Cultural Outgroup Research Articles

Testing a modified Interactive Acculturation Model in Japan: American–Japanese coworker relations

Abstract Japan is the world's fastest “graying society.” Numerous experts advocate expanding the non-Japanese workforce to prevent a debilitating labor shortage. To promote positive intercultural relations between Japanese and incoming non-Japanese workers, it is prudent to examine which factors have contributed to creating a smooth acculturation process so far for both groups vs. those which have not. This research aimed to do so by assessing how the acculturation strategy compatibility between Japanese and American coworkers affected their quality of intercultural relations ( N = 194). Bourhis and colleagues’ Interactive Acculturation Model (“IAM”) was used to predict which acculturation strategy combinations were most likely to produce positive intercultural relationships. With the independent variable of acculturation strategy alignment (i.e., Consensual, Problematic, and Conflictual acculturation strategy combinations, or “IAM types”), five dependent measures of quality of intergroup relations were employed. Statistical analyses revealed that Conflictual IAM types often scored lower on the dependent measures than Consensual or Problematic IAM types—as predicted by the IAM. However, Consensual IAM types did not score significantly higher than Problematic ones on any of the dependent variables, which contradicted one of the IAM's fundamental premises. Problematic IAM types’ constructive use of stress, as well as their deeper acculturation to their cultural outgroup, likely resulted in them posting comparable scores to Consensual types. Consequently, Consensual and Problematic types were expanded to four subtypes to better explain these findings. Finally, recommendations were made for modifying acculturation expectations among Japanese and Americans to better integrate both groups into their work organizations.

Reconsidering the Clinical Utility of Bias as a Mental Health Problem: Intervention Strategies for Psychotherapy Practice.

Pathological forms of bias, an area unaddressed by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2000), are considered in terms of diagnosis and treatment. Three clinical criteria of pathological bias are proposed: intrusive ideation, aversive arousal, and relationship-damaging behaviors in contexts of intergroup contact. A model of treatment is presented, encompassing dialogical, pharmacological, behavioral, and contextual interventions. Development of a research agenda addressing the clinical utility of pathological bias needs to examine the patient’s functional impairment, risk to commit bias-motivated aggression, and ability to benefit from treatment. Establishment of a reliable and valid methodology for psychotherapy research, as well as the legal and public health implications of viewing bias as a mental health problem, are discussed. Bias as a mental health problem has received very little attention over the past half-century. During this same time, discrimination and intergroup conflict have been recognized as a chronic social problem (Duckitt, 1992), a biological risk factor for the targets of biased behavior (Clark, Anderson, Clark, & Williams, 1999), and a legitimate civil rights issue in the courtroom (Griffith & Griffith, 1986). Racism, for example, may constitute a mental health problem for individuals who experience intense ego-dystonic affects concerning intergroup experiences (Frosh, 1989; Pinderhughes, 1989). Clinical problems of bias may include hostile racist behaviors, fearful preoccupation with cultural out-groups, or the commission of violent crimes that target members of a racial, ethnic, or sexual minority group. In this article, pathological bias is discussed in terms of current and future diagnostic decisions, as well as the multiple pathways for mental health treatment. There has been very little consideration in contemporary mental health literature concerning bias as a clinical problem. As a consequence, there is no standard of treatment for patients who demonstrate severe forms of racist beliefs and concerns. During the 1940s and 1950s, the study of intergroup problems was frequently explained in terms of psychodynamic models (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950; Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939). Subsequent decades of social science research has demonstrated that these pathology-based explanations are inadequate to account for outgroup stereotyping and institutional forms of discrimination. Although this is certainly true, it will be argued that mental health problems related to out-group bias are inadequately represented by attitude research conducted with nonclinical samples. Rather, the study of pathological bias I would like to thank Drs. Carl Bell, Alice Chang, and Megan Sullaway for their encouragement in the preparation of this article. Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Edward Dunbar, EdD, Pacific Psychological Associates, 2221 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 211, El Segundo, CA 90245. E-mail: edunbar@ucla.edu Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training Copyright 2004 by the Educational Publishing Foundation 2004, Vol. 41, No. 2, 97–111 0033-3204/04/$12.00 DOI 10.1037/0033-3204.41.2.97

Development and Preliminary Validation of the Stereotypic Beliefs Inventory

This paper describes the development and preliminary validation of a Stereotypic Beliefs Inventory, a measure of individual differences in the extent to which English-speaking Canadians hold Stereotypic beliefs about cultural or ethnic outgroups. A Stereotypic belief is the belief that members of cultural or ethnic outgroups differ systematically in specific personality characteristics from members of cultural or ethnic ingroups. This scale is the only currently available measure of ethnic stereotyping that has been shown to be unaffected by socially desirable responses in Canada.