STEM workers in the United States. American Behavioral Scientist, 53, 1029–1044.

Schwartz, Vignoles, Brown, Zagefka


Major, B., & Eliezer, D. (2011). Attributions to discrimination as a self-protective strategy: Evaluating the evidence. In M. D. Alicke & C. Sedikides (Eds.), Handbook of self-enhancement and self-protection (pp. 320–340). New York: Guilford. Major, B., & Gramzow, R. H. (1999). Abortion as stigma:  Cognitive and emotional implications of concealment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,77, 735–745. Marques, J. M., Abrams, D., & Serodio, R. (2001). Being better by being right:  Subjective group dynamics and derogation of in-group deviants when generic norms are undermined. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 436–447. Matera, C., Stefanile, C., & Brown, R. (2011). The role of immigrant acculturation preferences and generational status in determining majority intergroup attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 776–785. McLaren, L., & Johnson, M. (2007). Resources, group conflict and symbols:  Explaining anti-immigration hostility in Britain. Political Studies, 55, 709–732. Mok, A., Morris, M. W., Benet-Martínez, V., & KarakitapoğluAygün, Z. (2007). Embracing American culture: Structures of social identity and social networks among first-generation biculturals. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 629–635. Montreuil, A., & Bourhis, R. Y. (2001). Host majority acculturation orientations toward “valued” and “devalued” immigrants. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 718–739. Morrison, K., Plaut, V. C., & Ybarra, O. (2010). Predicting whether multiculturalism positively or negatively influences white Americans’ intergroup attitudes:  The role of ethnic identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1648–1661. Moshman, D. (2011). Identity, genocide, and group violence. In S. J.  Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L.  Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 917–932). New York: Springer. Mummendey, A., Klink, A., Mielke, R., Wenzel, M., & Blanz, M. (1999). Socio-structural characteristics of intergroup relations and identity management strategies:  Results from a field study in East Germany. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 259–285. Musterd, S., & Deurloo, R. (2003). Unstable immigrant concentrations in Amsterdam: Spatial segregation and integration of newcomers. Housing Studies, 17, 487–503. Navas, M., García, M. C., Sánchez, J., Rojas, A. J., Pumares, P., &Fernández, J. S. (2005). Relative Acculturation Extended Model: New contributions with regard to the study of acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 21–37. Nguyen, A. D., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2007). Biculturalism unpacked: Components, measurement, individual differences, and outcomes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 101–114. Nguyen, A. D., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2013). Biculturalism and adjustment:  A  meta-analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 122–159. Oakes, P. J., Turner, J. C., & Haslam, S. A. (1991). Perceiving people as group members: The role of fit in the salience of social categorizations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 125–144. Pahl, K., & Way, N. (2006). Longitudinal trajectories of ethnic identity among urban Black and Latino adolescents. Child Development, 77, 1403–1415. Pargeter, A. (2008). The new frontiers of jihad: Radical Islam in Europe. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.


Park, R. E. (1928). Human migrations and the marginal man. American Journal of Sociology, 33, 881–893. Pehrson, S., Brown, R., & Zagefka, H. (2009). When does national identification lead to the rejection of immigrants? Cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence for the role of essentialist in-group definitions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 61–76. Pehrson, S., & Green, E. G. T. (2010). Who we are and who can join us: National identity content and entry criteria for new immigrants. Journal of Social Issues, 66, 695–716. Pehrson, S., Vignoles, V. L., & Brown, R. (2009). National identification and anti-immigrant prejudice: Individual and contextual effects of national definitions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72, 24–38. Pew Research Center. (2010a). Public supports Arizona immigration law. Retrieved August 4, 2011 from pubs/1591/public-support-arizona-immigration-law-poll. Pew Research Center. (2010b). Hispanics and Arizona’s new immigration law. Retrieved August 4, 2011 from http:// heet-hispanic-population-opinion-discrimination. Pfafferott, I., & Brown, R. (2006). Acculturation preferences of majority and minority adolescents in Germany in the context of society and family. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 703–717. Phinney, J. S., Berry, J. W., Vedder, P., & Liebkind, K. (2006). The acculturation experience:  Attitudes, identities, and behaviors of immigrant youth. In J. W. Berry, J. S. Phinney, D. L. Sam, & P. Vedder (Eds.), Immigrant youth in cultural transition (pp. 71–116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Phinney, J. S., & Ong, A. D. (2007). Conceptualization and measurement of ethnic identity: Current status and future directions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 271–281. Piontkowski, U., Florack, A., Hoelker, P., & Obdrzálek, P. (2000). Predicting acculturation attitudes of dominant and non-dominant groups. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 1–26 Piontkowski, U., Rohmann, A., & Florack, A. (2002). Concordance of acculturation attitudes and perceived threat. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 5, 221–232. Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies:  The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley:  University of California Press. Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2006). Immigrant America: A portrait (3rd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press. Post, J. M. (2005). When hatred is bred in the bone: Psycho-cultural foundations of contemporary terrorism. Political Psychology, 26, 615–636. Ramirez, H., & Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (2009). Mexican immigrant gardeners: Entrepreneurs or exploited workers? Social Problems, 56, 70–88. Ramirez-Esparza, N., Gosling, S. D., Benet-Martínez, V., Potter, J. P., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). Do bilinguals have two personalities? A  special case of cultural frame switching. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 99–120. Redfield, R., Linton R., & Herskovits M. J.  (1936). Memorandum for the study of acculturation. American Anthropologist, 38, 149–152. Reicher, S. D., Haslam, S. A., & Hopkins, N. (2005). Social identity and the dynamics of leadership: Leaders and followers as collaborative agents in the transformation of social reality. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 547–568.

The Identit y Dynamics of Acculturation and Multiculturalism

Reicher, S. D., & Hopkins, N. (1996). Seeking influence through characterising self-categories: An analysis of anti-abortionist rhetoric. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 297–311. Rodriguez, L., Schwartz, S. J., & Whitbourne, S. K. (2010). American identity revisited: The relation between national, ethnic, and personal identity in a multiethnic sample of emerging adults. Journal of Adolescent Research, 25, 324–349. Rodriguez, R. (1982). Hunger of memory:  The education of Richard Rodriguez. New York: Bantam. Roehling, P. V., Jarvis, L., Sprik, J. M., & Campbell, P. H. (2010). The immigration debate and its relationship to the ethnic identity development and well-being of Latino and White youth. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 32, 292–308. Rohmann, A., Florack, A., & Piontkowski, U. (2006). The role of discordant acculturation attitudes in perceived threat: An analysis of host and immigrant attitudes in Germany. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 683–702. Roysircar-Sodowsky, G., & Maestas, M. (2000). Acculturation, ethnic identity, and acculturative stress: Evidence and measurement. In R. Dana (Ed.), Handbook of cross-cultural and multicultural personality assessment (pp. 131–172). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Rudmin, F. W. (2003). Critical history of the acculturation psychology of assimilation, separation, integration, and marginalization. Review of General Psychology, 7, 3–37. Rumbaut, R. G. (2008). Reaping what you sow: Immigration, youth, and reactive ethnicity. Applied Developmental Science, 12(2), 108–111 Sabogal, F., Marín, G., Otero-Sabogal, R., & Marín, B. V. (1987). Hispanic familism and acculturation: What changes and what doesn’t? Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9, 397–412. Sam, D. L., & Berry, J. W. (2010). Acculturation: When individuals and groups of different cultural backgrounds meet. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 472–481. Sam, D. L., Vedder, P., Ward, C., & Horenczyk, G. (2006). Psychological and sociocultural adaptation of immigrant youth. In J. W. Berry, J. S. Phinney, D. L. Sam, & P. Vedder (Eds.), Immigrant youth in cultural transition (pp. 117–141). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Sani, F. (Ed.) (2008). Self-continuity: Individual and collective perspectives. New York: Psychology Press. Schildkraut, D. J. (2007). Defining American identity in the twenty-first century: How much “there” is there? Journal of Politics, 69, 597–615. Schildkraut, D. J. (2010). Americanism in the twenty-first century:  Public opinion in the age of immigration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Schildkraut, D. J. (2011). National identity in the United States. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 809–829). New York: Springer. Schmitt, M. T., Spears, R., & Branscombe, N. R. (2003). Constructing a minority group identity out of shared rejection: The case of international students. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–12. Schwartz, S. J., Pantin, H., Sullivan, S., Prado, G., & Szapocznik, J. (2006). Nativity and years in the receiving culture as markers of acculturation in ethnic enclaves. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 345–353. Schwartz, S. J., Unger, J. B., Zamboanga, B. L., & Szapocznik, J. (2010). Rethinking the concept of acculturation: Implications for theory and research. American Psychologist, 65, 237–251.

Schwartz, S. J., Weisskirch, R. S., Hurley, E. A., Zamboanga, B. L., Park, I. K., Kim, S., . . . Greene, A. D. (2010). Communalism, familism, and filial piety: Are they birds of a collectivist feather? Cultural Diversity And Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 548–560. Schwartz, S. J., Weisskirch, R. S., Zamboanga, B. L., Castillo, L. G., Ham, L. S., Huynh, Q.-L., . . . Cano, M. A. (2011). Dimensions of acculturation:  Associations with health risk behaviors among college students from immigrant families. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 27–41. Schwartz, S. J., & Zamboanga, B. L. (2008). Testing Berry’s model of acculturation:  A  confirmatory latent class approach. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14, 275–285. Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., & Jarvis, L. H. (2007). Ethnic identity and acculturation in Hispanic early adolescents: Mediated relationships to academic grades, prosocial behaviors, and externalizing symptoms. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13, 364–373. Simon, B., & Ruhs, D. (2008). Identity and politicization among Turkish migrants in Germany: The role of dual identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1354–1366. Simon, R. J., & Lynch, J. P. (1999). A comparative assessment of public opinion towards immigrants and immigration policies. International Migration Review, 33, 455–467. Smeekes, A., Verkuyten, M., & Poppe, E. (2011). Mobilizing opposition towards Muslim immigrants:  National identification and the representation of national history. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 265–280. Smith, T. B., & Silva, L. (2011). Ethnic identity and personal well-being of people of color:  A  meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 42–60. Smokowski, P. R., Rose, R., & Bacallao, M. (2008). Acculturation and Latino family processes:  How cultural involvement, biculturalism, and acculturation gaps influence family dynamics. Family Relations, 57, 295–308. Snauwaert, B., Soenens, B., Vanbeselaere, N., & Boen, F. (2003). When integration does not necessarily imply integration:  Different conceptualizations of acculturation orientations lead to different classifications. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 231–239. Soroka, S., & Roberton, S. (2010). A literature review of public opinion research on Canadian attitudes towards multiculturalism and immigration, 2006–2009. Ottawa: Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Spears, R. (2011). Group identities: The social identity perspective. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 201–224). New York: Springer. Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Ellemers, N. (1997). Self-stereotyping in the face of threats to group status and distinctiveness: The role of group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 538–553. Staerklé, C., Sidanius, J., Green, E. G.  T., & Molina, L. E. (2010). Ethnic minority-majority asymmetry in national attitudes around the world:  A  multilevel analysis. Political Psychology, 31, 491–519. Steiner, N. (2009). International migration and citizenship today. New York: Routledge. Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Bachman, G. (1999). Prejudice toward immigrants:  An integrated threat theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2221–2237.

Schwartz, Vignoles, Brown, Zagefka


Stepick, A., & Dutton Stepick, C. (2010). The complexities and confusions of segmented assimilation. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 33, 1149–1167. Stepick, A., Dutton Stepick, C., Eugene, E., Teed, D., & Labissiere, Y. (2001). Shifting identities and intergenerational conflict:  Growing up Haitian in Miami. In R. G.  Rumbaut & A. Portes (Eds.), Ethnicities:  Children of immigrants in America. (pp. 229–266). Berkeley: University of California Press. Stepick, A., Dutton Stepick, C., & Vanderkooy, P. (2011). Becoming American. In S. J.  Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 867–893). New York, NY: Springer. Sterba, C. M. (2003). Good Americans:  Italian and Jewish immigrants during the First World War. New  York:  Oxford University Press. Stoll, M. A., & Melendez, E., & Valenzuela, A., Jr. (2002). Spatial job search and job competition among immigrant and native groups in Los Angeles. Regional Studies, 36(2), 97–112. Suárez-Orozco, C., Suárez-Orozco, M. M., & Todorova, I. (2008). Learning a new land: Immigrant students in American society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Syed, M., & Azmitia, M. (2009). Longitudinal trajectories of ethnic identity during the college years. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19, 601–624. Taft, R. (1953). The shared frame of reference concept applied to the assimilation of immigrants. Human Relations, 6, 45–55. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), The psychology of intergroup behavior (2nd Ed., pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson Hall. Takaki, R. (1993). A different mirror:  A  history of multicultural America. New York: Back Bay Books. Thomas, W. I., & Znaniecki, F. F. (1927). The Polish peasant in Europe and America (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Knopf. Tip, L., Zagefka, H., González, R., Brown, R., Cinnirella, M., & Na, X. (2012). Is support for multiculturalism threatened by . . . threat itself? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 22–30. Tran, V. C. (2010). English gain versus Spanish loss? Language assimilation among second-generation Latinos in young adulthood. Social Forces, 89, 257–284. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Tropp, L. R., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2005). Relationships between intergroup contact and prejudice among minority and majority status groups. Psychological Science, 16, 951–957. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. UK Office for National Statistics. (2011). Labour market statistics, November 2011. Retrieved December 21, 2011 at html?edition=tcm%3A77-222445. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2011). The employment situation, November 2011, Retrieved December 17, 2011 from Umaña-Taylor, A. J. (2011). Ethnic identity. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 791–801). New York: Springer. Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Bhanot, R., & Shin, N. (2006). Ethnic identity formation during adolescence:  The critical role of families. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 390–414.


Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Yazedjian, A., & Bámaca-Gómez, M. (2004). Developing the ethnic identity scale using Eriksonian and social identity perspectives. Identity, 4, 9–38. Unger, J. B., Reynolds, K., Shakib, S., Spruijt-Metz, D., Sun, P., & Johnson, C. (2004). Acculturation, physical activity, and fast-food consumption among Asian-American and Hispanic adolescents. Journal of Community Health, 29, 467–481. Unger, J. B., Ritt-Olson, A., Teran, L., Huang, T., Hoffman, B. R., & Palmer, P. (2002). Cultural values and substance use in a multiethnic sample of California adolescents. Addiction Research and Theory, 10, 257–280. Unger, J. B., Ritt-Olson, A., Wagner, K. D., Soto, D. W., & Baezconde-Garbanati, L. (2009). Parent-child acculturation patterns and substance use among Hispanic adolescents: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Primary Prevention, 30, 293–313. United Nations. (2009). World population to 2300. Retrieved June 3, 2011 from van der Noll, J. (2010). Public support for a ban on headscarves: A cross-national perspective. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 4(2), 191–204. Van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 504–535. Verkuyten, M. (2009). Support for multiculturalism and minority rights: The role of national identification and out-group threat. Social Justice Research, 22, 31–52. Verkuyten, M., & Thijs, J. (2010). Ethnic minority labeling, multiculturalism, and the attitude of majority group members. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 467–477. Verkuyten, M., & Yildiz, A. (2007). National (dis)identification and ethnic and religious identity:  A  study among Turkish-Dutch Muslims. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1448–1462. Vignoles, V. L. (2011). Identity motives. In S. J.  Schwartz, K. Luyckx, V. L.  Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 403–432). New York: Springer. Vignoles, V. L., Ashforth, J., & Stubbs, S. (2013). “Other (please specify)”:  Identity integration, belonging, and well-being among multicultural individuals. Manuscript in preparation, University of Sussex, UK. Vignoles, V. L., Regalia, C., Manzi, C., Golledge, J., & Scabini, E. (2006). Beyond self-esteem: Influence of multiple motives on identity construction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 308–333. Waldinger, R. D. & Feliciano, F. (2004). Will the new second-generation assimilate downward? Segmented assimilation re-assessed. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 27, 376–402. Ward, C. (2001). The As, Bs, Cs of acculturation. In D. Matsumoto (Ed.), Handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 411–445). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock. Hove, UK: Routledge. Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1994). Acculturation strategies, psychological adjustment, and sociocultural competence during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 329–343. Ward, C., Masgoret, A.-M., & Vauclair, M. (2011). Attitudes towards immigrants and immigrant experiences:  Predictive models based on regional characteristics. Wellington:  New Zealand Department of Labour.

The Identit y Dynamics of Acculturation and Multiculturalism

Waters, M. C. (1999). Black identities:  West Indian immigrant dreams and American realities. Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press. Wenzel, M., Mummendey, A., & Waldzus, S. (2007). Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: The ingroup projection model. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 331–372. Werbner, P. (2005). The translocation of culture: “Community cohesion” and the force of multiculturalism in history. The Sociological Review, 53, 745–768. Wohl, M. J.  A., Branscombe, N. R., & Reysen, S. (2010). Perceiving your group’s future to be in jeopardy: Extinction threat induces collective angst and the desire to strengthen the ingroup. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 898–910. Wu, F. H. (2001). Yellow:  Race in America beyond Black and White. New York: Basic. Yeh, K.-H., & Bedford, O. (2003). A test of the dual filial piety model. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 215–228.

Yoon, E., Langrehr, K., & Ong, L. (2010). Content analysis of acculturation research:  A  22-year review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 83–96. Zagefka, H. (2009). The concept of ethnicity in social psychological research: Definitional issues. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33, 228–241. Zagefka, H., Brown, R., Broquard, M., & Leventoglu Martin, S. (2007). Predictors and consequences of negative attitudes toward immigrants in Belgium and Turkey:  The role of acculturation preferences and economic competition. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 153–169. Zagefka, H., González, R., & Brown, R. (2011). How minority members’ perceptions of majority members’ acculturation preferences shape minority members’ own acculturation preferences:  Evidence from Chile. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 216–233. Zolberg, A. R., & Woon, L. L. (1999). Why Islam is like Spanish:  Cultural incorporation in Europe and the United States. Politics and Society, 27, 5–38.

Schwartz, Vignoles, Brown, Zagefka




The Social-Psychological Context



Multicultural Societies

John W. Berry and David L. Sam

Abstract Multiculturalism is first discussed as the basic presence of cultural diversity in a society. It is then presented as an orientation (in public policy) toward this diversity. It is distinguished from pluralism (where there is only diversity) by noting that multiculturalism policy and practice has two core features: in addition to the presence of cultural diversity, multiculturalism also requires intercultural contact and equitable participation of all cultural elements in the life of the larger society (sometimes referred to as interculturalism). The concept of intercultural strategies is presented as a guide to understanding variations in public policy and public attitudes toward multiculturalism. Selected psychological studies of multiculturalism are then reviewed, including those on multicultural attitudes, and as well as studies examining three hypotheses derived from multiculturalism policies. Conclusions are then advanced, including the challenges and impediments in achieving full multiculturalism, and a discussion of the psychological benefits (and costs) of accepting multiculturalism, both by the society and by cultural groups and individual members. Key Words:  acculturation, contact, diversity, equity, interculturalism, intercultural strategies, ­multiculturalism, multicultural policy, participation


In the grand sweep of human history, from China and India, through the Hellenic, Roman, Ottoman, and European empires, there has been a persistent question of how cultural communities and their individual members should live together in culturally diverse societies. There are obvious political, economic, and cultural dimensions to this question; these aspects have been examined by social scientists over the decades (e.g., Fleras, 2009; Huntington, 2005; Ryan, 2010). They have also been addressed by social philosophers (Barry, 2001; Fowers & Richardson 1996; Kymlicka, 1995, 2001, 2012; Taylor, 1992) who pose basic questions about the moral underpinnings and logical contradictions inherent in multiculturalism. However, there are also fundamental psychological dimensions, ones

that are situated in the views and characteristics of individuals (Berry, 1997a; Lott, 2010; Moghaddam, 2008a). Among these are the attitudes, identities, and behaviors of persons who are involved in the daily interactions within and across cultural borders (Ward & Leong, 2006), as well as the the process of acculturation (Sam & Berry, 2006). In this chapter, we focus on these psychological aspects. However, as is for all cultural and cross-cultural psychology, the sociocultural contexts of these behaviors, and the international scope of these phenomena, demand our attention (Berry, Poortinga, Breugelmans, Chasiotis, & Sam, 2011). The notion of societies and their populations as multicultural has at least three aspects. The first is that virtually all contemporary societies/countries are culturally diverse, in the sense that there are no 97

societies/countries that have only one cultural or ethnic group in their population, none with only one language spoken by all members, and none in which all members share a single cultural or civic identity (UNESCO, 2009). This presence of many cultural groups within a society/country may be referred to as “multiculturalism as fact,” or “multiculturalism as cultural pluralism” in a society. The second aspect is the presence (or absence) of a policy to deal with this cultural diversity. Some societies seek to reduce (or even to eliminate) cultural diversity, such as France  (Sabatier & Boutry, 2006), whereas others have official policies and practices to promote the continuation of such diversity, such as Canada (Noels & Berry, 2006). This may be termed “multiculturalism as policy.” The third aspect is the degree to which individuals hold positive or negative attitudes toward cultural diversity and intercultural contact as fact and as policy. These attitudes can be directed toward their own cultural and ethnic group, or toward those of other groups. Here, the psychological dimensions of multiculturalism come into play. These aspects may be termed the “psychology of multiculturalism.” These three ways of conceptualizing multiculturalism will form the bulk of the present chapter. Research findings regarding the different positions will also be presented. At the end of the chapter, we will discuss the benefits of multiculturalism in light of the different conceptualizations.

Multiculturalism as pluralism

Cultural pluralism refers to the presence, within a single nation state, of multiple cultural communities (Brooks, 2002). Plural societies are made up of various kinds of cultural groups. These groups have been identified in Western societies by He and Kymlicka (2005) as:  indigenous peoples (such as Aboriginal peoples in Australia and Canada); Mobility

national minorities (such as Basque in Spain and France); and immigrant groups/ethnic groups (such as Chinese and Indian peoples in Malaysia and Singapore). However, other kinds of groups may be needed to adequately describe the composition of plural societies in other regions, such as Asia and Africa. These include cultural groups that transcend national borders (such as Kurds in Turkey, Iraq, and Iran); and those cultural groups that became incorporated into new nation states in Africa as a result of colonialism (such as Nigeria).

Types of cultural groups in plural societies

One approach to expanding this set of cultural groups is to note that groups of people and their individual members find themselves living in plural societies for a variety of reasons. Some people actually migrate themselves; some groups are the result of earlier generations of new settlements; and some have stayed where they are but have come to be dominated by the new settlement of others. Some migrate and are in contact voluntarily, whereas others are involuntarily in such situations. All of these result in the establishment of culturally plural societies, in which peoples of differing cultural backgrounds rub shoulders with each other on a daily basis. The contact situations that result in plural societies differ from each other because of these variations in reasons for new settlement. These differences have psychological implications, because they involve different motives, attitudes, coping strategies, and stress reactions. These variations are presented in Figure 5.1, arranged along three dimensions. The mobility dimension contrasts those peoples who move to another society (as migrants) with those who stay where they are; the voluntariness dimension contrasts those peoples who want to be in contact with those who do not; and the permanence dimension Voluntariness of contact




Ethnocultural groups

Indigenous peoples

Migrant Permanent temporary

Immigrants sojourners

Figure 5.1  Types of cultural groups in plural societies (From, Berry, 2006a).


Multicultural societies

Refugees Asylum seekers

contrasts those who are likely to remain in contact with those who may move away from contact. The types of contact situations generated by crossing these three dimensions reveal a number of well-known kinds of groups. Immigrants are those who (usually) move voluntarily to another society and who are there relatively permanently. In contrast, while sojourners have the same mobility and voluntary qualities as immigrants, they are only temporarily away from home (such as international students, diplomats, and guest workers). Ethnocultural groups are the descendents of earlier new settlements who have maintained a sense of their cultural origins and who form communities in their diasporas. They can derive from voluntary migrants (such as French-Canadians, Greek-Australians, and Chinese-Americans). They can also be derived from involuntary migrants (such as African communities of former slaves in the Caribbean and the United States), who now are generally in contact with others on a voluntary basis. Indigenous peoples are those who are already on their home territories, but are engaged in intercultural contact with those who have migrated there to colonize or dominate them. These contacts are often involuntary because they neither invited colonization, nor did they seek their incorporation into larger nation states with a subsequent presence in their lives by with potentially more political and economic power than themselves. In some societies (e.g., China, India), these groups are referred to as national minorities. Finally, nonvoluntary migrants are made up of refugees (who have been forced to migrate, but who have obtained the right to permanent settlement in a new society) and asylum seekers (who await a decision, often in camps, about their possible repatriation). In this chapter, those groups that have migrated (immigrants, sojourners, and refugees) are the main focus. These distinctions are neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive. For example, many sojourners (such as international students or domestic caregivers) are able to become immigrants after a period of time, and increasingly, there are transnational migrants who move from country to country, sometimes gaining citizenship in many countries. However, such distinctions serve to draw our attention to some psychological qualities that differentiate among types of groups. Most important among these psychological factors are the motivations to be in (or to avoid) intercultural contact. Among nondominant peoples, the attitudes toward contact will vary according to the degree of voluntariness: those

who have been imposed upon or those who have been uprooted are likely to have a negative orientation toward contact and change. Those who are only temporarily in contact may also have minimal interest in engaging in serious intercultural contact and change. Among members of the socially dominant people in the larger society, attitudes are also likely to vary. The reasons to colonize or enslave are likely to be rooted in negative attitudes toward those so treated. With respect to immigrants, there are large variations in dominant groups’ attitudes:  some view immigrants as an economic necessity to societal growth and as a source of cultural enrichment, whereas others see them as an economic and cultural threat to their society. Similarly, with respect to refugees, some view them as a threat, whereas others see them as an opportunity to put into practice their humanitarian values. See Berry (2006a) for an overview of these types of groups and their differential demographic, social and psychological characteristics.

Intercultural strategies in plural societies

There are two contrasting positions with respect to the continuation of such cultural diversity in plural societies. These are captured in the following two quotes: The whole continent of North America appears to be destined by Divine Providence to be peopled by one nation, speaking one language, professing one general system of religious and political principles, and accustomed to one general tenor of social usages and customs. (Quincy Adams; 1811; quoted in Sidney Lens, The Forging of the American Empire (Lens, 1974, p. 3.) We can easily conceive of a time when there will be only one culture and one civilization on the entire surface of the entire earth . . . I don’t believe that this will happen, because there are contradictory tendencies always at work—on the one hand toward homogenization and on the other toward new distinctions. (Levi-Strauss, 1978, p. 20)

These views represent a stark contrast between a vision of cultural (and possibly psychological) homogenization, and that of continuing diversification of societies and individuals. So, whose expectation has come to pass? It is clear that cultural homogenization has not taken place, at least to any deep extent. At a superficial level, such as the availability and adoption of mass cultural elements (e.g., films, food, and music) there is evidence of widespread acceptance. However, at a deeper level (such Berry, Sam


as basic values, identities, and religious beliefs and practices), it is difficult to accept that much homogenization has taken place (Berry, 2008); diversity seems to have remained very much intact in most societies. For example, after 500 years of colonization and domination, most indigenous peoples in the Western hemisphere continue to value and to practice their heritage cultures. Many researchers have come to the same conclusion. For example Legrain (2002) has argued that “globalisation is shorthand for how our lives are becoming increasingly intertwined with those of distant people and places around the world—­ economically, politically and culturally . . .[However] globalisation is a process, not a destination” (pp. 4 and 9). That is, there is no one end point (such as cultural homogeneity) to these increasing interconnections, and, as Knight (2000, p. 242) has pointed out, “the technologies that make global culture possible also facilitate the dissemination and hence revival of distinctive local cultures.” This return to one’s roots has been termed localization (in contrast to globalization). Second, the process of globalization may lead to the fragmentation of extant societies into more culturally specific nation states, rather than into larger more uniform cultural entities (e.g., the breakup of the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia into smaller, more culturally defined, nation states). Finally, there is now substantial psychological evidence (e.g., Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999; Schmitt & Branscombe, 2002) that one of the consequences of intercultural contact, particularly when it is negative or discriminatory,

is to react against it, to reject cultural domination, and to increase one’s identification with one’s own cultural community. If intercultural contact does not lead inevitably to a linear change from one’s heritage culture to a more dominant one, then multidimensional conceptions are required. One way to examine these various possible outcomes of intercultural contact in plural societies is to consider the intercultural strategies framework first developed by Berry over four decades ago (Berry, 1974, 1980 & 2003). The framework, developed in 1974, had three dimensions. The first is the relative preference for maintaining one’s heritage culture and identity. The second is the relative preference for having intercultural contact with, and participating in, the larger society along with other ethnocultural groups. The third is the role played by the larger society (its policies and institutions) in allowing or constraining these first two preferences. In the original (1974) framework these three dimensions produced eight ways of engaging in intercultural relations. These issues can be responded to as attitudinal dimensions, ranging from generally positive or negative orientations to these issues; their intersection defines eight strategies, portrayed in Figure 5.2. On the left are the four orientations from the point of view of nondominant peoples (both individuals and groups); on the right are the four views held by the dominant larger society. Among nondominant cultural groups, when they do not wish (or are not allowed) to maintain their cultural identity and do seek daily interaction

Issue 1: Maintenance of heritage culture and identity Issue 2: Relationships sought among groups



+ Integration






Melting pot Exclusion

– Strategies of ethnocultural groups

Strategies of larger society

Figure 5.2  Varieties of intercultural strategies in cultural groups and in the larger society (modified from Berry, 1980, 2003).


Multicultural societies

with other cultures, the assimilation strategy is defined. In contrast, when individuals place a value on holding on to their original culture, and at the same time wish to avoid interaction with others, then the separation alternative is defined. When there is an interest in both maintaining one’s original culture, while in daily interactions with other groups, integration is the option. This strategy is called integration because there is some degree of cultural integrity maintained, while preferring (as a member of an ethnocultural group) to participate as an integral part of the larger social network. Finally, when there is little possibility or interest in cultural maintenance (often for reasons of exclusion or discrimination by policies or practices in the larger society) then marginalization is defined. As noted earlier, these strategies are not just a matter of choice on the part of the nondominant individuals and groups. They are often constrained by the policies and attitudes in the larger society, including the multicultural ideology in the society (Berry, Kalin, & Taylor, 1977) and the acculturation expectations (Berry, 2003) in the general population (see later discussion on these interactive approaches). These three basic issues are sometimes approached only from the point of view of the nondominant cultural groups. However (as noted earlier), there is a powerful role played by the dominant group in influencing the way in which nondominant cultural groups would engage in intercultural relations (Berry, 1974). The inclusion of the views of the larger society (on the right side of Figure 5.2) reveals the complex, and interactive nature of these intercultural preferences. From the point of view of the larger society, assimilation, when sought by the dominant group, is termed the melting pot. When separation is forced by the dominant group it is called segregation. Marginalization, when imposed by the dominant group, is termed exclusion. Finally, when diversity maintenance and equitable participation are widely accepted features of the society as a whole, integration is called multiculturalism. Note that, in this framework, the concepts of integration and multiculturalism are mutually consistent (rather than opposed to each other). Extensions and empirical examinations of this framework have been carried out by numerous research groups (e.g., Bourhis, Moise, Perreault, & Senecal, 1997; Horenczyk & Munayer, 2007; Piontkowski, Rohmann, & Florack, 2002; Navas, Rojas, Garcia, and Pumares, 2007). Bourhis et  al (1997) developed an interactive acculturation model (IAM) that made more explicit the complex

relationships that exist when the acculturation attitudes and expectations of both the nondominant and dominant groups are examined together. They built on the observations of Berry (1974, 1980) that acculturating individuals and groups pursue acculturation in a larger sociopolitical context, in which their own preferences may match (or not) those of public policies and attitudes in the larger society. They also proposed a fifth orientation to acculturation, which they termed “individualism” (an orientation that considers culture to be unimportant, and emphasizes the individuals’ own personal preferences, separate from culture). This is typically found among young people who prefer to avoid connections to any particular cultural community. In Spain, the IAM was expanded by Navas et al (2007) to a relative acculturation extended model (RAEM). This framework further differentiated acculturation into the ideal and the real (preferences and actual acculturation practices), as well as into the various daily domains in which acculturation takes place (political, economic, work, family, and social relations). In Germany, Rohmann, Florack, and Piontkowski (2006) and Piontkowski et al. (2002) developed the concordance model of acculturation (CAM) to compare the acculturation attitudes of nondominant and dominant groups, within which they created four types of concordance/discordance (matching or mismatching) attitudes. They found that the greater the degree of mismatch, the greater will be the degree of threat and the less will be the possibility of the intercultural encounters being viewed as enriching. In Israel, Horenczyk and Munayer (2007) expanded the Berry framework in another way: they took into account the very complex character of intercultural relations in Israeli society in their study of the acculturation attitudes of Palestinian Arab Christians (whom they term a “double minority”) who must deal with two majorities (Israeli Jews and Muslim Arabs). In addition, they examined their perception of the acculturation expectations held by these two kinds of majority peers. This approach allows for the elaboration of the basic framework to take such special acculturative relations into account. These further elaborations all accept the basic features of the original acculturation framework. First is the assertion that there are differing ways in which individuals and groups pursue their acculturation. Second is the view that there may be inconsistencies in these psychological features:  between attitudes and behavior; between different domains Berry, Sam


of daily life; and between the nondominant and dominant communities in any acculturation arena. When these four strategies are assessed in nondominant groups, integration is usually found to be the most preferred by the nondominant groups and individuals. The integration/multiculturalism strategy (as an expectation) is also often preferred by members of the larger society. However, there are usually variations in these intercultural preferences among both nondominant groups and the larger society (see Berry, 2005, for a review of the evidence). These relative preferences for intercultural strategies are related to a number of psychological and social factors. The most important is the discrimination experienced by an individual; less discrimination is usually reported by nondominant individuals opting for integration and assimilation, whereas more is experienced by those opting for separation or marginalization (see Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder’s, 2006, study of immigrant youth reviewed later). This is an example of the reciprocity of intercultural attitudes found in research (reviewed by Berry, 2006b); if persons (such as immigrants) feel rejected by others in the larger society, they reciprocate this rejection by choosing a strategy that avoids contact with others outside their own group. For example, immigrants who report experiencing high levels of discrimination often opt for the separation strategy (see Berry et al, 2006, discussed later). In the same immigrant youth study, the reasons for migration also played a role; refugees who flee their society tend to adopt a positive orientation to the society of settlement (through assimilation), whereas guest workers, who are often only in a new place temporarily, tend to adopt a separation strategy (Berry, 2010). Similarly, many develop a reactive identity, in which the experience of discrimination leads to a stronger identification with their own cultural community (Branscombe et al., 1999; Kruusvall, Vetik, & Berry, 2009).

Multiculturalism as policy

The issue of how to manage intercultural relations in culturally diverse societies has been at the forefront of public and private discussions in plural societies for centuries. In the contemporary world, this question took on some urgency following the massive population upheavals during and following the World War II (Borrie, 1959), and it has continued unabated in the period since as further upheavals appear with great frequency due to natural and man-made disasters and conflicts, as well as to economic development and globalization. 102

Multicultural societies

For a long time, in many plural societies, the general and common orientation to this question was to pursue the absorption of indigenous peoples, national minorities, and newcomers (e.g., immigrants and refugees) through a policy of assimilation, with the goal of creating a society with one language, one identity, and one shared set of values. However, in the UNESCO conference in 1956 in Havana, on “The Cultural Integration of Immigrants” (Borrie, 1959), there was a beginning shift away from assimilation to integration (as distinguished earlier in Figure 5.2). For example, the presentation to the conference by the Canadian government (1956) argued that their policy toward immigrants should reflect the political and cultural patterns of Canadian society. This pattern includes “ . . . a society built on the ideas of individual worth and cultural differences . . . The pressure of one dominant group to assimilate, that is to absorb others, is therefore impracticable as a general theory” (quoted in Borrie, 1959, p. 51). Although many other societies continued with the general goal of assimilation (e.g., France, Israel, United States), others (including Australia, Canada, and New Zealand) began to consider alternatives, most notably that of multiculturalism as a vehicle to achieve integration (and as a way to avoid the alternatives of assimilation/melting pot, separation/segregation, and marginalization/ exclusion). Three international overviews of immigration and incorporation have been published recently where comparisons are made regarding levels of integration or multiculturalism in various countries (see Bloemraad, 2011; Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX), 2012; and Vigdor, 2011). These surveys reveal a number of commonalities across societies (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, a number of European countries, and the United States), despite their focus on different aspects of immigration. The first survey by the Migration Information Source (see Bloemraad, 2011) examines the policies of multiculturalism in various countries, and it tracks changes over the years from 1980 to 2010. It uses the Multiculturalism Policy Index, which is a project to evaluate the multicultural policies and practices in many contemporary democracies. This index was developed by Banting and Kymlicka (2006; see Multiculturalism Policy Index, http:// It includes a set of criteria to assess the degree of promotion of multiculturalism (by policy and practice) in a plural society. They proposed nine criteria with which to place

societies on a dimension of acceptance of multiculturalism. Among these is the existence of:  a government policy promoting multiculturalism, a multicultural ministry or secretariat, adoption of multiculturalism in the school curriculum, ethnic representation in the media, exemptions of cultural groups from codes that are rooted in the dominant society (e.g., Sunday closing), allowance of dual citizenship, funding of cultural organizations, and funding of bilingual or heritage language instruction. The rankings put Australia and Canada in first place, followed by Sweden, New Zealand, Belgium, and the United Kingdom. Toward the middle are Spain, Portugal and the United States. Lowest placed are France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, and Denmark. Of particular interest is the Netherlands, which was rather high in 2000, but dropped to a low score in 2010. The Dutch case may be a reflection of changes in their approach to multiculturalism, beginning from their traditional openness and liberal democratic values, through “pillarization,” in which groups were allowed to exist with little interaction with others, to frustration over parallel lives created with no demands on any form of integration (Fleras, 2009). The second survey is the “Migrant Integration Policy Index” (see MIPEX, 2012). This survey includes indicators of migrant integration in a number of domains: labor mobility, family reunion, education, political participation, long-term residence, access to nationality and anti-discrimination laws; it also presents an overall score. The overall rankings place Sweden in first place, followed by Portugal, Canada, Finland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain,the United States, Italy, Luxembourg, Germany, the United Kingdom, Denmark, and France. The third survey by the Manhattan Institute (see Vigdor, 2011) is concerned with immigrant assimilation in North America and Europe. The use of the term assimilation in the title is rather misleading, since it does not assess the giving up (or loss) of heritage culture, which is part of our conception of assimilation; it assesses only involvement in civic, cultural, and economic domains of the larger society (and also provides a composite index). The comparison of immigration countries on overall immigrant incorporation provides the following ranking: Canada, Portugal, United States, Greece, Austria, France, Spain, Switzerland and Italy. With respect to naturalization rates, the ranking is Canada, Portugal, Netherlands, United States, Greece, Austria, France, Spain, Switzerland, and

Italy. When these indicators of incorporation are examined by immigrant origin, the rankings remain much the same: for Muslim immigrants, the ranking is: Canada, the United States, Portugal, Spain; for Chinese immigrants, the ranking is Canada, United States, Portugal, Austria, Spain . . .; and for Southeast Asian immigrants, the ranking is Canada, United States, Austria, Spain, Greece. Not all countries are represented in all three surveys. However, we may conclude that there are rather consistent variations across these countries in the extent to which they incorporate immigrants from various origins. At the top are Canada, Australia, Sweden, New Zealand and Portugal; toward the middle are Finland, Belgium, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States; toward the bottom are France, Germany, and Italy

Framework for understanding multiculturalism

A framework to understand the goals, components and relationships of multiculturalism policies is presented in Figure 5.3. The fundamental goal of most multiculturalism policies is to enhance mutual acceptance among all ethnocultural groups (upper right) in order to achieve more harmonious (and less conflicted) intercultural relations. This goal can be approached through three program components: On the upper left is the cultural component, which is to be achieved by providing support and encouragement for cultural maintenance and development among all ethnocultural groups. The second component is the social/ intercultural component (lower left), which seeks the sharing of cultural expressions, by providing opportunities for intergroup contact, and the removal barriers to full and equitable participation in the daily life of the larger society. Antidiscrimination laws, policies advocating employment and educational equity, and standards for showing intercultural activities in the media, are all examples of the promotion of this intercultural component. The third feature is the intercultural communication component (which also promotes interculturalism), in the lower right corner of ­Figure  5.3. This represents the linguistic reality of most plural societies, and promotes the learning of one or more official languages as a means for all ethnocultural groups to engage in intercultural interactions with each other, and to participate in the national life of the larger society. It is essential to note that this basic concept of multiculturalism, and of multiculturalism policies, Berry, Sam


Policy goal Multiculturalism hypothesis Confidence/Security

ct nta s C o thesi po y H

Communication component

Social component Intergroup contact and participation

Mutual acceptance among all ethnocultural groups


Integration hypothesis Maintenance and participation

Ethnocultural group maintenance and development


Cultural component

Communicative Competence

Learning official languages

Figure 5.3  Goals, components, and relationships in multiculturalism policies (modified from Berry, 1984).

requires that both the cultural and intercultural aspects are legislated and acted upon. The maintenance of heritage cultures and identities (the cultural component) and the full and equitable participation of all ethnocultural groups in the life of the larger society (the intercultural component) are both necessary. Together, and in balance with each other, it should be possible to achieve the multicultural vision. That is, multiculturalism involves not only promoting the maintenance and development of cultural communities within a plural society, but also the promotion of intercultural contact (sometimes referred to as interculturalism). However, in some societies (particularly in Europe and the United States; see later) there is a common misunderstanding that multiculturalism means only the presence of many independent cultural communities in a society (only cultural maintenance), without their equitable participation and incorporation into a larger society. This latter view seems to have been the basis of recent assertions in some European societies (e.g., in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom) that “multiculturalism has failed.” For example, the British Prime Minister David Cameron, in response to the riots occurring in London between August 6–10, 2011 (see Wikipedia, 2011) reiterated his position in a speech he gave during the Munich Security Conference 104

Multicultural societies

that stated that multiculturalism in “Britain had encouraged different cultures to live separate lives” . . . and that, “the United Kingdom needed a stronger national identity to prevent people turning to all kinds of extremism” (BBC News, 2011; Number 10, 2011). From the perspective outlined earlier, multiculturalism has not failed because it was not really attempted in these societies. If multiculturalism is viewed and accepted only as the tolerated presence of different cultures in a society, without the simultaneous promotion of inclusion through programs to reduce barriers to equitable participation, then a form of segregation is the correct name for such policies and practices. This view seems to have been recognized by Cameron. However, the solution proposed by Cameron (Number 10, 2011) to the problem of segregation is more homogeneity (“stronger national identity”) rather than the pursuit of the double-engagement option articulated in the vision of multiculturalism. The extreme form of the view proposed by Cameron may be the one by the Norwegian nationalist, Anders Breivik in his manifesto to rid Western Europe of multiculturalism (see Breivik, 2011), and followed up on his manifest by killing over 70 people in July 2011. The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI, 2011) recently concluded that

their “ . . . investigations in all European countries are showing a worrying pattern of rising racism. Governments need to be aware of the threat, work to strengthen laws and institutions against discrimination and give a clear message that xenophobia can never be tolerated in modern society.” The report warns that attacks on multiculturalism (as articulated by national political leaders) could lead to fragmented societies and calls on Governments to up their efforts to promote intercultural dialogue: “The answer to the current debate on multiculturalism is strict adherence to a common set of principles, including non-discrimination and tolerance” (ECRI, 2011). In addition to the four aforementioned components (positive mutual attitudes, cultural maintenance, intercultural contact, and language learning) there are links among them. The first, is termed the multiculturalism hypothesis, and is expressed in the Canadian policy statement as the belief that confidence in one’s cultural identity will lead to sharing, respect for others, and to the reduction of discriminatory attitudes. Berry et al. (1977) identified this belief as an assumption with psychological roots, and as being amenable to empirical evaluation. A second link in Figure 5.3 is the hypothesis that when individuals and groups are “doubly engaged” (in both their heritage cultures and in the larger society) they will be more successful in their lives. This success is essentially a higher level of well-being, in both psychological and social domains. This proposal is the integration hypothesis, in which involvement with, competence in, and confidence in both cultural communities provides the social capital that is essential for success in intercultural living. The integration hypothesis has been largely supported by a recent meta-analysis (Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2013; see details later). A third link portrayed in Figure 5.3 is the contact hypothesis, by which contact and sharing is considered to promote mutual acceptance under certain conditions, especially that of equality (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). Some empirical evidence related to each of these three hypotheses will be presented in a later section. In the rest of this section, we will present some of the central tenets in multiculturalism as policy in some specific countries (Canada, Australia, the United States and France) and in the European Union. These represent the range of countries that are grappling with multicultural issues, from the most explicitly multicultural (Canada) to the least multicultural (France). The policy of the European

Union is also presented because it represents a communal policy that is explicitly multicultural, but is largely at odds with the views and practices of many member states.


Canada has high scores on the three international surveys reviewed earlier. As early as 1971, the Canadian government announced a “Policy of Multiculturalism within a Bilingual Framework.” In a comprehensive overview of the evolution of human rights in Canada, Yalden, (2009, p.  33) noted that this was the very first use of this term in a public document. Since then, other countries (e.g., Australia and the European Union) have developed multiculturalism and integration policies to deal with their own specific features of cultural pluralism. The multicultural vision was enunciated in Canada in 1971, with an announcement by the Federal government of a “Policy of Multiculturalism.” This is a key section of the policy, with implications for intercultural relations: A policy of multiculturalism within a bilingual framework . . .. (is) the most suitable means of assuring the cultural freedom of all Canadians. Such a policy should help to break down discriminatory attitudes and cultural jealousies. National unity, if it is to mean anything in the deeply personal sense, must be founded on confidence on one’s own individual identity; out of this can grow respect for that of others, and a willingness to share ideas, attitudes and assumptions . . .. The Government will support and encourage the various cultural and ethnic groups that give structure and vitality to our society. They will be encouraged to share their cultural expression and values with other Canadians and so contribute to a richer life for all. (Government of Canada, 1971, pp. 8545–8546)

Note that the concern with a “willingness to share ideas, attitudes and assumptions” is the interculturalism part of the policy. From this statement, we discerned a number of ideas that were ripe for social psychological examination (from Berry, 1984). As with most multiculturalism policies, the clear and fundamental goal of the policy is to enhance mutual acceptance among all cultural groups (Berry, 1997a). This goal has been approached through two main program components:  a cultural component, by providing support and encouragement for cultural maintenance and development among all cultural groups Berry, Sam


(including dominant and nondominant ethnocultural groups); and a social/intercultural component that seeks the sharing of cultural expressions by providing opportunities for intergroup contact and the removal of barriers to full and equitable participation in the daily life of the larger society. Together, and in balance with each other, it should be possible to achieve the multicultural vision. There is a clear similarity between the two components of the Canadian multiculturalism policy and the two dimensions underlying the intercultural strategies framework (Figure 5.2): both cultural maintenance and equitable participation are required for multiculturalism (and integration) to be achieved. These initiatives were consolidated in 1988 with the passing of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Among its provisions are to: (a) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage; (b) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian heritage and identity and that it provides an invaluable resource in the shaping of Canada’s future; (c) promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to that participation; and (d) recognize the existence of communities whose members share a common origin and their historic contribution to Canadian society, and enhance their development. (p. 2)

An overview of the 1971 policy and the1988 Act, and of research on their implementation and consequences can be found in Berry and Laponce (1994).


Australia also has high scores on the three international surveys reviewed earlier. However, until the 1960s, Australian public policy was essentially assimilationist. This earlier policy was “  .  .  .  that migrants should shed their cultures and languages and rapidly become indistinguishable from the host population” (Commonwealth of Australia, 2003). In 1973, the Commonwealth government issued a policy statement called “A Multi-Cultural Society for the Future” in which it recommended a public 106

Multicultural societies

policy of multiculturalism, and in 1977, it issued a report called “Australia as a Multicultural Society.” These statements offer a multicultural vision that is reflected in four principles: 1. Responsibilities of all—all Australians have a civic duty to support those basic structures and principles of Australian society which guarantee us our freedom and equality and enable diversity in our society to flourish; 2. Respect for each person—subject to the law, all Australians have the right to express their own culture and beliefs and have a reciprocal obligation to respect the right of others to do the same. 3. Fairness for each person—all Australians are entitled to equality of treatment and opportunity. Social equity allows us all to contribute to the social, political and economic life of Australia. 4. Benefits for all—all Australians benefit from the significant cultural, social and economic dividends arising from the diversity of our population. Diversity works for all Australians. (p. 8)

These statements emphasize and affirm the same core components that are the basis of the Canadian policy. The cultural component is articulated by:  “Australian multiculturalism recognises, accepts, respects and celebrates cultural diversity. It embraces the heritage of Indigenous Australians, early European settlement, our Australian-grown customs and those of the diverse range of migrants now coming to this country.” The social component is articulated by: “the Government is committed to ensuring that all Australians have the opportunity to be active and equal participants in Australian society, free to live their lives and maintain their cultural traditions.”

United States of America

In the United States, there is no apparent official policy on these issues. Scores for the United States on the three international surveys were medium to low, possibly reflecting this lack of a policy to promote multiculturalism. This reflects the public debate, which has generally come down more on the side of advocating cultural uniformity (starting with Adams, as noted in the earlier quotation ). This early orientation was further supported by John Jay ( First American Supreme Court chief justice) who judged that “Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people— a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very

similar in their manners and customs . . ..” However, later, William James (1909) promoted a plural vision for the United States, in which he considered pluralism as “crucial to the formation of philosophical and social humanism to help build a better, more egalitarian society.” The debate has moved back and forth in recent years. The swing toward the acceptance of multiculturalism was examined by Glazer (1997), who provocatively announced that “we are all multiculturalists now.” He reviewed the major changes in the United States toward the promotion and acceptance of cultural diversity in society and its institutions, especially in public education. The main contemporary proponent of the earlier view of homogeneity is Huntington (2004), who has predicted that the United States will wane if its founding Anglo-Protestant character is diminished any further. He argues that current immigration, from Latin America and elsewhere, brings other cultural values and languages that undermine this core United States culture. His solution is clearly on the side of the pursuit of a return to the unitary view of society, where cultural diversity is to be restricted in the search for a common identity. In the United States, even in the absence of a formal multiculturalism policy, cultural diversity is recognized and tolerated to some extent (even promoted in public institutions such as schools and universities); however, substantial variation remains in the status (education, health, employment, overall wealth) of the main social and cultural communities.


Unlike Australia and Canada, France has rather low scores on the three surveys, and it has exhibited (both historically, and at the present time) an orientation toward ethnic and cultural diversity that limits the public expression of other cultural traditions. Such an orientation has been referred to as the “Republican model” (see Sabatier & Boutry, 2006 for an overview of this policy orientation). This goal of cultural homogeneity (which is the opposite of the cultural component of multiculturalism, as defined in Figure 5.2) is accompanied by support for participation and equality (which is the social/ intercultural component of multiculturalism policy). This combination is essentially one that seeks a melting pot, in which cultural communities and their individual members are expected to become French like all others in France. However, substantial discrimination has largely limited the attainment of this goal (see Berry & Sabatier, 2010), leading less to

assimilation and more to marginalization, especially among youth of North African origin.

European Union

In the European Union (2005), a set of Common Basic Principles for Immigrant Integration Policy in the EU was adopted in 2005. This is the first of these principles: Integration is a dynamic, two-way process of mutual accommodation by all immigrants and residents of Member States. Integration is a dynamic, long-term, and continuous two-way process of mutual accommodation, not a static outcome. It demands the participation not only of immigrants and their descendants but of every resident. The integration process involves adaptation by immigrants, both men and women, who all have rights and responsibilities in relation to their new country of residence. It also involves the receiving society, which should create the opportunities for the immigrants’ full economic, social, cultural, and political participation. Accordingly, Member States are encouraged to consider and involve both immigrants and national citizens in integration policy, and to communicate clearly their mutual rights and responsibilities. (p. 1).

In these EU principles, the three cornerstones of multiculturalism are evident: the right of all peoples to maintain their cultures; the right to participate fully in the life of the larger society; and the obligation for all groups (both the dominant and nondominant) to engage in a process of mutual change. However, as noted for France, and in recent pronouncements in the United Kingdom, such multicultural principles are far from evident in practice.

Psychology of multiculturalism

In this section, we present a selective review of empirical psychological studies of multiculturalism. The first is a portrayal of attitudes and ideologies pertaining to the main components of multiculturalism policies (as illustrated in the boxes of Figure  5.3):  the pursuit of intercultural acceptance through the promotion of diversity and of intercultural engagement. Then we examine evidence for the validity of the three main links in Figure 5.3: the multiculturalism hypothesis; the integration hypothesis; and the contact hypothesis.

Multicultural attitudes

Research on the public acceptance of multiculturalism as a concept and policy began with the Berry, Sam


research by Berry et al. (1977) in Canada, and has continued in a number of countries (e.g., in the Netherlands by Breugelmans & van de Vijver, 2004, and van de Vijver, Breugelmans & Schalk-Soekar, 2008; in New Zealand by Ward & Masgoret, 2009; and in Australia by Dandy & Pe-Pua, 2010). The attitudes examined include multicultural ideology, the perceived consequences of multiculturalism, and attitudes toward multicultural programs (all developed by Berry et al., 1977). The initial studies in Canada revealed a generally positive view of multiculturalism. The most basic concept is that of multicultural ideology; this refers to the general acceptance of a multicultural way of living together in a plural society (Berry, et  al., 1977, pp. 131-134). There are three elements to this ideology. The first two elements have been already discussed with respect to the strategies framework (cultural maintenance and equitable participation by all ethnocultural groups); there is a third feature to multicultural ideology—the acceptance by the dominant group that they also need to change in order to achieve some mutual accommodation. In these studies, these three components combined to become a broad ideological orientation toward how respondents believe individuals and groups should accommodate each other in the larger society. Items were developed that assessed these views, phrased both positively and negatively. Positive items included:  “Canada would be a better place if members of ethnic groups would keep their own way of life alive” (cultural maintenance); “There is a lot that Canadians can gain from friendly relations with immigrants” (intercultural contact); and “We should all do more to learn about the customs and heritage of different ethnic and cultural groups in this country” (expressing intercultural engagement, for both dominant and nondominant groups). Negative items included “If members of ethnic groups want to keep their own culture, they should keep it to themselves, and not bother the rest of us” (expressing segregation, and negative with respect to contact). Items also expressed the basic ideas that cultural diversity is a public resource and is something to be valued by a society. Results generally supported its construct validity (e.g., Berry et al., 1977; Berry & Kalin, 1995); and it forms part of a complex set of relationships with other conceptually similar scales (negatively with ethnocentrism, and positively with ethnic tolerance and attitudes toward immigration). However, conceptually it is explicitly related more to the idea that diversity is a resource for a society, and that all 108

Multicultural societies

groups, including the dominant ones, need to share and adapt to each other in order for there to be harmonious intercultural relations among culturally diverse groups in the larger society. Results also showed that a large majority of Canadians endorsed multicultural ideology as the way for groups to relate to each other. In the first national survey, 63.9% of respondents were on the positive side of the scale, and this rose to 69.3 % in the second survey. Overall, we can say that Canadians support this way of living together by a large and growing margin; we can also say that there is a rather happy coinciding of public opinion with public policy (Adams, 2007). Multicultural ideology has also been assessed in New Zealand by Ward and Masgoret (2009) and in Australia by Dandy and Pe-Pua (2010). In both countries, they found a generally positive orientation to multicultural ideology. With respect to the perceived consequences of multiculturalism (Berry et al, 1977), the scale included items such as: “If Canada pursues a policy of multiculturalism, Canada will be richer in culture.” The overall level of agreement was 61.0% in the 1977 survey; this increased to 78.8% in the 1995 survey. For attitudes toward multicultural programs (e.g., support for funding “Community centres where people from various cultural backgrounds can meet each other and share their heritage,” there was 68% overall agreement in 1977, increasing to 93.8 % in 1995. This shows an increasing level of support for the intercultural aspects of the policy. Overall, there is a clearly positive view about pursuing multiculturalism; there is a high level of support for the policy, and this rose between the two surveys. However, these attitudes vary according to the ethnic origin of respondents, with those of British origin being more positive that those of French origin; those of other origins are the most positive. Jedwab (2002) has reviewed surveys of public attitudes toward multiculturalism in Canada over a 30-year period (1971 to 2001). He notes that responses to items such as “the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians is an objective that the government should support” is agreed to by 82% of respondents, and that it “enhances the value of Canadian citizenship” has the support of 80%. It is evident that there continues to be widespread support for the multicultural way of arranging the various cultural lives in Canada (Adams, 2007). In New Zealand, Ward and Masgoret (2009) surveyed over 2,000 adults, mostly of European

background (70%) and New Zealand born (76%). The issues addressed included attitudes toward multiculturalism, immigrants, acculturation expectations, contact, and perceived threat. In general, there was widespread support for multiculturalism. Indicators of support were over 80% for most items in the survey. In a comparative perspective (based on data from Eurobarometer, 2000), the New Zealand sample had the highest level of support (89%), more than in Australia (85%) and in European countries (Sweden at 77% through to Greece at 26%) In Australia (Dandy & Pe-Pua, 2010; Liu, 2007), research has shown an overall positive orientation to multiculturalism, with mean scores on a variety of measures (e.g., perceived consequence of immigration) being well above the scale midpoints. Dandy and Pe-Pua (2010) sampled 248 overseas-born and 483 Australian-born respondents. They found a generally positive attitude toward multiculturalism, but they found no significant differences between those born outside Australia than those born in Australia. An examination of multicultural attitudes has been carried out in the Netherlands by Van de Vijver et  al. (2008).They defined the concept as “the acceptance of and support for the plural nature of a society among mainstreamers and immigrant groups.” Using a scale to assess multicultural attitudes (based on the earlier multicultural ideology scale), they found that multiculturalism is “a multifaceted, unifactorial attitude with a good cross-cultural equivalence” (p.  93). As in much social attitude research, an individual’s level of education was positively related to support for multiculturalism. They also provided evidence of stability over time in these attitudes in the Netherlands; this is in contrast to a gradual increase in support found in Canada (Adams, 2007; Kymlicka, 2007) over the years since its inception. As noted earlier (van de Vijver et al., 2008), one feature of research findings in the Netherlands is that there is a difference between the public and private domains of life in which an individual or cultural community can express its cultural maintenance. In much of this research, it was found that it is acceptable to express one’s heritage culture in the family and in the community, but that it should not be expressed in public domains, such as in educational or work institutions. This view is opposed to the basic principles outlined by the European Union, where the process is identified as one of mutual accommodation. If such a distinction

between the acceptance of heritage cultural maintenance in family and community, versus its rejection in public life and institutions becomes even more widespread, it is likely that there will be more segregation and less integration, possibly leading to more claims that “multiculturalism has failed.” However, as argued earlier, this limited acceptance of diversity is not multiculturalism at all. An international comparison of attitudes toward multiculturalism (Leong & Ward, 2006) used information from the Eurobarometer (2000) survey of 15 countries. Scales assessed seven attitudes, including blaming minorities, multicultural optimism, and cultural assimilation. They used an average of these scale scores, and related them to a number of other variables (including socioeconomic indicators, and the values of Hofstede (2001) and Schwartz’(2006); see ­chapter 4). Higher socioeconomic levels were associated with greater support for multiculturalism, and some values (e.g., Schwartz’s humanitarianism/egalitarianism) were also positively related. In contrast, other values (e.g., Schwartz’s conservatism, and Hofstede’s collectivism) were negatively related to the acceptance of multiculturalism. These findings are in keeping with the relationship commonly found between status (education, SES) and more open and liberal attitudes.

Multiculturalism hypothesis

Following from the Canadian policy, Berry et al. (1977, p. 192) proposed the multiculturalism hypothesis. This is expressed in the policy statement that confidence in one’s identity will lead to sharing, respect for others, and to the reduction of discriminatory attitudes. This form of confidence is the one identified as achieved identity by Phinney (see Phinney, 1990), and as secure attachment by van Oudenhoven (Bakker, van van Oudenhoven, & van der Zee, 2004; van Oudenhoven, 2006). This hypothesis is illustrated by the link along the top of Figure 5.3 between heritage cultural maintenance and the attainment of positive mutual attitudes. In addition to the initial proposal in the 1971 policy statement regarding a sense of confidence allowing individuals to accept those who are culturally different, the Canadian policy (Heritage Canada, 1999) further asserts that “Multiculturalism ensures that all citizens can keep their identities, can take pride in their ancestry and have a sense of belonging. Acceptance gives Canadians a feeling of security and self-confidence making them open to and accepting of diverse cultures.” Berry, Sam


Three varieties of the multiculturalism hypothesis have been distinguished by Moghaddam (2008b). The first, as just discussed, refers to the relationship between in-group confidence/security, and the acceptance of other groups. The second concerns the relationship between in-group affiliation and out-group rejection. Here, the hypothesis is that there is no necessary relationship between the strength of in-group associations and rejection of out-groups. As Brewer (1999) noted, “in-group love is not a precursor of out-group hate.” The third variety of the multiculturalism hypothesis concerns differential endorsement of multiculturalism by dominant and nondominant cultural groups. For example, “when minority groups endorse assimilation rather than multiculturalism, they are supporting their own ‘melting away’.” “When majority groups endorse assimilation, they are more likely endorsing their own survival” (Moghaddam, 2008b, p.  153). Hence, the multiculturalism hypothesis needs to distinguish between the views of dominant and nondominant groups. The multiculturalism hypothesis has been examined empirically in a number of studies in different countries (Berry et al., 1977; Berry, 2006b: Phinney, Jacoby & Silva, 2007; Verkuyten, 2005). In Canada, Berry et al. (1977) considered that this confidence involves a sense of security; conversely it is manifested as a sense of threat to one’s cultural group. The multiculturalism hypothesis, as indicated earlier, is that a sense of security in one’s identity is a psychological precondition for the acceptance of those who are culturally different. Conversely, when one’s identity is threatened, people will reject others, whether they are members of other cultural groups or immigrants to the society (see Schwartz, Vignoles, Brown, & Zagefka, this volume). In two national surveys in Canada (Berry et al. 1977; Berry & Kalin, 2000; reviewed by Berry, 2006b), the concept of security was developed to capture the notion of confidence contained in the Canadian multiculturalism policy. Measures of cultural security and economic security were created with respect to extant diversity, and the continuing flow of immigration. In more recent studies (Berry, 2006b) in Canada, we used three measures of security (cultural, economic, and personal):  “ I am concerned about losing my cultural identity”; “This country is prosperous and wealthy enough for everyone to feel secure”; “A person’s chances of living a safe, untroubled life are better today than ever before.” These three aspects of security are positively related to each other, and to the acceptance of 110

Multicultural societies

multiculturalism, of immigrants, and of a number of specific ethnocultural and immigrant groups. We thus conclude that the multiculturalism hypothesis has received support from research in Canada. In Australia, Dandy and Pe-Pua (2010) found support for the hypothesis. In the total sample, correlations between security and multicultural ideology was +0.30, and + 0.41 with the perceived consequences of multiculturalism. Research in New Zealand by Ward and Masgoret (2008) employed a large national sample to examine relationships among intercultural contacts, perceived threat (symbolic and realistic), multicultural ideology, and attitudes toward immigrants. Using structural equation modeling, the authors revealed significant relationships among these variables:  “ . . . a strong Multicultural Ideology, high levels of Contact, and low levels of Intergroup Threat relate directly to positive Attitudes toward Immigrants, and these attitudes in turn strongly relate to the endorsement of immigration policies concerning migrant numbers and source” (p. 234). In the United States, Phinney et al., (2007) carried out two studies to examine the relationship between ethnic identities and attitudes toward cultural groups in a large sample of university students from different ethnocultural groups. The first study showed that Asian and Latino Americans who had an achieved (i.e., a secure) identity reported significantly more positive intergroup attitudes than those with a diffuse (i.e., unsecured) cultural identity. In their second study, using qualitative methods with adolescents from five ethnic groups, they assessed ethnic identity and attitudes. Again, results “showed that ethnic identity achieved adolescents, compared to diffuse adolescents, gave responses indicating greater awareness and understanding of intergroup relations. Overall, the results provide evidence that a secure ethnic identity is associated with positive intergroup attitudes and mature intercultural thinking” (p. 478). Parallel research on the relationship between security (i.e., the lack of realistic and symbolic threats) and out-group acceptance has been carried out using the integrated threat hypothesis (see e.g., Riek, Mania, & Gaertner, 2006; Stephan, Renfro, Esses, Stephan, & Martin, 2005). This hypothesis argues that a sense of threat to a person’s identity (the converse of a secure cultural identity) will lead to rejection of the group that is the source of threat, and, in some cases, to an enhanced ethnic identity (called reactive identity). Much of this research on threat has been examined in a meta-analysis by

Riek et  al., (2006). Different types of threat have been studied, including realistic threat (e.g., due to real group conflict over resources), symbolic threat (e.g., conflicting values and beliefs), and intergroup anxiety (e.g., uncertainty about how to relate to the out-group). Using a sample of 95 published studies, they found significant correlations (ranging from 0.42 to 0.46 for the various forms of threat) between threat and out-group attitudes. They also found that the status of the group moderated these relationships:  for out-groups with low status (e.g., ethnic minorities) anxiety had a stronger relationship with negative out-group attitudes than when out-groups were of relatively high status. In general, they concluded that: “the results of the meta-analysis indicate that intergroup threat has an important relationship with out-group attitudes. As people perceive more intergroup competition, more value violations, higher levels of intergroup anxiety, more group esteem threats, and endorse more negative stereotypes, negative attitudes toward out-groups increase” (p. 345). Research by Verkuyten (2005) in the Netherlands was also intended to examine the multiculturalism hypothesis, using samples of Turkish-Dutch and Dutch university students. However, in seeking to evaluate the multiculturalism hypothesis, Verkuyten did not assess identity security. Instead he assessed the strength of in-group identity and own-group evaluation. These were assessed by scales seeking how much an individual identified with their in-group, and how positively they evaluated it. This confusion between security of identity and strength of identity, and positive in-group evaluation, was addressed by Berry (1984) who argued that they are not at all the same concepts. In ethnocentrism theory, a strong ethnic identity and positive evaluation of the in-group are known to be related to out-group rejection, whereas the multiculturalism hypothesis proposes that a high level of identity security is related to out-group acceptance. As argued by Berry (1984, pp. 363–364): “ . . . we need to distinguish between two forms of ‘confidence’. If we mean simply ‘own group glorification’, or ‘strongly positive ingroup attitudes’, then ethnocentrism theory . . . predicts an opposite relationship.” Indeed, in the national survey conducted by Berry et  al., (1977) “the more positively one rated one’s own group, the more negatively they rated all other groups . . . However, multiculturalism policy and programs do not intend to develop confidence by enhancing own-group glorification. If we render the notion of confidence as a ‘sense of security’ . . . then

there is evidence of a positive relation with ethnic tolerance”. We conclude that since first being introduced, the multiculturalism hypothesis has largely been supported. Various feelings of security and threat appear to be part of the psychological underpinnings of the acceptance of multiculturalism. Whether phrased in positive terms (security is a prerequisite for tolerance of others and the acceptance of diversity), or in negative terms (threats to, or anxiety about, one’s cultural identity and cultural rights underpins prejudice), there is little doubt that there are intimate links between being accepted by others and accepting others. However, when the hypothesis is examined using other feelings (such as positive in-group evaluation or strength of ethnic identity) rather than identity security or confidence, the opposite (ethnocentric) relationship is found.

Integration Hypothesis

This hypothesis is that individuals who both maintain their heritage cultures and identities, and who also engage with the larger society (that is, those who pursue the integration strategy) are likely to be more successful than those who pursue only one of these (that is, those who pursue assimilation or separation) or who pursue neither (that is, who are marginal). This hypothesis is illustrated down the left side of Figure 5.3, where there is a joint pursuit of the cultural and social components of multiculturalism policy. The advantage of being integrated was proposed in a literature review by Berry (1997b, p.  27:  “Psychological acculturation is influenced by many individual-level factors. In particular, the integrationist or bi-cultural acculturation strategy appears to be a consistent predictor of more positive outcomes than the three alternatives of assimilation, separation or marginalisation.” To illustrate the positive link between acculturation strategy and adaptation, in the study of immigrant youth (Berry et  al, 2006), we asked the question; “is it the case that how an adolescent acculturates relates to how well they adapt?” The pattern in our findings was very clear: Those in the integration profile had the best psychological and sociocultural adaptation outcomes, whereas those in the a marginalization/diffuse profile had the worst; in between, those with a separation/ethnic profile had moderately good psychological adaptation but poorer sociocultural adaptation, whereas those with an assimilation/national profile had moderately poor psychological adaptation, and slightly negative Berry, Sam


sociocultural adaptation. This pattern of results was largely replicated using structural equation modeling with the same data set. We also examined relationships between the two forms of adaptation and perceived discrimination: we found that discrimination was negatively and significantly related to both psychological and sociocultural adaptation. A further illustration of the link between acculturation strategy and adaptation has been shown in the study of Turkish migrants in Germany (Schmitz & Berry, 2009). There are many correlations supporting the expected relationships between the integration strategy and adaptation. Integration was negatively related to anxiety and depression; a new finding was that it is also negatively related to anger. On the positive side, a preference for integration was related to high life satisfaction; a new finding was that it is also positively related to curiosity. This pattern replicates earlier patterns and adds the role of curiosity in promoting integration and of anger in limiting it. The opposite pattern is found for marginalization:  these immigrants have high anxiety, depression, and anger; and they have low life satisfaction (but no relationship with curiosity). For those preferring assimilation, the pattern is similar to that for marginalization, except that there was no relationship with life satisfaction (but there was a negative one with curiosity). Finally, the separation preference is similar to that for assimilation (high anxiety and anger), but there was low life satisfaction and no relationship with depression. Some other studies have examined the relationship using contrasts between societies that have different immigration and settlement policies. In one study, second generation immigrant youth in Canada and France were compared (Berry & Sabatier, 2010). The national public policy and attitude context was found to influence the young immigrants’ acculturation strategies and the relationship with their adaptation. In France, there was more discrimination, less orientation to their heritage culture (identity, behavior), and poorer adaptation (lower self-esteem and higher deviance). Within both samples, integration was found to be associated with better adaptation, and marginalization was found to be associated with poorer adaptation. However the magnitude of this relationship was less pronounced in France than in Canada. This difference was interpreted as a result of it being more psychologically costly to express one’s ethnicity in France than in Canada, and to be related to differences in national policy and practices. 112

Multicultural societies

In a study of Russian migrants in Finland and Israel, Jasinskaja-Lahti, Horenczyk, and Kinunen (2011) assessed each of three acculturation attitudes (separation, assimilation, and integration). They were all positively related to immigrant adaptation, either directly or moderated by the length of residence or by the country of residence. In support of the integration hypothesis, a main effect was obtained only for the integration attitude, which positively predicted psychological adaptation. Overall, we conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the integration hypothesis. This generalization seems to apply to various forms of adaptation, and remains supported when various ways of conceptualizing (biculturalism or integration) are used, and when assessing acculturation by various types of scales. The integration hypothesis has recently been confirmed by a meta-analysis by Nguyen and Benet-Martínez (2013). Although the strength of the relationship between acculturation strategy and adaptation to living interculturally varies according to how acculturation strategies are assessed, the overall finding supports the integration hypothesis. More specifically, they examined the relationship across 83 studies and 23,197 participants. They found a significant relationship between biculturalism (integration) and both psychological adaptation (including life satisfaction, positive affect, and self-esteem) and sociocultural adaptation (including academic achievement, career success, social skills, and lack of behavioral problems). Of particular importance for this hypothesis was their finding that the association with biculturalism (cf., integration) was stronger than with either single cultural orientation (to their own group; cf. separation), or to the dominant group (cf., assimilation). They further found that the strength of the biculturalism-adaptation relationship was moderated by the way in which the strategies were assessed.

Contact hypothesis

A third link portrayed in Figure 5.3 is the contact hypothesis, by which contact and sharing is considered to promote mutual acceptance under certain conditions, especially that of equality (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). This hypothesis focuses on the intercultural aspects of multiculturalism (participation and language acquisition). The promotion of intercultural engagement and learning is usually achieved by enacting antidiscrimination laws, policies advocating employment and educational equity,

and standards for showing intercultural activities in the media. In the national surveys in Canada (Berry et  al, 1977; Berry & Kalin, 1995), we found substantial support for this relationship, especially when status is controlled. For example, overall ratings of mutual familiarity (a rating of how much contact and interaction an individual had with members of a specific ethnocultural group) were positively correlated with positive attitudes toward members of that group. In analyses at the level of neighborhoods (Kalin & Berry, 1982), we found that with the proportion of a particular group being greater, the attitudes toward that group by non-members were more positive. There was no evidence of a “tipping point,” where a higher presence of a particular group in one’s neighbourhood became associated with lesser acceptance of that group. Longitudinal studies are very important to the disentangling of the direction of the relationship between intercultural contact and attitudes. One study (Binder, et. al., 2009) has shown an interactive effect of contact and intercultural attitudes. They conducted a longitudinal field survey in Germany, Belgium, and England with school student samples of members of both ethnic minorities and ethnic majorities. They assessed both intercultural contact and attitudes at two points in time. Contact was assessed by both the quality and quantity of contact. Attitudes were assessed by social distance and negative feelings. The pattern of intercorrelations, at both times, supported the positive relationship between contact and attitudes. Beyond this correlational analysis, path analyses yielded evidence for the relationship working in both directions:  contact reduced prejudice, but prejudice also reduced contact. Thus, in this study, support for the contact hypothesis is partial: contact can lead to more positive attitudes, but initial positive attitudes can lead people into contact with each other. A key element in the contact hypothesis is the set of conditions that may be necessary in order for contact to lead to more positive intercultural relations. The three hypotheses are linked because the first two hypotheses speak to some of these conditions under which contact can have positive outcomes. First, for the multiculturalism hypothesis, we saw that when the cultural identities of individuals and groups are threatened, and their place in the plural society is questioned, more negative attitudes are likely to characterize their relationships. This consequence applies to all ethnocultural groups, both dominant and nondominant. For example,

when members of the larger society feel threatened by immigration, and when members of particular groups have their rights to maintain their heritage cultures and/or to participate in the larger society are questioned or denied, a mutual hostility is likely to ensue. Under these conditions, increased contact is not likely to lead to more positive intercultural attitudes. Pettigrew and Tropp (2011) carried out meta-analyses of numerous studies of the contact hypothesis, which came from many countries and many diverse settings (schools, work, and experiments). Their findings provide general support for the contact hypothesis:  intergroup contact does generally relate negatively to prejudice in both dominant and nondominant samples. The evidence is now widespread across cultures that greater intercultural contact is associated with more positive intercultural attitudes, and lower levels of prejudice. This generalization has to be qualified by two cautions. First, the appropriate conditions need to be present in order for contact to lead to positive intercultural attitudes. Second, there are many examples of the opposite effect, where increased contact is associated with greater conflict. The conditions (cultural, political, and economic) under which these opposite outcomes arise are in urgent need of examination.

Conclusions: Psychological benefits and costs of multiculturalism

What are the possible benefits and costs to a plural society and its members when the multicultural option is pursued? Some of these have been proposed by Berry (1998), and are summarized here. First, the public declaration that all cultural groups are valued members of and equal participants in a plural society sends a positive message that may provide the foundation for harmonious intercultural relations. As we saw in the discussion of the multiculturalism hypothesis, the sense of security intended by such a declaration is associated with positive multicultural ideology and related attitudes. The opposite message (that different cultural groups are neither a welcome component nor a participating community) is likely to be interpreted as a threat, and it is associated with negative and even hostile intercultural attitudes. At the societal level, when multiculturalism is declared to be a public resource, rather than a problem for a plural society, more specific benefits follow. In diplomatic and trade relationships, having linguistic competencies nurtured, and transmitting Berry, Sam


knowledge of the values and practices of other cultures in the plural society, can have clear advantages when working outside the national borders. In international affairs, obligations with respect to human rights generally, and to cultural rights more specifically, are monitored by various international organizations (e.g., UN Human Rights Council, International Labour Organisation, UNESCO), and countries that meet these various standards are applauded, whereas those that do not, are criticized. With respect to the social integration of cultural groups and their members, there is evidence of reciprocity in intercultural relations (Berry, 2006b; Berry et al, 2006). When acculturating groups and individuals are discriminated against in their new society, they tend to reciprocate this negative treatment by seeking the separation or marginalization way of acculturating (Berry et al., 2006). These two strategies have negative consequences for all; there is also usually lower sociocultural adaptation, and lesser economic and educational achievement. At the individual level, the evidence reviewed in the section on the integration hypothesis supports the positive association between being engaged in two (and sometimes more) cultural communities and psychological well-being. For sociocultural adaptation, having more than one language and culture available for acquisition and mastering during a person’s development provides options for how to live, and enhances access to more cultural resources (literature, film, personal relationships) than in a society with only one language and culture. An obvious cost at the societal level is that there are usually programs and institutions required to operate such a policy. The mere articulation of multiculturalism costs little; but its operationalization takes financial resources. Whether in multicultural education, health, justice, or broadcasting, public resources need to be allocated. A second possible cost is a reduction in national unity, and increased divisiveness within the plural society. That is, there is a question of whether multiculturalism challenges the possibility of attaining social cohesion among the various cultural groups (Koopmans, 2005; Jopke, 2007; Reitz, Breton, Dion, & Dion, 2009). This question has not yet been resolved. However, there is some evidence that identification with one’s heritage cultural group and with the national society need not be negatively correlated, or mutually exclusive. In the study of immigrant youth (Berry et  al., 2006) overall there was a small negative correlation between these two 114

Multicultural societies

identities. However, the correlation was positive in all settler societies (such as Australia, Canada and the United States; but also in the United Kingdom), and negative in societies that are new to the processes involved in immigration and settlement (such as Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden). Indeed, cultural differences can be exploited to achieve a variety of domestic and international political goals (as in the divide-and-conquer strategy). This is most likely to happen when groups become official categories (as in census groupings) where they can be exploited for votes or other reasons. Moreover, existing inequalities in socioeconomic status can become entwined with ethnic status, resulting in a double jeopardy. Such exploitation is always possible, but the reverse is also possible. The designation of particular ethnic groups as disadvantaged can lead to (and indeed has led to) public programs to reduce inequity through employment and educational initiatives.


Adams, M. (2007). Unlikely utopia:  The surprising triumph of Canadian pluralism. Toronto: Viking. Adams, Q. (1811) Quoted in Sidney Lens. (1974). The forging of the American empire. New York: Thomas Crowell. Bakker, W., van Oudenhoven, J. P., & van der Zee, K. I. (2004). Attachment styles, personality, and Dutuch emigrants’ intercultural adjustment. European Journal of Personality, 18, 387–404. Banting, K. & Kymlicka, W. (2004). Do multiculturalism policies erode the welfare state? In P. Van Parijs, (Ed), Cultural diversity versus economic solidarity (pp. 227–284). Brussels: Editions De Boeck Université. Banting, K., & Kymlicka, W. (2006) Multiculturalism Policy Index. Retrieved from Barry, B. (2001). Culture and equality: An egalitarian critique of multiculturalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. BBC News (2011, Dec. 18). State multiculturalism has failed, says David Cameron. Retrieved from news/uk-politics-12371994 Berry, J. W. (1974). Psychological aspects of cultural pluralism:  Unity and identity reconsidered. Topics in Culture Learning, 2, 17–22. Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, models and some new findings (pp. 9–25). Boulder: Westview Press. Berry, J. W. (1984). Multicultural policy in Canada: A social psychological analysis. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 16, 353 370. Berry, J. W. (1997a). Official multiculturalism. In J. Edwards (Ed), Language in Canada, (84–101). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press Berry, J. W. (1998). Social psychological costs and benefits of multiculturalism. Trames: Estonian Journal of Social Sciences, 2, 209–233. Berry, J.W. (2003). Conceptual approaches to acculturation. In K. Chung, P. Balls-Organista & G. Marin (Eds.). Acculturation: Advances in Theory, Measurement, and Applied Research, (pp. 17-37). Washington: APA.

Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation:  Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 697–712. Berry, J. W. (2006a). Contexts of acculturation. In D. L.  Sam & J. W.  Berry (Eds). Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 27–42). Cambridge, UK:  Cambridge University Press. Berry, J. W. (2006b). Mutual attitudes among immigrants and ethnocultural groups in Canada. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 719–734. Berry, J. W. (2008). Globalisation and acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 328–336. Berry, J. W. (2010). Mobility and acculturation. In S. Carr (ed.), The psychology of mobility in a global era (pp. 193-210). New York: Springer. Berry, J.W. & Kalin, R. (1995). Multicultural and ethnic attitudes in Canada:  Overview of the 1991 survey. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 27, 301-320. Berry, J. W., & Kalin, R. (2000). Multicultural policy and social psychology:  The Canadian experience. In S. Renshon & Duckitt, J. (Eds). Political psychology: Cultural and cross-cultural foundations (pp. 263–284). London: MacMillan. Berry, J. W., Kalin, R., and Taylor, D. (1977). Multiculturalism and ethnic attitudes in Canada, Ottawa, Canada: Ministry of Supply and Services. Berry, J. W. and Laponce, J. A. (Eds.) (1994). Ethnicity and culture in Canada:  The research landscape. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L. & Vedder, P. (Eds.) (2006). Immigrant youth in cultural transition: Acculturation, identity and adaptation across national contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Breugelmans, S. M., Chasiotis, A. & Sam, D. L. (2011). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications (3rd ed.). Cambridge, UK:  Cambridge University Press. Berry, J. W., & Sabatier, C. (2010). Acculturation, discrimination, and adaptation among second generation immigrant youth in Montreal and Paris. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 191–207. Binder, J. Zagefka, H., Brown, R., Funke, F., Kessler, T., & Mummendey, A. (2009). Does contact reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A  longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis among majority and minority groups in three European countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 843–856. Bloemraad, I. (2011). The debate over multiculturalism: Philosophy, politics, and policy. Migration Information Source. Retrieved from http://www.migrationinformation. org/Feature/display.cfm?ID=854 Borrie, W. D. (1959). The cultural integration of immigrants. Paris: UNESCO. Bourhis, R. Y., Moise, L. C., Perreault, S., & Senecal, S. (1997). Toward an Interactive Acculturation Model:  A  social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology, 32, 369–386. Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans:  Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 135–149. Breivik, A. B. (2011). Manifest of Anders Behring Breivik. Retrieved from

Breugelmans, S. & van de Vijver, F. (2004). Antecedents and components of majority attitudes toward multiculturalism in the Netherlands. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 400–422. Brewer, M. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429–444. Brooks, S. (Ed) (2002). The challenge of cultural pluralism. Westport, CT: Praeger. Canada (1956). The integration of immigrants in Canada. Report by the Canadian Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Havana, April. Canada (1971). Policy of multiculturalism. Statement to the House of Commons. Ottawa. Commonwealth of Australia (2003). The evolution of Australia’s multicultural policy. Canberra. Government of Australia Dandy, J. & Pe-Pua, R. (2010). Attitudes to multiculturalism, immigration, and cultural diversity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 34–46. England riots (2011). 2011 England riots. Retrieved from http:// Eurobarometer (2000). Attitudes toward minority groups in the European Union:  A  special analysis of the Eurobarometer 2000 opinion poll on behalf of the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia. Eurobarometer Opinion Poll. Retrieved from European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (2011). Annual report.for 2010. Strasbourg:  ECRI Retrieved from ( Reports2010pdf ) European Union (2005). Common Basic Principles for Immigrant Integration Policy in the EU. Brussels: Author. Retrieved from ( Fleras, A. (2009). The politics of multiculturalism: Multicultural governance in comparative perspective. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Fowers, B. J., & Richardson, F. C. (1996). Why is multiculturalism good? American Psychologist, 51, 609–621. Glazer, N. (1997). We are all multiculturalists now. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. He, B., & Kymlicka, W. (2005). Multiculturalism in Asia. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Heritage Canada (1999). Annual report. Ottawa: Government of Canada. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Horenczyk, G., & Munayer, S. (2007). Acculturation orientations toward two majority groups:  The case of Palestinian Arab Christian adolescents in Israel. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 38, 76–86. Huntington, S. (2004). Who are we? The challenges to American national identity. New York: Simon & Schuster. James, W. (1977). Pluralistic universe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published by Longmans Green, New York, in 1909). Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Horenczyk, G., & Kinunen, T. (2011). Time and context in the relationship between acculturation attitudes and adaptation among Russian-speaking immigrants in Finland and Israel. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37, 1423–1440. Jedwab, J. (2002). Thirty years of multiculturalism in Canada: 1971 to 2001. Ottawa, Canada: Association of Canadian Studies. Jopke, C. (2007). Immigrants and civic integration in Western Europe. In K. Banting (Ed.) Belonging? Diversity,

Berry, Sam


recognition and shared citizenship (pp 321–350). Montreal, Canada: Institute for Research on Public Policy. Kalin, R. and Berry, J. W. (1982). Social ecology of ethnic attitudes in Canada. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 14, 97–109 Knight, N. (2000). Thinking about Asia. Adelaide:  Crawford House Publishing. Koopmans, R. (2005). Contested citizenship:  Immigration and cultural diversity in Europe. Minneapolis:  University of Minnesota Press. Kruusvall, J., Vetik, R. & Berry, J. W. (2009). The strategies of inter-ethnic adaptation of Estonian -Russians. Studies of Transition States and Societies, 1, 3–24. Kymlicka (2001). Politics in the vernacular:  Natonalism, multiculturalism and citizenship. Oxford, UK:  Oxford University Press. Kymlicka, W. (1995). Multicultural citizenship: A liberal theory of minority rights. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Kymlicka, W. (2007). Multicultural odysseys:  Navigating the new international politics of diversity. Oxford:  Oxford University Press. Kymlicka, W. (2012). Multiculturalism: Success, Failure, and the Future. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Legrain, P. (2002). Open world:  The truth about globalization. London: Abacus. Leong, C.-H., & Ward, C. (2006). Cultural values and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration:  The case of the Eurobarometer survey on racism and xenophobia. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 769–810. Levi-Strauss, C. (1978). Myth and meaning. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Liu, S. (2007). Living with others: Mapping the routes to acculturation in a multicultural society. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 761–778. Lott, B. (2010). Multiculturalism and diversity: A social psychological perspective. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX). (2012). Key findings. Immigrant integration policy. Retrieved from http:// Moghaddam, F. (2008a). Multiculturalism and intergroup relations. Washington, DC: APA Books. Moghaddam, F. M. (2008b). Psychological foundations of multiculturalism. In F. Moghaddam (Ed.), Multiculturalism and intergroup relations: Psychological implications for democracy in global context. (pp. 147–164):  Washington, DC:  American Psychological Association. Navas, M., Rojas, A., Garcia M, & Pumares, P. (2007). Acculturation strategies and attitude:  The perspectives of natives versus immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 67–86. Nguyen, A.-M. D., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2013. Biculturalism and adjustment:  A  meta-analysis. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 44, 122-159 Noels, K. & Berry, J. W. (2006). Acculturation in Canada. In D. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.) Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 274–293). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Number 10 (2011). PM’s speech at Munich security conference. Retrieved from pms-speech-at-munich-security-conference/ Pettigrew, T. & Tropp, L. (2011). When groups meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact. London: Psychology Press.


Multicultural societies

Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: A review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 499–514. Phinney, J., Jacoby, B., & Silva, C. (2007). Positive intergroup attitudes: The role of ethnic identity. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 478–490. Piontkowski, U., Rohmann, A., & Florack, A. (2002). Concordance of acculturation attitudes and perceived threat. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 5, 221–232. Reitz, J., Breton, R, Dion, K.  K. & Dion, K. L. (2009). Multiculturalism and social cohesion: Potentials and challenges of diversity. Toronto, Canada: Springer. Riek, B., Mania, E., & Gaertner, S. (2006) Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes:  A  meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 336–353. Rohmann, A., Florack, A. & Piontkowski, U. (2006). The role of discordant acculturation attitudes in perceived threat: An analysis of host and immigrant attitudes in Germany. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 683–702. Ryan, P. (2010). Multicultiphobia. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Sabatier, C. & Boutry, V. (2006). Acculturation in Francophone European societies. In D. L.  Sam & J. W.  Berry (Eds). Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 349– 367). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sam, D. L., & Berry, J. W. (Eds). (2006). The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Schmitt, M. T., & Branscombe, N. R. (2002). The meaning and consequences of perceived discrimination in disadvantaged and privileged social groups. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 167– 199). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Schmitz, P. & Berry, J. W. (2009). Structure of acculturation attitudes and their relationships with personality and psychological adaptation: A study with immigrant and national samples in Germany. In F. Deutsch, M. Boehnke, U. Kuhnen & K. Boehnke (Eds). Rendering borders obsolete. (pp. 52– 70). Bremen:  International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology (available on line at Schwartz, S. H. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations:  Explication and applications. Comparative Sociology, 5, 136-182. Stephan, W., Renfro, C. L., Esses, V., Stephan, C. & Martin, T. (2005). The effects of feeling threatened on attitudes toward immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 1–19. Taylor, C. (1992). Multiculturalism and the politics of recognition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. UNESCO (2009). Investing in cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue. Paris: UNESCO. Van de Vijver, F., Seger M., Breugelmans, S., & Schalk-Soekar, S. (2008). Multiculturalism:  Construct validity and stability. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 93–104. Van Oudenhoven, J.-P. (2006). Immigrants. In D. L.  Sam & J. W.  Berry (Eds). Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 163–180). Cambridge, UK:  Cambridge University Press. Verkuyten, M. (2005). Ethnic group identification and group evaluation among minority and majority groups: Testing the multiculturalism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 121–138.

Vigdor, J. L. (2011). Comparing immigrant assimilation in North America and Europe. Civic Report. Retrieved from Ward, C. & Masgoret, A.-M. (2008). Attitudes toward immigrants, immigration, and multiculturalism in New Zealand:  A  Social Psychological Analysis. International Migration Review, 42, 227–248.

Ward, C. & Leong, C.-H. (2006) Intercultural relations in plural societies. In D. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds), Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 484–503). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Yalden M. (2009). Transforming rights. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

Berry, Sam




The Social Psychology of Multiculturalism: Identity and Intergroup Relations

Kay Deaux and Maykel Verkuyten1

Abstract This chapter addresses the social psychology of multiculturalism from two perspectives: (a) that of the individual migrant, who participates in two (or more) intersecting cultural communities and typically has multiple identifications; and (b) that of the majority culture, which formulates expectations and prescriptions for dealing with diversity. The chapter frames this analysis with a discussion of the distinction between ethnicity, identity and culture. From the perspective of the immigrant, multiple identifications can include not only ethnicity and nationality of both homeland and country of migration, but also other categories of group membership such as religion, class, and gender. These complicated intersections are not only structural in nature, but have implications for behavioral choices as well. Majority cultures can support or resist cultural diversity, and intergroup relations vary as a function of the potential threats seen by the majority. The chapter concludes with consideration of the implications of our analysis for social policy. Key Words:  culture, dual identity, ethnicity, gender, identity, immigrants, multiculturalism, multicultural recognition, multiple identities, religion

Multiculturalism is a term that is used in many different ways and for many different purposes. At a purely descriptive level, multiculturalism denotes the reality of cultural diversity within schools, organizations, institutions, neighborhoods, and countries. Beyond this general description, however, we can look to more specific phenomena that are often encompassed in the broader meanings of the term. Our analysis, emerging from a social psychological perspective, considers two distinct aspects of the concept. Multiculturalism can be conceptualized at the level of the individual, encompassing not only the term multiple identities but the related concepts of bicultural or dual identity as well. Here, the focus is on the psychological experience of the individual who participates to some degree in two (or more) intersecting cultural communities that can 118

complement or challenge each other. Typically, these multiple identifications will implicate different histories and memories, social networks, meanings, and implications for action. Used in this way, the term multiculturalism draws attention to the fact that individuals are faced with the task of living with diversity and having to incorporate different cultural orientations and group identifications in their sense of self. Alternatively, multiculturalism can refer to a set of expectations or prescriptions for dealing with diversity. Depending on the speaker and the context, multiculturalism can be considered an ideology, a lay theory, a set of normative beliefs, a framework for policies, and a guideline for education and educational activities. Although the diversity of multicultural ideas, initiatives, and practices is substantial, the notion multicultural recognition

signals some common arguments underlying these differences. In general, multicultural recognition tries to foster understanding and appreciation of ethnic diversity by offering a positive view of cultural maintenance by ethnic minority groups and, as such, a concomitant need to accommodate diversity in an equitable way. Although each of these domains is of considerable interest and significance in its own right, their conjunction is not always smooth and indeed, creates a set of conditions that invite a closer analysis of the intergroup processes that operate between the multiple identity individual and the multicultural belief system. Further, because these processes are played out, not in a neutral zone of analytic parsing but rather in an increasingly charged social and political environment evident in many countries today, strong beliefs about the “right” course can exist quite independently from both experience and data. Multiculturalism is an attractive ideology for immigrants and minorities because its emphasis on differences allows them to maintain their own cultural identity within the larger societal context. The acceptance and recognition of cultural diversity would contribute to the development of a multiple or dual identity, and would be crucial for self-feelings because of its service to one’s minority identity (Burnet, 1995). Furthermore, proponents of multiculturalism argue that the acknowledgment of diversity stimulates the integration of immigrants and minorities into mainstream society and contributes to positive intergroup relations. Multiculturalism, however, has also been criticized by political philosophers and social scientists (e.g. Barry, 2001; Joppke, 2004) as well as by the public at large; some social psychologists have also expressed their concerns (e.g. Brewer, 1997; Haidt, Rosenberg & Hom, 2003). It has been suggested, for example, that the focus on cultural differences leads immigrants and minorities to embrace a distinctive minority identity separate from the majority society, which impedes the development of a sense of national commitment and loyalty. Furthermore, the majority group might consider multiculturalism irrelevant or threatening for themselves, thereby creating a backlash in the form of decreased support for diversity and social equality. The result would be a fragmented and fractured society in which immigrants self-segregate in their minority identity and culture, and majority populations reject and exclude immigrants and minorities. In this chapter we focus on both these aspects of multiculturalism: multiple identities of immigrants

and multicultural attitudes of the majority group. First, however, we offer a brief discussion of the distinction between ethnicity, identity, and culture that establishes a framework for our analysis. We then turn to a detailed discussion of the two perspectives on multiculturalism, beginning with an analysis of multiple identities and then turning to the intergroup context defined by beliefs about multiculturalism. Immigrant populations offer a clear case of the need to consider at least two identities, namely, that based in the country of origin and that presented by the country of migration. Often, however, as we will discuss, the identity structure is more complicated than a simple binary, as other categories of group membership, such as religion, class, or gender, come into play as well. Further, attention to structure is only part of the story. Additionally, we need to consider how definitions of identity play out in behavior, both in the choices that individuals make for presenting themselves to an audience and in the reactions that they receive to their performance actions. In the next part of the chapter, we discuss research on the endorsement of multicultural recognition among majority members and examine the conditions that lead these members to either support or resist cultural diversity and group-based equality. Several studies find positive effects of multicultural recognition on intergroup relations, but there is also research that indicates that majority members see multiculturalism as a threat to their group’s identity and respond to this threat by asserting their dominant position in society. Following our analysis of the two separate aspects of multiculturalism, we then examine some of the ways in which multiple identity and multicultural recognition are related. In particular, we focus on the relationships between multicultural recognition and dual identity, and between multiculturalism and self-feelings. Finally, in a concluding section, we consider some of the implications of our analysis for social policy in societies that are currently grappling with the realities of increased cultural diversity.

Ethnicity, Identity and Culture

The concepts of ethnicity, identity, and culture are often used interchangeably. This is rather confusing and can hamper our understanding of social and psychological processes and realities. As Lamont and Small (2008, p.  76) write, “Literature on inequality, race and ethnicity often lacks sophistication in the way culture is conceptualized. This is illustrated in many practices such Deaux, Verkuy ten


as the use of culture and ethnicity as interchangeable.” Minority and integration research is often embedded in an ontology of the social world that assumes that ethnic groups are cultural groups and that people who belong to an ethnic group “have” the culture of that group. However, anthropologists have convincingly shown that culture is not a very useful basis for the definition of ethnicity (Barth, 1969). An important reason is that such a definition leads to a static and reified notion of culture. For example, the notion of “multicultural society” quickly leads to the idea that cultures are bounded entities, clear-cut wholes, clearly distinguishable from other entities that are linked to other groups. As social psychologists would predict, the consequence of this is that the differences and contrasts between groups are emphasized and that similarities and commonalities are neglected. Moreover, the similarities within groups are easily exaggerated and differences are forgotten. If people belong to the same group and each group has its own culture, then little attention is typically paid to in-group differences and to the possibilities and realities of cultural change, mixture, and renewal. In addition, a sense of ethnic identity can remain strong, although from a cultural point of view numerous changes take place. Acculturation as the process of becoming more similar culturally does not have to imply a change of group membership and self-definition (Hutnik, 1991). People often hold on to their ethnic identity, to what they feel is a continuity with the past and a loyalty toward their community, although their culture becomes intermingled with that of others. For example, in Trinidad the distinction between African and Indian is regarded as a critical one, despite the fact that few cultural differences remain (Miller, 1994). Immigrants can adapt to the society of settlement culturally, but not in an ethnic sense. They can remain proud of their ethnic background and strongly define themselves as, for example, Mexican (in the U.S.  context), Pakistani (in Britain) or Turkish (in Germany). Contacts between ethnic groups almost always lead to exchange of cultural characteristics and mutual adjustments, but at the same time, the contact can result in distinctiveness threat, which leads to enhanced ethnic consciousness and stronger group differentiation (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Cultural content and ethnic identity are to an important degree functionally independent. Cultural adaptation also does not necessarily imply that one’s ethnic identity is accepted and recognized by the broader society. Social psychologists 120

tend to characterize ethnicity, and other categories, like religion, as social groups; ethnic (or religious) people are those who identify with the group and adhere to its normative beliefs and practices. For social psychologists, collective identities have to do with people’s sense of their group memberships. The emphasis is on the subjective aspects that are conceptualized in terms of, for example, cognitive centrality, importance, and satisfaction (see Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004). However, collective identities are not like private beliefs or convictions that, in principle, can be sustained without expression and social recognition. Social identities refer to “who people are to each other” and depend crucially on acknowledgment and verification by others (Burke & Stets, 2009; Klein, Spears & Reicher, 2007). Social identities are sustainable to the extent that they are expressed and affirmed in acceptable practices. Anthropologists, for example, have shown how people use particular behaviors to form and negotiate their ethnic identity in everyday interactions, and discourse analysts have shown how social identities are accomplished in the ongoing exchange of talk (Verkuyten, 2005a). This understanding of ethnicity, identity, and culture, as well as the dynamic and interactive processes that are implied, underlies the analysis of multiple identities and multicultural recognition that follows.

Multiple Identities

From the perspective of the individual, the most immediate sense of multiculturalism is expressed in self-definition, as the different cultural groups in which one participates are combined in some sense of self. We will primarily use the term multiple identities to describe the generic case, though other terms such as dual identity and bicultural identity might also be possible when the focus is on two particular elements. Instantiation of the generic case can include many different identity categories; here we consider those that have garnered the most attention. We begin by looking at the combination of ethnic and national identity, followed by a consideration of religious identity, an identity that often covaries with ethnic identity for both actors and perceivers. With somewhat less detail, we also consider the ways in which social class, education, and gender combine with ethnic and national identities to shape self-definition.

Combinations of Ethnic and National Identity

The juxtaposition of ethnic and national identities, particularly as the challenge is addressed by

The Social Psychology of Multiculturalism

immigrants who enter a new country with typically different cultural and political norms, is a topic of considerable relevance in a world in which international migration continues to increase and diversity within nations becomes more evident. An early and influential conceptualization proposed by John Berry (1980) offered a model in which high versus low levels of identification with the home country and with the host country are combined to create four categories, labeled separation, assimilation, integration and marginalization. This model has generated considerable research and ample criticism as well. Although generally the research suggests that a majority of immigrants prefer the integrated strategy, in which there is a relatively high level of identification with both origin and host countries, the conditions under which these preferences are most likely to evolve and the consequences of various combinations are still unsettled. Other limitations of the model, including its static quality and the oversimplified focus on a four-category typology, have lead many investigators to probe further into the nature of dual identity. How do ethnic and national identities combine? The answer to this question depends to a large extent on local context. Research from European countries, such as France, Germany, and the Netherlands, often finds a negative correlation between the two; in historically immigrant countries such as Canada and the United States, the two identities are more often statistically independent or, in the case of New Zealand, even positively correlated (Phinney, Berry, Vedder, & Liebkind, 2006). Exemplifying this point, combined terms such as Mexican-American or Chinese-Canadian are more common than the possible European equivalents of Turkish-German or Moroccan-Dutch.2 The difference between immigrant countries and many European countries might have to do with the fact that the former are founded more on the idea of immigration and civic integration, whereas the latter are “older” nations with an established indigenous majority population. In these older nations there often is an implicit ethnic representation of the nation that emphasises genealogical grounds and defines “group ownership” whereby the linguistic representations of nationhood and of the native population correspond: Dutch typically means ethnic Dutch, and German means ethnic German. For German or Dutch people, their ethnic and national identities are one and the same. An ethnic representation also implies a static cultural view in which native traditions and symbols need to be protected

against change. In such a representation, the legitimacy of national membership is more often denied to non-native members, making it difficult for immigrants to feel included and to develop a sense of national belonging. Further understanding of the relationship between national and ethnic identification is gained by looking at subgroups within a country. In a majority of countries studied, ethnic minorities are less strongly identified with the nation than are majority groups (Elkins & Sides, 2007). Correspondingly, minority groups tend to have stronger ethnic identification than do majority groups (which, in most of the research to date, has been specified as a white majority). Data from the Los Angeles, California area show how these patterns vary among ethnic groups and also highlight the importance of how questions about identification are presented (Sears & Savalei, 2006). When asked how strongly they identified with their ethnic group, Black respondents were most likely to say “very strongly” (59%) and Whites were least likely to do so (25%). Latino respondents were similar to Blacks, though the frequency of their endorsement varied depending on whether they were foreign-born (60%) or U.S. born (44%); Asians more closely resembled Whites, with only 37% claiming that they were very identified with their ethnic group. Another question in the same survey focused more sharply on the issue of dual identity:  respondents were asked whether they thought of themselves mainly as ethnic, just as American, or as both American and ethnic. In this case, duality was the majority choice of Blacks, Latinos, and Asians (at 55%, 57%, and 71%, respectively), with only Whites showing a preponderance of “just American” replies (75%). These kinds of ethnic group differences in identification patterns have also been found in European countries (e.g., De Vroome, Martinovic, & Verkuyten, 2012; Modood et  al., 1997). Clearly, any consideration of multiple identities within a society must give careful consideration to variations between the subgroups in a society, for whom the possibilities and the impediments to claiming dual identity may vary considerably.

Religious Identity

Religion has proved to be a potent influence on identity definitions as well as in reactions to immigrants who enter a country as a religious minority. Indeed, in many countries, especially in contemporary Europe, questions about immigration and the integration of new residents in the society are Deaux, Verkuy ten


inextricably linked to the religious group identification of the immigrants. In the Netherlands, high concentrations of immigrants from Turkey and Morocco are predominantly Muslim. Similarly, in Belgium, the second-largest group of immigrants is Turkish; in Germany, immigrants from Turkey, who began arriving in the early 1960s through a guest worker program, remain the largest immigrant group; and in France, immigrants from Algeria and Morocco, both predominantly Muslim countries, account for 30% of the country’s immigrants (Migration Policy Institute, 2011). Verkuyten and Yildiz (2007) explored the compatibility of national identification with religious and ethnic identity in the Netherlands. Among their Turkish immigrant participants, they found, as would be expected, strong positive correlations between Turkish and Muslim identities but negative correlations of each with Dutch identification. In both studies, the degree to which these immigrants identified as Dutch was predicted directly by perceived discrimination against their group and this relationship was partially mediated by Turkish and by Muslim identification, that is, perceptions of discrimination strengthened their immigrant identity, which, in turn, weakened their endorsement of a Dutch identity. In every case, Dutch identification was substantially lower than either Muslim or Turkish identification. Muslim identification was particularly strong in their samples, with more than half the participants using the highest possible score on a multiple-item measure of Muslim identification. The relationship between religious identification and national identification is quite different in the United States, where Muslims are, to a much greater extent, integrated into the mainstream society and often have high incomes and educational credentials (Sirin & Fine, 2008). As Foner and Alba comment with reference to the United States, “Participation in almost any sort of religion is depicted as a pathway into the mainstream” (2008, p. 362). As they further observe, religious belief and behavior tends to be much higher in the United States than in other economically advanced countries; in fact, some argue that Americans accept religious diversity more readily than ethnic diversity. Moreover, the claim has been made that immigrants become American through their religious activities (Hirschman, 2004). Certainly, some of that religious activity takes the form of conversion to Christian religions, thus acculturating to the main religious tradition in the United States. Yet, for many others it is a 122

maintenance of the religion of origin, albeit often with some modifications that reflect the influence of the host society, that characterizes their practices (Foner & Alba, 2008). The contrast between viewing religious practice as a positive pathway to citizenship versus considering it an obstacle to successful acculturation (the latter more often the case in Western Europe), highlights the role that local context plays in defining the nature and the viability of multiple identities. Contexts can, of course, change. In the United States, for example, the events of 9/11 and the concern for terrorism by Muslim extremists has precipitated some highly publicized incidents, including the burning of a Quran by a Florida minister and protests about the development of an Islamic Center near the site of the World Trade Center bombings. At the same time, some researchers have argued that the basic structure of attitudes toward Muslims has not noticeably changed, and that these attitudes are more closely associated with other negatively viewed cultural groups than with religious bias (Kalkan, Layman & Uslaner, 2009). To the extent that the local norms appear nonreceptive or even hostile to the expression of religious identities, the possibility exists that observant immigrants will develop an oppositional identity and reject the mainstream of the nation in which they reside (Foner & Alba, 2008). Indeed, Verkuyten and Yildiz (2007, Study 3), when focusing specifically on a concept of disidentification (using items such as “I certainly do not want to see myself as Dutch”), which can be empirically distinguished from identification, found that participants who were more involved in actions and practices relevant to their Muslim identity were also more likely to express a rejection of being Dutch. Such a rejection is also more likely for immigrants who perceive a strong association and overlap among their ethnic and religious identities. The concept of social identity complexity refers to individual differences in the way in which different in-group memberships are subjectively combined (Roccas & Brewer, 2002). A complex identity structure implies that an individual accepts and acknowledges the distinctive memberships of his or her various in-groups. Alternatively, individuals with a relatively simplified structure perceive a strong overlap and interrelation among their identities. Research (Roccas & Brewer, 2002) suggests that a more complex identity structure is associated with out-group openness and tolerance, whereas lower complexity, or a more monolithic identity

The Social Psychology of Multiculturalism

structure, would be related to less openness. In agreement with this, three studies among Turkish Muslims in the Netherlands found that a stronger overlap between ethnic and Muslim identification was associated with a more negative attitude toward the native Dutch, lower endorsement of liberal values, and lower Dutch identification (Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2012). Although certain combinations and meanings make national identification more difficult, evidence also suggests that members of minority groups are able to formulate meanings of both national and ethnic identity that make compatibility possible. Muslims in the UK interviewed by Hopkins (2011), for example, expressed a general belief that there is no single way to be British. Operating from this assumption of heterogeneity, they were able to describe ways in which a combination of British and Muslim identities would be a positive-sum, rather than zero-sum, situation. For some of these minority-group members, to be British in a Muslim way was seen as a path to improve societal mores, for example, by reducing teenage pregnancies and drug problems. Others saw the inclusion of Muslims as a way to highlight the value of multiculturalism for British identity. Looking in the other direction and describing how one might be Muslim in a British way, respondents talked about the empowerment that could result from adopting democratic values and the stage that Britain provided for displaying the universalism of Islam religion. The dual identities of religion—most often Muslim, in both research and public debate—and national identity is the most prominent case of multiple identification. Not only is it one that immigrants themselves must deal with, but it is also the case that most often, particularly in contemporary Europe, frames the debates of multicultural recognition versus rejection (see later section of this chapter). In addition, however, there are other positioning categories that also can be analyzed in terms of multiple identity. Here we consider the influence of social class and education, and then of gender as elements of immigrant identification.

Social Class and Education

Socioeconomic status frequently shapes the expression and the interpretation of immigrant identity, although its influence has been infrequently considered by psychologists. In the United States, for example, immigrants from Mexico are most often poor and with limited education. These limitations in human capital are often accompanied

by undocumented status, which reduces their ability to easily take on a national American identity. Variations in resources, when coupled with the differential discrimination patterns experienced by, for example, black immigrants versus white immigrants, form the basis for what has come to be known as the theory of segmented assimilation (see Zhou, 1999). In brief, this theory points to different patterns of immigrant adaptation to U. S. society, varying from the classical pattern of upward mobility and identification of some groups with the broad American citizenry to the downward mobility of other groups and their joining the ranks of the underclass; yet a third path identified by the theory includes those groups who become economically successful but who remain primarily identified with their ethnic group rather than with the more encompassing American identity. It is debated whether segmented assimilation is a phenomenon specific to the U.S. context or whether it also occurs in Europe (Vermeulen, 2010). From the perspective of the immigrants themselves, these different paths present different opportunities, with class in some respects determining both their ethnic and their national identification. As a point of contrast, Canada has an immigration policy that emphasizes professional skills as criteria for entrance results in an immigrant population that is far more ready to enter the professional work force than are other immigrant groups. When coupled with a federal policy that affirms diversity along with national civic commitment, the opportunity for developing a stable multiple identity are much greater. However, in Canada there are also indications that more highly educated immigrants face more (institutional) discrimination than do those with less education (e.g. Boyd & Derrick, 2002; Reitz, 2001). Further, experiences and perceptions of being discriminated against or belonging to a minority group that is the target of discrimination hamper national identification (Jasinskaja-Lahti, Liebkind, & Solheim, 2009). The “integration paradox” argues that it is precisely those immigrants who are most strongly focused on educational achievements who will be more sensitive to ethnic acceptance and equality. Experiences and perceptions of nonacceptance and discrimination, despite their efforts and successful integration in the host society, would make immigrants turn toward their own minority community and away from society. Thus, the more successful ones would be more sensitive to ethnic acceptance and equality, which, in turn, would Deaux, Verkuy ten


drive their sense of commitment and belonging to the host society. In short, the “integration paradox” implies that higher-educated minorities can have a weaker sense of national belonging because of ethnic discrimination. Evidence for this educational effect was found among representative samples of the four numerically largest migrant groups living in the Netherlands (Ten Teije, Coenders, & Verkuyten, 2013).


Like social class, gender can define the parameters of one’s experience, creating obstacles and opportunities that differ between women and men. These differing experiences can constitute the meanings that a male or female identity invokes; they can also combine with, for example, an ethnic identity to create gender-specific conceptions of the ethnic identity. Particularly in the years following 9/11, for example, the image of Arabs and Muslims as dangerous and violent was defined primarily in terms of men; records of arrests of Arabs and Muslims in the United States show an overwhelming number of these “suspicious persons” were men (Cainkar, 2009). In contrast, recent debates in France about the presence of nonsecular elements in public sites has centered almost entirely on the scarf or hijab by Muslim women. In each case, although the general climate may affect both women and men, their specific experiences and self-conceptions can differ substantially. Although the pattern is far from universal, women often gain status when they move to a new country, particularly when they were less involved in the public domain in their home country. Men, in contrast, often experience a loss of status, again contingent on what their position was in the country of origin. As Itzigsohn and his colleagues (Itzigsohn, 2009; Itzigsohn & Giorguli-Saucedo, 2005) have shown, differences in economic conditions influence the relationships that immigrants have with white Americans and the social distance that they experience. If these measures of social distance are interpreted as indices of identification with the new country (in this case the United States), as Itzigsohn and Giorguli-Saucedo do, then the conjunction of ethnic and national identity can be shown to be moderated by gender. These investigators found that for women, their increased status created a stronger desire to stay in the United States and to be American (while affording them the resources to make contributions to the welfare of people in the home country). For men, in contrast, 124

the U.S. experience was more likely to show a pattern of reactive identification, as experiences with discrimination and fewer economic opportunities increased their transnational involvement and ethnic identification. As we discussed with respect to religion, how an identity is defined—in this case, how gender, ethnic and national identity are defined—determines whether multiple identities are seen as compatible or not. To the extent that gender roles shaped by ethnic norms are significantly different than those associated with the new national identity, conflicts between ethnic and national identities are likely to be more common, causing strains in both sexes as they try to deal with the changed dynamics. An example is the machismo in many Hispanic contexts and among Caribbean immigrants in Europe. A  comparable example is the gender roles among Muslim immigrants. In their cross-national research, Norris and Inglehart (2004, p. 155) conclude that “The most basic cultural fault line between the West and Islam does not concern democracy—it involves issues of gender equality and sexuality.”

Generational Differences in Identity Endorsement

In its purest sense, the term “immigrant” refers to people who were born in one country and then emigrate to another. In the terms used by demographers, these are first-generation immigrants, to be distinguished from their children, typically referred to as second-generation immigrants, and to successive descendants who can be labeled third generation, fourth generation, and so on. In some countries, the latter usage is common; in other countries, the term immigrant is reserved for the initial movers, and later generations are either not specifically marked or are collectively referred to by the same ethnic label (e.g., Turks in Germany), whatever the number of steps from the original settlers might be. Underlying these varying terminologies, however, are potentially significant differences in ethnic and national identity that are important to consider in discussions of multiculturalism. Traditional models of assimilation and acculturation assume changes in identification over time. Thus, it is expected that the children and grandchildren of immigrants will be more strongly identified with the host nation and less strongly identified with the ethnic origin of their parents, even if the original immigrants themselves do not show such assimilative tendencies within their lifetime. Longitudinal research that could support these assumptions is

The Social Psychology of Multiculturalism

rare, in large part because psychological variables such as identification have not been a staple of past immigration studies. However, one exhaustive analysis of four generations of Mexican Americans, comparing samples obtained in 1965 and 2000 (Telles & Ortiz, 2008), shows that identification patterns are much more complex and varied than simple assimilation models would predict. When respondents in this study were asked to pick a single label for identification, “American” was chosen by only a small minority of even fourth-generation immigrants, an allegiance to ethnic category that persisted even though the use of Spanish language and the practice of Catholicism, both traditional attributes of a Mexican identity, had disappeared (another example of the importance for making a distinction between identity and culture, as argued earlier). In a second question, respondents were asked how often they thought of themselves as Mexican, American, both, or neither. Although exclusive use of Mexican diminished across generations and identification as American increased, it is interesting to note that the percentage of U.S.-born Mexican Americans who thought of themselves as both American and Mexican remained constant at approximately 20% through the fourth generation, indicating the continuing presence of multiple identification. An alternative way to consider generational differences in identification is to use cross-sectional samples in which age is held constant. An example of this strategy is seen in a study of Afro-Caribbean immigrants in New York City (Deaux et al., 2007), in which first- and second-generation immigrant students were asked to indicate their ethnic identity on a 5-point bi-dimensional scale that was anchored by the terms “definitely West Indian” at one end and “definitely African American” at the other end, with a mid-point of “equally West Indian and African American.”3 Second-generation students were significantly higher on the scale, i.e., the mean was more toward the African American end of the scale. At the same time, however, it is notable that both generational groups scored below the midpoint, indicating that the ethnic identity of origin is not so readily abandoned for the more encompassing ethnic-national category available to them. Additional data in this same study showed a drop in the belonging subscale of Phinney’s multi-ethnic identity measure (Phinney, 1998) for the second generation, though, in absolute terms, the identity index was still quite strong. Although these data do not speak directly to the issue of the dual reality of

ethnic plus host national identity, they do point to shifts that are possible in identity definitions; similar generation differences have been found in other countries (e.g., Maliepaard, Lubbers,  & Gijsberts, 2010). In another study that explored issues of dual identity, this time in samples of Dominican and Mexican immigrants in the United States, Wiley (2013) considered the potential conflicts that immigrants face as they attempt to relate to two distinct audiences, one a group that shares their ethnic background (in this case, Latino) and the other a group representing the majority host country (in this case, American). Both first- and second-generation immigrants responded to two questions, one that dealt with being “Too Latino for Americans” and the other that asked about being “Too American for Latinos.” Of particular interest in the results is the significant increase in agreement with being “too Latino for Americans” for second-generation immigrants compared to first, suggesting that the challenge of combining ethnic and national identities does not get easier for the second generation, even though they were born Americans because of federal policy of birthright citizenship.4

Dual Identity Performance

The findings of Wiley (2013) point to the variable audiences that immigrants must negotiate in a diverse society. Identity is not just “inside the head” but, as discussed earlier, is grounded in social interaction and depends on verification by others. Clay (2003), for example, shows how African American youth use hip-hop culture, particularly rap music, to form and negotiate their black identity in everyday interactions with other African Americans. In-group acceptance as authentically black depends on one’s ability to master the tools of hip hop performance, that is, the right language, clothes, pasture, attitude and bodily gestures. Speaking and reading a particular language is often an important criterion for successful identity claims. Several studies have shown that a lack of ethnic language proficiency makes it difficult to feel fully accepted by co-ethnics. Chinese-Canadian and Chinese-Dutch youth, for example, emphasize the lack of Chinese literacy as an important shortcoming, from not being able to carry on a conversation to not being able to understand the news as “real” Chinese people would (Belanger & Verkuyten, 2010). These youth argue that they are and feel Chinese, but at the same time are not Chinese “enough,” or not “really” Deaux, Verkuy ten


Chinese because they lack critical attributes of Chinese culture and, therefore, are not fully able to “do” Chinese. Similarly, among South Moluccan youngsters living in the Netherlands the ability to speak the Malay language is used to authenticate a Moluccan identity (“If you can’t speak Malay, you’re not a real Moluccan”) (Verkuyten, 2005a), as is the ability to speak Spanish among Latinos in the United State (Deaux & Ethier, 1998). Wiley and Deaux (2011) invoke group identification as a key component in their model of dual identity performance and go on to develop an analysis of the situational context and characteristics of particular audiences that can influence the identity choices that individuals make. In this respect, they build on earlier work by Verkuyten and de Wolf (2002) who, through the analysis of a sample of discourse from Chinese immigrants living in the Netherlands, pinpointed ways in which these people “did Chinese” within their own ethnic group. In their accounts, the Chinese participants demonstrated elements of personal agency and choice in their construction of a dual identity, actively selecting among possible aspects of both Chinese and Dutch culture as they found it useful to do. In their presentation of a dual identity performance model, Wiley and Deaux (2011) highlight the motivational aspects of performance as well as the influence that a specific audience can exert on that performance, drawing on the theorizing of Klein et  al. (2007). The Wiley-Deaux model emphasizes the dynamic aspects of dual identities, with a specific focus on the combination of ethnic and national identities, and the variability in the ways that people choose to express one or another aspect of self. Attention to the audience also recognizes the fact that, although the individual may easily incorporate two or more categories of self-definition, audiences may be unable or unwilling to recognize a particular group membership. Thus, the second-generation Latina may see herself as “too Latino for Americans” (Wiley, 2013); the British Muslim can face discrimination by those who believe people must be British first (Hopkins, 2011); and Chinese Canadians often believe that both Chinese and other Canadians regard them as more Chinese than they feel themselves (Noels, Leavitt, & Clément, 2010). Audiences not only are able to accept or reject an identity that a person opts to present, but they also can assign an identity that the person does not him/herself claim (see Barreto & Ellemers, 2003). As one example, Afro-Caribbean immigrants to the 126

United States are often regarded as indiscriminable members of the category Black Americans, an identity that they did not have before they migrated and one that they are often unwilling to accept because of the greater possibilities of discrimination that it brings (Waters, 1999). The context of reception is critically important in any analysis of multiple identity and thus we now turn to an analysis of multiculturalism from the perspective of majority members

Majority Members and Multiculturalism

In recent years in many European countries, there has been a retreat from multiculturalism in favor of assimilationist notions (see Joppke, 2004; Vertovec & Wessendorf, 2010).5 Leading politicians and policy makers in France, Germany, and Great Britain have explicitly rejected the idea of multiculturalism and defined it as being “dead,” a “mistake,” and a “drama.” European discussions of citizenship have tried to reinvigorate theories of assimilation by emphasizing the importance of the adoption of the national culture (Joppke, 1999). In addition, some social scientists have argued that it is necessary to seriously rethink and rehabilitate assimilation theory as an alternative to multiculturalism (e.g., Alba & Nee, 2003; Brubaker, 2001). From this vantage point, multiculturalism is considered a barrier to upward mobility and the economic success of minority groups, and any emphasis on ethnic group differences is thought likely to endanger social unity and cohesion.

The Endorsement of Multiculturalism

One reason for the negative evaluation of multiculturalism is that it is seen as an ideology that is irrelevant to the majority population. European multiculturalism, for example, has always been targeted at immigrants and minorities (Joppke, 2004), and a similar tendency is found in the United States (Unzueta & Binning, 2010). Majority members may believe that multiculturalism is not applicable to them and may even make them feel excluded, expressed in the “what about me?” question (Plaut, Garnett, Buffardi, & Sanchez-Burks, 2011). Multiculturalism is typically seen as identity supporting for minority groups and consequently leads to some resistance on the part of the majority. Consistent with this analysis, general support for multiculturalism is not very strong among majority groups in many Western countries. Most of the studies on the endorsement of multicultural recognition have used items that are adapted from Berry and Kalin’s (1995) Multicultural Ideology

The Social Psychology of Multiculturalism

Scale. Research examining the factorial structure of multiculturalism in majority members has typically found multiculturalism to be a unifactorial construct (see Breugelmans & Van de Vijver, 2004) with support for minority-group cultural maintenance (e.g., “Migrants should be supported in their attempts to preserve their own cultural heritage,” “Cultural diversity should be encouraged”) on one end of the dimension and assimilation (“Ethnic minorities should try to forget their culture as much as possible,” “Our country should have its core values and reduce the cultural diversity”) on the other. In addition, studies found support for the factorial similarity of the scale across majority and ethnic minority groups (Arends-Tóth & Van de Vijver, 2003; Verkuyten & Brug, 2004). Apart from Canada, where majority members generally tend to favor multiculturalism (e.g., Berry & Kalin, 1995), studies in other countries have found only moderate support (i.e., slightly above the neutral midpoint of scales), as in Australia (e.g., Ho, 1990) and the United States (e.g., Citrin, Sears, Muste & Wong, 2001), or low support (below or at the neutral midpoint of scales), as exemplified by Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Slovakia (e.g., Pionkowski, Florack, Hoelker, & Obdrzáek, 2000; Verkuyten, 2006; Zick, Wagner, van Dick, & Petzel, 2001). Furthermore, research consistently finds significantly stronger support for multiculturalism among ethnic minorities than among the majority group (e.g., Verkuyten, 2006; Wolsko, Park, & Judd, 2006). The results of these studies support intergroup theories, such as social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), that emphasize the importance of status differences and group interests. However, it does not follow from these theories that multiculturalism is, by definition, less relevant for majorities than minorities. Majority members can be expected to endorse multiculturalism more strongly when it serves their group interest. Morrison and Chung (2011) focused on multiculturalism in relation to the way that majority members think about themselves. They asked majority members to mark their race/ethnicity as either “white” or “European American” before answering questions about their interethnic attitudes. Multiculturalism tends to be framed as pertaining to minority groups and the “White” label suggests that the majority lacks a meaningful ethnic identity. Therefore, self-identifying as White compared to European American may cause majority members

to feel more distant from ethnic minorities and less supportive of multiculturalism. The findings of their two studies supported this reasoning. In another study, the question was whether seeing multiculturalism as self-relevant makes majority-group members more supportive of cultural diversity (Stevens, Plaut, & Sanchez-Burke, 2008). As predicted, majority members were less favorable toward multiculturalism after being presented with an ideology of acknowledgment and respect for minority identities than after being told that diversity is relevant to majorities as well as minorities (see also Plaut et  al., 2011). Thus, making multiculturalism relevant to the majority increases their support for diversity policies. The fact that multiculturalism is not by definition less relevant for the group interests of majorities than of minorities can also be illustrated by looking at different societies. Take the example of Mauritius, which is viewed as a strong candidate for “truly successful polyethnic societies” (Eriksen, 2004, p.79). Mauritius is a small island in the south-western Indian Ocean with a population of 1.26  million (Republic of Mauritius, 2007). The cultural complexity of Mauritius is substantial. On 1,860 square kilometers, various ethnic groups live together (e.g. Hindus, Tamils, Telegus, Marathis, Muslims, Creoles, Whites, and Chinese), around 15 languages are said to be spoken, and the four world religions rub shoulders (Eriksen, 2004). Despite the representation of the nation as a complex multicultural mosaic, clear status differences exist between the ethnic groups. However, in contrast to studies in Europe and North America, the dominant group of Hindus does not endorse multiculturalism less strongly than the minority group of Creoles (Ng-Tseung & Verkuyten, 2010). This counterexample is explained by the official image of Mauritius as being a diasporic nation and the related multicultural politics of the state that encourage the cultivation of “ancestral cultures.” Diversity is based on the recognition of the culture of groups that have clear ancestral origins, like the Hindus, who are powerful in politics and the public sector. In contrast, the term Creoles is used for a rather diverse population of descendants of African and Malagasy slaves. They do not have a recognized claim on a legitimizing ancestral culture and ancestral language with an origin outside Mauritius (Laville, 2000). As a consequence, the diasporic ancestral culture policy justifies the position of the Hindus and has exclusionist implications for the low status Creoles (Eisenlohr, 2006). Deaux, Verkuy ten


Another divergent case is the autonomous titular states and titular republics within the Russian Federation (Fleischmann, Verkuyten, & Poppe, 2011). The term titular refers to the population groups after which the republics/states are named, such as Tatars in Tatarstan. The dominant position of titulars in their republics is based on the idea of their cultural distinctiveness. Codagnone and Filippov (2000) have pointed out that the titular elites frequently use a discourse of multiculturalism and minority rights to secure their dominant position in the titular republics in relation to the Russian minority and the Russian state. This discourse tends to serve as a legitimization of the cultural distinctiveness and territorial autonomy of the titulars who, in turn, do not promote the rights of nontitular minorities. Hence, in the autonomous titular republics, multiculturalism functions as a hierarchy-enhancing ideology that legitimizes the position of the titulars in contrast to non-titulars, and the Russians in particular. Yet another example is Japan. Some researchers have argued that the Japanese maintain their privileged position by essentializing cultural differences in the name of multiculturalism. The endorsement of multiculturalism would be compatible with a strong ethnic-national identity because it enables the dominant majority to draw strict boundaries between ethnic minorities and themselves. In a large-scale research project, Nagayoshi (2011) found a positive association between ethno-national identity and the endorsement of multiculturalism. Those who demand cultural homogeneity within Japan tend to approve of multiculturalism because it emphasizes the “otherness” of ethnic minorities and justifies the right to maintain the original Japanese culture. This is quite similar to some of the arguments that extreme right-wing groups in Europe make. For example, Alain de Benoist of the French National Front has said that they feel a strong bond with Taylor’s (1992) multicultural politics of recognition and he has claimed their “droit de difference” (“the right to be different”). These examples show that multiculturalism can serve the interest of majority members and, therefore, can be highly relevant to them. As a result, majorities can endorse multiculturalism more strongly than minority groups and this endorsement can lead to more negative intergroup relations. Negative relations can also result when multiculturalism is seen as threatening to the identity and position of the majority group. 128

Multiculturalism as a Threat

In North American and European societies, multicultural recognition typically offers a positive view of cultural maintenance by ethnic minority groups. Majority group members, on the other hand, may see multiculturalism as a threat to their cultural dominance and group identity. An interview study among native Dutch participants tried to identify the social thought or the main arguments used for justifying or criticizing the idea of multiculturalism (Verkuyten, 2004). Issues of threat and anxiety were mentioned most often when arguing against a multicultural society and in favor of assimilation. Respondents suggested that a multicultural society could pose a threat to people and that the assimilation of minorities brings a sense of security and control. Majority members sometimes see multicultural recognition as threatening to their in-group because it requires them to relinquish some of their power and status (e.g., Correll, Park, & Smith, 2008; Verkuyten, 2006). As a result, multiculturalism can contribute to a backlash against minority groups. Several studies have found that multicultural ideologies can increase intergroup biases, including stronger outgroup stereotyping (Ryan et al., 2010; Ryan, Hunt, Weible, Peterson, & Casas, 2007; Wolsko, Park, Judd, & Wittenbrink, 2000). For example, a stereotypic minority member is liked more than a counterstereotypic member when participants are exposed to multiculturalism (Gutiérrez & Unzueta, 2010). This finding suggests that multiculturalism creates a preference for minority members who remain within the boundaries of their ethnicity. These negative effects are particularly likely to occur in conflict situations (Corell et al., 2008) and among high majority-group identifiers who respond to threats with prejudice and discrimination. Morrison, Plaut, and Ybarra (2010), for example, found that White Americans who were primed with multicultural recognition showed greater prejudice, especially when they identified strongly with their ethnicity and perceived threats to their in-group values. Similarly, Lowery, Unzueta, Knowles, and Goff (2006) showed that when the focus is on losses that the majority in-group will incur, the ethnic identification of White Americans is negatively related to their support for affirmative action. In three studies, Vorauer and Sasaki (2011) demonstrated that a salient multicultural ideology increases hostile treatment of threatening out-group interaction partners. It is also likely that the more strongly majority members believe that immigrants and minorities

The Social Psychology of Multiculturalism

want to maintain their original culture, the more threatened they feel, and that this threat in turn will reduce support for multiculturalism (Verkuyten, 2009a). In contrast, when majority group members believe that immigrants and minority members want to adopt the mainstream culture, they feel less threatened and are more likely to support multiculturalism. In the context of Great Britain, Tip and colleagues (2012) found supporting evidence for these predictions in three studies. Their findings suggest that the majority group supports multiculturalism as long as they believe that minority members do not wish to segregate and maintain their original culture.6 These findings do not necessarily mean, however, that immigrants and minorities who want to assimilate to the mainstream are fully accepted. Those in the majority who support group-based dominance and inequality (i.e., high social-dominance orientation) can become more prejudiced and politically right-wing oriented in a context of assimilation than in one of integration (Guimond, De Oliveira, Kamiesjki, & Sidanius, 2010; Thomsen, Green, & Sidanius, 2008). When immigrants lose their cultural heritage and try to become similar to the rest of “us” (assimilation), the blurring of intergroup boundaries poses a threat to the existing group-based social hierarchies. In contrast, immigrants who adopt the mainstream culture but without giving up their home culture (integration) are in a sense confirming the existing social hierarchy.

Positive Implications of Multicultural Recognition

Multiculturalism is a difficult and controversial issue that can be interpreted in different ways. Ginges and Cairns (2000) found that Australian citizens saw the multicultural policy as beneficial for the country and as an impetus to greater social equality; at the same time, people also mentioned disadvantages such as a threat to the status quo and to the unity and stability of the country. Among Dutch majority members, Breugelmans and Van de Vijver (2004) found a positive social norm involving support for multiculturalism and a negative social norm referring to multiculturalism as a threat. Both social norms were predictors of multicultural attitudes. Similarly, in the context of an interview (Verkuyten, 2004), Dutch majority members not only argued that multiculturalism can be threatening to their in-group, but they also said that a multicultural society is a good thing because it enriches society and allows one to learn

about other ways of life and to improve and develop oneself (“it is important for your general development”). Multiculturalism was thought to “open up your eyes,” help one to develop an “open attitude toward what you do not know,” and to lead to a growing awareness of and sensitivity to the existence of different points of view and, consequently, of the relativity of one’s own worldview (“knowing that one’s own culture is neither the only one nor the best one”). In addition, multiculturalism was believed to prevent discrimination and racism by stressing equality and stimulating people to be more tolerant and respectful toward others. In line with this, social psychological research has found positive implications of multicultural recognition for intergroup relations. Majority group members who endorse multicultural recognition tend to evaluate ethnic minorities more positively (e.g., Ryan et al., 2007; Verkuyten, 2005b; Wolsko et al., 2006) and when experimentally primed with multiculturalism, majority members exhibit lower levels of explicit and implicit prejudice against minority groups (e.g., Richeson & Nussbaum, 2004; Verkuyten, 2005b; Wolsko et  al., 2000). The endorsement of multicultural recognition also predicts more positive attitudes toward controversial social policies such as immigration and affirmative action, as well as citizenship engagement (Plaut, 2010). Multicultural recognition appears to have positive effects on intergroup relations for at least three reasons. First, and in contrast to assimilation, multiculturalism prompts an outward focus away from the in-group and toward learning about and accepting ethnic outgroups. Vorauer, Gagnon, and Sasaki (2009), for example, found that, within a multicultural experimental context, White Canadians were more other-focused and made more positive other-directed remarks during an intergroup exchange. Priming multiculturalism also tends to increase perspective taking with a more outward and responsive focus (see Plaut, 2010). In addition, Plaut, Thomas, and Goren (2009) found in a health-care organization that Whites’ multiculturalism is associated with higher minority engagement. The endorsement of multicultural recognition also has been found to be associated with lower levels of perceived outgroup threat among majority members (e.g., Velasco González, Verkuyten, Weesie, & Poppe, 2008; Ward & Masgoret, 2006). These findings support Berry’s (2006) argument that multicultural recognition can provide confidence, trust, and security Deaux, Verkuy ten


among everyone living in plural societies. These positive associations and effects have been found independently of the level of in-group identification (Verkuyten, 2005b; Wolsko et  al., 2006). Furthermore, Lowery and colleagues (2006) found that when the focus is on the gains for the Black outgroup, the in-group identification of Whites does not predict the attitudes toward affirmative action. Group identification was related to lower support for affirmative action only when the focus was on losses for the White in-group. Second, multicultural recognition can have positive effects on the outgroup attitudes of majority members because it implies tolerance of diversity and respect for outgroup values and norms. Multiculturalism highlights the importance of appreciating differences and the benefits of cultural diversity. In a study among mainland Chinese residents, it was found that their negative attitude toward Hong Kong Chinese was related to perceived value incongruence (Guan et  al., 2011). The higher the value incongruence between mainland Chinese and Hong Kong Chinese, the more negatively the latter were evaluated. However, value incongruence was much less strongly related to negative out-group evaluations among participants who endorsed multiculturalism (e.g., “Cultural diversity should be encouraged”; “China should have its core values and reduce the cultural diversity”) compared to those who did not. People with higher multiculturalism appreciate diversity and support tolerance, making value incongruence less relevant for their out-group attitudes. Rather, for them, diversity offers the possibilities of learning about and from members of other groups. Third, multiculturalism can have positive consequences for the evaluation of immigrants and ethnic minority groups because it involves a common, superordinate identity representation (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Saguy, 2009). Assimilation emphasizes the identity of the majority group by requiring minorities to conform to dominant values and ideas and to abandon their minority group identity. Segregation stresses group differences and focuses on distinctive ethnic identities. In contrast, multiculturalism posits a need to cultivate commonalities and shared commitments across and in addition to group difference (Hartmann & Gerteis, 2005). Those who favor multiculturalism tend to emphasize the importance of being inclusive by recognizing ethnic differences. The emphasis is on the recognition 130

of diversity within a common society. This superordinate representation corresponds to the values that people who endorse multiculturalism tend to have for society (Modood, 2007; Parekh, 2000). In addition, a dual identity reflects and communicates the possibility of multicultural individuals that is favored by people who endorse multiculturalism (Benet-Martínez, 2012). Thus, people endorsing multiculturalism might react more favorably to dual identifiers because they represent and embody cultural pluralism. Labels such as Mexican American or Turkish German emphasize that people are at the same time part of their ethnic minority group and of the superordinate national category. Dual labels define ethnic minority members as part of the national in-group. Thus, the use of these labels can be expected to lead to more positive attitudes than do single ethnic labels like Mexican and Turk, which emphasize that one does not feel part of the host national community. This is especially likely for majority people who endorse multiculturalism. A label like Turkish German communicates the possibility of multicultural individuals who combine an involvement and identification with both cultures. Ethnic labeling can be expected to have less effect on the attitudes of low multiculturalists who tend to endorse an assimilationist one-group-majority perspective that rejects minority identities, whether they are single or dual labeled. These expectations were confirmed in a study on the attitudes toward four ethnic-minority groups in the Netherlands (Verkuyten & Thijs, 2010). Attitudes toward each of these groups were more positive when they were identified with dual labels (i.e., Turkish Dutch) than with single labels (Turks), and this was especially the case for participants who endorsed multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism and Minority Identity

In the previous sections we have discussed research on multiple identities among immigrants and on multicultural recognition as a critical context of reception. In this section we link these two positions by focusing on the ways in which multicultural recognition relates to dual identity and to the self-feelings, motivations, and actions of immigrants and minorities.

Multicultural Recognition and Dual Identity

A dual identity affirms the distinctiveness of ethnic minority identity in the context of a shared sense of belonging with the broader society. Therefore, it

The Social Psychology of Multiculturalism

can be expected that multiculturalism is positively related to immigrants’ ethnic and national identification. Survey and experimental research has shown that multicultural recognition is indeed associated with stronger ethnic identification. For example, in a multicultural experimental context, Turkish-Dutch participants had higher ethnic identification compared to a neutral or an assimilation context (Verkuyten, 2005b). Less directly, the affirmation of one’s ethnic identity by an out-group, implying a multicultural endorsement, has been shown to increase identification with the national group (van Laar, Derks, & Ellemers, 2011). Endorsement or rejection of multiculturalism can be expressed in the broad context of public opinion and public policy, as well as in the more immediate context of interpersonal and intergroup exchanges. As examples of the broader level, one can point to long-standing policies of cultural diversity, as illustrated by the governments of Canada, which endorse and encourage the expression of multiple identities. In contrast, when social policy, at either explicit or implicit levels, stresses assimilation and immigrants are urged to “become like us,” it is not easy for the immigrant to maintain a dual identity and feel like a proper member of the national community. Single events can also alter the national discourse and make it more difficult to maintain identification with both ethnic group and country. A case in point is the United States after the 9/11 terrorists’ attacks. The inclusion of citizens who were identified as Arab and/or as Muslim came into question, and ethnicity was often seen to be in a zero-sum relationship with national identification. Spillover effects were even seen with Sikh men, who were viewed by some with suspicion because of their beards and turbans and were frequently confused with Muslim Arabs. As a result, their “Americanness” was increasingly interrogated, and they “moved from a comfortable sense of belonging to an uneasy state of being an outsider and a threatening one at that” (Bhatia & Ram, 2009, p. 146). Dual identity is not only about a sense of belonging to two groups but also involves identity performances (Wiley & Deaux, 2011). These performances are typically carried out in smaller-scale interpersonal and intergroup contexts and shape immigrants’ feelings of dual identity. Social identities are communicated and negotiated in interactions and the outcomes of this can affect people’s self-understandings. These interactions are typically with both members of the ethnic in-group and

with the national “outgroup,” two audiences that may hold different expectations and require different performances (see also Badea, Jetten, Iyeer, & Er-Rafiy, 2011). With the national outgroup, an immigrant’s stake in belonging to the national group can be questioned or rejected, and this lack of confirmation makes it difficult to maintain a secure sense of identity. Research has shown that when the “Americanness” of Asian Americans is questioned, for example, these dual-identity people react with behaviours that assert and reinforce “American” practices, like advertising an American lifestyle (Cheryan & Monin, 2005), as a way of staking their claim on the national identity. In a more political example, following 9/11, Sikh males who experienced hostility in public places sought to educate the public about how Sikhism is different from Islam; many Sikh groups in New York and around the United States waged a public relations campaign as a form of identity presentation (Bhatia & Ram, 2009). The dual identity performance of immigrants involves more than presentation to the national audience, because immigrants need to speak to their own ethnic community as well. Here the implications of multiculturalism may be different, because the ethnic audience can view adoption of a national identity as a potential threat to maintenance of the cultural heritage. Frequently, conflicts between immigrant parents and their children reflect these differing positions on the constitution of dual identification and the meaning of multiculturalism. For example, predominantly speaking the national language can be regarded as a form of disloyalty to one’s ethnic community (e.g., Belangér & Verkuyten, 2010), and adopting majority group values and practices can be seen as nationalizing too much. Within migrant communities there are often normative pressures to maintain their culture of origin and not to assimilate, and the ideology of multiculturalism can be used to justify these pressures (e.g., Okin, 1999). In a study of daily acculturative hassles among Vietnamese-Canadians, Lay and Nguyen (1998) found evidence that in-group hassles (e.g., being perceived as too White by in-group members) have a significant negative impact on the acculturation process (see also Abouguendia & Noels, 2001; Badea et  al., 2011; Wiley, 2013). And in a study among Turkish immigrants in Germany and The Netherlands, it was found that this kind of in-group pressure was negatively associated with host national identification, via increased religious group identification (Martinovic & Verkuyten, 2012). Deaux, Verkuy ten


The Effects of Multicultural Recognition on Feelings and Actions

Arguments for the multicultural position point to a variety of positive effects that are assumed to follow from the adoption of this position, effects that include both positive self-regard among members of minority groups and their enhanced motivation to participate in the larger civic community. Many of these arguments have been made in the popular discourse; some of them have been tested empirically by social scientists. The self-esteem argument for multiculturalism relates to the “politics of recognition” and stresses the value of cultural diversity and cultural recognition for self-feelings. The public acceptance and recognition of one’s group and culture are valuable, it is argued, as conditions of a clear and secure group identity that sustains personal feelings of self-respect and self-esteem (Burnet, 1995). Developmental research has shown that positive multicultural interactions can result in a secure and strong ethnic identity and high self-esteem (e.g. Seaton, Scottham & Sellers, 2006; Yip, Seaton & Sellers, 2006). Further, in acculturation research, there is evidence that the public denial or rejection of one’s group and culture facilitates an insecure group identity that undermines feelings of self-worth (see Phinney et al., 2006). In two experimental studies, the situational impact of multicultural recognition on self-feelings of ethnic minority members in the Netherlands was examined (Verkuyten, 2009b). In line with the self-esteem argument it was expected that multiculturalism would have a positive influence on self-esteem, particularly among high group identifiers. A multicultural perspective provides the social recognition and justification for affirming one’s ethnic identity and for valuing ethnic differentiation positively. Such a perspective is particularly important for individuals who have a strong ethnic identity that manifests itself in a generalized readiness to be concerned about society’s recognition of cultural differences and the value of ethnic groups. However, the group thinking inherent in multiculturalism might be threatening for those individuals who do not identify strongly with their ethnic group but, rather, stress their own personal qualities and characteristics. For them, multiculturalism might lead to lower self-esteem. Individuals who do not identify strongly with their ethnic group want to be accepted and recognized by other group memberships or in terms of their personal identity and unique individual characteristics. Hence, it 132

was hypothesized that the effect of multicultural recognition on self-esteem is moderated by ethnic in-group identification. It was found that multiculturalism does indeed provide a context in which minorities with a strong ethnic identity can feel good about themselves. However, and as expected, multiculturalism also appeared to be a context in which minority members with a low level of group identification felt less positive about themselves. Thus, a multicultural context provides a favorable condition for personal self-esteem of high ethnic-minority identifiers but not for low identifiers. Field studies have reported similar findings. For example, using an event-contingent daily recording strategy, Downie, Mageau, Koestner and Liodden (2006) found that people feel more positively about themselves in daily interactions in which their heritage culture is being positively evaluated. Further, studying Chinese Americans, Yip (2005) found that the salience of ethnic identity fluctuates across daily situations and that ethnic salience bolstered positive self-feelings and reduced negative feelings (see also Yip & Fuligni, 2002). However, and in agreement with the experimental findings, these positive situational effects were found only for Chinese Americans who considered ethnicity to be important to their self-concept. Endorsement of the value of one’s ethnic group in a multicultural context can have positive effects on motivation and performance as well. A program of research by van Laar and her colleagues (Derks, van Laar, & Ellemers, 2007; van Laar et al., 2011), focusing particularly on Islamic women in the Netherlands, has looked at the consequences of positive valuation of one’s ethnic group by members of the Dutch majority. Not only are these conditions associated with better health and stronger identification with the Dutch nation, but they also increase the motivation to work for a company that endorses these values. Performance in a laboratory setting is also enhanced when these conditions are present. In contrast, negative valuation of one’s ethnic group can undermine motivation and performance, particularly among dual identifiers. For example, members of ethnic minority groups can respond to identity threat in ways that are detrimental to their school career, whereas others persist despite experiences of discrimination in school. Among Turkish Belgian youth, Baysu, Phalet, and Brown (2011) showed that dual identifiers were most successful at school when perceived threat was low, whereas those with a more exclusive Turkish (“separated”) or Belgian (“assimilated”) identity were less likely

The Social Psychology of Multiculturalism

than dual identifiers to disengage from school when perceived threat was high. For dual identifiers, experiences of discrimination can signal the failure of bridging ethnic and national identities, making it a stressful strategy in an achievement context. This finding indicates that a dual identity can have psychological disadvantages in an unwelcoming environment. Dual identity can make minorities more susceptible and vulnerable to rejection from majority members.

Implications of Multiculturalism for Social Policy

We close this chapter with some suggestions for policies and practices that might take advantage of the potential gains of a multicultural stance but also recognize and consider the possible pitfalls. Ethnic-group membership provides a meaningful identity that many immigrants will try to maintain and protect. At the same time, most immigrants are in the process of developing a commitment to the national community. An important policy implication of the research is that there is not necessarily a trade-off between ethnic and national identification and that both can co-exist in the form of a dual identity. Politics of ethnic difference and politics of assimilation both share the assumption that there is a trade-off. Advocates of the former tend to argue that any kind of commonality or shared identity dilutes ethnic minority identities, whereas proponents of the latter argue that any kind of ethnic identity undermines national solidarity. The research evidence indicates not only that a dual identity is likely but also that it often, but not always, has favorable social and psychological consequences. It is important to note, however, that the possibilities of a dual identity depend on the particular social context and the prevalent identity meanings. A dual identity is more likely in a country like Canada that considers multiculturalism self-defining, compared to many European countries that have an indigenous majority group. In these countries, the native population does not have a dual identity, and only immigrants and ethnic minority members can be defined in these terms. One implication is that, for the majority group, a focus on dual identities can be seen as emphasizing the position of immigrants and minorities rather than contributing to the unity and cohesion of the society as a whole. Consequently, policy makers dealing with questions of cultural diversity need to consider the perspective of the majority group. Majority members may be relatively resistant to diversity policies because they

believe that it is inapplicable to them and it may even make them feel excluded. To the extent that these policies are seen as identity supporting only for minority groups, they can lead to resistance on the part of the majority. Therefore, it is important to make diversity policies relevant to the majority by emphasizing the potential benefits for all groups in society. “Multiculturalism” needs to be clarified and specified in order to be effective as a diversity model. In particular, those who make policy need to make as clear as possible what the multicultural or diversity policies actually imply, why exactly they are considered necessary, and for whom they are intended. The emphasis on inclusion of all groups further implies acceptance and recognition of ethnic minority identities. A feeling of being rejected and discriminated against is one important reason why minority members turn away from the society in which they live. For example, the pattern of discrimination and identity denial in many European countries makes it difficult to be a Muslim and a national at the same time. Therefore, antidiscrimination policies are immensely important, not only because they improve people’s opportunities but also because they tell immigrants and minorities that they are equal members of society and that society is fair and has trustworthy institutions. The symbolic value of these policies should not be underestimated. Second-generation as well as more highly educated immigrants can feel more rejected and, therefore, maintain a greater distance toward society than do the first generation and the less successful ones. Thus, policies that assume that the lack of integration is responsible for many of the problems that immigrants face and present are one-sided, insofar as they ignore the causal force of unfavourable circumstances. The “paradox of integration” indicates that the most successful immigrants tend to be the ones who are more negative toward the host society because they are more concerned about the existing group-based rejection, exclusion and inequality. For example, Moroccan-Dutch youngsters who are in custody awaiting trial nonetheless appear to be much better integrated into Dutch society than do their non-criminal Moroccan-Dutch peers (Stevens, Veen, & Vollebergh, 2009). Members of the former group, relative to the latter, more often speak the Dutch language fluently, have more contacts with Dutch people and self-identify more often as Dutch. Their relatively strong orientation to Dutch society makes them especially sensitive to inequalities and negative stereotypes. Similarly, several Deaux, Verkuy ten


studies in the United States have found relatively high levels of delinquency among ethnic-minority youth who have a strong orientation in American society (Samaniego & Gonzales, 1999; Vega, Gil, Warheit, Zimmerman, & Apospori, 1993). In addition to perceptions and experiences with exclusion and discrimination, immigrants encounter in-group hassles and normative pressures. Identification processes have important implications for the relations within groups and involve issues of in-group acceptance, obligations, and loyalties. Multicultural policies should be sensitive to these processes because these policies can legitimize in-group norms that distance people from society and that reinforce power dynamics, thus rendering the most disadvantaged group members (i.e., children and women) even more vulnerable. This “paradox of multicultural vulnerability” (Sachar, 2000) raises difficult policy questions because it can mean that the integrity of ethnic minority groups is placed above the freedom and equality of the individuals within. For example, granting rights to separate schooling or exemptions from state regulations can imply in some circumstances the implicit support of children’s oppression and their distancing from the host society (Reich, 2002). Furthermore, the emphasis on cultural maintenance and equality of cultures and the recognition of cultural diversity can legitimise the inequality of women (e.g., Okin, 1999). Often multiculturalism has been criticized for supporting and justifying conservatism and repressive in-group practices (e.g., Barry, 2001). Multicultural policies should emphasize cultural liberty, which requires that individuals be as free to maintain their identities as they are to change them (UNDP, 2004). Immigrants are not a homogeneous group, and important differences by class, gender, and generation need to be taken into consideration. These different identities can intersect and combine in various ways, resulting in less or more complex identity structures that not only have implications for well-being but for intergroup relations as well (Roccas & Brewer, 2002). In addition, meaningful differences exist between immigrant groups in their migration history, country of origin, culture and religion, and their acceptance in the country of settlement. In most of these countries, an ethnic hierarchy is present such that some groups are more accepted than others (Hagendoorn, 1995). Blacks in the United States, for example, generally have lower status than Asians and Muslims. In contrast, Muslim groups are at the bottom of the hierarchy 134

in the Netherlands, whereas groups of Blacks have a much better social position. These kind of differences can have important implications for the ways in which immigrants and minorities define and understand themselves and for developing positive multiple identities.


Multiculturalism is concerned with complex issues that involve many questions and dilemmas. There are promises and there are pitfalls. Considering the psychological and social importance of ethnic and religious (minority) identities, a focus on groups and group differences is understandable and, to a certain extent, useful, for example for improving intergroup relations. This focus can, however, also lead to a situation in which these identities can capture too much attention, while both superordinate identities (e.g. national and community commitments) and individual choices are ignored. Multiculturalism thus calls for a delicate balance between recognizing differences and developing meaningful communalities, between differential treatment and equality, between group identities and individual liberties. The debate about multiculturalism and the best ways to manage cultural diversity continues, and social psychologists increasingly try to make a contribution to these debates. As they do so, the terms of the debate will necessarily broaden. Not only is it important to interrogate ethnic and national identities, but both scientists and policy makers will also need to consider the ways in which religious, social class, and gender identities are understood and intersect with ethnic and national identities; the differences between societies and contexts, as well as the many differences between immigrant groups themselves; the perceptions and experiences of both majority and minority members; and differences within groups and intragroup processes—factors that both define and predict the success or failure of multicultural efforts.


1. Contributions of the authors to this chapter were equivalent and the order of authorship is alphabetical. 2. The independence of ethnic and national identification on the part of the immigrant is not necessarily reflected in the view of others in the society. Societal debates in the United States, for example, often assume that the immigrant must give up his or her ethnic attachment in order to become American (see Huntington, 2004) and White Americans are seen as being more American than Asian-Americans or African Americans (Devos & Banaji, 2005). This position is

The Social Psychology of Multicu lturalism

3. 4. 5.


less characteristic of Canada, however, where the co-existence of cultural identity and civic commitment is part of official policy. The problems inherent in using a single bi-dimensional scale to address issues of biculturalism are recognized. In both first- and second-generation groups, Latino (either Dominican or Mexican) and American identities were uncorrelated with each other. It has been argued, however, that this is more of a symbolic than actual retreat from multiculturalism. In Europe the term multiculturalism is avoided and the discourse has changed, but many of the indices continue to exist under the label “diversity policy” (Vertovec & Wessendorf, 2010). Results of one recent report, however, suggest that majority members may be less favorable to second-generation immigrants who reject their heritage culture, to the extent that they believe this rejection might reflect unfavorably on their own image of tolerance (Matera, Stefanile, & Brown, 2011).


Abouguendia, M., & Noels, K.A. (2001). General and acculturation-related daily hassles and psychological adaptation in first and second-generation South Asian immigrants to Canada. International Journal of Psychology, 36, 163–173. Alba, R., & Nee, V. (2003). Remaking the American mainstream:  Assimilation and contemporary immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Arends-Tóth, J., & van de Vijver, F.J.R. (2003). Multiculturalism and acculturation:  Views of Dutch and Turkish-Dutch. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 249–266. Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K. & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An organizing framework for collective identity:  Articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 80–114. Badea, C., Jetten, J., Iyer, A., & Er-Rafiy, A. (2011). Negotiating dual identities:  The impact of group-based rejection on identification and acculturation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 586–595. Barreto, M. & Ellemers, N. (2003). The effects of being categorized: The interplay between internal and external identities. European Review of Social Psychology, 14, 139–170. Barry, B. (2001) Culture and equality. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Barth, F. (1969). Introduction. In F. Barth (Ed.), Ethnic groups and boundaries: The social organization of cultural difference. London: Allen & Unwin. Baysu, G., Phalet, K., & Brown, R. (2011). Dual identity as a two-edged sword: Identity threat and minority school performance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 74, 121–143. Belangér, E., & Verkuyten, M. (2010). Hyphenated identities and acculturation:  Second generation Chinese of Canada and the Netherlands. Identity:  An International Journal of Theory and Research, 10, 141–163. Benet-Martínez, V. (2012). Multiculturalism:  Cultural, social, and personality processes. In K. Deaux & M. Snyder (Eds.), Handbook of personality and social psychology (pp. 623–648). New York: Oxford University Press. Berry, J. W. (1980). Social and cultural change. In H. C. Triandis & R. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Vol. 5. Social Psychology. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Berry, J.W. (2006). Mutual attitudes among immigrants and ethnocultural groups in Canada. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 719–734.

Berry, J.W., & Kalin, R. (1995). Multicultural and ethnic attitudes in Canada. An overview of the 1991 national survey. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 27, 301–320. Bhatia, S., & Ram, A. (2009). Theorizing identity in transnational and diaspora cultures:  A  critical approach to acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33, 140–149. Boyd, M. & Derrick T. (2002). Skilled immigrant labor: Country of origin and the occupational locations of male engineers. Canadian Studies in Population, 29, 71–99. Breugelmans, S. M., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2004). Antecedents and components of majority attitudes toward multiculturalism in the Netherlands. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 400–422. Brewer, M B. (1997). The social psychology of intergroup relations: Can research inform practice. Journal of Social Issues, 53, 197–211. Brubaker, R. (2001). The return of assimilation? Changing perspectives on immigration and its sequels in France, Germany, and the United States. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 24, 531–548. Burke, P. J., & Stets, J. E. (2009). Identity theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burnet, J. (1995). Multiculturalism and racism in Canada. In J. Hjarno (Ed.), Multiculturalism in the Nordic societies (pp. 43–50). Copenhagen: TemaNord. Cainkar, L. A. (2009). Homeland insecurity: The Arab American and Muslim American experience after 9/11. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.. Cheryan, S. & Monin, B. (2005). Where are you really from? Asian Americans and identity denial. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 717–730. Citrin, J., Sears, D. O., Muste, C., & Wong, C. (2001). Multiculturalism in American public opinion. British Journal of Political Science, 31, 247–275. Clay, A. (2003). Keepin’ it real:  Black youth, hip hop culture, and Black identity. American Behavioral Scientist, 46, 1346–1358. Codagnone, C., & Filippov, V. (2000). Equity, exit and national identity in a multinational federation:  the “multicultural constitutional patriotism” project in Russia. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 26, 263–288. Correll, J., Park, B., & Smith, J.A. (2008). Colorblind and multicultural prejudice reduction strategies in high-conflict situations. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 11, 471–491. Deaux, K., Bikmen, N., Gilkes, A., Ventuneac, A., Joseph, Y., Payne, Y. R. & Steele, C. M. (2007). Becoming American:  Stereotype threat effects in Afro-Caribbean immigrant groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 70, 384–404. Deaux, K. & Ethier, K. A. (1998). Negotiating social identity. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 301–323). San Diego: Academic Press. Derks, B., van Laar, C., & Ellemers, N. (2007). The beneficial effects of social identity protection on the performance motivation of members of devalued groups. Social Issues and Policy Review, 1, 217–256. Devos, T., & Banaji, M. (2005). American = White? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 447–466. De Vroome, T., Martinovic, B., & Verkuyten, M. (2012). Host national identification and structural integration:  A  study among immigrant groups in the Netherlands. Utrecht: Ercomer.

Deaux, Verkuy ten


Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Saguy, T. (2009). Commonality and the complexity of “we”: Social attitudes and social change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 3–20. Downie, M., Mageau, G. A., Koestner, R., & Liodden, T. (2006). On the risk of being a cultural chameleon: Variations in collective self-esteem across social interactions. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12, 527–540. Eisenlohr, P. (2006). Little India: Diaspora, time and ethnolinguistic belonging in the Hindu Mauritius. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Elkins, Z., & Sides, J. (2007). Can institutions build unity in multiethnic states? American Political Science Review, 101, 693–708. Eriksen, T.H. (2004). Ethnicity, class, and the 1999 Mauritian riots. In S. May., T. Modood, & J.A. Squires (Eds.), Ethnicity, nationalism and minority rights (pp. 78–95). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Fleischmann. F., Verkuyten, M., & Poppe, E. (2011). Ethnic and republic identification in the Russian Federation and Ukraine:  A  social dominance perspective. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37, 23–41. Foner, N., & Alba, R. (2008). Immigrant religion in the U.S. and Western Europe: Bridge or barrier to inclusion? International Migration Review, 42, 360–392. Ginges, J., & Cairns, D. (2000). Social representations of multiculturalism:  A  faceted analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1345–1370. Guan, Y., Verkuyten, M., Fung, H. H., Bond, M. H., Chan, C. C., & Chen, S. X. (2011). Outgroup value incongruence and intergroup attitude: The roles of multiculturalism and common identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 377–385. Guimond, S., De Oliveira, P., Kamiesjki, R., & Sidanius, J. (2010). The trouble with assimilation: Social dominance and the emergence of hostility against immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 642–650. Gutiérrez, A.S., & Unzueta, M.M. (2010). The effect of interethnic ideologies on the likability of stereotypic vs. counterstereotypic minority targets. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 775–784. Haidt, J., Rosenberg, E., & Hom, H. (2003). Differentiating diversities: Moral diversity is not like other kinds. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1–36. Hagendoorn, L. (1995). Intergroup biases in multiple group systems:  The perception of ethnic hierarchies. In:  W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (pp. 199–228). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Hartmann, D., & Gerteis, J. (2005). Dealing with diversity:  Mapping multiculturalism in sociological terms. Sociological Theory, 23, 218–240. Hirschman, C. (2004). The role of religion in the origins and adaptation of immigrant groups in the United States. International Migration Review, 38, 1206–1233. Ho, R. (1990). Multiculturalism in Australia: A survey of attitudes. Human Relations, 43, 259–272. Hopkins, N. (2011). Dual identities and their recognition:  Minority group members’ perspectives. Political Psychology, 32, 251–270. Huntington, S. P. (2004). Who are we? The challenge to America’s national identity. New York: Simon & Schuster. Hutnik, N. (1991). Ethnic minority identity: A social psychological perspective. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.


Itzigsohn, J. (2009). Encountering American faultlines:  Race, class, and the Dominican experience in Providence. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Itzigsohn, J. & Giorguli-Saucedo, S. (2005). Incorporation, transnationalism, and gender: Immigrant incorporation and transnational participation as gendered process. International Migration Review, 39, 895–920. Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Liebkind, K., & Solheim, E. (2009). To identify or not to identify? National disidentification as an alternative reaction to perceived ethnic discrimination. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 58, 105–128. Joppke, C. (1999). How immigration is changing citizenship:  A  comparative view. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22, 629–652. Joppke, C. (2004). The retreat of multiculturalism in the liberal state: theory and policy. British Journal of Sociology, 55, 237–257. Kalkan, K. O., Layman, G. C., & Uslaner, E. M. (2009). “Bands of others”? Attitudes toward Muslims in contemporary American society. The Journal of Politics, 71, 1–16. Klein, O., Spears, R., & Reicher, S. (2007). Social identity performance: Extending the strategic side of SIDE. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 1–18. Lamont, M. & Small, M. L. (2008). How culture matters: Enriching our understanding of poverty. In A. C. Lin & D. Harris (Eds.), The colors of poverty: Why racial disparities exist (pp. 76–102). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Laville, R. (2000). In the politics of the rainbow:  Creoles and civil society in Mauritius. Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 18, 277–294. Lay, C., & Nguyen, T. (1998). The roles of acculturated-related and acculturation non-specific hassles: Vietnamese-Canadian students and psychological distress. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 30, 172–181. Lowery, B.S., Unzueta, M.M., Knowles, E.D., & Goff, P.A. (2006). Concern for the in-group and opposition to affirmative action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 961–974. Maliepaard, M., Lubbers, M., & Gijsberts, M. (2010). Generational differences in ethnic and religious attachment and their interrelation:  A  study among Muslim minorities in the Netherlands. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 33, 451–472. Martinovic, B., & Verkuyten, M. (2012). Host national and religious identification among Turkish Muslims in Western Europe:  The role of ingroup norms, perceived discrimination and value incompatibility. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 893–903. Matera, C., Stefanile, C. & Brown, R. (2011) The role of immigrant acculturation preferences and generational status in determining majority intergroup attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 776–785. Migration Policy Institute,, May 12, 2011. Miller, D. (1994). Modernity: An ethnographic approach: Dualism and mass consumption in Trinidad. Providence: Berg. Modood, T. (2007). Multiculturalism. Cambridge, UK:  Polity Press. Modood, T., Berthoud, R., Lakey, J., Nazroo, J., Smith, P., Bvirdee, S., & Beishon, S. (1997). Ethnic minorities in Britain:  Diversity and disadvantage. London:  Policy Studies Institute. Morrison, K.R., & Chung, A.H. (2011). “White” or “European American”? Self-identifying labels influence majority group

The Social Psychology of Multiculturalism

members’ interethnic attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 165–170. Morrison, K. R., Plaut, V. C., & Ybarra, O. (2010). Predicting whether multiculturalism positively or negatively influences White Americans’ intergroup attitudes:  The role of ethnic identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36,1648–1661. Nagayoshi, K. (2011). Support of multiculturalism, but for whom? Effects of ethno-national identity on the endorsement of multiculturalism in Japan. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. 37, 561–578. Ng Tseung-Wong, C., & Verkuyten, M. (2010). Intergroup evaluations, Group indispensability and prototypical judgments: A study in Mauritius. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 13, 621–638. Noels, K. A., Leavitt, P. A., & Clément, R. (2010). “To see ourselves as others see us”: On the implications of reflected appraisals for ethnic identity and discrimination. Journal of Social Issues, 66 (4), 740–758. Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2004). Sacred and secular:  Religion and politics worldwide. Cambridge, UK:  Cambridge University Press. Okin, S.M. (1999). Is multiculturalism bad for women? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Parekh, B. (2000). Rethinking multiculturalism: Cultural diversity and political theory. London: Macmillan. Phinney, J. S. (1998). Multi-ethnic identity measure (revised version). Personal communication. Phinney, J. S., Berry, J. W., Vedder, P., & Liebkind, K. (2006). The acculturation experience:  Attitudes, identities, and behaviors of immigrant youth. In J. W. Berry, J. S. Phinney, D. L. Sam, & P. Vedder (Eds.), Immigrant youth in cultural transition:  Acculturation, identity, and adaptation across national contexts (pp. 71–116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Pionkowski, U., Florack, A., Hoelker, P., & Obdrzálek (2000). Predicting acculturation attitudes of dominant and non-dominant groups. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 1–26. Plaut, V. C. (2010). Diversity science: Why and how difference makes a difference. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 77–99. Plaut, V. C., Garnett, F. G., Buffardi, L. E., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2011). “What about me?” Perceptions of exclusion and whites’ reactions to multiculturalism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 337–353. Plaut, V. C., Thomas, K. M., & Goren, M. J. (2009). Is multiculturalism or color blindness better for minorities? Psychological Science, 20, 444–446. Reich, B. (2002). Bridging liberalism and multiculturalism in American education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Reitz, J. G. (2001). Immigrant success in the knowledge economy: Institutional change and the immigrant experience in Canada, 1970–1995. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 579–613. Republic of Mauritius Central Statistics Office Population and Vital Statistics. (2007). [cited 2007 Nov 13]. Available from Richeson, J. A., & Nussbaum, R. J. (2004). The impact of multiculturalism versus color-blindness on racial bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 417–423. Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 88–109. Ryan, C. S., Casas, J. F., & Thompson, B. K. (2010). Interethnic ideology, intergroup perceptions, and cultural orientation. Journal of Social Issues, 66, 29–44.

Ryan, C. S., Hunt, J. S., Weible, J. A., Peterson, C. R., & Casas, J. F. (2007). Multicultural and colorblind ideology, stereotypes, and ethnocentrism among Black and White Americans. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 617–637. Sachar, A. (2000). On citizenship and multicultural vulnerability. Political Theory, 28, 64–89. Samaniego, R. Y. & Gonzales N.  A. (1999). Multiple mediators of the effects of acculturation status on delinquency for Mexican American adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 189–210. Sears, D. O., & Savalei, V. (2006). The political color line in America: Many “peoples of color” or Black exceptionalism? Political Psychology, 27, 895–924. Seaton, E. K., Scottham, K. M., & Sellers, R. M. (2006). The status model of racial identity development in African American adolescents:  Evidence of structure, trajectories, and well-being. Child Development, 77, 1504–1517. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance:  An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sirin, S. R., & Fine, M. (2008). Muslim American youth. New York: New York University Press. Stevens, F. G., Plaut, V. C., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2008). Unlocking the benefits of diversity:  All-inclusive multiculturalism and positive organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44, 116–133. Stevens, G., Veen, V. & Vollebergh, W. (2009). Marokkaanse jeugdelinquenten: Een klasse apart? The Hague, The Netherlands: Nicis. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Taylor, C. (1992). Multiculturalism and the politics of recognition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Telles, E. E. & Ortiz, V. (2008). Generations of exclusion: Mexican Americans, assimilation, and race. New  York:  Sage Foundation. Ten Teije, I., Coenders, M. & Verkuyten, M. (2013). The paradox of integration: Immigrants and their attitude toward the native population. Social Psychology, 44, 278–288. Thomsen, L., Green, E.G.T., & Sidanius, J. (2008). We will hunt them down:  How social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism fuel ethnic persecution of immigrants in fundamentally different ways. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1455–1464. Tip, L. K., Zagefka, H., González, R., Brown, R., Cinnirella, M., & Na, X. (2012). Is support for multiculturalism threatened by . . . threat itself? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 22–30. United Nations Development Programme (2004). Human development report 2004: Cultural liberty in today’s diverse world. New York: United Nations. Unzueta, M. M., & Binning, K. R. (2010). Which racial groups are associated with diversity? Cultural Diversity and Ethnic minority Psychology, 16, 443–446. Van Laar, C., Derks, B., & Ellemers, N. (2011). How valuing ingroup domains maintains motivation and performance in stigmatized groups. Paper presented at EASP Medium Group conference, “Challenging Stereotypes:  When and How Targets of Stereotypes Resist.” Lisbon, Portugal, July 6–8.

Deaux, Verkuy ten


Vega, W. A., Gil, A. G., Warheit, G. J., Zimmerman, R. S., & Apospori E. (1993). Acculturation and delinquent behaviour among Cunam American adolescents:  Towards an empirical model. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 113–25. Velasco González, K., Verkuyten, M., Weesie, J., & Poppe, E. (2008). Prejudice towards Muslims in the Netherlands:  Testing Integrated Threat Theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 667–685. Verkuyten, M. (2004). Everyday ways of thinking about multiculturalism. Ethnicities, 4, 53–74. Verkuyten, M. (2005a). The social psychology of ethnic identity. Hove and New York: Psychology Press. Verkuyten, M. (2005b) Ethnic group identification and group evaluation among minority and majority groups: Testing the multicultural hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 121–138. Verkuyten, M. (2006). Multicultural recognition and ethnic minority rights:  A  social identity perspective. European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 148–184. Verkuyten, M. (2009a). Support for multiculturalism and minority rights: The role of national identification and out-group threat. Social Justice Research, 22, 31–52. Verkuyten, M. (2009b). Self-esteem and multiculturalism:  An examination among ethnic minority and majority groups in the Netherlands. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 419–427. Verkuyten, M., & Brug, P. (2004). Multiculturalism and group status:  The role of ethnic identification, group essentialism and protestant ethic. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 647–661. Verkuyten, M. & de Wolf, A. (2002). Being, feeling and doing: Discourse and ethnic self-definitions among minority group members. Culture & Psychology, 8, 371–399. Verkuyten, M. & Martinovic, B. (2012). Social identity complexity and immigrants’ attitude towards the host nation: The intersection of ethnic and religious group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1165–1177. Verkuyten, M., & Thijs, J. (2010). Ethnic minority labeling, multiculturalism and the attitude of majority group members. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 467–477. Verkuyten, M. & Yildiz, A. A. (2007). National (dis)identification and ethnic and religious identity:  A  study among Turkish Muslims. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1448–1462. Vermeulen, H. (2010). Segmented assimilation and cross-national comparative research on the integration of immigrants and their children. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 33, 1214–1230. Vertovec, S. & Wessendorf, S. (Eds.) (2010). The multiculturalism backlash:  European discourses, policies and practices. Oxford, UK: Routledge.


Vorauer, J. D., & Sasaki, S. J. (2011). In the worst rather than the best of times:  Effects of salient intergroup ideology in threatening intergroup interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 307–320. Vorauer, J. D., Gagnon, A., & Sasaki, S. J. (2009). Salient intergroup ideology and intergroup interaction. Psychological Science, 20, 838–845. Ward, C., & Masgoret, A. (2006). An integrative model of attitudes toward immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 671–682. Waters, M. C. (1999). Black identities. New  York:  Russell Sage Foundation and Cambridge, MA/London:  Harvard University Press. Wiley, S. (2013). Rejection-identification among Latino immigrants in the United States, International Journal of Intercultural Relations 37, 375–384. Wiley, S. & Deaux, K. (2011). The bicultural identity performance of immigrants. In A. E.  Azzi, X. Chryssochoou, B. Klandermans, & B. Simon (Eds.), Identity and participation in culturally diverse societies:  A  multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 49–68). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Wolsko, C., Park, B., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2000). Framing interethnic ideology:  Effects of multicultural and color-blind perspectives on judgements of groups and individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 635–654. Wolsko, C., Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (2006). Considering the tower of Babel:  Correlates of assimilation and multiculturalism among ethnic minority and majority groups in the United States. Social Justice Research, 19, 277–305). Yip, T. (2005). Sources of situational variation in ethnic identity and psychological well-being: A palm pilot study of Chinese American students. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1603–1616. Yip, T., & Fuligni, A.J. (2002). Daily variation in ethnic identity, ethnic behaviors, and psychological well-being among American adolescents of Chinese descent. Child Development, 73, 1557–1572. Yip, T., Seaton, E. K., & Sellers, R. M. (2006). African American racial identity across the lifespan:  Identity status, identity content and depressive symptoms. Child Development, 77, 1504–1517. Zhou, M. (1999). Segmented assimilation:  Issues, controversies, and recent research on the new second generation. In C. Hirschman, P. Kasinitz, & J. DeWind (Eds)., The handbook of international migration:  The American experience (pp. 196–211). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Zick, A., Wagner, U., van Dick, R., & Petzel, T. (2001). Acculturation and prejudice in Germany:  Majority and minority perspectives. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 541–557

The Social Psychology of Multicu lturalism



Exploring the Identity Autonomy Perspective (IAP): An Integrative Theoretical Approach to Multicultural and Multiracial Identity

Diana T. Sanchez, Margaret J. Shih, and Leigh S. Wilton

Abstract Multiracial Americans, people who belong to more than one racial group in the United States, also belong to more than one culture, yet multiracial and multicultural research and theory has not been adequately integrated. The present chapter will provide an overview of the multiracial and multicultural research on self and identity that addresses the points of overlap, distinction, and places for synthesis and integration that could advance both areas of research. For example, this chapter will examine the relationship among different strategies that utilize multiple identities and health outcomes (e.g., identity integration, identity adaptiveness, identity shifting, dialecticalism). In addition, this chapter will explore the common questions of authenticity and forced-choice encounters that those from multiple races and cultures face (e.g., “Are you American or Asian?”). Integrating multicultural and multiracial research, the authors propose the identity autonomy perspective (IAP) wherein the antecedents and outcomes of identity denial are discussed for both multicultural and multiracial populations. Specifically, we will examine how societal essentialism and personal attributes (e.g., physical appearance, cultural practices, social status) promote identity-denial experiences that thwart autonomy for both multicultural and multiracial populations. Key Words:  multiculturalism, multiracial, essentialism, social categorization, social identity, multiple identities


Multiracial Americans, people who belong to more than one racial group in the U.S., also belong to more than one culture, yet multiracial and multicultural research and theory have not been adequately integrated. According to the most recent U.S. Census in 2010, the multiracial population has risen to over 9 million U.S. residents, a population increase of 32% in the past 10 years (Humes, Jones & Ramirez, 2011). This dramatic population growth confirms that multiracial populations are one of the fastest growing minority populations in the United States Moreover, estimates project that by the year 2050, 1 in 5 people will identify as multiracial, suggesting that the racial landscape of the United States is undergoing a transition (Farley, 2001). Likewise,

U. S. Census data (2002) suggests that 1 of 4 people living in the United States has lived in another country, revealing that a large proportion of the population has been exposed to multiple cultures. Furthermore, the number of first-generation immigrants has risen to over 38 million Americans, representing over 12% of the U.S. population (Segal, Elliot, & Mayadas, 2010). Thus, many Americans living in the U.S. have multicultural backgrounds. Although these population estimates likely underestimate the true multiracial and multicultural make-up of the United States, these numbers highlight the timeliness of multiracial and multicultural research and theory. The increasingly multicultural and multiracial landscape of the United States portends shifts in the meaning of race and culture that 139

will influence the psychology of self and intergroup relations. The current chapter will review and integrate multiracial and multicultural research to propose a model that will help illuminate the unique experiences of populations who have multiple identities in a singular social category (race or culture). Multiracial theory has largely built its foundation in multicultural theory because multiculturalism theorists were among the first to provide well-developed theories for how individuals navigate multiple identities, as well as the constituent practices and behaviors (e.g., language, cognition, and customs) that influence such identities. For example, multiculturalism researchers were some of the first to demonstrate that the social context could influence the accessibility of cultural knowledge networks for those with multiple cultural identities and thus, shape cognition, affect, and behavior to be consistent with the accessed cultural orientation (Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martínez, 2000; LaFromboise, Coleman, &Gerton, 1993). This social psychological approach to managing multiple cultural identities has been a very influential guide to much of the work that followed on multiple identities (e.g., Amiot, de la Sablonnière, Terry, & Smith, 2007). As a result, researchers addressing multiracial theory borrow from and extend multicultural theory to grapple with how individuals manage multiple races (e.g., Sanchez, Shih, & Garcia, 2009). Not surprisingly, multiracial and multicultural populations experience similar issues with regard to identity development, integration, and malleability. Moreover, they experience similar difficulties with how they are perceived by others, including the struggles of having a hybrid identity in an essentialist societal belief system (i.e., belief system that views social categories as distinct and unchangeable). At the same time, both multiracial and multicultural populations represent the changing demography of American society and, therefore, may serve as catalysts for changing essentialist, singular thinking about race, ethnicity, and culture. The present chapter will provide an overview of multiracial and multicultural research from both the target’s perspective (e.g., the experience through the eyes of the multiracial and multicultural person) and the perceivers’ perspective (e.g., the beliefs that others hold about multiracial and multicultural people) that addresses the points of overlap, distinction, and places for synthesis that could advance both areas of research. This essay will attempt to integrate multicultural and multiracial theory to better understand 140

both perceptions and experiences of multiracial and multicultural individuals.

Key Concepts in the Discourse

To begin the essay, it is important to define a few key concepts: race, ethnicity, and culture. Great confusion exists about the definition of race because race is socially constructed and thus, definitions of race and racial groups vary at the individual, historical, and national levels (Markus, 2008). For example, racial categories that societies use to define groups of people vary from one country to the next, from one historical time point to the next, and from one person to the next person. A  very light-skinned person of African descent would most likely be considered Black in the United States and White in Argentina today, but it is unclear whether this will still be the case in 2050 when multiracial populations are projected to comprise 20% of the population (Farley, 2001). Moreover there is now substantial genetic evidence that there is no “race gene.” In other words, the racial categories themselves have no biological or genetic basis (Goodman, 2000; Zack, 1995). In fact, there is more genetic variation within racial groups than between them (Graves, 2001; Hirschfield, 1996; Marks, 1995; Tooby & Cosmides, 1990). Because the boundaries between racial groups and categories do not rest on biological or genetic variation, race is largely understood among scholars to be a social construction that is malleable. The social construction of race relies heavily on social structural relations that afford differential status to groups of people often connected to phenotype and ancestry. Thus, it is not surprising that psychologists, sociologists, demographers, and public policy advocates often disagree about what constitutes race. Nowhere is this debate more heated than it is around Latino/Hispanic populations who are befuddled by current race definitions such as those represented on the Census survey. The U.S. Census currently does not treat Latino/Hispanic as a racial category causing many Latinos to be confused about which racial category to choose (e.g., Rodriguez, 2000; Scott, 2001; Swarns, 2004). This confusion has led many Latino Americans to protest by choosing “Other” when picking a racial category on the Census (Navarro, 2003). For the purposes of this chapter, we will define race as the broader society-level definitions of race that are drawn from factors such as geographical ancestry and phenotype, which have been recognized in a given nation. Given that the focus of this

Exploring the Identit y Autonomy Perspective (IAP)

essay is on the United States, we will use the U.S. Census racial categories in which the racial groups in the United States are defined as membership in one or more of the following groups: White, Black/ African American, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. Thus, people who belong to more than one of the following groups are typically considered by others to be multiracial. Using this definition, Latinos who have one parent who is White/European and one parent who is Puerto Rican (like the first and third authors of this essay) would not be considered multiracial as they are of one race (e.g., White) and one ethnicity (e.g., Puerto Rican). We fully recognize that these categories are problematic (as is the concept of race) but we also recognize that such racial categories represent the current construction of racial categories in American society. Thus, despite our own self-definition as biracial White/Latinas, Latinos in the United States appear to be denied multiracial identity unless they belong to other multiple racial categories. Ethnicity refers to people who share the same race but also share a set of traditions and customs that distinguish their ethnic group from others in their racial group (Benet-Martínez & Oishi, 2008; Markus, 2008; Senior & Bhopal, 1994). Ethnicity is often determined by sharing a specific geographic location, religious identity, language, style of speech and/or style of dress. For an illustrative example, South Koreans and Taiwanese are both considered part of the Asian racial category, but they practice different languages and customs and have distinct geographic origins that distinguish them from each other to form separate ethnic groups. In general, the constructs of racial and ethnic identities are largely overlapping (Phinney & Ong, 2007). Many have argued that race and ethnicity terms should be merged into a race-ethnicity construct (e.g., Cross & Cross, 2007) because most research on race and ethnic identity finds similar psychological effects for well-being, belonging, behavior, and identity exploration. For example, both racial identity and ethnic identities vary, depending on the context, and can serve as sources of belonging with other in-group members and rejection in the face of discrimination; however, the literatures on race and ethnicity have been distinct and not yet integrated (see Phinney & Ong, 2007). For the purposes of this chapter, we use the term multiracial identities (e.g., Asian/White biracial populations) and examine people who belong to more than one racial group instead of multiethnic identities

(those who belong to more than one ethnic group) because there is insufficient existing research on multiethnic identities that are not also multiracial. In other words, very little research has been done on people who have one race and multiple ethnicities (e.g., Chinese/Thai), whereas there is a growing literature on Asian/White populations. The recent upswing of multiracial research (and multicultural work) allows us to have a stronger foundation of empirical research to draw from. By focusing on multiracial populations, they are all multiethnic by definition because they cross both racial and ethnic definitions. However, we cannot identify those processes that may be unique to crossing ethnicity boundaries versus racial boundaries without a larger literature on multiethnic populations who share the same race. Racial identities and ethnic identities are also connected to a unique set of customs, beliefs, practices, traditions, historical narratives, and cognitive styles that create the culture surrounding race/ethnic identities. These collections of traditions represent the “network of knowledge” that is shared and disseminated by generations of people that come to represent the meanings of ethnic, racial, and national identities (Benet-Martínez & Oishi, 2008; Chiu & Hong, 2007). Given the broad definition of culture, it is very difficult to imagine a person who is of one cultural mind because every individual is nested within both a national, racial, and ethnic context. Instead, cultural minds vary in salience and the extent to which they are overlapping with each other. For example, an Irish American navigates an American cultural identity, a White racial identity, and an Irish ethnic identity. In the case of an Irish American person, they are likely to experience a great deal of overlap among these identities because Irish is currently considered White in the United States (see Ignatiev, 1995) unless they are a first-generation immigrant who does not believe that Ireland and American cultures overlap. Most later-generation Americans hold an implicit belief that American and White are cognitively overlapping categories (e.g., Devos & Banaji, 2005). On the contrary, multiracial and multicultural Americans with minority ancestry (e.g., Asian/White biracial Americans, Asian/Black biracial Americans, Asian Americans, Black Caribbean Americans) may experience less overlap between their identities because of the perceived boundaries between their racial and cultural identities. The present paper takes an integrated approach to understanding multicultural and multiracial Sanche z, Shih, Wilton


identities. We contend that similar processes govern multicultural and multiracial identities because both groups of individuals uniquely contend with identity denial, being denied an important aspect of their identity by others. Because of the divide between racial and cultural categories, society does not typically view members of two racial categories or two cultural identities as members of two racial categories or two cultural identities. Multiracial and multicultural people of minority descent often experience situations in which they are asked to define themselves in singular terms. This likely occurs because their multiple identities are not perceived as overlapping and as a culture; we believe that racial and cultural categories are exclusive (i.e., you cannot be Black and White, Asian and American). Therefore, the path of identity development for multicultural and multiracial populations is more complicated than it is for those who have singular cultural or singular racial identities. Thus, this essay focuses on the predictors and outcomes of identity denial by proposing an identity autonomy perspective (IAP), which emphasizes the need for freedom of expression with regard to identity for both multicultural and multiracial populations.We begin with a review of theories describing multiracial and multicultural identity development because developmental models shed light on the psychological processes (e.g., social and developmental) that inform racial self-identification. We then propose the IAP as an extension of prior identity models that incorporates both perceiver (e.g., essentialist beliefs) and target (e.g., distance from category prototypes) characteristics that combine to influence identity autonomy. In this essay, we describe possible antecedents, moderators, and outcomes of identity autonomy and explore methods of coping with identity denial.

With Multiple Identities Comes Multiple Identity Choices: A Review of Identity Development Models

Researchers have tried to model multiracial and cultural identity development in several different ways. The first multiple-identity development models suggested that people who have multiple cultural or racial identities are inevitably caught between them, which causes a fragmented and marginalized sense of self. These early theories suggested that marginalized people such as those of multicultural or multiracial backgrounds suffered from fragmented self-concepts (Gordon, 1964; Hauser, 1972; McRoy & Freeman, 1986; Park, 1928; 1931; 142

Piskacek & Golub, 1973; Stonequist, 1937; Tizard & Phoenix, 2002). Park (1928) defined this marginal man as, a cultural hybrid, a man living and sharing intimately in the cultural life and traditions of two distinct peoples; never quite willing to break, even if he were permitted to do so, with his past and his traditions, and not quite accepted because of racial prejudice, in the new society in which he now sought to find a place. He was a man on the margin of two societies which never completely interpenetrated or fused (p., 892).

In other words, Park’s marginal man hypothesis suggested that people who possess multiple racial or cultural identities struggle with identity confusion and acceptance from others. This model proposed that biracial individuals were trapped between social worlds and not a full member of either (Stonequist, 1937). Although the marginal-man perspective has long been refuted and replaced with theories that do not take the problem approach to multiracial and multicultural identities (e.g. Bagley & Young, 1979; Goldberg, 1941; Green, 1947; Tizard & Phoenix, 2002; for review see Shih & Sanchez, 2005), the problem-approach perspective to multicultural and racial identity development was the first to speculate about the developmental struggles of dual identities and cultures. The main criticism of these early models of identity development was that they proposed a singular gloomy fate for multicultural and multiracial people (e.g., severe psychological problems, social isolation, etc.) without, for example, taking into account the extent to which bicultural and biracial individuals themselves view their identities as conflicting or perceive themselves as accepted by others (LaFromboise, et  al., 1993). As we will review later, acceptance from other in-group members (i.e., intragroup acceptance) and identity conflict are salient issues for those with dual group membership but certainly not inevitable, insurpassable, or universal issues among multicultural and multiracial individuals. When scholars refuted the marginal-man theory, they then turned to general racial-identitydevelopment models for monoracial individuals to describe the multiracial experience of identity development (e.g. Cross, 1987; Morten & Atkinson, 1983). For example, these approaches would describe identity-development processes for multiracial individuals as similar to those of

Exploring the Identit y Autonomy Perspective (IAP)

singular identities (Thornton & Wason, 1995). This approach was described as the equivalence approach (see Shih & Sanchez, 2005) and drew its inspiration from Erikson’s (1968) emphasis on achieving stability in adolescence. However, it was soon apparent that these theories were inadequate for describing ethnic identity development in individuals with mixed backgrounds (Herring, 1995; Poston, 1990). The main criticisms of these models were that they did not allow individuals to identify with multiple groups (Poston, 1990) and that even for biracial individuals who may self-identify with only one of their component races, these models did not address the unique experiences of individuals with dual membership (Gillem, Kohn & Throne, 2001). In response to the critiques of the equivalence approach, researchers proposed racial-identitydevelopment models specific to individuals with multiracial background (e.g. Collins, 2000; Gordon, 1964; Jacobs, 1992; Johnston, 1976; Kerwin & Ponterotto, 1995; Kich, 1992; Poston, 1990; Sung, 1985). Although these models differ in terms of their descriptions of the identity-development process, there are a number of common elements among the models. Common to all the theories of multiracial identity development is a stage through which multiracial individuals feel great tension and conflict about their racial identity. At this stage, multiracial individuals were described as feeling forced to choose among their different component identities. Ultimately, in all these models, multiracial individuals reach a stage in which they are able to accept, appreciate, integrate their multiracial identity, and value all parts of their identity. Many of the early multicultural-identity models emphasized the processes of assimilation into the dominant culture. Much like the early multiracial-identity models that took the equivalence approach, multicultural people were expected to evolve toward a singular cultural identification with the dominant host culture. Specifically, these models suggested that the multicultural people adopt a new, dominant cultural identity and lose their original cultural identity through complete immersion (Johnston, 1976; Sung, 1985). The assimilation models were discarded because complete loss of one’s original cultural identity was often plagued with psychological problems. Moreover, full immersion into the dominant culture was often impossible for immigrants who were never given full membership in the dominant culture due to prejudices and social structural barriers (see LaFromboise

et  al., 1993). The acculturation models that followed also suggested that the multicultural person emphasized competence in the dominant culture but they also emphasized that the multicultural person would preserve and identify with their original cultural identity (see LaFromboise et  al., 1993). Notably, neither of the aforementioned approaches fully recognized the possibility of dual identification nor did the models that followed (e.g., alternation approach, multiculturalism approach, see LaFromboise et. al., 1993). Instead, the alternation and multiculturalism approaches suggested that multicultural populations experience both identities as distinct yet important (e.g., Berry, 1986; Cross, Smith, & Payne, 2002; Cross & Strauss, 1998; Gumperz, 1982; Ogbu, &Matute-Bianchi, 1986; Rashid, 1984; Strauss & Cross, 2005). Thus, they recognized identification with both groups, but identities were not fully integrated. The model of multicultural identity development that took the most integrated view of multicultural identity development was the fusion approach. The fusion approach proposed by LaFromboise and her colleagues emphasized amalgamation whereby both cultures combine to create a new cultural identity that contained aspects of both cultural identities. Exemplifying the fusion approach, these models suggested a period of a lack of awareness about culture or race followed by a stage of self-examination and a final stage of acceptance and integration (Atkinson, Morten, & Sue, 1989; Lee, Blando, Mizelle, & Orozco, 2007). One of the difficulties in applying a single model to describe identity development for all multiracial or multicultural individuals is the great variance among multiracial and multicultural individuals themselves in how they define their own identities (Gillem et al., 2001; LaFromboise et al., 1993; Rockquemore & Brunsma, 2002). Because multiracial people belong to multiple racial groups and multicultural people have multiple cultural identities, they can identify in a multitude of different ways. This makes the process of self-identification complicated and, thus, there seems to be no single outcome that could be applied to everyone. For example, some multiracial Asian/White descent choose to identify as Asian, White, or a combination of their multiracial heritages (e.g. multiracial, Asian/White, Hapa). Some multiracial populations choose to identify with no race at all because they are hyperaware of the social construction of race and racial categories (Rockquemore & Brunsma, 2002; Shih, Bonam, Sanchez, & Peck, 2007). The racial Sanche z, Shih, Wilton


identification process for multiracial people may be a dynamic process including fluctuations and fluidity among racial identity choices over time (Hitlin, Brown, & Elders, 2006). Similarly, multicultural identities vary; namely, multicultural people could identify with one culture, both cultures (in an integrated or nonintegrated fashion), or neither culture. Again, the process of cultural identification may be fluid and context bound. The most recent approaches involve the ecological approach to identity development. The ecological approach takes into account the myriad identification options that multicultural and multiracial populations face. The ecological approach suggests that the process of identity development is not predictable, linear, or aimed at one specific end goal. Instead, the ecological approach suggests that identities are socially constructed and contextually dependent (Rockquemore, 1999; Rockquemore, Brunsma, & Delgado, 2009; Rockquemore & Lazloffy, 2003). Focusing on multiracial populations, Rockquemore, and colleagues (2009) propose four patterns of empirically based assumptions of the ecological approach: (1) racial identification varies from person to person, (2)  racial identity changes over the life course, (3) racial identification is not amenable to a specific predictable stage model, and (4)  the social and cultural context is crucial. Moreover, they suggested that identity-development models should critically examine race by deconstructing its components. Rockquemore and her colleagues proposed that race has at least three components such as (1) self-definition (i.e., how an individual sees him or herself racially), (2) other definition (i.e., how others view an individual racially), and (3) contextual identification (i.e., how the context shapes identification). This tri-level approach to understanding the construction of race and its relation to identity development may also be useful in understanding multicultural identities because it recognizes that cultural identities are embedded in a social context and influenced by both self-views and other-views. The ecological approach appears to have garnered the least criticism and the most support in the last decade. However, none of these prior development models consider the problem that occurs when, for example, self-definition and other definition fail to overlap, namely, the issue of autonomy that arises when self-identification becomes constrained by others and social situations. Thus, prior identity models are insufficient to understanding the psychological well-being of multiracial and multicultural populations. 144

An Autonomy Perspective on Identity Development

Although no singular identity-development model or outcome applies to all multiracial and multicultural populations, and one model does not consistently lead to better psychological outcomes compared to another (Rockquemore et al., 2009), we propose that an identity autonomy perspective (IAP) may offer universal applicability and uniquely address the issue of identity denial and inconsistency that often occurs when multiracial and multicultural populations self-identify in ways that are inconsistent with others’ views. We propose that autonomy serves as a key piece in understanding the consequences of multiple identities and their development on psychological well-being. Autonomy refers to the feeling that one’s actions, behaviors, and thoughts are freely chosen, authentic expressions of the self (Deci & Ryan, 1995). We contend, like scholars before us, that autonomy is paramount to healthy identity development (e.g., Frank, Pirsch, & Wright, 1990; Root, 1996). Empirical evidence confirms that perceiving autonomy with one’s racial self-definition predicts lower depressive symptoms among multiracial populations (Sanchez, 2010). Self-determination theorists have long extolled the virtues of autonomy in many valuable domains of life such as intellectual performance and creativity, physical health, psychological well-being, and quality of relationships (see Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000 for reviews). Moreover, autonomy has been proven beneficial cross-culturally in, for example, both the United States and China (e.g., Chirkov, Ryan, Kim & Kaplan, 2003; Lynch, LaGuardia, & Ryan, 2009) despite early claims to the contrary (see Iyengar & Lepper, 1999). It is important to qualify here that the IAP refers to the psychological feeling of autonomy and choice, and it does not, for example, refer simply having many or few options (e.g., Iyengar & Lepper, 2000). The prior conflation of these two concepts has led to some conflicting interpretations. For example, an individual may feel that they have a great deal of autonomy in what they eat for dinner even if they only have two meal options. The IAP proposes that the important mechanism that underlies links between identity and well-being such as feelings of belonging and psychological health (e.g., fewer depressive symptoms, higher self-esteem, etc.) for multicultural and multiracial populations may be the extent to which one’s self

Exploring the Identit y Autonomy Perspective (IAP)

Prototype inconsistency

Belonging Identity denial

Essentialist cultural ideologies

Identity autonomy

Psychological health

Claiming dual identities Figure 7.1  Identity autonomy perspective (IAP) model.

identification is perceived as a choice. Having identity choices (within a single social category domain) is unique to multicultural and multiracial individuals. Thus, identity autonomy may be uniquely important to those who have multiple identities in the domain of race and culture. For example, monoracial Asian people do not choose whether they self-define as Asian though they may differ in terms of the extent to which they value this identity. Moreover, although multiracial people have many identity options, not all multiracial people perceive choice in those options. Specifically, when multicultural and multiracial populations experience forced-choice situations or other encounters in which they are denied important parts of their racial and cultural identities, these experiences thwart their identity autonomy (Sanchez, 2010). This is the central proposal of Figure 7.1, which displays the IAP model.

Identity Denials and Thwarted Autonomy

Multiracial and multicultural populations of minority descent are often asked to choose one race or one culture. “Are you American or Asian?” “Are you Black or White?” Identity denial can be experienced in either more blatant or subtle ways. Identity denial can occur when others ask or otherwise pressure multiracial people to choose between their multiple racial identities, often termed, forced choice dilemmas (Standen, 1996). In these cases, others deny them an important identity by telling them that they cannot belong to two groups. The question, “What are you?” implicitly sends the message to multiracial individuals that they must define themselves when some multiracial people choose not to define themselves with any race at all (Williams, 1996). Whether the identity denial is blatant or subtle, multiracial and multicultural individuals in identity-denial situations feel compelled

to identify in ways that are socially desirable and, therefore, reflect singular racial definitions rather than multiracial identities (Hall, 1992; Nakashima, 1992; Standen, 1996). These experiences can thwart identity autonomy because multicultural and multiracial people feel pressure to conform to the pressures of the social context, which may not mirror self-definitions. On Census forms prior to 2000, individuals were asked to choose only one racial identity. This is an example of identity denial at the institutional level. One young woman of European/Asian descent writes, “I have trouble deciding whether to check the ‘White’ or the ‘Asian’ box, because I don’t want to deny either side of my heritage. But I  have even more of a conflict when I  check the box marked ‘Other.’ I  am not an Other and have never been an Other” (Gaskins, 1999, pg. 52). As this quote confirms, identity denial is a salient issue in both multiracial and multicultural populations with important consequences for belonging and self-esteem (Cheryan & Monin, 2005; Sanchez, 2010; Townsend, Markus, & Bergsieker, 2009; see also Shih & Sanchez, 2005). For multiracial individuals, identity denial is often in the form of forced choice scenarios wherein they are asked to choose between their racial identities or otherwise categorize themselves in a way that is inconsistent with their own self-definition (Sanchez, 2010; Townsend et al., 2009). Multiracial individuals perceive forced choice situations as denying them access or claim of an important part of their racial identity (Townsend et  al., 2009). Multicultural minorities experience identity denial when they are not perceived as part of one of their cultural identities (Cheryan & Monin, 2005). Identity denial can cause problems for the self-concept and relatedness to others. Generally, people want others to perceive them as they Sanche z, Shih, Wilton


perceive themselves, especially when perceptions are relevant to important social identities (Barreto & Ellemers, 2002; Cheryan & Monin, 2005; Lemay & Ashmore, 2004). People strive to maintain congruence between how they see themselves and how others perceive them as a way of fostering interpersonal relationships (Swann, Rentfrow, & Guinn, 2002).When people are misclassified into social groups to which they do not belong, they experience great psychological discomfort and anxiety (Bosson, Prewitt-Freilino, & Taylor, 2005; Bosson, Taylor, & Prewitt-Freilino, 2006). Thus, identity denial can have negative effects on multiracial and multicultural populations. A young woman of mixed race ancestry writes, “Being biracial isn’t hard because we’re confused about our racial identity. It’s hard because everyone else is confused. The problem isn’t us—it’s everyone else.” (Gaskins, 1999, p. 15) In a series of studies on multicultural populations, Cheryan and Monin (2005) found that Asian Americans who were presumed to be non-U.S.  citizens by a White American experimenter reported greater negative affect, decreased liking of the experimenter, and, when given the opportunity, displayed greater commitment to their American identity than those Asian Americans whose American identity was not denied. Similarly, multiracial individuals who were denied their identities via forced choice scenarios tended to report greater negative mood, guilt, lower self-esteem, lower identity autonomy, lower motivation and lower public regard for their identity (Sanchez, 2010; Sebring, 1985; Townsend et  al., 2009). When denied important identities or aspects of the self, people feel less authentic in their interactions with close others (Swann, De La Rone, & Hixon, 1994; Swann & Pelham, 2002) and thus, identity denial may undermine belonging and autonomy. Therefore, it is not surprising that multicultural and multiracial people alike experience identity denial as aversive. This is not to say that all people who experience identity denial or thwarted autonomy equally experience negative psychological outcomes. For example, importance of race, the source of identity denial (e.g., family member or stranger), or the importance of autonomy may play a moderating role in determining the psychological impact of identity denial. The IAP model examines the generalized outcomes of identity denial and thwarted autonomy, but future extensions are likely to include these important moderators. 146

Predictors Of Identity Denial

Though there may be many factors that increase the likelihood that multicultural and multiracial people will experience identity denial, the IAP highlights two prominent factors that address aspects of the target and perceiver. The first focuses on prototype consistency (whether targets have prototypical characteristics) that matches their self-definition; the second focuses on whether perceivers hold essentialist ideologies (belief systems that view social categories as distinct and impermeable).

Prototype Inconsistency as Cause of Identity Denial

Categorization plays an important role in how people respond to others (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Hugenberg & Saaco, 2008). Many argue that people make relatively quick and automatic categorizations of targets (e.g., Black or not, American or not). Subsequently, people attend to other attributes to assess category fit with the prototypes to consider whether their initial judgments are correct (Brewer, 1988; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Higgins, 1996; Neuberg & Fiske, 1987; Oakes, 1987). Perceivers who ask, “What are you?” and “Where are you from” questions of multiracial and multicultural people are likely in the process of calculating assessments of category fit. When a person self-identifies with a social category that contradicts their category fit (i.e., prototype inconsistency), perceivers experience difficulty reconciling targets’ self-identification with their own category-fit judgments. Identity denial, therefore, is most likely to occur for individuals whose self-identification is inconsistent with their stereotype-relevant characteristics (e.g., skin color, accent, socioeconomic class, their social networks, their cultural behaviors). For example, identity denial is likely pronounced for multiracial individuals with racially ambiguous physical appearances, because physical appearance is a prominent indicator of racial categorization and, thus, those who are racially ambiguous challenge racial prototypes (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; McArthur & Baron, 1983; Trope, 1986). Racial ambiguity increases the likelihood that one’s race is called into question by others. Evidence suggests that perceivers take more time categorizing racially ambiguous faces (slowed reaction times) compared to categorization of prototypical monoracial faces (Chen & Hamilton, 2012). Because perceivers are unable to quickly categorize racially ambiguous people using visual cues, multiracial people with ambiguous appearances may cause confusion

Exploring the Identit y Autonomy Perspective (IAP)

in others due to unclear category fit. Similar issues beset multicultural minority group members who challenge the ease with which others can identify them as Americans. They may often experience the questions, “Where are you from?” especially if they are atypical to the American prototype. For example, if their appearance, religion, or accent makes it difficult for others to easily categorize them as Americans, they will likely encounter the same curiosity from others (Schildkraut, 2001; 2007; Takaki, 1999). Some research, which we will discuss in greater detail later, has now demonstrated that cultural practices serve as markers of category fit for ethnic minorities (Sanchez & Chavez, 2010).

Essentialist Ideologies as Sources of Dual Identity Denial

Multiracial and multicultural minority individuals straddle multiple identities nested in different social categories. In one case, multiracial individuals straddle different racial group memberships. In the other, multicultural individuals straddle multiple cultural group memberships. In both cases, the straddling of multiple social worlds is difficult because of the discomfort others have regarding the growth in racial and ethnic diversity and, thus, the threat of blurring racial categories and cultural divides. As one blatant example, there is obvious growing resistance and discomfort with immigration in the United States, as can be gleaned by the Arizona laws forcing all individuals in the state to carry proof of citizenship and immigration documents or else be detained (Archibold, 2010). Gallup Polls indicated that more Americans favored than opposed Arizona’s unconstitutional immigration law (Jones, 2010), suggesting that resistance to immigration is not limited to Arizona but is, instead, a widespread bias among Americans. Multicultural minorities represent the consequences of immigration and the American melting pot ideology that some Americans (perhaps the majority of Americans) resist. In fact, White is considered American (Devos & Banaji, 2005) and, therefore, many perceive minorities as less loyal to the nation and ultimately “less American” even if they have lived in the United States their entire lives (Yogeeswaran & Dasgupta, 2010). This suggests that non-White bicultural individuals may experience greater resistance than other white bicultural individuals who migrate to the United States. In addition to immigration opposition and resistance to multiculturalism, racial tension still persists in the United States, as evidenced by the continued

racial segregation that maintains racial and class divides between Whites and other racial minorities such as African Americans and Latino Americans (Massey & Denton, 1993; Massey & Fischer, 2000). Moreover, the geography of race mirrors people’s social networks. That is, an individual’s friends and romantic partners are largely comprised of those of the same race (see Fisman, Iyengar, Kamenica, & Simonson, 2008; McPherson, Smith-Lovin & Cook, 2001; Simmons & O’Connell, 2003). The geographical and social segregation of racial groups maintains the perception that people who belong to different racial categories are different, which then makes crossing racial boundaries both psychological difficult and practically unlikely. Multicultural minorities and multiracial populations blend cultures and races and, thus, are living challenges to essentialist ideologies that categories are easily distinctive, an ideology that may serve self-enhancement motives. A long history of research in psychology suggests that people strive to maintain distinctiveness between groups as a basic tenet of having a positive and strong personal identity (Brewer, 1991; 1999). In general, people tend to believe that ethnic and racial groups are distinct from each other as a means of achieving a group identity (Brewer, 2003; Grieve & Hogg, 1999; Reid & Hogg, 2005). In other words, Asian culture, identity, and racial groups are perceived as distinct from Black culture, identity, and racial groups, and the members within each racial group are viewed as more similar to one another than to others outside the group. In other words, people tend to essentialize categories such as race, nationality, and ethnicity, viewing them as stable, discrete, and distinct categories (Haslam & Whelan, 2008; Whelan, 2008) as part of an overall process of holding a strong, positive group identity. As a result of essentialist beliefs, perceivers take longer periods of time during racial categorization tasks that involve racially ambiguous or multiracial faces, especially if they are highly racially identified or have greater essentialist beliefs (Chen & Hamilton, 2012; Knowles & Peng, 2005). Because highly identified perceivers derive comfort from clear outgroup/in-group distinctions to determine who is friend or foe (Brewer, 2003; Grieve & Hogg, 1999; Reid & Hogg, 2005), disruptions may cause perceivers to refuse categorizing multiracial and multicultural people into their in-group. Thus, multiracial people and multicultural minorities may often be denied identities due to others’ Sanche z, Shih, Wilton


discomfort with categorization ambiguity and self-enhancement motives. People with essentialist beliefs have the greatest difficulty with people who are multiracial and multicultural, especially if those individuals choose to claim multiple identities. Therefore, the IAP proposes that essentialist ideologies among perceivers is likely to increase experiences of identity denial for multicultural and multiracial populations. Because of the essentialist beliefs that many perceivers hold about social categories, it is effortful for people to imagine the experience of those who bridge perceptually distinct categories such as Black/White biracial people or American and Asian. Because perceivers are generally cognitive misers (Fiske & Taylor, 1984), essentialists may use the most salient component identity in impression formation often connected to visual appearance (i.e., skin color, style of dress). However, those individuals who hold less concrete and narrow views of race and culture may be less likely to categorize a biracial Black/White person as Black or to view a Mexican American as less American than Mexican. People who hold less essentialist views about race may find it easier to think of a person as having multiple identities across social categories because they perceive less distance between the social categories (No et  al., 2008). In general, lower levels of essentialist beliefs and higher levels of social constructivist attitudes foster an interest in crossing racial boundaries (No et  al., 2008; Williams & Eberhardt, 2008). Moreover, people who hold less essentialist views about social categories are less likely to use social categories (e.g., race and gender) to make judgments about others because the categories themselves are less meaningful (Bastian & Haslam, 2006; Haslam, Rothschild, & Ernst, 2000; Levy, Stroessner, & Dweck, 1998; Prentice & Miller, 2007). As a result, less essentialist and more social constructionist perceivers are more likely to categorize ambiguous faces as multiracial (Chen & Hamilton, 2012). Similarly, those with less essentialist views about culture may be more inclusive in their definitions of American and, therefore, have more multicultural ideologies of American society that promote diversity as opposed to assimilation. In other words, people who are more likely to assume that social categories (such as culture and race) are distinct, stable, unchangeable will be more resistant to multiculturalism and more likely to endorse beliefs that immigrants must assimilate into the American culture (e.g., learn English, stop speaking Spanish, become Christian). Indeed, some 148

evidence suggests that majority group members who endorse essentialist views of race are less likely to endorse multiculturalism values (Verkuyten & Brug, 2004). In addition to self-enhancement motives, essentialist ideologies held by perceivers may partly be a product of the sociopolitical history of society and treatment of racial minorities with mixed ancestry. For example, multiracial Black populations historically have been viewed as Black no matter how much they physically resemble members of the White/European group nor how many White ancestors they have in their familial line (i.e., the rule of hypodescent). The rule of hypodescent has been shown to influence categorization of multiracial African Americans in the United States today (Ho, Sidanius, Levin & Banaji, 2011). Historically, many racial groups have been divided along blood lines. In American Indian cultures, people are recognized as American Indian based on blood quantum, attempts to demonstrate through racial ancestry the extent to which an individual’s racial heritage is American Indian (Wilson, 1992). Moreover, the United States has several rules in place about how to earn citizenship and, thus, be considered American (e.g., years living in the United States, passing citizenship tests). These rules serve to maintain distinctiveness between groups. Moreover, these rules represent an essentialist ideological understanding of group members that establishes biological rules of category membership. Perceivers and cultures that uphold essentialist beliefs thwart identity autonomy of people who hold hybrid identities. Moreover, such essentialist ideology typically results in multiracial and multicultural people most often being denied access to valued identities that confer resources. Multiracial and multicultural minority populations are most often denied access to the dominant, higher status identity. For example, multiracial populations of White and minority descent are often denied their White ancestry (Ho et  al., 2011, Peery & Bodenhausen, 2008), whereas Asian Americans are most often denied their American identity (Cheryan & Monin, 2005; Wu, 2002). This may be particularly true for multiracial people of Black descent because of the long history of enforcing rules of hypodescent (Harris, 1964; Omi & Winant, 1986). Perceivers and institutions that hold essentialist ideologies often stand in stark contrast to the targets’ themselves who hold less essentialist ideologies.

Exploring the Identit y Autonomy Perspective (IAP)

Essentialism among Targets

The confusion surrounding racial identity and frequent experience of racial discrimination force multiracial individuals to grapple with issues surrounding race. During this process, many multiracial individuals come to realize that racial categories are arbitrary, subjective, and ultimately meaningless. In other words, multiracial individuals come to the realization that race is a social construction (Nakashima, 1992; No et al., 2008; Spickard, 1992; Weisman, 1996). Although race has a great impact on the social world, it has no impact on the biological world. In other words, racial categories have no biological basis (Zack, 1995). Many multiracial individuals are very aware of the meaningless foundation on which our social order rests. Growing empirical evidence suggests that people who are themselves a product of the crossing of cultural and racial boundaries may be less likely to believe in rigid categories and more likely to believe in the mutability of human traits in general (Bonam & Shih, 2009; Pauker & Ambady, 2009; Shih et  al., 2007). For example, multiracial people tend to believe in fluid racial categories and self-categorization, which makes them less susceptible to stereotypes, more willing than monoracial people to cross other racial boundaries such as dating people from different racial and ethnic backgrounds (Bonam & Shih, 2009; Shih et al., 2007). In order for multiracial and multicultural people to have identity autonomy (i.e., the freedom to choose their self-identification how and when they want to) requires adopting a less essentialist view of race and culture. Generally, holding less essentialist views is associated with greater psychological well-being for multiracial people because it helps race become less of a barrier to belonging in interracial contexts (Sanchez & Garcia, 2009). Multicultural minorities may also have less essentialist views about culture, which allow them to move between different cultural systems and define themselves and their self-concept in dynamic, contextualized ways (Chao, Chen, Roisman, & Hong, 2007). Essentialist ideologies that promote identity denial serve to undermine belonging and psychological health for multicultural and multiracial populations.

Identity Denial as Intragroup Rejection

Identity denial can be understood as a form of intragroup rejection that may uniquely occur for those who hold hybrid identities. In general, intragroup rejection (e.g., perceived rejection from in-group members) and double discrimination (i.e.,

being discriminated against or rejected by multiple in-groups) may be salient issues for multiracial and multicultural populations. Multiracial individuals struggle for inclusion in monoracial ethnic communities that is thwarted in situations of identity denial (Nakashima, 1992). Membership in ethnic communities has rarely been questioned for monoracial individuals. For example, monoracial Asians are rarely questioned about whether they are really Asian. However, multiracial individuals are often confronted with this question. One young woman of Black/Asian/White descent writes, when I’m in a room full of white people and I think, “Gosh, I’m the only black person in here.” Or when I’m in a room full of black people and I think, ‘Gosh, I’m the only white person in here.’ ” (Gaskins, 1999, p. 15)

Similarly, another woman of Black/White descent writes, There are negative experiences for all people. As a biracial person, it’s struggling to make people believe that I fit in, or even knowing where I fit in . . . Black people don’t completely accept me because I’m light, or because my mom is white. And white people don’t accept me because I’m not white. So where do I fit in? (Gaskins, 1999, p. 187)

Past research suggests that feelings of intragroup rejection have negative consequences for the self and promote group disidentification, though most of this work has been conducted with populations who are members of a singular group from which they perceive rejection. Research suggests that rejection from in-group members promotes less loyalty and identification with the group (e.g., Branscombe, Spears, Ellemers, & Doosje, 2002), whereas feeling respected and valued by other group members strengthens group identification and promotes positive self-esteem (e.g. Smith, Tyler, Huo, Ortiz, & Lind, 1998; Tyler & Blader, 2000; 2001; 2002. Perceived intragroup rejection among Black Americans, for example, predicts less Black self-categorization and identification, which, in turn, has negative downstream consequences for both personal and race-based collective self-esteem (Postmes & Branscombe, 2002). Similar effects have been found in the handful of studies that examine perceived intragroup rejection among bicultural populations. This research outlines how bicultural individuals are likely to encounter pressure from both the dominant culture to assimilate and pressure to resist assimilation Sanche z, Shih, Wilton


from other in-group members often of earlier generations (Castillo, Conoley, Brossart, & Quiros, 2007). Some bicultural Latinos may fear being “too White” or “too American” by doing well in academics, not speaking Spanish, or not having enough Latino friends (Castillo, 2009; Castillo et al., 2007). Perceived intragroup rejection from peers and family members has been linked to low social support, greater conflicts from family as well as greater acculturative stress, and less identification and categorization with the rejected group (Castillo, Cano, Chen, Blucker, & Olds, 2008; Castillo, et al., 2007; Castillo, 2009; Sanchez, Chavez, Good, & Wilton, 2012). For example, Latinos who do not speak Spanish proficiently experience their lack of cultural knowledge as an intragroup acceptance threat, and they become less likely to categorize themselves as Latino when their lack of Spanish proficiency is made salient (Sanchez et al., in press). Very little empirical research has specifically addressed the issue of intragroup rejection and its implication for the self and identification among multiracial populations though prior work suggests that peripheral, atypical group members such as those individuals with biracial ancestry may be vulnerable to disapproval and rejection from others (Eidelman & Biernat, 2003; Marques, 1990; Marques & Paez, 1994; Marques, Robalo, & Rocha, 1992; Marques & Yzerbyt, 1988). Yet, many have proposed that perceived intragroup rejection may be responsible for multiracial adolescents’ higher patterns of substance use and depression (e.g., Chavez & Sanchez, 2010; Choi, Harachi, Gillmore, & Catalano, 2005).

Coping with Identity Denial

To cope with the aversive experience of identity denial, prior research has found that Asian Americans subsequently attempted to “prove” their American identity by displaying their American loyalty and fluency (Cheryan & Monin, 2005). As outline earlier, however, not all people respond to identity threatening situations by showing greater loyalty to their denied identity (e.g., Postmes & Branscombe, 2002; Sanchez et  al., in press). On the contrary, some research on bicultural populations specifically shows the opposite pattern such that bicultural people show cultural reactance when denied mainstream identities and embrace their minority identity instead of their denied identity (Ogbu, 1993; O’Hearn, 1998). Some research has attempted to reconcile these conflicting findings by examining the role of identity integration, the extent 150

to which people view their identities as overlapping and harmonious (e.g., Benet-Martínez, Leu, Lee, & Morris, 2002; Cheng, Lee, & Benet-Martínez, 2006; Sacharin, Lee, & Gonzalez, 2009). In sum, this research on identity integration suggests that people who have higher levels of identity integration show assimilation to positively primed cultural identities and distancing from negatively primed cultural identities, whereas the opposite pattern is found for those with low levels of integration (Cheng et  al.,. 2006). This suggests that identity denial (a negative social context) may cause people with low levels of integration to assimilate or prove their loyalty. This prediction is further complicated by research suggesting that negative events can shift levels of identity integration, and, thus, identity integration is not a stable construct but, rather, a socially influenced self-view of one’s identities and the relationship between them (Cheng & Lee, 2009). The experience of identity denial itself may reduce the extent to which people experience their identities as integrated and, therefore, promote assimilation behaviors like those found by Cheryan and Monin (2005). Until we know more about the mechanisms driving loyalty behaviors and empirically examine them in identity-denials situations, it is unclear whether to expect loyalty or distancing gestures as a means of coping with denied identities. Consistent with the IAP model, we propose an alternative perspective that identity denial may cause multiracial and multicultural people to display cultural behaviors that are consistent with their own self-identifications to reassert autonomy in the social context. In other words, self-perception of identity may moderate the cultural strategies used to reassert autonomy in the face of denial. Nonetheless, cultural strategies (whether they be assimilative or contrastive) may be effective in manipulating others’ perceptions of the self. Cultural knowledge and behavioral loyalty effectively operate as tools to create a shared social reality wherein perceivers may use cultural practices to determine the identities of those they are interacting with. In other words, categorization by others is influenced by cultural practices cues (Sanchez & Chavez, 2010). For example, Latino Americans may discuss their inability to speak Spanish or their dislike for Spanish foods if trying to display loyalty to their American identity. Prior research suggests that Latinos who do not speak the language associated with their ethnicity (i.e., Spanish) were less likely to be categorized as Latino and less likely to be afforded

Exploring the Identit y Autonomy Perspective (IAP)

minority resources (e.g., affirmative action), whereas those who spoke Spanish were readily categorized as Latino and viewed as affirmative-action worthy (Sanchez & Chavez, 2010). Having more prototypical hairstyles and names influences categorization into ethnic and racial groups because they cue perceptions of similarity to ethnic group members, perhaps as markers of cultural practices (Levin & Banaji, 2006; MacLin & Malpass, 2001). People may assume that Diana Sanchez speaks Spanish and Leigh Wilton does not when in fact, both authors have equivalent levels of Spanish-speaking ability. These cultural practices may serve as guides to categorization because they imply self-identification with the category. Perceivers assume that Latinos who speak Spanish are more identified with their Latino identity (Sanchez & Chavez, 2010) much as they assume that African Americans who have darker phenotypes are more racially identified with their African American identity (Kaiser & Pratt-Hyatt, 2009). Thus, actions to prove in-group loyalty (or prove loyalty to an alternative group) via cultural practices may be successful in shaping others’ perceptions. Even when intragroup group perception is achieved at the individual level, it is important to note that acceptance into mainstream groups may make bicultural and biracial people alike vulnerable to overhearing the prejudices that other mainstream group members hold. For example, many multiracial individuals look racially ambiguous and thus, easily “pass” and are accepted into White communities. As a result, others around them may feel more comfortable voicing prejudice because they forget that, for example, multiracial individuals are also members of the racial minority community. One young woman of Taiwanese/English descent describes her experiences: When I was younger, I was very Caucasianlooking . . . they [friends] didn’t acknowledge that I was part Asian. So people felt comfortable making racial jokes and offensive remarks in front of me because it was not so obvious that I was part Asian. (Gaskins, 1999, p. 190)

Being accepted in racial minority communities increases the frequency and salience of discrimination and racism because multiracial people are privy to the blatant anti-interracial racism in racial inner circles. A  young man of West Indian/European descent describes his experiences as a member in the Black Student Union (BSU) at his university. He writes “They’re [BSU] very exclusive. The girls

will say, ‘We don’t like seeing our guys getting snagged up by all of those white women.’ Can you image what it’s like for mixed people to hear that? That’s like us—our families are who they despise. (Gaskins, 1999, p. 196) Thus, it is important for future research to examine the effects of intragroup rejection at both the group and individual level. Biracial/White people whose social network is largely White might feel that they themselves are accepted in the community but their exposure to racist remarks makes them feel as though their minority identity and group is not accepted in the White community. Both group- and individual-level acceptance may play an important and independent role in feelings of belonging. To minimize the negative psychological consequences of identity denial and the likelihood of overhearing prejudice remarks from others, those with hybrid identities may create a unique, less inclusive definition of one’s in-group. For example, multicultural and multiracial people could exclusively consider those who similarly have multiple cultural and multiple racial identities as in-group members. This strategy may be particularly likely for those who experience double rejection, in which individuals feel rejected by more than one group (see Shih & Sanchez, 2005). Double rejection offers little opportunity for preservation of self-worth unless one seeks an alternative in-group. Identity denial and intragroup rejection may be less aversive if people exclusively consider themselves as multiracial people and use other multiracial people as their in-group. People who share their multiracial and multicultural backgrounds are unlikely to restrict identity choices because they are less likely to hold essentialist viewpoints. Thus, other multiracial people may provide a context that fosters identity autonomy. One drawback of this approach is the difficulty accessing other multicultural or multiracial people in certain geographic regions in which the multicultural or multiracial populations are typically low. Many multiracial people struggle to find multiracial role models and communities during adolescence (Shih & Sanchez, 2005). For example, their parents are often monoracial, so the typical familial role model is unavailable. Similar issues may beset first-generation multicultural youth whose parents cannot provide sufficient role models on how to navigate dual cultural identities. Access to similar others may improve with age when individuals have greater control over their geographical environments (Collins, 2000) suggesting that Sanche z, Shih, Wilton


intragroup acceptance and identity autonomy may be more easily achieved in later adulthood.

Clarifying Identity Autonomy

Thus far, the chapter has focused on outlining the identity autonomy perspective by outlining possible antecedents and outcomes of autonomy. Moreover, the discussion of the IAP has generated some unique perspectives on the ways in which multiracial and multicultural people may cope with identity denial to regain autonomy. In this last section, we explain how identity autonomy is separable from other known constructs (identity integration and identity switching) in the multicultural and multiracial identity literature.

Identity Shifting and Identity Autonomy

Both multiracial and multicultural populations demonstrate the ability to shift between identities and cultural systems. That is, social situations and cues (e.g., symbols that represent the culture, the presence of others that share one’s ethnic identity) activate one or more racial identities, which in turn, activate a set of cultural meanings that shape cognition, affect, and behavior (Benet-Martínez et al., 2002; Geertz, 1973; Hong, Chiu, & Kung, 1997; Kashima, 2000; Mendoza-Denton, Shoda, Ayduk, & Mischel, 1999). Research on multicultural populations finds that cultural priming can elicit changes in the self-concept, behavior, memory, and attributional processes that reflect the primed culture (Chiu & Hong, 2007; Fu, Chiu, Morris & Young, 2007; Hong et al., 2000; Hong, Ip, Chiu, Morris, & Menon, 2001; Sui, Zhu, & Chiu, 2007; Trafimow, Silverman, Fan, & Law, 1997; Trafimow, Triandis, & Goto, 1991; Verkuyten & Pouliasi, 2006). For example, Chinese Americans who were primed with Chinese cultural cues (e.g., Chinese dragon) made more external attributions characteristic of Eastern culture, whereas Chinese Americans primed with American cultural cues (e.g., American flag) tended to make more dispositional attributions characteristic of Western culture (Hong et al., 2000). Moreover, Chinese Americans who are engaged in Chinese cultural activities (e.g., speaking Chinese, reading in Chinese, being in the presence of other Chinese people) tend to experience their ethnic identities as a prominent aspect of their self-concept in the moment, suggesting, also, that cultural cues make one’s racial identity salient (Yip, 2005). Notably, bicultural individuals with stronger essentialist beliefs shift between cultural frames more slowly than those with lower essentialist 152

beliefs (Chao et al, 2007). Because essentialists perceive social categories as less permeable and more distinct, more cognitive effort is needed to switch between them. Multiracial people show patterns of fluidity among their multiple identities as well. Many qualitative studies suggest that multiracial individuals move between their racial identities in a fashion that is consistent with research on cultural framing. For example, multiracial people indicate that they change their racial identification depending on the social context (Basu, 2004; Collins, 2000; Gibbs & Hines, 1992; Newsome, 2001; Renn, 2000). Empirical data also demonstrates that the presence of others that share one of their racial identities increases identification with the shared identity (Wilton, Sanchez, & Garcia, 2013). In fact, empirical data suggests that multiracial adolescents shift their racial identities more often than they keep a constant racial self-definition (Harris & Sim, 2002; Hitlin et al., 2006). Consistent with cultural priming work, priming biracial people’s racial identity can shift cognitive processes in a fashion that is congruent with the primed racial identity. For example, priming biracial Black-White Americans with their Black identity elicits a similar pattern of race-related visual search to other Black respondents, whereas White identity priming elicits a similar pattern of response to White respondents (Chiao, Heck, Nakayama, & Ambady, 2006). Thus, priming race for biracial people can cause a pattern of behavior that is consistent with the primed racial group. The context-bound nature of social identity and cultural mindsets are now widely accepted among scholars though scholars recognize that individuals may vary in their tendency to shift between culture frameworks or racial identities. For example, some multiracial populations have shown stability across racial categorization over time and across social contexts, though the majority of multiracial people demonstrate fluidity (Harris & Sim, 2002; Hitlin et  al., 2006). Bicultural people vary in the stability of cultural identity and, thus, their tendency to shift cultural frames in different social contexts (Downie, Koestner, ElGeledi, & Cree, 2004; Downie, Mageau, Koestner, & Liodden, 2006), but the consequences of high levels of malleability among cultural identities and racial identities may be similar. Prior work on multiple identities and contextual shifts suggests that chameleon-like cultural self-concepts among bicultural populations and shifting racial identification among multiracial

Exploring the Identit y Autonomy Perspective (IAP)

populations predict lower self-esteem and lower psychological well-being (Downie et  al., 2004; 2006; Hitlin et al., 2006; Sanchez et al., 2009). Hitlin and colleagues’ work (2006) shows that identity shifting across long periods of time predicts lower self-esteem among adolescents. Moreover, multiracial people who report frequently switching between identities in different social contexts also report greater symptoms of depression and more negative attitudes about being multiracial (Sanchez et al., 2009). However, the negative link between identity shifting and well-being was largely for those multiracial people who showed evidence of longstanding identity shifting and who had little tolerance for ambiguity and contradiction (low in dialectical self-views; see Spencer-Rodgers, Williams, & Peng, 2010). In this case, their own identity shifting contradicted their beliefs about how they should be. At first, this may seem inconsistent with the IAP because showing fluidity among identities may be wrongfully construed as evidence of felt autonomy, when, in fact, autonomy and identity shifting are separable constructs. If identity shifting occurs among those with little tolerance for it, identity shifting may reflect outside pressures and need for approval by others rather than an autonomous approach to racial self-definition. Thus, an important factor that needs to be addressed in future research is whether identity shifting is autonomous or nonautonomous. Identity shifting can be adaptive when it is accompanied by a well-integrated identity (Benet-Martínez et al., 2002; Sacharin et al., 2009) and, therefore, likely a sign of an autonomous act of shifting in the context. Those who have highly integrated identities, for example, are likely to exhibit identity congruent behaviors in response to social contexts. Identity shifting in a congruent fashion may promote experiences of belonging by forging similarity with others with the relevant identity (Cheng, et  al., 2006). On the contrary, those with low levels of integration tend to show identity incongruent behaviors, which may undermine belonging. In general, research on navigating multiple cultural or racial identities suggests that having highly integrated identities tends to be associated with more positive outcomes because people feel as though their identities are compatible and, thus, do not serve as sources of psychological tension. For example, having an integrated bicultural identity is associated with less interpersonal isolation, less acculturative stress, greater well-being, and less perceived discrimination (Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005; Chen, Benet-Martínez & Bond, 2008). Those

who report less bicultural identity integration tend to have dueling dual identities. That is, they report having more difficulty achieving a cohesive and coherent self-concept and, thus, feel restricted and pressured to choose a singular cultural identity (Gil, Vega, & Dimas, 1994; Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997; Vivero & Jenkins, 1999). Among multiracial populations, integration of multiple racial identities has been found to predict greater pride in their multiracial background (Cheng & Lee, 2009), suggesting that similar processes may be at work for the integration of multiple racial identities. However, it is unclear, based on prior research, whether the positive outcomes of identity integration (and the largely negative outcomes of identity switching) are largely driven by felt autonomy. Testing the IAP may reconcile these seemingly contradictory results. Thus, there is a pressing need for future research that more explicitly examines the role of autonomy in identity integration and identity fluidity.


Throughout this chapter, we have outlined the overlap between multiracial and multicultural research from theories of identity development to double discrimination. In doing so, we have proposed the IAP, which outlines the antecedents and consequences of identity denial and thwarted autonomy for multicultural and multiracial populations. The IAP elaborates on the societal, perceiver, and target characteristics that promote identity denial experiences. Specifically, the IAP outlines the impact of essentialist ideologies and prototype consistency on the autonomy of multiracial and multicultural individuals. Lastly, this essay has outlined theories in the multicultural and multiracial literature that would benefit from greater empirical integration in future research (i.e., identity integration, fluidity, and autonomy). In sum, the IAP provides an integrative, theoretically driven model regarding how the common experiences of identity hybridity may similarly affect multicultural and multiracial populations.


Amiot, C. E., de la Sablonnière, R., Terry, D. J., & Smith, J. R. (2007). Integration of social identities in the self: Toward a cognitive-developmental model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 364–388. Archibold, R. C. (April 23, 2010). Arizona enacts stringent law on immigration. The New York Times. Retrieved from http:// Atkinson, D. R., Morten, G., & Sue, D. W. (1989). A minority identity development model. In Dr.  Atkinson, G. Morten,

Sanche z, Shih, Wilton


& D. W.  Sue (Eds), Counseling American minorities (pp. 35–52). Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brown. Bagley, C., & Young, L. (1979). The identity, adjustment and achievement of transracially adopted children: A review and empirical report. In G. K. Verma & C. Bagley (Eds.), Race, education and identity (pp. 192–219). London: Macmillan. Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2002).The impact of respect versus neglect of self-identities on identification and group loyalty. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 629–639. Bastian, B., & Haslam, N. (2006). Psychological essentialism and stereotype endorsement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), 228–235. Basu, A. M. (2004). Biracial identity and social context: A qualitative investigation. In K. R. Wallace (Ed).Working with multiracial students:  Critical perspectives on research and practice (pgs. 157–174).Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Benet-Martínez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural Identity Integration (BII):  Components and psychosocial antecedents. Journal of Personality, 73(4), 1015–1050. Benet-Martínez, V., Leu, J., Lee, F., & Morris, M. W. (2002). Negotiating biculturalism: Cultural frame switching in biculturals with oppositional versus compatible cultural identities. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(5), 492–516. Benet-Martínez, V., & Oishi, S. (2008). Culture and personality. In O. P.  John, R. W.  Robins & L. A.  Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 542–567). New York: Guilford. Berry J. W. (1986). Multiculturalism and psychology in plural societies. In L. H.  Ekstrand (Ed.), Ethnic minorities and immigrants in a cross-cultural perspective (pp. 35–51). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. Bonam, C. M., & Shih, M. (2009). Exploring multiracial individuals’ comfort with intimate interracial relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 65(1), 87–103. Bosson, J. K., Prewitt-Freilino, J. L., & Taylor, J. N. (2005). Role rigidity:  A  problem of identity misclassification? Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 89, 552–565. Bosson, J. K., Taylor, J. N., & Prewitt-Freilino, J. L. (2006). Gender role violations and identity misclassification:  The roles of audience and actor variables. Sex Roles, 55, 13–24. Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., Ellemers, N., &Doosje, B. (2002). Intragroup and intergroup evaluations on group behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 744–753. Brewer, M. B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In T. Srull & R. Wyer (Eds.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 1–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self:  On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482. Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice:  Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429–444. Brewer, M. B. (2003). Optimal distinctiveness, social identity, and the self. In M. Leary & J. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 480–491). New York: Guilford. Castillo, L. G. (2009). The role of intragroup marginalization in bicultural Latino college student adjustment. International Journal for the Advancement of Counseling, 31, 245–254. doi:10.1007/s10447–009-9081–5 Castillo, L. G., Cano, M. A., Chen, S. W., Blucker, R., & Olds, V. (2008). Family conflict and intragroup marginalization as predictors of acculturative stress in Latino college students.


International Journal of Stress Management, 15, 43–52. doi: 10.1037/1072–5245.15.1.43 Castillo, L. G., Conoley, C. W., Brossart, D. F., & Quiros, A. E. (2007). Construction and validation of the Intragroup Marginalization Inventory. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13(3), 232–240. Chao, M. M., Chen, J., Roisman, G. I., & Hong, Y. (2007). Essentializing race:  Implications for bicultural individuals’ cognition and physiological reactivity. Psychological Science, 18(4), 341–348. Chavez, G. F., & Sanchez, D. T. (2010). A clearer picture of multiracial substance abuse: Rates and correlates of alcohol and tobacco use in multiracial adolescents and adults. Race and Social Problems, 2, 1–18. Chen, J. M., & Hamilton, D. L. (2012). Natural ambiguities: Racial categorization of multiracial individuals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 152–164. Chen, S. X., Benet-Martínez, V., & Bond, M. H. (2008). Bicultural identity, bilingualism, and psychological adjustment in multicultural societies:  Immigration-based and globalization-based acculturation. Journal of Personality, 76(4), 803–838. Cheng, C. Y., & Lee, F. (2009). Multiracial identity integration: Perceptions of conflict and distance among multiracial individuals. Journal of Social Issues, 65(1), 51–68. Cheng, C., Lee, F., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2006). Assimilation and contrast effects in cultural frame-switching:  Bicultural Identity Integration (BII) and valence of cultural cues. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 742–760. Cheryan, S., & Monin, B. (2005). Where are you really from? Asian Americans and identity denial. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 717–730. Chiao, J. Y., Heck, H. E., Nakayama, K., & Ambady, N. (2006). Priming race in biracial observers affects visual search for black and white faces. Psychological Science, 17(5), 387–392. Chirkov, V. I., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy from individualism and independence: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization of cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 97–110. Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (2007). Cultural processes:  Basic principles. In E. T.  Higgins, & A. E.  Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology:  Handbook of basic principles (pp. 785–809). New York: Guilford. Choi, Y., Harachi, T. W., Gillmore, M. R., & Catalano, R. F. (2005). Applicability of the social development model to urban ethnic minority youth:  Examining the relationship between external constraints, family socialization, and problem behaviors. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 15, 505–534. Collins, J. F. (2000). Biracial Japanese American identity:  An evolving process. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 6, 115–133. Cross, W. E. (1987). A two-factor theory of Black identity:  Implications for the study of identity development in minority children. In J. Phinney & M. Rotheram (Eds.).Children’s ethnic socialization:  Pluralism and development (pp. 117–133). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Cross W.  E., & Cross, T. B. (2007). Theory, research, and models. In:  S.M. Quintana & C. McKown (Eds.) Race, racism and developing child (pp. 94–114). New  York, NY: Wiley.

Exploring the Identit y Autonomy Perspective (IAP)

Cross, W. E., Smith, L., & Payne, Y. (2002). Black identity: A repertoire of daily enactments. P. B. Pedersen, J. G. Draguns, W. J. Lonner, & J. E. Trimble (Eds). In Counseling across cultures (pp. 93–107). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Press. Cross, W. E., & Strauss, L. (1998). The everyday functions of African American identity. Prejudice:  The target’s perspective. In J. K. Swim, & C. Stangor (Eds.) Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 267–279). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Human autonomy: The basis for true self-esteem. In M. Kemis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 31–49). New York: Plenum. Devos, T., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). American = White? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 447–466. Downie, M., Koestner, R., ElGeledi, S., & Cree, K. (2004).The impact of cultural internalization and integration on well-being among tricultural individuals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(3), 305–314. Downie, M., Mageau, G. A., Koestner, R., & Liodden, T. (2006). On the risk of being a cultural chameleon: Variations in collective self-esteem across social interactions. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12, 527–540. Eidelman, S., & Biernat, M. (2003). Derogating black sheep: Individual or group protection? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(6), 602–609. Erikson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton. Farley, R. (2001). Identifying with multiple races. Report 01–491. Population Studies Center, Ann Arbor, MI. University of Michigan. Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum model of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes:  Influence of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 23, pp.1–74). New York: Academic. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. (1984). Social cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Fisman, R., Iyengar, S. S., Kamenica, E., & Simonson, I. (2008). Racial preferences in dating. Review of Economic Studies, 75, 117–132. Frank, S. J., Pirsch, L. A., & Wright, V. C. (1990). Late adolescents’ perceptions of their relationships with their parents:  Relationships among deidealization, autonomy, relatedness, and insecurity and implications for adolescent adjustment and ego identity status. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 19(6), 571–588. Fu, J. H., Chiu, C., Morris, M. W., & Young, M. J. (2007). Spontaneous inferences from cultural cues: Varying responses of cultural insiders and outsiders. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(1), 58–75. Gaskins, P. (1999). What are you? Voices of mixed-race young people. New York: Holt. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books. Gibbs, J. T., & Hines, A. M. (1992). Negotiating ethnic identity:  Issues for Black-White adolescents. In M. P.  P. Root (Ed). Racially mixed people in America (pp.223–238). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gil, A. G., Vega, W. A., & Dimas, J. M. (1994). Acculturative stress and personal adjustment among Hispanic adolescent boys. Journal of Community Psychology, 22(1), 43–54. Gillem, A. R., Kohn L. R., & Throne, C. (2001). Black identity in biracial Black/White people: A comparison of Jacqueline who refuses to be exclusively Black and Adolphus who wishes

he were. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 7(2), 182–196. Goodman, A. H. (2000). Why genes don’t count (for racial differences in health). American Journal of Public Health, 90, 1699–1702. Goldberg, M. M. (1941). A qualification of the marginal man theory. American Sociological Review, 6, 52–58. Gordon, A. (1964). Intermarriage: Interethnic, interracial, interfaith. Boston: Beacon. Graves, J. L., Jr. (2001). The emperor’s new clothes: Biological theories of race at the millennium. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Green, A. W. (1947). A re-examination of the marginal man concept. Social Forces, 26, 167–171. Grieve, P. G., & Hogg, M. A. (1999). Subjective uncertainty and intergroup discrimination in the minimal group situation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(8), 926–940. Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Hall, C. C. (1992). Please choose one: Ethnic identity choices for biracials. In M. P. P. Root (Ed.), Racially mixed people in America (pp. 250–264). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Harris, D. R., & Sim, J. J. (2002). Who is multiracial? Assessing the complexity of lived race. American Sociological Review, 67, 614–627. Harris, M. (1964). Patterns of race in the Americas. New  York: Walker. Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2000). Are essentialist beliefs associated with prejudice? British Journal of Social Psychology, 41(1), 87–100. Haslam, N., & Whelan, J. (2008). Human natures: Psychological essentialism in thinking about differences between people. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(3), 1297–1312. Hauser, S. (1972). Black and White identity development: Aspects and perspectives. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1, 113–130. Herring, R. D. (1995). Developing biracial ethnic identity:  A review of the increasing dilemma. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 23(1), 29–38. Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski, (Eds.) Social psychology:  Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133–168). New York: Guilford. Hirschfield, L. A. (1996). Race in making:  Cognition, culture, and the child’s construction of human kinds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hitlin, S., Brown, J. S., & Elder, G. H. (2006). Racial self-categorization in adolescence:  Multiracial development and social pathways. Child Development, 77, 1467–1308. Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Levin, D. T., & Banaji, M. R. (2011). Evidence for hypodescent and racial hierarchy in the categorization and perception of biracial individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 492–506. Hong, Y. Y., Chiu, C. Y., & Kung, T. (1997). Bringing culture out in front: Effects of cultural meaning system activation on social cognition. In K. Leung, Y. Kashima, U. Kim, & S. Yamaguchi (Eds.), Progress in Asian social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 135–146). Singapore: Wiley. Hong, Y. Y., Ip, G., Chiu, C. Y., Morris, M., & Menon, T. (2001). Cultural identity and dynamic construction of the self: Collective duties and individual rights in Chinese and American cultures. Social Cognition, 19, 251–268.

Sanche z, Shih, Wilton


Hong, Y. Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2000). Multicultural minds:  A  dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55, 709–720. Hugenberg, K., & Saaco, D. F. (2008). Social Categorization and stereotyping:  How social categorization biases person perception and face memory. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(2), 1052–1072. Humes, K. R., Jones, N. A., & Ramirez, R. R. (2011). Race and Hispanic origin in the 2010 Census. Retrieved May 16, 2011 from pdf/03-22-2011_webinar_slides.pdf. Ignatiev, N. (1995). How the Irish Became White. London: Routledge. Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the role of choice:  A  cultural perspective on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 349–366. Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 995–1006. Jacobs, J. H. (1992). Identity development in biracial children. In M. P. P. Root (Ed.), Racially mixed people in America (pp. 190–206). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Johnston, R. (1976). The concept of the marginal man: A refinement of the term. Australian and New England Journal of Science, 12, 145–147. Jones, J. M. (April 29, 2010). More Americans favor than oppose Arizona immigration law. Gallup Polls.Retrieved June 5, 2011 from avor-oppose-arizona-immigration-law.aspx. Kaiser, C. R., & Pratt-Hyatt, J. R. (2009). Distributing prejudice unequally:  Do Whites direct their prejudice toward strongly identified minorities? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 432–445. Kashima, Y. (2000). Conceptions of culture and person for psychology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 14–32. Kerwin, C., & Ponterotto, J. G. (1995). Biracial identity development:  Theory and research. In J. G.  Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 199–217). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kich, G. K. (1992). Development process of asserting biracial bicultural identity. In M. P.  P. Root (Ed.), Racially mixed people in America (pp. 304–317). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Knowles, E. D., & Peng, K. (2005).Whites selves: Conceptualizing and measuring a dominant-group identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 223–241. LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 395–412. Lee, W. M. L., Blando, J. A., Mizelle, N. D., & Orozco, G. L. (2007). Cultural transition. In W. M. L. Lee, J. A. Blando, N. D. Mizelle, & G. L. Orozco (Eds.), Introduction to multicultural counseling for helping professionals (2nd ed.) (pp. 71–87). New York: Routledge. Lemay, E. P., Jr., & Ashmore, R. D. (2004). Reactions to perceived categorization by other during the transition to college:  Internalization and self-verification processes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7, 173–187. Levin, D. T. & Banaji, M. R. (2006). Distortions in the perceived lightness of faces: The role of race categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(4), 501–512.


Levy, S. R., Stroessner, S. J., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Stereotype formation and endorsement:  The role of implicit theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1421–1436. Lynch, M. F., La Guardia, J. G., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). On being yourself in different cultures:  Ideal and actual self-concept, autonomy support, and well-being in China, Russia, and the United States. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 290–304. MacLin, O. H., & Malpass, R. S. (2001). Racial categorization of faces. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(1), 98–118. Markus, H. R. (2008). Pride, prejudice, and ambivalence: Toward a unified theory of race and ethnicity. American Psychologist, 63, 651–670. Marks, J. (1995) Human biodiversity:  Genes, race, and history. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Marques. J.  M. (1990). The black sheep effect:  Out-group homogeneity in social comparison settings. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances (pp. 131–151). New York: Springer-Verlag. Marques, J. M., & Paez, D. (1994). The “black sheep effect”:  Social categorization, rejection of ingroup deviates, and perception of group variability. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 37–68). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Marques, J. M., Robalo, E. M., & Rocha, S. A. (1992). Ingroup bias and the ‘black sheep’ effect:  Assessing the impact of social identification and perceived variability on group judgments. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22(4), 331–352. Marques, J. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (1988). The black sheep effect: Judgmental extremity towards ingroup members and inter- and intra-group situations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 287–292. Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Massey, D. S., & Fischer, M. J. (2000). Residential segregation and ethnic enterprise in U.S. metropolitan areas. Social Problems, 47, 407–424. McArthur, L. Z., & Baron, R. M. (1983).Toward an ecological theory of social perception. Psychological Review, 90, 215–238. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444. McRoy, R. G., & Freeman, E. (1986). Racial identity issues among mixed-race children. Social Work in Education, 8, 150–153. Mendoza-Denton, R., Shoda, Y., Ayduk, O., & Mischel, W. (1999). Applying cognitive-affective processing system (CAPS) theory to cultural differences in social behavior. In W. J. Lonner, D. L. Dinnel, D. K. Forgays, & S. A. Hayes (Eds.), Merging past, present, and future in cross-cultural psychology: Selected proceedings of the 14th International Congress of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology. Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger. Morten, G., & Atkinson, D. R. (1983). Minority identity development and preference for counselor race. Journal of Negro Education, 52, 156–161. Nakashima, C. L. (1992). An invisible monster: the creation and denial of mixed-race people in America. In M. P.  P. Root (Ed.), The multiracial experience:  Racial borders as the new frontier (pp. 162–180). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Navarro, M. (November 9, 2003). Going beyond Black and White, Hispanics choose Other. The New  York Times. Retrieved from

Exploring the Identit y Autonomy Perspective (IAP)

Neuberg, S. L., & Fiske, S. T. (1987). Motivational influences on impression formation:  Outcome dependency, accuracy-driven attention, and individuating processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 431–444. Newsome, C. (2001). Multiple identities:  The case of biracial children. In Virginia H. & Asante, M. Kete (Eds).Transcultural realities:  Interdisciplinary perspectives on cross-cultural relations (pp. 145–159). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. No, S., Hong, Y., Liao, H., Lee, K., Wood, D., & Chao, M. (2008). Lay Theory of Race Affects and Moderates Asian Americans’ Responses toward American Culture. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 991–1004. Oakes, P. (1987). The salience of social categories. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.) Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp.117–141). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Ogbu, J. U. (1993). Differences in cultural frame of reference. International roots of minority child development [Special issue]. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 16, 483–506. Ogbu, J. U., & Matute-Bianchi, M. E. (1986). Understanding sociocultural factors: Knowledge, identity, and school adjustment. In Beyond language:  Social and cultural factors in schooling language minority students (pp. 73–142). Edited by Bilingual Education Office, California State Department of Education. Los Angeles:  Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University. O’Hearn, C. C. (1998). Half and half: Writers growing up biracial and bicultural. New York: Pantheon Books. Omi. M., & Winant, H. (1986). Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960’s to the 1980’s. Boston, MA: Routledge. Park, R. E. (1928). Human migration and the marginal man. American Journal of Sociology, 33, 881–893. Park, R. E. (1931). Mentality of racial hybrids. American Journal of Sociology, 36, 534–551. Pauker, K., & Ambady, N. (2009). Multiracial faces: How categorization affects memory at the boundaries of race. Journal of Social Issues, 65(1), 69–86. Peery, D., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2008). Black + White = Black. Hypodescent in reflexive categorization of racially ambiguous faces. Psychological Science, 19(10), 973–977. Phinney, J., & Devich-Navarro, M. (1997).Variations in bicultural identification among African American and Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 7, 3–32. Phinney, J. S., & Ong, A. D. (2007). Conceptualization and measurement of ethnic identity:  Current status and future directions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(3), 271–281. Piskacek, V., & Golub, M. (1973). Children of interracial marriages. In I. R.  Stuart & L. E.  Abt (Eds.), Interracial marriage:  Expectations and realities (pp. 53–61). New York: Grossman. Postmes, T., & Branscombe, N. (2002). Influence of long-term racial environmental composition on subjective well-being in African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 735–753. Poston, W. S.  C. (1990). The biracial identity development model:  A  needed addition. Journal of Counseling & Development, 69, 152–155. Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (2007). Psychological essentialism of human categories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(4), 202–206.

Rashid, H. M. (1984). Promoting biculturalism in young African-American children. Young Children, 39(2), 13–23. Reid, S. A., & Hogg, M. A. (2005). Uncertainty reduction, self-enhancement, and ingroup identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(6), 804–817. Renn, K. A. (2000). Patterns of situational identity among biracial and multiracial college students. The Review of Higher Education, 23, 399–420. Rockquemore, K. A. (1999). Between Black and White: Exploring the biracial experience. Race and Society, 1, 197–212. Rockquemore, K. A., & Brusma, D. L. (2002). Socially embedded identities:  Theories, typologies, and processes of racial identity among Black/White biracials. Sociological Quarterly, 43, 335–356. Rockquemore, K. A., Brusma, D. L. & Delgado, D. J. (2009). Racing to theory or retheorizing race? Understanding the struggle to build a multiracial identity theory. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 13–34. Rockquemore, K. A., & Lazloffy, T. (2003). Exploring multiple realities: Using narrative approaches in therapy with black/ white biracials. Family Relations, 52, 119–128. Rodriguez, C. (2000). Changing race: Latinos, the Census, and the history of ethnicity in the United States. New York: New York University Press. Root, M. P. P. (1996). The multiracial experience: Racial borders as the new frontier. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. Sacharin, V., Lee F., & Gonzalez R. (2009). Identities in harmony:  Gender-work identity integration moderates frame switching in cognitive processing. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33(3), 275–284. Sanchez, D. T. (2010). How do forced-choice dilemmas affect multiracial people? The role of autonomy and public regard in depressive symptoms. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 1657–1677. Sanchez, D. T., & Chavez, G. (2010). Are you minority enough? Language ability affects targets’ and perceivers’ assessments of minority status. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32, 99–107. Sanchez, D. T., Chavez, G., Good, J. J., & Wilton, L. S. (2012). Intragroup rejection and collective self-esteem among Latinos: Spanish fluency and “fitting in” with other Latinos. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 1019–1033. Sanchez, D. T., & Garcia, J. A. (2009). When race matters:  Racially stigmatized others and perceiving race as a biological construction affect biracial people’s daily well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1154–1164. Wilton, L. S., Sanchez, D. T., & Garcia, J. A. (2013). The stigma of privilege: Racial identity and stigma consciousness among biracial individuals. Race and Social Problems, 5, 41–56. Sanchez, D. T., Shih, M., & Garcia, J. A. (2009). Juggling multiple racial identities:  Malleable racial identification and well-being. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15, 243–254. Schildkraut, D. J. (2001). Official-English and the States: Influences on declaring English the official language in the United States, Political Research Quarterly, 54, 445–457. Schildkraut, D. J. (2007). Defining American identity in the 21st century: How much “there” is there? Journal of Politics, 69, 597–615.

Sanche z, Shih, Wilton


Scott, J. (June 27, 2001). A Census query is said to skew data on Latinos. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www. Sebring, D. L. (1985). Considerations in counseling interracial children. Journal of Non-White Concerns, 13, 3–9. Segal, U. A., Elliot, D., & Mayadas, N. S. (2010). Immigration Worldwide:  Policies, Practices, and Trends. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Senior, P. A., & Bhopal, R. (1994). Ethnicity as a variable in epidemiological research. British Medical Journal, 309, 327–330. Shih, M., Bonam, C., Sanchez, D. T., & Peck, C. (2007). The social construction of race:  Biracial identity and susceptibility to stereotypes. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13, 125–133. Shih, M., & Sanchez, D. T. (2005). Perspectives and research on the positive and negative implications of having multiple racial identities. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 569–591. Simmons, T., & O’Connell, M. (2003, February). Married-couple and unmarried partner households:  2000 Census Reports. Retrieved June 27, 2011 from http://www. Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., Huo, Y. J., Ortiz, D. J., & Lind, E. A. (1998). The self-relevant implications of the group-value model: Group membership, self-worth, and treatment quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 470–493. Spencer-Rodgers, J., Williams, M. J., & Peng, K. (2010). Cultural differences in expectations of change and tolerance for contradiction: A decade of empirical research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(3), 296–312. Spickard, P. R. (1992). The illogic of American racial categories. In M. P. P. Root (Ed.), Racially mixed people in America (pp. 12–23). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Standen, B. C. (1996). Without a template: The biracial Korean/ White experience. In Maria P. P. Root (Ed.), The multiracial experience: Racial borders as the new frontier (pp. 245–262). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Stonequist, E. V. (1937). The marginal man: A student in personality and culture conflict. New York: Russell & Russell. Strauss, L. C., & Cross, W. E, Jr. (2005). Transacting black identity: A two-week daily-diary study. In G. Downey, J. S. Eccles, & C. M. Chatman (Eds.) Navigating the future: Social identity, coping, and life tasks (pp. 67–95). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Sui, J., Zhu, Y., & Chiu, C.-Y. (2007). Bicultural mind, self-construal, and self-and mother-reference effects: Consequences of cultural priming on recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 818–824. Sung, B. (1985). Bicultural conflicts in Chinese immigrant children. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 16, 244–269. Swann, W. B., Jr., De La Ronde, C., & Hixon, J. G. (1994). Authenticity and positivity strivings in marriage and courtship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 857– 869. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.66.5.857 Swann, W. B., Jr., & Pelham, B. (2002). Who wants out when the going gets good? Psychological investment and preference for self-verifying college roommates. Self and Identity, 1, 219–233. Swann, W. B., Jr., Rentfrow, P. J., & Guinn, J. (2002). Self-verification: The search for coherence. In M. Leary & J. Tagney (Eds.) Handbook of self and identity (pp. 367–383). New York: Guilford. Swarns, R. L. (October 24, 2004). Latinos resist racial grouping by Census. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.


Takaki, R. (1999). Race at the end of history. In D. Batstone & E. Mendieta (Eds.) The Good Citizen (pp. 81–92). New York: Routledge. Thornton, M. C., & Wason, S. (1995). Intermarriage. In D. Levinson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of marriage and the family (pp. 396–402). New York: Macmillan. Tizard, B., & Phoenix, A. (2002). Black, White or Mixed Race? Race and racism in the lives of young people of mixed parentage. New York: Routledge. Tooby, J. & Cosmides, L. (1990). On the universality of human nature and the uniqueness of the individual:  The role of genetics and adaptation. Journal of Personality, 58, 17–67. Townsend, S. S. M., Markus, H. R., & Bergsieker, H. B. (2009). My choice, your categories: The denial of multiracial identities. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 185–204. Trafimow, D., Silverman, E. S., Fan, R. M., & Law, J. S.  F. (1997). The effects of language and priming on the relative accessibility of the private self and collective self. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 107–123. Trafimow, D., Triandis, H. C., & Goto, S. G. (1991). Some tests of the distinction between the private self and the collective self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 649–655. Trope, Y. (1986). Identification and inferential processes in dispositional attribution. Psychological Review, 93, 239–257. Tyler, T. R. & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2001). Identity and cooperative behavior in groups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 4, 207–226. Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S.L. (2002) Autonomous vs. comparative status: Must we be better than others to feel good about ourselves? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision processes, 89, 813–838. U.S. Census. (2002). Principal demographic results. Retrieved March 3, 2003, from Verkuyten, M., & Brug, P. (2004). Multiculturalism and group status:  The role of ethnic identification, group essentialism and protestant ethic. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(6), 647–661. Verkuyten, M., & Pouliasi, K. (2006). Biculturalism and group identification:  The mediating role of identification in cultural frame-switching. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 312–326. Vivero, V. N., & Jenkins, S. R. (1999). Existential hazards of the multicultural individual: Defining and understanding “cultural homelessness.” Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 5(1), 6–26. Weisman, J. R. (1996). An “other” way of life:  The empowerment of alterity in the interracial individual. In M. P. P. Root (Ed.) The multiracial experience: Racial borders as the new frontier (pp. 152–164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Whelan, J. (2008, July). Essentialist beliefs about national identity:  The role of national symbolism. Paper presented at the annual scientific meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Paris, France. Abstract retrieved from Williams, M. J., & Eberhardt, J. L. (2008). Biological conceptions of race and the motivation to cross racial boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(6), 1033–1047. Williams, T. K. (1996). Race as a process: Reassessing the “What are you?” encounters of biracial individuals. In M. P. P. Root

Exploring the Identit y Autonomy Perspective (IAP)

(Ed.), The multiracial experience:  Racial borders as the new frontier (pp. 191–210). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wilson, T. (1992). Blood quantum:  Native American mixed bloods. In M. P.  P. Root (Ed.), Racially mixed people in America (pp. 108–125). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Wu, F. (2002). Yellow: Race in America beyond Black and White. New York: Basic Books. Yip, T. (2005). Sources of situational variation in ethnic identity and psychological well-being: A palm pilot study of Chinese

American students. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1603–1616. Yogeeswaran, K., & Dasgupta, N. (2010). Will the “real” American please stand up? The effect of implicit stereotypes about nationality on discriminatory behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1332–1345. Zack, N. (1995). American Mixed Race:  The Culture of Microdiversity. Lanham, MD:  Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Sanche z, Shih, Wilton




Multiple Groups, Multiple Identities, and Intersectionality

Isis H. Settles and Nicole T. Buchanan

Abstract This chapter reviews the construct of intersectionality in relation to multiple social-group memberships and multiple social identities. Intersectionality theory stresses the importance of considering an individual’s combination of group memberships and identities to more thoroughly understand the individual’s unique social experiences and worldview. We apply intersectionality to multiple group memberships, noting how membership in multiple marginalized groups places individuals at risk for negative experiences and well-being (multiple jeopardy), whereas membership in multiple privileged groups increases the likelihood of positive experiences (multiple advantage). Next, we discuss intersectionality theory in relation to multiple social identities as they are associated with psychological well-being, processes of identity conflict, and models of identity integration. We conclude with questions and issues informed by intersectionality theory related to multiculturalism, multiple group memberships, and multiple identities. Key Words:  intersectionality theory, social identities, social groups, identity integration, psychological well-being, race, gender, multiple jeopardy, multiple advantage, identity conflict


In this chapter we discuss intersectionality theory, which emphasizes how combinations of social-group memberships and social-group identifications create unique social positions for individuals, which influence their perceptions of the world, experiences, and outcomes (Cole, 2009; Crenshaw, 1989/1993). We begin by describing the processes of categorization and stereotyping related to social-group memberships. We then describe the history and tenets of intersectionality, and how intersectionality can be applied to the processes of categorization and stereotyping. Specifically, we discuss how individuals are categorized and stereotyped based on their intersectional positions, as well as how individuals self-identify with intersected categories. Next we discuss how intersectionality theory is relevant to group memberships, particularly for devalued social-group members. We further 160

describe processes involved in social-group identifications in relation to psychological well-being and the integration and organization of multiple identities. We end by raising questions that an intersectionality lens brings to thinking about multiple group memberships and multiple group identifications. Intersectionality theory has a great deal to offer the literature on multiculturalism and multiple identities because of its emphasis on the social context and historical factors that influence how cultures, racial groups, and individuals with various identities are perceived and situated in society.

Social-Group Memberships and Identifications

Individuals belong to a number of different social groups simultaneously, based on a variety of characteristics they posses. For example, a woman may be Asian-American, working-class,

and heterosexual. Individuals categorize themselves and others based on salient characteristics (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990), such as gender and race, forming social groups around these shared factors. The process of categorization is a means of reducing a large amount of information into a more manageable size. Individuals can then apply their “knowledge” about the social category (e.g., Asian-Americans or Asian-American women) when they encounter new people who fit into the group (Brewer, 1988; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990). However, an individual’s knowledge about social category members is not necessarily neutral or accurate. Rather, group memberships (and knowledge about individuals in those groups) are typically based on historical experiences and the social context (Williams, Lavizzo-Mourey, & Warren, 1994). Thus, social groups may be stereotyped in ways that reflect the current social system that provides status to some groups and marginalizes others; further, stereotypes often act to maintain the relative social status of groups (Williams et al., 1994). For example, Diekman and Eagly (2000) asked participants to provide stereotypes of women from past, present, and future generations, and they found that stereotypes of women of the past were less masculine than stereotypes of women of the present, and these changes corresponded with perceived changes in women’s social roles. Because stereotypes are believed to be valid by those who hold them (Haslam, Oakes, Reynolds, & Turner, 1999), they also impact how individuals in social groups are treated (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990). Thus, because women are stereotyped as nice but not competent (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002; White & Gardner, 2009), women may be treated as though they are incompetent and unable to hold positions requiring skill and ability, with potential consequences for their academic, occupational, and social experiences. Although group memberships vary in their salience, some tend to consistently form the basis of categorization over other possible categorizations. Race/ethnicity, gender, and age are some such social categories, and they have been described as primary, natural, or superordinate (Brewer, 1988; Brewer & Lui, 1989; Heilman, 1995). Part of the primacy of these social categories is due to their visibility and stability. Categories like race, gender, and age are usually visible such that one’s membership in a particular racial/ethnic, gender, or age group can be ascribed to the individual based on the perception of others, regardless of how the individual would

choose to classify herself or himself. Additionally, for race and gender, few individuals move between categories within the group (e.g. from one racial group to another). This is in contrast to social categories like social class and sexual orientation, which are typically less visible and may be somewhat fluid over the life course. We distinguish group memberships and categorizations from group identification. Identification with a social group occurs when individuals see themselves in terms of a group they belong to and accept the group membership as a part of their self-concept and self-definition (Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004; Hogg, 2006; Thoits, 1995). Through identification with groups, individuals derive a sense of meaning (Demerath, 2006; Thoits, 1995) and guidelines for understanding the world and interacting with others (Hogg & Abrams, 1990). Identities provide perspective, or a particular way in which to view the world (Sacharin, Lee, & Gonzalez, 2009). Once identities are formed, a prototype is developed. Prototypes are cognitive representations of an ideal group member (Hogg, 2006). Often, identified individuals will engage in self-stereotyping, which involves taking on characteristics of the group prototype (Hogg, 2006). In sum, identification reflects the extent to which individuals place importance on their group memberships. In contrast, others may categorize individuals into different groups than individuals would categorize themselves. For example, a Middle Eastern-American man may categorize himself as White (rather than Middle Eastern), whereas others categorize him as an ethnic minority and treat him according to the stereotypes of Middle Easterners. Additionally, he may not place importance on being Middle Eastern in how he defines himself. Thus, he would describe and categorize himself as White, and he would not identify with being Middle Eastern although others view him this way. We feel that the distinction between group memberships and group identifications is important, although both are relevant to intersectionality. Whereas group memberships often influence how individuals are treated by others (through the processes of categorization and stereotyping), group identification reflects one’s sense of self (through the process of self-categorization). As a result, for individuals who belong to marginalized groups, group memberships and the occupation of particular intersectional positions may lead to stress and mistreatment. Alternatively, occupation in advantaged groups may provide individuals with Set tles, Buchanan


resources and privileges. In both cases, however, the treatment of individuals is somewhat independent of their self-identification (although we note that individuals engage in various processes and behaviors to create particular images and representations of themselves). However, individuals have greater control over their identifications—the groups by which they choose to define themselves. Thus, even for marginalized group members, identities may provide psychological benefits and protections for individuals.

Intersectionality Theory

Intersectionality theory posits that it is important to consider the multiple social groups individuals occupy because the combination of groups creates a unique space with a unique social meaning (Cole, 2009; Crenshaw, 1989/1993). That is, the meaning of one social group (e.g., gender) depends on the other groups the individual belongs to (e.g., race, social class; Shields, 2008). For example, being a Black middle-class woman is different from being a White middle-class woman. Yet research on middle-class women might focus primarily on the experiences of those who are White. An intersectional perspective would notice that such research did not reflect the experiences of all middle-class women, and it would try to examine areas of similarity and difference for other types of middle-class women. Thus, intersectionality pays attention to the fact that the combination of social-group memberships changes individuals’ life experiences (Shields, 2008). The ideas inherent in intersectionality theory gained prominence in the 1970s when members of the U.S. Black feminist movement expressed that they experienced multiple forms of oppression simultaneously and thus were unable to separate oppression based on single identities (Combahee River Collective, 1977/1995). The term intersectionality was coined by Crenshaw (1989/1993); she highlighted the fact that the oppression of Black women was not equivalent to oppression experienced by White women or Black men. Despite the initial and continued focus on how intersecting social-group memberships may lead to unique forms of oppression and marginalization, many psychologists find it useful to consider how intersecting social positions can also lead to privilege and opportunity (Cole, 2009; Shields, 2008). For example, White men, particularly those who are heterosexual and middle-class, occupy a privileged position on the basis of their intersecting group memberships. 162

In other cases, one might be marginalized on the basis of one group membership but privileged on the basis of another membership that together create one’s intersectional social position (Cole, 2009; Shields, 2008). This would be the case for White women who are privileged because of their race but oppressed because of their gender. There are a number of strengths offered by intersectionality theory. First, it is consistent with individuals’ lived experiences. All individuals simultaneously belong to a number of social groups and hold multiple social identities. Yet, most psychological research has examined single categories of group membership or identity. By doing so, such research may oversimplify relationships or tend to focus on the experiences of only the most privileged subgroup (Cole, 2009). Second, an intersectional approach, by asking who is included and who is omitted in a category, can also work toward deconstructing who is perceived to be the normative subgroup within a broader social category (Cole, 2009; Jordan-Zachery, 2007). For example, an intersectional lens would allow us to notice that most research on women is really research on White women. Third, we can use intersectionality to understand similarities and differences between groups (e.g., men and women) and within groups (e.g., different types of women; Cole, 2009; Crenshaw, 1991; Jordan-Zachery, 2007). By focusing on both differences and similarities, an intersectional perspective may limit individuals’ tendency to essentialize differences (Crenshaw, 1991; Jordan-Zachery, 2007). A focus on similarities among groups can also lead group members to find areas of overlapping concerns, which can be a useful tool for mobilizing multiple groups around political causes (Cole, 2009). Researchers have suggested that there are many approaches to using intersectionality theory. First, it can be used as a theoretical perspective that guides the types of questions researchers ask (Shields, 2008). For example, using an intersectional lens, Hurtado and Sinha (2008) asked how self-identified feminist Latino men defined what it means to be a man. Because of their use of intersectionality theory, Hurtado and Sinha (2008) noted that masculinity is defined as being White, rich, and heterosexual; as a result, Latino men do not have full access to the privileges of manhood. Among their results, the researchers found that Latino feminist men frequently discussed gender and gender-related issues in terms of multiple social-group identifications (i.e., race, ethnicity, social class, sexuality) and many participants rejected the notion of manhood

Multiple Groups, Multiple Identities, and Intersectionalit y

as requiring the objectification of women (Hurtado & Sinha, 2008). Second, intersectionality can be used analytically, to describe underlying relationships and processes (Jordan-Zachery, 2007). Analytically, an intersectional perspective does not need to test for and find differences between groups (e.g., White women versus Black women). Rather, the goal is to explain the process by which membership in one or more social groups changes, shapes, and defines membership in another social group (Shields, 2008) and, by extension, how outcomes differ based upon these intersecting groups. Qualitative research by Settles, Pratt-Hyatt, and Buchanan (2008) found that some aspects of womanhood differed for Black and White women. For example, struggles about merging work and family roles emerged for White women but not Black women, perhaps because Black women have historically always combined these roles. In a quantitative study, Buchanan, Settles, and Woods (2008) found that White women in the U.S. military received more sexual harassment that expressed that they were unwelcome, whereas Black women received more sexualized forms of sexual harassment, such as unwanted touching. These differences were theorized to exist because White women are expected to hold social roles as mother and caretaker, rather than soldier, and thus are violating stereotyped norms; harassment that emphasized White women’s unsuitability in the military may have served to remind them of their “place.” In contrast, sexualized stereotypes of Black women as promiscuous may have made sexual-advance types of harassment seem more permissible when directed toward women in that group. Third, intersectionality can be used as a political tool (Jordan-Zachery, 2007). Politically, intersectionality can highlight areas of inequality based on an individual’s intersectional position and how these inequalities relate to the larger political system (Jordan-Zachery, 2007). For example, Crenshaw (1991) wrote about the invisibility of Black women in the legal system because they could file lawsuits based on racial discrimination in the workplace or gender discrimination in the workplace, but not both forms of oppression, despite feeling discriminated against on the basis of this intersected position. An intersectional approach can also shed light on the goals and needs of subgroups within a political movement or political group (Cole, 2008). Cole (2008) highlights from her research that activists often try to forge alliances based on “shared interests rather than shared identities” (p. 447).

Intersectionality and Social-Identity Processes

The processes that apply to individual social categories, group memberships, and social identities may also apply to intersecting categories, memberships, and identities. In fact, Goff, Thomas, and Jackson (2008) suggested that there is no theoretical reason to expect race, gender, or age to be more basic or primary categories than a combination of these group memberships. Accordingly, the stereotypes of intersectional positions sometimes differ from those of the categories that comprise the intersection. For example, “women” are stereotyped as being nurturing, kind, helpful and concerned with others (Heilman, 1995, 2001). However, research that examines stereotypes of women of different racial groups finds that the stereotype of a woman is actually the stereotype of a White woman. In contrast, African-American women are described as loud, talkative, and antagonistic; Asian-American women are described as quiet, shy, well-mannered, and achievement oriented; and Mexican women are described as loud, promiscuous, and family oriented (Niemann, Jennings, Rozelle, Baxter, & Sullivan, 1994). Niemann et al. (1994) also found some commonalities across race-gender groups, such as all females being described as intelligent and pleasant. Nevertheless, many of the stereotypes differed for women of different racial/ethnic groups, suggesting that participants in the study considered the intersection of race and gender when recalling stereotypes. Other research on group evaluations supports the idea that individuals may categorize others based on intersecting group memberships, like race and gender. For example, in a scenario study, African-American female professors were rated lower on legitimacy and competence than African-American male professors, and Caucasian and Asian professors of both genders (Bavishi, Madera, & Hebl, 2010). In a study of teaching evaluations of actual college professors, Reid (2010) found that racial-minority faculty members were rated more negatively than White faculty, and that Black male instructors were rated especially poorly. Thus, participants are rating hypothetical and real professors based on both their race and gender, although the reason for the different findings between these studies is unclear. Categorizing on the basis of intersections does not apply only to combinations of race and gender. Again referring to the earlier stereotype of a white woman, we note that this is largely the stereotype Set tles, Buchanan


of a middle-class (White) woman. Compared to a hypothetical middle-class woman, Lott and Saxon (2002) found that a hypothetical working-class woman was described more as crude, irresponsible, and meek. These results are similar to those of an earlier study by Landrine (1985); she found that middle-class women were rated as more intelligent, ambitious, and warm, whereas lower-class women were described more as dirty, hostile, impulsive, and irresponsible. Additionally, the stereotype of a “woman” does not apply to lesbian women who are rated more as masculine than heterosexual women (Kite & Deaux, 1987). Thus, individuals may be categorized by others on the basis of their intersecting identities, stereotyped according to these intersections, and treated correspondingly. There is also some evidence that individuals—at least some individuals in some contexts—see themselves in terms of intersecting identities. Research in this area is limited because quantitative research typically asks people to report on single identities (e.g., race, sexual orientation) rather than intersections (e.g., being an Asian-American lesbian). However, research by Settles (2006) found that Black women rated their “Black woman” identity as more important than either their “Black” or “woman” identities. Additionally, Bowleg’s (2008) qualitative research on Black lesbian women found that they often thought of themselves in terms of intersecting identities such as Black female lesbian or Black lesbian.

Intersectionality and Multiple Group Memberships

According to intersectionality theory, membership in various social groups (e.g., gender, race, class, sexual orientation) are interconnected and their meaning is fully understood only when all identities are considered in relationship to one another (Cole, 2009). In this section, we discuss how memberships in multiple marginalized or privileged groups lead individuals to have more negative or positive experiences, respectively. We also describe intersectional invisibility, a theory detailing how multiple marginalized group memberships can sometimes render individuals to be invisible and overlooked (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008). Double-jeopardy theory (Beal, 1970; D. K. King, 1988) applies an intersectional framework to propose that individuals in two disadvantaged or marginalized groups will be at increased risk for negative experiences, such as poverty, victimization, and mental and physical health disparities. Jeffries 164

and Ransford’s (1980) multiple-jeopardy-advantage hypothesis extended the double-jeopardy model to specifically address belonging to three or more groups and to account for the fact that individuals can belong to multiple marginalized or multiple privileged groups, which affords individuals in those groups differential power, status, and resources. Both of these hypotheses (double jeopardy and multiple jeopardy-advantage) posit that each identity (gender, race, social class, sexual orientation) represents a status dimension and that individuals’ experiences are determined by their unique placement on these intersecting dimensions. As such, examining a single status dimension will not adequately account for one’s life circumstances and outcomes. Thus, these theories reflect intersectionality theory in at least two ways: (1) they stress that one must consider individuals’ multiple group memberships, because intersecting positions create unique experiences; and (2)  they share a focus on experiences of those with multiple devalued and disadvantaged group memberships seen in early intersectionality theory and research. Landrine, Klonoff, Alcaraz, Scott, and Wilkins (1995) tested the multiple-jeopardy-advantage hypothesis by examining a variety of factors including pay, interpersonal discrimination, and helping behaviors. For the multiple-jeopardy-advantage hypothesis to hold, individuals occupying lower status on multiple groups (e.g., Black, women, poor) should demonstrate the worst outcomes and those belonging to multiple high status groups (e.g., White, male, upper class) should report the best outcomes/advantages. By extension, the multiple-jeopardy-advantage hypothesis would also imply that those with mixed status (high status on one and low on another, e.g., White women or Black men) would fall between the first two groups. In their research, Landrine et al. (1995) found that women of color earned less than all other groups— supporting double jeopardy based on race and gender, and indicating that women of color were more likely to also be poor (another low-status group). Their findings also support multiple advantages because White men, regardless of age, earned more than members of any gender-race-age comparison group. It is important to note that recent studies find that this pattern of results continues to the present (Browne & Misra, 2003; Kim, 2006). Across studies of discrimination and attributions for success, the results were conclusive for multiple advantage privileging White men, but the evidence for multiple jeopardy was varied.

Multiple Groups, Multiple Identities, and Intersectionalit y

Given the mixed evidence, the authors concluded that the multiple jeopardy-advantage hypothesis was too simplistic to explain the multiple jeopardy experienced by those occupying intersecting marginalized social groups (Landrine et al., 1995). They note several limitations that may explain why multiple jeopardy, as opposed to multiple advantage, is more complicated than the linear interaction effect proposed by the multiple-jeopardy-advantage hypothesis. First, the marginalized position of low-status groups is not equivalent. Thus, considering the specific low-status dimensions is essential in understanding phenomena like discrimination. For example, the nature, frequency, and severity of discrimination will vary if a woman is Black and gay versus if a woman is Black and disabled. Although each holds membership in three low-status groups, the unique intersection of these dimensions creates a social space that may differ considerably. Second, the multiple-jeopardy-advantage hypothesis does not account for the ways in which contextual differences influence discrimination. Using the same two women described earlier, the nature, severity, and frequency of the discrimination they face will differ if they are looking for employment, applying for public assistance, asking strangers for directions, or going on a blind date. Despite these limitations, double jeopardy and the multiple-jeopardy-advantage hypothesis can provide useful heuristics for conceptualizing how intersecting identities deny or convey privilege to some and disadvantage to others. In the following sections, we review the literature related to the ways in which double and multiple jeopardy—occupation in multiple devalued social groups—increase the likelihood that one will encounter a variety of stressful life events (Benson, Wooldredge, Thistlethwaite & Fox, 2004; Frias & Angel, 2007). In particular, we examine how intersections of gender, race, social class, and sexual orientation lead to differences in poverty levels, mental health, and violence and victimization.

Multiple Social-Group Memberships and Poverty

There have been long-standing differences in the rates of pay across gender and ethnicity that persist to the present (Gaeddert, 2011). Differences in income are further exacerbated when the lowest economic strata are examined. Specifically, women are concentrated in the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistic’s three lowest wage occupations (Lichtenwalter, 2005), which translates into substantial gender inequality in poverty. The magnitude of the poverty

gap is widened substantially when ethnicity is considered in conjunction with gender, leaving many more Black and Puerto Rican women living below the poverty line than other race-gender groups (Elmelech & Lu, 2004). Further, lesbian women of color typically earn less and are more likely to live in poverty than heterosexual men and women, White lesbian women, and gay men of color (Dang & Frazier, 2004). Given that rates of poverty are unequally distributed across the population, the host of negative outcomes associated with living in poverty will also be distributed inequitably across groups. For example, women living in poverty, particularly poor women of color, report higher rates of general stress (American Psychological Association Task Force on Socioeconomic Status, 2007) and increased victimization, such as interpersonal violence (Stith, Smith, Penn, Ward & Tritt, 2004), sexual coercion, and assault by landlords (Reed, Collinsworth, & Fitzgerald, 2005; Short, 2008; Tester, 2008).

Multiple Social-Group Memberships and Mental Health Disparities

Being a member of a socioculturally marginalized group is associated with mental-health disparities thought to be the result of their increased incidence of stressful events and discrimination (Klonoff, Landrine, & Campbell, 2000). Namely, epidemiological studies have shown that women have higher rates of several psychological disorders (e.g., depression, posttraumatic stress, anxiety) than men (Dambrun, 2007, Kessler, 2003; Sachs-Ericsson & Ciarlo, 2000). Gay men and lesbian women also report increased rates of such disorders, compared to heterosexual men and women (APA, 2007; Mays & Cochran, 2001); when they experience stress and victimization based on their sexual orientation, they report even greater distress and impairment (Dunbar, 2006). Findings on racial disparities in mental health have varied, with some finding lower rates of some disorders, such as depression, among Hispanics and Blacks as compared to Whites, and other longitudinal studies demonstrating that once developed, mood and anxiety disorders are more persistent and debilitating among these ethnic minority groups (Breslau, Kendler, Su, Gaxiola-Aguilar, & Kessler, 2005). Similarly, those living in poverty not only have higher rates of diagnosable conditions including schizophrenia, depression, and posttraumatic stress, but they are also more likely to have multiple conditions simultaneously, which increases their severity and complicates treatment (APA, Set tles, Buchanan


2007; Gilman, Kawachi, Fitzmaurice, & Buka, 2002; Smith, 2005). When examined via an intersecting lens of multiple group memberships, additional disparities emerge. For example, studies comparing differences across race often overlook differences across both gender and race. Baker, Buchanan, and Spencer (2010) noted that most studies on race and depression fail to note that Black women often report higher rates of depression compared to White women and men of any race because they do not analyze across race-gender groups. Stress-related psychological disorders are higher among gay and lesbian people of color, particularly if they live in poverty (APA, 2007; Bowleg, Huang, Brooks, Black & Burkholder, 2003; Mays & Cochran, 2001). Similarly, victimization targeting both gender and race is associated with more severe psychological and physical health concerns (Berdahl & Moore, 2006; Buchanan, Bergman, Bruce, Woods, & Lichty, 2009; Buchanan & Fitzgerald, 2008; Moradi & Subich, 2003). In sum, the available body of research indicates that marginalized social-group membership is associated with more stressful life events and more negative mental-health outcomes, and that those with multiple intersecting marginalized group memberships are at greater risk overall.

Social-Group Memberships and Violence and Victimization

Violence and victimization also vary as a result of the relative marginalization across social groups and can be compounded for those belonging to multiple marginalized social groups. For example, women experience higher rates of interpersonal trauma (e.g., domestic violence, rape) than do men (Tjaden & Thoennes, (2000), which is associated with increased rates of posttraumatic stress, depression, and anxiety (Green et  al., 2000; Kilpatrick et al., 2003; Krupnick et al., 2004). Similarly, ethnic minorities report greater numbers of traumatic events compared to Whites (Kalof, 2000), and sexual minorities are victimized at higher rates than are heterosexuals (Herek, 2009). Any traumatic event has the potential to impair one’s well-being, but more frequent traumatic events and experiencing a greater variety of traumatic interpersonal events is associated with increased harm (Green et al., 2000; Krupnick et al., 2004). Research also supports that those who belong to intersecting marginalized groups are at increased risk of experiencing trauma and the trauma is more likely to target more than one marginalized identity, which 166

may be particularly destructive (K. R. King, 2003, Settles, 2006). For example, lesbian women of color are targeted for severe forms of physical and sexual assault compared to other race-gender-sexual orientation groups (Dunbar, 2006). Further, greater functional impairment has been found among lesbians of color, potentially as a consequence of the more severe and violent forms of physical and sexual assault they often experience (Dunbar, 2006).

Multiple Social Groups and Intersectional Invisibility

The Black women’s studies anthology, All the Women Are White, All the Blacks Are Men, but Some of Us Are Brave (Hull, Scott, & Smith, 1982) articulated the invisibility experienced by those who are located at the intersections of multiple marginalized social identities. Intersectional invisibility (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008) is an additional model for considering the ways in which intersecting identities influence one’s experiences and social position. This theory suggests that systems of oppression are sustained not only by elevating the status of certain social groups, but also by rendering members of other groups invisible. Defining the standard person as male (androcentrism), White (ethnocentrism), and heterosexual (heterocentrism) renders those that do not fit these categories less powerful than those that do. Moreover, subordinate groups are typically defined by their category of difference (from the norm or standard person) and then assumed to belong to normative groups across the remaining categories. Thus, Blacks (who differ from Whites) are assumed to be heterosexual men, and women (who differ from men) are assumed to be White hetereosexuals. As a result, those who belong to multiple subordinate social groups (Black women, gay men of color, lesbian women) fail to meet the prototypes of either the dominant groups or their respective marginalized groups, resulting in them typically being overlooked in popular discourse and rendered invisible. Because this invisibility is related to the absence of prototypes for either of the groups comprising their intersected identities, it is termed intersectional invisibility (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008). Intersectional invisibility is associated with disadvantages and advantages (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008). Invisibility silences the voices and needs of those with intersecting marginalized identities across broad historical, cultural, political, and legal domains. This is manifested in historical invisibility when the experiences of group members

Multiple Groups, Multiple Identities, and Intersectionalit y

with intersecting marginalized identities are absent from or distorted in historical narratives (Crenshaw, 1992). For example, Young and Spencer (2007) find that historical accounts of punishments inflicted on slaves in the United States reflect the punishments inflicted on Black male slaves, but rarely describe the ways in which punishments were both raced and gendered (such as raping or mutilating the breasts of Black female slaves). Cultural invisibility reflects the fact that those with intersecting marginalized identities also find that cultural schemas and archetypes unfairly characterize and misrepresent them. For example, models of adolescent development and well-being are based on prototypes of heterosexual teens and fail to address the development of gay and lesbian young adults (Hunter & Mallon, 2000; Meyer, 2003). Similarly, models of development for sexual minorities are based on a White, male prototype; thus gay adolescents of color are poorly represented (Jamil, Harper, & Fernandez, 2009; Rosario, Schrimshaw, & Hunter, 2004), and the development of teen lesbians of color is altogether absent. Disadvantages related to invisibility are also evident in political advocacy and legal jurisprudence (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008). Political invisibility refers to the tendency of advocacy groups that serve marginalized people to focus on their prototypical constituents (e.g., women’s movement focusing on White women’s needs) and overlook unique needs of those with intersecting low-status identities (e.g., the needs of women of color). Advocacy groups may justify these oversights by rationalizing that they need to focus efforts on issues that affect the entire group, gains to the entire group will eventually improve the life circumstances of multiply marginalized group members, or assume other specialty advocacy groups are already addressing their needs (Strolovitch, 2007). These rationalizations result in little or no advocacy specific to the needs of multiply marginalized group members, despite claims that the advocacy group is serving all members of the larger subordinate group (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008). Legal invisibility refers to the variety of ways in which multiply marginalized people are poorly protected under the law. This includes assumptions about who can be victimized, the appropriate behavior of crime victims, discrimination statues that are ill-equipped to address claims based on more than one low-status category (compound discrimination; Carbado, 2000), and the fact that those who belong to multiple low-status groups are more likely to

experience discrimination. Crenshaw (1991) found vast disparities in the prosecution and conviction of rape trials based on the race of the assaulted woman. Specifically, sexual crimes against Black women were investigated less rigorously, were less likely to be prosecuted and/or convicted, and, if convicted, the perpetrators were sentenced less severely than similar crimes against White women (Campbell, Wasco, Ahrens, Sefl, & Barnes, 2001; Donovan & Williams, 2002; Neville & Hamer, 2001). Looking at sexual-harassment legal jurisprudence, Black women have been overrepresented as plaintiffs in sexual-harassment lawsuits, yet they continue to experience legal invisibility. Many of the first cases used to argue that sexual harassment constituted a form of gender discrimination, which was protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964, 1991) were brought forward by Black women (e.g., Barnes v. Costle, 1977; Meritor Savings Bank v.  Vinson, 1986). Nevertheless, evidence for race-gender bias continues at multiple levels including the informal and formal reporting process (Hernández, 2006), the types of discrimination charges that are considered admissible, and the outcome of cases, with women of color receiving less satisfactory legal redress compared to White women (Carbado, 2000). Taken together, this implies that the marginalization of all women increases the likelihood that women of color will be ignored rather than overtly oppressed, providing some limited protection. In sum, occupation in multiple disadvantaged groups makes individuals vulnerable to negative experiences including those related to poverty, mental health, violence, and invisibility. Next, we discuss the research on group identifications.

Group Identifications

Intersectionality theory stresses the importance of considering individuals’ multiple group memberships and multiple identities. The literature to date on individual and multiple social identities has focused on the benefits of identification as well as the potential for multiple identities to be in conflict with each other. In order to lay the groundwork for the more limited research on multiple identities, we begin with a discussion of the theory and research on single group identifications. Next, we describe how these theories and others have been extended in research on multiple identities and the development of models of multiple group identifications. We draw on and integrate research that examines individuals’ simultaneous identification with groups Set tles, Buchanan


based on different social-category memberships (e.g., gender and profession; race and gender) with research that examines their identification with multiple groups within the same social category (e.g., Asian and American cultural identities; White and Black racial identities).

Social-Group Identifications and Psychological Well-Being

Theorists in the area of social identity have suggested that one key motivational factor that leads individuals to identify with social groups is that doing so enhances their self-esteem (Hogg, 2006). Part of the reason that social-group identification is thought to be associated with higher self-esteem is that identity formation produces a feeling of commitment and attachment to other members of the social group (Stets & Burke, 2000). Research generally supports the theorized positive association between social-group identification and psychological well-being (although there are some exceptions) for various types of identities. For example, studies have found that Black women and Latinas who were more identified with their racial or ethnic group report lower levels of depression and higher self-esteem (French & Chavez, 2010; Iturbide, Raffaelli & Carlo, 2009; Settles, Navarrete, Pagano, Abdou, & Sidanius, 2010). Similarly, women who were more identified with their gender reported more satisfaction with life and higher self-esteem (Schmitt, Branscombe, Kobrynowicz, & Owen, 2002; Settles, 2004). Women with a stronger lesbian identity reported more satisfaction with life (Fingerhut, Peplau, & Ghavami, 2005), and lesbian women, gay men, and bisexual individuals who felt more positively about their sexual minority identity reported higher self-esteem and life satisfaction as well as less depression (Mohr & Kendra, 2011). In addition to social-group identification being directly associated with positive psychological outcomes, researchers have theorized that identifications can benefit psychological well-being through mediating and moderating roles. In particular, identity has been proposed to mitigate individuals’ experiences of mistreatment, including prejudice, discrimination, and other forms of group-based devaluation and stress. The rejection identification model (Branscombe et  al., 1999; Schmitt et  al., 2002) proposes that increased group identification is a consequence of experiences of group-based discrimination. In turn, group identification is associated with greater psychological well-being; because identification often leads individuals to emphasize 168

the positive features of their group, self-esteem and self-worth are increased (Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). There is research that supports the relationships proposed by the rejection identification model. Studies have found that gender identification mediates relationship between psychological well-being and both group discrimination (Schmitt et al., 2002) and personal discrimination (Bourguignon, Seron, Yzerbyt, & Herman, 2006). Similarly, Branscombe and colleagues (1999) found that for African-Americans, perceived prejudice toward African-Americans was related to higher racial identification, which was related to positive psychological outcomes. These studies suggest that group identification may be a means of coping with the negative effects of experiencing discrimination and prejudice. The buffering hypothesis (e.g., Sellers, Copeland-Linder, Martin, & Lewis, 2006; Yip, Gee, & Takeuchi, 2008) suggests that group identification buffers individuals from the negative impacts of discrimination and prejudice. Specifically, the theory proposes that the experience of group-based mistreatment will be related to more negative psychological outcomes for those individuals with low group identification (i.e., those who do not place importance on their group membership). In contrast, group-based mistreatment will not impact the outcomes of highly identified individuals. This theory views group identifications as providing members with resources to cope with various types of group-based stressors (Sellers & Shelton, 2003). In support of this theory, Sellers, Caldwell, Schmeelk-Cone, and Zimmerman (2003) found that discrimination was related to higher psychological distress for African-American adolescents with low or moderate racial identification. However, discrimination and distress were unrelated for individuals who were highly identified with their racial group. Similarly, Neblett, Shelton, and Sellers (2004) found that discrimination was linked to depression, stress, and anxiety for weakly identified African-Americans, but discrimination was unrelated to psychological outcomes for highly identified individuals. Focusing on gender, Sabik and Tylka (2006) found that the relationship between experiences of sexism and women’s disordered eating was weakened only for those women with greater feminist identification. Rederstorff, Buchanan, and Settles (2007) also found that for White women with more feminist attitudes (i.e., greater feminist identification), the relationship

Multiple Groups, Multiple Identities, and Intersectionalit y

between sexual harassment and psychological distress was buffered compared to White women with more traditional gender attitudes (i.e., lower feminist identification). Despite the evidence of the protective buffering role of identity, some studies find that group identification exacerbates the relationship between negative experiences and subsequent psychological outcomes. Thoits (1991) suggested that negative events related to important identities are more threatening to one’s sense of self compared to negative events associated with less-important identities. Thus, disruptions in important identities may intensify negative outcomes because they threaten the individual’s self-concept. McCoy and Major (2003) found that women low in gender identification experienced less depressed emotion and higher self-esteem if they were able to attribute a negative performance evaluation to a male evaluator’s sexism than when they could not do so. However, for women high in gender identification, depressed mood and self-esteem were not buffered by attributions to sexism. Similarly, Iturbide and colleagues (2009) found that for Mexican-American college females, greater acculturative stress was related to more depressive symptoms only for women with a more central ethnic identity. In addition, Yip and colleagues (2008) found that for U.S.-born Asian individuals, whether ethnic identity was a buffering or exacerbating factor depended on the age of the individuals. Specifically, for those between 31 and 40 years or between 51 and 75 years, ethnic identity increased the negative effect of discrimination on mental health, perhaps because these are times of identity renegotiation. However, for those between 41 and 50, when life is relatively stable, ethnic identity buffered the impact of discrimination on mental health. Thus, group identification may act as a protective factor or a vulnerability factor in the relationship between negative group-based experiences and psychological outcomes; however, it is unclear when identification will play either role. The discounting hypothesis (Crocker & Major, 1989) proposes that group identification is related to attributing negative events to discrimination or prejudice in specific situations. In this way, individuals who are highly identified with their group can discount negative treatment they experience as being a result of the prejudice of others rather than resulting from a negative or undesirable aspect of the self. Thus, the discounting hypothesis suggests that being able to view one’s mistreatment as being a function of one’s group membership may

have positive outcomes for psychological well-being because the individual is able to make an external (rather than internal) attribution for mistreatment. In support of this model, research finds that when women attribute negative outcomes or feedback to sexism rather than to some internal cause (e.g., their own lack of ability), they report higher self-esteem and less depression (Major, Kaiser, & McCoy, 2003; Major, Quinton, & Schmader, 2003). Additionally, Major and colleagues (2003) found that women who are more identified with their gender are more likely to make attributions to sexism. Together, these studies offer support for the pattern of relationships proposed by the discounting hypothesis. Thus, although membership in certain marginalized social groups and holding certain intersectional positions can lead women to experience more mistreatment and negative outcomes, group identification may sometimes protect individuals against the negative effects that can come with these marginalizing experiences. Researchers have offered various explanations for the protective effects of group identification, most of which may operate simultaneously. For example, Bourguignon et  al. (2006) proposed that identification with other marginalized group members may help individuals to feel less isolated, particularly with respect to negative group-related experiences, like discrimination (Bourguignon et al., 2006). Others have suggested that group identification may facilitate information sharing and provide role models who assist individuals in developing a wider range of coping mechanisms to use when dealing with group-based mistreatment (Frable, Platt, & Hoey, 1998; Sellers et  al., 2003). Further, because identification provides individuals with a sense of connection to others, it may permit group members to focus on positive aspects of the group in the face of prejudice (Sellers & Shelton, 2003). Finally, identification with marginalized groups may increase the likelihood that individuals will attribute negative experiences to the bias of others rather than to an internal, personal characteristic (Crocker & Major, 1989).

Applying Social Identity Research to Multiple Social-Group Identifications

Despite the abundant research on single identities, individuals simultaneously hold multiple identities that interact and intersect with each other to influence outcomes. In recognition of this fact, the rejection-identification model and the buffering hypothesis, which were developed to explain identification with single social groups, Set tles, Buchanan


have been expanded in research on identification with multiple social groups. Jasinskaja-Lahti, Liebkind, and Solheim (2009) proposed the rejection-disidentification model, building on the rejection-identification model (Branscombe et  al., 1999). The rejection-disidentification model proposes an identification process for individuals who have multiple groups with which they identify, such as biracial individuals (who identify with two racial groups) or immigrants (who identify with two national/cultural groups). The model suggests that when individuals are discriminated against by one of their in-groups, they may respond by disidentifying with that group and maintaining or increasing their identification with an alternate in-group. In their longitudinal research, Jasinskaja-Lahti et  al. (2009) found that immigrants who experienced discrimination in their new country disidentified with that national identity but maintained their ethnic (i.e., country of origin) identity. Consistent with these results, other correlational research has found that immigrants in a multinational study who reported more ethnic discrimination reported a combination of characteristics that included high ethnic identification and low national identification (Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Velder, 2006). Other research has examined the buffering hypothesis in relation to the dual identities of women scientists. In a sample of female-scientists, Settles, Jellison, and Pratt-Hyatt (2009) examined the protective role of the woman and scientist identities following experiences of interference between their woman and scientist identities, a multiple-group-related stressor. They found that interference was related to greater depression for women who decreased their level of gender identification over a two-year period of time; in contrast, interference was unrelated to depression two years later for women who increased their gender identification over time. They found a similar buffering pattern for change in scientist identification. Specifically, although interference was related to lower self-esteem for women who became less identified as scientists two years later, interference and self-esteem were unrelated for women who became more identified as scientists over time. Thus, increased identification with either group played a protective psychological role against conflict between the two identities. Other work by Shih and colleagues illustrates that outcomes may depend on which of one’s multiple identities are salient in a particular situation. In a study of Asian-American women, Shih, 170

Pittinsky and Ambady (1999) found that those who had their Asian identity made salient performed best on a math test, whereas those who had their woman identity made salient performed worst (and those with no identity made salient performed in-between). Yet, when the study was performed in Canada, where the stereotype that Asians are good at math is weaker than in the United States, results indicated that although Asian Canadian women who had their woman identity made salient still performed the worst, those who had their Asian identity made salient also performed worse than the control group. These results and others suggest that making an identity associated with a positive stereotype salient may be an adaptive strategy that leads to positive outcomes (Shih, Sanchez, & Ho, 2010).

Multiple Social-Group Identifications: Conflict versus Harmony

In the past two decades, researchers have begun to attend seriously to the complexity of multiplegroup identifications and to acknowledge the importance of individuals’ multiple social positions. Yet, rather than focusing on how these multiple group memberships create unique social experiences, these theories and models have focused on how multiple identities may be organized and integrated by the individual. For example, Settles, Sellers, and Damas (2002) distinguished between whether student-athletes organized their two identities as separate (e.g., student and athlete) versus integrated (e.g., student-athletes). A  component of these theories and models typically includes the extent to which the multiple identities conflict with each other or are integrated in a more positive manner (in terms of individuals’ psychological outcomes). Identity conflict, or interference, occurs when individuals have difficulty enacting or meeting the expectation of two identities (Settles, 2004; Settles et al., 2002). When identities are in conflict, the individual perceives them as incompatible or in opposition to each other (Sacharin et al., 2009). In contrast, when identities facilitate each other—that is, enactment of one identity makes enactment of the other identity easier, then identity harmony (Brook, Garcia, & Fleming, 2008) or identity integration (Sacharin et al., 2009) occurs. Integrated identities, those that are in harmony with each other, are perceived to be compatible (Sacharin et al., 2009). Research has consistently found that identity conflict/interference is associated with negative outcomes for a variety of identity combinations. For example, Settles and colleagues (2002) found that

Multiple Groups, Multiple Identities, and Intersectionalit y

interference between the student and athlete identities was related to greater stress and depression. In a study of Black women, Settles (2006) found that interference in the Black identity from the woman identity was related to lower self-esteem and greater depression. Interference between the woman and scientist identity has also been associated with negative outcomes, including higher depression, lower self-esteem, and lower science performance perceptions, concurrently (Settles, 2004) and two years later (Settles et al., 2009). Research of individuals’ constellation of multiple identities, rather than specific combinations of identities, Brook et al. (2008) found that greater identity harmony was related to greater psychological well-being. In another study of identity constellations, Settles, Jellison, and Poulsen (2013) found that individuals’ evaluations of their identities as providing them with more resources than costs was related to greater psychological well-being. Various explanations have been offered to account for the negative association between conflict/interference between identities and negative psychological outcomes. Identity conflict/interference may threaten an individual’s sense of self if multiple aspects of the self create a sense of disorganization (Thoits, 1991). Interference/conflict may also reduce the use of effective coping strategies (Cooke & Rousseau, 1984) in part because it overtaxes individuals’ cognitive resources (Fried, Ben-David, Tiegs, Avital, & Yeverechyahu, 1998). Others have expanded this idea to theorize that conflicting identities make cognitive frame switching more difficult (e.g., Sacharin et al., 2009). Cognitive frame switching is the process of switching lenses through which the world is viewed; depending on the situational context, different identities comprising the self-concept may become more salient (Sacharin et al., 2009).

Multiple Social-Group Identifications: Integrative Theories and Models

Models have been offered to explain different ways that individuals might cognitively and psychologically organize multiple identities. Roccas and Brewer (2002) proposed a model of multiple identity complexity that includes four possible ways in which two social identities might be organized for an individual. Two identities may be intersected such that they create a unique compound group (e.g., middle-class lesbian). Alternatively, two identities may be merged in an additive manner (e.g.,

middle-class and lesbian). A third possibility is that one of the identities may dominate the other, such that only one of the identities is considered primary (e.g., lesbian). With compartmentalization, both of the identities are important components of the self but are separate from each other so that only one is activated at a time, depending on the social context (e.g., middle-class or lesbian depending on the situation). Roccas and Brewer (2002) note that these four types of multiple identity organization can be placed on a continuum in terms of their cognitive complexity or the extent to which potentially conflicting beliefs and values of identities are differentiated (i.e., recognized) and integrated (i.e., resolved). According to Roccas and Brewer (2002), intersecting identities are the least complex because differentiation is absent. At the other end, merged identities are the most complex because there is both differentiation and integration of potential conflicts between identities. Domination is the second least cognitively complex because any conflict between identities is suppressed and only the primary identity is acknowledged. Compartmentalized identities are the second most cognitively complex, because they permit differentiation but not integration of the identities. Roccas and Brewer (2002) note that these types of organization are not fixed; rather individuals may use different types of multiple identity organization at different times in their lives. Amiot, de la Sablonnière, Terry, and Smith (2007) proposed a model to explain how individuals come to integrate multiple identities into the self. Following the process of categorizing multiple groups, the identities will become compartmentalized within the self; that is, individuals perceive themselves as belonging to both groups. At this stage, differences and distinctions between the groups are highly salient and the identities are not yet activated simultaneously. After compartmentalization, identities will become integrated in the final stage of multiple identity development. At this stage, individuals are aware of conflicts between identities but also can see links and similarities between identities. For positive psychological outcomes to result, individuals must be able to differentiate their identities while also integrating them into a coherent sense of self. Conflicts between identities can be resolved in one of two ways:  the individual could develop a superordinate identity that reconciles the conflicts or the individual could recognize that the “conflicting” components of each identity contribute positively to her sense of self. Set tles, Buchanan


The process proposed by Amiot et  al. (2007) overlaps somewhat with that proposed by Roccas and Brewer (2002). In both models, compartmentalization involves differentiation between two identities that are both felt to be important aspects of the self but that are not activated simultaneously. Their theories regarding the integration of identities differ somewhat because Amiot et  al. (2007) view integrated identities as those in which both differentiation and resolution have taken place. Conversely, although Roccas and Brewer (2002) share this view of merged identities, they do not believe that intersected identities have these properties. However, Amiot et al. (2007) break integration into two types—restrictive integration and additive integration—which map onto Roccas and Brewer’s (2002) conceptualization of intersection and merger, respectively. In both models, restrictive integration and intersection represent intersection as conceptualized by the feminist and sociologist literature. That is, the multiple identities are combined such that a unique identity is created. This produces a smaller in-group (e.g., only middle-class lesbians) than do additive integration or merger in which the in-group is comprised of everyone who belongs to both identities (e.g., all middle-class people and all lesbians). Both models view intersected or restrictively integrated identities as creating more in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination and prejudice than merged or additively integrated identities. Although several models include the possibility of identities being intersected (Amiot et al., 2007; Roccas & Brewer, 2002), these theories have not considered intersecting identities in the way suggested by intersectionality theory (e.g. Cole, 2009). For example, Roccas and Brewer (2002) focus on how various forms of identity organization, including intersection, lead to attitudes about the out-group. Those with intersecting identities are theorized to be the least cognitively complex and engage in the most out-group bias. An intersectional perspective, however, would also emphasize how individuals see themselves in terms of their multiple identities as well as focusing on how intersected positions lead individuals to be treated in particular ways depending on the devaluation or privilege of their group memberships. In addition, existing models do not consider that some social-group memberships are more likely to become identities than others. Specifically, marginalized groups are more likely to be targets of discrimination and prejudice; as a result, these group memberships may become identities because of their heightened and 172

repeated salience. Supporting this idea, qualitative research has found that individuals who hold multiple marginalized group memberships thought of themselves in terms of their marginalized identities before those that are privileged (Jones, 2009). Thus, it may be that multiple marginalized group memberships may become multiple identities that form the basis of intersected position (e.g., Black woman) more so than multiple privileged group memberships (e.g., White man). These models also propose that individuals with intersected identities have a smaller in-group than individuals who integrate their identities in another way, such as with additive integration of identities (Amiot et  al., 2007) or with merger (Roccas & Brewer, 2002). This assumes that individuals who see themselves in terms of an intersected position cannot simultaneously identify with the groups that comprise the intersection. For example, an Asian-American immigrant who sees herself as a “hyphenated” (i.e., intersected) individual may also identify as Asian and as American. Thus, although she may have a special affinity for other Asian-Americans, she may consider all Asian and Americans as in-group members. Such a conceptualization is consistent with a hierarchical model of identity that assumes some identities are more important than others but that many different identities may comprise the self-concept (Hogg, 2003). Whereas the models proposed by Roccas and Brewer (2002) and Amiot et al. (2007) focus on the organization and integration of multiple identities related to different types of group memberships (e.g., gender and work identities; racial and gender identities), other models explain how individuals integrate identities of the same type (e.g., multiple racial or multiple cultural identities). Benet-Martínez and colleagues have proposed a model of bicultural identity integration to explain the acculturation experiences of immigrants (e.g., Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005; Chen, Benet-Martínez, & Bond, 2008). This model explains biculturalism, the perceived compatibility and internalization of two cultural groups, as resulting from two cultural factors (Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005). Cultural conflict refers to the degree to which the two identities are perceived by the individual to be in conflict versus in harmony. Cultural distance refers to the degree to which the individual compartmentalizes versus integrates (“hyphenates”) their two cultural identities. Individuals with high bicultural identity integration are those with low cultural conflict and low cultural distance. That is, they view their

Multiple Groups, Multiple Identities, and Intersectionalit y

cultural identities as integrated and in harmony. Cheng and Lee (2009), drawing upon the bicultural identity integration model, created the multiracial identity integration model to explain the experiences of biracial and multiracial individuals. The multiracial identity integration model has the same two components—conflict and distance—as the bicultural identity integration model. Whereas high identity integration is most like Roccas and Brewer’s (2002) merger, low identity integration is most like compartmentalization. Research has found that biracial individuals (Asian/White and Black/White) with higher identity integration report greater self-concept clarity (Lou, Lalonde, & Wilson, 2011). Other studies have found that bicultural individuals with higher identity integration display more creativity in tasks related to their multiple cultures, such as Asian-American’s creation of dishes using both Asian and American ingredients (Cheng, Sanchez-Burks, & Lee, 2008). Additionally, when individuals integrate their identities, they “assimilate” better (Sacharin et  al., 2009), that is they can more easily switch between the identities. However, when identities are cognitively separate, there is greater difficulty in cultural frame switching. Further, research by Chao, Chen, Roisman, and Hong (2007) found that bicultural individuals with more essentialist beliefs about race (i.e., beliefs that race is a meaningful category based on biological differences that confer specific properties) had more difficulty engaging in cultural frame switching. Other research, however, highlights the positive aspects of having low bicultural identity integration. Specifically, those lower in bicultural identity integration were more likely to resist group consensus in a judgment task, especially when the group judgment is incorrect (Mok & Morris, 2010). This is attributed to the tendency of those low in identity integration to engage in contrast responses to cultural norms. Support has also been found for the proposed two dimensions of identity integration. For example, in a study of Chinese Americans, greater (bi) cultural conflict was found to be predicted by experiences of discrimination and difficult social interactions related to language and cultural expectations (Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2006). Greater (bi) cultural distance was related to feelings of cultural isolation and less competence in both cultures (Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2006). Additionally, greater multiracial pride has been associated with less distance between one’s racial groups (Cheng & Lee, 2009). In sum, single and multiple

identities often have a positive effect on psychological well-being. As discussed by various models and theories, perceiving one’s multiple identities as having less conflict and greater integration makes positive outcomes especially likely. Following, we discuss additional ways in which an intersectional perspective can be applied to multicultural identities and considerations raised by intersectionality regarding multicultural identities.

Future Directions, Considerations, and Applications of an Intersectional Approach to Multiple Group Memberships and Identities

Some questions are listed in this section that we feel remain with respect to multiculturalism, multiple group memberships, and multiple identities. Our questions are informed by intersectionality theory and reflect ways in which this theory can contribute to the current thinking on multiculturalism, multiple group memberships, and multiple identity integration. 1. How are processes related to multiple group memberships and multiple group identifications similar and different for specific combinations of groups/identities? One important issue for theorists to consider is whether processes related to group memberships, identity integration, and intersections are the same or similar for different combinations of identities. Research has noted that biracial individuals are perceived and stereotyped differently than monoracial individuals. Research by Sanchez and Bonam (2009) examined perceptions of hypothetical college applicants who were Black/White and Asian/ White biracial individuals as compared to the corresponding monoracial groups. They found that Black/White individuals were perceived as less warm than Black individuals and White individuals, and Asian/White individuals were perceived as less warm and less competent than Asian individuals and White individuals. For both groups, the biracial individuals were viewed as less worthy of a minority scholarship than the corresponding monoracial minority. Further, although Sanchez and Bonam (2009) found that biracial individuals responded to negative feedback with decreased self-esteem when they disclosed their race, Shih, Bonam, Sanchez, and Peck (2007) found that biracial Asian/White individuals were less susceptible to racial stereotypes and more likely to believe that race is a social construction than monoracial individuals. Further, biracial Set tles, Buchanan


women of various compositions are perceived to be exotic and sexually promiscuous (Root, 2004). There is also some theory to suggest that individuals with different biracial compositions are also viewed differently from each other. Wu (2002) notes that the pattern of interracial marriages is such that more Black men marry White women than the opposite, and more White men marry Asian women than the opposite. He suggests that these patterns reflect a racial hierarchy in which Whites are at the top, Asians are below them, and Blacks are below both groups. Thus, one might expect White/Asians to be perceived more positively than White/Blacks, and both groups viewed more positively that non-White biracial combinations. Thus, research in this area might investigate similarities and differences in identity processes, not only for multiracial individuals with different racial compositions, but also for individuals with different combinations of cultural backgrounds and those with different identity combinations unrelated to race and culture. 2. How are multicultural, multiracial, and multiple identity individuals categorized? What are the implications of problems with their categorization by perceivers? Perceptions of bicultural and multicultural individuals, as well as individuals with other combinations of multiple identities, depend on how they are categorized. For multiracial individuals, categorization depends on how well their phenotypic characteristics (e.g., hair type, skin coloring) and behavior (e.g., language) fit the prototype of an individual from one or more racial groups. Researchers have noted that multiracial individuals challenge perceiver’s ideas about race and the extent to which it is biologically based or socially constructed (e.g., Shih et al., 2007; Wu, 2002). To the extent that multiracial individuals are difficult to categorize, they may cause discomfort in perceivers, which may, in turn, lead perceivers to distance themselves from the multiracial individuals. This may account for the social isolation that monoracial individuals perceive to be characteristic of multiracial children (Jackman, Wagner, & Johnson, 2001). For multicultural but monoracial individuals, such as Asian immigrants to the United States or American-born Asian individuals, the difficulty in categorization by perceivers may be whether the Asian-American person is “American.” Perceivers may experience discomfort because they are uncertain whether the Asian-American individual will speak English well, will hold Asian or American 174

values, and so on. Cheryan and Monin (2005) observed that this “identity denial” applies to any non-White person who does not fit the prototype of American. Specifically, they found that Asian Americans, African Americans, and Hispanic Americans were all perceived by White participants to be less American than White Americans. Follow-up studies of Asian-Americans indicated that they responded to identity denial with attempts to reassert their American identity through displays of American cultural knowledge and practices. Finally, for individuals with multiple identities of different types (e.g., Black women, female scientists, gay Latinos), the difficulty others have in categorizing them may depend largely on the visibility of their identities and the accessibility of stereotypes regarding intersecting identities. Consistent with the first idea, Jones (2009) found that individuals with visible and invisible marginalized identities realize they are “different” from the mainstream, but do so in different ways. Specifically, those with visible marginalized group memberships (e.g., racial minorities) felt different because of their different treatment by others, presumably based on how they are categorized. In contrast, those with invisible marginalized group memberships (e.g., sexual minorities) felt different internally rather than having their difference reflected by outsiders. In terms of stereotype accessibility, Goff et al. (2008) found that individuals were less accurate in guessing the gender of Black female faces than they were in guessing the gender of Black male faces and White female faces. The researchers attribute this to the fact that individuals associate Black with male, such that it is more difficult for them to correctly identify the gender of Black females. Thus, how identities, cultures, and racial group memberships appear to others may impact how individuals are categorized, stereotyped and treated, and the extent to which others avoid social interactions with these individuals. 3. What is the impact of multiple disadvantaged identities/groups versus combinations with both privileged and devalued identities/groups? Researchers should also consider whether identity intersections are comprised of multiple disadvantaged identities versus a mix of advantaged and marginalized identities (versus multiple privileged identities; Cole, 2009; Shields, 2008). We note that much of the research on biculturalism and biracial identities has examined processes for individuals with one valued identity and one devalued identity (e.g., Asian-American bicultural individuals; Black/White

Multiple Groups, Multiple Identities, and Intersectionalit y

biracial individuals). In contrast, the work on multiple identities and identity conflict has examined multiple devalued identities (e.g., Black women) and combinations in which some identities are valued (e.g., women scientists). When one’s identities differ in status, this status inconsistency may lead individuals to employ different types of integration strategies than when one’s identities share a devalued status. For example, when multiple identities are devalued (e.g., Black lesbian, Black/Mexican) the individual may be likely to embrace both in an intersected manner, particularly because awareness of issues of inequality related to one marginalized group membership may lead to an awareness of inequality related to other marginalized groups and their intersections. This double consciousness (or multiple consciousnesses; Gay & Tate, 1998; Rederstorff et al., 2007) may be greater for those with multiple devalued group memberships and identities. However, when one or more group membership has higher status than others, individuals may be motivated to identify more strongly with some groups than others. Interestingly, the processes in this case seem to differ depending on whether one is considering multiple racial groups, multiple cultural groups, or multiple identities of different types. Because of the historical and cultural meaning of race, as well as its visibility, there is pressure of multiracial individuals to identify with their minority group—the group with the lowest social status, or more recently as multiracial (Root, 2004). For multicultural individuals, there are a range of possible integration processes that have been discussed at length within the acculturation literature (e.g., Berry et al., 2006), including identifying more with one identity than the other or integrating both into one’s sense of self. A range of options may also exist for individuals with multiple identities from different categories. For individuals who want to be seen as legitimate members of a valued group, downplaying or disidentifying with the devalued group may achieve this aim. However, for individuals more identified with their devalued group, they may instead choose to maintain both identifications, either by intersecting them or embracing them in a compartmentalized manner. Clearly this is a complicated issue that needs further elucidation. 4. What are the situational influences on the salience and expression of group memberships and identities? Another consideration is whether individuals’ organization of their identities is static. Most

conceptualizations make allowances for the possibility that the organization of identities may change over time or under certain conditions. For example, Nguyen and Benet-Martínez (2007) argue that individuals with bicultural identity integration may employ different aspects of each identity in different contexts, such as a Mexican-American choosing to speak English in most situations but holding Mexican values and preferences at the same time. We extend such arguments to suggest that individuals might use their intersected identity as the lens through which they view the world in some situations, but in other situations they might be more strongly influenced by the individual identities comprising the intersection. An example would be a Black woman who frequently sees the world as a Black-woman, but at times employs the specific lens associated with being Black and other times sees the world in terms of gender. Similarly, we note that individuals typically hold more than two identities; thus, they may have different intersections activated in different contexts. This would be reflected in an individual moving between different constellations of identities, such as Black woman, female scientist, Black scientist, upper-class mother, and so on. Alternatively, certain identity intersections may be core to the self-concept such that they are always activated but additional identities may also become salient in different situations. Finally, the different patterns described earlier may vary at the level of the individual. Clearly this is an area in which research could be very productive and informative. 5. How can the consideration of social contextual and historical factors inform our understanding of multiple groups and multiple identities? More generally, research on multiple groups, multiple identities, and multiculturalism should incorporate a greater consideration of social contextual and historical factors that impact perceptions of individuals with multiple identities, races, or cultures, their societal status and power, and how these things influence their treatment and opportunities. For example, we can consider the fact that attitudes about Black/White biracial individuals are related, in part, to the rape of Black female slaves by White slave owners. This resulted in Black individuals who varied in skin tone and also in the privileges they were afforded during slavery (Hunter, 2005). This history persists today in favoritism toward Blacks with lighter-skin tone (and other less phenotypically Black characteristics), such as their being less stereotyped Set tles, Buchanan


with the negative characteristics assigned to Black people (e.g., lazy, unintelligent; Maddox & Gray, 2002), and receiving less discrimination (Klonoff & Landrine, 2000). However, although lighter-skinned Black women are perceived as more attractive than darker-skinned Black women (Hill, 2002), they are also more likely to be socially ostracized by other Black people (Hunter, 2005). These types of differences within the group of biracial Black/White individuals, and between biracial men and women, are important aspects of an intersectional perspective that should be considered, because they impact stereotyping, categorization, treatment, self-identification, behavior, and psychological outcomes.


Intersectionality theory can help researchers and theorists to expand their ideas about social-group memberships and social-group identifications. Intersectionality notes that we can only understand how belonging to a particular group shapes individuals’ life experiences by considering their other group memberships simultaneously. As described earlier, some devalued group memberships tend to co-occur, resulting in cumulative disadvantage for individuals with those intersecting identities. In contrast, because identification with groups—even those that are devalued—often has a positive impact on psychological well-being, multiple identifications may promote positive psychological outcomes for individuals. At the same time, some identity combinations create conflict and subsequent negative psychological well-being, often because the identities have different stereotypes, norms, and expectations associated with them. This is true for multiple identities of the same type (e.g., Asian and American are both cultural identities) and multiple identities of different types (e.g., woman and scientist). Thus, intersectionality theory speaks to multiculturalism and cultural conflict. To date, models seeking to describe how identities are organized have focused on how intersecting identities might influence intergroup relations rather than how intersecting identities might influence self-conceptions and individual meaning making. There are numerous questions that remain to be addressed in this area, and, thus, there are tremendous opportunities for scholars to further consider how power, social position, and social hierarchies influence multiple social-group memberships and multiple social-group identifications. 176


American Psychological Association, Task Force on Socioeconomic Status. (2007). Report of the APA Task Force on Socioeconomic Status. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Amiot, C. E., de la Sablonnière, R., Terry, D. J., & Smith, J. R. (2007). Integration of social identities in the self: Toward a cognitive-developmental model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 364–388. Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An organizing framework for collective identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 80–114. Baker, T. A., Buchanan, N. T., Spencer, T. (2010). Disparities and social inequities:  Is the health of African American women still in peril? Ethnicity & Disease, 20, 304–309. Barnes v. Costle, 561 F.2d 983 (D.C. Cir. 1977). Bavishi, A., Madera, J. M., & Hebl, M. R. (2010). The effect of professor ethnicity and gender on student evaluations:  Judged before met. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 3, 245–256. Beal, F. M. (1970). Double jeopardy: To be Black and female. In T. Cade (Ed.), The Black woman: An anthology (pp. 90–100). New York: Signet. Benet-Martínez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural identity integration (BII):  Components and psychosocial antecedents. Journal of Personality, 73, 1015–1050. Benson, M. L., Wooldredge, J., Thistlethwaite, A. B., & Fox, G. L. (2004). Correlation between race and domestic violence is confounded with community context. Social Problems, 51, 326–342. Berdahl, J. L., & Moore, C. (2006). Workplace harassment:  Double jeopardy for minority women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 426–436. Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth:  Acculturation, identity, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55, 303–332. Bourguignon, D., Seron, E., Yzerbyt, V., & Herman, G. (2006). Perceived group and personal discrimination:  Differential effects on personal self-esteem. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 773–789. Bowleg, L. (2008). When black + lesbian + woman ≠ black lesbian woman:  The methodological challenges of qualitative and quantitative intersectionality research. Sex Roles, 59, 312–325. Bowleg, L., Huang, J., Brooks, K., Black, A., & Burkholder, G. (2003). Triple jeopardy and beyond:  Multiple minority stress and resilience among black lesbians. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 7, 87–108. Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 135–149. Breslau, J. Kendler, K. S., Su, M., Gaxiola-Aguilar, S., & Kessler, R. C. (2005). Lifetime risk and persistence of psychiatric disorders across ethnic groups in the United States. Psychological Medicine, 35, 317–327. Brewer, M. B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In T. K. Srull, & R. S. Wyer Jr. (Eds.), A dual process model of impression formation. (pp. 1–36). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Erlbaum. Brewer, M. B., & Lui, L. N. (1989). The primacy of age and sex in the structure of person categories. Social Cognition, 7, 262–274.

Multiple Groups, Multiple Identities, and Intersectionalit y

Brook, A. T., Garcia, J. & Fleming, M. A. (2008). The effects of multiple identities on psychological well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1588–1600. Browne, I. & Misra, J. (2003). The intersection of gender and race in the labor market. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 487–513. Buchanan, N. T., Bergman, M. E., Bruce, T. A., Woods, K. C., & Lichty, L. F. (2009). Unique and joint effects of sexual and racial harassment on college students’ well-being. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31, 267–285. Buchanan, N. T., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2008). The effects of racial and sexual harassment on work and the psychological well-being of African American women. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13, 137–151. Buchanan, N. T., Settles, I. H., & Woods, K. C. (2008). Comparing sexual harassment subtypes among black and white women by military rank:  Double jeopardy, the jezebel, and the cult of true womanhood. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 347–361. Campbell, R., Wasco, S. M., Ahrens, C. E., Sefl, T., & Barnes, H. E. (2001). Preventing the “second rape”: Rape survivor’s experiences with community service providers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 1239–1259. Carbado, D. W. (2000). Race and sex in antidiscrimination law. In L. W. Levy, & K. L. Karst (Eds.), Encyclopedia of the American constitution (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan. Chao, M. M., Chen, J., Roisman, G., & Hong, Y. (2007). Essentializing race:  Implications for bicultural individuals’ cognition and physiological reactivity. Psychological Science, 18, 341–348. Chen, S. X., Benet-Martínez, V., & Bond, M. H. (2008). Bicultural identity, bilingualism, and psychological adjustment in multicultural societies:  Immigration-based and globalization-based acculturation. Journal of Personality, 76, 803–838. Cheng, C., & Lee, F. (2009). Multiracial identity integration: Perceptions of conflict and distance among multiracial individuals. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 51–68. Cheng, C., Sanchez-Burks, J., & Lee, F. (2008). Connecting the dots within: Creative performance and identity integration. Psychological Science, 19, 1178–1184. Cheryan, S., & Monin, B. (2005). “Where are you really from?”:  Asian Americans and identity denial. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 717–730. Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L.  No. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241 (1964). Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 2000e et seq. Cole, E. R. (2008). Coalitions as a model for intersectionality: From practice to theory. Sex Roles, 59, 443–453. Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64, 170–180. Combahee River Collective. (1995). Combahee River Collective statement. In B. Guy-Sheftall (Ed.), Words of fire: An anthology of African American feminist thought (pp. 232–240). New York: New Press. (Original work published 1977) Cooke, R. A., & Rousseau, D. M. (1984). Stress and strain from family roles and work-role expectations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 252–260. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins:  Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299. Crenshaw, K. W. (1992). Whose story is it anyway? Feminist and antiracist appropriations of Anita Hill. In T. Morrison

(Ed.), Race-ing justice, en-gendering power:  Essays on Anita Hill, Clarence Thomas and the construction of social reality (pp. 402–440). New York: Pantheon. Crenshaw, K. (1993). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex:  A  Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. In D. K.  Weisbert (Ed.), Feminist legal theory:  Foundations (pp. 383–395). Philadelphia: Temple University Press. (Original work published 1989.) Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608–630. Dambrun, M. (2007). Gender differences in mental health: The mediating role of perceived personal discrimination. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1118–1129. Dang, A., & Frazier, S. (2004). Black same-sex households in the United States. Washington, DC: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Demerath, L. (2006) Epistemological identity theory: Recon­ ceptualizing commitment as self-knowledge. Sociological Spectrum, 26, 491–517. Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1171–1188. Donovan, R. & Williams, M. (2002). Living at the intersection: The effects of racism and sexism on Black rape survivors. Women & Therapy, 25, 95–105. Dunbar, E. (2006). Race, gender, and sexual orientation in hate crime victimization:  Identity politics or identity risk? Violence and Victims, 21, 323–337. Elmelech, Y. & Lu, H. (2004). Race, ethnicity, and the gender poverty gap. Social Science Research, 33, 158–182. Fingerhut, A. W., Peplau, L. A., & Ghavami, N. (2005). A dual-identity framework for understanding lesbian experience. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 129–139. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J.  C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content:  Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902. Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes:  Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 1–74). San Diego, CA: Academic. Frable, D. E. S., Platt, L., & Hoey, S. (1998). Concealable stigmas and positive self-perceptions:  Feeling better around similar others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 909–922. French, S. E. & Chavez, N. R. (2010). The relationship of ethnicity-related stressors and Latino ethnic identity to well-being. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 32, 410–428. Frias, S. M. & Angel, R. J. (2007). Stability and change in the experience of partner violence among low-income women. Social Science Quarterly, 88, 1281–1306. Fried, Y., Ben-David, H. A., Tiegs, R. B., Avital, N., & Yeverechyahu, U. (1998). The interactive effect of role conflict and role ambiguity on job performance. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71(1), 19–27. Gaeddert, W. (2011). Equal compensation discrimination. In M. A. Paludi, A. Carmen Jr., E. R. DeSouza (Eds.) Praeger

Set tles, Buchanan


handbook on understanding and preventing workplace discrimination (Vols. 1 & 2, pp. 45–61). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger/ ABC-CLIO. Gay, C., & Tate, K. (1998). Doubly bound:  The impact of gender and race on the politics of Black women. Political Psychology, 19, 169–184. Gilman, S. E., Kawachi, I., Fitzmaurice, G. M., & Buka, S. L. (2002). Socioeconomic status in childhood and the lifetime risk of major depression. International Journal of Epidemiology, 31, 359–367. Goff, P. A., Thomas, M. A., & Jackson, M. C. (2008). “Ain’t I a woman?”: Towards an intersectional approach to person perception and group-based harms. Sex Roles, 59, 392–403. Green, B. L., Goodman, L. A., Krupnick, J. L., Corcoran, C. B., Petty, R. M., Stockton, P., & Stern, N. M. (2000). Outcomes of single versus multiple trauma exposure in a screening sample. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 13, 271–286. Haslam, S. A., Oakes, P. J., Reynolds, K. J., & Turner, J. C. (1999). Social identity salience and the emergence of stereotype consensus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 809–818. Heilman, M. E. (1995). Sex stereotypes and their effects in the workplace: What we know and what we don’t know. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 10(6), 3–26. Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657–674. Herek, G. M. (2009). Hate crimes and stigma-related experiences among sexual minority adults in the United States: Prevalence estimates from a national probability sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 54–74. Hernández, T. K. (2006). A Critical Race Feminism Empirical Research Project: Sexual Harassment and the Internal Complaints Black Box. U. C. Davis Law Review, 39, 1235–1304. Hill, M. E. (2002). Skin color and the perception of attractiveness among African Americans: does gender make a difference? Social Psychology Quarterly, 65, 77–91. Hogg, M. A. (2003). Social identity. In M. R.  Leary and J. P.  Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 462– 479). New York: Guilford Press. Hogg, M. A. (2006). Social identity theory. In P. J. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 111–136). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1990). Social motivation, self-esteem and social identity. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances (pp. 28–47) Hemel Hempstead, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf, and New York: Springer-Verlag. Hull, G. T., Scott, P. B., & Smith, B. (Eds.). (1982). All the women are White, all the Blacks are men, but some of us are brave. Old Westbury, NY: Feminist Press. Hunter, M. (2005). Race, gender, and the politics of skin tone. New York: Routledge-Taylor Francis. Hunter, J. & Mallon, G. P. (2000). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescent development:  Dancing with your feet tied together. In B. Greene & G. Croom (Eds.), Education, research, and practice in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered psychology: A resource manual, (Vol. 5, pp. 226–243). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hurtado, A., & Sinha, M. (2008). More than men:  Latino feminist masculinities and intersectionality. Sex Roles, 59, 337–349.


Iturbide, M. I., Raffaelli, M., & Carlo, G. (2009). Protective effects of ethnic identity on Mexican American college students’ psychological well-being. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 31, 536–552. Jackman, C. F., Wagner, W. G., & Johnson, J. T. (2001). The attitudes toward multiracial children scale. Journal of Black Psychology, 27, 86–99. Jamil, O. B, Harper, G. W. & Fernandez, M. I. (2009). Sexual and ethnic identity development among gay–bisexual– questioning (GBQ) male ethnic minority adolescents. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15, 203–221. Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Liebkind, K., & Solheim, E. (2009). To identify or not to identify? National disidentification as an alternative reaction to perceived ethnic discrimination. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 58, 105–128. Jeffries, V., & Ransford, H. E. (1980). Social stratification: A multiple hierarchy approach. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Jordan-Zachery, J. S. (2007). Am I a Black woman or a woman who is Black? A few thoughts on the meaning of intersectionality. Politics & Gender 3, 254–263. Jones, S. R. (2009). Constructing identities at the intersections: An autoethnographic exploration of multiple dimensions of identity. Journal of College Student Development, 50(3), 287–304. Kalof, L. (2000). Ethnic differences in female sexual victimization. Sexuality & Culture, 4, 75–98. Kessler, R. C. (2003). Epidemiology of women and depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 74, 5–13. Kilpatrick, D. G., Ruggiero, K. J., Acierno, R., Saunders, B. E., Resnick, H. S., & Best, C. L. (2003). Violence and risk of PTSD, major depression, substance abuse/dependence, and comorbidity:  Results from the National Survey of Adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 692–700. Kim, J. (2006). Gender inequality in the U.S. Labor Market: Evidence from the 2000 Census. In M. F. Karsten (Ed.), Gender, race, and ethnicity in the workplace: Issues and challenges for today’s organizations (pp. 269–290). Westport, CT: Praeger. King, D. K. (1988). Multiple jeopardy, multiple consciousness: The context of Black feminist ideology. Signs, 14, 42–72. King, K. R. (2003). Racism or sexism? Attributional ambiguity and simultaneous memberships in multiple oppressed groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 223–247. Kite, M. E., & Deaux, K. (1987). Gender belief systems:  Homosexuality and the implicit inversion theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 83–96. Klonoff, E., & Landrine, H. (2000). Is skin color a marker for racial discrimination? Explaining the skin color-hypertension relationship. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 23, 329–338. Klonoff, E. A., Landrine, H., & Campbell, R. (2000). Sexist discrimination may account for well-known gender differences in psychiatric symptoms. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 93–99. Krupnick, J. L., Green, B. L., Stockton, P., Goodman, L. A., Corcoran, C. B., & Petty, R. M. (2004). Mental health effects of adolescent trauma exposure in a female college sample: Exploring differential outcomes based on experiences of unique trauma types and dimensions. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 67, 264–279 Landrine, H. (1985). Race × class stereotypes of women. Sex Roles, 13, 65–75.

Multiple Groups, Multiple Identities, and Intersectionalit y

Landrine, H., Klonoff, E. A., Alcaraz, R., Scott, J., & Wilkins, P. (1995). Multiple variables in discrimination. In B. Lott and D. Maluso (Eds.), The social psychology of interpersonal discrimination (pp. 183–224). New York: Guilford. Lichtenwalter, S. (2005). Gender poverty disparity in US cities: Evidence exonerating female-headed families. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 32(2), 75–96. Lott, B., & Saxon, S. (2002). The influence of ethnicity, social class and context on judgments about U.  S.  women. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 481–499. Lou, E., Lalonde, R. N., & Wilson, C. (2011). Examining a multidimensional framework of racial identity across different biracial groups. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 2, 79–90. Maddox, K. B., & Gray, S. A. (2002). Cognitive representations of Black Americans: Reexploring the role of skin tone. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 250–259. Major, B., Kaiser, C. R., & McCoy, S. K. (2003). It’s not my fault:  When and why attributions to prejudice protect self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 772–781. Major, B., Quinton, W. J., & Schmader, T. (2003). Attributions to discrimination and self-esteem:  Impact of group identification and situational ambiguity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 220–231. Mays, V. M., & Cochran, S. D. (2001). Mental health correlates of perceived discrimination among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 1869–1876. McCoy, S. K., & Major, B. (2003). Group identification moderates emotional responses to perceived prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(8), 1005–1017. Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 US 57 (1986). Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674–697. Mohr, J. J., & Kendra, M. S. (2011). Revision and extension of a multidimensional measure of sexual minority identity: The lesbian, gay, and bisexual identity scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 234–245. Mok, A., & Morris, M. W. (2010). An upside to bicultural identity conflict: Resisting groupthink in cultural ingroups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1114–1117. Moradi, B., & Subich, L. M. (2003). A concomitant examination of the relations of perceived racist and the sexist events to psychological distress for African American women. The Counseling Psychologist, 31, 451–469. Neblett, E. W., Shelton, J. N., & Sellers, R. M. (2004). The role of racial identity in managing daily hassles. In G. Philogene (Ed.). Race and identity:  The legacy of Kenneth Clark. Washington, DC:  American Psychological Association Press. Neville, H. A., & Hamer, J. (2001). “We make freedom”:  An exploration of revolutionary Black feminism. Journal of Black Studies, 31, 437–461. Nguyen, A. D., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2007). Biculturalism unpacked:  Components, measurement, individual differences, and outcomes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 101–114. Niemann, Y. F., Jennings, L., Rozelle, R. M., Baxter, J. C., & Sullivan, E. (1994). Use of free responses and cluster analysis to determine stereotypes of eight groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 379–390.

Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Eibach, R. P. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles, 59, 377–391. Rederstorff, J. C., Buchanan, N. T., & Settles, I. H. (2007). The moderating roles of race and gender role attitudes in the relationship between sexual harassment and psychological well-being. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 50–61. Reed, M. E., Collinsworth, L. L., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2005). There’s no place like home: Sexual harassment of low income women in housing. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 439–462. Reid, L. D. (2010). The role of perceived race and gender in the evaluation of college teaching on Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 3, 137–152. Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 88–106. Root, M. P.  P. (2004). From exotic to a dime a dozen. In A. R. Gillem & C. A. Thompson (Eds.), Biracial women in therapy: Between the rock of gender and the hard place of race (pp. 19–32). New York: Haworth Press. Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W. & Hunter, J. (2004). Ethnic/ Racial differences in the coming-out process of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: A comparison of sexual identity development over time. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 10, 215–228. Sabik, N. J., & Tylka, T. L. (2006). Do feminist identity styles moderate the relation between perceived sexist events and disordered eating? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 77–84. Sacharin, V., Lee, F., & Gonzalez, R. (2009). Identities in harmony:  Gender-work identity integration moderates frame switching in cognitive processing. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 275–284. Sachs-Ericsson, N., & Ciarlo, J. A. (2000). Gender, social roles, and mental health: An epidemiological perspective. Sex Roles, 43, 605–628. Sanchez, D. T., & Bonam, C. M. (2009). To disclose or not to disclose biracial identity: The effect of biracial disclosure on perceiver evaluations and target responses. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 129–149. Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., Kobrynowicz, D., & Owen, S. (2002). Perceiving discrimination against one’s gender group has different implications for well-being in women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 197–210. Sellers, R. M., Caldwell, C. H., Schmeelk-Cone, K. H., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2003). The role of racial identity and racial discrimination in the mental health of African American young adults. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44, 302–317. Sellers, R. M., Copeland-Linder, N., Martin, P. P., & Lewis, R. L. (2006). Racial identity matters:  The relationship between racial discrimination and psychological functioning in African American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16, 187–216. Sellers, R. M., & Shelton, J. N. (2003). The role of racial identity in perceived racial discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1079–1092. Settles, I. H. (2004). When multiple identities interfere:  The role of identity centrality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 487–500. Settles, I. H. (2006). Use of an intersectional framework to understand Black women’s racial and gender identities. Sex Roles, 54, 589–601.

Set tles, Buchanan


Settles, I. H., Jellison, W. A., & Poulsen, J. (2013). The mediating role of identity evaluations in the relationship between the prominence of identities and psychological well-being. Unpublished manuscript. Settles, I. H., Jellison, W. A., & Pratt-Hyatt, J. S. (2009). Identification with multiple social groups:  The moderating role of identity change over time among women scientists. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 856–867. Settles, I. H., Navarrete, C. D., Pagano, S., Abdou, C., & Sidanius, J. (2010). Ethnic identity and depression among African-American women. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 248–255. Settles, I. H., Pratt-Hyatt, J. S., & Buchanan, N. T. (2008). Through the lens of race: Black and white women’s perceptions of womanhood. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 454–468. Settles, I. H., Sellers, R. M., & Damas Jr., A. (2002). One role or two? The function of psychological separation in role conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 574–582. Shields, S. A. (2008). Gender: An intersectionality perspective. Sex Roles, 59, 301–311. Shih, M., Bonam, C., Sanchez, D., & Peck, C. (2007). The social construction of race:  Biracial identity and vulnerability to stereotypes. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13, 125–133. Shih, M., Pittinsky, T. L., & Ambady, N. (1999). Stereotype susceptibility: Identity salience and shifts in quantitative performance. Psychological Science, 10, 81–84. Shih, M., Sanchez, D. T., & Ho, G. C. (2010). Costs and benefits of switching among multiple social identities. In R. Crisp (Ed). The psychology of social and cultural diversity (pp. 62–83). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Short, A. K. (2008). Slaves to rent: Sexual harassment in housing as involuntary servitude. Nebraska Law Review, 86, 838–894. Smith, L. (2005). Psychotherapy, classism, and the poor: Conspicuous by their absence. American Psychologist, 60, 687–696. Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 224–237. Stith, S. M., Smith, D. B., Penn, C. E., Ward, D. B., & Tritt, D. (2004). Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and


victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic review, Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 65–98. Strolovitch, D. Z. (2007). Affirmative advocacy: Race, class, and gender in interest group politics. Chicago, IL:  University of Chicago Press. Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G.  Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Tester, G. (2008). An intersectional analysis of sexual harassment in housing. Gender & Society, 22, 349–366. Thoits, P. A. (1991). On merging identity theory and stress research. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 101–112. Thoits, P. A. (1995). Identity-relevant events and psychological symptoms:  A  cautionary tale. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 72–82. Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of physical violence:  Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. White, J. B., & Gardner, W. L. (2009). Think women, think warm: Stereotype content activation in women with a salient gender identity, using a modified Stroop task. Sex Roles, 60, 247–260. Williams, D. R., Lavizzo-Mourey, R., Warren, R.C. (1994). The concept of race and health status in America. Public Health Reports 109, 26–41. Wu, F. H. (2002). Yellow:  Race in America beyond black and white. New York: Basic Books. Yip, T., Gee, G. C., & Takeuchi, D. T. (2008). Racial discrimination and psychological distress: The impact of ethnic identity and age among immigrant and united states-born Asian adults. Developmental Psychology, 44, 787–800. Young, V. D. & Spencer, Z. (2007). Multiple jeopardy:  The impact of race, gender, and slavery on the punishment of women in antebellum America. In M. Bosworth & J. Flavin (Eds.), Race, gender, and punishment:  From colonialism to the War on Terror (pp. 65–76). Piscataway, NJ:  Rutgers University Press.

Multiple Groups, Multiple Identities, and Intersectionalit y



Psychological Science of Globalization

Angela K.-Y. Leung, Lin Qiu, and Chi-Yue Chiu

Abstract Globalization refers to the global integration of regional economies, societies, and cultures through international trade, capital flows, advanced communication technology, and migration. Globalization’s rapid increases in interdependencies among regional economies, societies, and cultures have resulted in unprecedented opportunities for multicultural interactions. This chapter proposes an integrated theoretical framework and research agenda for a psychological science of globalization that focuses on individuals’ understanding of globalization and how they relate to the cultural implications of globalization. The chapter examines individuals’ lay theories of and attitudes toward globalization and possible psychological reactions to global culture, ranging from appreciative integrative responses to foreign culture to nationalistic exclusionary responses. An in-depth analysis is provided of conditions that mitigate and facilitate these reactions, as well as a review of areas of further study, such as the emerging notions of cosmopolitan and global identities, and ramifications relating to the media, international relations, and social health. Key Words:  lay theories of globalization, integrative responses, exclusionary responses, cosmopolitanism

In most parts of the world, globalization, broadly defined as a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations, has become an unstoppable and potent force that impacts everyday life and international relations (Chiu, Gries, Torelli, & Cheng, 2011). As a multifaceted, dynamic, and highly complex concept (Appadurai, 1996; Croucher, 2004; Fiss & Hirsch, 2005; Kellner, 2002; Robertson & White, 2007), globalization embodies a contradictory and ambiguous set of institutions and social relations, involving global flows of goods, services, ideas, technologies, cultural forms, and people (Kellner, 2002). Aside from speeding up the transnational circulation of ideas, languages, and popular cultures, globalization also increases the inflow of capitalist values, neo-liberal economic thoughts, and

instrumental rationality into many regional economies. These ideas and their attendant practices have transformed individuals’ relations to their nations and their cultural traditions, work, and families. Successes and failures in global competition for foreign investments, capital flows, and talents between world cities have become a major source of national pride and shame, respectively. A favorite topic in globalization scholarship concerns the cultural consequences of globalization. An unsettled debate in globalization studies, for example, relates to whether globalization would lead to homogenization or diversification of cultures. Although some writers hold that the hegemonic dominance of global culture will eventually lead to erosion of local cultures, others argue that globalization tends to spur local reactions (e.g., contestation/


competition, differentiation, glocalization) directed toward maintaining heritage cultures and/or creating new fusion cultures (see Chiu & Cheng, 2007, 2010; Chiu & Hong, 2006, Kecmanovic, 1996; Kelman, 1997; Marsella, 2008). Against this context, we propose a research agenda for a psychological science of globalization, one that focuses on individuals’ understanding of globalization and how they relate to the cultural implications of globalization. Despite the centrality of globalization in contemporary social science discourse, until recently, with few exceptions (Hermans & Kempen, 1998), psychologists have remained impassive toward globalization as a topic of psychological inquiry (Bandura, 2001; Chiu, Gries et al., 2011). In this chapter, drawing on the results of several recent research programs on the psychology of globalization, we seek to provide a behavioral science perspective on the cultural dimension of globalization. Globalization is a complex phenomenon that includes many aspects (e.g., cultural, economic, and political) and has important implications for intercultural contacts (cultural implications), global exchange of goods and services (economic implications), and global governance (political implications). We choose to focus our discussion on the cultural aspects of globalization largely due to the focus of this volume. Specifically, we build on the analysis that globalization has, on the one hand, increased the frequency of intercultural encounters; raised the intensity of intercultural contacts; magnified the interconnectedness of world cultures; enlarged the volume of international flow of cultural ideas and practices; inspired innovative ideas, practices, technology and products; and created new forms of culture by combining ideas and practices of several existing cultures. On the other hand, however, globalization has also elevated concerns about cultural colonization of the economically less developed cultures by the economic powers, and, in some societies, such concerns have resulted in xenophobic anxiety, as well as fear of cultural contamination and erosion resulting from inflow of materialistic, capitalist culture. Here, we will review recent research findings on five major research topics in the psychological science of globalization. First, how do people understand the concept of globalization? Second, what are people’s attitudes toward globalization? Third, what are the cognitive consequences of living in global, multicultural cities? Fourth, how do people respond to the inflow of foreign and global cultures? Finally, 182

what are the broader implications of globalization, such as those for identity construction, international relations, and mental health? The relevance of globalization to culture and psychology cannot be overstated. Multicultural psychology, with its focus on the psychology of belonging to multiple cultures, has drawn research attention from static psychological differences among cultures to the dynamic processes of how an individual acquires, organizes, and reacts to two or more cultures (Leung, Chiu, & Hong, 2010). The psychological science of globalization further advances this research agenda by offering nuanced analysis of the psychological consequences of living in the multicultural space of globalized communities, where individuals are exposed to and often find themselves deliberating how they would relate to their own as well as foreign cultures.

Lay Psychology of Globalization Lay Understanding of Globalization

A major topic in the psychological science of globalization concerns how lay people understand the meaning of globalization. Can lay people differentiate among related concepts such as globalization, modernization, Westernization, and Americanization? Recent research (Fu & Chiu, 2007) showed that, in Hong Kong, people treat Westernization and modernization as distinct concepts. They see Westernization as a process of assimilating popular Western social-moral ideals, such as individual freedom, human rights, and democracy, into local cultural value systems. In contrast, they view modernization as a process that integrates evidence-based, scientific, instrumental knowledge and practices into extant educational, knowledge production, and management practices. Hong Kong people also expect Westernization to result in the replacement of local social-moral values with Western ones and modernization to increase the global competitiveness of the local political economy through scientific research and development, as well as through the creation, dissemination, and application of objective, instrumental knowledge. In general, Hong Kong people are more receptive to modernization than to Westernization, probably because they view Westernization as a potential source of cultural erosion or contamination that may threaten the continuity and integrity of the local culture. Other studies (Yang et  al., 2011) showed that in the United States and Greater China (consisting of Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and

Psychological Science of Globaliz ation

Taiwan), people tend to associate Americanization with Westernization probably because the United States is a major exporter of Western social-moral values and practices. In addition, people from both the United States and Greater China perceive globalization to be connected to but different from modernization, Americanization, and Westernization. In one study (Yang et  al., 2011, study 1), participants from the United States and the three regions in Greater China (Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan) were presented with a representative list of fifty-three globalization-related items (e.g., American Express, computer, Disneyland, eBay, Facebook, global warming, HIV/AIDS, and YouTube) and asked to freely generate additional related items. Next, participants rated each item on how strongly it is associated with each of the following four concepts:  globalization, modernization, Americanization, and Westernization. In all four regions, the ratings of the items on Westernization corresponded closely with those on Americanization, indicating that the participants perceived Americanization and Westernization to have similar meanings. Despite this, the ratings of the items on globalization were only moderately correlated with the items’ ratings on modernization, Westernization, and Americanization, indicating that the participants considered globalization to be related to but different from modernization, Westernization, or Americanization. Some interesting regional differences emerged. For example, participants from the Greater China regions perceived a relatively stronger association between globalization and modernization than did participants from the United States. This pattern of results may reflect the different experiences with globalization in Greater China and the United States. In Greater China, the wheels of globalization and modernization rolled in at about the same time. In contrast, the United States was already a highly modernized country before it began to experience rapid globalization. The onset asynchrony of modernization and globalization in the United States allows perceptual separation of modernization and globalization among Americans. Another study (Yang et al., 2011, study 2) found that lay people in the United States and Greater China agreed that globalization-related items can be classified into five major groups:  (a)  information technology that promotes global connectivity (e.g., the Internet, Apple computer), (b) global consumer brands (e.g., Hollywood, Coke), (c)  global trade and international regulatory institutions

(e.g., the World Trade Organization [WTO], Wall Street), (d)  geographic mobility (e.g., passport, air travel), and (e)  global calamities (e.g., global warming, HIV/AIDS). Based on the results of the first study, Yang and colleagues (2011, study 2) selected twenty-six items that had the strongest associations with globalization. Next, the investigators had participants from the United States and the three Greater China regions categorize these twenty-six globalization-related items into self-generated categories. Multidimensional scaling results revealed that participants in all four regions grouped the twenty-six items into five major clusters:  global consumer brands, information technology, geographic mobility, global calamities, and international trade and regulatory bodies. Furthermore, in all four regions, participants used a two-dimensional structure to organize the five clusters of globalization-related items. The first dimension pits global consumer brands against global calamities and geographic mobility. This dimension highlights the tension between rapid expansion of global businesses and its global consequences (e.g., increased geographic mobility and more frequent world calamities). The second dimension pits international trade and international institutions against information technology; it separates the economic aspects of globalization (e.g., world trade) from its technological aspects (e.g., the Internet). Finally, participants from all four regions evaluated most globalization-related items favorably on the dimensions of competence and warmth, and particularly on the dimension of competence. However, two items that fall in the category of global calamities— global warming and HIV/AIDS—were evaluated negatively.

Attitudes Toward Globalization

A related question concerns how people evaluate the societal consequences of globalization. In Yang et al.’s (2011, study 2) multidimensional scaling study, the participants from all four regions perceived most globalization-related items to have more positive impact on people’s competence than on their warmth. This result is consistent with the past finding that people generally believe that economic development has positive effects on people’s competence and negative effects on people’s warmth (Kashima et al., 2009, 2011). That is, although economic development increases the society’s effectiveness and efficiency in attaining material goals, economic development also tends to break up communities, creating colder and more dehumanized Leung, Qiu, Chiu


social milieus (Cheng et al., 2010; Kashima et al., 2009, 2011). For example, in a study conducted during the 2008 Olympics (Cheng et  al., 2010), Chinese participants were asked to compare contemporary China with China in 1988, when China had just started its economic modernization. The Chinese rated China in 1988 as more moral and warmer. This is referred to as the good old days effect. In contrast, when asked to compare contemporary China with China 20 years from now, the Chinese rated China in 2018 as more competent. This is referred to as the better tomorrow effect. The good old days and better tomorrow effects were observed in Japan and Australia as well (Kashima et  al., 2009, 2011). Taken together, these initial results show that lay people can distinguish globalization from modernization, Westernization, and Americanization. Furthermore, they feel that globalization can promote economic development. Because people share the assumption that economic development will break down communities and lead to erosion of traditional values, they expect globalization to have similar negative social and moral effects on the society. In addition, people share the assumption that economic development will raise the level of global competitiveness and associate globalization with increased competence.

Perceptual Consequences of Minimal Multicultural Exposure

People in both developed and developing countries seem to have similar subjective understandings and evaluations of globalization. However, what are the objective psychological consequences of living in a culturally mixed globalized environment? Some globalization scholars (Giddens, 1985; Robertson, 1992) have used the expression “experiential compression of time and space” to characterize the experience of living in a globalized community. In a globalized environment, individuals often experience traditional and modern cultures at the same time, as well as local and foreign cultures in the same space. Encountering dissimilar cultures at the same time in the same space activates learned representations of the dissimilar cultures concurrently (Chiu, Mallorie, Keh, & Law, 2009). The concurrent co-activation of dissimilar cultural representations places these representations in cognitive juxtaposition. As a consequence, the individuals become more aware of the contrast between cultures. The perceptual salience of cultural differences renders culture a prominent mental construct for 184

interpreting current experiences. As explained later, this perceptual effect, which we refer to as the joint culture activation effect, could have important downstream consequences in the individual’s reactions to the inflow of foreign cultures and culture mixing. Globalization can, through various means, increase intercultural contacts, including through the increased geographic mobility of people; more people now have the experience of traveling and living abroad. In addition, cultures also travel across space through different media; many global cities are now outposts of globalization where their residents can easily encounter elements of diverse cultures in the same space. Regardless of whether intercultural contacts result from living abroad (cultural immersion) or from mere exposure to symbols or images of different cultures at the same time (minimal intercultural contacts), such contacts are expected to have the hypothesized joint culture activation effects described in the previous paragraph. To demonstrate that the joint culture activation effect can occur even with minimal intercultural contacts, several experiments have examined this effect using different joint culture activation experimental paradigms. In one study (Chiu et al., 2009, study 1), Mainland Chinese participants saw (a)  two McDonald’s hamburger print advertisements placed next to each other (single culture activation condition), or (b) a McDonald’s hamburger print advertisement and a Chinese moon cake print advertisement placed side-by-side (joint culture activation condition). Following this manipulation, in an allegedly unrelated study, the participants read two commercial messages for Timex, one appealing to individualist values and one to collectivist values. The individualist message was: “The Timex watch. It embodies so much. It’s like a person. It has an impressive personality, very individualistic, and with a strong focus and concern for oneself—in a positive way.” The collectivist message was: “The Timex watch. It embodies so much. It’s like a person. It’s an impressive social being, very concerned with others, and with a strong focus and concern for others—in a positive way.” The participants’ task was to estimate how favorably the two advertisements would be received in China. Past studies have shown that the individualist message is more popular in the United States than in China and vice versa for the collectivist message (Aaker & Schmitt, 2001). Consistent with the idea that even minimal intercultural contact would increase the perceptual salience of cultures and the corresponding cultural differences, the Chinese participants in the joint

Psychological Science of Globaliz ation

culture activation condition expected the collectivist (vs. individualist) message to be more warmly received in China than did those in the single culture activation condition. In a conceptual replication of this study (Torelli, Chiu, Tam, Au, & Keh, 2011, study 1), American participants were asked to evaluate (a) products that are iconic to the United States (e.g., jeans, breakfast cereals) with Chinese brand names (joint culture activation condition) or (b)  products that are not icons of any culture (e.g., bread toaster, umbrella) with Chinese brand names (single culture activation condition). Following this manipulation, the participants in the joint culture activation condition estimated the individualist (vs. collectivist) Timex advertising message to be more popular among Americans, compared to the participants in the single culture activation condition. In another conceptual replication of this study (Chiu et al., 2009, study 2), American participants were incidentally exposed to two individualist print advertisements (single culture activation condition) or to one individualist and one collectivist print advertisement (joint culture activation condition). Compared to those in the single culture activation condition, those in the joint culture activation condition subsequently believed more strongly that (a)  Americans would possess the cognitive styles (e.g., dispositional attribution) that are common in the United States, (b)  cultural boundaries are not permeable, and (c) American values and beliefs are organized into a coherent meaning system. A fourth study (Torelli et al., 2011, study 2) further confirms that joint culture activation can increase the perceived distance between cultures. In this study, American participants were exposed to (a)  products that are symbols of Mexico (e.g., tequila, tacos, corn tortilla) but had English brand names (“Jones,” “Williams”; joint culture activation condition) or (b) products that are not symbols of any culture (e.g., backpacks, toasters) and that had English brand names (single culture activation condition). Following this manipulation, in an allegedly unrelated study, the participants were asked to draw on a half sheet of paper in any way they deemed appropriate a bubble to represent each of the following cultures: Mexican, Puerto Rican, Canadian, and British. The distance, in millimeters, between each pair of cultures, was used to represent the degree of perceived similarity or difference between the culture pair. Participants in the joint culture activation condition drew the bubbles representing dissimilar cultures (e.g., Puerto Rica and Canada)

farther apart than did the participants in the single culture activation condition. In addition, the experimental manipulation did not affect the distances between the bubbles representing similar cultures (e.g., Canada and the United Kingdom), and the effect of joint culture activation was equally strong in the perception of the distance between British and Mexican cultures (the two cultures involved in the product evaluation task) and of that between Canadian and Puerto-Rican cultures (the two cultures not involved in the product evaluation task). Furthermore, in this study, to ensure that the joint culture activation effect is a perceptual effect instead of a cultural identity effect, the American participants were not exposed to symbols of US culture, and the dependent measure did not include perceived distances between American and out-group cultures. The robust joint culture activation effect observed in this study indicates that this effect can occur without involving self-categorization or perceived competition with or without threat to in-group culture. Indeed, past research has shown an analogous perceptual effect of joint presentation of dissimilar concepts when consumers evaluate two dissimilar products simultaneously versus sequentially (Hsee, 1996; Hsee & Leclerc, 1998; Hsee, Loewenstein, Blount, & Bazerman, 1999; Hsee & Zhang, 2004). Experiential compression of time and space is a common experience in a globalized space. This experience can be operationalized by the joint culture activation manipulations in the studies just reviewed. Findings from these studies show that even minimal intercultural contacts (seeing symbols or images from two seemingly dissimilar cultures simultaneously) can increase individuals’ sensitivity to the prototypic characteristics of a cultural group and the tendency to use culture as a schema to organize perceptions. As a consequence, individuals tend to enlarge the perceived incompatibility between cultures and expect members of a culture to possess the characteristic psychological attributes of the culture. The joint culture activation effect may account for urban-rural variations in the perception of cultural differences. In most countries, compared to rural residents, urban dwellers encounter co-presence of images and symbols from dissimilar national cultures more frequently. Thus, urban dwellers, more influenced by the joint culture activation effect than are rural residents, should perceive greater differences between cultures. Consistent with this idea, a study conducted in China (Chen & Chiu, Leung, Qiu, Chiu


2010) showed that, compared to rural residents, urban dwellers tend to anticipate greater cultural differences in values; they expect Chinese people to adhere more strongly to Chinese values (filial piety, modesty) and Western people to adhere more strongly to Western values (individuality, freedom).

A Dual Model of Psychological Responses to Globalization Exclusionary and Integrative Responses

In the face of rapid globalization, people may react favorably or unfavorably to the inflow of global or foreign cultures. As mentioned in the previous section, encountering local and foreign cultures simultaneously in the same globalized space can sharpen the perceived cultural contours, making apparent the contrast between cultures (Chiu & Cheng, 2007). Furthermore, people’s heightened attention to cultural differences may lead to two different psychological reactions—exclusionary and integrative responses—to the inflow of global or foreign cultures (Chiu & Cheng, 2007; Chiu, Gries et al., 2011).

Exclusionary Responses

Table  9.1 summarizes the characteristics of exclusionary and integrative responses. Exclusionary responses are generally reflexive, emotion-laden responses triggered by the fear that the inflow of global or foreign culture will cause cultural

contamination or erosion, thus compromising the integrity and vitality of the local heritage culture. The activation threshold of exclusionary responses to inflow of global or foreign cultures is lower in non-Western than Western cultures (Cheng, 2010). In non-Western countries, people are fearful of Western countries’ hegemonic cultural influence. Most Western countries, being global economic powers, have been major exporters of global capitalism. The economic and military superiority of the Western powers and the largely unidirectional flow of cultural influence, when interpreted in the context of many non-Western countries’ past colonial experiences, may evoke strong exclusionary reactions toward foreign, global cultures among people in non-Western countries. Recently, in an edition of the Communist Party periodical Seeking the Truth, Chinese President Hu Jintao had warned the country that, “hostile international powers are strengthening their efforts to Westernize and divide us,” and, as he sees it, these hostile forces are particularly targeting the ideological and cultural domains of the Chinese community (Straits Times, 2012). Such blatant expression of cultural contamination anxiety is not new in China. In 2007, Rui, a television show anchor, started an online campaign attacking a Starbucks coffee shop inside the Forbidden City in Beijing. Rui maintained that Starbucks coffee is an icon of globalization and Western middle-class culture. Its presence in the Forbidden City—a sacred

Table 9.1  Exclusionary and integrative reactions to global culture. Exclusionary Reactions

Integrative Reactions

Emotional reactions to fear of cultural contamination/ erosion

Goal-oriented reactions geared toward problem solving

Quick, spontaneous, reflexive

Slow, deliberate, effortful

Perceptions of global/foreign cultures: Cultural threats

Perceptions of global/foreign cultures: Cultural resources

High identity salience

Low identity salience

Negative intercultural affect: Envy, fear, anger, disgust, pity

Positive intercultural affect: admiration

Exclusionary behavioral reactions: isolation, rejection, aggression

Inclusionary behavioral reactions: acceptance, integration, synthesis

Accentuated by the need to defend the integrity and vitality of the heritage culture

Accentuated by a cultural learning mindset

Attenuated by the need for cognition

Attenuated by the need for firm answers and cultural consensus

From Chiu, C. -.Y., Gries, P., Torelli, C. J., & Cheng, S. Y. -Y. (2011). Toward a social psychology of globalization. Journal of Social Issues, 67, 663–676.


Psychological Science of Globaliz ation

cultural space in China—is an act of cultural contamination. This attack, which had received support from tens of thousands of Chinese netizens, ended six months later with the removal of the Starbucks coffee shop from the Forbidden City. Despite the relatively higher threshold of exclusionary reactions in Western countries, similar culturally motivated exclusionary reactions to global, foreign cultures have also been observed in Western countries. An example is the protest in France against the plan to open a McDonald’s Café at the Louvre in 2009 (Schofield, 2009). From the perspective of the French protestors, the opening of a McDonald’s at the Louvre is a blatant expression of “coca-colonialism.”

Integrative Responses

In contrast, integrative responses toward global and foreign cultures are generally relatively effortful, goal-oriented cognitive responses deliberated for problem solving. Instead of perceiving the inflow of foreign or global cultures as a threat, individuals displaying integrative responses recognize that foreign cultures can be versatile intellectual resources. They appreciate the complementary strengths of dissimilar cultures and aspire to learn from other cultures (Chiu & Cheng, 2007). Such integrative reactions toward foreign or global cultures may broaden one’s intellectual horizons. Individuals exhibiting the integrative responses may synthesize ideas from foreign and global cultures to generate novel ideas, leading to creative innovations (Leung, Maddux, Galinsky, & Chiu, 2008). Thus, integrative responses toward global and foreign cultures have been most extensively studied in the context of intercultural contacts and creativity. Globalization has increased the amount of opportunities for intercultural learning and for novel synthesis of foreign and local ideas to generate creative ideas (Leung & Chiu, 2008, 2010; Leung et  al., 2008; Maddux & Galinsky, 2009). As individuals navigate between diverse cultures, they learn about different cultural frames of mind and acquire multicultural experiences. The effect of increased intercultural contacts via globalization on creative idea generation is consonant with the basic tenet in the creative cognition approach, which theorizes that the acquisition of different knowledge systems is precursory to the generation of creative ideas (Finke, Ward, & Smith, 1992; Ward, Smith, & Vaid, 1997). Enduring creative advantages could emerge from the integrative responses toward foreign and global

cultures through at least four mechanisms (Leung et  al., 2008; Leung, Chen, & Chiu, 2010). First, globalization brings together disparate ideas originated from different cultural sources and facilitates development of a broad knowledge base about different cultural experiences (Cheng, Sanchez-Burks, & Lee, 2008; Leung et al., 2008). As a result, individuals have more ideas at their disposal to experiment with in their creative pursuits. Second, multicultural interactions increase awareness of the different functions of the same social behavior (Maddux, Adam, & Galinsky, 2010). For example, having food left over at a host’s house symbolizes appreciation for the host in some cultures but is an insult to the host’s hospitality in others. Exposure to these different conceptions and meanings of the same surface behavior helps to destabilize people’s structured and routinized mindsets. It also enhances individuals’ capability to appreciate and consider seemingly incompatible perspectives when exercising their creative muscle. Third, the benefit of multicultural exposure can strengthen the generalized ability to think creatively (Leung & Chiu, 2010). For example, multicultural exposure can increase receptiveness to ideas from cultures that individuals have not yet encountered personally. Accordingly, multicultural exposure can also benefit performance in creativity tasks that do not require acquisition of knowledge from the cultures one has been exposed to. Finally, globalization inevitably brings conflicting ideas, values, and beliefs from different cultures together. Multicultural navigators exhibiting integrative responses toward foreign cultures are prepared to explore and exploit the interrelations of these incongruent concepts. Placing these discrepant ideas in cognitive juxtaposition promotes cognitive or integrative complexity (Tadmor & Tetlock, 2006), which in turn enhances two important creativity-supporting capacities:  (a)  differentiation, or the willingness to acknowledge competing perspectives on the same issue, and (b)  integration, or the ability to forge conceptual links between these perspectives (Suedfeld, Tetlock, & Streufert, 1992). The capacities to differentiate and integrate facilitate creative conceptual expansion, the process of expanding the conceptual boundaries of an existing concept by combining it with other seemingly irrelevant concepts. From the creative cognition perspective, creative conceptual expansion is an ordinary cognitive process responsible for producing extraordinary results (Ward et al., 1997). Leung, Qiu, Chiu


There is clear evidence for the proposed link from frequent intercultural contacts to creative outcomes and processes. There is both correlational evidence for the creative benefits of foreign living experience and experimental evidence for the creative benefits of joint culture activation (or minimal intercultural contacts). Specifically, there is correlational evidence that individuals with more extensive exposure to foreign cultures perform better in creative idea generation or creative insight tasks (Leung & Chiu, 2008, 2010; Maddux & Galinsky, 2009). For example, spending longer time living in a foreign country predicts success in solving creative insight problems (e.g., the Duncker candle problem) and in generating creative deal-making solutions (Maddux & Galinsky, 2009). Experimental support for the causal link between intercultural contacts and creativity was reported in a recent study (Leung & Chiu, 2010) in which different types of multicultural exposure were created in an experimental session. In this experiment, American students with little exposure to Chinese culture took part in a cultural induction session, which involved watching a forty-five-minute slideshow depicting different representative elements of (a)  American culture only, (b)  Chinese culture only, (c)  both American and Chinese cultures, or (d)  a hybrid culture that fuses together American and Chinese characteristics (e.g., an art piece made of a ceramic-coated Coca-Cola bottle with a lively dragon figure attached to the side). Control participants did not experience any cultural induction. Next, all participants performed a creative writing task, rewriting the Cinderella fairytale for Turkish children by adding as many creative elements as they wished. This task was chosen to ensure that the specific Chinese knowledge that participants acquired from the cultural induction session would not directly benefit their performance. To examine if the expected creative advantage of multicultural exposure would persist after a delay, the same group of participants were invited back about a week later to complete another creative task, generating analogies of time. Again, in this creativity task, the specific cultural knowledge acquired from exposure to Chinese culture would not directly benefit the participants’ creative performance. In both creativity tasks, participants who were exposed to American and Chinese cultures jointly or in a hybrid manner were more creative than those in the single culture activation condition or the control group. This research provided the first experimental evidence that joint culture activation or 188

exposure to two cultures simultaneously can facilitate integrative responses toward foreign culture. Research has also shown that individuals with richer intercultural experiences are more inclined to sample ideas from foreign cultures for creative idea expansion and to spontaneously retrieve unconventional knowledge from memory, which are cognitive processes implicated in creative thinking (Leung & Chiu, 2010). In one study, American students with different degrees of multicultural exposure were given a pool of happiness-related sayings written by local and foreign scholars and were asked to select a limited number of sayings to creatively expand an improvised idea about happiness. Participants with more multicultural experiences were more receptive to foreign ideas; they appropriated more foreign (vs. local) sayings for the task (Leung & Chiu, 2010; study 3). In another study, when American students brainstormed creative gift ideas for their friends, those with more multicultural experiences retrieved more normatively infrequent but still appropriate gift ideas (Leung & Chiu, 2010; study 2). In addition to cognitive mechanisms, emotion may also play an important role in the link between multicultural experience and creativity (Cheng, Leung, & Wu, 2011). According to some researchers (Cheng et  al., 2011), multicultural experience may evoke unpleasant emotions, which in turn promote creative performance. This hypothesis is based on two premises. First, being cognizant of the dissonance that accompanies the juxtaposition of seemingly conflicting ideas from dissimilar cultures may induce a negative mood. Second, negative mood facilitates cognitive complexity, as shown in past studies (e.g., Forgas, 2007; Isen, Means, Patrick, & Nowicki, 1982). To elaborate, experiencing a culturally complex or diverse environment may motivate people to make sense of, reconcile, and synthesize discrepancies between ideas and practices from dissimilar cultures. However, when having to move away from their familiar comfort zone and being confronted with apparent contradictions among seemingly incompatible ideas from different cultures, individuals may feel emotionally challenged as they compare and cognitively juxtapose these ideas. Such negative emotional states have been shown to facilitate cognitive complexity, with individuals under a negative mood being more likely to devise more persuasive messages (Forgas, 2007), perform more exhaustive information processing (Isen et  al., 1982), and acquire information more thoroughly (Sinclair, 1988). Together, the

Psychological Science of Globaliz ation

experience of unpleasant emotions might motivate deeper cognitive processing or higher integrative complexity, thereby benefiting creativity (Tadmor, Tetlock, & Peng, 2009). The mediating role of negative emotions in the relationship between multicultural experience and creativity was tested in two studies (Cheng et  al., 2011, Study 1). In the first study, Singaporean Chinese students, randomly selected, either watched a ten-minute slideshow depicting both Chinese and American cultures (dual cultural exposure condition) or depicting one of the two cultures only (single cultural exposure condition). Next, the participants completed an emotion measure that captures three distinct sets of emotions:  negative emotions (e.g., bothered), negative self-reflections (e.g., uncomfortable), and positive emotions (e.g., content). Finally, the participants completed the Unusual Uses Test of a garbage bag. Results confirmed the previous finding that joint culture activation improves creativity and offered partial support for the proposed meditation model:  dual (vs. single) cultural exposure reduced the amount of positive emotions, and reduced positive emotion was accompanied by greater flexibility in generating creative uses of a garbage bag. Although the first study provided some support to the hypothesized mediating role of emotions, it was a less pleasant emotional state, not a more unpleasant emotional state that mediated the relationship between dual cultural exposure and creativity. This result can be explained by the fact that Singaporeans have rich multicultural exposure and are fairly experienced in coping with cultural ambivalence. Thus, they may not perceive simultaneous encounters with two cultures as very cognitively challenging and may therefore have fewer positive emotions rather than more negative emotions. Evidence from the second study (Cheng et  al., 2011, Study 2)  is consistent with this interpretation. The participants in the second study were Taiwan Chinese who had relatively fewer multicultural experiences compared to Singaporeans. To these Taiwanese participants, dual cultural exposure should evoke a stronger degree of cultural ambivalence and thus a more negative emotional state, which was hypothesized to facilitate creative performance. Furthermore, to explore whether individuals would benefit more from encountering a self-relevant local culture and a foreign culture, as opposed to encountering two foreign cultures, in

this study, participants watched either a slideshow that depicted either a local culture and a foreign culture (Taiwanese and American cultures) or two foreign cultures (Indian and American cultures). Following the manipulation, participants responded to the same emotion measure and the Unusual Uses Test as the first study. The results showed that exposure to the local and foreign cultures (vs. exposure to two foreign cultures) promoted fluency and flexibility in generating unusual uses. More importantly, both negative self-reflections and negative emotions significantly mediated the link between local-foreign cultural exposure and fluency. In other words, exposure to a foreign culture together with a self-relevant local culture was accompanied by a more negative emotional state, which in turn predicted higher levels of creative performance. Aside from the link between intercultural contacts and creativity, a recent study also explored for the first time the ameliorative effects of intercultural contacts on intergroup bias (Tadmor, Hong, Chao, Wiruchnipawan, & Wang, 2012). In one study, following Leung and Chiu (2010), the researchers randomly assigned participants to one of four conditions. Three experimental conditions included a twenty-minute multimedia PowerPoint presentation that depicted culturally representative aspects of American culture, Chinese culture, or American and Chinese cultures in multiple domains; the control condition included a presentation of geometrical figures. Consistent with prediction, planned contrasts showed that participants in the American-Chinese culture condition were significantly less likely to endorse negative stereotypes of African Americans (e.g., uneducated, violent, irresponsible) than were participants in other conditions. Similar findings were obtained for other dependent measures of intergroup bias, such as symbolic racism and discriminatory hiring decisions. Of particular import, such ameliorative effects of multicultural experience on intergroup bias were fully mediated by lower levels of need for cognitive closure. Together, this research demonstrates the critical role of intercultural contacts in promoting the integrative reactions toward foreign cultures through reducing interracial or intergroup bias. Specifically, the process of epistemic unfreezing via adopting lower levels of need for cognitive closure was identified as the mechanism that encourages individuals to show higher social tolerance and mutual acceptance of their out-groups. Leung, Qiu, Chiu


Conditions That Facilitate Exclusionary Responses Perception of Cultural Intrusion

If people may display exclusionary and integrative responses toward global or foreign cultures, under what circumstances would exclusionary versus integrative responses more likely to occur? Figure  9.1 illustrates a theoretical model that was developed to answer this question. According to this model, joint culture activation would enable both exclusionary and integrative responses by increasing the perceptual salience of cultural differences. Enlarged perceived cultural differences increase both the potential threat of cultural contamination and the potential gain of learning from a dissimilar culture. However, joint culture activation by itself does not determine whether an individual would exhibit exclusionary or integrative responses in specific contexts. To predict when an individual would exhibit which type of responses in a certain situation, we need to consider other factors. A major facilitative condition for the evocation of exclusionary reactions following joint culture activation is the perception of cultural intrusion. People in a local community would perceive an intercultural encounter as a cultural intrusion when elements of a foreign culture are perceived (vs. not) to be representative of the foreign culture entering (vs. staying away from) the sacred space of the local community (Yang, 2011). According to this definition, two conditions need to be fulfilled for an intercultural encounter to be construed

as an act of cultural intrusion. The first condition is the attribution of cultural significance to the intercultural encounter. For example, the Chinese netizens viewed Starbucks as a symbol of Western middle-class culture instead of a coffee shop, and the French viewed McDonald’s as a symbol of corporate capitalism rather than a fast food restaurant. In addition, the foreign cultural element is seen to have entered the sacred space of the heritage culture. This process was illustrated in a recent study (see Chiu, Wan, Cheng, Kim, & Yang, 2010). In this study, Chinese participants saw a McDonald’s print advertisement in which the logo of McDonald’s (the Golden Arch) was placed outside or on the top of a picture of the Great Wall (a sacred cultural space in Chinese culture). In addition, the tag line of the advertisement framed McDonald’s either as a symbol of American culture (Freedom, Independence, American Culture:  All in McDonald’s) or a fast food restaurant (Fast, Convenient, Delicious:  All in McDonald’s). The Chinese participants evaluated the advertisement negatively only when McDonald’s was framed as a symbol of American culture and when its logo was placed on top of the Great Wall, thus intruding the sacred space of the Chinese culture. Analogous exclusionary reactions toward the Chinese culture were found in other studies in which Americans exhibited exclusionary reactions to China when a portrait of Mao Zedong was superimposed on (vs. placed outside) a picture of the Statue of Liberty (Yang, 2011, study 2), and when the participants perceived Mao to be a

Joint culture activation


Perception of cultural intrusion Salience of cultural threat Need for epistemic security Need for existential security

Deculturation Thinking complexely about culture Intercultural learning orientation Openness to experience


Exclusionary responses Figure 9.1  A dual model of psychological responses to foreign and global cultures.


Psychological Science of Globaliz ation

Integrative responses

symbol of Chinese political culture. Americans also exhibited exclusionary reactions toward Islamic culture when they learned that a mosque would be built near (vs. farther away from) Ground Zero in New  York and when the participants perceived Ground Zero to be a scared space in American culture (Yang, 2011, study 3). In these studies, placing a portrait of a Communist leader on the Statue of Liberty or building a mosque near Ground Zero was construed as intrusions of a foreign cultural element into the sacred space of mainstream American culture.

Salience of Cultural Threat

Exclusionary reactions are also likely to occur when cultural contrast is perceptually salient and when the threat of cultural erosion is prominent. Results from a series of experiments showed that for both Chinese and Americans, following a joint culture activation manipulation, the participants were more likely to exhibit exclusionary reactions to inflow of foreign culture when they were (vs. not) reminded of the erosive effect of globalization on the core values in the heritage culture (Cheng, 2010).

Need for Epistemic Security

Exclusionary responses embody a commitment to protect the continuity and integrity of one’s heritage culture. Thus, to predict when exclusionary versus integrative responses would follow joint cultural activation, it is important to understand when individuals tend to value and feel obliged to adhere to the norms of their heritage culture. The defining properties of culture as a knowledge tradition are its sharedness and historicity (Chiu, Leung, & Hong, 2010). The property of sharedness separates a cultural tradition from personal beliefs and values, which may not be shared by others in the community. The property of historicity separates a cultural tradition from transient popular trends and fads that do not survive the test of time. These two distinctive properties confer several important psychological functions to members of a culture. Shared cultural norms provide conventionalized interpretive frames for sense making. Such conventionalized norms, due to their consensual validity, afford firm answers to important issues in one’s life space, particularly those issues involved in coordination of social actions. When members of a culture come to an agreement on which behavioral scripts are normatively proscribed and prescribed, they can anticipate the social consequences of their behavioral decisions. In other words, culture confers

epistemic security (Chiu, Morris, Hong, Menon, 2000; Fu et al., 2007). Consistent with this hypothesized function of culture, recent research showed that individuals who have a chronic need for firm answer (as measured by the Need for Cognitive Closure Scale) are particularly likely to follow cultural norms when rendering judgments or making decisions (Chao, Zhang, & Chiu, 2010; Fu et al., 2007; Leung, Kim, Zhang, Tam, & Chiu, 2012). Stronger adherence to cultural norms has also been observed when individuals are pressured to make quick judgments or decisions (a situation when individuals would experience an acute need for closure; Chiu et al., 2000). For example, in one study (Chao et al., 2010, Study 1), European-American students assumed the role of a drug store manager who was responsible for managing a conflict between a pharmacist and a customer. The conflict happened in the United States or in China, and the manager was either a citizen of or had recently relocated to the country where the store was located. A  pretest established that Americans were aware that different cultural norms of conflict resolution prevailed in the United States and China: whereas American norms emphasize taking an investigative stance and identifying the wrongdoer in the conflict, the Chinese norms emphasize seeking relational information that could help to minimize the relational strain in the conflict. As expected, participants with a higher need for cognitive closure or epistemic security adhered more strongly to the prevailing norms in the local culture; they were more inclined to take an investigative stance if the conflict took place in the United States and adopt a relationship management strategy in information search if the conflict occurred in China. Analogous results were obtained in a study conducted in China (Chao et al., 2010, Study 2), where Chinese participants were asked to resolve a conflict that happened in China or the United States. These results, together with the convergent evidence from many other studies, illustrate the epistemic function of culture. One implication of these results is that when the need for epistemic security is heightened, people would be more invested in protecting the consensual validity of the established conventions in their cultural community. That is, they would be more likely to display exclusionary versus integrative responses to foreign cultures in globalized communities. There is general support for this contention. First, one study showed that when the need for epistemic security is heightened (as when the individuals need Leung, Qiu, Chiu


to perform a task under time pressure), more exposure to foreign culture tends to decrease an individual’s willingness to appropriate intellectual resources from other cultures to generate creative solutions to a problem. Recall that among American students, when given a creative expansion task (when asked to develop an improvised idea about happiness into a creative one), more extensive exposure to foreign cultures is generally accompanied by greater willingness to appropriate ideas from unfamiliar cultures for the task (Leung & Chiu, 2010). In a follow-up study (Leung & Chiu, 2010), the investigators manipulated the amount of time pressure that participants would experience when performing the creative expansion task, assuming that participants in the high time pressure condition would feel a greater need for cognitive closure than those in the low time pressure condition. When the participants did not feel pressured to hurry through the task, replicating previous results, a higher level of multicultural experience was accompanied by greater willingness to appropriate ideas from unfamiliar cultures and incorporate them in the creatively expanded idea. However, when time pressure heightened the need for epistemic security, higher levels of multicultural experience were not accompanied by greater willingness to appropriate ideas from foreign cultural sources. If there was any relationship, participants in the high time pressure (high need for epistemic security) condition were less willing to sample and use ideas from foreign cultures. In summary, time pressure or the need for epistemic security attenuates the likelihood of exhibiting integrative responses even among individuals who have extensive exposure to foreign culture.

Need for Existential Security

One of the most established findings in social psychology is that people are particularly committed to defending their cultural tradition when they are reminded of their mortality. According to the Terror Management Theory (Pyszczynski, Greenberg, & Koole, 2004; Pyszczynski, Greenberg, Solomon, Arndt, & Schimel, 2004), individuals would experience existential terror (lose faith in the meaning of their existence) when they become aware of their eventual mortality. They would question whether their personal strivings are meaningful if they would eventually die. Recall that another defining property of culture is its historicity. Culture, with its continuity, helps to assuage existential anxiety: if people feel that they are accomplished members of their culture, they would experience immorality vicariously 192

through the continuity of the culture they belong to. Individuals who feel that they are good members of their culture—those who have protected the vitality and integrity of their culture—would also experience symbolic immortality through the continuity of their cultural tradition. There is ample evidence for the theory of terror management (Pyszczynski, Greenberg, & Koole, 2004; Pyszczynski, Greenberg, Solomon, Arndt, & Schimel, 2004). For example, when Italian participants were reminded of their mortality (vs. not), their level of Italian identification went up (Castano, Yzerbyt, Paladino, & Sacchi, 2002). Mortality reminders also lead people to display a more favorable attitude toward someone who upholds shared values and worldviews in his or her culture, but a less favorable attitude toward someone who shuns these culturally endorsed ideals. For example, after writing about their death, American students rated an author with pro-American views more favorably than another one with anti-American views (Greenberg, Pyszczynski, Solomon, Simon, & Breus, 1994). American students also had reduced feelings of commitment to their romantic partner after having been instructed to ponder worldview differences between themselves and their partner (Strachman & Schimel, 2006). These findings suggest that when mortality thoughts are made salient, people who are aware of the core value differences between their own and global cultures are particularly likely to exhibit exclusionary responses toward the inflow of global or foreign culture, fearing that mixing local and other cultures would undermine the vitality and integrity of the local culture. Likewise, when mortality thoughts are rendered salient, individuals who are aware of the core value differences between their own and global cultures would be less likely to exhibit integrative responses toward the inflow of global culture and would tend not to exhibit enhanced creative performance, despite having been exposed extensively to global culture. In line with these predictions, a heightened need for existential security has also been found to increase the likelihood of exclusionary responses. In one study conducted with American participants (Torelli et al., 2011), half of the participants were asked to vividly imagine what would happen to their body as they died and after they died (mortality salience condition), and the remaining half were asked to describe an anxiety-provoking dental work experience (control condition). This is an established technique to increase accessibility of death-related

Psychological Science of Globaliz ation

thoughts (Arndt, Greenberg, Soloman, Pyszczynski, & Simon, 1997). Following this manipulation, half of the participants in the mortality salience condition and half in the control condition were asked to evaluate Chinese brands of iconic American products (joint culture activation condition) or Chinese brands of culture-neutral products (single culture activation condition). This manipulation was introduced to increase the salience of cultural differences in the joint culture activation condition. Next, in an allegedly unrelated study, the participants evaluated “an out of box” marketing approach adopted by Nike (an iconic American brand) to increase its market share in the Middle East. In this approach, elements of Islamic and Middle Eastern cultures were mixed with Nike’s American brand image. As expected, participants’ evaluation of Nike’s new marketing strategy was most negative following joint culture activation and mortality salience induction. In this condition, participants disliked Nike, expected the campaign to fail in the Middle East, anticipated the stock price of Nike to drop on the New York Stock Exchange, and were reluctant to buy sports apparels from Nike. Apparently, after joint culture activation had enlarged the perceived differences between cultures, mortality salient participants who encountered a case of culture mixing (incorporation of Islamic and Middle Eastern cultural elements into an iconic American brand) would be fearful of its cultural contamination effect and be particularly vigilant in protecting the vitality of their heritage culture. Hence, they tended to resist inflow of foreign culture. To show that the effect obtained in the mortality salience experiment just described is driven by the motive to protect the heritage culture, in a follow-up experiment (Torelli et  al., 2011), the investigators manipulated the cultural representativeness of the target brand. Half the participants responded to the Nike Middle East marketing plan, and half responded to a similar plan that Proctor-Silex launched to increase its bread toaster market share in the Middle East. The same joint effect of joint culture activation and mortality salience was obtained when the target brand was Nike, an iconic American brand. However, this effect disappeared when the target brand was Proctor-Silex, a non-iconic American brand. An analogous effect of mortality salience on exclusionary reaction was obtained in China. In this study (Chen, 2011), participants received either the mortality salience manipulation or the dental work manipulation. Before the manipulation,

participants completed a self-report measure that assessed the extent to which they believed that globalization would lead to erosion of local cultures. After the manipulation, the participants completed a set of measures that captured their level of liking of Western culture, their evaluation of the warmth of Americans, and their willingness to learn from accomplished Americans. In the control (dental work) condition, the participants’ globalization belief was not associated with any of the three dependent measures. In contrast, in the mortality salience condition, the more strongly the participants believed that globalization would lead to erosion of local cultures, the more they disliked Western culture, the more they perceived Americans to be cold, and the less willing they were to learn from accomplished Americans. These results showed that when the cultural erosive effect of globalization is a chronic concern, heightening the need for existential security would increase the likelihood of exhibiting exclusionary reactions and evaluating foreign cultures negatively. The Chen (2011) study also showed that mortality salience may also attenuate such integrative responses as learning from accomplished foreign individuals. This conclusion is further fortified in another study (Leung & Chiu, 2010), in which participants were given the opportunity to consult ideas from local and foreign experts to expand an impoverished idea. After selecting ideas from local and foreign experts, the participants rated the persuasiveness, helpfulness, inspiringness, and creativity of each selected idea. Prior to the creative expansion task, the participants received either the morality salience manipulation or the dental work manipulation. In the dental work condition, the more exposure the participants had to foreign culture, the more favorably they rated the ideas from foreign experts. However, in the mortality salience condition, extent of exposure to foreign cultures was unrelated to how favorably they evaluated ideas from foreign cultures. In summary, participants who were just confronted with thoughts of their own death did not exhibit more integrative reactions toward foreign cultures even if they had more extensive multicultural exposure.

Factors That Attenuate Exclusionary Responses and Promote Integrative Responses Deculturation

The needs for epistemic and existential security increase the likelihood of exclusionary reactions and Leung, Qiu, Chiu


attenuate that of integrative reactions. In this and the next few sections, we will discuss the psychological factors that would attenuate the likelihood of exclusionary responses and promote integrative responses. Recall that, in one study, the logo of McDonald’s was superimposed on or placed next to a picture of the Great Wall (Yang, 2011). In this study, the Chinese participants displayed very strong exclusionary responses toward McDonald’s when McDonald’s was framed as a symbol of American culture. This result suggests that cultural intrusion could evoke strong exclusionary reactions. In the same experiment, framing McDonald’s as a fast food restaurant chain mitigated the exclusionary reactions toward McDonald’s. This result shows that not highlighting the cultural significance of intercultural encounters can reduce exclusionary responses. This idea received further support from a series of studies (Tong, Hui, Kwan, & Peng, 2011, Study 1)  in which participants were asked to respond to an international acquisition. For example, in one study, Singaporean participants learned about McDonald’s plan to acquire Ya Kun Kaya Toast, an iconic, locally grown breakfast chain famous for toast and local-style coffee in Singapore. After reading this plan, participants rated how similar or dissimilar McDonald’s and Ya Kun Kaya Toast were. Prior to reading this business case, half of the participants answered questions such as:  “Alvin wears t-shirts and jeans to work everyday. What occupation do you think he is in? (a)  Marketing executive, or (b)  Software engineer.” These questions were included to prime the tendency to think categorically. The remaining participants responded to a set of questions designed to activate a transactional mindset or the tendency to analyze the costs and benefits of alternative actions. A sample question used in this condition was:  “Mrs. Lim earns $12/hour sewing at home. Today she will go to the wet market to buy fish. For each five minutes she bargains with the vendor she can save $1.25. Which is a better deal for her? (a) Bargain for five minutes, or (b) No bargain and work for extra five minutes.” The results showed that following categorical mindset priming, the more dissimilar the two companies were perceived to be, the more the participants felt fearful about the acquisition. Apparently, when two cultures are perceived to be different, acquisition of an iconic business of the heritage culture by an iconic global business would evoke more intense fear of cultural erosion, but only among 194

those who had been led to think of cultures as categories with defining essence. Perceived differences between two companies were not related to fear of the acquisition when a transactional mindset was primed. Analogous patterns of results were found in the United States when American participants were instructed to respond to the potential acquisition of General Motors (an iconic American brand) by Tata Motors (an iconic Indian brand) following categorical thinking or transactional mindset priming (Tong et al., 2011, Study 2).

Complex Thinking About Culture

Exclusionary responses are attenuated when individuals do not think categorically about cultural differences, as the Tong et  al. (2011) studies have shown. In a similar vein, thinking complexly rather than categorically about cultural similarities and differences would also attenuate the tendency to exhibit exclusionary reactions. This idea was tested in three studies. In one study (Torelli et al., 2011) conducted with Hong Kong Chinese participants, one group of participants was exposed to Western cultural primes only (two print advertisements of McDonald’s hamburgers), another group was exposed to Chinese cultural primes only (two print advertisements of Chinese moon cakes), and a third group was exposed to both Chinese and Western cultural primes (a print advertisement of McDonald’s hamburgers and one of Chinese moon cakes). Following this manipulation, the participants were asked to estimate the extent to which European Americans in general and Hong Kong Chinese in general would agree more with the idea that personality dispositions determine behavior (a characteristic belief in American culture) and the idea that situational factors determine behaviors (a characteristic belief in Chinese culture). The participants also completed the Need for Cognition Scale, which measures individual differences in the likelihood of and enjoyment in engaging in effortful cognitive activities (Cacioppo, Petty, & Kao, 1984). Replicating past results (Chiu et al., 2009), joint cultural activation enlarged the perceived differences between American and Chinese cultures. Compared to those in the single culture activation conditions, those in the joint culture activation condition expected Americans to believe more strongly in disposition determinism and the Chinese to believe more strongly in situation determinism. Further analysis revealed that this pattern of results was found only among individuals with relatively low levels of need for cognition. Apparently,

Psychological Science of Globaliz ation

participants with a high need for cognition, a stable motivational factor that drives complex thinking in general, did not think about cultural differences categorically even after having been primed with both Chinese and Western cultures simultaneously. In the second study (Torelli et al., 2011), which was conducted in the United States, participants received either the single culture activation manipulation or the joint culture activation manipulation. Next, they were asked to draw four bubbles on a piece of paper to represent four cultures: Mexican, Puerto Rican, Canadian, and British. Perceived differences between cultures were measured by the physical distance between each pair of cultures in the drawing. Prior to the drawing task, half of the participants were prompted to think about the complexity of intercultural relationships carefully— an experimental manipulation to induce complex thinking about culture (complex thinking condition), whereas the remaining half completed the drawing task without further instructions (control condition). Replicating previous findings, in the no instructions (control) condition, participants perceived cultures (particularly dissimilar ones) to be more different after joint culture activation than after single culture activation. However, in the complex thinking condition, participants in both single and joint culture activation conditions perceived cultures to be relatively similar to each other. In a third study (Torelli et  al., 2011), European-American participants received either the mortality salience manipulation or the dental work manipulation. Next, they evaluated Nike’s plan to incorporate elements of Islamic and Middle Eastern cultures into their marketing strategy in the Middle East. The investigators also measured the participants’ need for cognition. When the participants were put under the influence of mortality salience and joint culture activation, those with a relatively low need for cognition displayed the typical exclusionary reactions toward Nike’s marketing plan, whereas those with a relatively high need for cognition did not. Taken together, the findings indicate that thinking complexly about cultures can attenuate exclusionary reactions to culture mixing (see also Tam, Au, & Leung, 2008).

Intercultural Learning Orientation

Another factor that increases the relative likelihood of displaying integrative versus exclusionary responses is the individuals’ motivation orientation (Chiu & Cheng, 2007). Individuals who are

motivated to adapt to new cultural environments and to learn from others are more likely to exhibit integrative responses. Several studies (Maddux & Galinsky, 2009; Studies 4 and 5)  provided evidence for this idea. In one study, individual differences in the extent to which sojourners had adapted themselves to the culture in a foreign country were measured. In another study, half of the participants were instructed to imagine adapting themselves to a foreign culture and to anticipate what their adaptation experiences would be. The remaining participants did not receive these instructions. In the first study, participants who reported a higher degree of cultural adaptation performed better in creative insight or creative idea generation tasks. In the second study, participants who were induced to imagine cultural adaptation experiences had better performance on creativity tasks compared to those in the control condition. These results illustrate that the motivation to adapt to new cultures can increase integrative responses and creative performance. Furthermore, there is evidence that among those who have foreign living experiences, recalling an experience of intercultural learning, particularly those experiences that enhance understanding of cross-cultural differences in behaviors, promotes flexibility in problem solving and increases creative performance. In these studies (Maddux et al., 2010), participants were asked to recall an experience of learning something new from a different culture or learning something new from one’s own culture. Whereas recalling an intercultural learning experience enhanced subsequent creative performance, recalling an experience of learning from one’s own culture did not. In summary, globalization increases the opportunities for intercultural contacts. Individuals can benefit from their intercultural experiences and become more creative thinkers and problem solvers if these individuals are motivated to change themselves to adapt to the new multicultural environment and to learn from different cultures.

Openness to Experience

Openness to experience, as a chronic personal quality, supports intercultural learning and promotes integrative responses in intercultural settings (Leung et  al., 2010). As one of the Big Five personality traits, openness to experience refers to one’s predisposition to seek out and appreciate new experiences and ideas, to take risks, and to entertain alternatives (Costa & McCrae, 1992; McCrae & Costa, 1997). Intuitively, individuals who are open Leung, Qiu, Chiu


to experience should be more receptive to new ideas and practices from different cultures and to associate positive attitudes and affect with novel cultural experiences. Close-minded individuals, in contrast, are more likely to resist an inflow of foreign and global cultures, fearing that new ideas and practices from unfamiliar cultures will create contradictions, uncertainty, and ambiguity in sense making and thus destabilize established social norms and cognitive structures in the local communities. Consistent with this contention, a recent study (Leung & Chiu, 2010) showed that individuals with richer intercultural contacts perform better in creativity tasks only if they are open to experience. In this study, European-American participants completed an Unusual Uses Test, which required them to generate novel uses of a garbage bag, and an Exemplar Generation Task, which required them to retrieve exemplars in the conceptual domain of “occupation.” Individual differences in the amount of intercultural experience the participants had, as well as in openness to experience, were measured. Among participants who were relatively open to new experience, those who reported more extensive intercultural experiences generated more unusual uses of a garbage bag (both in terms of number and strategy), as well as more normatively inaccessible occupation exemplars than did their close-minded counterparts. Apart from promoting integrative responses in intercultural experiences, openness to experience could attenuate exclusionary reactions even in the face of cultural threats. On the one hand, globalization increases the frequency of intercultural contacts; on the other hand, it intensifies global competition among cultures. In some intercultural situations, people may interpret the inflow of foreign and global culture into their own cultural space as a threat to the integrity of their heritage culture. As mentioned earlier, when a symbol of foreign and global culture enters the sacred space of their culture, people may interpret the intrusion as a cultural threat and resist inflow of ideas and practices from other cultures, which, in turn, limits the development of creative thinking. This situation, according to our previous discussion, is likely to fuel exclusionary responses toward foreign cultures. The critical question here is: can being open to experience cool down these exclusionary responses? To answer this question, in one study (Chen, Leung, Yang, & Chiu, 2012), Chinese participants completed the Openness to Experience measure and rated the extent to which McDonald’s is a symbol 196

of American culture. Next, half of the participants were shown a picture with the logo of McDonald’s (the Golden Arch) superimposed on a picture of the Great Wall (a sacred space in Chinese culture). Among those who perceived McDonald’s to be a symbol of American culture, this advertisement would evoke the perception of cultural intrusion, incite exclusionary responses (Chiu, Wan et  al., 2010), and inhibit integrative responses. This did happen among participants with a relatively low level of openness to experience. Following the manipulation, participants completed a creativity task that required them to generate three analogies of happiness. The dependent variable was creative performance, as measured by the level of creativity of the analogies generated by the participants after viewing the advertisement. Participants with lower levels of openness performed most poorly on the creativity task when they perceived McDonald’s to be a symbol of American culture and witnessed the intrusion of a McDonald’s logo into the Great Wall. In contrast, participants with relatively high levels of openness performed well regardless of the extent to which McDonald’s was seen as a symbol of American culture and whether the McDonald’s logo was placed over or next to the Great Wall. In the control condition, the McDonald’s logo was placed outside the picture of the Great Wall. In this condition, the openness of the participants, the perceived cultural significance of McDonald’s, and the placement of the McDonald’s logo in the picture did not affect the participants’ creative performance. In a second study (Chen et  al., 2012), which was also conducted in China, participants either read an article about how the inflow of Western culture has caused erosion of the essence and vitality of Chinese culture (cultural threat condition) or an article about how Western and Chinese cultures could co-exist harmoniously (no threat condition). Next, participants watched a slideshow that presented either some American cultural icons (e.g., “Abraham Lincoln”; single culture activation condition) or both Chinese and American cultural icons (e.g., “Abraham Lincoln” and “Mao Zedong” side-by-side; joint culture activation condition). As discussed earlier, joint culture activation would increase the perceived differences between cultures. This perception, when coupled with an impending cultural threat, is likely to evoke exclusionary responses and suppress integrative responses. Indeed, this was the case for participants with a relatively low level of openness to experience. Again, the dependent variable was the level of creativity

Psychological Science of Globaliz ation

exhibited by the analogies of happiness the participants generated after the manipulation. In the joint culture activation condition, participants who were relatively close-minded performed much more poorly on the creativity task following exposure to the cultural threat (vs. cultural continuity) message, suggesting that these participants were primarily concerned with preserving conventional ideas instead of generating new ones. In the joint cultural activation condition, among participants who were open to experience, exposure to the cultural threat (vs. cultural continuity) message had no effects on creative performance. In fact, when participants who were open to experience encountered symbols of Chinese and American cultures simultaneously, they became more aware of differences between cultures and were more motivated to learn from dissimilar cultures. This explains their high levels of creative performance in the joint culture activation condition. Finally, in the single culture activation condition, neither the cultural threat versus continuity message and openness to experience affected creative performance. This result once more affirms the importance of joint cultural activation as an enabling condition for both exclusionary and integrative responses. In summary, these results show that openness to experience can cool down exclusionary reactions and elicit integrative responses even in the presence of facilitative conditions for exclusionary responses.

Future Directions

Thus far, we have discussed the lay psychology of globalization, as well as people’s psychological reactions to foreign and global cultures in intercultural encounters. Globalization, being a multifaceted process, has many other implications. In this final section, we introduce several broader implications of globalization. We intend this brief introduction to be an invitation to broaden the research agenda of a psychological science of globalization.

Cosmopolitan and Global Identities

Globalization may initially generate discomfort due to cultural shock or disorientation (Chiu et al., 2011). Through increased intercultural contacts, people will come to recognize both the diversity of cultures and their interconnectedness. Awareness of cultural diversity and the connectedness of human cultures may inspire the construction of new

identities, such as global identity and cosmopolitan identity. Although the terms global identity and cosmopolitan identity are often used interchangeably, they are distinct theoretical constructs. Individuals with a cosmopolitan identity appreciate and embrace the manifestations of cultures in their many forms (Beck, 2006; Hall, 2002; Hannerz, 1990, 1996; Szerszynski & Urry, 2002, 2006). They support preservation of the authenticity of native cultures and resist colonization of indigenous cultures by global, capitalist culture. These individuals are often consumers of authentic cultures who patronize native arts and lobby for the protection of heritage sites. They embrace opportunities to explore beyond what is familiar: experience ethnic food, try foreign sports, travel outside the home country, and meet people from culturally different backgrounds (Kleingeld & Brown, 2011). In addition to personal consumption choices, individuals who identify with cosmopolitanism promote sensitivity and tolerance to cultural differences and support cultural diversity (Woodward, Skrbis, & Bean, 2008). In contrast, individuals with a global identity perceive cultural borders to be arbitrary and may even view them as obstacles to the development of universal ethics. They romanticize what a global village would be like, hold a set of beliefs and attitudes that emphasize an open mindset to foreign cultures, and have a vision of participating in a global community. Individuals who identify themselves as global citizens advocate global governance that is transnational and independent from specific nations. In the economic realm, they favor free trade of goods and services and less tariff or related trade barriers between nations. In the domain of ethics, they give the same rights and privileges to all human beings regardless of their citizenship and ethnicity (Kleingeld & Brown, 2011). In short, whereas the cosmopolitan identity embraces the value of respecting global heterogeneity, the global identity emphasizes the connectedness of human communities and privileges removing unnecessary political, economic, and ethical boundaries between local communities. An important future research question concerns how cosmopolitan and global identities may play a role in people’s exclusionary and integrative responses to intercultural influence. A recent study (Morris, Mok, & Mor, 2011) showed that, in Hong Kong, many people would react negatively to culture mixing:  reviewing books on Asian cultures written in English or books on Western cultures Leung, Qiu, Chiu


written in Asian languages would increase their close-mindedness. However, having a global identity would attenuate such exclusionary responses to culture mixing. Future research can follow-up on this finding to explicate the role of cosmopolitan and global identities in people’s behaviors in intercultural contacts.

Media Impact and International Relations Implications

As illustrated in the Yang et  al. (2011) multidimensional scaling study of globalization, many people consider the Internet to be a major aspect of globalization. The widespread use of the Internet and other online technologies has dramatically reduced the geographical distance between nations. Emerging social media (e.g., Facebook) and three-dimensional (3D) virtual worlds (e.g., Second Life) allow individuals to easily experience foreign cultures without having to move to the physical locations where these cultures originated. Social media are different from traditional media such as newspapers or movies in that they enable individuals to actively participate in interpersonal cultural exchanges rather than passively receiving information. Through the Internet and 3D technology, virtual worlds such as Second Life provide users ample opportunities to engage in real-time immersive social interactions. Users can personalize their avatar to represent their own self or cultural identity and to communicate with people from other cultures using texts and body gestures. Social media platforms such as Facebook produce billions bytes of social content every day, reflecting users’ everyday behaviors, thoughts, and feelings. By joining foreign online communities and consuming social contents produced by people from other cultures, one can easily learn about the social norms and practices in these foreign cultures. Furthermore, online communities often reflect an epitome of the culture of their hosting countries. In recent research, Qiu, Lin, and Leung (2013) compared two technically similar online platforms, Renren (a Chinese social networking site) and Facebook (an American social networking site) and found that the Renren culture is more collectivist than the Facebook culture, in that it is more hierarchical, sharing-oriented, and conformity-oriented. More interestingly, users performed more benevolent in-group sharing (e.g., sharing information about graduate school applications) on Renren than on Facebook, and the same users displayed flexible switching of online sharing behaviors in response 198

to the online culture they participated in. These findings offer preliminary evidence of how users learn and adopt cultural practices in foreign online communities. Social media, either traditional or online, could have significant impacts on people’s attitudes’ toward foreign countries. A recent study (Gries, Crowson, & Cai, 2011) showed that Americans with more interpersonal contact and knowledge about China have less prejudice toward the Chinese people, and attitude toward the Chinese people is a stronger predictor of foreign policy preference than is the attitude toward the Chinese government. Exposure to media news coverage of China has a mixed impact on policy preference. Increased media exposure is associated with a preference for a friendlier foreign policy but is also associated with increased knowledge about China, which is, in turn, associated with more negative attitudes toward the Chinese government. These results suggest that cultural exchange may lead to profound attitude change toward foreign people and governments, with these attitudes not necessarily aligning with each other.

Health and Social Implications

The implications on health and societal problems brought about by globalization tend to receive relatively scant research attention. Globalization is an important source of societal changes. If these changes occur too rapidly, they can breed societal problems. For example, the Japanese employment system is known for granting senior employees in large corporations with job security and stable social connections. Obtaining a permanent position in a large company is considered a typical means to becoming a respected member of the society. However, with globalization exporting Western cultural values of independence, competition, and egalitarianism into Japanese society, the Japanese labor market is pressured to change. For example, companies are no longer expected to provide many long-term employment opportunities to fresh college graduates. Unable to secure a position in the traditional long-term employment system, many youth might have chosen to completely wi