benet-martinez_2011_multicultural minds_a dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition

8/11/2019 Benet-Martinez_2011_Multicultural Minds_A Dynamic Constructivist Approach to Culture and Cognition

1/26

C H A P T E R

59

58

57

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 25 MulticulturalismCultural, Social, and Personality ProcessesVernica Benet-Martnez

Multiculturalism is a fact of life for many people.Te global increase in intercultural contact due tofactors such as immigration, speed of travel andcommunication, and international corporate pres-ence is diffi cult to ignore. Undoubtedly, multicul-turalism and globalization influence how people seethemselves and others, and how they organize the

world around them. ake, for instance, U.S.President Barack Hussein Obama. Obama straddlescountries and cultures (Hammack, 2010). Te sonof a Kenyan and an American, he studied the Quran

in his youth and as an adult he was baptized. Hismulticultural background enables him to speak thelanguage of a globalized world, in which people ofdiverse origins encounter each other and negotiatecommon meaning across shrinking cultural divides(Saleh, 2009). Obama exemplifies the word multi-culturalism as a biracial individual from a multicul-tural family who has lived in various countries; also,several of his key advisors have also lived outside theUnited States (Bartholet & Stone, 2009), and almosthalf of his cabinet are racial or ethnic minorities

(Wolf, 2009). In fact, in his inaugural speech,Obama stated that multiculturalism is a nationalstrength (Obama, 2009), and since then, he hasdeliberately set out to select a diverse cabinet, basedon the premise that multicultural individuals haveinsights, skills, and unique psychological experiencesthat contribute to society (Nguyen & Benet-Martnez, 2010).

Te prevalence and importance of multicultural-ism has long been acknowledged in psychology(e.g., Hermans & Kempen, 1998; LaFromboise,

Coleman, & Gerton, 1993), yet the phenomenonhas been investigated empirically only in the lastdecade or so. However, the study of multicultural-ism has exciting and transformative implications forsocial and personality psychology, as the issue ofhow individuals develop a sense of national, cul-tural, ethnic, and racial group membership becomesparticularly meaningful in situations of culturalclashing, mixing, and integration (Baumeister,1986; Deaux, 2006; Phinney, 1999). Furthermore,the individual and contextual factors that influence

Abstract

This chapter discusses the psychological and societal processes involved in the phenomenon ofmulticulturalism. An emphasis is placed on reviewing and integrating relevant findings and theories

stemming from cultural, personality, and social psychology. The chapter includes sections devoted to

defining multiculturalism at the individual, group, and societal level, discussing the links between

acculturation and multiculturalism, how to best operationalize and measure multicultural identity, the

issue of individual differences in multicultural identity, and the possible psychological and societal

benefits of multiculturalism. The chapter concludes with a discussion of future challenges and needed

directions in the psychological study of multiculturalism.

Keywords: multiculturalism, multicultural, biculturalism, bicultural, diversity, intercultural, biculturalidentity integration, identity

25 Deaux 25.indd 62325-Deaux-25.indd 623 8/23/2011 4:58:13 PM8/23/2011 4:58:13 PM

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRST-PROOF, 24/08/2011, GLYPH


2/26

105

104

103

102

101

100

99

98

97

96

95

94

93

92

91

90

89

88

87

86

85

84

83

82

81

80

79

78

77

76

75

74

73

72

71

70

69

68

67

66

65

64

63

62

61

60

59

58

57

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 how an individual makes sense of his/her multicul-tural experiences provide personality psychologists

with another window through which to study indi-vidual differences in identity and self-concept. Infact, as Phinney (1999) eloquently said, increasingnumbers of people find that the conflicts are notbetween different groups but between different cul-tural values, attitudes, and expectations withinthemselves (p. 27, italics added).

Te study of multiculturalism also affords uniquemethodological tools to social and personality psy-chologists. By virtue of having two or more culturesthat can be independently manipulated, multicul-tural individuals give researchers a quasi-experimen-tal design ideal for the study of how culture affectsbehavior (Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martnez,2000). In addition, previously identified cross-cul-

tural differences can be replicated in experimentswith multicultural individuals without the coun-founding effects (i.e., differences in SES, translationissues) that often characterize cross-national com-parisons ( Ramirez-Esparza, Gosling, Benet-Martnez,Potter, & Pennebaker, 2006; Sanchez-Burks et al.,2003).

With the increase of cultural diversity in aca-demic, political, and media spheres, empiricalresearch on multiculturalism has finally begun toappear in social and personality psychology jour-nals. Te main goal of this chapter is to review and

integrate this research and propose an agenda forfuture studies. However, because multiculturalismissues are very new to empirical social and personal-ity psychology, this chapter also includes sectionsdevoted to defining the constructs of multicultural-ism and multicultural identity, summarizing therelevant work from the field of acculturation stud-ies, and discussing how to best operationalize andmeasure multiculturalism (see also Hong, Wan, No,& Chiu, 2007).

Defining Multiculturalism: Individual,

Intergroup, and Societal LevelsWho is multicultural? Tere are many definitions ofmulticulturalism, ranging from general (i.e., basedon demographic characteristics) to psychologicallyspecific conceptualizations (e.g., cultural identifica-tions or orientations). Broadly speaking, those whoare mixed-race and mixed-ethnic, those who havelived in more than one country (such as expatriates,international students, immigrants, refugees, andsojourners), those reared with at least one other cul-ture in addition to the dominant mainstream cul-ture (such as children of immigrants or colonized

people), and those in intercultural relationships mayall be considered multicultural (Berry, 2003; Padilla,2006).1 In the United States alone, multiculturalindividuals may include the 13% who are foreign-born, the 34% who are nonwhite, and the 20% whospeak a language other than English at home (U.S.Census Bureau, 2006). High numbers of multicul-tural individuals (10% of the population by someestimates) can also be found in other nations wheremigration is strong (e.g., Canada, Australia, westernEurope, Singapore) or where there is a history ofcolonization (e.g., Hong Kong).

Psychologically, there is no commonly agreeddefinition of multiculturalism. Loosely speaking,multiculturalism can be defined as the experience ofhaving been exposed to and having internalized twoor more cultures (Hong et al., 2000; Nguyen &

Benet-Martnez, 2007).

2

More specifically, multicul-tural individuals are those who display multiculturalcompetence, that is, display cultural behaviors suchas language use, choice of friends, media preferences,value systems, and so forth, that are representative oftwo or more cultures (LaFromboise et al., 1993).Multicultural individuals are also those who self-label (e.g., I am multicultural) or for whom groupself-categorization (e.g., I am American and I amChinese; I am Chinese-American) reflects theircultural pluralism. Relatedly, multicultural identityis the condition of having attachments with and loy-

alties toward these different cultures (Benet-Martnez& Haritatos, 2005).Note then that multicultural identity is only one

component (although perhaps the most importantone) of the more complex and multidimensionalnotion of multiculturalism. Tat is, an individual

who has been exposed to and has learned more thanone culture is a multicultural person, but only whenthis individual expresses an attachment with thesecultures can we say that the individual has a multi-cultural identity. Tis is because acquisition ofknowledge from a new culture does not always pro-

duce identification with that culture (Hong et al.,2007). Tus multicultural identity involves a sig-nificant degree of identification with more than oneculture; however, it does not presuppose similardegrees of identification with all the internalizedcultures. Lastly, having a multicultural identityinvolves following the norms of more than one cul-ture, or at least being cognizant of them (see latersection on variations in multicultural identity); thispremise is supported by social identity researchshowing that individuals who identify strongly (vs.

weakly) with a culture are more likely to follow that




3/26

-

105

104

103

102

101

100

99

98

97

96

95

94

93

92

91

90

89

88

87

86

85

84

83

82

81

80

79

78

77

76

75

74

73

72

71

70

69

68

67

66

65

64

63

62

61

60

59

58

57

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 cultures norms (Jetten, Postmes, & McAuliffe,2002), and that for these individuals cultural normshave greater impact on behavioral intentions thanpersonal attitudes (erry, Hogg, & White, 1999).

Societal and Intergroup LevelsAs described in Nguyen and Benet-Martnez (2010),the terms multicultural and bicultural are typi-cally used to describe individuals, but they can alsobe used to describe nations and states (e.g., bicul-tural and bilingual Quebec, where Anglo- andFrancophone cultures coexist), institutions and pol-icies (e.g., multicultural education), and groups(e.g., multicultural teams). Although the term isrecent, the concept of biculturalism dates back tothe origins of modern Canada (1774, when Britishauthorities allowed French Canadians full use of

their language, system of civil law, and freedom topractice their Roman Catholicism). Biculturalismshould not be confused with bilingualism (havingfluency in two languages), although these terms areconceptually related since often (but not always)bicultural individuals and institutions are also bilin-gual (Grosjean, 1996; Lambert, 1978).3

Multicultural ideology and policies advocate thatsociety and organizations should include and equallyvalue distinct cultural groups ( Fowers & Richardson,1996). Although the term multiculturalism istypically used to acknowledge the presence of the

distinct cultures of immigrant groups, sometimes itcan also be applied to acknowledge the presence ofindigenous peoples in colonized nations. Oneassumption behind the multicultural ideology isthat public acceptance and recognition of ones cul-ture and opportunities for multicultural interac-tions are crucial for self-worth and well-being(Burnet, 1995). Support for this argument is foundin counseling (Sue & Sue, 2003), education (Banks& Banks, 1995), corporate (Plaut, Tomas, &Goren, 2009), and developmental contexts (Berry,Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006; Yip, Seaton, &

Sellers, 2006).Multiculturalism has been formally adopted asan offi cial policy in nations such as Canada,

Australia, and the Netherlands, for reasons that varyfrom country to country. Multicultural policiesinfluence the structures and decisions of govern-ments to ensure that political and economicresources are allocated equitably to all representedcultural groups. Examples of government-endorsedmulticultural policies are dual citizenship, govern-ment support for media outlets (e.g., newspapers,television, radio) in minority languages, support for

cultural minority holidays, celebrations, and com-munity centers, establishment of offi cial multilin-gual policies, and acceptance of traditional andreligious codes of dress and behavior in the publicsphere (e.g., work, school).

Not all minority groups are perceived to deservemulticultural policies equally. ypically, multicul-tural recognition and rights are more easily given toinvoluntary groups (colonized people, descen-dents of slaves, refugees) than to immigrants.Supposedly, these immigrants would have waivedtheir demands and rights by voluntary leaving theircountry of origin. In other words, multiculturalpolicies tend to be less supported in relation toimmigrant groups than in relation to involuntaryminorities (Verkuyten, 2007). In fact, work closelyexamining multicultural attitudes and their effects

from both the minority and majority perspectivesreveals some interesting moderating factors (seeVerkuyten, 2007, and Berry, 2006, for excellentreviews). For instance, minorities (e.g., urkish,Moroccan in the Netherlands) are more likely toendorse multiculturalism than members of an ethnicmajority group (e.g., Dutch). Cross-national dataon multiculturalism validates this finding (Deaux,Reid, Martin, & Bikmen, 2006; Schalk-Soekar,2007; Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2006; Wolskoet al., 2006). Further, in-group identification is pos-itively related to endorsement of multiculturalism

for minority individuals, while this link is negativeamong majority individuals (Verkuyten &Martinovic, 2006). Te fact that multiculturalismappeals more to ethnic minority groups than tomajority group members is not surprising, giventhat the gains of this policy are more obvious to theformer group (Berry, 2006; Berry & Kalin, 1995;Verkuyten & Tijs, 1999). Studies have also foundthat minorities endorsement of multiculturalism islinked to positive ingroup evaluation, while formajorities endorsement of multiculturalism isrelated to positive outgroup views (Verkuyten,

2005). Lastly, endorsement of multiculturalism ispositively associated to self-esteem for both minor-ity and majority individuals who identify strongly

with their ethnic group (Verkuyten, 2009). Tissuggests that multicultural recognition provides anormative context in which both majorities andminorities with high levels of ethnic identificationcan feel good about themselves (Verkuyten & Tijs,2004).

A promising line of research conducted by Vander Zee and colleagues (e.g., Van der Zee, Atsma, &Brodbeck, 2004; Van der Zee & Van der Gang, 2007)




4/26

106

105

104

103

102

101

100

99

98

97

96

95

94

93

92

91

90

89

88

87

86

85

84

83

82

81

80

79

78

77

76

75

74

73

72

71

70

69

68

67

66

65

64

63

62

61

60

59

58

57

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 has been examining the interactive role between indi-vidual factors such as personality (i.e., traits related tomulticultural effectiveness, Van der Zee & VanOudenhoven, 2000) and social identity, and contex-tual pressures in how individuals respond to situa-tions involving cultural diversity. Tis work hasshown, for instance, that individuals high in extraver-sion and initiative respond more favorably to inter-cultural situations, but these differences disappearunder threat (Van der Zee & Van der Gang, 2007).Tis finding suggests that the link between socialtraits and success in culturally diverse contexts is notdriven by a special ability to deal with the potentialthreat of cultural differences but rather by the socialstimulation afforded by culturally diverse situations.Te study also showed that individual differences inneuroticism are linked to reactions toward cultural

diversity only under conditions of threat. Given theincreasingly global nature of todays workforce, thiswork promises to be very informative with regard towhich competencies minority and majority membersneed to possess to facilitate constructive interculturalinteractions.

Not surprisingly, multiculturalism is a controver-sial issue in some societies. Some political segments

within the United States and some European nationsview multiculturalism as a policy that promotes groupstereotyping and negative outgroup feelings andundermines national unity, social integration, and

even security (Huntington, 2004). Alternatives tomulticulturalism propone, explicitly or implicitly,policies supportive of monoculturalism (normativecultural unity or homogeneity), assimilation (thebelief that cultural minorities should abandon theiroriginal culture and adopt the majority culture), ornativism (return to the original settlers culturaltraitse.g., English, Protestantism, and American lib-eralism in the case of the United States). Underlyingthese views is the belief that the majority-based mac-roculture is substantive (i.e., essential), foundational(i.e., original and primary), and that it provides the

moral center for society; the legitimacy of this mac-roculture thus is always prior to the social phenomenonthat may potentially shape it.

Unfortunately, most popular discussions in favor/against multiculturalism involve an implicit dichoto-mization of complex political and psychologicalissues: opposition between universalism and particu-larism, between unity and fragmentation, betweenright and left (Hartman & Gerteis, 2005). Recentmulticulturalism theory departs from this aforemen-tioned unidimensional space and makes a distinctionbetween the social and the cultural dimensions,

thereby identifying three distinct types of multicul-tural ideologies: cosmopolitanism, fragmented plu-ralism, and interactive pluralism (Hartman &Gerteis, 2005). A review of each these three multi-culturalism approaches reveals issues and constructsthat are highly relevant to social psychology, and thestudy social identity and intergroup dynamics inparticular. For instance, the cosmopolitan approachrecognizes the social value of diversity, but it is skep-tical about the obligations and constraints that groupmembership and societal cohesion can place on indi-viduals (Hartman & Gerteis, 2005). In a way, thisapproach defends cultural diversity to the extent itsupports and facilitates individual rights and free-doms (Bilbeny, 2007). Tus, the cosmopolitanapproach supports a strong macrosocial boundaryand weak internal groups and emphasizes the perme-

ability of cultural group membership and boundar-ies (Hollinger, 1995). Here cultural group qualitiesare neutralized rather than negated (as in the assimi-lationist approach), and policies are to ensure thatevery individual is free to choose her or his place inthe ethnic mosaic. An example of this type of weakgroup identification is the white ethnic identity ofmany Americans who self-identify as Irish Americanor Italian American. Note that these group affi lia-tions do not imply adopting a separatist identity oreven strong identity, because there is no societal pres-sure to choose between this and other forms of cul-

tural/ethnic identifications, and also because there isnothing about being Irish that is particularly intension with being American (Hartman & Gerteis,2005).

Tefragmented pluralismapproach, on the otherhand, endorses weaker macrosocial boundaries butvery strong internal groups and boundaries giventhat cultural group membership is seen as essentialrather than partial and voluntaristic (Young, 2000).Structurally, this approach is the most opposite toassimilation. In fragmented pluralism the focus ison the recognition and maintenance of group rights

and distinctive group cultures (e.g., separate institu-tions or practices), and the state is seen mainly as atool for cohesion given its role as a force mediatingbetween different group claims and value systems,

which at times may be divergent or in some casesdirectly opposed. Te phenomenon of segmentedassimilation described by the sociologists Portesand Rumbaut (2001), can be seen as evidence forthe existence of fragmented pluralism in the UnitedStates: Assimilation into mainstream society byimmigrants and their descendents is uneven due tothe fact that different groups are available to which




5/26

-

105

104

103

102

101

100

99

98

97

96

95

94

93

92

91

90

89

88

87

86

85

84

83

82

81

80

79

78

77

76

75

74

73

72

71

70

69

68

67

66

65

64

63

62

61

60

59

58

57

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 the immigrants may assimilate into (e.g., majorityculture middle class, urban underclass) and to thefact that these different groups afford differentopportunities to the immigrant groups. Lastly, theinteractive pluralismapproach, like the fragmentedpluralism view, also prioritizes the role of groups,but it mainly stresses groups-in-interaction. Tisapproach sees group interactions as essential, notonly because group interactions facilitate societalcohesion and harmony but also because from theseinteractions a new and constantly redefined mac-roculture emerges (Alexander, 2001; aylor, 2001).Tat is, social boundaries and moral order are pro-duced in a democratic manner through the interac-tion of groups, and as cultural groups and theirinteractions change, the nature of the macrocultureitself changes. Because this dynamic and more com-

plex macroculture represents the complexity andreality of allgroups, it is thus is more easily recog-nized and valued by all. Tis view contrasts withcosmopolitanism or fragmented pluralism, wherethe macroculture tends to be thinner and essentiallyprocedural in nature.

Te above constructs (macro- and group-culture)and processes (group interaction, permeability ofcultural group membership and boundaries, proce-dural vs. substantive views of macroculture) arehighly relevant to some well-known social psycho-logical work. For instance, work on the common

group identity model (Gaertner, Dovidio, Nier,Ward, & Baker, 1999), social identity complexity(Roccas & Brewer, 2002), group identity dimen-sionality (Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, Halevy, &Eidelson, 2008), procedural justice (Huo, 2003),and system justification theory (Jost & Banaji,1994) speaks to some of the issues and processesunderlying the above multiculturalism modes.However, the psychological validity, viability, andconsequentiality of each of the models of multicul-turalism reviewed above remains untested; this is animportant gap that social psychology is in an ideal

position to fill, given its theoretical and method-ological richness.

Acculturation and MulticulturalismMulticulturalism and acculturation are tightly inter-twined, with multi/biculturalism being one of fouroutcomes of the acculturation process. raditionalviews of acculturation (the process of learning oradapting to a new culture) asserted that to accultur-ate means to assimilatethat is, adopting the newor dominant culture requires rejecting ones ethnicor original culture (Gordon, 1964). In other words,

acculturation originally was conceptualized as a uni-dimensional, one-directional, and irreversible pro-cess of moving toward the new mainstream cultureand away from the original ethnic culture (rimble,2003). However, a wealth of acculturation studiesconducted in the last 25 years (see Sam & Berry,2006, for a review), supports acculturation as a bidi-mensional, two-directional, multidomain complexprocess, in which assimilation into the mainstreamculture is not the only way to acculturate. In other

words, equating acculturation with assimilation issimply inaccurate.

Te bidimensional model of acculturation isbased on the premise that acculturating individualshave to deal with two central issues, which comprisethe two cultural orientations of acculturation (Berry,2003): (1) the extent to which they are motivated or

allowed to retain identification and involvementwith the culture of origin, now the nonmajority,ethnic culture; and (2) the extent to which they aremotivated or allowed to identify with and partici-pate in the mainstream, dominant culture. Tenegotiation of these two central issues results in fourdistinct acculturation positions (see left side ofFigure 25.1): assimilation (involvement and identi-fication with the dominant culture only), integra-tion/biculturalism (involvement and identification

with both cultures), separation (involvement andidentification with the ethnic culture only), or mar-

ginalization (lack of involvement and identificationwith either culture; see Rudmin, 2003, for a thor-ough discussion of this strategy). Empirical work onthe these four acculturation attitudes or strategiesreveals that, at least at the individual level, the mostcommon strategy used by immigrant and culturalminorities is integration/biculturalism, followedby separation, assimilation, and marginalization(Berry et al., 2006; Sam & Berry, 2006). Further,there is now robust evidence supporting the psycho-metric validity of the multidimensional model ofacculturation and its advantages over unidimen-

sional models in predicting a wide array of outcomes(Flannery, Reise, & Yu, 2001; Ryder, Allen, &Paulhus, 2000).

Cross-national acculturation studies have founda zero or even positive association between national/mainstream identity and ethnic identity in settlercountries such as the United States (r = .15), Canada(.09), or New Zealand (.32), which have a long tra-dition of immigration (see able 4.1 in Phinney,Berry, Vedder, & Liebkind, 2006). However, thisassociation is often moderately negative in nonset-tler countries such as France (-.13), Germany (-.28),




6/26


7/26

-

105

104

103

102

101

100

99

98

97

96

95

94

93

92

91

90

89

88

87

86

85

84

83

82

81

80

79

78

77

76

75

74

73

72

71

70

69

68

67

66

65

64

63

62

61

60

59

58

57

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 immigrants and expatriates desiring to keep alivetheir original ways of thinking and feeling that is,desiring to maintain the accessibility of constructsfrom their home culture, often surround themselves

with stimuli priming that culture (e.g., ethnic food,art, and music) (Sedikides, Wildschut, Routledge,

Arndt & Zhou, 2009). Tese active processes ofpriming oneself may help multicultural individualsin their ongoing effort to negotiate and express theircultural identities (Hong et al., 2000).

Te CFS processes described above can also beunderstood as a form of multicultural identity per-formance (Wiley & Deaux, 2011). Identity perfor-mance involves the purposeful expression (orsuppression) of behaviors relevant to those normsconventionally associated with a salient social iden-tity (Klein, Spears, & Reicher, 2007 , p. 30).

According to this framework, multicultural individ-uals do not passively react to cultural cues; ratherthey actively manage their identity presentation inresponse to the type of audience and macrocontext(e.g., presence of members from one culture or theother, or both), and the categorization (e.g., low vs.high status) and treatment received by this audience,thus behaving in ways designed to elicit recognitionor confirmation of their important identities(Barreto, Spears, Ellemers, & Shahinper, 2003;

Wiley & Deaux, 2011). For instance, when AsianAmerican individuals are in situations where their

Americanness is being questioned (because of theirappearance, race, language, or norms), they react toAmerican cues with behaviors that assert and rein-force American identity practicesfor example, bylisting more U.S. television shows and advertising an

American lifestyle (Cheryan & Monin, 2005).Interestingly, none of these reactions seems to bringhigher identification and pride with American cul-ture or lower identification and pride with being

Asian; this would support the identity performanceview that CFS and behaviors such as the aboveinvolve strategic identity presentations rather than

fundamental changes in identity evaluation andmeaning. In short, multicultural identities areexpressed differently depending on the opportunitiesafforded (and denied) by a given context, includingother peoples (actual and anticipated) evaluations,expectations, and behaviors (see Figure 1 in Wiley &Deaux, 2011).

Lastly, it is important to point out that the accul-turation perspective does not presuppose that mul-ticultural individuals internalize and use their

different cultures globally and uniformly (Nguyen& Benet-Martnez, 2010). Acculturation changescan take place in many different domains of life:language use or preference, social affi liation, com-munication style, cultural identity and pride, andcultural knowledge, beliefs, and values (Zane &Mak, 2003); and acculturation changes in some ofthese domains may occur independently of changesin other components. For instance, a Japanese

American bicultural individual may endorse Anglo-American culture behaviorally and linguistically andyet be very Japanese (ethnic culture) in terms of her/his values and attitudes. Similarly, a Mexican

American bicultural individual can behave in waysthat are predominantly Mexican (e.g., speak mostlySpanish, live in a largely Mexican neighborhood)and yet display great pride in and attitudinal attach-

ment to American culture. In fact, some recentacculturation work suggests that, independently ofhow much the mainstream culture is internalizedand practiced, some immigrants and their descen-dents adhere to the ethnic cultural values even morestrongly than members of their home country, prob-ably because they can become gradually encapsu-lated within the norms and values of an earlier erain their homeland, (Kim-Jo, Benet-Martnez, &Ozer, 2010; Kosmitzki, 1996). What might drivethis cultural encapsulationphenomenon? First, whenimmigrant groups arrive to a new country, they

bring with them the values and norms of their homeculture at that time. As time passes, the home cul-ture may undergo change (e.g., modernization, glo-balization), but immigrants continue to transmitthis original cultural values and norms they brought

with them (Matsumoto, 2000). Second, as immi-grants multicultural contacts with both the major-ity and other minority members increase, culturalclash and the possibility of cultural assimilation(particularly for their children) become more real;therefore, reactive (conscious or unconscious)behaviors, motives, or cognitive associations that

reflect higher salience and strengthening of the orig-inal home culture may arise in response (ethnic cul-tural reaffi rmation effect; Bond & Yang, 1982;Kosmitzki, 1996).

Te drivers and outcomes of acculturation (andits multiculturalism mode) are not constant butrather dynamic and vary across time and localand national contexts (Schwartz & Unger, 2010).

As seen above, these forces may operate differentlydepending on the immigrant group and receivingsociety. Lastly, it is important to acknowledgethat acculturation is simultaneously interpersonal,




8/26

105

104

103

102

101

100

99

98

97

96

95

94

93

92

91

90

89

88

87

86

85

84

83

82

81

80

79

78

77

76

75

74

73

72

71

70

69

68

67

66

65

64

63

62

61

60

59

58

57

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 intrapersonal (see this chapters section on individ-ual differences in multicultural identity), and con-textually influenced (Schwartz & Unger, 2010).

Tus far, the discussion of acculturation has beenat the individual level, but acculturation is also tiedto multiculturalism at the societal level. As depictedin the right side of Figure 25.1, at the societal level,there are also four strategies corresponding to thefour individual acculturation strategies (Berry,2003). Countries with public policies that promotethe assimilation of acculturating individuals aredescribed as melting pots. Tose that encourageseparation are referred to as segregationist, and thosethat promote marginalization are labeled exclusion-ary (see also previous section, where I reviewedassimilation views and three possible multicultural-ism approaches described by Hartman & Gerteis,

2005). Most importantly, national policies support-ing the integration/biculturalism strategy are con-sidered multicultural (Ward & Masgoret, 2008).For example, Canadas multicultural policies encour-age ethnic and cultural groups to maintain, develop,and share their cultures with others as well as toaccept and interact with other groups (Berry, 1984).

Although acculturating individuals by and largeprefer the bicultural or integration strategy, in real-ity, most host countries are melting pots, encourag-ing the assimilation of acculturating individualsinto the dominant culture (Van Oudenhoven,

Ward, & Masgoret, 2006). Consequently, whennational policies and dominant groups accultura-tion attitudes do not match with acculturating indi-viduals strategies, conflicts and problems inintergroup relations may arise (Bourhis, Mose,Perreault, & Sencal, 1997; Jasinskaja-Lahti,Liebkind, Horenczyk, & Schmitz, 2003). Tus,public policies regarding acculturation and multi-culturalism undoubtedly can affect interculturalrelations within a country, especially as changingglobal migration patterns diversify many nationsaround the world.

Multicultural Identity: Operationalizationand MeasurementPsychological acculturation, and the narrower con-structs of biculturalism and multiculturalism havebeen operationalized and measured in a variety of

ways, including unidimensional scales, bidimen-sional scales (e.g., median-split, addition, multipli-cation, and subtraction methods), direct measuresof acculturation strategies, cultural identificationquestion(s), or simple demographic questions. Anexhaustive review of the available instruments and

theoretical and psychometric issues involved inmeasuring biculturalism (and acculturation) isbeyond the scope of this paper (see Arends-th &van de Vijver, 2006; Zane & Mak, 2003; for excel-lent reviews). Accordingly, I provide instead a prac-tical and brief summary of the available approachesand their pros and cons.

Early attempts at measuring biculturalism reliedon bipolar, single-dimension scales that explicitly orimplicitly reflected a unidirectional view of accul-turation. In this framework, low scores or the start-ing point of the scale typically reflected separation,and high scores or the other end of the scale reflectedassimilation, with biculturalism being tapped bymiddle scores or the midpoint of the scale (e.g.,Cullar, Harris, & Jasso, 1980; Rotheram-Borus,1990; Suinn, Rickard-Figueroa, Lew, & Vigil,

1987). Tese unidimensional scales should beavoided because they equate involvement and iden-tification with one culture to a lack of involvementand identification with the other culture. In addi-tion, these scales confound biculturalism and mar-ginalization. For example, a scale item may beWhom do you associate with? and the responsechoices may be labeled with 1 = mostly individuals

from the ethnic culture, 2 = individuals from both theethnic and dominant cultures equally, 3 = mostly indi-viduals from the dominant culture. A bicultural indi-vidual would select 2 because he/she has many

friends from both cultures, but a marginalized indi-vidual may also select 2 but because his/her lackof socialization with members from each culture issimilar.

With the increased adoption of the bidimen-sional model of acculturation came an increase inthe number of bidimensional scales, where involve-ment with ethnic and dominant cultures is mea-sured in two separate multi-item scales. With thismethod, biculturalism can be operationalized in dif-ferent ways. ypically, bicultural individuals arethose who have scores above the median (e.g., Ryder

et al., 2000; sai, Ying, & Lee, 2000) or midpoint(e.g., Don & Berry, 1994) on both cultural orien-tations. More recently, cluster analyses (e.g., Lee,Sobal, & Frongillo, 2003) and latent class analyses(e.g., Stevens, Pels, Vollebergh, & Crijnen, 2004)have also been used to create categories of accultura-tion strategies, including the integration or bicul-tural strategy. Tis typological approach allowsresearchers to differentiate bicultural individualsfrom other acculturating types (assimilated, sepa-rated, or marginalized) but does not provide a bicul-turalism score. Other, nontypological ways of




9/26

-

104

103

102

101

100

99

98

97

96

95

94

93

92

91

90

89

88

87

86

85

84

83

82

81

80

79

78

77

76

75

74

73

72

71

70

69

68

67

66

65

64

63

62

61

60

59

58

57

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 operationalizing biculturalism when using bidimen-sional scales are to add the two cultural orientationsubscale scores (e.g., Cullar, Arnold, & Maldonado,1995) or combine them into an interaction term(Birman, 1998) so that low and high scores repre-sent low and high level of biculturalism respectively.One caveat of these last two methods is the diffi -culty in differentiating between individuals whohave medium scores on both cultural scales andthose who score very high on one scale and low onthe other. Lastly, some researchers have used amethod where scores on the two cultural orienta-tion scales are subtracted from another, so thatscores close to zero denote biculturalism (Szapocznik,Kurtines, & Fernandez, 1980). Tis approach is notrecommended because, like unidimensional mea-surement, it makes bicultural and marginalized

individuals indistinguishable from each other.Obviously, two key advantages of these multidi-mensional approaches are that the cultures of inter-est (e.g., ethnic, mainstream, and religious cultures),regardless of their number, can be independentlyassessed, and that their measurement can be tailoredto particular acculturating groups (e.g., mixed-raceindividuals, sojourners, etc.).5

Some researchers prefer to measure the accultura-tion strategies directly (e.g., Berry, Kim, Power,

Young, & Bujaki, 1989). Tese instruments typi-cally include four scales with statements capturing

favorable attitudes toward the integration (bicultur-alism), assimilation, separation, and marginalizationstrategies. Because each individual receives a scoreon each of these acculturation strategies, a biculturalindividual would be someone whose highest score ison the integration subscale. Tis widely usedapproach has some advantages over traditionalacculturation scales (e.g., it allows us to measure theconstruct of biculturalism attitudesdirectly) but itsuffers from some nontrivial conceptual and psycho-metric limitations (e.g., low score reliabilities, lackof scale independence; see Kang, 2006; Rudmin,

2003; Schwartz & Zamboanga, 2008; Zane & Mak,2003; for reviews).When time or reading levels are compromised,

researchers may choose to measure biculturalismwith one or two questions. For instance, biculturalindividuals can be those who self-identify with ahyphenated label (e.g., Persian-American) ratherthan an ethnic (e.g., Persian) or a national (e.g.,

American) label, those who endorse the label bicul-tural (vs. monocultural), or those who scoreabove the midpoint on two single items stating Ifeel/am U.S. American and I feel/am Chinese

(e.g., Benet-Martnez & Haritatos, 2005). Lastly,I should warn against the common practice of usingdemographic variables such as generational status,legal residence, or linguistic ability and preference,as a proxy for psychological acculturation (e.g.,Buriel, Calzada, & Vasquez, 1982). As mentionedearlier, bicultural involvement and identificationcan occur at different rates for different life domains,for different individuals, and for different culturalgroups, and demographic variables seem to be poorto modest predictors of these changes (Phinney,2003; Schwartz, Pantin, Sullivan, Prado, &Szapocznik, 2006).

Individual Differences in MulticulturalIdentity

I had been rowing back and forth, in a relentless

manner, between two banks of a wide river.Increasingly, what I wanted was to be a burning

boat in the middle of the water, visible to both

shores yet indecipherable in my fury.

l thi diem thy, 2003)

I am not half of anything. My identity has no

boundaries, nor do my experiences. Because

I am bicultural, it does not mean that Im lacking

anything. On the contrary, I like to think that

I have the best of both worlds. I like to think

that I have more.

Livingston(2003)

As the above quotes show, the process of negotiatingmultiple cultural identities is complex and multifac-eted. A careful review of the early (and mostly qual-itative) work on this topic in the acculturation (e.g.,Padilla, 1994; Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997)and popular (e.g., Chavez, 1994; OHearn, 1998)literatures reveals that multicultural individualsoften talk about their multiple cultural attachmentsin complicated ways, including both positive andnegative terms. Multiculturalism can be associated

with feelings of pride, uniqueness, and a rich sense

of community and history, while also bringing tomind identity confusion, dual expectations, andvalue clashes. Further, multicultural individuals dealdifferently with the implications of different cul-tural and racial stereotypes and the pressures comingfrom their different communities for loyalties andbehaviors (LaFromboise et al., 1993). An importantissue, then, is how particular personality disposi-tions, contextual pressures, and acculturationand demographic variables impact the process ofmulticultural identity formation and the meaningsassociated with this experience.



AU: Ok toinsert openingparenthesishere?


10/26

105

104

103

102

101

100

99

98

97

96

95

94

93

92

91

90

89

88

87

86

85

84

83

82

81

80

79

78

77

76

75

74

73

72

71

70

69

68

67

66

65

64

63

62

61

60

59

58

57

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 Although most acculturating individuals use theintegration/biculturalism strategy (Berry et al.,2006), research on acculturation has almost exclu-sively focused on individual differences acrossaccul-turation strategies rather than withinacculturationstrategies. Yet, not all bicultural individuals are alike.Early theoretical work on this issue is worth review-ing, even if briefly. In a seminal review of the bicul-turalism phenomenon, LaFromboise et al. (1993)described two biculturalism modes: alternationand

fusion. Alternating bicultural individuals switchtheir behaviors in response to situational culturaldemands, whereas fused bicultural individuals areoriented to a third emerging culture that is distinctfrom each of their two cultures (e.g., Chicano cul-ture). Birman (1994) expanded on LaFromboiseet al.s (1993) framework to describe four types of

bicultural individuals: blended (i.e., fused), instru-mental (individuals behaviorally oriented to bothcultures but identified with neither), integrated(individuals behaviorally oriented to both culturesbut identified with only their ethnic culture), andexplorers (behaviorally oriented to the dominantculture but identified with only their ethnic cul-ture). Phinney and Devich-Navarros (1997) quali-tative and quantitative study sought to empiricallyintegrate Berrys (2003), LaFromboise et al.s (1993),and Birmans (1994) conceptual models of bicultur-alism. Tis study identified two bicultural types

which were given labels similar to those inLaFromboise et al.s study: blended biculturalswhose narratives emphasized identification with acombination of the two cultures more than witheach culture separately, and alternating biculturalswho emphasized situational differences in how theysaw themselves culturally.

Tese researchers are credited with calling atten-tion to the experience of biculturalism and foradvancing this area of research; however, a concep-tual limitation of the above typologies is their con-founding of identity and behavioral markers.

Specifically, whereas the labels blended andfused refer to identity-related aspects of the bicul-tural experience (e.g., seeing oneself as Asian

American or Chicano), the label alternating refersto the behavioral domain, that is, the ability toengage in cultural frame-switching (Benet-Martnezet al., 2002). Naturally, individuals subjective expe-rience of their bicultural identity and their bicul-tural behavior/competencies do not have to maponto each other (Roccas & Brewer, 2002; Boski,2008). For instance, a bicultural individual mayhave a blended orfusedidentity (e.g., someone who

is sees him/herself as a product of both Jewish andAmerican cultures and accordingly identifies asJewish American) and also alternate(between speak-ing mainstream English and Yiddish depending onthe context; i.e., frame-switch). Tus researchersshould be aware that the two labels blended andalternating do not tap different types of biculturalindividuals but rather different components of thebicultural experience (i.e., identity in the case offused and behaviors in the case of alternating).

()After an extensive review and synthesis of the empir-ical and qualitative acculturation and multicultural-ism literature, Benet-Martnez et al. (2002) proposedthe theoretical construct of BII as a framework forinvestigating individual differences in bicultural

identity organization. BII captures the degree towhich biculturals perceive their mainstream andethnic cultural identities as compatible and inte-grated vs. oppositional and diffi cult to integrate(Benet-Martnez et al., 2002, p. 9). As an individualdifference variable, BII thus focuses on biculturalindividuals subjective perceptions of managingdual cultural identities (i.e., how they cognitivelyand affectively organize this experience). Teemphasis here is on subjective(i.e., the perceptionand experience of) cultural overlap and compatibil-ity because, as was found in a study of over 7,000

acculturating adolescents in 13 countries, objectivedifferences between ethnic and host cultures do notseem to relate to adjustment (Berry et al., 2006).

Bicultural individuals with high BII tend to seethemselves as part of a hyphenated culture (or evenpart of a combined, emerging third culture), andfind the two cultures largely compatible and easy tointegrate. Bicultural individuals with low BII, onthe other hand, tend to see themselves as living in-between cultures and report seeing the two culturesas largely conflictual and disparate. Interestingly,high and low BIIs have consistently emerged as sim-

ilar in their endorsement of Berrys integrativeacculturation strategy (Benet-Martnez, Lee, & Leu,2006; Benet-Martnez et al., 2002) and in basicdemographic variables such as years spent in theUnited States and age of migration; however, com-pared with high BIIs, low BIIs tend to be less profi-cient in English and less identified with Americanculture. Tis pattern underscores competence in thehost, majority culture as a key component of BII.

In summary, bicultural individuals high and lowon BII identify with both mainstream (e.g.,

American) and ethnic (e.g., Chinese) cultures but




11/26

-

106

105

104

103

102

101

100

99

98

97

96

95

94

93

92

91

90

89

88

87

86

85

84

83

82

81

80

79

78

77

76

75

74

73

72

71

70

69

68

67

66

65

64

63

62

61

60

59

58

57

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 differ in their ability to create a synergistic, inte-grated cultural identity. Although no construct inthe existing literature captures all the nuances ofBII, a few acculturation and ethnic minority theo-rists have discussed particular acculturation experi-ences and outcomes that seem to relate (if onlypartially) to the identity integration versus opposi-tion continuum defined by BII. Examples of theseconstructs are: identity synthesis (Schwartz,2006), blendedness (Padilla, 1994; Phinney &Devich-Navarro, 1997), bicultural competence(LaFromboise et al., 1993) versus cultural home-lessness (Vivero & Jenkins, 1999), alternatingbiculturalism (Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997 ),and oppositional identities (Cross, 1995; Ogbu,1993).

In their first study of BII, Benet-Martnez and

her colleagues (Benet-Martnez et al., 2002) dem-onstrated the psychological relevance of this indi-vidual difference variable by showing that variationsin BII moderate the process of cultural frame-switching. Specifically, Chinese-American bicultur-als high on BII (those who perceive their culturalidentities as compatible) exhibited culturally con-gruent behavior when presented with external cuesassociated with one of their cultural backgrounds(e.g., made stronger external attributions to anambiguous social event after being primed withChinese icons, and made stronger internal attribu-

tions to the same event after seeing American icons).However, Chinese-American biculturals low on BII(those who perceive their cultural identities to be inopposition), behaved in nonculturally congruent

ways when exposed to these same cues. Specifically,low BIIs exhibited Chinese-congruent behaviors(i.e., external attributions) in response to Americancues and American-congruent behaviors (internalattributions) in response to Chinese cues. In other

words, low BIIs exhibited a type of behavioral reac-tance that the sociocognitive literature describes asa contrast or reverse priming effect (Dijksterhuis

et al., 1998).Te above contrastive attributional responsesdisplayed by biculturals with low levels of BII havesince then been replicated (Cheng, Lee, & Benet-Martnez, 2006; Zou, Morris, & Benet-Martnez,2008), and a recent study shows these effects also inthe domain of personality self-views (Mok &Morris, 2009). As discussed in Benet-Martnez et al.(2002), the prime-inconsistent behavior of low BIIsis supported by academic and popular depictions ofcultural clash (e.g., Ogbu, 2008; Roth, 1969), whereinner cultural conflict is often described as leading

to behavioral and/or affective reactance against thecultural expectations embedded in particular situa-tions. For instance, in Roths novel, the conflictedbicultural protagonist finds himself feeling andacting particularly Jewish when traveling to theMidwest, and feeling/acting conspicuously American

when visiting Israel.6Research on BII reports a positive association

between BII and (1) psychological well-being, evenafter controlling for trait neuroticism (Chen, Benet-Martnez, & Bond, 2008; Downie et al., 2004); (2)creative performance (Cheng, Sanchez-Burks, &Lee, 2008); (3) having larger and more richly inter-connected social networks (Mok, Morris, Benet-Martnez, & Karakitapoglu-Aygun, 2007); (4)higher perceived similarity between ones minorityand majority cultural ingroups (Miramontez, Benet-

Martnez, & Nguyen, 2008); and (6) preference forculturally blended persuasive appeals (Lau-Gesk,2003).

Recent work on BII has also shown that BII isnot a unitary construct, as initially suggested in ear-lier work (e.g., Benet-Martnez et al., 2002). Instead,BII seems to involve two relatively independent psy-chological constructs, cultural harmonyversus con-flict and cultural blendedness versus distance, eachrepresenting unique and separate aspects of thedynamic intersection between mainstream andethnic cultural identities within bicultural individu-

als (Benet-Martnez & Haritatos, 2005). Culturalharmony versus conflict captures the degree of har-mony versus tension or clash felt between the twocultural orientations (e.g., I find it easy to balanceboth Chinese and American cultures vs. I feelcaught between the two cultures). Cultural blend-edness versus distance, on the other hand, capturesthe degree of overlap versus dissociation or com-partmentalization perceived between the two cul-tural orientations (e.g., I feel part of a combinedculture vs. I am simply a Chinese who lives in theUnited states). (See able 2 in Benet-Martnez &

Haritatos [2005] for original items and their factorstructure, and able 25.1 in this chapter for thenewly expanded Bicultural Identity IntegrationScaleVersion 2: BIIS-2.)

Te relative psychometric independence of BIIscomponents of cultural harmony and blendedness(correlations between the two scales range between.30 and .40) suggests that these two constructs areformativethat is, causalrather than reflective(i.e., effect) indicators of BII (Bollen & Lennox,1991). Tat is, rather than a latent construct withtwo resulting dimensions (cultural harmony and




12/26

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Table 25.1 Bicultural Identity Integration ScaleVersion 2 (BIIS-2; Huynh & Benet-Martnez, 2011)

BICULTURAL HARMONY VS. CONFLICT ITEMS:

I find it easy to harmonize __________ and American cultures.

I rarely feel conflicted about being bicultural.

I find it easy to balance both __________ and American cultures.

I do not feel trapped between the __________ and American cultures.*

I feel torn between __________ and American cultures. (R)

I feel that my __________ and American cultures are incompatible. (R)

Being bicultural means having two cultural forces pulling on me at the same time. (R)

I feel conflicted between the American and __________ ways of doing things. (R) *

I feel like someone moving between two cultures. (R) *

I feel caught between the __________ and American cultures. (R) *

BICULTURAL BLENDEDNESS VS. COMPARTMENTALIZATION ITEMS:

I feel __________ and American at the same time.

I relate better to a combined __________-American culture than to __________ or American culture alone.

I cannot ignore the __________ or American side of me.

I feel __________-American.*

I feel part of a combined culture.*

I find it diffi cult to combine __________ and American cultures. (R)

I do not blend my __________ and American cultures. (R)

I am simply a(n) __________ who lives in North America. (R) *

I keep __________ and American cultures separate. (R) *

Note:* Original items from the BIIS-1 (Benet-Martnez & Haritatos, 2005). R = Reverse score these items. Te BIIS-2 can be used with any ethnicminority culture and adapted to any host culture.

blendedness), BII should perhaps be understood asemerging or resulting from (rather than leading to)variations in cultural blendedness and harmony (seeFigure 25.2). Tus, behaviors, attitudes, and feel-

ings described by cultural researchers under therubric of low BII (e.g., the feelings of tension andincompatibility reported in the first quote openingthis section of the chapter) may in fact be largelycapturing the resulting phenomenology of the morebasic experience of cultural conflict and/or culturaldistance.

Cultural harmony and blendedness are eachassociated with different sets of personality, perfor-mance-related, and contextual antecedents (Benet-Martnez & Haritatos, 2005), which explains thevery different phenomenological experiences of

biculturalism in the existing literature. Specifically,as indicated by path analyses (see Figure 1 in Benet-Martnez & Haritatos, 2005), lack of culturalblendedness (i.e., cultural distance) is predicted by

the personality trait of close-mindedness (i.e., lowopenness to experience), low levels of biculturalcompetence (particularly with regard to the main-stream culture), experiencing strains in the linguis-tic domain (e.g., being self-conscious about onesaccent), and living in a community that is not cul-turally diverse (see also Miller, Kim, & Benet-Martnez, 2011). Perhaps low openness makesacculturating individuals perceive ethnic and main-stream cultures more rigidly, both in terms of theiressential defining characteristics and the boundar-ies between them; it may also make them less




13/26

-

74

73

72

71

70

69

68

67

66

65

64

63

62

61

60

59

58

57

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 permeable to new cultural values and lifestyles. Suchattitudes may lead to the belief that ones two cul-tural identities cannot come together and mustremain separate. Also, the perception that one has anoticeable accent and that ones cultural backgroundis uncommon in the local environment function aschronic and explicit reminders of the biculturalsunique status as cultural minority and also accentu-ate perceptions of cultural difference. Aside fromthese antecedents, cultural distance may also berelated to the need for optimal distinctiveness(Brewer, 1991). Specifically, some biculturals maychoose to keep their ethnic and mainstream identi-ties separate in an effort to affi rm both their intra-group (ethnic) similarity and intergroup (American)differentiation (Benet-Martnez & Haritatos, 2005).Tat is, biculturals low on cultural blendedness maybe keeping ethnic (e.g., Chinese) and American cul-tures separate to affi rm their strong ties to theirChinese culture while also differentiating them-selves from the mainstream American culturalgroup. Lastly, cultural distance may be related toseeing ones two cultures as being very differentfrom each other (Ward & Kennedy, 1993). o theextent that perceptions of difference may be accen-tuated in the early stages of mainstream cultureacquisition (e.g., experience of cultural shock), onecould speculate that, as biculturals exposure to andcompetence in the mainstream culture increases,perceptions of cultural distance would decrease.

Low cultural harmony (i.e., conflict), on theother hand, is largely predicted by having a neuroticdisposition, and experiencing discrimination andstrained intercultural relations (e.g., being told thatones behavior is too American or ethnicseeFigure 1 in Benet-Martnez & Haritatos, 2005;Miller, Kim, & Benet-Martnez, 2011). Perhaps for

biculturals high on neuroticism, switching cogni-tive and behavioral frames in response to differentcultural cues (i.e., CFS; Hong et al., 2000) bringsfeelings of confusion regarding ones ability to main-tain consistent, recognizable self-identities. Also, itis likely that the acculturation strains of discrimina-tion and strained intercultural relations create astrong discrepancy between explicit and implicitattitudes toward each culture. In other words, if abicultural individual consciously identifies with andvalues both mainstream Anglo/American and ethniccultures but also experiences prejudice and rejectionfrom members of one or both of these groups, feel-ings of anger and distress may create internal dis-crepancy and attitudinal ambivalence (Van Hook &Higgins, 1988).

In summary, it seems that cultural blendedness isparticularly linked to performance-related personaland contextual challenges (e.g., trait of openness, lin-guistic fluency, living in a culturally diverse enclave),

while cultural harmony is linked to factors that arelargely intra- and interpersonal in nature (e.g., emo-tional stability, lack of social prejudice and rejection).

All in all, this work underscores the importance ofadding an individual differences perspective inunderstanding the bicultural experience, and theconsequentiality of personality factors in the accul-turation domain (Ozer & Benet-Martnez, 2006).Tese patterns of relationships also suggest that vari-ations in BII, far from being purely subjective iden-tity representations, are psychologically meaningfulexperiences linked to specific contextual pressuresand dispositional factors (see Figure 25.2).7

As mentioned earlier, much of the research onBII has found that individuals with low levels ofconflict (high BII) are better adjusted and moreeffective in a variety of domains. However, some

CULTURAL

HARMONYVS.

CONFLICT

BICULTURAL

IDENTITY

INTEGRATION

CULTURAL

BLENDEDNESSVS.

COMPARTMENTALIZATION

DISPOSITIONALFACTORS

e.g., Openness,Neuroticism

CONTEXTUALFACTORS

e.g., Acculturationstressors

Fig. 25.2 High versus low levels of Bicultural Identity Integration result from variations in cultural harmony and cultural blendedness

(adapted from Benet-Martnez & Haritatos, 2005).




14/26

105

104

103

102

101

100

99

98

97

96

95

94

93

92

91

90

89

88

87

86

85

84

83

82

81

80

79

78

77

76

75

74

73

72

71

70

69

68

67

66

65

64

63

62

61

60

59

58

57

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 research also indicates that those with low levels ofBII are more cognitively complex (Benet-Martnezet al., 2006). Tis suggests that conflicting culturalidentities may have positive cognitive benefits.Perhaps, inner cultural conflict leads to more sys-tematic and careful processing of cues from culturalsituations, which in turn leads to cultural represen-tations that are more complex and nuanced. Otherresearchers have also argued that the more severe thecultural conflict experienced, the greater the need toengage in more effortful and complex sense-making(admor, etlock, & Peng, 2009).

Future work on BII should identify the behav-ioral domains associated with biculturals feelings ofconflict (e.g., clashes in work values, marriage prac-tices, gender roles, etc.), as well as the types of con-texts associated with biculturals feelings of distance

and compartmentalization (e.g., home vs. work,relatives vs. friends, etc.). Second, BII researchshould be integrated with theory on the benefitsand costs of social identity complexity (Brook,Garcia, & Fleming, 2009; Roccas & Brewer, 2002;Settles, 2004). Second, because bicultural identitiescontain multiple elements including self-categoriza-tion, and importance and meaning attached to eachidentity, a bicultural individual may perceive blend-edness on some of these elements (e.g., self-catego-rization), but not on others (e.g., importance), andharmony on some elements (e.g. meaning), but

conflict on others. A full understanding of BII willrequire systematic investigation of these variouscareful identity elements (Wiley & Deaux, 2011).

Variation in BII and personality dispositionsseem to be key individual difference variables inpredicting bicultural identity structure and bicul-tural experiences, but there are other relevant vari-ables. Hong and colleagues (Chao, Chen, Roisman,& Hong, 2007; No, Hong, Liao, Lee, Wood, &Chao, 2008) have shown that Asian Americanbiculturals who hold essentialist beliefs about racethat is, believe race is an essentialist entity reflecting

biological essence, unalterable, and indicative ofabilities and traitshave more diffi culties (i.e.,longer latencies) in cultural frame-switching behav-ior, display stronger emotional reactivity when talk-ing about bicultural experiences, and identify less

with the host culture. Te researchers have arguedthat essentialist race beliefs give rise to perceptionof less permeability between racial and culturalgroup boundaries, thus impeding an integrationof experiences with both their ethnic and hostcultures. Future research should examine how essen-tialist beliefs about race and culture as well as BII

(particularly the blendedness vs. distance component)relate to cognitive constructs such low openness toexperience, need for closure, and low integrative com-plexity among acculturating individuals (Kosic,Kruglanski, Pierro, & Mannetti, 2004; admor &etlock, 2006).

Given the changing and often lifelong nature ofacculturation experiences, future studies examiningthe interplay between individual differences in per-sonality (e.g., openness, neuroticism), biculturalidentity (e.g., BII), and racial/cultural essentialistbeliefs should be examined in longitudinal studiesthat are also sensitive to dynamic political/economicfactors. Studies on cultural transitions such as repa-triation among sojourners and immigrants (Sussman,2000, 2002; tsuda, 2003), for instance, reveal acomplex pattern of identity shifts and adjustment

outcomes that are driven by both psychological (e.g.,self-concept clarity, strength of home and host cul-ture identities) and sociopolitical factors (e.g., eco-nomic and political situation in home country).Similarly, work on transnationalism (Mahalingam,2006), supports the temporal and dynamic nature of

what Levitt and Schiller (2004) call immigrantsways of being, (actual social relations and practicesthat individuals engage in) and ways of belonging(practices that signal or enact an identity demon-strating a conscious connection to a particulargroup). Future work on individual differences in

multicultural identity can also benefit tremendouslyfrom recent theorizing on social identity develop-ment. Relying on recent intergroup models as well ason developmental (i.e., neo-Piagetian) and socialcognitive frameworks, Amiot and colleagues (Amiot,de la Sabionnire, erry, & Smith, 2007) haverecently proposed a four-stage model that explainsthe specific processes by which multiple social iden-tities develop intraindividually and become inte-grated within the self over time. Teir theoreticallyrich model also specifies the factors that facilitate andhinder these identity change processes, as well as the

consequences associated with identity integration.

Group Differences in MulticulturalismMulticultural individuals may belong to one of thefollowing five groups based on the voluntariness,mobility, and permanence of contact with the dom-inant group: immigrants, refugees, sojourners,ethnic minorities, and indigenous people (Berry,Kim, Minde, & Mok, 1987). Immigrants arrive inthe host country voluntarily and usually with theintention to stay, whereas refugees arrive in the hostcountry by force or due to lack of other alternatives.




15/26

-

105

104

103

102

101

100

99

98

97

96

95

94

93

92

91

90

89

88

87

86

85

84

83

82

81

80

79

78

77

76

75

74

73

72

71

70

69

68

67

66

65

64

63

62

61

60

59

58

57

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 Like immigrants, sojourners, such as expatriates andinternational students, also arrive in the host coun-try voluntarily, but their stay is usually temporary.Ethnic minorities and indigenous people are thoseborn in the host country, but indigenous peoplediffer from ethnic minorities in that the host coun-try and culture was involuntarily imposed on them(e.g., via colonization or military occupation). Teethnic minority group may be divided into second-generation individuals (whose parents are immi-grants or refugees) and third- or later-generationindividuals (whose parents were born in the hostcountry; Padilla, 2006). Many mixed-race or mixed-ethnic individuals are also multicultural, regardlessof their acculturating group status (Padilla, 2006).

One can speculate about possible group-leveldifferences among the groups mentioned above

with regard to their levels of BII due to their groupshistory in the host country, their relations withmembers of the dominant group, the current politi-cal and socioeconomic situation, and other structuralvariables (Nguyen & Benet-Martnez, 2010). Forinstance, often immigrants and sojourners chooseto migrate to the host country for economic or edu-cational opportunities, and some may even have theoption of returning to their native countries; thus,relative to the other groups, this type of multicul-tural individual may be more focused on opportu-nities and less focused on cultural issues. Conse-

quently, cultural differences may not necessarilybe internalized or translated into the experience ofcultural identity conflict or distance. Conversely,refugees and indigenous people are often forced intocontact with the dominant culture, and the invol-untary nature of this contact (e.g., refugees may

want to return to their native countries, but thisis not possible due to conflicts between the hostand native countries or within their native coun-tries) magnifies cultural differences and identityconflict. Relatedly, African Americans, with theirhistory of involuntary slavery and expatriation, may

also experience more cultural identity conflict anddistance than other groups. Lastly, there are reasonsto think that feelings of cultural conflict may alsobe common among mixed-heritage individualsand second-generation individuals (at least relativeto immigrants and sojourners). Mixed-race andmixed-ethnic individuals are often given (implicitor explicit) messages suggesting that they arenot enough of one culture or the other (Root,1998). Likewise, second-generation ethnic minori-ties are sometimes considered not ethnic enoughby both their parents and dominant culture peers

with regard to certain cultural markers (e.g.,ethnic language fluency) while also not being con-sidered part of the mainstream culture (Padilla,2006).

In addition to the voluntariness of contact andgroup expectations, variables such as generationalstatus and cultural socialization may also play a rolein BII, particularly the experience of cultural dis-tance. Immigrants first learn their ethnic culture intheir native country and later learn the dominantculture in the host country, thus their competenciesand associations with each culture may be morecompartmentalized and situation-specific (i.e., highcultural distance) compared to other groups. Tisdissociation may also occur among second-genera-tion ethnic minorities for whom dominant andethnic cultures are largely relegated to the public

(e.g., work) and private (e.g., home) spheres, respec-tively. However, other second- and later-generationethnic minorities (e.g., Chicano individuals) maybe reared with a blend of both cultures, and thusthe structure and experience of their identities maybe more blended (i.e., low cultural distance). Howthese processes work for 1.5-generation individuals(immigrant children who moved to another coun-try early and thus are socialized early into the hostcountry culture) relative to first- and later-generationindividuals remains to be explored.

All in all, notice that the above propositions

focus on the relative level of perceived cultural dis-tance or conflict across groupsthat is, I do notassert that some groups perceive cultural distance orconflict while others do not.

Psychological and Societal Consequencesof Multiculturalism

What impact, if any, does multiculturalism have onindividuals and the larger society? Te issue of

whether multiculturalism is beneficial is often theo-retically and empirically debated. Some researcherscontend that the integration/biculturalism strategy,

as compared to the other three acculturation strate-gies (separation, assimilation, marginalization), isthe most ideal, leading to greater benefits in all areasof life (e.g., Berry, 1997; Phinney, Horenczyk,Liebkind, & Vedder, 2001). However, others haveargued that this is not always the case, because theprocess of dealing with two cultures and acquiringtwo behavioral repertories places a burden on theindividual and can lead to stress, isolation, identityconfusion, and hindered performance (e.g., Gordon,1964; Rudmin, 2003; Vivero & Jenkins, 1999).For instance, when examining the links between




16/26

88

87

86

85

84

83

82

81

80

79

78

77

76

75

74

73

72

71

70

69

68

67

66

65

64

63

62

61

60

59

58

57

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 biculturalism and adjustment, some researchers havefound positive associations (e.g., Szapocznik &Kurtines, 1980; Ward & Kennedy, 1994), butothers have found no link or a negative one (e.g.,Burnam, Hough, Karno, Escobar, & elles, 1987;Rotheram-Borus, 1990). In other words, findingshave been mixed with regard to the direction andmagnitude of these associations (Myers & Rodriguez,2003; Rogler, Cortes, & Malgady, 1991).

A recent meta-analysis suggests that the aboveseemingly contradictory findings may be attribut-able to the ways in which biculturalism has beenmeasured (Nguyen & Benet-Martnez, 2011; seealso the review of measurement issues in this chap-ter). Across the 83 studies and 23,197 participants,biculturalism was found to have a significant andpositive relationship with both psychological adjust-

ment (e.g., life satisfaction, positive affect, self-esteem) and sociocultural adjustment (e.g., academicachievement, career success, social skills, lack ofbehavioral problems). Further, this biculturalism-adjustment link was significantly stronger than theassociation between each cultural orientation (dom-inant or ethnic) and adjustment. Interestingly, themagnitude of the biculturalism-adjustment associa-tion was moderated by the type of acculturationscales used (see Figure 25.3). When only studiesusing direct measures of acculturation strategies

were included (i.e., Berrys scales), the relationship

was weak to moderate (r = .21). However, whenonly studies using unidimensional scales wereincluded, the relationship was strong (r = .54).Finally, when only studies using bidimensionalscales were used (i.e., biculturalism measured viascores above the median or midpoint on both cul-tural orientations, the addition method, the multi-plication method, or cluster or latent class analysis),the relationship between biculturalism and adjust-ment was even stronger (r = .70). In other words,biculturalism is related to better adjustment, butthis relationship is best detected when biculturalism

is measured bidimensionally. Tis is not perhaps notsurprising given the point made earlier about howunidimensional acculturation scales can potentiallyconfound biculturalism and marginalization.

Te results from the above meta-analysis clearlyinvalidate early accounts of bicultural individuals asmarginal and stumped between two worlds(Gordon, 1964), and they also suggest importantfuture research directions for social and personalitypsychologists studying increasingly diverse samples,such as examining the role that social context mayplay in this biculturalism-adjustment relationship,

or understanding individual differences in bicultur-alism that can moderate the biculturalism-adjust-ment relationship (e.g., Chen et al., 2008).

Te positive relationship between multicultural-ism and adjustment may be due to the competenciesand flexibility (social and cognitive) that multicul-tural individuals acquire in the process of learningand using two cultures (Benet-Martnez, Lee, &Leu, 2006; Leung, Maddox, Galinsky, & Chiu,2008). Specifically, by virtue of their frequent expe-riences attending to, processing, and reacting todifferent sociocultural contexts, multicultural indi-viduals process and organize sociocultural informa-tion in more cognitively complex ways thanmonoculturals (Benet-Martnez et al., 2006). Tesecompetencies may make bicultural individuals moreadept at adjusting to various people or situations ineither of their cultures and possibly in other cultures.In addition, this flexibility may buffer them fromthe psychological or sociocultural maladjustmentthat they might have otherwise suffered as a result ofchallenging acculturation experiences. It is possiblethat being oriented to only one culture rather than

both has some adjustment costs, resulting fromrejection from or lack of belongingness with mem-bers of the other culture (Roccas, Horenczyk, &Schwartz, 2000; Rogler et al., 1991; Ross, Xun,

Wilson, 2002). In short, involvement with two ormore cultures (vs. the cultural relinquishing thatcharacterizes assimilation or separation) in all likeli-hood facilitates the acquisition of cognitive andsocial skills as well as wider behavioral repertoiresand competencies which, in turn, buffer multicul-tural individuals against the psychological malad-

justment (e.g., anxiety, loneliness) or sociocultural

Strategies Directly

Unidimensional

Bidimensional

Biculturalism

Adjustment

Fig. 25.3 Effect size of the biculturalism-adjustment

relationship by type of acculturation scale (Nguyen &

Benet-Martnez, 2011).


OU

benet-martinez_2011_multicultural minds_a dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition

Documents