Up to this point we have largely focused on many benefits of living in a multicultural world including the cognitive and psychological benefits of bilingualism, cultural frame switching and the regular use of code-switching in the age of social media. This section will focus on many some of the challenges that persist when living in a multicultural world.

Cultural Reaffirmation

Cultural reaffirmation is a phenomenon that occurs when multicultural individuals living in multicultural societies endorse even more traditional values than persons from the native country or monoculture individuals. There have been several instances observed in Western and Eastern cultures. For example, Kosmitzki (1996) examined monocultural and bicultural Germans and Americans who rated themselves, their cultural group and adopted cultural group. The bicultural individuals endorsed even more traits and values of the native culture than the monoculture individuals. Matsumoto, Weissman, Preston, Brown and Kupperbusch (1997) compared Japanese and Japanese Americans on ratings of interpersonal interactions and found that the Japanese Americans rated themselves higher in areas of collectivism than the Japanese nationals. Cultural reaffirmation has been explained by the stresses of immigrating or becoming part of a multicultural society. In other words, the immigrant group hangs tightly to the native culture even as the native culture changes, in this way the immigrant culture begins to conform to stereotypes.

Identity Denial

Identity denial occurs when individuals are not accepted as a member of the group that they identify with. To be clear, individuals are not denying their heritage, culture or experience but others who share their identity are rejecting them. Cheryan and Monin (2005) revealed that Asian Americans experience more identity denial than other ethnic groups in the United States. As a reaction to the denial, individuals will often over identify with American culture (e.g., football, music, television).

Stereotype Threat

As we learned earlier, stereotypes are generalized thoughts that influence our beliefs about others but also beliefs about ourselves and even our own performance on important tasks. In some cases, these beliefs may be positive, and have the effect of making us feel more confident and better able to perform tasks. On the other hand, sometimes these beliefs are negative, and they have the effect of making us perform more poorly just because of our knowledge about the stereotypes.

One of the long-standing puzzles in the area of academic performance concerns why African American students in the United States perform more poorly on standardized tests, receive lower grades, and are less likely to remain in school in comparison with White students, even when other factors such as family income, parents’ education, and other relevant variables are controlled. Steele and Aronson (1995) tested the hypothesis that these differences might be due to the activation of negative stereotypes. They hypothesized that African American students are aware of the inaccurate stereotype that ‘African American students are intellectually inferior to White students,’ and this stereotype creates a negative expectation. This negative expectation then interferes with students’ performance on intellectual and academic tests through fear of confirming that stereotype.

Results confirmed that African American college students performed worse, in comparison with their prior test scores, on math questions taken from the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) when the test was described to them as a diagnostic measure of their mathematical abilities (and thus when the stereotype was relevant) but performance was not influenced when the same questions were framed as a problem-solving activity.

In another study, Steele and Aronson found that when African American students were asked to indicate their race before they took a math test (a way to activating the stereotype), they performed more poorly than they had on prior exams, whereas the scores of White students were not affected by first indicating their race. Steele and Aronson argued that thinking about negative stereotypes that are relevant to the task that you are performing creates stereotype threat, which leads to decreased performance. That is, the negative impact of race on standardized tests may be caused, at least in part, by the performance situation itself. When the threat was present, African American students were negatively influenced by it.

Research has found that the experience of stereotype threat can help explain a wide variety of performance declines among those who are targeted by negative stereotypes. For instance, when a math task is described as diagnostic of intelligence, Latinos and particularly Latinas perform more poorly than do Whites (Gonzales, Blanton, & Williams, 2002). Similarly, when stereotypes are activated, children with low socioeconomic status perform more poorly in math than do those with high socioeconomic status, and psychology students perform more poorly than do natural science students (Brown, Croizet, Bohner, Fournet, & Payne, 2003). Even groups who typically enjoy advantaged social status can be made to experience stereotype threat. White men performed more poorly on a math test when they were told that their performance would be compared with that of Asian men (Aronson, Lustina, Good, Keough, & Steele, 1999), and Whites students performed more poorly than African American students on a sport-related task when it was described to them as measuring their natural athletic ability (Stone, 2002).

Stereotype threat is created in situations that pose a significant threat to self-concern, such that our perceptions of ourselves as important, valuable, and capable individuals are threatened. In these situations, there is a discrepancy between our positive concept of our skills and abilities and the negative stereotypes suggesting poor performance. When our stereotypes lead us to be believe that we are likely to perform poorly on a task, we experience a feeling of unease and status threat. Stereotype threat is not, however, absolute and manipulations that affirm positive characteristics about oneself or one’s group are successful at reducing stereotype threat (Alter, Aronson, Darley, Rodriguez, & Ruble, 2010; Greenberg et al., 2003; McIntyre, Paulson, & Lord, 2003). In fact, just knowing that stereotype threat exists may influence performance and possibly alleviate its negative impact (Johns, Schmader, & Martens, 2005).

Contact Hypothesis

We learned earlier that one of the reasons that people may hold stereotypes and prejudices is that they view the members of outgroups as different from them. Sometime we fear that our interactions with people from different racial groups will be unpleasant, and these anxieties may lead us to avoid interacting with people from those groups (Mallett, Wilson, & Gilbert, 2008). This suggests that a good way to reduce prejudice is to help people create closer connections with members of different groups. People will behave more favorable toward others when they learn to see other people as more similar to them, as closer to the self, and to be more concerned about them. This idea is known as the contact hypothesis.

Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) conducted a meta-analysis in which they reviewed over 500 studies that had investigated the effects of intergroup contact on group attitudes. They found that attitudes toward groups that were in contact became more positive over time. Furthermore, positive effects of contact were found on both stereotypes and prejudice and for many different types of contacted groups. The positive effects of intergroup contact may be due in part to increases in concern for others. Galinsky and Moskowitz (2000) found that leading students to take the perspective of another group member, which increased empathy and closeness to the person, also reduced prejudice.

Student behavior on campuses demonstrates the importance of connecting with others and the dangers of not doing so. Sidanius, Van Laar, Levin, and Sinclair (2004) found that students who joined exclusive campus groups, including fraternities, sororities, and minority ethnic organizations, were more prejudiced to begin with and became even less connected and more intolerant of members of other social groups over the time that they remained in the organizations. One explanation is that memberships in these groups focused the students on themselves and other people who were very similar to them, leading them to become less tolerant of others who were different.

One large scale intergroup contact example came about as a result of the United States (U.S.) Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 which overturned an earlier court ruling and declared state laws establishing separate public schools for African American and White students to be unconstitutional. As a result, schools had to be integrated, which caused severe political unrest in many states, but particularly in the Southern United States. Integrating schools had a profound impact on the racial composition of classrooms, improved educational and occupational achievement of African American students and increased the desire of African American students to interact with Whites by forming cross-race friendships (Stephan, 1999). Overall, desegregating schools in the United States supports the expectation that intergroup contact, at least in the long run, can be successful in changing attitudes. There is substantial support for the effectiveness of intergroup contact in improving group attitudes in a wide variety of situations, including schools, work organizations, military forces, and public housing.

Although intergroup contact does work, it is not always a cure because the conditions necessary for it to be successful are frequently not met. Contact can be expected to work only in situations that create the appropriate opportunities for change. For one, contact will only be effective if it provides information demonstrating that the existing stereotypes held by the individuals are incorrect. When we learn more about groups that we didn’t know much about before, we learn more of the truth about them, leading us to be less biased in our beliefs; however, if our interactions with the group members do not allow us to learn new beliefs, then contact cannot work.

When we first meet someone from another category, we are likely to rely almost exclusively on our stereotypes (Brodt & Ross, 1998) but when we get to know the individual well (e.g., as a student in a classroom gets to know other students over a school year), we may get to the point where we ignore that individual’s group membership almost completely, responding to him or her entirely at the individual level (Madon et al., 1998). In this way contact is effective in part because it leads us to get past our perceptions of others as group members and to see them as people.

As we learned earlier, individuals who are fully immersed in more than one culture likely have a bicultural or multicultural identity, which may or may not be associated with language ability or proficiency. Bicultural individuals may experience difficulty balancing identities because of the influence of both cultures. Bicultural identity may also have positive effects on individuals, in terms of the additional knowledge they acquire from belonging to more than one culture. Using knowledge from more than one culture, individuals are able to make cognitive, behavioral and linguistic switches to negotiate different social interactions and situations. We are going to learn about two types of cultural switching:

• Cultural frame switching
• Code switching

Cultural Frame Switching

Cultural frame switching refers to the process of bicultural or multicultural individuals accessing different culture-specific mental modules or changing their perspective of the world, depending on the language that is used (Hong, Chiu, & Kung, 1997). Research with bicultural individuals has shown that the presence of culture-specific cues can elicit culture-specific, attributions values and personality differences. Benet-Martinez and colleagues (2002) found that Chinese American biculturals displayed more internal attributions when primed with American icons (e.g., Superman), and more external attributions when primed with Chinese icons (e.g., Great Wall) Similarly, Hong Kong Chinese and Chinese Americans generated more collective self-descriptions when their Chinese identity was activated, than did North Americans. In a different study, North Americans and Chinese Americans generated more individual self-descriptions, when their American identity was activated, than did Hong Kong Chinese (Hong, Ip, Chiu, Morris, & Menon, 2001).

Different personality traits were activated among Spanish – English bilinguals when completing a personality questionnaire in English (Ramírez-Esparzaa, Goslinga, Benet-Martínez, Potter & Pennebaker, 2004). Spanish-English speakers scored higher on measures on Extraversion, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness when completing the questionnaire in English.

From a practical standpoint, culturally influenced differences in language and meaning can lead to some interesting encounters, ranging from awkward to informative to disastrous. Words in two different languages that may seem to be exact translations of each other are likely to have different sets of culture-specific conceptual associations. For example, in Taiwan, Pepsi used the slogan “Come Alive with Pepsi” only to later find out that when translated it meant, “Pepsi brings your ancestors back from the dead” (Kwintessential Limited, 2012). Another example is the ‘Got Milk? campaign which was very successful in the United States. When this phrase was translated literally into Spanish as “Tienes (Do you have) Leche (milk)?” for use in its Hispanic media debut there were some serious problems. That particular phrase is taken literally in the Hispanic culture to mean, “Are you lactating?” This was definitely not what the advertisers had in mind but underscores the importance of cultural frame switching when engaging bicultural or multicultural individuals.

Code Switching

Code-switching involves changing from one way of speaking to another between or within interactions and includes changes in accent, dialect, language (Martin & Nakayama, 2010). Code-switching can also refer to the process of multicultural individuals using more than one language in conversation or other communicative acts (e.g., gestures, body language, and understood contexts). By using different languages at the same time the brain switches back and forth between transmitting and receiving messages. Code-switching among multicultural individuals creates a dual communication system in which people are able to maintain their identities with their in-group but can still acquire tools and gain access needed to function in larger dominant society (Yancy, 2011).

There are many reasons that people might code-switch. There has been cross-cultural research indicating that an accent can activate stereotypes and change perceptions (Bourhis, Giles & Lambert, 1975; Dixon & Mahoney, 2004). In the United States, people who have a Southern accent are perceived as being less intelligent and having a lower socioeconomic status when compared to individuals with a standard American accent (Phillips, 2010). If an individual believes that their accent is leading others to form unfavorable impressions, they can consciously change their accent with much practice and effort. Once their ability to speak without their Southern accent is honed, they may be able to switch very quickly between their native accent when speaking with friends and family and their modified accent when speaking in professional settings.

Increased outsourcing and globalization have produced heightened pressures for code-switching among call center workers in India. Although many Indians learn English in school as a result of British colonization, their accents often active negative stereotypes and reactions among Western customers calling for help or customer service support. Some Indian call center workers completed intense training to be able to code-switch and accommodate the speaking style of their customers (Pal, 2004) and there has been a growing trend toward accent neutralization as a response to racist verbal abuse call center workers receive from customers (Nadeem, 2012).

People who work or live in multilingual settings may code-switch many times throughout the day, or even within a single conversation. Some cultural linguists have argued that as a result of social media, the majority of Americans engage in code-switching regularly. Words like text, tweet, liked, googled and communicating with symbols (e.g., emojis) are used every day, across technological platforms and by individuals of all ages. Also, within the United States, some people of color may engage in code-switching when communicating with dominant group members because they fear they may be negatively judged and switching may minimize perceived differences. Code-switching may also signal a shift from formal interactions to more informal interactions and individuals may code-switching to reinforce their ingroup identity (Heller, 1992).

As our interactions continue to occur in more multinational contexts, the expectations for code-switching and accommodation are sure to increase. It is important for us to consider the intersection of culture and power to think critically about the ways in which expectations for code-switching may be based on cultural biases and how we can avoid ethnocentric bias and misinterpretations.

Multi-Cultural Identities

Our identities make up an important part of our self-concept and as we learned earlier can be separated into three main categories: personal, social, and cultural identities (See Chapter 8). Our identities are not constant but are formed through processes that started before we were born and will continue after we are dead. In this way our identities cannot be something that we achieve and are our identities are never complete.

You might remember that personal identities include the components of self that are primarily intrapersonal and connected to our life experiences. For example, you may be outgoing, love puzzles, hip-hop music or have a beautiful singing voice. Our social identities are the components of self that are derived from involvement in social groups with which we are interpersonally committed. For example, we derive aspects of our social identity from our family, from a community of fans for a sports team or membership in a choir. While our personal identity choices express who we are, our social identities align us with particular groups. Through our social identities, we make statements about who we are and who we are not (Spreckels, & Kotthoff, 2009).

Cultural identities and multicultural identities are based on socially constructed categories that teach us a way of being and include expectations for social behavior or ways of acting (Yep, 2002). The ways of being and the social expectations for behavior within cultural identities can change over time, but what separates them from most social identities is their historical roots (Collier, 1996). For example, think of how ways of being and acting have changed for African Americans since the civil rights movement or for persons with disabilities since the independent living movement and the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed in the United States.

Although some identities are essentially permanent, the degree to which we are aware of them, known as salience, can change. We learned earlier that identity is fluid and changes based on context. This means that the intensity with which we identify with an identity can be different depending on the situation. For example, an African American female may not have difficulty deciding which box to check on the demographic section of a survey but she may more intensely related to her African American identity if she becomes the president of her college’s Black Student Union. In the second context, being African American has become more salient. If she studies abroad in Africa her junior year, she may be ascribed an identity of American by African students rather than African American. For the Africans, the visitor’s identity as American is probably more salient than her identity as someone of African descent.

Someone who identifies as biracial or multiracial may change their racial identification as they engage in their identity search. One intercultural communication scholar writes of his experiences as an “Asianlatinoamerican” (Yep, 2002). He notes repressing his Chinese identity as an adolescent living in Peru and then later embracing his Chinese identity and learning about his family history while in college in the United States.

Dominant cultural identities historically and currently have more resources and influence, while non-dominant identities historically and currently have fewer resources and influence. It’s important to remember that these distinctions are being made at the societal level, not the individual level. There are obviously exceptions, with people from non-dominant groups obtaining more resources and power than a person in a dominant group; however, the overall trend is that differences based on cultural group membership has been institutionalized, and exceptions do not change this fact.

As a result of this uneven distribution of resources and power, members of dominant groups are granted privileges while non-dominant groups which are at a disadvantage encounter institutionalized discrimination, including racism, sexism, heterosexism, and ableism (Chapter 11), limited access to resources, support, and social capital. As you read, think about how circumstances may be different for an individual with multiple non-dominant and/or dominant identities. Individuals with dominant identities may not validate the experiences of those in non-dominant groups because they do not experience the oppression directed at those with non-dominant identities. Further, they may find it difficult to acknowledge that not being aware of this oppression is due to privilege associated with their dominant identities. For example, a white person in the United States may notice that a person of color was elected to a prominent political office; however, he may not see the underlying reason that it is noticeable. The reason it is noticeable is because the overwhelming majority of political leaders are white in the United States.

Because the experiences of non-dominant groups often goes unexamined by members of the dominant group, there is often a lack of recognition of oppression and privilege which can manifest in culturally biased language. For example, culturally biased language can reference one or more multicultural identities, including race, gender, age, sexual orientation, and ability. Use of offensive or culturally biased language is usually not intended to hurt or to harm others but is often unintentional and the product of ignorance. Showing an awareness of and addressing cultural bias in language is not the same thing as engaging in political correctness, which takes awareness to the extreme but does not do much to address the bias aside from make people feel awkward or resentful. Using inclusive language reflects an understanding of an individual’s unique circumstances, as well as acknowledges and validates the experiences of others.

Members of dominant groups may minimize, dismiss, or question the experiences of non-dominant groups or even view them as “complainers” or “whiners.” People with dominant cultural identities who fail to examine privilege may find it difficult to value cultural or social differences. Recognizing the existence of multiple cultural identities within national and regional boundaries, and adopting actions and policies to address them, are necessary to eliminate prejudice, stereotypes and conflicts, in order to ensure a healthy, inclusive community.

Bilingualism & Culture

As noted in the earlier section, language can play a large role in the intensity of culture shock and an individual’s adaptation to a new culture. A bilingual or multilingual person can traditionally be defined as an individual who uses (understands and produces) two (or more) languages on a regular basis (Grosjean, 2013). Globally, the majority of individuals who speak English also speak at least one other language fluently.

• 56% of Europeans speak more than one language (2018 Eurostat Yearbook)
• 20% of Americans speak more than one language (2016 US Census Report)
• 19% of Canadians speak more than one language (2018 Government of Canada)

It is not uncommon for individuals in China and Africa to speak many languages. There are 7 major languages in China and more in India and Africa when including specific regional and tribal dialects. Around the global monolingual speakers are the minority (Grosjean, 2013).

A bilingual person’s initial exposure to both languages may have started in early childhood (e.g. before age 3) (Baker, 2006) but exposure may also begin later in life. It is often assumed that bilinguals must be equally proficient in their languages but proficiency typically varies by domain. For example, a bilingual person may have greater proficiency for work-related terms in one language, and family-related terms in another language (Grosjean, 2013).

Takano and Nado (1993) describe the foreign language effect (FLE) which refers to a temporary decline in thinking by those who use a second language rather than their native language. They explain that when an individual is spoken to, in the second language, linguistic processing (not cognitive processing) is necessary for an appropriate response and to accommodate the processing thinking declines. With practice and increased proficiency, the decline diminishes (i.e., interpreters). Using German, Korean and English speakers, the researchers found that the FLE was larger when the discrepancy between the native and foreign languages was greater (e.g., German and Korean) and smaller when the differences between the native and foreign languages were smaller (e.g., German and English) (Takano & Nado, 1995).

Research examining the interaction between bilingual individuals’ first language and second language has shown that both languages have an influence on one another, and on cognitive functioning outside of language. For example, research on executive functions such as working memory, perception, and attentional and inhibitory control, has suggested that bilinguals have cognitive advantages over their monolingual peers (Marian & Shook, 2012).

Psychological and cultural research has identified differences among multilingual and bilingual speakers when speaking the foreign language. For example, Ervin (1964) found that English/French bilinguals demonstrated different characteristics and emotions when telling stories (based on Thematic Apperception Test) in English versus in French. Matsumoto and colleague (2008) found that Spanish and English-speaking Mexican bilinguals were more accurate in judging emotions in English but inferred greater intensity of subjective experience in the expresser in Spanish.

Additionally, there appear to be age-related benefits for bilinguals. Speaking more than one language appears to help older adults reduce cognitive decline and some research has suggested that bilingual ability can delay the onset of Alzheimer’s disease (Marian & Shook, 2012). It should be noted that there is strong disagreement over how findings on cognitive benefits should be interpreted. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies have found mixed evidence for cognitive advantages in healthy adults. Some have suggested that publication bias (only publishing studies that show positive cognitive benefits) has provided a distorted view of the evidence (Lenhonten, 2013). Though mixed, research results have found support for cognitive, psychological and cultural differences in the experiences of bilingual and multilingual individuals.