Content uploaded by Veronica Benet
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Veronica Benet on Sep 09, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 1 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and Personality
Processes
Verónica Benet-Martínez
The Oxford Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology
Edited by Kay Deaux and Mark Snyder
Abstract and Keywords
This chapter discusses the psychological and societal processes involved in the
phenomenon of multiculturalism. 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, bicultural identity
integration, identity
Multiculturalism is a fact of life for many people. The global increase in intercultural
contact due to factors such as immigration, speed of travel and communication, and
international corporate presence is difficult to ignore. Undoubtedly, multiculturalism and
globalization influence how people see themselves and others, and how they organize the
world around them. Take, for instance, U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama. Obama
straddles countries and cultures (Hammack, 2010). The son of a Kenyan and an
American, he studied the Quran in his youth and as an adult he was baptized. His
multicultural background enables him to speak the language of a globalized world, in
which people of diverse origins encounter each other and negotiate common meaning
across shrinking cultural divides (Saleh, 2009). Obama exemplifies the word
“multiculturalism” as a biracial individual from a multicultural family who has lived in
various countries; also, several of his key advisors have also lived outside the United
Print Publication Date: Feb
2012
Subject: Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology
Online Publication Date: Sep
2012
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398991.013.0025
Oxford Handbooks Online
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 2 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
States (Bartholet & Stone, 2009), and almost half of his cabinet are racial or ethnic
minorities (Wolf, 2009). In fact, in his inaugural speech, Obama stated that
multiculturalism is a national strength (Obama, 2009), and since then, he has deliberately
set out to select a diverse cabinet, based on the premise that multicultural individuals
have insights, skills, and unique psychological experiences that contribute to society
(Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2010).
The prevalence and importance of multiculturalism has long been acknowledged in
psychology (e.g., Hermans & Kempen, 1998; LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993), yet
the phenomenon has been investigated empirically only in the last decade or so.
However, the study of multiculturalism has exciting and transformative implications for
social and personality psychology, 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; Deaux,
2006; Phinney, 1999). Furthermore, the individual and contextual factors that influence
(p. 624) how an individual makes sense of his/her multicultural experiences provide
personality psychologists with another window through which to study individual
differences in identity and self-concept. In fact, as Phinney (1999) eloquently said,
“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).
The study of multiculturalism also affords unique methodological tools to social and
personality psychologists. By virtue of having two or more cultures that can be
independently manipulated, multicultural individuals give researchers a quasi-
experimental design ideal for the study of how culture affects behavior (Hong, Morris,
Chiu, & Benet-Martínez, 2000). In addition, previously identified cross-cultural
differences can be replicated in experiments with multicultural individuals without the
counfounding effects (i.e., differences in SES, translation issues) that often characterize
cross-national comparisons (Ramirez-Esparza, Gosling, Benet-Martínez, Potter, &
Pennebaker, 2006; Sanchez-Burks et al., 2003).
With the increase of cultural diversity in academic, political, and media spheres,
empirical research on multiculturalism has finally begun to appear in social and
personality psychology journals. The main goal of this chapter is to review and integrate
this research and propose an agenda for future studies. However, because
multiculturalism issues are quite new to empirical social and personality psychology, this
chapter also includes sections devoted to defining the constructs of multiculturalism and
multicultural identity, summarizing the relevant work from the field of acculturation
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 3 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
studies, and discussing how to best operationalize and measure multiculturalism (see also
Hong, Wan, No, & Chiu, 2007).
Defining Multiculturalism: Individual, Intergroup, and Societal
Levels
Who is multicultural? There are many definitions of multiculturalism, ranging from
general (i.e., based on demographic characteristics) to psychologically specific
conceptualizations (e.g., cultural identifications or orientations). Broadly speaking, those
who are mixed-race and mixed-ethnic, those who have lived in more than one country
(such as expatriates, international students, immigrants, refugees, and sojourners), those
reared with at least one other culture in addition to the dominant mainstream culture
(such as children of immigrants or colonized people), and those in intercultural
relationships may all be considered multicultural (Berry, 2003; Padilla, 2006). In the
United States alone, multicultural individuals may include the 13% who are foreign-born,
the 34% who are nonwhite, and the 20% who speak a language other than English at
home (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). High numbers of multicultural individuals (10% of the
population by some estimates) can also be found in other nations where migration is
strong (e.g., Canada, Australia, western Europe, Singapore) or where there is a history of
colonization (e.g., Hong Kong).
Psychologically, there is no commonly agreed definition of multiculturalism. Loosely
speaking, multiculturalism can be defined as the experience of having been exposed to
and having internalized two or more cultures (Hong et al., 2000; Nguyen & Benet-
Martínez, 2007). More specifically, multicultural individuals are those who display
multicultural competence, that is, display cultural behaviors such as language use, choice
of friends, media preferences, value systems, and so forth, that are representative of two
or more cultures (LaFromboise et al., 1993). Multicultural individuals are also those who
self-label (e.g., “I am multicultural”) or for whom group self-categorization (e.g., “I am
American” and “I am Chinese”; “I am Chinese-American”) reflects their cultural
pluralism. Relatedly, multicultural identity is the condition of having attachments with
and loyalties toward these different cultures (Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005). Lastly,
multicultural individuals can also be those who report acculturation attitudes supportive
of an integration or biculturalism strategy (Berry, 2003; e.g., endorsing the statement “I
prefer to have both national and ethnic friends”).
Note then that multicultural identity is only one component (although perhaps the most
important one) of the more complex and multidimensional notion of multiculturalism.
1
2
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 4 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
That is, an individual who has been exposed to and has learned more than one culture is a
multicultural person, but only when this individual expresses an attachment with these
cultures can we say that the individual has a multicultural identity. This is because
acquisition of knowledge from a new culture does not always produce identification with
that culture (Hong et al., 2007). Thus multicultural identity involves a significant degree
of identification with more than one culture; however, it does not presuppose similar
degrees of identification with all the internalized cultures. Lastly, having a multicultural
identity involves following the norms of more than one culture, or at least being
cognizant of them (see later (p. 625) section on variations in multicultural identity); this
premise is supported by social identity research showing that individuals who identify
strongly (vs. weakly) with a culture are more likely to follow that culture’s norms (Jetten,
Postmes, & McAuliffe, 2002), and that for these individuals cultural norms have greater
impact on behavioral intentions than personal attitudes (Terry, Hogg, & White, 1999).
Societal and Intergroup Levels
As described in Nguyen and Benet-Martínez (2010), the terms “multicultural” and
“bicultural” are typically used to describe individuals, but they can also be used to
describe nations and states (e.g., bicultural and bilingual Quebec, where Anglo- and
Francophone cultures coexist), institutions and policies (e.g., multicultural education),
and groups (e.g., multicultural teams). Although the term is recent, the concept of
biculturalism dates back to the origins of modern Canada (1774, when British authorities
allowed French Canadians full use of their language, system of civil law, and freedom to
practice their Roman Catholicism). Biculturalism should not be confused with
bilingualism (having fluency in two languages), although these terms are conceptually
related since often (but not always) bicultural individuals and institutions are also
bilingual (Grosjean, 1996; Lambert, 1978).
Multicultural ideology and policies advocate that society and organizations should include
and equally value distinct cultural groups (Fowers & Richardson, 1996). Although the
term “multiculturalism” is typically used to acknowledge the presence of the distinct
cultures of immigrant groups, sometimes it can also be applied to acknowledge the
presence of indigenous peoples in colonized nations. One assumption behind the
multicultural ideology is that public acceptance and recognition of one’s culture and
opportunities for multicultural interactions are crucial for self-worth and well-being
(Burnet, 1995). Support for this argument is found in counseling (Sue & Sue, 2003),
education (Banks & Banks, 1995), corporate (Plaut, Thomas, & Goren, 2009), and
developmental contexts (Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006; Yip, Seaton, & Sellers,
2006).
3
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 5 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
Multiculturalism has been formally adopted as an official policy in nations such as
Canada, Australia, and the Netherlands, for reasons that vary from country to country.
Multicultural policies influence the structures and decisions of governments to ensure
that political and economic resources are allocated equitably to all represented cultural
groups. Examples of government-endorsed multicultural policies are dual citizenship,
government support for media outlets (e.g., newspapers, television, radio) in minority
languages, support for cultural minority holidays, celebrations, and community centers,
establishment of official multilingual policies, and acceptance of traditional and religious
codes of dress and behavior in the public sphere (e.g., work, school).
Not all minority groups are perceived to deserve multicultural policies equally. Typically,
multicultural recognition and rights are more easily given to “involuntary” groups
(colonized people, descendents of slaves, refugees) than to immigrants. Supposedly,
these immigrants would have waived their demands and rights by voluntary leaving their
country of origin. In other words, multicultural policies tend to be less supported in
relation to immigrant groups than in relation to involuntary minorities (Verkuyten, 2007).
In fact, work closely examining multicultural attitudes and their effects from both the
minority and majority perspectives reveals some interesting moderating factors (see
Verkuyten, 2007, and Berry, 2006, for excellent reviews). For instance, minorities (e.g.,
Turkish, Moroccan in the Netherlands) are more likely to endorse multiculturalism than
members of an ethnic majority group (e.g., Dutch). Cross-national data on
multiculturalism validates this finding (Deaux, Reid, Martin, & Bikmen, 2006; Schalk-
Soekar, 2007; Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2006; Wolsko et al., 2006). Further, in-group
identification is positively related to endorsement of multiculturalism for minority
individuals, while this link is negative among majority individuals (Verkuyten &
Martinovic, 2006). The fact that multiculturalism appeals more to ethnic minority groups
than to majority group members is not surprising, given that the gains of this policy are
more obvious to the former group (Berry, 2006; Berry & Kalin, 1995; Verkuyten & Thijs,
1999). Studies have also found that minorities’ endorsement of multiculturalism is linked
to positive ingroup evaluation, while for majorities endorsement of multiculturalism is
related to positive outgroup views (Verkuyten, 2005). Lastly, endorsement of
multiculturalism is positively associated to self-esteem for both minority and majority
individuals who identify strongly with their ethnic group (Verkuyten, 2009). This suggests
that multicultural recognition provides a normative context in which both majorities and
minorities with high levels of ethnic identification can feel good about themselves
(Verkuyten & Thijs, 2004).
(p. 626) A promising line of research conducted by Van der Zee and colleagues (e.g., Van
der Zee, Atsma, & Brodbeck, 2004; Van der Zee & Van der Gang, 2007) has been
examining the interactive role between individual factors such as personality (i.e., traits
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 6 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
related to multicultural effectiveness, Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000) and social
identity, and contextual pressures in how individuals respond to situations involving
cultural diversity. This work has shown, for instance, that individuals high in extraversion
and initiative respond more favorably to intercultural situations, but these differences
disappear under threat (Van der Zee & Van der Gang, 2007). This finding suggests that
the link between social traits and success in culturally diverse contexts is not driven by a
special ability to deal with the potential threat of cultural differences but rather by the
social stimulation afforded by culturally diverse situations. The study also showed that
individual differences in neuroticism are linked to reactions toward cultural diversity only
under conditions of threat. Given the increasingly global nature of today’s workforce, this
work promises to be very informative with regard to which competencies minority and
majority members need to possess to facilitate constructive intercultural interactions.
Not surprisingly, multiculturalism is a controversial issue in some societies. Some
political segments within the United States and some European nations view
multiculturalism as a policy that promotes group stereotyping and negative outgroup
feelings and undermines national unity, social integration, and even security (Huntington,
2004). Alternatives to multiculturalism propone, explicitly or implicitly, policies
supportive of “monoculturalism” (normative cultural unity or homogeneity),
“assimilation” (the belief that cultural minorities should abandon their original culture
and adopt the majority culture), or “nativism” (return to the original settlers’ cultural
traits—e.g., English, Protestantism, and American liberalism in the case of the United
States). Underlying these views is the belief that the majority-based macroculture is
substantive (i.e., essential), foundational (i.e., original and primary), and that it provides
the moral center for society; the legitimacy of this macroculture thus is always prior to
the social phenomenon that may potentially shape it.
Unfortunately, most popular discussions in favor/against multiculturalism involve an
implicit dichotomization of complex political and psychological issues: opposition between
universalism and particularism, between unity and fragmentation, between right and left
(Hartman & Gerteis, 2005). Recent multiculturalism theory departs from this
aforementioned unidimensional space and makes a distinction between the social and the
cultural dimensions, thereby identifying three distinct types of multicultural ideologies:
cosmopolitanism, fragmented pluralism, and interactive pluralism (Hartman & Gerteis,
2005). A review of each these three multiculturalism approaches reveals issues and
constructs that are highly relevant to social psychology, and the study social identity and
intergroup dynamics in particular. For instance, the cosmopolitan approach recognizes
the social value of diversity, but it is skeptical about the obligations and constraints that
group membership and societal cohesion can place on individuals (Hartman & Gerteis,
2005). In a way, this approach defends cultural diversity to the extent it supports and
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 7 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
facilitates individual rights and freedoms (Bilbeny, 2007). Thus, the cosmopolitan
approach supports a strong macrosocial boundary and weak internal groups and
emphasizes the permeability of cultural group membership and boundaries (Hollinger,
1995). Here cultural group qualities are neutralized rather than negated (as in the
assimilationist approach), and policies are to ensure that every individual is free to
choose her or his place in the ethnic mosaic. An example of this type of “weak” group
identification is the white ethnic identity of many Americans who self-identify as “Irish
American” or “Italian American.” Note that these group affiliations do not imply adopting
a separatist identity or even strong identity, because there is no societal pressure to
choose between this and other forms of cultural/ethnic identifications, and also because
there is nothing about being “Irish” that is particularly in tension with being
“American” (Hartman & Gerteis, 2005).
The fragmented pluralism approach, on the other hand, endorses weaker macrosocial
boundaries but very strong internal groups and boundaries given that cultural group
membership is seen as essential rather than partial and voluntaristic (Young, 2000).
Structurally, this approach is the most opposite to assimilation. In fragmented pluralism
the focus is on the recognition and maintenance of group rights and distinctive group
cultures (e.g., separate institutions or practices), and the state is seen mainly as a tool for
cohesion given its role as a force mediating between different group claims and value
systems, which at times may be divergent or in some cases directly opposed. The
phenomenon of “segmented assimilation” described by the sociologists Portes and
Rumbaut (2001), can be seen as evidence for the existence of fragmented pluralism in the
United (p. 627) States: Assimilation into mainstream society by immigrants and their
descendents is uneven due to the fact that different groups are available to which the
immigrants may assimilate into (e.g., majority culture middle class, urban underclass)
and to the fact that these different groups afford different opportunities to the immigrant
groups. Lastly, the interactive pluralism approach, like the fragmented pluralism view,
also prioritizes the role of groups, but it mainly stresses groups-in-interaction. This
approach sees group interactions as essential, not only because group interactions
facilitate societal cohesion and harmony but also because from these interactions a new
and constantly redefined macroculture emerges (Alexander, 2001; Taylor, 2001). That is,
social boundaries and moral order are produced in a democratic manner through the
interaction of groups, and as cultural groups and their interactions change, the nature of
the macroculture itself changes. Because this dynamic and more complex macroculture
represents the complexity and reality of all groups, it is thus is more easily recognized
and valued by all. This view contrasts with cosmopolitanism or fragmented pluralism,
where the macroculture tends to be thinner and essentially procedural in nature.
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 8 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
The above constructs (macro- and group-culture) and processes (group interaction,
permeability of cultural group membership and boundaries, procedural vs. substantive
views of macroculture) are highly relevant to some well-known social psychological work.
For instance, work on the common group identity model (Gaertner, Dovidio, Nier, Ward,
& Baker, 1999), social identity complexity (Roccas & Brewer, 2002), group identity
dimensionality (Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, Halevy, & Eidelson, 2008), procedural justice
(Huo, 2003), and system justification theory (Jost & Banaji, 1994) speaks to some of the
issues and processes underlying the above multiculturalism modes. However, the
psychological validity, viability, and consequentiality of each of the models of
multiculturalism reviewed above remains untested; this is an important gap that social
psychology is in an ideal position to fill, given its theoretical and methodological richness.
Acculturation and Multiculturalism
Multiculturalism and acculturation are tightly intertwined, with multi/biculturalism being
one of four outcomes of the acculturation process. Traditional views of acculturation (the
process of learning or adapting to a new culture) asserted that to acculturate means to
assimilate—that is, adopting the new or dominant culture requires rejecting one’s ethnic
or original culture (Gordon, 1964). In other words, acculturation originally was
conceptualized as a unidimensional, one-directional, and irreversible process of moving
toward the new mainstream culture and away from the original ethnic culture (Trimble,
2003). However, a wealth of acculturation studies conducted in the last 25 years (see
Sam & Berry, 2006, for a review), supports acculturation as a bidimensional, two-
directional, multidomain complex process, in which assimilation into the mainstream
culture is not the only way to acculturate. In other words, equating acculturation with
assimilation is simply inaccurate.
The bidimensional model of acculturation is based on the premise that acculturating
individuals have to deal with two central issues, which comprise the two cultural
orientations of acculturation (Berry, 2003): (1) the extent to which they are motivated or
allowed to retain identification and involvement with the culture of origin, now the
nonmajority, ethnic culture; and (2) the extent to which they are motivated or allowed to
identify with and participate in the mainstream, dominant culture. The negotiation of
these two central issues results in four distinct acculturation positions (see left side of
Figure 25.1): assimilation (involvement and identification with the dominant culture
only), integration/biculturalism (involvement and identification with both cultures),
separation (involvement and identification with the ethnic culture only), or
marginalization (lack of involvement and identification with either culture; see Rudmin,
2003, for a thorough discussion of this strategy). Empirical work on the these four
acculturation attitudes or strategies reveals that, at least at the individual level, the most
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 9 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
common strategy used by immigrant and cultural minorities is integration/biculturalism,
followed by separation, assimilation, and marginalization (Berry et al., 2006; Sam &
Berry, 2006). Further, there is now robust evidence supporting the psychometric validity
of the multidimensional model of acculturation and its advantages over unidimensional
models in predicting a wide array of outcomes (Flannery, Reise, & Yu, 2001; Ryder, Allen,
& Paulhus, 2000).
Click to view larger
Fig. 25.1 Acculturation and multiculturalism at the individual versus societal levels.
Adapted from Berry (2003) and reprinted from Nguyen and Benet-Martínez (2010).
Cross-national acculturation studies have found a zero or even positive association
between national/mainstream identity and ethnic identity in settler countries such as the
United States (r = .15), Canada (.09), or New Zealand (.32), which have a long tradition
of immigration (see Table 4.1 in Phinney, (p. 628) Berry, Vedder, & Liebkind, 2006).
However, this association is often moderately negative in nonsettler countries such as
France (-.13), Germany (-.28), and the Netherlands (-.27) (Phinney et al., 2006). This
pattern of associations speaks to the prevalence of multicultural identities across
countries, which may result from the interaction of two factors: the climate of the
receiving country (e.g., settler vs. nonsettler) and the predominant immigrant group (e.g.,
Turkish in Europe vs. Asian and Latin groups in the settler societies).
Cultural Frame-Switching
Additional support for the idea that individuals can simultaneously hold two or more
cultural orientations is provided by recent sociocognitive experimental work showing that
multicultural individuals shift between their different cultural orientations in response to
cultural cues, a process called cultural frame-switching (CFS; Hong et al., 2000;
Verkuyten & Pouliasi, 2006).
Multicultural individuals’ ability to engage in CFS has been documented in multiple
behavioral domains such as attribution (Benet-Martínez, Leu, Lee, & Morris, 2002;
Cheng, Lee, & Benet-Martínez, 2006; Hong et al., 2000; Verkuyten & Pouliasi, 2002),
personality self-views (Ramirez-Esparza, Gosling, Benet-Martínez, & Pennebaker, 2006;
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 10 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
Ross, Xun, & Willson, 2002; Verkuyten & Pouliasi, 2006), ethnic identity (Verkuyten &
Pouliasi, 2002), emotional experience (Perunovic, Heller, & Rafaeli, 2007), self-construals
(Gardner, Gabriel, & Lee, 1999; Kemmelmeier & Cheng, 2004; Lechuga, 2008), values
(Fu, Chiu, Morris, & Young, 2007; Verkuyten & Pouliasi, 2006), cooperation (Wong &
Hong, 2005), autobiographical memory (Bender & Ng, 2009), and decision-making
(Briley, Morris, & Simonson, 2005) among others. Further, the existence of dual dynamic
culture-specific meaning systems among multiculturals has been demonstrated both at
the explicit (Pouliasi & Verkuyten, 2007) and implicit level (Devos, 2006).
Note that CFS is not merely a knee-jerk response to cultural cues. In order for a
particular cultural cue to influence behavior, the relevant cultural schemas have to be
cognitively available (i.e., the individual has internalized values, norms, attitudes, and
emotional associations relevant to that culture), cognitively accessible (the schemas have
been recently activated by explicit or implicit contextual cues), and applicable to the
situation (Hong et al., 2000; Hong, Benet-Martínez, Morris, & Chiu, 2003).
Although CFS is often unconscious and automatic (like a bilingual individual switching
languages depending on the audience), it does not always have to be. Individuals going
through acculturation may to some extent manage the CFS process by controlling the
accessibility of cultural schemas. For instance, immigrants desiring to adapt quickly to
the new culture often surround themselves with symbols and situations that prime the
meaning system of the host culture. Conversely, immigrants (p. 629) and expatriates
desiring to keep alive their original ways of thinking and feeling— that is, desiring to
maintain the accessibility of constructs from their home culture, often surround
themselves with stimuli priming that culture (e.g., ethnic food, art, and music) (Sedikides,
Wildschut, Routledge, Arndt & Zhou, 2009). These active processes of priming oneself
may help multicultural individuals in their ongoing effort to negotiate and express their
cultural identities (Hong et al., 2000).
The CFS processes described above can also be understood as a form of multicultural
“identity performance” (Wiley & Deaux, 2011). Identity performance involves “the
purposeful expression (or suppression) of behaviors relevant to those norms
conventionally associated with a salient social identity” (Klein, Spears, & Reicher, 2007,
p. 30). According to this framework, multicultural individuals do not passively react to
cultural cues; rather they actively manage their identity presentation in response to the
type of audience and macrocontext (e.g., presence of members from one culture or the
other, or both), and the categorization (e.g., low vs. high status) and treatment received
by this audience, thus behaving in ways designed to elicit recognition or confirmation of
their important identities (Barreto, Spears, Ellemers, & Shahinper, 2003; Wiley & Deaux,
2011). For instance, some research shows that when Asian American individuals are in
4
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 11 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
situations where their “Americanness” is being questioned (because of their appearance,
race, language, or norms), they react to American cues with behaviors that assert and
reinforce “American” identity practices—for example, by listing more U.S. television
shows and advertising an American lifestyle (Cheryan & Monin, 2005). Interestingly,
none of these reactions seems to bring higher identification and pride with American
culture or lower identification and pride with being Asian; this would support the identity
performance view that CFS and behaviors such as the above involve strategic identity
presentations rather than fundamental changes in identity evaluation and meaning. In
short, multicultural identities are expressed differently depending on the opportunities
afforded (and denied) by a given context, including other people’s (actual and
anticipated) evaluations, expectations, and behaviors (see Figure 1 in Wiley & Deaux,
2011).
Acculturation Domains And Levels
Lastly, it is important to point out that the acculturation perspective does not presuppose
that multicultural individuals internalize and use their different cultures globally and
uniformly (Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2010). Acculturation changes can take place in
many different domains of life: language use or preference, social affiliation,
communication style, cultural identity and pride, and cultural knowledge, beliefs, and
values (Zane & Mak, 2003); and acculturation changes in some of these domains may
occur independently of changes in other components. For instance, a Japanese American
bicultural individual may endorse Anglo-American culture behaviorally and linguistically
and yet be very Japanese (ethnic culture) in terms of her/his values and attitudes.
Similarly, a Mexican American bicultural individual can behave in ways that are
predominantly Mexican (e.g., speak mostly Spanish, live in a largely Mexican
neighborhood) and yet display great pride in and attitudinal attachment to American
culture. In fact, some recent acculturation work suggests that, independently of how
much the mainstream culture is internalized and practiced, some immigrants and their
descendents adhere to the ethnic cultural values even more strongly than members of
their home country, probably because they can become gradually “encapsulated” within
the norms and values of an earlier era in their homeland, (Kim-Jo, Benet-Martínez, &
Ozer, 2010; Kosmitzki, 1996). What might drive this cultural encapsulation phenomenon?
First, when immigrant groups arrive to a new country, they bring with them the values
and norms of their home culture at that time. As time passes, the home culture may
undergo change (e.g., modernization, globalization), but immigrants continue to transmit
this original cultural values and norms they brought with them (Matsumoto, 2000).
Second, as immigrants’ multicultural contacts with both the majority and other minority
members increase, cultural clash 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
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 12 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
strengthening of the original home culture may arise in response (ethnic cultural
reaffirmation effect; Bond & Yang, 1982; Kosmitzki, 1996).
The drivers and outcomes of acculturation (and its multiculturalism mode) are not
constant but rather dynamic and vary across time and local and national contexts
(Schwartz & Unger, 2010). As seen above, these forces may operate differently
depending on the immigrant group and receiving society. Lastly, it is important to
acknowledge that acculturation is simultaneously interpersonal, (p. 630) intrapersonal
(see this chapter’s section on individual differences in multicultural identity), and
contextually influenced (Schwartz & Unger, 2010).
Thus far, the discussion of acculturation has been at the individual level, but
acculturation is also tied to multiculturalism at the societal level. As depicted in the right
side of Figure 25.1, at the societal level, there are also four strategies corresponding to
the four individual acculturation strategies (Berry, 2003). Countries with public policies
that promote the assimilation of acculturating individuals are described as melting pots.
Those that encourage separation are referred to as segregationist, and those that
promote marginalization are labeled exclusionary (see also previous section, where I
reviewed assimilation views and three possible multiculturalism approaches described by
Hartman & Gerteis, 2005). Most importantly, national policies supporting the integration/
biculturalism strategy are considered multicultural (Ward & Masgoret, 2008). For
example, Canada’s multicultural policies encourage ethnic and cultural groups to
maintain, develop, and share their cultures with others as well as to accept and interact
with other groups (Berry, 1984). Although acculturating individuals by and large prefer
the bicultural or integration strategy, in reality, most host countries are melting pots,
encouraging the assimilation of acculturating individuals into the dominant culture (Van
Oudenhoven, Ward, & Masgoret, 2006). Consequently, when national policies and
dominant groups’ acculturation attitudes do not match with acculturating individuals’
strategies, conflicts and problems in intergroup relations may arise (Bourhis, Moïse,
Perreault, & Senécal, 1997; Jasinskaja-Lahti, Liebkind, Horenczyk, & Schmitz, 2003).
Thus, public policies regarding acculturation and multiculturalism undoubtedly can affect
intercultural relations within a country, especially as changing global migration patterns
diversify many nations around the world.
Multicultural Identity: Operationalization and Measurement
Psychological acculturation, and the narrower constructs of biculturalism and
multiculturalism have been operationalized and measured in a variety of ways, including
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 13 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
unidimensional scales, bidimensional scales (e.g., median-split, addition, multiplication,
and subtraction methods), direct measures of acculturation strategies, cultural
identification question(s), or simple demographic questions. An exhaustive review of the
available instruments and theoretical and psychometric issues involved in measuring
biculturalism (and acculturation) is beyond the scope of this paper (see Arends-Tóth &
van de Vijver, 2006; Zane & Mak, 2003; for excellent reviews). Accordingly, I provide
instead a practical and brief summary of the available approaches and their pros and
cons.
Early attempts at measuring biculturalism relied on bipolar, single-dimension scales that
explicitly or implicitly reflected a unidirectional view of acculturation. In this framework,
low scores or the starting point of the scale typically reflected separation, and high
scores or the other end of the scale reflected assimilation, with biculturalism being
tapped by middle scores or the midpoint of the scale (e.g., Cuéllar, Harris, & Jasso, 1980;
Rotheram-Borus, 1990; Suinn, Rickard-Figueroa, Lew, & Vigil, 1987). These
unidimensional scales should be avoided because they equate involvement and
identification with one culture to a lack of involvement and identification with the other
culture. In addition, these scales confound biculturalism and marginalization. For
example, a scale item may be “Whom do you associate with?” and the response choices
may be labeled with 1 = mostly individuals from the ethnic culture, 2 = individuals from
both the ethnic and dominant cultures equally, 3 = mostly individuals from the dominant
culture. A bicultural individual would select “2” because he/she has many friends from
both cultures, but a marginalized individual may also select “2” but because his/her lack
of socialization with members from each culture is similar.
With the increased adoption of the bidimensional model of acculturation came an
increase in the number of bidimensional scales, where involvement with ethnic and
dominant cultures is measured in two separate multi-item scales. With this method,
biculturalism can be operationalized in different ways. Typically, bicultural individuals
are those who have scores above the median (e.g., Ryder et al., 2000; Tsai, Ying, & Lee,
2000) or midpoint (e.g., Donà & Berry, 1994) on both cultural orientations. 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 acculturation strategies, including the integration or bicultural strategy.
This typological approach allows researchers to differentiate bicultural individuals from
other acculturating types (assimilated, separated, or marginalized) but does not provide a
biculturalism score. Other, nontypological ways of (p. 631) operationalizing biculturalism
when using bidimensional scales are to add the two cultural orientation subscale scores
(e.g., Cuéllar, Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995) or combine them into an interaction term
(Birman, 1998) so that low and high scores represent low and high level of biculturalism
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 14 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
respectively. One caveat of these last two methods is the difficulty in differentiating
between individuals who have medium scores on both cultural scales and those who score
very high on one scale and low on the other. Lastly, some researchers have used a
method where scores on the two cultural orientation scales are subtracted from another,
so that scores close to zero denote biculturalism (Szapocznik, Kurtines, & Fernandez,
1980). This approach is not recommended because, like unidimensional measurement, it
makes bicultural and marginalized individuals indistinguishable from each other.
Obviously, two key advantages of these multidimensional approaches are that the
cultures of interest (e.g., ethnic, mainstream, and religious cultures), regardless of their
number, can be independently assessed, and that their measurement can be tailored to
particular acculturating groups (e.g., mixed-race individuals, sojourners, etc.).
Some researchers prefer to measure the acculturation strategies directly (e.g., Berry,
Kim, Power, Young, & Bujaki, 1989). These instruments typically include four scales with
statements capturing favorable attitudes toward the integration (biculturalism),
assimilation, separation, and marginalization strategies. Because each individual receives
a score on each of these acculturation strategies, a bicultural individual would be
someone whose highest score is on the integration subscale. This widely used approach
has some advantages over traditional acculturation scales (e.g., it allows us to measure
the construct of biculturalism attitudes directly) but it suffers from some nontrivial
conceptual and psychometric limitations (e.g., low score reliabilities, lack of 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
biculturalism with one or two questions. For instance, bicultural individuals can be those
who self-identify with a hyphenated label (e.g., Persian-American) rather than an ethnic
(e.g., Persian) or a national (e.g., American) label, those who endorse the label
“bicultural” (vs. “monocultural”), or those who score above the midpoint on two single
items stating “I feel/am U.S. American” and “I feel/am Chinese” (e.g., Benet-Martínez &
Haritatos, 2005). Lastly, I should warn against the common practice of using
demographic 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 mentioned earlier, bicultural involvement and identification can occur
at different rates for different life domains, for different individuals, and for different
cultural groups, and demographic variables seem to be poor to modest predictors of
these changes (Phinney, 2003; Schwartz, Pantin, Sullivan, Prado, & Szapocznik, 2006).
Individual Differences in Multicultural Identity
5
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 15 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
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.
lê thi diem thúy (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 I’m 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 negotiating multiple cultural identities is
complex and multifaceted. A careful review of the early (and mostly qualitative) work on
this topic in the acculturation (e.g., Padilla, 1994; Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997) and
popular (e.g., Chavez, 1994; O’Hearn, 1998) literatures reveals that multicultural
individuals often talk about their multiple cultural attachments in complicated ways,
including both positive and negative terms. Multiculturalism can be associated with
feelings of pride, uniqueness, and a rich sense of community and history, while also
bringing to mind identity confusion, dual expectations, and value clashes. Further,
multicultural individuals often deal differently with the implications of cultural and racial
stereotypes and the pressures for loyalties and certain behaviors coming from their
different cultural communities (LaFromboise et al., 1993). An important issue, then, is
how particular personality dispositions, contextual pressures, and acculturation and
demographic variables impact the process of multicultural identity formation and the
meanings associated with this experience.
(p. 632) Although most acculturating individuals use the integration/biculturalism
strategy (Berry et al., 2006), research on acculturation has almost exclusively focused on
individual differences across acculturation strategies rather than within acculturation
strategies. Yet, not all bicultural individuals are alike. Early theoretical work on this issue
is worth reviewing, even if briefly. In a seminal review of the biculturalism phenomenon,
LaFromboise et al. (1993) described two biculturalism modes: alternation and fusion.
Alternating bicultural individuals switch their behaviors in response to situational
cultural demands, whereas fused bicultural individuals are oriented to a third emerging
culture that is distinct from each of their two cultures (e.g., Chicano culture). Birman
(1994) expanded on LaFromboise et al.’s (1993) framework to describe four types of
bicultural individuals: blended (i.e., fused), instrumental (individuals behaviorally oriented
to both cultures but identified with neither), integrated (individuals behaviorally oriented
to both cultures but identified with only their ethnic culture), and explorers (behaviorally
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 16 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
oriented to the dominant culture but identified with only their ethnic culture). Phinney
and Devich-Navarro’s (1997) qualitative and quantitative study sought to empirically
integrate Berry’s (2003), LaFromboise et al.’s (1993), and Birman’s (1994)
conceptual models of biculturalism. This study identified two bicultural types which were
given labels similar to those in LaFromboise et al.’s study: blended biculturals—whose
narratives emphasized identification with a combination of the two cultures more than
with each culture separately, and alternating biculturals—who emphasized situational
differences in how they saw themselves culturally.
These researchers are credited with calling attention to the experience of biculturalism
and for advancing this area of research; however, a conceptual limitation of the above
typologies is their confounding of identity and behavioral markers. Specifically, whereas
the labels “blended” and “fused” refer to identity-related aspects of the bicultural
experience (e.g., seeing oneself as Asian American or Chicano), the label “alternating”
refers to the behavioral domain, that is, the ability to engage in cultural frame-switching
(Benet-Martínez et al., 2002). Naturally, individuals’ subjective experience of their
bicultural identity and their bicultural behavior/competencies do not have to map onto
each other (Roccas & Brewer, 2002; Boski, 2008). For instance, a bicultural individual
may have a blended or fused identity (e.g., someone who is sees him/herself as a product
of both Jewish and American cultures and accordingly identifies as Jewish American) and
also alternate (between speaking mainstream English and Yiddish depending on the
context; i.e., frame-switch). Thus researchers should be aware that the two labels
“blended” and “alternating” do not tap different types of bicultural individuals but rather
different components of the bicultural experience (i.e., identity in the case of “fused” and
behaviors in the case of “alternating”).
Bicultural Identity Integration (BII)
After an extensive review and synthesis of the empirical and qualitative acculturation and
multiculturalism literature, Benet-Martínez et al. (2002) proposed the theoretical
construct of BII as a framework for investigating individual differences in bicultural
identity organization. BII captures the degree to which “biculturals perceive their
mainstream and ethnic cultural identities as compatible and integrated vs. oppositional
and difficult to integrate” (Benet-Martínez et al., 2002, p. 9). As an individual difference
variable, BII thus focuses on bicultural individuals’ subjective perceptions of managing
dual cultural identities (i.e., how they cognitively and affectively organize this
experience). The emphasis here is on subjective (i.e., the perception and experience of)
cultural overlap and compatibility because, as was found in a study of over 7,000
acculturating adolescents in 13 countries, objective differences between ethnic and host
cultures do not seem to relate to adjustment (Berry et al., 2006).
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 17 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
Bicultural individuals with high BII tend to see themselves as part of a hyphenated
culture (or even part of a combined, emerging “third” culture), and find the two cultures
largely compatible and easy to integrate. Bicultural individuals with low BII, on the other
hand, tend to see themselves as living “in-between cultures” and report seeing the two
cultures as largely conflictual and disparate. Interestingly, high and low BIIs have
consistently emerged as similar in their endorsement of Berry’s integrative acculturation
strategy (Benet-Martínez, Lee, & Leu, 2006; Benet-Martínez et al., 2002) and in basic
demographic variables such as years spent in the United States and age of migration;
however, compared with high BIIs, low BIIs tend to be less proficient in English and less
identified with American culture. This pattern underscores competence in the host,
majority culture as a key component of BII.
In summary, bicultural individuals high and low on BII identify with both mainstream
(e.g., American) and ethnic (e.g., Chinese) cultures but (p. 633) differ in their ability to
create a synergistic, integrated cultural identity. Although no construct in the existing
literature captures all the nuances of BII, a few acculturation and ethnic minority
theorists have discussed particular acculturation experiences and outcomes that seem to
relate (if only partially) to the identity integration versus opposition continuum defined by
BII. Examples of these constructs are: “identity synthesis” (Schwartz, 2006),
“blendedness” (Padilla, 1994; Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997), versus “cultural
homelessness” (Vivero & Jenkins, 1999), and “oppositional identities” (Cross, 1995; Ogbu,
1993).
In their first study of BII, Benet-Martínez and her colleagues (Benet-Martínez et al., 2002)
demonstrated the psychological relevance of this individual difference variable by
showing that variations in BII moderate the process of cultural frame-switching.
Specifically, Chinese-American biculturals high on BII (those who perceive their cultural
identities as compatible) exhibited culturally congruent behavior when presented with
external cues associated with one of their cultural backgrounds (e.g., made stronger
external attributions to an ambiguous social event after being primed with Chinese icons,
and made stronger internal attributions to the same event after seeing American icons).
However, Chinese-American biculturals low on BII (those who perceive their cultural
identities to be in opposition), 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 American cues and American-congruent behaviors
(internal attributions) in response to Chinese cues. In other words, low BIIs exhibited a
type of “behavioral reactance” that the sociocognitive literature describes as a contrast
or reverse priming effect (Dijksterhuis et al., 1998).
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 18 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
The above contrastive attributional responses displayed by biculturals with low levels of
BII have since then been replicated (Cheng, Lee, & Benet-Martínez, 2006; Zou, Morris, &
Benet-Martínez, 2008), and a recent study shows these effects also in the domain of
personality self-views (Mok & Morris, 2009). As discussed in Benet-Martínez et al.
(2002), the prime-inconsistent behavior of low BIIs is supported by academic and popular
depictions of cultural clash (e.g., Ogbu, 2008; Roth, 1969), where inner cultural conflict is
often described as leading to behavioral and/or affective “reactance” against the cultural
expectations embedded in particular situations. For instance, in Roth’s novel, the
conflicted bicultural protagonist finds himself feeling and acting particularly Jewish when
traveling to the Midwest, and feeling/acting conspicuously American when visiting
Israel.
Research on BII reports a positive association between BII and (1) psychological well-
being, even after controlling for trait neuroticism (Chen, Benet-Martínez, & Bond, 2008;
Downie et al., 2004); (2) creative performance (Cheng, Sanchez-Burks, & Lee, 2008); (3)
having larger and more richly interconnected social networks (Mok, Morris, Benet-
Martínez, & Karakitapoglu-Aygun, 2007); (4) higher perceived similarity between one’s
minority and majority cultural ingroups (Miramontez, Benet-Martínez, & Nguyen, 2008);
and (6) preference for culturally blended persuasive appeals (Lau-Gesk, 2003).
Recent work on BII has also shown that BII is not a unitary construct, as initially
suggested in earlier work (e.g., Benet-Martínez et al., 2002). Instead, BII seems to involve
two relatively independent psychological constructs, cultural harmony versus conflict and
cultural blendedness versus distance, each representing unique and separate aspects of
the dynamic intersection between mainstream and ethnic cultural identities within
bicultural individuals (Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005). Cultural harmony versus
conflict captures the degree of harmony versus tension or clash felt between the two
cultural orientations (e.g., “I find it easy to balance both Chinese and American cultures”
vs. “I feel caught between the two cultures”). Cultural blendedness versus distance, on
the other hand, captures the degree of overlap versus dissociation or
compartmentalization perceived between the two cultural orientations (e.g., “I feel part
of a combined culture” vs. “I am simply a Chinese who lives in the United states”). (See
Table 2 in Benet-Martínez & Haritatos [2005] for original items and their factor structure,
and Table 25.1 in this chapter for the newly expanded Bicultural Identity Integration
Scale—Version 2: BIIS-2.)
The relative psychometric independence of BII’s components of cultural harmony and
blendedness (correlations between the two scales range between .30 and .40) suggests
that these two constructs are formative—that is, causal—rather than reflective (i.e.,
effect) indicators of BII (Bollen & Lennox, 1991). That is, rather than a latent construct
6
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 19 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
with two resulting dimensions (cultural harmony and blendedness), BII should perhaps be
understood as emerging or resulting from (rather than leading to) variations in cultural
blendedness and harmony (see (p. 634) Figure 25.2). Thus, behaviors, attitudes, and
feelings described by cultural researchers under the rubric of low BII (e.g., the feelings of
tension and incompatibility reported in the first quote opening this section of the chapter)
may in fact be largely capturing the resulting phenomenology of the more basic
experience of cultural conflict and/or cultural distance.
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 20 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
Table 25.1 Bicultural Identity Integration Scale–Version 2 (BIIS-2; Huynh & Benet-
Martínez, 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 difficult to combine __________ and American cultures. (R)
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 21 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
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-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005). R = Reverse
score these items. The BIIS-2 can be used with any ethnic minority culture and
adapted to any host culture.
Click to view larger
Fig. 25.2 High versus low levels of Bicultural Identity Integration result from variations
in cultural harmony and cultural blendedness (adapted from Benet-Martínez &
Haritatos, 2005).
Cultural harmony and blendedness are each associated with different sets of personality,
performance-related, and contextual antecedents (Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005),
which explains the very different phenomenological experiences of biculturalism in the
existing literature. Specifically, as indicated by path analyses (see Figure 1 in Benet-
Martínez & Haritatos, 2005), lack of cultural blendedness (i.e., cultural distance) is
predicted by the personality trait of close-mindedness (i.e., low openness to experience),
low levels of bicultural competence (particularly with regard to the mainstream culture),
experiencing strains in the linguistic domain (e.g., being self-conscious about one’s
accent), and living in a community that is not culturally diverse (see also Miller, Kim, &
Benet-Martínez, 2011). Perhaps low openness makes acculturating individuals perceive
ethnic and mainstream cultures more rigidly, both in terms of their “essential” defining
characteristics and the boundaries between them; it may also make them less permeable
to new cultural values and lifestyles. Such attitudes may lead to the belief that one’s two
cultural identities cannot “come together” and must (p. 635) remain separate. Also, the
perception that one has a noticeable accent and that one’s cultural background is
uncommon in the local environment function as chronic and explicit reminders of the
bicultural’s unique status as cultural minority and also accentuate perceptions of cultural
difference. Aside from these antecedents, cultural distance may also be related to the
need for optimal distinctiveness (Brewer, 1991). Specifically, some biculturals may
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 22 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
choose to keep their ethnic and mainstream identities separate in an effort to affirm both
their intragroup (ethnic) similarity and intergroup (American) differentiation (Benet-
Martínez & Haritatos, 2005). That is, biculturals low on cultural blendedness may be
keeping ethnic (e.g., Chinese) and American cultures separate to affirm their strong ties
to their Chinese culture while also differentiating themselves from the mainstream
American cultural group. Lastly, cultural distance may be related to seeing one’s two
cultures as being very different from each other (Ward & Kennedy, 1993). To the extent
that perceptions of difference may be accentuated in the early stages of mainstream
culture acquisition (e.g., experience of cultural shock), one could speculate that, as
biculturals’ exposure to and competence in the mainstream culture increases,
perceptions of cultural distance would decrease.
Low cultural harmony (i.e., conflict), on the other hand, is largely predicted by having a
neurotic disposition, and experiencing discrimination and strained intercultural relations
(e.g., being told that one’s behavior is “too American” or “ethnic”—see Figure 1 in Benet-
Martínez & Haritatos, 2005; Miller, Kim, & Benet-Martínez, 2011). Perhaps for
biculturals high on neuroticism, switching cognitive and behavioral frames in response to
different cultural cues (i.e., CFS; Hong et al., 2000) brings feelings of confusion
regarding one’s ability to maintain consistent, recognizable self-identities. Also, it is likely
that the acculturation strains of discrimination and strained intercultural relations create
a strong discrepancy between explicit and implicit attitudes toward each culture. In other
words, if a bicultural individual consciously identifies with and values both mainstream
Anglo/American and ethnic cultures but also experiences prejudice and rejection from
members of one or both of these groups, feelings of anger and distress may create
internal discrepancy and attitudinal ambivalence (Van Hook & Higgins, 1988).
In summary, it seems that cultural blendedness is particularly linked to performance-
related personal and contextual challenges (e.g., trait of openness, linguistic fluency,
living in a culturally diverse enclave), while cultural harmony is linked to factors that are
largely intra- and interpersonal in nature (e.g., emotional stability, lack of social prejudice
and rejection). All in all, this work underscores the importance of adding an individual
differences perspective in understanding the bicultural experience, and the
consequentiality of personality factors in the acculturation domain (Ozer & Benet-
Martínez, 2006). These patterns of relationships also suggest that variations in BII, far
from being purely subjective identity representations, are psychologically meaningful
experiences linked to specific contextual pressures and dispositional factors (see Figure
25.2).
As mentioned earlier, much of the research on BII has found that individuals with low
levels of conflict (high BII) are better adjusted and more effective in a variety of domains.
However, some research also indicates that those with low levels of BII are more
7
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 23 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
cognitively complex (Benet-Martínez et al., 2006). This suggests that conflicting cultural
(p. 636) identities may have positive cognitive benefits. Perhaps, inner cultural conflict
leads to more systematic and careful processing of cues from cultural situations, which in
turn leads to cultural representations that are more complex and nuanced. Other
researchers have also argued that the more severe the cultural conflict experienced, the
greater the need to engage in more effortful and complex sense-making (Tadmor,
Tetlock, & Peng, 2009).
Future work on BII should identify the behavioral domains associated with biculturals’
feelings of conflict (e.g., clashes in work values, marriage practices, gender roles, etc.),
as well as the types of contexts associated with biculturals’ feelings of distance and
compartmentalization (e.g., home vs. work, relatives vs. friends, etc.). Second, BII
research should be integrated with theory on the benefits and costs of social identity
complexity (Brook, Garcia, & Fleming, 2009; Roccas & Brewer, 2002; Settles, 2004).
Second, because bicultural identities contain multiple elements including self-
categorization, and importance and meaning attached to each identity, a bicultural
individual may perceive blendedness on some of these elements (e.g., self-categorization),
but not on others (e.g., importance), and harmony on some elements (e.g. meaning), but
conflict on others. A full understanding of BII will require systematic investigation of
these various careful identity elements (Wiley & Deaux, 2011).
Variation in BII and personality dispositions seem to be key individual difference
variables in predicting bicultural identity structure and bicultural experiences, but there
are other relevant variables. Hong and colleagues (Chao, Chen, Roisman, & Hong, 2007;
No, Hong, Liao, Lee, Wood, & Chao, 2008) have shown that Asian American biculturals
who hold essentialist beliefs about race—that is, believe race is an essentialist entity
reflecting biological essence, unalterable, and indicative of abilities and traits—have
more difficulties (i.e., longer latencies) in cultural frame-switching behavior, display
stronger emotional reactivity when talking about bicultural experiences, and identify less
with the host culture. The researchers have argued that essentialist race beliefs give rise
to perception of less permeability between racial and cultural group boundaries, thus
impeding an integration of experiences with both their ethnic and host cultures. Future
research should examine how essentialist beliefs about race and culture as well as BII
(particularly the blendedness vs. distance component) relate to cognitive constructs such
low openness to experience, need for closure, and low integrative complexity among
acculturating individuals (Kosic, Kruglanski, Pierro, & Mannetti, 2004; Tadmor & Tetlock,
2006).
Given the changing and often lifelong nature of acculturation experiences, future studies
examining the interplay between individual differences in personality (e.g., openness,
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 24 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
neuroticism), bicultural identity (e.g., BII), and racial/cultural essentialist beliefs should
be examined in longitudinal studies that are also sensitive to dynamic political/economic
factors. Studies on cultural transitions such as repatriation among sojourners and
immigrants (Sussman, 2000, 2002; Ttsuda, 2003), for instance, reveal a complex pattern
of identity shifts and adjustment outcomes that are driven by both psychological (e.g.,
self-concept clarity, strength of home and host culture identities) and sociopolitical
factors (e.g., economic 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 immigrants’ “ways of being,” (actual social relations and
practices that individuals engage in) and “ways of belonging” (practices that signal or
enact an identity demonstrating a conscious connection to a particular group). Future
work on individual differences in multicultural identity can also benefit tremendously
from recent theorizing on social identity development. Relying on recent intergroup
models as well as on developmental (i.e., neo-Piagetian) and social cognitive frameworks,
Amiot and colleagues (Amiot, de la Sabionnière, Terry, & Smith, 2007) have recently
proposed a four-stage model that explains the specific processes by which multiple social
identities develop intraindividually and become integrated within the self over time. Their
theoretically rich model also specifies the factors that facilitate and hinder these identity
change processes, as well as the consequences associated with identity integration.
Group Differences in Multiculturalism
Multicultural individuals may belong to one of the following five groups based on the
voluntariness, mobility, and permanence of contact with the dominant group: immigrants,
refugees, sojourners, ethnic minorities, and indigenous people (Berry, Kim, Minde, &
Mok, 1987). Immigrants arrive in the host country voluntarily and usually with the
intention to stay, whereas refugees arrive in the host country by force or due to lack of
other alternatives. Like immigrants, sojourners, such as expatriates and (p. 637)
international students, also arrive in the host country voluntarily, but their stay is usually
temporary. Ethnic minorities and indigenous people are those born in the host country,
but indigenous people differ from ethnic minorities in that the host country and culture
was involuntarily imposed on them (e.g., via colonization or military occupation). The
ethnic minority group may be divided into second-generation individuals (whose parents
are immigrants or refugees) and third- or later-generation individuals (whose parents
were born in the host country; Padilla, 2006). Many mixed-race or mixed-ethnic
individuals are also multicultural, regardless of their acculturating group status (Padilla,
2006).
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 25 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
One can speculate about possible group-level differences among the groups mentioned
above with regard to their levels of BII due to their group’s history in the host country,
their relations with members of the dominant group, the current political and
socioeconomic situation, and other structural variables (Nguyen & Benet-Martínez,
2010). For instance, often immigrants and sojourners choose to migrate to the host
country for economic or educational opportunities, and some may even have the option of
returning to their native countries; thus, relative to the other groups, this type of
multicultural individual may be more focused on opportunities and less focused on
cultural issues. Conse- quently, cultural differences may not necessarily be internalized
or translated into the experience of cultural identity conflict or distance. Conversely,
refugees and indigenous people are often forced into contact with the dominant culture,
and the involuntary nature of this contact (e.g., refugees may want to return to their
native countries, but this is not possible due to conflicts between the host and native
countries or within their native countries) magnifies cultural differences and identity
conflict. Relatedly, African Americans, with their history of involuntary slavery and
expatriation, may also experience more cultural identity conflict and distance than other
groups. Lastly, there are reasons to think that feelings of cultural conflict may also be
common among mixed-heritage individuals and second-generation individuals (at least
relative to immigrants and sojourners). Mixed-race and mixed-ethnic individuals are often
given (implicit or explicit) messages suggesting that they are not “enough” of one culture
or the other (Root, 1998). Likewise, second-generation ethnic minorities are sometimes
considered not “ethnic” enough by both their parents and dominant culture peers with
regard to certain cultural “markers” (e.g., ethnic language fluency) while also not being
considered part of the mainstream culture (Padilla, 2006).
In addition to the voluntariness of contact and group expectations, variables such as
generational status and cultural socialization may also play a role in BII, particularly the
experience of cultural distance. Immigrants first learn their ethnic culture in their native
country and later learn the dominant culture in the host country, thus their competencies
and associations with each culture may be more compartmentalized and situation-specific
(i.e., high cultural distance) compared to other groups. This dissociation may also occur
among second-generation ethnic minorities for whom dominant and ethnic cultures are
largely relegated to the public (e.g., work) and private (e.g., home) spheres, respectively.
However, other second- and later-generation ethnic minorities (e.g., Chicano individuals)
may be reared with a blend of both cultures, and thus the structure and experience of
their identities may be more blended (i.e., low cultural distance). How these processes
work for 1.5-generation individuals (immigrant children who moved to another country
early and thus are socialized early into the host country culture) relative to first- and
later-generation individuals remains to be explored.
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 26 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
All in all, notice that the above propositions focus on the relative level of perceived
cultural distance or conflict across groups—that is, I do not assert that some groups
perceive cultural distance or conflict while others do not.
Psychological and Societal Consequences of Multiculturalism
What impact, if any, does multiculturalism have on individuals and the larger society?
The issue of whether multiculturalism is beneficial is often theoretically and empirically
debated. Some researchers contend that the integration/biculturalism strategy, as
compared to the other three acculturation strategies (separation, assimilation,
marginalization), is the most ideal, leading to greater benefits in all areas of life (e.g.,
Berry, 1997; Phinney, Horenczyk, Liebkind, & Vedder, 2001). However, others have
argued that this is not always the case, because the process of dealing with two cultures
and acquiring two behavioral repertories places a burden on the individual and can lead
to stress, isolation, identity confusion, and hindered performance (e.g., Gordon, 1964;
Rudmin, 2003; Vivero & Jenkins, 1999). For instance, when examining the links between
(p. 638) biculturalism and adjustment, some researchers have found positive associations
(e.g., Szapocznik & Kurtines, 1980; Ward & Kennedy, 1994), but others have found no
link or a negative one (e.g., Burnam, Hough, Karno, Escobar, & Telles, 1987; Rotheram-
Borus, 1990). In other words, findings have been mixed with regard to the direction and
magnitude of these associations (Myers & Rodriguez, 2003; Rogler, Cortes, & Malgady,
1991).
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 27 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
Click to view larger
Fig. 25.3 Effect size of the biculturalism-adjustment relationship by type of
acculturation scale (Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2011).
A recent meta-analysis suggests that the above seemingly contradictory findings may be
attributable to the ways in which biculturalism has been measured (Nguyen & Benet-
Martínez, 2011; see also the review of measurement issues in this chapter). Across the 83
studies and 23,197 participants, biculturalism was found to have a significant and
positive relationship with both psychological adjustment (e.g., life satisfaction, positive
affect, self-esteem) and sociocultural adjustment (e.g., academic achievement, career
success, social skills, lack of behavioral problems). Further, this biculturalism-adjustment
link was significantly stronger than the association between each cultural orientation
(dominant or ethnic) and adjustment. Interestingly, the magnitude of the biculturalism-
adjustment association was moderated by the type of acculturation scales used (see
Figure 25.3). When only studies using direct measures of acculturation strategies were
included (i.e., Berry’s scales), the relationship was weak to moderate (r = .21). However,
when only studies using unidimensional scales were included, the relationship was strong
(r = .54). Finally, when only studies using bidimensional scales were used (i.e.,
biculturalism measured via scores above the median or midpoint on both cultural
orientations, the addition method, the multiplication method, or cluster or latent class
analysis), the relationship between biculturalism and adjustment was even stronger (r = .
70). In other words, biculturalism is related to better adjustment, but this relationship is
best detected when biculturalism is measured bidimensionally. This is not perhaps not
surprising given the point made earlier about how unidimensional acculturation scales
can potentially confound biculturalism and marginalization.
The results from the above meta-analysis clearly invalidate early accounts of bicultural
individuals as “marginal” and stumped between two worlds (Gordon, 1964), and they also
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 28 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
suggest important future research directions for social and personality psychologists
studying increasingly diverse samples, such as examining the role that social context may
play in this biculturalism-adjustment relationship, or understanding individual differences
in biculturalism that can moderate the biculturalism-adjustment relationship (e.g., Chen
et al., 2008).
The positive relationship between multiculturalism and adjustment may be due to the
competencies and flexibility (social and cognitive) that multicultural individuals acquire
in the process of learning and using two cultures (Benet-Martínez, Lee, & Leu, 2006;
Leung, Maddox, Galinsky, & Chiu, 2008). Specifically, by virtue of their frequent
experiences attending to, processing, and reacting to different sociocultural contexts,
multicultural individuals process and organize sociocultural information in more
cognitively complex ways than monoculturals (Benet-Martínez et al., 2006). These
competencies may make bicultural individuals more adept at adjusting to various people
or situations in either of their cultures and possibly in other cultures. In addition, this
flexibility may buffer them from the psychological or sociocultural maladjustment that
they might have otherwise suffered as a result of challenging acculturation experiences.
It is possible that being oriented to only one culture rather than both has some
adjustment costs, resulting from rejection from or lack of belongingness with members of
the other culture (Roccas, Horenczyk, & Schwartz, 2000; Rogler et al., 1991; Ross, Xun,
Wilson, 2002). In short, involvement with two or more cultures (vs. the cultural
relinquishing that characterizes assimilation or separation) in all likelihood facilitates the
acquisition of cognitive and social skills as well as wider behavioral repertoires and
competencies which, in turn, buffer multicultural individuals against the psychological
maladjustment (e.g., anxiety, loneliness) or sociocultural (p. 639) challenges (e.g.,
interpersonal conflicts, intercultural miscommunication) that can often characterize the
acculturation experience (Padilla, 2006).
It is also possible that better adjusted individuals (e.g., those with higher self-esteem)
find it easier to be bicultural or are able to use resources, which would otherwise be used
to cope with maladjustment, to participate in both cultures and to interact with people
from either culture, thus becoming more bicultural. The biculturalism-adjustment
relationship may also be due to a third variable, such as the dominant group’s attitudes
toward acculturation. For example, a host country with multicultural policies and a
dominant group that is accepting and nondiscriminatory toward acculturating individuals
may allow for acculturating individuals to become bicultural as well as to attain high
levels of adjustment.
In examining and understanding the outcomes of multiculturalism at the individual level,
it is important to note that multiculturalism is not necessarily an individual choice;
groups and intergroup relations also play a role. For example, an individual may favor the
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 29 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
integration/biculturalism strategy, but if he/she is never accepted into mainstream
society or consistently encounters discrimination, then the integration/biculturalism
strategy may not be possible or even adaptive. Similarly, if one lives in a community
without same-ethnic individuals, then assimilation may be adaptive. Although more
research is needed to determine causality among intergroup relations, multiculturalism,
and adjustment, public policies facilitating multilingual education, racial/cultural
diversity in schools and other organizations, and the prohibition of disparate treatment
for different groups, may influence an individual’s ability to become multicultural, and in
turn, his/her psychological and social well-being.
Multiculturalism may also have significant implications for greater national success and
improved national functioning (Berry, 1998; Schwartz, Montgomery, & Briones, 2006). In
children and adolescents, multiculturalism is positively related to greater academic
achievement (Farver, Bhadha, & Narang, 2002; Régner & Loose, 2006). These
educationally successful students may be able to contribute a great deal to society when
they become adults. In the workplace, multicultural individuals may also contribute to
organizational success, especially when it comes to international business negotiations,
management of culturally diverse teams, and expatriate assignments, because their
multicultural competence may generalize to intercultural competence (Bell & Harrison,
1996; Brannen & Thomas, 2010; Thomas & Inkson, 2004). In addition, they have skills
(e.g., multilingualism, cultural frame-switching, intercultural sensitivity) that are crucial
in our increasingly globalized world; thus, multicultural individuals are ideal cultural
mediators for intercultural conflicts and miscommunications within communities, nations,
and internationally (see introductory point about President Obama).
More generally, it has been found that individuals with more extensive multicultural
experiences, such as multicultural individuals, have greater cognitive complexity (Benet-
Martínez et al., 2006), integrative complexity (Tadmor & Tetlock, 2006; Tadmor, Tetlock,
& Peng, 2009), and creativity (Leung, Maddux, Galinsky, & Chiu, 2008; Maddux &
Galinsky, 2009; Simonton, 1997), which are necessary for innovation and progress. The
sociologist Gouldner (1985) argued that when a person draws on more than one line of
thought, he/she can escape the control of any one of them; this person can toggle
between the two (or more) ways of thinking and also forge new understandings.
Biculturals, because of their experiences moving between cultural systems, may have
richer associations with a single concept than monocultural persons, and they may have
greater tolerance for ambiguity because they are comfortable with situations in which
one basic idea may have different nuances depending on the community they inhabit at
the time (Benet-Martínez et al., 2006).
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 30 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
If the experience of managing different systems of thought (e.g., different sets of cultural
norms, belief systems, contextual cues, and languages) leads to richer and more complex
associations among biculturals, it is not surprising to find that the general cognitive
benefits described above are not restricted to multiculturals. Research in
psycholinguistics shows that some of these cognitive benefits also appear in individuals
who speak more than one language (Bialystock, 1999; Costa, Hernandez, Costa-Faidella,
& Sebastian-Galles, 2009; Lambert, 1978). Recently, Crisp and Turner (2011) have
outlined a theoretical model that specifies the antecedent conditions and cognitive
processes through which perceiving multiple identities, in oneself and others, can lead to
generalized cognitive flexibility. Drawing from the literatures on multiculturalism,
bilingualism, creativity, cognitive development, multiple social categorization, self-
categorization, minority influence, political ideology, and social identity complexity, Crisp
and Turner posit that (1) exposure to diversity, particularly diversity defined by
meaningful incongruent multiple identities (e.g., female (p. 640) engineer, male midwife)
leads to (2) a systematic process of cognitive restructuring that can temporarily trigger,
and over time develop, divergent thought and a more generalized flexibility in category
use, and (3) that can have observable effects across a wide range of intra- (e.g.,
creativity, cognitive complexity) and interpersonal (e.g., prejudice, stereotyping)
domains. In sum, social policies promoting multiculturalism and social diversity may
benefit all individuals and society at large.
New Directions
One and one don’t necessarily add up to two. Cultural and racial amalgams create
a third, wholly indistinguishable category where origin and home are
indeterminate.
O’Hearn (1998, p. xiv)
The possibility of being oriented to an emergent third culture has important implications
for research on multiculturalism, and future acculturation theory and research will likely
incorporate these effects (Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2010). The currently accepted
bidimensional model of acculturation with ethnic and dominant cultural orientations
might be replaced by a tridimensional model, where the third cultural orientation is a
culture that emerges from the integrating of two interacting cultures—for example,
Chicano culture in the United States (Flannery et al., 2001). Moreover, this
tridimensional model might be more applicable to later-generation individuals and those
who identify with a global international culture (Chen et al., 2008) than either the
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 31 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
unidimensional or bidimensional model of acculturation. As of yet, no study has examined
a third cultural orientation or compared a tridimensional model to the other models.
Understanding how emerging global cultures and multicultural spaces that integrate
elements from local and foreign cultures influence psychological processes is of
paramount importance (Chen et al., 2008; Chiu & Cheng, 2007; Nguyen, Huynh, & Benet-
Martínez, 2010). The coexistence of symbols and ideas representing different cultural
traditions in the same physical space is increasingly common (e.g., Starbucks cafés or
McDonald’s restaurants placed in traditional, and sometimes even historic, buildings
throughout Europe and Asia). A recent study sought to examine how the copresence of
images from seemingly distinctive cultures in the same space affects cognition (Chiu,
Mallorie, Keh, & Law, 2009). This study presented monocultural Chinese and European
American individuals with single and joint presentation of icons from American and
Chinese cultures. Chinese participants in the joint Chinese-American icon presentation
condition attributed more characteristically Chinese attributes and behaviors to a
Chinese target person than Chinese participants in the single presentation condition.
Similarly, European American participants in the joint Chinese-American presentation
condition attributed more characteristically Western attributes and behaviors to an
American target. Contrary to the common expectation that the salience of one’s culture
will diminish with globalization, these results show that a globalized environment that
includes symbols from multiple distinctive cultures may draw people’s attention to their
heritage culture as a way to bring coherence and structure to the situation (see also Chiu
& Cheng, 2007). Future studies are needed however to examine these effects among
multicultural individuals, for whom culturally mixed situations in all likelihood do not
represent a threat or mismatch with their sense of self.
The above results from Chiu et al.’s (2009) study with Chinese and American
monoculturals may be informative regarding the perceived incompatibility between
cultural orientations that characterizes biculturals with low levels of BII (Benet-Martínez
& Haritatos, 2006) and the contrast effects often obtained with this group of biculturals.
Recall that low levels of cultural blendedness and cultural harmony are linked to
cognitive rigidity (i.e., low openness to experience) and neuroticism respectively. These
dispositions may make biculturals more prone to experience rumination and cognitive
epistemic needs, such as need for closure, when facing quickly changing and ambiguous
cultural situations, a common feature of the acculturation experience. In other words,
perhaps the mere presence of a single clear cultural cue makes a bicultural low in BII
ruminate about his/her two cultures (e.g., compare them), resulting in a simultaneous
activation of both cultures very similar to the one achieved by the joint cultural images
used in Chiu et al.’s (2009) study. This joint cultural activation, in turn, may elicit need for
closure, or the desire to bring structure over the situation by focusing on and reinforcing
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 32 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
a single cultural affiliation. But which of the two cultural identities, you may ask? The
contrast effects repeatedly found in studies with low BIIs show that it would be the other
culture, that is, the one not being initially primed or activated. Perhaps as suggested by
Mok and Morris (2009), for these conflicted biculturals, following the lead of a particular
(p. 641) cultural cue feels like leaving the other part of the cultural self behind, so they
affirm that other identity to restore equilibrium in the bicultural identities and regain
control over the self and the situation.
Lastly, future work should examine how much the psychology of having multiple national,
ethnic, or racial identities applies to the intersection of other types of cultures and
identities (Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2010). Professional, generational, and geographic
cultures are some examples, but social class and religion are also relevant (Cohen, 2009).
For example, an individual from the southern region of the United States living in the
northern region of the United States may be bicultural. A culture of honor, which justifies
violence in defense of one’s reputation, is relatively prevalent in the South but not the
North; therefore, southern white males living in the North may have to adapt to the
norms in the North and negotiate those two cultures (Cohen, Nisbett, Bowdle, &
Schwarz, 1996). Sexual minorities, such as gay/lesbian individuals, may also be
bicultural, considering that they negotiate and move between gay/lesbian culture and
mainstream heterosexual culture (Fingerhut, Peplau, & Ghavami, 2005). Furthermore,
the pair of cultures to which “biculturalism” refers need not be within the same category.
For example, engineering is a male-dominated occupation; therefore, women engineers
may also be considered bicultural because they must negotiate their identities as women
and as nontraditional engineers (Cheng et al., 2008; Sacharin, Lee, & Gonzalez, 2009;
Settles, 2004). In addition, multicultural experiences and identity negotiations emerge
when individuals find themselves living and working in contexts where SES levels and
favored religion are very different from the ones attached to self—for example, low SES
students attending private colleges and universities, or Muslims living in highly secular
societies (Verkuyten & Yildiz, 2007). I believe that the identity structures and processes
discussed in this chapter (e.g., cultural frame-switching, BII) may also apply to these
other types of identities, but research on this kind of identity intersectionality is
desperately needed (Cole, 2009).
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 33 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
Multiculturalism and Globalization: Implications for Social-
Personality Psychology
The need for both social and personality psychology to respond to the theoretical and
methodological questions posed by the growing phenomenon of multiculturalism cannot
be overestimated. In their sampling and design choices, social and personality
researchers (including those who do cultural work) have often implicitly assumed that
culture is a stable, uniform influence, and that nations and individuals are culturally
homogeneous. But rapid globalization, continued massive migration, and the resulting
demographic changes have resulted in social spaces (schools, homes, work settings) that
are culturally diverse, and in the growing number of individuals who identify with, and
live in more than one culture (Hong et al., 2000). Current and future cultural studies
need to move beyond traditional between-group cultural comparisons and develop
theoretical models and methodologies that capture the multiplicity and malleability of
cultural meaning within individuals. Some recent studies have taken this approach in
examining the interplay between personality dispositions and psychosocial processes
such as acculturation (Ryder et al., 2000), multicultural attitudes (Van der Zee et al.,
2004), bicultural identity structure (Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005), and bilingualism
(Chen et al, 2008; Ramirez-Esparza et al., 2006).
Future cultural research can also benefit from exciting methodological advances.
Because cultural, social, and personality processes operating at the individual level may
not replicate at the cultural level and vice versa (see Tables 3–4 in Benet-Martínez, 2007),
researchers can use multilevel modeling and latent-class techniques to deal with these
complexities (e.g., Eid & Diener, 2001; see also Christ, Sibley, & Wagner, chapter 10, this
volume). These underused techniques have the potential of fostering a fruitful synergy
between the fields of personality and social psychology—which have provided a wealth of
information regarding individual- and group-level characteristics (e.g., traits and values,
majority/minority status)—and the fields of anthropology or sociology, which are very
informative regarding culture-level phenomena (e.g., economy, religion, and many other
key demographic factors).
In addition, although many studies have established that cultural forces influence social
behavior and personality (i.e., culture→person effects), almost no attention has been
given to the processes by which individual factors in turn influence culture
(person→culture effects) (but see Adams, chapter 8, this volume). Evidence from recent
studies shows, for instance, that our personalities shape the cultural contexts in which we
live by influencing both micro- (e.g., personal spaces, music preferences, content and
style of personal Web pages, etc.; Gosling et al., 2002; Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003; Vazire
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 34 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
& Gosling, 2004) (p. 642) and macro- (e.g., political orientation, social activism, etc.; Jost
et al., 2003) cultural elements.
Lastly, to the extent that social and personality psychology can be seen as two distinct
(but relatively similar) “cultures” within psychology (Funder & Fast, 2010; Tracy, Robins,
& Sherman, 2009), and that the research reviewed here attests to the adjustment
benefits of having two cultures and integrating them with oneself, I want to argue that
social and personality psychology would benefit from being more blended. Although there
is some evidence that this integration exists already at the institutional level (e.g., Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, Society for Personality and Social Psychology), the
blending and integration of questions, methods, and theories from the two subdisciplines
is less obvious at the individual (i.e., researcher) level. This is unfortunate given that, as
shown with the studies linking multiculturalism and multilingualism with general
cognitive benefits, the integration of social and personality psychologies could lead to
research that is more innovative, multifaceted, and significant.
Concluding Comments
Researchers and practitioners have acknowledged the importance of multiculturalism,
and noted its consequences for how we conceptualize culture, optimal psychological
functioning, and identity development (e.g., Arnett, 2002, 2008; Hermans & Kempen,
1998). Recently, multiculturalism has also taken center stage in popular culture. Earlier,
it was mentioned that President Obama is undoubtedly multicultural and that
biculturalism may refer to cultures other than ethnic cultures. At the 2009 Radio and
Television Correspondents’ Dinner, John Hodgman, a humorist and actor famous for his
role in Apple’s Mac vs. PC commercials, delivered a speech on biculturalism and
hybridity, and identified Obama as being of two worlds: the world of “nerds” and the
world of “jocks” (C-SPAN, 2009). Like a nerd, Obama values science, objectivity, and the
questioning of the status quo, and like a jock, Obama is likable, confident, and fun to be
around. As mentioned earlier, bicultural individuals often experience the external
pressure of not having or representing “enough” of one culture or another. In line with
this, Hodgman questioned Obama’s authenticity as a nerd and tested him on his
nerdiness. Although delivered as a humorous speech, it accurately highlights the
bicultural experience, particularly the expectations and possible strains related to that
experience.
Humor aside, as Verkuyten eloquently said, “Multiculturalism is concerned with complex
issues that involve many questions and dilemmas. There are promises and there are
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 35 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
important pitfalls … Multiculturalism is about the delicate balance between recognizing
differences and developing meaningful communalities, between differential treatment
and equality, between group identities and individual liberties” (Verkuyten, 2007, p. 294).
Undoubtedly, there are different kinds of diversity and thus different forms of
multicultural policies and theories will perhaps develop to accommodate differences in
history, group representation, political structure, and resources. Above all,
multiculturalism is indisputably a fact of life, and it is our collective duty to maximize its
individual and collective benefits. Through exposure to and internalization of different
cultures, minority and majority individuals can experience different ways of learning,
viewing, and reacting to the world. This experience makes these individuals’ cultural
identities more complex and layered and enriches their cognitive and behavioral
repertoires. Research mentioned earlier shows that these psychological processes lead to
higher cognitive complexity and more creative and tolerant thinking. These attributes are
an indispensable skill in our global world.
Acknowledgments
Veronica Benet-Martínez is an ICREA (Catalan Institute of Advanced Studies) professor at
Pompeu Fabra University. She can be reached at veronica.benet@upf.edu. This chapter
benefited greatly by the ideas and suggestions provided by Angela-MinhTu Nguyen. Some
sections of this chapter include revised and updated material from Nguyen and Benet-
Martínez (2010).
References
Alexander, J. (2001). Theorizing the “modes of incorporation.” Sociological Theory, 19,
237–249.
Amiot, C. E., de la Sablonniere, 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.
Arends-Tóth, J. V., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2006). Assessment of psychological
acculturation. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Acculturation
Psychology (pp. 142–160). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
Arnett, J. J. (2002). The psychology of globalization. American Psychologist, 57, 774–783.
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 36 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less
American. American Psychologist, 63, 602–614.
Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. M. (1995). Handbook of research on multicultural education.
New York: Macmillan.
Barreto, M., Spears, R., Ellemers, N., & Shahinper, K. (2003). Who wants to know? The
effect of audience on identity expression among minority group members. British Journal
of Social Psychology, 42, 299–318.
Bartholet, J., & Stone, D. (2009, January 17). A team of expatriates. Newsweek. Retrieved
from
Baumeister, R. (1986). Identity: Cultural change and the struggle for self. New York:
Oxford University.
Bell, M. P., & Harrison, D. A. (1996). Using intra-national diversity for international
assignments: A model of bicultural competence and expatriate adjustment. Human
Resource Management Review, 6, 47–74.
Bender, & Ng, (2009). Dynamic biculturalism: Socially connected and individuated
unique selves in a globalized world. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 199.
Benet-Martínez, V. (2007). Cross-cultural personality research: Conceptual and
methodological issues. In R.W. Robins, R.C. Fraley, & R. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of
research methods in personality psychology (pp. 170-190). New York, NY: Guildford
Press.
Benet-Martínez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural identity integration (BII):
Components and psychosocial antecedents. Journal of Personality, 73, 1015–1050.
Benet-Martínez, V., Lee, F., & Leu, J. (2006). Biculturalism and cognitive complexity:
Expertise in cultural representations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 386–407.
Benet-Martínez, V., Leu, J., Lee, F., & Morris, M. (2002). Negotiating biculturalism:
Cultural frame switching in biculturals with oppositional versus compatible cultural
identities. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 492–516.
Berry, J. W. (1984). Multicultural policy in Canada: A social psychological analysis.
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 16, 353–370.
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 46, 5–34.
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 37 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
Berry, J. W. (1998). Social psychological costs and benefits of multiculturalism: A view
from Canada. Trames, 2, 209–233.
Berry, J. W. (2003). Conceptual approaches to acculturation. In K. M. Chun, P. B.
Organista, & G. Marín (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and
applied research (pp. 17–37). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Berry, J. W. (2006). Attitudes towards 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: Overview of
the 1991 survey. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 27, 301–320.
Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Minde, T., & Mok, D. (1987). Comparative studies of acculturative
stress. International Migration Review, 21, 491–511.
Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Power, S., Young, M., & Bujaki, M. (1989). Acculturation attitudes
in plural societies. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 38, 185–206.
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.
Bialystok, E. (1999). Cognitive complexity and attentional control in the bilingual mind.
Child Development, 70, 636–644.
Bilbeny, N. (2007). La identidad cosmopolita: Los límites del patriotismo en la era global.
Barcelona, Spain: Kairós.
Birman, D. (1994). Acculturation and human diversity in a multicultural society. In E. J.
Trickett, R. J. Watts & D. Birman (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspective on people in
context (pp. 261–284). San Francisco, CA: US: Jossey-Bass.
Birman, D. (1998). Biculturalism and perceived competence of Latino immigrant
adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 335–354.
Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural
equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 305–314.
Bond, M. H., & Yang, K. (1982). Ethnic affirmation versus cross-cultural accommodation:
the variable impact of questionnaire language on Chinese bilingual from Hong Kong.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13, 169–185.
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 38 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
Boski, P. (2008). Five meanings of integration in acculturation research. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 142–153.
Bourhis, R. Y., Moïse, L. C., Perreault, S., & Senécal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive
acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of
Psychology, 32, 369–386.
Brannen, M. Y, & Thomas, D. C. (2010). Bicultural individuals in organizations:
Implications and opportunity. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 10, 5–
16.
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.
Briley, D. A., Morris, M. W., & Simonson, I. (2005). Cultural chameleons: Biculturals,
conformity motives, and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15, 351–362.
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.
Buriel, R., Calzada, S., & Vasquez, R. (1982). The relationship of traditional Mexican
American culture to adjustment and delinquency among three generations of Mexican
American male adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 4, 41–55.
Burnam, M. A., Hough, R. L., Karno, M., Escobar, J. I., & Telles, C. A. (1987).
Acculturation and lifetime prevalence of psychiatric disorders among Mexican Americans
in Los Angeles. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 28, 89–102.
Burnet, J. (1995). Multiculturalism and racism in Canada. In J. Hjarno (Ed.),
Multiculturalism in the Nordic societies (pp. 43–50). Copenhagen: TemaNord.
C-SPAN. (2009). 2009 Radio and Television Correspondents’ Dinner. Retrieved June 28,
2009, from .
Chao, M., Chen, J., Roisman, G., & Hong, Y. (2007). Essentializing race: Implications for
bicultural individuals’ cognition and physiological reactivity. Psychological Science, 18,
341–348.
Chavez, D. (1994). Face of an angel. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
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.
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 39 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
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.
Cheng, C.-Y., & Lee, F. (2009). Multiracial identity integration: Perceptions of conflict
and distance among multiracial individuals. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 51 – 68.
Cheng, C.-Y., 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.
Chiu, C. Y., & Cheng, S. Y. (2007). Toward a social psychology of culture and
globalization: Some social cognitive consequences of activating two cultures
simultaneously. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 84–100.
Chiu, C. Y., Mallorie, L., Keh, H., & Law, W. (2009). Perceptions of culture in
multicultural space: Joint presentation of images from two cultures increases in-group
attribution of culture-typical characteristics. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40,
282–300.
Cohen, A. B. (2009). Many forms of culture. American Psychologist, 3, 194–204.
Cohen, D., Nisbett, R. E., Bowdle, B. R., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Insult, aggression, and the
southern culture of honor: An “experimental ethnography.” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 70, 945–960.
Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist,
63, 170–180.
Costa, A., Hernández, M., Costa-Faidella J., Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2009). On the Bilingual
advantage in conflict processing: Now you see it, now you don’t. Cognition, 113, 135–
149.Crisp, R. J. & Turner, R. N. (2011). Cognitive adaptation to the experience of social
and cultural diversity. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 242-266.
Cross, W. E. (1995). Oppositional identity and African American youth: Issues and
prospects. In W. D. Hawley (Ed.), Toward a common destiny: Improving race and ethnic
relations in America (pp. 185–204). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cuéllar, I., Arnold, B., & Maldonado, R. (1995). Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican
Americans—II: A revision of the original ARSMA scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, 17, 275–304.
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 40 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
Cuéllar, I., Harris, L. C., & Jasso, R. (1980). An acculturation scale for Mexican American
normal and clinical populations. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 2, 199–217.
Deaux, K. (2006). To be an immigrant. New York: Russell Sage.
Deaux, K., Reid, A., Martin, D., & Bikmen, N. (2006). Ideologies of diversity and
inequality: Predicting collective action in groups varying in ethnicity and immigrant
status. Political Psychology, 27, 123–146.
Devos, T. (2006). Implicit bicultural identity among Mexican American and Asian
American college students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12, 381–
402.
Dijksterhuis, A., Spears, R., Postmes, T., Stapel, D. A., Koomen, W., van Knippenberg, A.,
et al. (1998). Seeing one thing and doing another: Contrast effects in automatic behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 862–871.
Donà, G., & Berry, J. W. (1994). Acculturation attitudes and acculturative stress of
Central American refugees. International Journal of Psychology, 29, 57–70.
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.
Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2001). Norms for experiencing emotions in different cultures:
Inter- and intranational differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81,
869–885.
Farver, J. A. M., Bhadha, B. R., & Narang, S. K. (2002). Acculturation and psychological
functioning in Asian Indian adolescents. Social Development, 11, 11–29.
Fingerhut, A. W., Peplau, L. A., & Ghavami, N. (2005). A dual-identity framework for
understanding lesbian experience. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 129–139.
Flannery, W. P., Reise, S. P., & Yu, J. (2001). An empirical comparison of acculturation
models. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1035–1045.
Fowers, B. J., & Richardson, F. C. (1996). Why is multiculturalism good? American
Psychologist, 51, 609–621.
Fu, H.-Y., Chiu, C.-Y., Morris, M. W., Young, M. (2007). Spontaneous inferences from
cultural cues: Varying responses of cultural insiders and outsiders. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 38, 58–75.
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 41 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
Funder, D., & Fast, L. (2010). Personality in social psychology. In S. T. Fiske, D. T.
Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 668-697), 5th ed.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Nier, J. A., Ward, C. W., & Banker, B. S. (1999). Across
cultural divides: The value of a superordinate identity. In D. A. Prentice & D. T. Miller
(Eds.), Cultural divides: Understanding and overcoming group conflict (pp. 173–212).
New York: Russell Sage.
Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S., & Lee, A. Y. (1999). “I” value freedom, but “we” value
relationships: Self-construal priming mirrors cultural differences in judgment.
Psychological Science, 10, 321–326.
Gordon, M. M. (1964). Assimilation in American life. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gosling, S. D., Ko, S. J., Mannarelli, T., & Morris, M. E. (2002). A room with a cue:
Judgments of personality based on offices and bedrooms. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 82, 379–398.
Gouldner, A. (1985). Against fragmentation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Greenfield, P. M. (2000). Three approaches to the psychology of culture: Where do they
come from? Where can they go? Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 223–240.
Grosjean, P. (1996). Living with two languages and two cultures. In I. Parasnis (Ed.),
Cultural and language diversity and the deaf experience (pp. 20–37). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Hammack, P. L. (2010). The political psychology of personal narrative: The case of
Barack Obama. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 10, 182-206.
Hartmann, D., & Gerteis, J. (2005). Dealing with diversity: Mapping multiculturalism in
sociological terms. Sociological Theory, 23, 218–240.
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.
Hollinger, D. A. (1995). Postethnic America: Beyond multiculturalism. New York: Basic
Books.
Hong, Y. Y., Benet-Martínez, V., Chiu, C. Y., & 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.
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 42 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
Hong, Y., Chan, G., Chiu, C., Wong, R. Y. M., Hansen, I. G., Lee, S., et al. (2003). How are
social identities linked to self-conception and intergroup orientation? The moderating
effect of implicit theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1147–1160.
Hong, Y. Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C. Y., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2000). Multicultural minds:
A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55,
709–720.
Hong, Y., Wan, C., No, S., & Chiu, C. (2007). Multicultural identities. In S. Kitayama & D.
Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology. (pp. 323–345). New York: Guilford.
Huntington, S. P. (2004). Who are we? The challenges to America’s national identity. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Huo, Y. J. (2003). Procedural justice and social regulation across group boundaries: Does
subgroup identity undermine relationship-based governance? Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 29, 336–348.
Huynh, Q.-L., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2011). Bicultural Identity Integration Scale—Version
2: Development and Validation. Manuscript in preparation.
Huynh, Q.-L., Howell, R. T., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2009). Reliability of bidimensional
acculturation scores: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40, 256–274.
Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Liebkind, K., Horenczyk, G., & Schmitz, P. (2003). The interactive
nature of acculturation: Perceived discrimination, acculturation attitudes and stress
among young ethnic repatriates in Finland, Israel, and Germany. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 27, 79–97.
Jetten, J., Postmes, T., & McAuliffe, B. (2002). “We’re all individuals”: Group norms of
individualism and collectivism, levels of identification and identity threat. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 189–207.
Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the
production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–27.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. (2003). Political conservatism as
motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375.
Kang, S.-M. (2006). Measurement of acculturation, scale formats, and language
competence: Their implications for adjustment. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37,
669–693.
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 43 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
Kemmelmeier, M., & Cheng, B.Y. (2004). Language and self-construal priming: a
replication and extension in a Hong Kong sample. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
35, 705–712.
Kim-Jo, T., Benet-Martínez, V., & Ozer, D. (2010). Culture and conflict resolution styles:
The role of acculturation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41, 264–269.
Klein, O., Spears, R., & Reicher, S. (2007). Social identity performance: Extending the
strategic side of SIDE. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 1–18.
Kosic, A., Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., & Mannetti, L. (2004). The social cognitions of
immigrants’ acculturation: Effects of the need for closure and reference group at entry.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 796–813.
Kosmitzki, C. (1996). The reaffirmation of cultural identity in cross-cultural encounters.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(3), 238–247.
LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H. L., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of
biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 395–412.
Lambert, W. E. (1978). Cognitive and socio-cultural consequences of bilingualism.
Canadian Modern Language Review, 34, 537–547.
Lambert, W. E. (1992). Challenging established views on social issues: The power and
limitations of research. American Psychologist, 47, 533–542.
Lau-Gesk, L. G. (2003). Activating culture through persuasion appeals: An examination of
the bicultural consumer. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 301–315.
Lê, T. D. T. (1998). California palms. In O’Hearn, C. C. (Ed.), Half and half: Writers on
growing up biracial and bicultural. New York: Pantheon
Lê, T. D. T. (2003). The gangster we are all looking for. New York: Random House.
Lechuga, J. (2008). Is acculturation a dynamic construct? Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, 30, 324–339.
Lee, S.-K., Sobal, J., & Frongillo, E. A. (2003). Comparison of models of acculturation: The
case of Korean Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 282–296.
Leung, A. K.-Y., Maddux, W. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Chiu, C. Y. (2008). Multicultural
experience enhances creativity: The when and how. American Psychologist, 63, 169–181.
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 44 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
Levitt, P., & Schiller, N. (2004). Conceptualizing simultaneity: A transnational social field
perspective on society. International Migration Review, 37, 595–629.
Livingston, K. (2003). My half identity. Bilingual/Bicultural Family Network. Retrieved
from
Maddux, W. W., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Cultural borders and mental barriers: The
relationship between living abroad and creativity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 96, 1047–1061.
Mahalingam, R. (2006). Cultural psychology of immigrants. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
Matsumoto, D. (2000). Culture and psychology. Belmonte: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Miller, M.J., Kim, J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2011). Validating the Riverside Acculturation
Stress Inventory (RASI). Psychological Assessment, 23, 300-310.
Miramontez, D. R., Benet-Martínez, V., & Nguyen, A.-M. D. (2008). Bicultural identity and
self/group personality perceptions. Self and Identity, 7, 430–445.
Mok, A., Morris, M., Benet-Martínez, V., & Karakitapoglu-Aygun, Z. (2007). Embracing
American culture: Structures of social identity and social networks among first-
generation biculturals. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 629–635.
Mok, A., & Morris, M. W. (2009). Cultural chameleons 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.
Myers, H. F., & Rodriguez, N. (2003). Acculturation and physical health in racial and
ethnic minorities. In K. M. Chun, P. B. Organista, & G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation:
Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research (pp. 163–185). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Nguyen, A.-M. D, & Benet-Martínez, V. (2010). Multicultural Identity: What it is and why
it matters. In R. Crisp (Ed.), The psychology of social and cultural diversity (pp. 87-114).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Nguyen, A.-M. D., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2007). Biculturalism unpacked: Components,
individual differences, measurement, and outcomes. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 1, 101–114.
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 45 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
Nguyen, A.-M. D., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2011). Biculturalism is linked to adjustment: A
meta-analysis. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Nguyen, A.-M. D., Huynh, Q., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2010). Glocalization and cultural
reaffirmation. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Personality and
Social Psychologists, Las Vegas, NV.
No, S., Hong, Y., Liao, H-Y., Lee, K., & Wood, D., & Chao, M. M. (2008). Lay theory of
race affects and moderates Asian Americans’ responses toward American culture. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 991-1004.
O’Hearn, C. C. (1998). Half and half: Writers on growing up biracial and bicultural. New
York: Pantheon.
Obama, B. H. (2009, January 21). Inaugural address. Retrieved July 8, 2009, from
Ogbu, J. U. (1993). Differences in cultural frame of reference. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 16, 483–506.
Ogbu, J. U. (2008). Minority status, oppositional culture, and schooling. New York:
Routledge.
Oyserman, D., Sorensen, N., Reber, R., Chen, S. X., & Sannum, P. (2009). Connecting and
separating mindsets: Culture as situated cognition. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 97, 217–235.
Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential
outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401–421.
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.
Padilla, A. M. (2006). Bicultural social development. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, 28, 467–497.
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.
Phinney, J. S. (1999). An intercultural approach in psychology: Cultural contact and
identity. Cross-Cultural Psychology Bulletin, 33, 24–31.
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 46 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
Phinney, J. S. (2003). Ethnic identity and acculturation. In K. M. Chun, P. B. Organista, &
G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research
(pp. 63–81). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Phinney, J., 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 transition: Acculturation, identity, and
adaptation across national contexts (pp. 71-116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
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.
Phinney, J. S., Horenczyk, G., Liebkind, K., & Vedder, P. (2001). Ethnic identity,
immigration, and well-being: An interactional perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 57,
493–510.
Plaut, V. C., Thomas, K. M., & Goren, M. J. (2009). Is multiculturalism or colorblindness
better for minorities? Psychological Science, 4, 444-446.
Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second
generation. New York: Russell Sage.
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.
Ramirez-Esparza, N., Gosling, S., Benet-Martínez, V., Potter, J. & Pennebaker, J. (2006).
Do bilinguals have two personalities? A special case of cultural frame-switching. Journal
of Research in Personality, 40, 99–120.
Régner, I., & Loose, F. (2006). Relationship of sociocultural factors and academic self-
esteem to school grades and school disengagement in North African French adolescents.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 777–797.
Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2003). The do re mi’s of everyday life: The structure and
personality correlates of music preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
84, 1236–1256.
Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 6, 88–107.
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 47 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
Roccas S., Horenczyk G., Schwartz S. (2000). Acculturation discrepancies and well-being:
the moderating role of conformity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 323–334.
Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., Halevy, N., & Eidelson, R. (2008). Towards a
unifying model of identification with groups: Integrating theoretical perspectives.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 280–306.
Rogler, L. H., Cortes, D. E., & Malgady, R. G. (1991). Acculturation and mental health
status among Hispanics: Convergence and new directions for research. American
Psychologist, 46, 585–597.
Root, M. P. P. (1998). Experiences and processes affecting racial identity development:
Preliminary results from the biracial sibling project. Cultural Diversity and Mental
Health, 4, 237–247.
Ross, M., Xun, W. Q. E., & Wilson, A. E. (2002). Language and the bicultural self.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1040–1050.
Roth, P. (1969). Portnoy’s complaint. New York: Random House.
Rotheram-Borus, M. J. (1990). Adolescents’ reference-group choices, self-esteem, and
adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1075–1081.
Rudmin, F. W. (2003). Critical history of the acculturation psychology of assimilation,
separation, integration, and marginalization. Review of General Psychology, 7, 3–37.
Ryder, A. G., Alden, L. E., & Paulhus, D. L. (2000). Is acculturation unidimensional or
bidimensional? A head-to-head comparison in the prediction of personality, self-identity,
and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 49–65.
Sacharin, V., Lee, F., & Gonzalez, R. (2009). Identities in harmony? Gender-work identity
integration moderates frame-switching in cognitive processing. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 3, 275–284.
Saleh, N. (2009, January 29). The world’s first global president. Miller-Mccune. Retrieved
from .
Sam, D. L., & Berry, J. W. (2006). Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sanchez-Burks, J., Lee, F., Choi, I., Nisbett, R., Zhao, S., & Koo, J. (2003). Conversing
across cultures: East-West communication styles in work and nonwork contexts. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 363–372.
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 48 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
Schalk-Soekar, S. (2007). Multiculturalism: A stable concept with many ideological and
political aspects. Tilburg, The Netherlands: University of Tilburg.
Schwartz, S. J. (2006). Predicting identity consolation from self-construction,
eudaimonistic self-discovery, and agentic personality. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 777–
793.
Schwartz, S. J., Montgomery, M. J., & Briones, E. (2006). The role of identity in
acculturation among immigrant people: Theoretical propositions, empirical questions,
and applied recommendations. Human Development, 49, 1–30.
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. (2010). Biculturalism and context: What is biculturalism, and
when it is adaptive? Commentary on Mistry and Wu. Human Development, 53, 26–32.
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, 275–295.
Sedikides, C., Wildschut, T., Routledge, C., Arndt, J., & Zhou, X. (2009). Buffering
acculturative stress and facilitating cultural adaptation: Nostalgias as a psychological
resource. In R. S. Wyer Jr., C.-Y. Chiu, & Y.-Y. Hong (Eds.), Understanding culture:
Theory, research and application (pp. 351–368). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Settles, I. H. (2004). When multiple identities interfere: The role of identity centrality.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 487–500.
Simonton, D. K. (1997). Foreign influence and national development: The impact of open
milieus on Japanese civilization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 86–94.
Stevens, G. W. J. M., Pels, T. V. M., Vollebergh, W. A. M., & Crijnen, A. A. M. (2004).
Patterns of psychosocial acculturation in adult and adolescent Moroccan immigrants
living in the Netherlands. Journal of Cross-Cultura Psychology, 35, 689–704.
Sue, D. W., & Sue, F. (2003). Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice (4th
ed.). New York: Wiley.
Suinn, R. M., Rickard-Figueroa, K., Lew, S., & Vigil, P. (1987). The Suinn-Lew Asian Self-
Identity Acculturation Scale (SL-ASIA). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47,
401–407.
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 49 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
Sussman, N. M. (2000). The dynamic nature of cultural identity throughout cultural
transitions: Why home is not so sweet. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 355–
373.
Sussman, N. M. (2002). Testing the cultural identity model of the cultural transition
cycle: Sojourners return home. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26, 391–
408.
Szapocznik, J. & Kurtines, W. (1980). Acculturation, biculturalism, and adjustment among
Cuban Americans. In A. M. Padilla (Ed.), Psychological dimensions on the acculturation
process: Theory, models, and some new findings (pp. 139–159). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Tadmor, C. T., & Tetlock, P. E. (2006). Biculturalism: A model of the effects of second-
culture exposure on acculturation and integrative complexity. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 37, 173–190.
Tadmor, C. T., Tetlock, P. E., & Peng, K. (2009). Acculturation strategies and integrative
complexity: The cognitive implications of biculturalism. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 40, 105–139.
Taylor, C. (2001). Democracy, inclusive and exclusive. In R. Madsen, W. M. Sullivan, A.
Swidler, & S. M. Tipton (Eds.), Meaning and modernity: Religion, polity, and the self (pp.
181–194). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., & White, K. M. (1999). The theory of planned behaviour: Self-
identity, social identity and group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 225–
244.
Thomas, D. C., & Inkson, K. (2004). Cultural intelligence: People skills for global
business. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Tracy, J. L., Robins, R. W., & Sherman, J. W. (2009). The practice of psychological
science: Searching for Cronbach’s two streams in social-personality psychology. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1206–1225.
Triandis, H. C. (1996). The psychological measurement of cultural syndromes. American
Psychologist, 51, 407–415.
Trimble, J. E. (2003). Introduction: Social change and acculturation. In K. M. Chun, P. B.
Organista, & G. Marín (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and
applied research (pp. 3–13). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 50 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
Tsai, J. L., Ying, Y.-W., & Lee, P. A. (2000). The meaning of “being Chinese” and “being
American”: Variation among Chinese American young adults. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 31, 302–332.
Tsuda, T. (2003). Strangers in the ethnic homeland: Japanese Brazilian return migration
in transnational perspective. New York: Columbia University Press.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2006). Retrieved March 18, 2008, from
Van der Zee, K. I., Atsma, N., & Brodbeck, F. C. (2004). The influence of social identity
and personality on outcomes of cultural diversity in teams. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 35, 283–303.
Van der Zee, K. I., & Van der Gang, I. (2007). Personality, threat, and affective responses
to cultural diversity. European Journal of Personality, 21, 453–470.
Van der Zee, K. I., & Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2000). Psychometric qualities of the
Multicultural Personality Questionnaire: A multidimensional instrument of multicultural
effectiveness. European Journal of Personality, 14, 291–309.
Van Hook, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1988). Self-related problems beyond the self-concept:
Motivational consequences of discrepant self-guides. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 55, 625–633.
Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Ward, C., & Masgoret, A.M. (2006). Patterns of relations between
immigrants and host societies. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 637–
651.
Vazire, S., & Gosling, S. D. (2004). E-perceptions: Personality impressions based on
personal websites. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 123–132.
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.
Verkuyten, M. (2007). Social psychology and multiculturalism. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 1, 1–16.
Verkuyten, M. (2009). Self-esteem and multiculturalism: An examination among ethnic
minority and majority groups in the Netherlands. Journal of Research in Personality, 43,
419–427.
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 51 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
Verkuyten, M., & Martinovic, B. (2006). Understanding multicultural attitudes: The role
of group status, identification, friendships, and justifying ideologies. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 30, 1–18.
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.
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.
Verkuyten, M., & Thijs, J. (1999). Multiculturalism among minority and majority
adolescents in the Netherlands. International Journal of Inter-cultural Relations, 26, 91–
108.
Verkuyten, M., & Thijs, J. (2004). Global and ethnic self-esteem in school context:
Minority and majority groups in the Netherlands. Social Indicators Research, 67, 253–
281.
Verkuyten, M., & Yildiz, A. A. (2007). National (dis)identification and ethnic and religious
identity: A study among Turkish-Dutch Muslims. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 33, 1448–1462.
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, 6–26.
Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1993). Where’s the culture in cross-cultural transition?
Comparative studies of sojourners adjustment. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24,
221–249.
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. (2008). Attitudes toward immigrants, immigration, and
multiculturalism in New Zealand: A social psychological analysis. International Migration
Review, 42, 227–248.
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
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 52 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
culturally diverse societies: A multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 49–68). Chichester, West
Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Wolf, R. (2009, April 20). Most diverse Cabinet in history still incomplete. USA Today.
Retrieved from
Wolsko, C., Park, B., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. (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, 277–306.
Wong, R. Y.-M., & Hong, Y.-Y. (2005). Dynamic influences of culture on cooperation in the
Prisoner’s Dilemma. Psychological Science, 16, 429–434.
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.
Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zane, N., & Mak, W. (2003). Major approaches to the measurement of acculturation
among ethnic minority populations: A content analysis and an alternative empirical
strategy. In K. M. Chun, P. B. Organista, & G. Marín (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in
theory, measurement, and applied research (pp. 39–60). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Zou, X., Morris, M., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2008). Identity motives and cultural priming:
Cultural (dis)identification in assimilative and contrastive responses. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1151–1159
Notes:
(1) For the sake of simplicity and consistency, in this chapter I favor the broader term
“multicultural” or “multiculturalism” over the term “bicultural.” Regardless of the term
used, I 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) Hong et al. (200) define culture as a loosely organized network of knowledge that is
produced, distributed, and reproduced among a collection of interconnected people. This
“loose” view of culture contrasts with the “systemic” view (e.g., Greenfield, 2000; Markus
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 53 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016
& Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1996), which sees culture as a coherent system of meanings
with an identifiable central theme around which all cultural meanings are organized (e.g.,
independence vs. interdependence).
(3) See Lambert (1992) for a review of his ambitious research program on the social
psychology of bilingualism. Decades of research by Lambert and collaborators debunked
the idea that having two linguistic systems within one’s brain divides a person’s cognitive
resources and reduces efficiency of thought and language. Instead, Lambert’s work
provided strong evidence for cognitive, educational, and social advantages to being
bilingual.
(4) Note that behaviors differing across cultural groups can also be understood from this
framework. Specifically, according to the “culture-as-situated-cognition” perspective
(Oyserman, Sorensen, Reber, Chen, & Sannum, 2009), cross-cultural differences in
behavior are due to cross-national differences in the likelihood that particular mind-sets
will be cued at a particular moment in time. Institutions, media, folklore, and practices
within each culture drive the types of cues and their ubiquity, and thus the mind-sets that
will be more frequently cued.
(5) A recent meta-analysis of the aggregate reliability of three well-known bidimensional
acculturation instruments found that variability in the reliability estimates was associated
with scale length, gender, and ethnic composition of the samples, and that this pattern of
association was different for ethnic and mainstream culture orientations (Huynh, Howell,
& Benet-Martínez, 2009).
(6) BII is typically conceptualized as a relatively stable individual difference tapping a
bicultural’s overall feelings and perceptions regarding the compatibility and integration
of his/her dual cultural orientations; however, like most other individual difference
constructs, BII should also be seen as an emerging from the interaction of the person and
his/her audience, and thus as also malleable and reactive (Wiley & Deaux, 2011).
(7) A recent study has shown that BII is a construct also applicable to the multiracial
experience (Cheng & Lee, 2009). This study also established the malleability of BII: a
manipulation inducing recall of positive multiracial experiences resulted in an increase of
both blendedness and harmony, while recall of negative multiracial experiences resulted
in decreases.
Verónica Benet-Martínez
Department of Political and Social Sciences at Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF),
Barcelona, Spain
Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and
Personality Processes
Page 54 of 54
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 07 March 2016