Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Training, Research, Practice, and Organizational Change for Psychologists

American Psychological Association

Approved as APA Policy by the APA Council of Representatives, August, 2002

Commitment to Cultural Awareness and Knowledge of Self and Others

Guideline #1: Psychologists are encouraged to recognize that, as cultural beings, they may hold attitudes and beliefs that can detrimentally influence their perceptions of and interactions with individuals who are ethnically and racially different from themselves.

Psychologists, like all people, are shaped and influenced by many factors. These include, but are not limited to, their cultural heritage(s), various dimensions of identity including ethnic and racial identity development, gender socialization, and socioeconomic experiences, and other dimensions of identity that predispose individual psychologists to certain biases and assumptions about themselves and others. Psychologists approach interpersonal interactions with a set of attitudes, or worldview, that helps shape their perceptions of others. This worldview is shaped in part by their cultural experiences. Indeed, cross–cultural and multicultural literature consistently indicates that all people are "multicultural beings," that all interactions are cross–cultural, and that all of our life experiences are perceived and shaped from within our own cultural perspectives (Arredondo et al., 1996; Brewer & Brown, 1998; Fiske et al., 1998; Fouad & Brown, 2000; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Pedersen, 2000; Sue et al., 1992; Sue et al., 1982; Sue, Ivey, & Pedersen, 1996).

Psychologists are encouraged to learn how cultures differ in basic premises that shape worldview. For example, it may be important to understand that a cultural facet of mainstream culture in the United States is a preference for individuals who are independent, focused on achieving and success, who have determined (and are in control of) their own personal goals, and who value rational decision–making (Fiske et al., 1998; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeir, 2002). By contrast, individuals with origins in cultures of East Asia may prefer interdependence with others, orientation towards harmony with others, conforming to social norms, and subordination of personal goals and objectives to the will of the group (Fiske et al., 1998). A preference for an independent orientation may shape attitudes towards those with preferences for same, or other orientations. This preference is a concern when a different orientation is unconsciously and automatically judged negatively (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). The perceiver in an interaction integrates not only the content of the interaction, but also information about the target person, including personality traits, physical appearance, age, sex, ascribed race, ability/disability, among other characteristics (Kunda & Thagard, 1996). All of these perceptions are shaped by the perceiver's worldview, and organized in some coherent whole to make sense of the other person's behavior. The psychological process that helps to organize the often–overwhelming amount of information in perceiving others is to place people in categories, thereby reducing the information into manageable chunks of information that go together (Fiske, 1998). This normal process leads to associating various traits and behaviors with particular groups (e.g., all athletes are more brawn than brain, all women like to shop) even if they are inaccurate for particular, many, or even most individuals.

The most often used theoretical framework for understanding approaches that emphasize attention to categories has been social categorization theory, originally conceptualized by Allport (1954). In this framework, people make sense of their social world by creating categories of the individuals around them, which includes separating the categories into in–groups and out–groups (Brewer & Brown, 1998; Fiske, 1998; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000; Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner, Brown & Tajfel, 1979).

Categorization has a number of uses, including speed of processing and efficiency in use of cognitive resources, in part because it appears to happen fairly automatically (Fiske, 1998).

Relevant to these Guidelines are factors that influence categorization and its effect on attitudes towards individuals who are racially or ethnically different from self. These include a tendency to exaggerate differences between groups and similarities within one group and a tendency to favor one's in–group over the out–group; this, too, is done outside conscious processing (Fiske, 1998). In–groups are more highly valued, more trusted, and engender greater cooperation as opposed to competition (Brewer & Brown, 1998; Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002), and those with strongest in–group affiliation also show the most prejudice (Swim & Mallett, 2002). This becomes problematic when one group holds much more power than the other group or when resources among ingroups are not distributed equitably, as is currently the case in the United States.

Thus, it is quite common to have automatic biases and stereotypic attitudes about people in the out–group, and for most psychologists, individuals in racial/ethnic minority groups are in an out–group. The stereotype, or the traits associated with the category become the predominant aspect of the category, even when disconfirming information is provided (Kunda & Thagard, 1996) and particularly when there is some motivation to confirm the stereotype (Kunda & Sinclair, 1999). These can influence interpretations of behavior and influence people's judgments about that behavior (Fiske, 1998; Kunda & Thagard, 1996). Automatic biases and attitudes may also lead to miscommunication, since normative behavior in one context may not necessarily be understood or valued in another. For example, addressing peers, clients, students, or research participants by their first name may be acceptable for some individuals, but may be considered a sign of disrespect for many racial/ethnic minority individuals who are accustomed to more formal interpersonal relations with individuals in an authority role.

Although the associations between particular stereotypic attitudes and resulting behaviors have not been consistently found, group categorization has been illustrated to influence intergroup behavior including behavioral confirmation (Stukas & Snyder, 2002), in–group favoritism (Hewstone et al., 2002), and subtle forms of behaviors (Crosby, Bromely, & Saxe, 1980). Psychologists are urged to become more aware and sensitive to their own attitudes towards others as these attitudes may be more biased and culturally limiting then they think. It is sobering to note that, even those who consciously hold egalitarian beliefs, have shown unconscious endorsement of negative attitudes toward and stereotypes about groups (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). Thus, psychologists who describe themselves as holding egalitarian values and/or as professionals who promote social justice may also unconsciously hold negative attitudes or stereotypes.

Given these findings, many have advocated that improvements in intergroup relationships would occur if there was a de–emphasis on group membership. One way that this has been done is that those who have desired to improve intergroup relationships have taken a "color–blind" approach to interactions with individuals who are racially or ethnically different from them. In this approach, racial or ethnic differences are minimized, and emphasis is on the universal or "human" aspects of behavior. This has been the traditional focus in the United States on assimilation, with its melting pot metaphor, that this is a nation of immigrants that together make one whole, without a focus on any one individual cultural group. Proponents of this approach suggest that alternative approaches that attend to differences can result in inequity by promoting, for instance, categorical thinking including preferences for in–groups and use of stereotypes when perceiving out groups. In contrast, opponents to the color–blind approach have noted the differential power among racial/ethnic groups in the United States, and have noted that ignoring group differences can lead to the maintenance of the status quo and assumptions that racial/ethnic minority groups share the same perspective as dominant group members (Schofield, 1986; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; Wolsko, Park, Judd, & Wittenbrink, 2000).

While the color–blind approach is based in an attempt to reduce inequities, social psychologists have provided evidence that a color–blind approach does not, in fact, lead to equitable treatment across groups. Brewer and Brown (1998), in their review of the literature, note "�ignoring group differences often means that, by default, existing intergroup inequalities are perpetuated" (p. 583). For example, Schofield (1986) found that disregarding cultural differences in a school led to reestablishing segregation by ethnicity. Color–blind policies have also been documented as playing a role in differential employment practices (Brewer & Brown). In these cases, the color–blind approach may have the effect of maintaining a status quo in which Whites have more power than do People of Color. There is also some evidence that a colorblind approach is less accurate than a multicultural approach. Wolsko et al., (2000) for example, found that when White students were instructed to adopt a color–blind or multicultural approach, those with a multicultural approach had stronger stereotypes of other ethnic groups as well as more positive regard for other groups. White students in a multicultural approach also had more accurate perceptions of differences due to race/ethnicity and used category information about both ethnicity and individual characteristics more than those in the color–blind condition. Wolsko et al. concluded, "When operating under a colorblind set of assumptions, social categories are viewed as negative information to be avoided, or suppressed. � In contrast, when operating under a multicultural set of assumptions, social categories are viewed as simply a consequence of cultural diversity. Failing to recognize and appreciate group similarities and differences is considered to inhibit more harmonious interactions between people from different backgrounds." (p. 649)

Consistent with the multicultural approach used by Wolsko et al. (2000), culturecentered training and interventions acknowledge cultural differences and that worldviews differ among cultures, as do experiences of being stigmatized (Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998). This perspective is discussed more fully in Guideline #2. However, knowing all there is to know about a person's ethnic and racial background is not sufficient to be effective unless psychologists are cognizant of their positions as individuals with a worldview and that this worldview is brought to bear on interactions they have with others. As noted earlier, the worldview of the client, student, or research participant, and psychologist may be quite different, leading to communication problems or premature relationship termination. This does not argue that psychologists should shape their world view to be consistent with clients and students, but rather that they are able to be aware of their own worldview to be able to understand others' frame of cultural reference (Ibrahim, 1999; Sodowsky & Kuo, 2001; Triandis & Singelis, 1998).

The literature on social categorization places all human interaction within a cultural context, and encourages an understanding of the various factors that influence our perceptions of others. These premises suggest that the psychologist is a part of the multicultural equation; therefore, on–going development of one's personal and crosscultural awareness, knowledge, and skills is recommended. Fiske (1998) notes that automatic biases can be controlled with motivation, information, and appropriate mood. Given the above research, psychologists are encouraged to explore their worldview� beliefs, values, and attitudes � from a personal and professional perspective. They are encouraged to examine their potential preferences for within group similarity, and realize that, once impressions are formed, these impressions are often resistant to disconfirmation (Gilbert, 1998). Moreover, psychologists are encouraged to understand their own assumptions about ways to improve multicultural interactions and the potential issues associated with different approaches. Psychologists' self–awareness and appreciation of cultural, ethnic, and racial heritage may serve as a bridge in cross–cultural interactions, not necessarily highlighting but certainly not minimizing these factors as they attempt to build understanding (Arredondo et al., 1996; Hofstede, 1980; Ibrahim, 1985; Jones, Lynch, Tenglund, & Gaertner, 2000; Locke, 1992; Sue, 1978; Sue & Sue, D., 1999; Triandis & Singelis, 1998).

The research on reducing stereotypic attitudes and biases suggest a number of strategies (Hewstone et al., 2002) that psychologists may use. The first and most critical is awareness of those attitudes and values (Devine, Plant, & Buswell, 2000; Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). The second and third strategies are effort and practice in changing the automatically favorable perceptions of in–group and negative perceptions of out–group. How this change occurs has been the subject of many years of empirical effort, with varying degrees of support (Hewstone et al.,). It appears, though, that increased contact with other groups (Pettigrew, 1998) is helpful, particularly if in this contact, the individuals are of equal status and the psychologist is able to take the other's perspective (Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000) and has empathy for him/her (Finlay & Stephan, 2000). Some strategies to do this have included actively seeing individuals as individuals, rather than as members of a group, in effect decategorizing (Brewer & Miller, 1988). Another strategy is to change the perception of "us vs. them" to "we," or recategorizing the outgroup as members of the in–group (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). Both of these models have been shown to be effective, particularly under low–prejudice conditions and when the focus is on interpersonal communication (Brewer & Brown, 1998; Hewstone et al., 2002). In addition, psychologists may want to actively increase their tolerance (Greenberg, Solomon, Pyszczynski, Rosenblatt, & et al. 1992) and trust of racial/ethnic groups (Kramer, 1999).

Thus, psychologists are encouraged to be aware of their attitudes and work to increase their contact with members of other racial/ethnic groups, building trust in others and increasing their tolerance for others. Since covert attempts to suppress automatic associations can backfire, with attempts at suppression resulting in increased use of stereotypes (Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2000), psychologists are urged to become overtly aware of their attitudes towards others. It has been shown, though, that repeated attempts at suppression have been found to lead to improvements in automatic biases (Plant & Devine, 1998). Such findings suggest that psychologists' efforts to change their attitudes and biases help to prevent those attitudes from detrimentally affecting their relationships with students, research subjects and clients who are racially/ethnically different from them.