1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2000), ethnic minorities will make
up one-third of the United States population by the year 2015. By 2050, that
number will rise to nearly 50 percent (Wang et al., 2003). Given the changing
demographics, as well as recent rise in liberation movements, minority assertion,
and identity politics in the United States, there has been an increase in research on
ethnicity and related issues such as ethnic group relations and ethnic identity (Lee,
2003; Negy, Shreve, Jensen, & Uddin, 2003; Sellers, Smith, Shelton, Roley, &
Chavous, 1997; Simons et al., 2002). In the social sciences, scholars have been
investigating the broader social context and the ways in which it shapes and
influences people’s understanding of ethnicity (Nagel, 1994; Waters, 1990). For
example, they have focused on the larger economic, social, political and cultural
conditions associated with ethnic group relations to understand the ways in which
ethnicity and ethnic identity are played out at the individual and interpersonal
levels. In the psychological literature, there has been an increase in research
examining ethnic identity and its relationship to psychological correlates such as
self-esteem and at-risk behaviors with youth and young adults (Phinney, 1992;
Phinney & Alipura, 1996; Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2006). Researchers have also
been examining the development and shifts in multicultural awareness and
competence for students living in ethnically diverse communities as well as for
counselors, teachers, and practitioners working with diverse populations (Wang et
2
al., 2003). This study examines the following questions: a) How might
multicultural attitudes vary by ethnic composition of social context for White
Americans and ethnic minority group members, b) How might multicultural
attitudes vary as a function of ethnic composition of social context and ethnic
identity for ethnic minority group members, and c) What differences are there in
predictors of multicultural awareness and competency for White Americans and
ethnic minority group members? The following is a review of the literatures on
ethnicity, ethnic identity, and multicultural awareness and competency.
3
Chapter 2
SOCIAL CONTEXT
Bronfenbrenner's ecological perspective (1979) represents one of the first
systematic endeavors to contextualize human behavior. In this framework,
Bronfenbrenner (1979) examined how both psychological processes (e.g.,
perception and motivation) and content (e.g., what is being thought about,
perceived, desired or acquired as information) change as a result of one's exposure
to and interaction with the environment. Briefly, his theoretical perspective views
human development as a function of four systems: a) microsystem, b) mesosystem,
c) exosystem and d) macrosystem. Microsystem refers to the individual and that
person’s links to other individuals in an immediate setting. Mesosystem refers to
the system of relations between two or more settings (e.g., school, home) in which
an individual is an active participant. Exosystem refers to settings in which the
individual does not participate but nevertheless affect events in that person’s
immediate environment (i.e., mesosystem). Macrosystem refers to the
organization of broad social structures and processes.
Viewing ethnicity from Bronfenbrenner's ecological model (1979), one
adopts the perspective that multiple levels of social organization influence the
ways in which ethnicity is experienced by the individual. At the structural level,
researchers maintain that the larger social, cultural, and political periods ethnic
groups are situated in shape the form and content of ethnicity (Nagel, 1994;
Waters, 1990). From this perspective, ethnicity is shaped by the continuous shifts
4
in ethnic boundaries that are based on factors such as language, region, culture,
physical appearance, and religion. These boundaries are constantly negotiated,
redefined, and transformed by both in-group members and out-group actors.
Instead of a model of ethnicity that is stable and fixed, the result is a dynamic,
situational, and fluid model of ethnicity (Nagel, 1994; Waters, 1990).
At the micro-level, researchers view ethnicity as an aspect of one's social
identity that plays a central role in the development of the self (Phinney, 1990;
Tajfel, 1979). According to this view, one's identification with ethnicity plays a
crucial role in the formation of a stable and positive self-concept. An
understanding of one's ethnicity also has important implications for attitudes and
emotions ethnic minority group members have toward in-group and out-group
members (Helms, 1990; Tajfel, 1979). By and large, researchers have associated
various attitudes and emotions with specific developmental stages of ethnic
identity. For example, some people may have more favorable attitudes and
emotions for own ethnic group members in certain stages while others may have
more negative attitudes and emotions for own ethnic group members in other
stages (Phinney, 1990).
In the spirit of Bronfenbrenner's ecological perspective, then, we can see
that the social context and various levels of social organization, in theory,
influence how individuals perceive and give meaning to their ethnicity. Although
the current study does not focus directly on the macro-level, it examines the more
immediate settings such as the cities and towns people have lived in which are
5
understood to be influenced by the broader social environment and give meaning
to their understanding of ethnicity. A discussion on one’s identification with
ethnicity follows in the next section.
6
Chapter 3
ETHNIC IDENTITY
In the psychological literature, ethnic identity is seen as a complex,
multidimensional construct that includes commitment and a sense of belonging to
one’s ethnic group, interest and knowledge about the group, and involvement in
activities and cultural traditions of the group. Ethnic identity is considered an
important psychological construct for individuals, especially for those who belong
to an ethnic minority group (Phinney, 1990, 1996a, 1996b; Christian, Gadfield,
Giles, & Taylor, 1976). Ethnic identity becomes especially important in childhood
and adolescence and increases as a function of color, language differences,
physical features, and racial and ethnic stereotypes (Spencer & Markstrom-Adams,
1990). Children often confront conflicting societal and familial values from which
they must choose when forming an ethnic identity.
The study of ethnic identity emphasizes how ethnic group members
understand and interpret their own ethnicity, with individuals potentially differing
in how they identify with their own ethnic group (Phinney, 1996a). While one
individual of a particular ethnic group may feel a strong sense of commitment to
one’s group, another individual of the same ethnic group may be confused and
have conflicting emotions regarding one’s ethnicity. Some people may have high
participation in their cultural heritage and customs while others may feel that their
ethnicity is not an important aspect in their lives. These differences can be
associated with developmental changes over time as individuals explore and
7
evaluate the meaning and implications of their own group membership. The
formation of ethnic identity depends on the exploration of questions regarding
prior ethnic attitudes and can lead to the construction of a secure and positive
sense of one’s identity as a member of an ethnic group that overlaps with the
acceptance of other groups. A discussion on approaches researchers use to
understand the ways in which ethnic group members understand their ethnicity
follows next.
Psychological Models of Ethnic Identity
Most researchers in psychology use one of two general frameworks to
guide their study of ethnic identity: social identity and developmental theory.
Although these perspectives share the basic notion that ethnic identity implies
some form of psychological attachment with one’s ethnic group, they differ in
their points of emphases. This section begins with an analysis of the social
identity framework, the first systematic attempt to account for the psychological
relationship to one’s ethnic group in a racially oppressive society, followed by an
examination of the developmental approach to the study of ethnic identity.
Social Identity Framework. A large body of work on ethnic identity has
been influenced by the social identity perspective (Cameron & Lalonde, 1994;
Gurin, Hurtado, & Peng, 1994; Tajfel, 1981; Turner, Oakes, Haslam, & McGarty,
1994). In response to the reductionistic tendencies of psychology that focused
solely on human behavior produced by individual dynamics, the social identity
approach was developed with the aim to deal with the dynamic relationship
8
between the individual and society (Tajfel, 1981). Social identity is defined as
“that part of the individual’s self concept which derives from his knowledge of his
membership of a social group together with the value and emotional significance
attached to that membership” (Tajfel, 1981, p. 255). Typically, the identification
process involves social comparisons in which there is a claim of membership to
one group and a contrast of that group with another group (Oaker & Brown, 1986).
Value-loaded comparisons with other groups or their individual members that
present one’s own group(s) favorably enhance the self-concept of the individual.
Social psychologists have extensively examined the psychological
relationship between the individual and one’s own ethnic group and have argued
that ethnic minorities present unique dilemmas for social identity theories (Tajfel,
1981; Turner & Tajfel, 1979). In particular, they have argued that if the dominant
group in society holds the characteristics of an ethnic group in low regard, then
ethnic group members may potentially be faced with a negative social identity.
This, in turn, may have negative psychological effects, such as one "leaning-overbackwards" in accepting derogatory views about one’s ethnic group by the
majority group. This view is an important point because it suggests that ethnic
minority group members face obstacles in developing a positive ethnic identity.
Tajfel and his colleagues (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel, 1981, Tajfel & Turner,
1979) suggested that minority group members have several ways to resolve their
negative ethnic identity. The first, known as passing, is a form of complete
assimilation that requires one to identify with the dominant group and reject one’s
9
own ethnic group. One often proclaims disdain for one’s “inferior” ethnic group;
however, this course of action may have negative psychological consequences.
Furthermore, this is a limited option for ethnic group members whose physical
features are distinct. The second solution, cultural and psychological insulation,
allows one to isolate oneself from the cultural and social influences of the
dominant group. For example, rather than integrating oneself into mainstream
society, one chooses to interact only with members of one’s ethnic group and
retain cultural values and behavior that reflect this membership. In the third
solution, social change or social creativity, one seeks to change the social
situation of the ethnic minority group and enhance its self-respect. This solution
requires that one not act independently but as an identified member of one’s
ethnic group such as reframing existing group characteristics viewed unfavorably
and make them appear favorable (e.g., “Black is Beautiful”) or revitalizing old
traditions to give them a new and positive significance (e.g., national language;
Christian, Gadfield, Giles, & Taylor, 1976; Giles, 1977; Tajfel, 1982).
It is evident that social groups are important to the psychological
functioning of individuals, particularly ethnic minority group members, when
viewed from the social identity perspective. This is because the social identity
perspective assumes that society is comprised by social groups that vary in power
and status. Power is considered to be a scarce resource, whereas status reflects the
relative position of a group along some evaluative dimension. These social groups
and their positions relative to one another define the social structure of society.
10
Individuals are assumed to identify with these pre-existing social groups (Tajfel,
1982). Viewed in this way, there is some regard for external forces such that
ethnic identity is defined by the power and status position given to one’s ethnic
group relative to other groups. However, these external forces such as power and
status are not examined or articulated much in the social identity literature.
Developmental Framework. Phinney (1989; 1993) proposed a three-stage
ethnic identity development model based on the theoretical contributions of
Erikson (1968), Marcia (1966; 1980), and Cross (1971), designed to be applicable
across ethnic groups. Phinney focuses on the exploration of ethnicity in light of
experiences of one’s group, which may or may not include oppressive, racist
treatment by the dominant group in the larger society. Although individuals may
experience discrimination or racism, these experiences are not the central foci in
rethinking of issues related to one’s ethnicity. Rather, individuals’ experience of
the more general phenomenon of dissonance--an increasing “awareness that not
all cultural values of the dominant group are beneficial to ethnic minorities”-motivates them to explore their ethnicity (Phinney, 1993, p. 69).
In Phinney’s three-stage model, the first stage, unexamined ethnic identity,
is characterized by lack of active exploration of one's own ethnicity. In this stage,
individuals internalize societal or parental views of their own ethnicity, though
this does not necessarily imply preference for the dominant culture. In cases
where individuals have been exposed to positive valuing of their ethnicity from
their parents, individuals may have positive views towards their own ethnic group.
11
The key feature of this stage is that people have not critically explored their own
ethnicity which suggests that people’s investment in defining their ethnic identity
is an important aspect of ethnic identity development. This initial stage continues
until people encounter a situation that initiates an ethnic identity search.
The second stage, ethnic identity search, is characterized by an exploration
into one’s culture of origin. Usually, people are motivated to explore their
ethnicity due to a growing awareness that not all values of the dominant group are
beneficial to ethnic minority group members. The growing awareness is said to be
cumulative and becomes the basis for initiating a search or exploration of ethnicity
where one questions and develops a personal sense of ethnic identification. In the
ethnic identity search stage, people begin to learn more about their culture of
origin by actively participating in cultural activities and talking to family or
friends about issues related to ethnicity. Furthermore, they think more about the
implications of their own ethnicity and minority status for their present and future
life.
The final stage, ethnic identity achievement, is characterized by an
appreciation for one's ethnicity and resolution of conflicts with the dominant
group. As individuals actively learn about their ethnicity, they come to a deeper
understanding and appreciation of their ethnicity through a resolution of two
issues—cultural differences between own ethnic group and the dominant group
and the low status of that ethnic group in society (Phinney, 1990). At this point,
12
people have a clear and confident relationship with their ethnicity, though they
may not be highly involved in activities related to their ethnic group.
The conceptual and theoretical work on ethnic identity within psychology
offer different definitions about ethnic identity and carry different assumptions
concerning human behavior and processes that are influential in ethnic identity
development. Although none are comprehensive, these two frameworks have
contributed to ethnic identity theory and research. One area of research on ethnic
identity that has received less attention involves the relationship between ethnic
identity and social context, which may suggest that ethnic identity is much more
fluid and dynamic that what these two frameworks suggest (Kinket & Verkuyten,
1997).
Social Context and Ethnic Identity
The previous discussion examining perceptions of ethnicity through
Bronfrenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model illustrates how multiple levels shape
the content and form of ethnicity. Although researchers acknowledge some
variability in ethnic identity (Berry, 1995; Helms, 1989; Phinney, 1996; Kim &
Liem, 2003), the major assumption in psychological approaches is that ethnic
identity in adulthood has substantial continuity. However, at the individual level, a
useful way of examining the relationship between social context and ethnic
identity is to examine the social context and the extent to which it shapes people’s
identities. Studies have demonstrated that social demographic characteristics such
as age, birthplace, ethnicity, and sex are more likely to be experienced as part of
13
the social self when individuals are in the minority in terms of these statuses in
interpersonal situations (Kim & Liem, 2003; McGuire & Padawer-Singer, 1976;
McGuire et. al., 1978; Turner, Oakes, Haslam, & McGarty, 1994). Furthermore,
research has shown that context influences how individuals define their ethnic
identity which may depend in large part on the intergroup context. For example, in
a recent study on social categorization and group homogeneity of Australians and
Americans (Haslam, Oakes, Turner, & McGarty, 1999), researchers demonstrated
that when perceived differences between groups were greater than perceived
differences within a group, one’s perceptions of ethnic identity became stronger
than other social identities. This finding is consistent with others (Berry, 1995)
who argue that identification with ethnicity may change as a function of contact
between one's culture of origin and the dominant culture, where continual contact
may produce changes in one's ethnic identity “unevenly” across situations. This
variation in perception of one’s ethnic identity in different situations has its
premise in the concept of integration or biculturality (Berry, 1995) whereby the
individual engages in the activities of one culture while maintaining identity and
relationships in another.
In contrast to these short-term variations in ethnic identity, long-term
changes may occur as the individual explores and evaluates the meaning and
implication of one’s ethnicity throughout the life course. Parham (1989) proposes
that adolescence and early adulthood are the earliest periods in which the
individual is capable of experiencing ethnicity in meaningful ways. Prior to this
14
period, people’s views regarding ethnicity are believed to reflect parental or
societal views which have been uncritically internalized by ethnic minority group
members. From a developmental perspective, studies have demonstrated ethnic
identity change across the life span. A study by Ethier and Deaux (1994), for
example, examined ethnic identity among Latino students entering new contexts
(i.e., college) and found that they adopted different paths in negotiating their
ethnic identity in a new context depending on their exploration of ethnicity prior
to college. Latino students who valued their ethnic identity before entering college
created new links, a process called “remooring,” with their own ethnic groups in
college. Over a period of a year, Latino students whose ethnic identity was
strongly linked to family, neighborhood, and cultural background, forged new
links with new Latino friends and organizations. These new links enabled these
students to re-examine their ethnicity in light of their new context and to buffer
threats to their ethnic identity from the forces of discrimination and negative
evaluation. In contrast, those who did not value their Latino identity before
entering college did not create new links with their ethnic group and consequently
were more likely to perceive threats and to experience weakened ethnic identity.
Though this study does not examine participants over an extended period of time,
the findings do suggest that ethnic identities change qualitatively over time.
As the discussion above suggests, the social context, especially the ethnic
composition and intergroup influences within it, can have a large impact on the
way people perceive and understand their ethnic identity. By and large, the ethnic
15
identity literature has assumed that ethnic identity is relatively stable and fixed
across situations and over time. This stable and fixed view of ethnic identity
ignores the complex process of both short-term and long-term ethnic identity
change that involves variations in form and meaning of ethnic identity. This
stable and fixed view further ignores the various levels of social organization and
social context that may influence ethnic identity. I now turn to literature that
examines links between ethnic identity and psychological correlates, especially
multicultural awareness and competence.
16
Chapter 4
ETHNOCULTURAL EMPATHY
The review above shows the growing importance of the social and
psychological dimensions related to ethnicity and ethnic identity, which is a
function of the increasing ethnic diversity at the local and national levels. In light
of these shifts, scholars have commented on the changing experiences and
attitudes of White Americans and ethnic minority group members. For example,
researches have noted the attitudes of White Americans toward other ethnic
groups and how increases in cultural diversity can lead to greater anxiety (Peck &
Sears, 2005). They have also noted the shifting experiences and attitudes of ethnic
minorities in a number of settings such as school and work (Abe-Kim, Okazaki, &
Goto, 2001). In this context, scholars have commented on the importance of
greater cultural understanding, awareness, and acceptance of individuals from
different cultural and ethnic backgrounds (Sue & Sue, 1999; Wang et al., 2003).
They have also commented on the need for new concepts focusing on cultural
awareness and sensitivity for individuals as they interact with people who are
culturally and ethnically different from them and for practitioners and educators to
better meet the needs of an increasingly diverse population (Collins & Pieterse,
2007; Sue & Sue, 1999).
The growth of researchers examining multicultural attitudes and
experiences has been guided by concepts such as “multicultural counseling
competence” (Sue, Arredondo, & McDavis, 1992) and “cultural competence”
17
(Sue & Sue, 1999). In essence these concepts refer to the awareness, knowledge,
and skills that people acquire when working with individuals who may be
culturally or ethnically different from them. The premise of this research is that
people will need new sets of skills and attitudes at the cognitive and affective
levels to enable them to interact and work effectively with an increasingly diverse
population. As Munroe and Pearson (2006) argue, “presumed knowledge and
beliefs, the emotional ties associated with such knowledge and beliefs, and the
behavioral actions displayed owing to both” provide the basis from which
multicultural attitudes are formed (p. 820). Scholars have pointed out the needs to
examine and re-examine this knowledge and these attitudes and perceptions to
promote greater understanding, awareness, and acceptance of and between ethnic
groups.
In the past two decades, researchers have investigated a number of factors
that may be related to multicultural awareness. Researchers have focused on
ethnicity by examining its relationship to a multicultural awareness. For example,
Verkuyten and Martinovic (2006) examined a large sample (N = 355) of Dutch,
Turkish, and Moroccan participants and found that group membership may shape
multicultural attitudes. Specifically, they found that in-group members may
cultivate more negative views of out-group members to preserve self-esteem and
that they may be more disposed to accept out-group stereotypes and reluctant to
take conflicting information into account. Focusing on ethnic and cultural identity,
Wolsko, Park, Judd, and Wittenbrink (2000) found that maintaining one’s ethnic
18
and cultural identity was related to improved psychological health and better
ability to adjust to changing social environments in the future.
In addition to ethnicity and group membership, research has shown that
ethnic identity may be related to more positive multicultural attitudes. Verkuyten
and Martinovic (2006) found that ethnic minority group members showed more
support for multiculturalism than did their majority group counterparts. They
further found that ethnic minority group members with higher levels of ethnic
identity showed more support for multiculturalism, whereas higher levels of
ethnic identity for majority group members were found to be related to lower
levels of support for multiculturalism. In addition to these findings, the
researchers found that positive multicultural attitudes were associated with ingroup identification, perceived discrimination, out-group friendships, and
ideological notions. It appears that while ethnic group members who identify with
their group find it important to maintain their culture, forming friends with other
group members facilitates feelings of sympathy and concern for members outside
of the group.
In addition to these factors, researchers have examined the roles of sex,
age, and number of completed multicultural courses in multicultural attitudes. For
example, females were found to be more likely than males to accept cultural
differences (Miville, Gelso, Pannu, Liu, Touradji, Holloway, & Fuertes, 1999).
Furthermore, individuals who were encouraged to reflect on the importance of
improving interethnic relationships reported a reduction in prejudicial attitudes
19
(Wolsko et al., 2000). Personality has also been examined in relation to
multicultural attitude development (Flynn, 2005). Researchers have shown that
certain elements of the Big Five personality traits may be effective in helping
measure and predict prejudice (Ekehammar & Akrami, 2003; Saucier & Goldberg,
1998; Silvestri & Richardson, 2001). Flynn’s (2005) study focused on the
personality variable “openness to experience”, which refers to the willingness of
an individual to modify existing feelings and attitudes in the presence of novel
concepts and circumstances. The results showed that individuals who were higher
on “openness to experience” scored lower in prejudicial attitudes. These studies
show that a number of factors may shape people’s multicultural attitudes, from
group identification to gender to personality factors.
Although there has been a growth in the literature on multicultural
counseling competency and cultural competency, it tends to focus on the
knowledge and skills that people may acquire rather than the more subjective
empathy piece that may be important in developing greater openness to those who
may be culturally and ethnically different. Furthermore, this literature tends to
focus on clinicians and counselors who may be working with an ethnically diverse
population, and thus may not be applicable to other settings, especially
undergraduate students. One interesting conceptualization of multicultural
awareness involves the concept of “ethnocultural empathy” which refers to
empathy toward members of ethnic groups different from one’s own (Wang et al.,
2003). The researchers used a blend of definitions such as “empathy” (i.e., feeling
20
in oneself what others feel; Strayer & Eisenberg, 1987), “cultural empathy”
(learned ability at the cognitive, affective, and communicative levels to allows for
understanding of others; Ivey, Ivey, & Simek-Downing, 1987), and “ethnic
perspective taking” (awareness of ethnic prejudice, discrimination, ethnic attitudes
and perspectives; Quintana, Ybarra, Gonzalez-Doupe, & Baessa, 2000). Based on
these general and culturally specific concepts, Wang at al. (2003) conceptualized
ethnocultural empathy as comprised of “intellectual empathy, empathic emotions,
and the communication of those two” (p. 222). They argued that ethnocultural
empathy includes: a) intellectual empathy, which refers to one’s ability to
understand the thinking and feeling as well as the perception of people who are
ethnically different from self; b) empathic emotions, which refers to feeling the
emotions and emotional condition of those who are ethnically different from self
and responding to them, and; 3) communicative empathy, which refers to the
expression of thoughts and feelings toward those who are ethnically different from
self. They subsequently developed the “Scale of Ethnocultural Empathy (SEE)” to
measure these three conceptually distinct components and later separated them
into four distinct components using 31 items: a) Empathic Feeling and Expression,
b) Empathic Perspective Taking, c) Acceptance of Cultural Differences, and d)
Empathic Awareness.
Wang et al. (2003) found that females and ethnic minorities were more
likely to show empathy and reception of cultural differences than males and
majority group members. These individuals were also more conscious of the
21
experiences of people from different ethnic backgrounds. Factors that were
associated with higher levels of ethnocultural empathy were the degree of
diversity within immediate families and friends, high school settings, and
neighborhoods. Individuals who had limited contact with ethnic groups showed a
delay in developing ethnic perspective taking abilities. Their findings suggested
that increased interaction among ethnic groups could foster higher levels of
cultural empathy. Although the concept of ethnocultural empathy and its
accompanying measure are relatively new, they are promising in the research on
multicultural awareness for its focus on empathy as well as its applicability to a
wider audience.
22
Chapter 5
THE PRESENT STUDY
Drawing on the several bodies of work reviewed above, this study
examines the relationship among social context, ethnic identity, and multicultural
attitudes. Although psychology tends to focus on the individual in isolation of
context, work such as Bronfrenbrenner’s ecological model demonstrate the link
between the individual and society and illustrate how social contexts may shape
psychological processes. With respect to ethnicity, scholars have commented on
how the larger social, political, and economic contexts can shape the form and
content of ethnicity. In particular, they suggest how one’s understanding of
ethnicity may be a function of the sociopolitical periods in which one is situated.
This work suggests people’s perceptions of ethnicity can be reactive to
sociopolitical contexts and thus more dynamic and fluid than traditional
approaches have suggested. An important aspect of ethnic group affiliation and
ethnic identity development involves the attitudes and emotions they have about
their own and other ethnic groups. This body of work suggests that ethnic group
membership and the ways in which ethnic minority group members negotiate their
ethnic identity may shape how individuals understand ethnic and cultural
differences.
Given these bodies of work, this study investigated the following three sets
of hypotheses: First, we examined how ethnocultural empathy would vary for
White Americans and ethnic minority group members who lived in areas with
23
varying levels of ethnic diversity. We hypothesized that ethnic minority group
participants in general would have greater ethnocultural empathy than would
White American participants. On the other hand, we anticipated that White
Americans growing up in more diverse areas would report greater ethnocultural
empathy than would those who grew up in less ethnically diverse areas (see Table
1). Second, we investigated how ethnocultural empathy would vary as a function
of ethnic composition of social context and ethnic identity for our ethnic minority
group participants. In particular, we expected individuals with an unexamined
ethnic identity orientation to have generally low ethnocultural empathy (see Table
2), whereas people with an achieved ethnic identity would have high ethnocultural
empathy. We expected individuals with a search ethnic identity orientation who
lived in more ethnically diverse areas to have greater ethnocultural empathy
compared to those with the same ethnic identity orientation living in less
ethnically diverse areas. Finally, we examined the role of generational status, age,
socioeconomic status, gender, ethnic identity, and ethnic composition of social
context in predicting ethnocultural empathy. We predicted that gender, age,
socioeconomic status, ethnic composition of social context would influence
ethnocultural empathy for both our ethnic minority and White American
respondents. However, we also expected that generational status and ethnic
identity would be important predictors of ethnocultural empathy for our ethnic
minority respondents.
24
Table 1
Level of Ethnocultural Empathy by Ethnic Group & Ethnic Composition of Social
Context
Ethnic Composition
Less Diverse
More Diverse
Total
Ethnic Minorities
H
H
H
White Americans
L
H
M
Ethnic Group
Note. Ethnocultural Empathy reflects: low (L), medium (M), and high (H).
Table 2
Level of Ethnocultural Empathy by Ethnic Identity Orientation & Ethnic
Composition
of Social Context
Ethnic Composition
Less Diverse
More Diverse
Total
L
M
L-M
L-M
M-H
M
H
H
H
Ethnic Identity
Orientation
Unexamined
Search
Achieved
Note. Ethnocultural Empathy reflects: low (L), medium (M), and high (H).
25
Chapter 6
METHOD
Participants
One-hundred and thirty-three participants were recruited from a public
university in northern California. Of these participants, 96 were females and 37
were males. Participants were between the ages of 19 and 55, with a mean age of
25.62 (SD = 7.24). The SES levels were relatively comparable with both groups
being represented most in the “100K or higher” category (see Table 3) and the
“55K-64K” category. In exchange for their participation, participants were given 1
research credit if they were from the psychology research pool or offered extra
credit if administered in university courses.
For purposes of this study, participants were assigned to the White
American ethnic group or the ethnic minority group based on their selfidentification. Seventy-eight participants were White Americans and 55 were
ethnic minorities (see Table 3). The mean age for White Americans and ethnic
minorities was 26.6 (SD = 8.27) and 24.2 (SD = 5.21), respectively. A majority of
the White American sample was third generation or higher whereas the ethnic
minority sample was distributed relatively equally among the first, second, and
third generation or higher categories. Among ethnic minority participants, Asian
Americans had the highest representation with 31, followed by Latinos, 11,
African Americans, nine, Pacific Islanders, two, and Native Americans, two
(Table 4).
26
Table 3
Demographic Characteristics of Participants
Ethnic Minority
(n = 55)
White
American
(n = 78)
N (%)
39 (71%)
16 (29%)
N (%)
57 (73%)
21 (27%)
N (%)
24.18
5.21
N (%)
26.63
8.27
GENERATION
1st
2nd
3rd or Higher
N (%)
16 (29%)
19 (35%)
20 (36%)
N (%)
2 (2%)
6 (8%)
70 (90%)
SES
< 14K
15K-24K
25K-34K
35K-44K
45K-54K
55K-64K
65K-74K
75K-84K
85K-99K
> 100K
N (%)
3 (5%)
5 (9%)
5 (9%)
4 (7%)
7 (13%)
8 (15%)
5 (9%)
4 (7%)
2 (4%)
12 (22%)
N (%)
1 (1%)
7 (9%)
4 (5%)
4 (5%)
5 (6%)
11 (14%)
6 (8%)
9 (12%)
10 (13%)
21 (27%)
Demographic Variable
GENDER
Females
Males
AGE
M
SD
27
Table 4
Ethnic Minority Groups
Female (% of
Ethnicity)
Male (% of
Ethnicity)
African Am.
8 (89%)
1 (11%)
Latino
8 (73%)
3 (27%)
11 (20%)
Asian Am.
20 (65%)
11 (35%)
31 (56%)
Pacific Islander
2 (100%)
0
2 (4%)
Nat. Am.
1 (50%)
1 (50%)
2 (4%)
Column Total
39 (69%)
16 (31%)
55 (100%)
Ethnic Minority
Group
Total (% of Ethnic
Minority Group)
9 (16%)
Design
In this study, we employed a 2 x 2 design to examine White Americans
and ethnic minority group members in relation to ethnocultural empathy. The
independent variables were ethnic group (White Americana and ethnic minority
group members) and ethnic composition of social setting (ethnically more diverse,
less diverse). To examine ethnic minority group members with respect to
ethnocultural empathy, we used a 2 x 2 design where ethnic identity orientation
(examined, search, and achievement) and ethnic composition of social setting
(ethnically more diverse, less diverse) were the independent variables.
28
Procedure
The researcher met the participants in a lab or classroom at their university
to administer a packet of questionnaires. The participants were told that for the
next thirty minutes they would complete several questionnaires related to the topic
of identity. They were then instructed to read the material describing the purpose
of the study and asked to sign a consent form. The researcher then gave the
participants a packet of questionnaires and provided them with instructions to
complete the questionnaires. The researcher addressed any questions prior to
administering the questionnaires and then debriefed the participants upon
completion of the questionnaires.
Measures
Ethnic Identity. Ethnic identity was measured using the Multigroup Ethnic
Identity Measure (MEIM) by Phinney (1992). This measure, designed for use with
various ethnic groups, includes 12 items that assess three general domains: ethnic
practices or behaviors (2 items), e.g., "I participate in cultural practices of my own
group, such as special food, music, or customs"; positive ethnic attitudes and
sense of belonging (5 items), e.g., "I am happy that I am a member of the group
that I belong to," and; ethnic identity achievement, e.g., "I have a clear sense of
my ethnic background and what it means for me." Items are rated using a 4-point
ranging scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Scores are calculated by
summing across items and calculating the mean. Low scores represent a low or
29
unexamined ethnic identity and high scores represent a high or achieved ethnic
identity.
Ethnocultural Empathy. Multicultural awareness was assessed using the
Scale of Ethnocultural Empathy (SEE) by Wang et al. (2003). This measure
assesses multicultural awareness or ethnocultural empathy and consists of four
general areas: 1) Empathic Feeling and Expression (15 items), e.g., “I seek
opportunities to speak with individuals of other racial or ethnic backgrounds about
their experiences”; 2) Empathic Perspective-Taking (7 items), e.g., “I can relate to
the frustration that some people feel about having fewer opportunities due to their
racial or ethnic backgrounds”; 3) Acceptance of Cultural Differences (5 items),
e.g., “I feel irritated when people of different racial or ethnic background speak
their language around me,” and; 4) Empathic Awareness (4 items), e.g., “I can see
how other racial or ethnic groups are systematically oppressed in our society.”
Items are rated using a 6-point ranging scale from strongly agree to strongly
disagree. The total score is calculated by reversing negatively worded items,
summing across the total 31 items, and dividing by 31. Subscale scores can be
obtained by adding the scores for each area and dividing by the number of items
for each subscale.
Percent Diversity. The Demographic Form assessed background
information about participants, including gender, age, socioeconomic status,
generational status, length of residence in the U.S., and places they had resided in
the U.S. To capture the percent diversity of specific places participants had
30
resided, participants were asked to “list all of the places where you (and your
family) have lived in the U.S.” and to indicate the zip code or city and state. They
were also asked to indicate the number of years they lived in the location(s). This
information was then used to calculate an index of the diversity of respondents’
home cities and towns using data from the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau. Specifically,
we calculated the percentage of non-Whites in respondents’ cities and towns. For
example, since ethnic minorities make up 46.1 percent of the total population of
the city of San Francisco, this number could potentially represent percent diversity
for any respondent indicating this location in their Demographics Form (U.S.
Census, 2000). The location with the greatest number of years that participants
had lived in was then used to represent percent diversity of social settings in
subsequent analyses. For analyses concerning differences by ethnic group and
ethnic identity, we separated levels of diversity of cities and towns by using the
threshold of 50 percent or more of the population being ethnic minority. If a city
or town was comprised of 50 percent or more ethnic minority, then it was
assigned to the “more diverse” category; if a city or town was comprised of 49
percent or less ethnic minority, then it was assigned to the “less diverse” category.
This cutoff also allowed us adequate sample sizes for statistical analyses. For
analyses concerning percent diversity as a predictor variable, the raw percent
diversity score was used.
31
Chapter 7
RESULTS
Preliminary Analyses
Descriptive analyses of the study variables are reported in Table 5. Among
the four Ethnocultural Empathy variables, participants reported the highest rating
with Empathic Awareness (M = 4.96, SD = .84) and the lowest rating with
Empathic Perspective-Taking (M = 4.03, SD = .95). The mean scores for the
Ethnocultural Empathy variables are comparable to those reported by Wang et al.
(2003). The mean score for Ethnic Identity was 2.81 (SD = .95), with ethnic
minority group participants reporting higher Ethnic Identity (M = 3.14, SD = .54)
than did White Americans (M = 2.58, SD = .46). These results are consistent with
previous studies that have shown differences by Ethnic Group, with ethnic
minority group members generally reporting higher scores compared to White
Americans (Kim & Liem, 2003; Phinney & Baumann, 2001). Finally, the average
Percent Diversity (i.e., the ethnic minority group population relative to the White
American population) for reported cities and towns was 39 percent; ethnic
minority group respondents reported living in more diverse areas (M = 46%, SD
= .16.4%) than did White Americans (M = 34%, SD = .18.5%).
32
Table 5
Intercorrelations Among Demographic Characteristics, Percent Diversity, Ethnic
Identity, and Ethnocultural Empathy Variables
Variables
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1. EFE
-
2. EPT
.56**
-
3. ACD
.56**
.35**
-
4. EA
.68**
.45**
.54**
-
5. Ethnic
Identity
.38**
.43**
.28**
.40**
-
6. Percent
Diversity
-.14
-.23**
.07
-.09
-.00
-
7. Age
.32**
.09
.08
.16
-.05
.03
-
8. SES
-.13
-.17*
-.11
-.12
-.28**
.16
-.13
-
9. Generation
-.16
-.39**
-.22*
-.23**
-.41**
.24**
.03
.19*
-
M
4.61
4.03
4.79
4.96
2.81
.39
25.62
6.62
3.53
SD
.75
.95
.90
.84
.56
.18
7.24
2.84
1.52
Note: EFE = Empathic feeling and expression; EPT = Empathic perspective-taking; ACD = Acceptance of
cultural differences; EA = Empathic awareness.*p < .05. **p < .01.
Preliminary analyses with key demographic variables (e.g., age,
socioeconomic status, gender, generational status, and ethnicity) in relation to
Ethnocultural Empathy variables were conducted. Bivariate correlational analyses
with age, generational status (GS), and socioeconomic status (SES) along with the
four Ethnocultural Empathy variables showed a significant relationship between
GS and three of the four Ethnocultural Empathy variables (Empathetic
Perspective-Taking, Acceptance of Cultural Differences, and Empathic
Awareness) and between Age and one of the four Ethnocultural Empathy
33
variables (Empathic Feeling and Expression). Specifically, the results showed that
participants who were lower in GS (i.e., more recent immigrants) reported greater
Ethnocultural Empathy and participants who were older reported greater
Ethnocultural Empathy (see Table 5). A multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) in which gender served as a fixed factor and Ethnocultural Empathy
variables served as dependent variables failed to show any significance.
Ethnocultural Empathy by Ethnic Group
To investigate how Ethnocultural Empathy might differ for White
Americans and ethnic minority group members living in cities and towns that
varied in Percent Diversity we analyzed the four Ethnocultural Empathy subscales
(Empathic Feeling and Expression, Empathic Perspective-Taking, Acceptance of
Cultural Differences, and Empathic Awareness) with a multivariate analyses of
variance (MANOVA) where Ethnic Group (White American, Ethnic Minority
Group) and Percent Diversity (More Diverse, Less Diverse) served as the
independent variables.
Contrary to our expectations, the results did not show an interaction effect
where Ethnocultural Empathy varied as a function of Ethnic Group and Percent
Diversity of social settings. No main effect for Percent Diversity was found.
However, the results did show an overall main effect for Ethnic Group, F(4, 126)
= 17.46, p < .001, such that ethnic minority group members reported greater
Ethnocultural Empathy than did White Americans across settings (see Table 6).
Specifically, Empathic Feeling and Expression, F(1, 132) = 6.32, p < .05,
34
Table 6
Multivariate Analysis of Variance of Ethnocultural Empathy Variables by Ethnic
Group & Percent Diversity
Source
Percent
Diversity
(A)
Ethnic
Group (B)
Multivariate
df
Fa
EFEb
Univariate
Ethnocultural Empathy
EPTb
ACDb
1
1.10
.09
.04
2.34
1
17.46***
6.32*
58.21***
6.13*
EAb
.12
14.97***
AxB
1
.21
.08
.04
.57
.00
Note: Multivariate F ratios were generated from Wilks’ Lambda statistics. EFE = Empathic
feeling and expression; EPT = Empathic perspective-taking, and; ACD = Acceptance of cultural
differences; EA = Empathic awareness. aMultivariate df = 4, 126. bUnivariate df = 1, 132.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Empathic Perspective-Taking, F(1, 132) = 58.21, p < .001, Acceptance of
Cultural Differences, F(1, 132) = 6.53, p < .05, and Empathic Awareness, F(1,
132) = 14.97, p < .001, were differentiated by Ethnic Group (see Table 7). Ethnic
minority group members reported greater EFE (M = 4.81 vs. 4.47), EPT (M = 3.57
vs. 4.67), ACD (M = 5.00 vs. 4.59), and EA, (M = 5.29 vs. 4.73), across settings
than did White Americans. Mean scores are reported in Table 7. These findings
suggest a limited effect of Percent Diversity of social settings but a strong
influence of the Ethnic Group of participants on Ethnocultural Empathy.
35
Table 7
Mean Scores on EFE, EPT, ACD, & EA by Ethnic Group & Percent Diversity
EFE
Percent Diversity
Ethnic Group
Less Diverse
More Diverse
Total
Ethnic Minorities
4.77
4.85
4.81
White Americans
4.47
Ethnic Group
4.47
EPT
Percent Diversity
4.47
Less Diverse
More Diverse
Total
Ethnic Minorities
4.67
4.67
4.67
White Americans
3.60
Ethnic Group
3.55
ACD
Percent Diversity
3.57
Less Diverse
More Diverse
Total
Ethnic Minorities
5.07
4.94
5.00
White Americans
4.78
Ethnic Group
4.41
EA
Percent Diversity
4.59
Less Diverse
More Diverse
Total
Ethnic Minorities
5.32
5.26
5.29
White Americans
4.75
4.71
4.73
Note. EFE = Empathic Feeling & Expression; EPT = Empathic Perspective-Taking; ACD =
Acceptance of Cultural Differences; EA = Empathic awareness.
Ethnocultural Empathy by Ethnic Identity Orientation
The assessment of Ethnocultural Empathy of ethnic minority group
participants was done with a MANOVA where Ethnic Identity Orientation and
36
Percent Diversity of social setting served as independent variables and
Ethnocultural Empathy variables served as dependent variables.
Operationalization of Ethnic Identity Orientation
The ethnic identity orientations were based on Phinney’s (1989) ethnic
identity model which includes Unexamined Ethnic Identity Orientation, Search
Ethnic Identity Orientation, and Achieved Ethnic Identity Orientation. We
operationalized ethnic identity by using the total ethnic identity score on the
MEIM and assigned participants to one of the three aforementioned ethnic identity
orientations. Using the procedures employed by Kim and Liem (2003), the total
ethnic identity scores were divided at the 33rd and 67th percentiles. Specifically,
participants in the lowest one-third were assigned to the Unexamined Ethnic
Identity Orientation group (N = 21, M = 2.62), participants in the highest one-third
were placed in the Achieved Ethnic Identity Orientation group (N = 17, M = 3.21),
and those in the middle group were placed in the Ethnic Identity Search
Orientation group (N = 17, M = 3.72).
To verify our assignment of respondents to the three Ethnic Identity
Orientation groups, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the
mean scores of respondents’ ethnic identity. In this analysis, Ethnic Identity
Orientation served as the independent variable and the Ethnic Identity Mean Score
served as the dependent variable. The results showed that Ethnic Identity Mean
Scores varied significantly by Ethnic Identity Orientation, F(2, 54) = 69.60, p
< .001. Simple effects tests showed that the Unexamined Ethnic Identity
37
Orientation group was significantly lower in its mean score relative to the Search
Ethnic Identity Orientation group (p < .001) and the Achieved Ethnic Identity
Orientation group (p < .001). The Ethnic Identity Search Orientation group also
was significantly lower in its mean score compared to the Achieved Ethnic
Identity Orientation group (p < .001). These findings suggest three distinct Ethnic
Identity Orientation groups based on the non-overlapping Ethnic Identity Mean
Scores and provide some validity for our ethnic identity grouping.
Ethnocultural Empathy. The analyses produced a mixed picture in view of
our expectations. Although findings did not support our expectations that
Ethnocultural Empathy would vary as a function of Ethnic Identity Orientation
and Percent Diversity of social settings, the results did show an overall main effect
for Ethnic Identity Orientation, F(8, 92) = 2.98, p < .01. Similar to the earlier
findings by Ethnic Group, all four Ethnocultural Empathy variables were
significantly differentiated by Ethnic Identity Orientation: Empathic Feeling and
Expression, F(2, 54) = 6.91, p < .01, Empathic Perspective-Taking, F(2, 54) =
4.33, p < .05, Acceptance of Cultural Differences, F(2, 54) = 3.81, p < .05, and
Empathic Awareness, F(2, 54) = 6.10, p < .01 (Table 8).
Simple effects tests showed that people assigned to the Unexamined
Ethnic Identity Orientation group reported lower EFE (M = 4.46) than did those in
the Search (M = 4.84, p < .05) and Achieved (M = 5.22, p < .001) Ethnic Identity
Orientation groups. People in the Unexamined Ethnic Identity Orientation group
also reported lower EPT (M = 4.28) than did those in the Search (M = 4.91, p
38
< .01) and Achieved (M = 4.88, p < .05) Ethnic Identity Orientation groups. They
furthermore reported lower EA (M = 4.85) than did those in the Search (M = 5.51,
p < .05) and Achieved (M = 5.55, p < .01) groups. Those in the Achieved Ethnic
Identity Orientation group reported greater ACD (M = 5.39, p < .0) than did those
in the Unexamined (M = 4.80, p < .01) and Search (M = 4.93, p < .05) Ethnic
Identity Orientation groups. No main effect was found for Percent Diversity of
social setting. Mean scores are reported in Table 9. These findings further support
the effect of ethnic group affiliation and how identification with one’s ethnic
group may play a role in the ways in which people understand multicultural
attitudes.
Table 8
Multivariate Analysis of Variance of Ethnocultural Empathy Variables by Ethnic
Identity Orientation & Percent Diversity
Source
Percent
Diversity (A)
Ethnic
Identity
Orientation (B)
Multivariate
df
F
1
.53a
1
2.98**b
EFEc
Univariate
Ethnocultural Empathy
EPTc
ACDc
1.38
6.91**
EAc
.20
.03
.06
4.33*
3.81*
6.10**
AxB
1
1.35b
.93
.19
1.39
.32
Note: Multivariate F ratios were generated from Wilks’ Lambda statistics. EFE = Empathic
feeling and expression; EPT = Empathic perspective-taking, and; ACD = Acceptance of
cultural differences; EA = Empathic awareness. aMultivariate df = 4, 46. bMultivariate df = 8, 92.
c
Univariate df = 2, 54. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
39
Table 9
Mean Scores on EFE by Ethnic Identity Orientation & Percent Diversity
EFE
Percent Diversity
Ethnic Identity Orientation
Less Diverse
More Diverse
Total
Unexamined
4.52
4.40
4.46
Search
4.65
5.04
4.84
Achieved
5.06
5.38
EPT
Percent Diversity
5.22
Less Diverse
More Diverse
Total
Unexamined
4.19
4.36
4.28
Search
4.96
4.87
4.91
Achieved
4.79
Ethnic Identity Orientation
4.97
ACD
Percent Diversity
4.88
Less Diverse
More Diverse
Total
Unexamined
5.00
4.60
4.80
Search
4.71
5.08
4.93
Achieved
5.42
Ethnic Identity Orientation
5.36
EA
Percent Diversity
5.39
Less Diverse
More Diverse
Total
Unexamined
4.75
4.95
4.85
Search
5.46
5.55
5.51
Ethnic Identity Orientation
Achieved
5.62
5.47
5.55
Note. EFE = Empathic feeling and expression; EPT = Empathic perspective-taking; ACD =
Acceptance of Cultural Differences; EA = Empathic awareness.
40
Predictors of Ethnocultural Empathy
The previous two sets of analyses investigated differences between White
American and ethnic minority participants and among ethnic minority group
members with varying Ethnic Identity Orientations. Although differences were
found for Ethnocultural Empathy between White Americans and ethnic minority
group members and among Ethnic Identity Orientation groups, we found little
influence of Percent Diversity of social context. To test the final hypothesis
examining differences in predictors of Ethnocultural Empathy between White
American and ethnic minority participants, we conducted separate simultaneous
multiple regression analyses for each ethnic group. Specifically, a simultaneous
multiple regression analysis for White American participants was conducted to
predict the level of Ethnocultural Empathy based on Age, Gender, SES, GS,
Ethnic Identity, and Percent Diversity. The regression equation conducted with
Empathetic Feeling and Expression (EFE) revealed that Age (β = .42, p < .001)
and Gender (β = .28, p < .01) accounted for a significant portion of the variability,
R2 = .25, adjusted R2 = .19, F(6, 77) = 3.99, p < .01. This finding indicates that
older participants are higher on EFE compared to younger participants. It also
shows that White American females are higher on EFE than are White American
males. The results are presented in Table 10.
41
A second simultaneous multiple regression analysis for ethnic minority
participants was conducted to predict the level of Ethnocultural Empathy based
Age, Gender, SES, GS, Ethnic Identity, and Percent Diversity. Three of the four
models were significant, with the fourth reaching marginal significance
(Acceptance of Cultural Differences, p = .071), for ethnic minority participants.
For EFE, the regression equation showed that Ethnic Identity (β = .61, p < .001)
and Percent Diversity (β = .27, p < .05) accounted for a significant portion of the
variability, R2= .48, adjusted R2 = .42, F(6, 54) = 7.45, p < .001. Findings show
that participants who identify more with their own ethnic group have greater EFE.
Also, those participants living in areas with greater ethnic diversity have greater
EFE. For Empathic Perspective-Taking (EPT), Ethnic Identity (β = .40, p < .01)
and Age (β = .31, p < .05) accounted for a significant amount of the variability, R2
= .27, adjusted R2 = .18, F(6, 54) = 2.90, p < .05. Similar to EFE results, those
individuals who identify more with their own ethnic group have greater EPT.
Further, older respondents have greater EPT compared to their younger
counterparts. For Empathic Awareness (EA), Ethnic Identity (β = .45, p < .001)
accounted for a significant proportion of the variability, R2 = .28, adjusted R2 = .19,
F(6, 54) = 3.08, p < .05. This finding shows that ethnic minority participants who
identify more with their own ethnic group have greater EA. The results are
presented in Table 10.
42
Table 10
Predictors of Ethnocultural Empathy by Ethnic Group
White American
Variable
B
SE B
Ethnic Minority
β
Partial B
SE B
β
Partial
Dependent Variable: EFE
Age
Gender a
SES
Generational Status
Percent Diversity
Ethnic Identity
.04
.48
-.01
-.02
.11
.17
.01
.18
.03
.08
.48
.20
.42
.28
-.03
-.02
.03
.10
.40***
.27**
-.03
-.02
.03
.09
.03
.19
.02
.05
1.12
.76
.02
.17
.03
.15
.50
.14
.22
.13
.07
.10
.27
.61
.19
.12
.07
.09
.23*
.59**
.02
.22
.03
.07
.65
.18
.31
-.06
.01
-.01
.00
.40
.28**
-.05
.01
-.01
.00
.38**
.02
.22
.03
.07
.66
.18
-.04
-.19
-.07
.02
-.06
.38
-.04
-.17
-.06
.02
-.05
.37
Dependent Variable: EPT
Age
Gender a
SES
Generational Status
Percent Diversity
Ethnic Identity
.02
.18
-.01
-.07
.15
.03
.01
.22
.04
.10
.55
.23
.20
.10
-.03
-.10
.03
.02
.19
.10
-.03
-.09
.03
.02
.04
-.09
.00
-.00
.02
.55
Dependent Variable: ACDa
Age
Gender a
SES
Generational Status
Percent Diversity
Ethnic Identity
.02
.32
-.02
-.15
-1.04
.00
.01
.26
.04
.11
.66
.28
.12
.14
-.05
-.16
-.19
.00
.12
.14
-.04
-.14
-.18
.00
-.01
-.29
-.02
.01
-.26
.51
Dependent Variable: EA
.21
.20
.04
.02
.27
Age
.02
.01
a
Gender
.16
.22
.09
.08
-.05
.21
-.03
SES
.01
.04
.02
.01
.01
.03
.05
Generational Status
-.02
.10
-.03
-.03
.02
.06
.04
Percent Diversity
-.08
.57
-.02
-.02
.22
.62
.05
Ethnic Identity
.33
.24
.18
.16
.59
.17
.45
Note: EFE = Empathic feeling and expression; EPT = Empathic perspective-taking; ACD =
Acceptance of cultural differences; EA = Empathic awareness. a 0 = male, 1 = female.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. ap = .06.
.23
-.03
.05
.04
.04
.43***
43
Chapter 8
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to examine the interrelationship among
ethnic composition of social setting, ethnic identity, and ethnocultural empathy.
The theoretical framework was guided by the work of Bronfrenbrenner (1979)
concerning an ecological model of human behavior and the work of Waters (1990)
and others concerning the macro factors that may shape the content and form of
ethnicity. The ecological model suggests that human behavior occurs in a system
of levels, from the micro to the macro, and the sociological work on ethnicity
suggests that people’s understanding of ethnicity is embedded in that system of
levels. Thus, the degree to which a setting is ethnically diverse may shape the
ways in which people understand and identify with their ethnicity.
We also drew on the literature on ethnic identity development to
conceptualize and measure the ethnic identity of ethnic minority group members.
Phinney’s (1989) ethnic identity model assumes that identification with one's
ethnicity is based on the extent to which the individual explores issues related to
one’s ethnic group and is characterized by three ethnic identity orientations:
unexamined, search, and achieved. Unlike the sociological view of ethnicity, this
model generally assumes that one’s ethnicity is relatively stable over time and
across situations. Furthermore, we drew on the literature on ethnocultural empathy
to conceptualize the multicultural attitudes that White American and ethnic
minority group members may adopt over time and that may play a role in their
44
understanding of self and others. A large body of literature examines the
importance of multicultural attitudes and the psychological and social factors that
may be related to them in various clinical, business, and educational settings.
Based on these areas of work, we examined for differences in
ethnocultural empathy between White American and ethnic minority group
members and among ethnic minority group members with varying ethnic identity
orientations. We furthermore examined variables that predicted ethnocultural
empathy for ethnic minorities and White Americans. In our first set of analyses,
we expected differences in ethnocultural empathy between White American and
ethnic minority group participants who lived in areas with varying ethnic
compositions. Although we expected ethnic minority group respondents to have
greater overall ethnocultural empathy than White American respondents, we
believed the ethnic composition of social context would influence this level such
that respondents living in more ethnically diverse areas would have greater
ethnocultural empathy than those living in less diverse areas. In our second set of
analyses examining differences among ethnic minority group members, we
expected individuals with an achieved ethnic identity orientation to have greater
ethnocultural empathy than would those with an unexamined and search ethnic
identity orientation. However, we expected the ethnic composition to influence the
level of ethnocultural empathy for people in the unexamined and search ethnic
identity orientations. We believed that ethnocultural empathy would be greater for
those in the unexamined ethnic identity orientation living in more diverse areas
45
compared to those living in less diverse areas. Similarly, we believed that those in
the search ethnic identity orientation living in more diverse areas would have
greater ethnocultural empathy than would those living in less diverse areas.
Finally, in our last set of analyses, we anticipated differences in factors such as
gender, age, SES, and generational status that would play a role in ethnocultural
empathy for ethnic minorities and White Americans. We expected generational
status and ethnic identity to predict ethnocultural empathy for ethnic minorities
but not for White Americans.
MANOVAs were employed to first examine differences in ethnocultural
empathy between White American and ethnic minority participants who grew up
in varying levels of ethnic diversity and among ethnic minority group members
assigned to different ethnic identity orientation groups. Simultaneous multiple
regression analyses were used to investigate differences in variables that may
predict ethnocultural empathy for White American and ethnic minority
participants.
The results of these analyses are organized in the following manner. The
first section presents findings concerning differences in ethnocultural empathy
between White American and ethnic minority participants. The second section
shares the results concerning differences in ethnocultural empathy among ethnic
minority participants with varying ethnic identity orientations. This is followed by
a discussion of predictors of ethnocultural empathy for White American and
46
ethnic minority participants. The final section addresses limitations and future
directions for this line of research.
Ethnocultural Empathy among White Americans and Ethnic Minority Group
Members
Our first goal was to examine any differences in ethnocultural empathy
between White Americans and ethnic minority group members. The literature on
ethnicity suggests that White Americans and ethnic minority group members have
different experiences in relation to views and attitudes about their own and other
ethnic groups. As we expected, White Americans and ethnic minority group
members had differences in their ethnocultural empathy, with the former group
reporting lower ethnocultural empathy than did the latter group. While one may
assume that where these participants lived during their formative years, especially
the degree of exposure to and interaction with other ethnic group members, may
be related to their ethnocultural empathy, our results did not show any relationship
to the degree of ethnic diversity of cities and towns they resided in and
ethnocultural empathy. Thus, our expectations that ethnocultural empathy would
depend on the percent diversity or ethnic composition failed to show any support.
To interpret these findings with White American and ethnic minority
group participants, we need to bear in mind the relative positioning of these
groups which may afford varying experiences in relation to multiculturalism.
Given the majority status of White Americans in the United States, it may be the
case that the local ethnic composition may be less influential or important to them
47
compared to their ethnic minority counterparts. The literature shows that White
Americans are generally less aware of their ethnicity and are rarely in situations
where their ethnicity is made salient to them (Hardiman & Jackson, 1992; Helms,
1996; Phinney & Alipura, 1996). This is not to suggest that White Americans are
not aware of their own and other’s ethnicity but rather that events at the macro
level may be more influential than those at the micro levels. For example, even
though a White American may live in an ethnically diverse area that may
comprise close to 60 percent ethnic minority group members, the exposure of
macro settings such as businesses and government being comprised mainly of
White Americans may have a stronger effect on perceptions of ethnicity and
multiculturalism. What is clear is that one’s affiliation with an ethnic group plays
an important role in the level of ethnocultural empathy of participants.
Ethnocultural Empathy and Ethnic Minority Group Members’ Ethnic Identity
Orientation
Although we expected differences in ethnocultural empathy between
White Americans and ethnic minority group members, we also anticipated
differences in ethnocultural empathy among ethnic minority group members with
different ethnic identity orientations. Our expectations were partially supported
with a strong ethnic identity orientation effect but little influence of percent
diversity of social context. Respondents assigned to the unexamined ethnic
identity orientation group distinguished themselves from those assigned to the
search and achieved ethnic identity orientation groups by reporting lower levels
48
for three of the four ethnocultural empathy variables (EFE, EPT, and EA). With
the fourth ethnocultural empathy variable, ACD, respondents assigned to the
achieved ethnic identity orientation reported greater levels compared to the other
two groups. Thus, with respect to ethnic identity orientation, we observed some
differences in how people understood multicultural attitudes.
The moderate differences that we observed with ethnic identity orientation
was surprising given that conceptually individuals in the three orientations are at
different places in their understanding of their own ethnic group. Consequently,
we expected greater differences in ethnocultural empathy, especially between
those individuals in the search and achieved ethnic identity orientation groups.
However, other than ACD, these two groups did not differ in their reported
ethnocultural empathy views. It may be the case that the measure used to
operationalize these three ethnic identity orientation groups was not sensitive
enough to reflect differences in participants’ experiences and views concerning
multiculturalism. This is a point to which we will return later. Individuals in the
unexamined ethnic identity orientation group displayed patterns similar to those of
White Americans. According to the literature, these individuals have not had
much exposure or given much thought to their own ethnic and cultural heritage.
The literature suggests that the ethnic identity search stage is a volatile period for
ethnic minorities as they try to negotiate different attitudes and emotions related to
their own and other ethnic groups and to better understand their ethnic and
cultural heritage. In general, the social context and especially the ethnic
49
composition is considered to be an important factor that can shape positive or
negative views about their own ethnic group for these individuals. However, our
findings did not support the role of ethnic composition for these individuals.
Interestingly, people assigned to the achieved ethnic identity orientation
group reported more acceptance of cultural differences compared to the other two
ethnic identity orientation groups. Of the four ethnocultural empathy components,
this is perhaps the most challenging area that people must negotiate with respect
to multiculturalism. Whereas the other three components deal with awareness and
empathy, this component deals with the actual acceptance of cultural differences.
Predictors of Ethnocultural Empathy
Separate simultaneous multiple regression analyses were conducted for
White American and ethnic minority participants. Our findings showed that while
three of the four models of ethnocultural empathy variables were significant (EFE,
EPT, EA) for ethnic minority respondents, only one of the four models (EFE) was
significant for the White American counterparts. Age appears to play a role in the
ethnocultural empathy variables that reached significance or marginal significance
such that respondents reported greater ethnocultural empathy with age. However,
our results showed differences in gender and ethnic identity in relation to
ethnocultural empathy between White American and ethnic minority participants.
It appears that that gender plays a role for White Americans but not for ethnic
minorities. This finding partially supports the cultural competency literature which
shows that gender is an important variable shaping multicultural attitudes. With
50
ethnic identity appears to be an important predictor of ethnocultural empathy for
ethnic minority group members but not for White Americans. This finding is
consistent with the literature which suggests that ethnic identity is more important
for ethnic minority group members than it is for White Americans (Kim & Liem;
Phinney, 1996b), though ethnic identity is growing in importance for White
Americans in specific settings (e.g., clinical).
Surprisingly, percent diversity of social context was significant for only
one of the ethnocultural empathy variables with ethnic minority participants.
Given that greater exposure to other ethnic groups could result in more positive
multicultural attitudes, the lack of stronger findings was surprising. However,
findings suggest that ethnic identity may be an important variable for further
examination in relation to ethnocultural empathy. To capture the degree of ethnic
diversity in any particular location and linking it to variables such as ethnocultural
empathy appears to be a more challenging task.
Limitations and Future Directions
Given the lack of clarity in our results, the findings presented in this study
should be viewed with caution. In particular, the operationalization of the percent
diversity of social context may have been less than ideal. If you recall, participants
were asked to list up to four places they had lived in the United States with a zip
code or the names of the cities and state(s) and indicate the number of years they
had lived in each location. Drawing on data from the U.S. Census (2000), a
percentage of the ethnic minority population was calculated for each location. The
51
percent diversity associated with the location with the most number of years was
then used for subsequent analyses of ethnic composition of social context. For
MANOVAs examining differences between ethnic groups and then among ethnic
identity orientation groups, our assignment of participants into two groups based
on their percent diversity may have been problematic. Although we used this
method to separate participants into “more diverse” and “less diverse” locations
and to preserve adequate sample sizes, there may not have been much separation
between these two groups in terms of their experiences with cultural and ethnic
diversity. Moreover, given that the sample was recruited from an area that is one
of the most diverse in the U.S. may have made it more challenging to capture
substantial differences along this dimension. Furthermore, given the relatively
weak influence of the ethnic composition of social settings, it was difficult to
assess whether or not these locations accurately captured the extent to which
participants interacted with the degree of ethnic diversity reflected in the numbers.
It may have been the case that participants residing in more diverse locations
interacted more with same ethnic group members. Another limitation involves the
period in which participants resided in the areas they indicated. These periods may
not have reflected critical events or windows of opportunity where participants
were socialized about their own and other ethnic groups. Future studies may want
to include an item asking about the ethnic makeup of participants’ immediate
social groups.
52
Another limitation concerns the operationalization of ethnic identity which
was based on the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (Phinney, 1992) that
assesses the strength of one’s ethnic identity. Although in principle applicable to
all ethnic groups and used extensively (Lee, 2003; Simons et al., 2002), it is
possible that it may not have captured participants’ ethnic identity accurately. For
example, the MEIM assesses two main components of ethnic identity (ethnic
identity achievement and sense of belonging), but does not pay much attention to
racist experiences or minority group status. Given that some of the cities and
towns were quite diverse with potential for ethnic tension, experiences with
prejudice or discrimination may be important factors to consider with one’s ethnic
identity. However, these kinds of experiences are not included in the MEIM.
Conclusion
Given the changing demographics, especially ethnic diversification,
people’s understanding of their own and other ethnic groups is becoming
increasingly important. This study attempted to examine how people’s attachment
to their ethnicity and their attitudes toward other ethnic groups were shaped by
their social context, especially the ethnic composition. Although our findings only
partially supported our expectations, we did find important differences in the
experiences of White Americans and ethnic minority group members. Future
studies should continue to examine social context and individual ethnic variables
and their relationship to fully understand the links between the individual and
society in relation to ethnicity.
53
APPENDIX A
INSTRUMENTS
CONSENT TO PARTICPATE AS A RESEARCH SUBJECT
You will be asked to fill out a series of questionnaires that examine attitudes, perceptions,
and experiences related to social contexts. The research will take place online and will
require 15 - 30 minutes of my time. I understand that I will receive extra credit points by
participating in this study. I understand that this research may have the following benefits:
By participating in this research, you may gain additional insight into the attitudes,
perceptions, and experiences related to social contexts. Findings from this study will add to
the body of literature on the relationship between social context and various social
attitudes, perceptions, and experiences. I understand that the research may involve the
following risks: Some of the items in the questionnaires may seem personal, but you do not
have to answer any question you do not feel comfortable answering. Your honesty and
openness are appreciated, but you have the final say in how much you reveal to us, and
what questions you feel comfortable answering. If you have concerns related to any items
in this research, you can contact Psychological Services at the Student Health Center. This
information was explained to me by Patty Nguyen, graduate student in the Department of
Psychology at California State University, Sacramento. I understand that she will answer
any questions I may have now or later about this research. Patty Nguyen can be reached
at pknnguyen@hotmail.com. I understand that I may discontinue my participation at any
time without any penalty other than loss of research credit, and that the investigator may
discontinue my participation at any time. If you agree to participate in this study, please fill
in your initials and birthdate, and then proceed to the next page.
Please respond as honestly as possible, relying on your current feelings of the particular
issues raised. Your responses will be kept confidential. Your name will not be connected
to specific results of the survey. All parts of the survey should be completed.
1. Please write the initials of your first and last name in the two spaces provided: ___ ___
2. Please write your birth date in the spaces provided (month / day / year): ___ / ___ / ___
54
INSTRUCTIONS: In this country, people come from many different countries and cultures,
and there are many different words to describe the different backgrounds or ethnic groups
that people come from. Some examples of the names of ethnic groups are Hispanic or Latino,
Black or African American, Asian American, Chinese, Filipino, American Indian, Mexican
American, Caucasian or White, Italian American, and many others. These questions are
about your ethnicity or your ethnic group and how you feel about it or react to it.
Please fill in: In terms of ethnic group, I consider myself to be
Use the numbers given below to indicate how much you agree or disagree with each
statement.
strongly disagree
1
disagree
2
agree
3
strongly agree
4
strongly
disagree disagree
1. I have spent time trying to find out more about
my ethnic group, such as its history, traditions,
and customs.
2. I am active in organizations or social groups that
include mostly members of my own ethnic
group.
3. I have a clear sense of my ethnic background
and what it means for me.
4. I think a lot about how my life will be affected by
my ethnic group membership.
5. I am happy that I am a member of the group I
belong to.
6. I have a strong sense of belonging to my own
ethnic group.
7. I understand pretty well what my ethnic group
membership means to me, in terms of how to
relate to my own group and other groups.
8. In order to learn more about my ethnic
background, I have often talked to other people
about my ethnic group.
9. I have a lot of pride in my ethnic group and its
accomplishments.
10. I participate in cultural practices of my own
group, such as special food, music, or customs.
11. I feel a strong attachment towards my own
ethnic group.
12. I feel good about my cultural or ethnic
background.
agree
strongly
agree
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
55
INSTRUCTIONS: Below is a list of statements. Circle the number that best describes your response:
strongly disagree that
it describes me
1
2
3
4
strongly agree that
it describes me
6
5
1. I feel annoyed when people do not speak standard
English.
1
2
3
4
5
6
2. I don’t know a lot of information about important
social and political events of racial and ethnic groups
other than my own.
1
2
3
4
5
6
3. I am touched by movies or books about
discrimination issues faced by racial or ethnic groups
other than my own.
1
2
3
4
5
6
4. I know what it feels like to be the only person of a
certain race or ethnicity in a group of people.
1
2
3
4
5
6
5. I get impatient when communicating with people
from other racial or ethnic backgrounds, regardless of
how well they speak English.
1
2
3
4
5
6
6. I can relate to the frustration that some people feel
about having fewer opportunities due to their racial or
ethnic backgrounds.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7. I am aware of institutional barriers (e.g., restricted
opportunities for job promotion) that discriminate
against racial or ethnic groups other than my own.
1
2
3
4
5
6
8. I don’t understand why people of different racial or
ethnic backgrounds enjoy wearing traditional clothing.
1
2
3
4
5
6
9. I seek opportunities to speak with individuals of
other racial or ethnic backgrounds about their
experiences.
1
2
3
4
5
6
10. I feel irritated when people of different racial or
ethnic backgrounds speak their language around me.
1
2
3
4
5
6
11. When I know my friends are treated unfairly
because of their racial or ethnic backgrounds, I speak
up for them.
1
2
3
4
5
6
12. I share the anger of those who face injustice
because of their racial and ethnic backgrounds.
1
2
3
4
5
6
13. When I interact with people from other racial or
ethnic backgrounds, I show my appreciation of their
cultural norms.
1
2
3
4
5
6
14. I feel supportive of people of other racial and ethnic
groups, if I think they are being taken advantage of.
1
2
3
4
5
6
15. I get disturbed when other people experience
misfortunes due to their racial or ethnic backgrounds.
1
2
3
4
5
6
56
16. I rarely think about the impact of a racist or ethnic
joke on the feelings of people who are targeted.
1
2
3
4
5
6
17. I am not likely to participate in events that promote
equal rights for people of all racial and ethnic
backgrounds.
1
2
3
4
5
6
18. I express my concern about discrimination to
people from other racial or ethnic groups.
1
2
3
4
5
6
19. It is easy for me to understand what it would feel
like to be a person of another racial or ethnic
background other than my own.
1
2
3
4
5
6
20. I can see how other racial or ethnic groups are
systematically oppressed in our society.
1
2
3
4
5
6
21. I don’t care if people make racist statements
against other racial or ethnic groups.
1
2
3
4
5
6
22. When I see people who come from a different
racial or ethnic background succeed in the public
arena, I share their pride.
1
2
3
4
5
6
23. When other people struggle with racial or ethnic
oppression, I share their frustration.
1
2
3
4
5
6
24. I recognize that the media often portrays people
based on racial or ethnic stereotypes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
25. I am aware of how society differentially treats racial
or ethnic groups other than my own.
1
2
3
4
5
6
26. I share the anger of people who are victims of hate
crimes (e.g., intentional violence because of race or
ethnicity).
1
2
3
4
5
6
27. I do not understand why people want to keep their
indigenous racial or ethnic cultural traditions instead of
trying to fit into the mainstream.
1
2
3
4
5
6
28. It is difficult for me to put myself in the shoes of
someone who is racially and/or ethnically different from
me.
1
2
3
4
5
6
29. I feel uncomfortable when I am around a significant
number of people who are racially/ethnically different
than me.
1
2
3
4
5
6
30. When I hear people make racist jokes, I tell them I
am offended even though they are not referring to my
racial or ethnic group.
1
2
3
4
5
6
31. It is difficult for me to relate to stories in which
people talk about racial or ethnic discrimination they
experience in their day to day lives.
1
2
3
4
5
6
57
INSTRUCTIONS: Please answer the following questions.
1. Your gender (check one):
Male
.
Female
.
2. Your ethnicity (pl ease check all those that apply):
African American
Asian American / Pacific Islander
White (non-Latino/a)
Latino/Latina
Native Indian / Alaskan Native
Other (please specify):
3. Year in School (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.):
.
.
4. Major(s):
5. What is your parents' yearly household income?
a.
less than $14,999 per year
b.
$15,000 - $24,999 per year
c.
$25,000 - $34,999 per year
d.
$35,000 - $44,999 per year
e.
$45,000 - $54,999 per year
f.
$55,000 - $64,999 per year
g.
$65,000 - $74,999 per year
h.
$75,000 - $84,999 per year
i.
$85,000 - $99,999 per year
j.
$100,000 or more per year
6. Please check ONE of the following that best describes your family history in the U.S.
a. You, your parents, and your grandparents were born in another country other than
the U.S.
b. You were born in the U.S.; either or both parents, as well as grandparents, were born in
another country.
.
58
c. You were born in the U.S., both parents were born in the U.S. and all grandparents were
born in another country.
d. You were born in the U.S., both parents were born in the U.S. and at least one
grandparent was born in another country.
e. You, your parents, and all grandparents were born in the U.S.
7. If you chose (a) on question 6, where were you born?
8. If you chose (a) on question 6, how long have you lived in the U.S.?
9. Please list all of the places where you (and your family) have lived in the U.S. Please
indicate by zip code (e.g., 95819) or by city and state (e.g., Sacramento, CA): *
Enter at least 1 response and no more than 4 responses.
Location 1:
Location 2:
Location 3:
Location 4:
10. Years that you have lived in the location(s) above:*
Enter at least 1 response and no more than 4 responses.
Location 1:
Location 2:
Location 3:
Location 4:
59
DEBRIEFING FORM
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this research is to examine the relationship among social context, ethnic
identity, multicultural attitudes, and civic engagement. Specifically, this research
examines how the ethnic and racial composition of social contexts may be related to
ethnic identity, multicultural attitudes, and civic engagement through the use of
questionnaires.
HYPOTHESES AND SUPPORTING RESEARCH:
Previous studies have found an influence of ethnic and racial composition on awareness
of ethnicity for various ethnic and racial groups (Kim & Liem, 2003; Turner, Oakes,
Haslam, & McGarty, 1994). As an extension of these studies, I examined how the ethnic
and racial composition of social contexts may be related to ethnic identity and
multicultural attitudes. I hypothesized that the ethnic and racial composition of where you
grew up would be related to your ethnic identity and multicultural attitudes. I also
hypothesized that multicultural attitudes would be related to greater civic engagement. To
test our hypotheses, you received a series of questionnaires that assessed these areas. I
will compare the relationship among these variables to identify any significant correlations.
CONTACT INFORMATION:
The results of this study will be available by December 2007. If you would like further
information about the study or have questions regarding the experiment, please contact
Patty Nguyen at pknnguyen@hotmail.com at your convenience.
PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES:
If this study evoked any painful memories or negative emotional responses that are
troubling you, please contact the Student Health Center’s Psychological Services at 2786416. The counselors there will be happy to provide assistance to you.
CLOSING:
Thank you for participating!
60
REFERENCES
Abe-Kim, J., Okazaki, S., & Goto, S. G. (2001). Unidimensional versus
multidimensional approaches to the assessment of acculturation for Asian
American populations. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology,
7(3), 232-246.
Alvarez, A.N., Juang, L., & Liang, C.T.H. (2006). Asian Americans and racism:
When bad things happen to “model minorities.” Cultural Diversity and
Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12(3), 477– 492.
Berry, J. W. (1995). Psychology of acculturation. In N.R. Goldberger & J. B.
Veroff (Eds.), The Culture and psychology reader (pp. 457-488). New
York University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Christian, J., Gadfield, N., Giles, H., & Taylor, D. (1976). The multidimensional
and dynamic nature of ethnic identity. International Journal of
Psychology, 11, 281-291.
Cameron, J.E., & Lalonde, R. N. (1994). Self, ethnicity, and social group
memberships in two generations of Italian Canadians. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 514-520.
Collins, N.M., & Pieterse, A.L. (2007). Critical incident analysis based training:
An approach for developing active racial/cultural awareness. Journal of
Counseling & Development, 85, 14-23
61
Gurin, P., Hurtado, A., & Peng, T. (1994). Group contacts and ethnicity in the
social identities of Mexicanos and Chicanos. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 20, 521-532.
Ekehammar, B., & Akrami, N. (2003). The relation between personality and
prejudice: A variable- and a person-centred approach. European Journal of
Personality, 17, 449-464.
Erikson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
Ethier, K. A., & Deaux, K. (1994). Negotiating social identity in a changing
context: Maintaining identification and responding to threat. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 243-251.
Giles, H. (1977). Language, ethnicity and intergroup relations. London:
Academic Press.
Gurin, P., Hurtado, A., & Peng, T. (1994). Group contacts and ethnicity in the
social identities of Mexicanos and Chicanos. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 20, 521-532.
Hardiman, R., & Jackson, B. (1992). Racial identity development: Understanding
racial dynamics in college classrooms and on campus. In M. Adams (Ed.),
Promoting diversity in college classrooms (pp. 21-37). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, Inc, Publishers.
Haslam, S.A., Oakes, P.J., Reynolds, K.J., & Turner, J.C. (1999). Social identity
salience and the emergence of stereotype consensus. Society for
62
Personality and Social Psychology, 25(7), 809-818.
Flynn, F.J. (2005). Having an open mind: The impact of openness to experience
on interracial attitudes and impression formation, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 88, 816–826.
Helms, J. E. (1989). Considering some methodological issues in racial identity
counseling research. Counseling Psychologist, 17, 227-252.
Helms, J. E. (1990). Black and White racial identity. New York: Greenwood
Press.
Ivey, A. E., Ivey, M. B., & Simek-Downing, L. (1987). Individual and cultural
empathy. In E. Ivey, M. B. Ivey, & L. Simek-Morgan (Eds.), Counseling
and psychotherapy: Integrating skills, theory, and practice (2nd ed., pp.
91–118). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kim, G.M., & Liem, R. (2003). Ethnic self-awareness as a function of ethnic
group status, group composition, and ethnic identity orientation. Cultural
Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9, 289-302.
Kinket, B., & Verkuyten, M. (1997). Levels of ethnic self-identification and
social context. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 338-354.
Lee, R. M. (2003). Do ethnic identity and other-group orientation protect against
discrimination for Asian Americans? Journal of Counseling Psychology,
50, 133–141.
Marcia, J. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 551-558.
63
Marcia, J. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of
adolescent psychology (pp. 159-187). New York: Wiley.
McGuire, W. J., McGuire, C. V., Child, P., & Fujioka, T. (1978). Salience of
ethnicity in the spontaneous self-concept as a function of one's ethnic
distinctiveness in the social environment. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 36, 511-520.
McGuire, W. J., & Padawer-Singer, A. (1976). Trait salience in the spontaneous
self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 743-754.
Miville, M.L., Holloway, P., Gelso, C.J., Pannu, R., Liu, W., Touradji, P., &
Fuertes, J. (1999). Appreciating similarities and valuing differences: The
Miville-Guzman universality-diversity scale. Journal of Counseling
Psychology 46, 291-307.
Munroe, A., & Pearson, C. (2006). The Munroe multicultural attitude scale
questionnaire: A new instrument for multicultural studies. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 66, 819-834.
Mossakowski, K. (2003). Coping with perceived discrimination: Does ethnic
identity protect mental health?” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 44,
318-331.
Nagel, J. (1994). Constructing ethnicity: Creating and recreating ethnic identity
and culture. Social Problems, 41, 152-176.
Negy, C., Shreve, Jensen, B.J., & Uddin, N. (2003). Ethnic identity, self-esteem,
and ethnocentrism: A study of social identity versus multicultural theory of
64
development. Cultural Diversity and Mental Health, 9(4), 333-334.
Peck, C., & Sears, A. (2005) Uncharted Territory: Mapping Children's
Conceptions of Ethnic Diversity. Canadian Ethnic Studies/Études
ethniques au Canada.
Phinney, J. (1989). Stages of ethnic identity in minority group adolescents.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 9, 34-49.
Phinney, J. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research.
Psychological Bulletin, 108, 499-514.
Phinney, J. (1993). A three-stage model of ethnic identity development in
adolescence. In M. Bernal & G. Knight (Eds.), Ethnic identity: Formation
and transmission among Hispanics and other minorities (pp. 61-79).
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Phinney, J. (1996a). When we talk about American ethnic groups, what do we
mean? American Psychologist, 51, 918-927.
Phinney, J. (1996b). Understanding ethnic diversity: The role of ethnic identity.
American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 143-152.
Phinney, J., & Alipuria, L. (1996). At the interface of cultures:
Multiethnic/multiracial high school and college students. Journal of Social
Psychology, 136, 130-158.
Phinney, J., Cantu, C., & Kurtz, D. (1997). Ethnic and American identity as
predictors of self-esteem among African American, Latino, and White
adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26, 165-185.
65
Quintana, S. M., Ybarra, V. C., Gonzalez-Doupe, P., & Baessa, Y. D. (2000).
Cross-cultural evaluation of ethnic perspective-taking ability: An
exploratory investigation with U.S. Latino and Guatemalan Latino
Children. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 6, 334–351.
Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1998). What is beyond the Big Five? Journal of
Personality, 66, 495-524.
Sellers, R.M., Smith, M.A., Shelton, J.N., Rowley, R.A., & Chavous, T. M.
(1997). Multidimensionality model of racial identity: A
reconceptualization of African American racial identity. Unpublished
Manuscript. University of Michigan.
Silvestri, T. J., & Richardson, T. Q. (2001). White racial identity statuses and
NEO personality constructs. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and
Development, 79(1), 68-76.
Simons, R. L., Murry, V., McLoyd, V., Lin, K.-H., Cutrona, C., & Conger, R. D.
(2002). Discrimination, crime, ethnic identity, and parenting as correlates
of depressive symptoms among African American children: A multilevel
analysis. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 371–393.
Spencer. M. B., & Markstrom-Adams, C. (1990). Identity processes among racial
and ethnic minority children in America. Child Development, 61, 290-310.
Sue, D.W., Arredondo, P., & McDavis, R.J. (1992). Multicultural counseling
competencies and standards: A call to the profession. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 70(4), 477-486.
66
Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (1999). Counseling the culturally different: Theory and
practice (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Strayer, J., & Eisenberg, N. (1987). Empathy viewed in context. In N. Eisenberg
& J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 389–398). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social
psychology. Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Instrumentality, identity and social comparisons. In H. Tajfel
(Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 483-507). Cambridge
University Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In
S. Worchel & W.G. Austin (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup
relations (pp. 33-48). Monterey, Ca: Brooks-Cole.
Umana-Taylor, D., & Updegraff, K.A. (1997). Latino adolescents’ mental health:
Exploring the interrelations among discrimination, ethnic identity, cultural
orientation, self-esteem, and depressive symptoms. Journal of Adolescence,
30, 549–567.
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), 1-18.
Wang, Y.W., Davidson, M.M., Yakushko, O.F., Savoy, H.B., Tan, J.A., & Bleier,
J.K. (2003). The Scale of Ethnocultural Empathy: Development,
67
validation, and reliability. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(2), 221234.
Wolsko, C., Park, B., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2000). Framing interethnic
ideology: Effects of multicultural and colorblind perspectives on
judgments of groups and individuals. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 78, 635-654.
Waters, M. C. (1990). Ethnic options: Choosing identities in America. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Yates, M., & Youniss, J. (1999). Roots of civic identity: International
perspectives on community service and activism in youth (pp. 16-31).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.