Need to follow the instructions

Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Training, Research, Practice, and Organizational

Change for Psychologists American Psychological Association

Preface

All individuals exist in social, political, historical, and economic contexts, and psychologists are increasingly called upon to understand the influence of these contexts on individuals’ behavior. The “Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Training, Research, Practice, and Organiza- tional Change for Psychologists” reflect the continuing evolution of the study of psychology, changes in society at large, and emerging data about the different needs of par- ticular individuals and groups historically marginalized or disenfranchised within and by psychology based on their ethnic/racial heritage and social group identity or member- ship. These “Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Train- ing, Research, Practice, and Organizational Change for Psychologists” reflect knowledge and skills needed for the profession in the midst of dramatic historic sociopolitical changes in U.S. society, as well as needs of new constitu- encies, markets, and clients.

The specific goals of these guidelines are to provide psychologists with (a) the rationale and needs for address- ing multiculturalism and diversity in education, training, research, practice, and organizational change; (b) basic information, relevant terminology, current empirical re- search from psychology and related disciplines, and other data that support the proposed guidelines and underscore their importance; (c) references to enhance ongoing edu- cation, training, research, practice, and organizational change methodologies; and (d) paradigms that broaden the purview of psychology as a profession.

In these guidelines, education refers to the psycho- logical education of students in all areas of psychology, while training refers more specifically to the application of that education to the development of applied and research skills. We refer to research that involves human participants, rather than research using animals or math- ematical simulations. Practice refers to interventions with children, adolescents, adults, families, and organi- zations typically conducted by clinical, consulting, counseling, organizational, and school psychologists. Fi- nally, we focus on the work of psychologists as admin- istrators, as consultants, and in other organizational management roles positioned to promote organizational change and policy development.

This document was approved as policy of the American Psychological Association (APA) by the APA Council of Representatives in August 2002. This document was drafted by a joint task force of APA Divisions 17 (Counseling Psychology) and 45 (The Society for the Psychological Study of Ethnic Minority Issues). These guidelines have been in the process of development for 22 years, so many individuals and groups require acknowledgment. The Divisions 17/45 writing team for the present document included Nadya Fouad, PhD (co-chair); Patricia Arredondo, EdD (co-chair); Michael D’Andrea, EdD; and Allen Ivey, EdD. These guidelines build on work related to multicul- tural counseling competencies by Division 17 (D. W. Sue et al., 1982) and the Association of Multicultural Counseling and Development (Arredondo et al., 1996; D. W. Sue, Arredondo, & McDavis, 1992). The task force acknowledges Allen Ivey, EdD; Thomas Parham, PhD; and Derald Wing Sue, PhD, for their leadership related to the work on competencies. The Divisions 17/45 writing team for these guidelines was assisted in reviewing the relevant literature by Rod Goodyear, PhD; Jeffrey S. Mio, PhD; Ruperto (Toti) Perez, PhD; William Par- ham, PhD; and Derald Wing Sue, PhD. Additional writing contribu- tions came from Gail Hackett, PhD; Jeanne Manese, PhD; Louise Douce, PhD; James Croteau, PhD; Janet Helms, PhD; Sally Horwatt, PhD; Kathleen Boggs, PhD; Gerald Stone, PhD; and Kathleen Bieschke, PhD. Editorial contributions were provided by Nancy Down- ing Hansen, PhD; Patricia Perez; Tiffany Rice; and Dan Rosen. The task force is grateful for the active support and contributions of a series of presidents of APA Divisions 17, 35, and 45, including Rosie Bingham, PhD; Jean Carter, PhD; Lisa Porche Burke, PhD; Gerald Stone, PhD; Joseph Trimble, PhD; Melba Vasquez, PhD; and Jan Yoder, PhD. Other individuals who contributed through their advocacy include Guillermo Bernal, PhD; Robert Carter, PhD; J. Manuel Casas, PhD; Don Pope-Davis, PhD; Linda Forrest, PhD; Margaret Jensen, PhD; Teresa LaFromboise, PhD; Joseph G. Ponterotto, PhD; and Ena Vazquez Nuttall, EdD.

The final version of this document was strongly influenced by the contributions of a working group jointly convened by the APA Board for the Advancement of Psychology in the Public Interest (BAPPI) and the APA Board of Professional Affairs (BPA). In addition to Nadya Fouad, PhD, and Patricia Arredondo, EdD, from the Divisions 17/45 task force, members of the working group included Maria Root, PhD, BAPPI (working group co-chair); Sandra L. Shullman, PhD, BPA (working group co-chair); Toy Caldwell-Colbert, PhD, APA Board of Educational Affairs; Jessica Henderson Daniels, PhD, APA Committee for the Advancement of Professional Practice; Janet Swim, PhD, representing the APA Board of Scientific Affairs; Kristin Hancock, PhD, BPA Committee on Professional Practice and Standards; and Laura Barbanel, PhD, APA Board of Directors. This working group was assisted in its efforts by APA staff members Shirlene A. Archer, JD, Public Interest Directorate; and Geoffrey M. Reed, PhD, Prac- tice Directorate, who also jointly shepherded the document through the final approval process. The task force also acknowledges APA staff members Paul Donnelly; Alberto Figueroa; Bertha Holliday, PhD; Sarah Jordan; Joan White; and Henry Tomes, PhD, for their support.

377May 2003 ● American Psychologist Copyright 2003 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0003-066X/03/$12.00 Vol. 58, No. 5, 377– 402 DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.58.5.377

These guidelines address U.S. ethnic and racial mi- nority1 groups as well as individuals, children, and families from biracial, multiethnic, and multiracial backgrounds. Thus, we are defining multicultural in these guidelines narrowly to refer to interactions between individuals from minority ethnic and racial groups in the United States and the dominant European–American culture. Ethnic and ra- cial minority group membership includes individuals of Asian and Pacific Islander, sub-Saharan Black African, Latino/Hispanic, and Native American/American Indian descent, although there is great heterogeneity within each of these groups. The guidelines also address psychologists’ work and interactions with individuals from other nations, including international students, immigrants, and tempo- rary workers in this country.

The term guidelines refers to pronouncements, state- ments, or declarations that suggest or recommend specific professional behavior, endeavors, or conduct for psychol- ogists (American Psychological Association [APA], 1992). Guidelines differ from standards in that standards are man- datory and may be accompanied by an enforcement mech- anism (APA, 2001). Guidelines are intended to facilitate the continued systematic development of the profession and to help assure a high level of professional practice by psychologists. Guidelines are not intended to be mandatory or exhaustive and may not be applicable to every profes- sional and clinical situation. They are not definitive and they are not intended to take precedence over the judgment of psychologists. In addition, federal or state laws may supercede these guidelines.

Scope of Guidelines This document is comprehensive but not exhaustive. We intend to reflect the context and rationale for these guide- lines in multiple settings and situations, but we also ac- knowledge that we expect the document to evolve over time with more illustrative examples and references. In the current document, we initially provide evidence for the need for multicultural guidelines with an overview of the most recent demographic data on racial/ethnic diversity in the United States and the representation of racial/ethnic minorities in education and psychology. We then discuss the social and political developments in the United States and the profession of psychology that provide a context for the development of the guidelines and the fundamental principles on which we base the guidelines. Each guideline is then presented, with the first two guidelines designed to apply to all psychologists from two primary perspectives: (a) knowledge of self with a cultural heritage and varying social identities and (b) knowledge of other cultures. Guidelines 3– 6 address the application of multiculturalism

in education, training, research, practice, and organiza- tional change.

While these guidelines have attempted to incorporate empirical studies of intergroup relations and ethnic iden- tity, professional consensus, and other perceptions and experiences of ethnic and racial minority groups, it is beyond the scope of this document to provide a thorough and comprehensive review of all literature related to race, ethnicity, intergroup processes, and organizational devel- opment strategies to address multiculturalism in employ- ment and professional education contexts. Rather, we have attempted to provide examples of empirical and conceptual literature relevant to the guidelines where possible.

Racial/Ethnic Diversity in the United States and Psychology Individuals of ethnic and racial minority and/or with a biracial/multiethnic/multiracial heritage represent an in- creasingly large percentage of the population in the United States (Judy & D’Amico, 1997; U.S. Census Bureau, 2001; Wehrly, Kenney, & Kenney, 1999). While these demo- graphic trends have been discussed since the previous census of 1990, educational institutions, employers, gov- ernment agencies, and professional and accrediting bodies are now beginning to engage in systematic efforts to be- come more knowledgeable, proficient, and multiculturally responsive. Census 2000 data clarify the changes in U.S. diversity (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). Overall, about 67% of the population identified as White, either alone or with another race. Of the remaining 33%, approximately 13% indicated they were African American, 1.5% American Indian or Alaskan Native, 4.5% Asian/Pacific Islander, 13% Hispanic, and about 7% some other race. These cat- egories overlap since individuals were able to choose more than one racial affiliation. Racial/ethnic diversity varies greatly by state. Summarized in a series of maps by C. A. Brewer and Suchan (2001) from the Census 2000 data, high-diversity states (those with counties that are 60%– 77% racial/ethnic groups) tend to be on the coast or Mex- ican border and include California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and Virginia. In addition to these, however, me- dium-high-diversity states (those with counties that are 49%–59% racial/ethnic minority groups) are found across the country and include Maryland, New York, Illinois, Washington state, Nevada, Colorado, Montana, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Mich- igan, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, North Carolina, and South Carolina.

In the past 10 years, percentage-wise, the greatest increases have been reported for Asian American/Pacific Islanders and Latinos/Hispanics, and in some parts of the country, White European Americans are no longer a clear majority of the population. C. A. Brewer and Suchan (2001) found that diversity increased in all states in the country and, in parts of some states, increased as much as

1 The term person/s of color is preferred by some instead of minority because of the technical definition the latter term connotes.

This document is scheduled to expire as APA policy by 2009. After this date, users are encouraged to contact the APA Public Interest Direc- torate to confirm the status of the document.

Correspondence concerning this article should be directed to the Public Interest Directorate, American Psychological Association, 750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242.

378 May 2003 ● American Psychologist

34%. States that had the most growth in diversity varied geographically, including the Midwest (Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Colorado), South (Georgia, Florida, Texas, and Oklahoma), and Northwest (Idaho, Oregon). In addition, for the first time, Census 2000 allowed individuals to check more than one racial/ethnic affiliation (U.S. Census Bu- reau, 2001). While only 2.4% of the U.S. population checked more than one racial affiliation, 42% of those who checked two or more races were under 18, indicating an increase in the birthrate of biracial individuals. Certainly, the United States is becoming more racially and ethnically diverse, increasing the urgency for culturally responsive practices and services.

Ethnic, racial, and multiracial diversity in the popula- tion is reflected in higher education. This is important to psychologists because it reflects changes in the ethnic com- position of students they teach and train. College enroll- ment increased 62% for students of color between 1988 and 1998 (the latest data available), although college-comple- tion rates differed among Whites and racial/ethnic minority students. College-completion rates in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001) for White individuals between 25–29 years was 29.6%, compared to 17.8% for African Americans, 53.9% for Asian/Pacific Islander Americans, and 9.7% for Hispanics. Corresponding statistics for 1991 versus 1974 were 24.6% versus 22% for Whites, 11% versus 7.9% for African Americans/Blacks, and 9.2% versus 5.7% for His- panics. Data for Hispanics were first collected in 1974; data for Asian/Pacific Islanders were not collected until the mid-1990s. Clearly, these data indicate that racial/ethnic minority students are graduating at a lower rate than White students, but the data also show that they are making educational gains.

Completion of a psychology degree is particularly germane to these guidelines since obtaining a college de- gree is the first step in the pipeline to becoming a psychol- ogist. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) collects information on degrees conferred by area, reported by race/ethnicity. Its latest report (NCES, 2001) indicated that 74,060 bachelor’s degrees were awarded in psychol- ogy in 2001, 14,465 master’s degrees were awarded in psychology, and 4,310 doctoral degrees were awarded in psychology. Of those degrees, the majority were awarded to Whites (72% of bachelor’s and master’s degrees and 77% of doctoral degrees). African Americans received 10% of both bachelor’s and master’s degrees and 5% of doctoral degrees; Hispanics received 10% of bachelor’s degrees and 5% of both master’s and doctoral degrees; Asian/Pacific Islanders received 6% of bachelor’s degrees, 3% of master’s, and 4% of doctoral degrees in psychology. American Indians received less than 1% of all the degrees in psychology. Compared to the percentage of the popula- tion for each of these minority groups noted above, racial/ ethnic minority students are underrepresented at all levels of psychology but most particularly at the doctoral level, the primary entry point for becoming a psychologist.

Thus, racial/ethnic minority students, either because of personal or because of environmental reasons (e.g., discrimination and barriers due to external constraints),

progressively drop out of the pipeline to become psychol- ogists. The racial representation within the profession of psychology is similarly small. Kite et al. (2001) reported that the numbers of ethnic minority psychologists were too small to break down by ethnicity. Indeed, in 2002, APA membership data indicated that 0.3% of the membership was American Indian, 1.7% was Asian, 2.1% was His- panic, and 1.7% was African American (APA Research Office, 2002a), clearly delineating the serious underrepre- sentation of psychologists of color within the organization. Representation was slightly better within APA governance in 2002—1.7% of those in APA governance were Ameri- can Indian, 3.6% were Asian, 5.1% were Black, and 4.8% were Hispanic (APA Research Office, 2002b).

These guidelines are based on the central premise that the population of the United States is racially/ethnically diverse and that students, research participants, clients, and the workforce will be increasingly likely to come from racially/ethnically diverse cultures. Moreover, educators, trainers of psychologists, psychological researchers, pro- viders of service, and those psychologists implementing organizational change are encouraged to gain skills to work effectively with individuals and groups of varying cultural backgrounds. We base our premise on psychologists’ eth- ical principles to be competent to work with a variety of populations (Principle A), to respect others’ rights (Princi- ple D), to be concerned to not harm others (Principle E), and to contribute to social justice (Principle F; APA, 1992). We believe these guidelines will assist psychologists in seeking and using appropriate culturally centered educa- tion, training, research, practice, and organizational change.

Also informing these guidelines are research, profes- sional consensus, and literature addressing perceptions of ethnic minority groups and intergroup relationships (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998; Dovidio, Gaertner, & Validzic, 1998; Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000), experiences of ethnic and racial minority groups (S. Sue, 1999; Swim & Stangor, 1998; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS], 2001), multidisciplinary theoretical models about worldviews and identity (Arredondo & Glauner, 1992; Helms, 1990; Hofstede, 1980; Kluckhohn & Strod- beck, 1961; Markus & Kitayama, 2001; D. W. Sue & Sue, 1977), and the work on cross-cultural and multicultural guidelines and competencies developed over the past 20 years (Arredondo et al., 1996; D. W. Sue, Arredondo, & McDavis, 1992; D. W. Sue et al., 1982). Although we acknowledge that the issues addressed in these guidelines are increasingly important to consider in a global context, the guidelines focus on the context within the United States and its commonwealths or territories such as Puerto Rico and Guam.

Definitions There is considerable controversy and overlap in terms used to connote race, culture, and ethnicity (Helms & Talleyrand, 1997; Phinney, 1996). In this section, we define the following terms that are used throughout these guidelines.

379May 2003 ● American Psychologist

Culture. Culture is defined as the belief systems and value orientations that influence customs, norms, prac- tices, and social institutions, including psychological pro- cesses (language, caretaking practices, media, educational systems) and organizations (media, educational systems; A. P. Fiske, Kitayama, Markus, & Nisbett, 1998). Inherent in this definition is the acknowledgment that all individuals are cultural beings and have a cultural, ethnic, and racial heritage. Culture has been described as the embodiment of a worldview through learned and transmitted beliefs, val- ues, and practices, including religious and spiritual tradi- tions. It also encompasses a way of living informed by the historical, economic, ecological, and political forces on a group. These definitions suggest that culture is fluid and dynamic and that there are both cultural universal phenom- ena and culturally specific or relative constructs.

Race. The biological basis of race has, at times, been the source of fairly heated debates in psychology (Fish, 1995; Helms & Talleyrand, 1997; Jensen, 1995; Levin, 1995; Phinney, 1996; Rushton, 1995; Sun, 1995; Yee, Fairchild, Weizmann, & Wyatt, 1993). Helms and Cook (1999) noted that race has no consensual definition and that, in fact, biological racial categories and phenotypic characteristics have more within-group variation than be- tween-groups variation. In these guidelines, the definition of race is considered to be socially constructed rather than biologically determined. Race, then, is the category to which others assign individuals on the basis of physical characteristics, such as skin color or hair type, and the generalizations and stereotypes made as a result. Thus, “people are treated or studied as though they belong to biologically defined racial groups on the basis of such characteristics” (Helms & Talleyrand, 1997, p. 1247).

Ethnicity. Similar to the concepts of race and cul- ture, the term ethnicity does not have a commonly agreed- upon definition; in these guidelines, we refer to ethnicity as the acceptance of the group mores and practices of one’s culture of origin and the concomitant sense of belonging. We also note that, consistent with M. B. Brewer (1999), Sedikides and Brewer (2001), and Hornsey and Hogg (2000), individuals may have multiple ethnic identities that operate with different salience at different times.

Multiculturalism and diversity. The terms multiculturalism and diversity have been used interchange- ably to include aspects of identity stemming from gender, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or age. Multiculturalism, in an absolute sense, recognizes the broad scope of dimensions of race, ethnicity, language, sexual orientation, gender, age, disability, class status, ed- ucation, religious/spiritual orientation, and other cultural dimensions. All of these are critical aspects of an individ- ual’s ethnic/racial and personal identity, and psychologists are encouraged to be cognizant of issues related to all of these dimensions of culture. In addition, each cultural di- mension has unique issues and concerns. As noted by the “Guidelines for Psychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Clients” (APA, 2000), each individual belongs to/identifies with a number of identities, and some of those identities interact with each other. To effectively help cli-

ents, to effectively train students, to be most effective as agents of change and as scientists, psychologists are en- couraged to be familiar with issues of these multiple iden- tities within and between individuals. However, as we noted earlier, in these guidelines, we use the term multi- cultural rather narrowly to connote interactions between racial/ethnic groups in the United States and the implica- tions for education, training, research, practice, and orga- nizational change.

The concept of diversity has been widely used in employment settings, with the term given greater visibility through research by the Hudson Institute reported in Work- force 2000 (Johnson & Packer, 1987) and Workforce 2020 (Judy & D’Amico, 1997). The application of the term began with reference to women and persons of color, underrepresented in the workplace, particularly in decision- making roles. It has since evolved to be more encompass- ing in its intent and application by referring to individuals’ social identities, including age, sexual orientation, physical disability, socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, workplace role/position, religious and spiritual orientation, and work/ family concerns (Loden, 1996).

Culture-centered. We use the term culture-cen- tered throughout the guidelines to encourage psychologists to use a “cultural lens” as a central focus of professional behavior. In culture-centered practices, psychologists rec- ognize that all individuals, including themselves, are influ- enced by different contexts, including the historical, eco- logical, sociopolitical, and disciplinary. “If culture is part of the environment, and all behavior is shaped by culture, then culture-centered counseling is responsive to all cul- turally learned patterns” (Pedersen, 1997, p. 256). For example, a culture-centered focus suggests to the psychol- ogist the consideration that behavior may be shaped by culture, the groups to which one belongs, and cultural stereotypes including those about stigmatized group mem- bers (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000; Major, Quinton, & Mc- Coy, in press; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Steele, 1997).

Historical and Sociopolitical Developments for Guidelines There are a number of national events, APA-specific de- velopments, and initiatives of other related professional associations that provide a historical context for the devel- opment of multicultural and culture-specific guidelines, with a focus on racial/ethnic minority groups. Nationally, in 1954, the Supreme Court struck down the “separate but equal” doctrine of segregated education (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954). Benjamin and Crouse (2002) noted that in addition to setting the stage for greater social equity in education, Brown v. Board of Education was an important turning point for psychology because it was the “first time that psychological research was cited in a Supreme Court decision” (p. 38). A decade later, the 1964 passage of the Civil Rights Act set the stage for sociopolitical movements and the development of additional legislation to protect individual and group rights at national, state, and local levels. These movements and resulting legislation have

380 May 2003 ● American Psychologist

specifically addressed the rights of equity and access based on gender, age, disability, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, and, of course, ethnicity and race. However, it is also important to note that movements to dismantle affirmative action in California, Michigan, and Texas are sociopolitical efforts that threaten the advancement of the rights of individuals and groups historically marginalized.

National issues regarding health care and mental health disparities for ethnic/racial minority groups culmi- nated in psychologists playing a role in President Clinton’s dialogue in the mid 1990s about race and racism and in the U.S. Surgeon General’s report in 2001 (USDHHS, 2001). The national debates also led to noteworthy organizational structural changes. For example, the National Institute of Mental Health established an office of minority research in 1971 and reorganized to incorporate ethnic minority–fo- cused research in all areas in 1985, including justifications for diversity of research populations. Findings from this funded research have been instrumental in setting policies specific to racial/ethnic minority groups.

Psychologists’ perspective on the role of race in edu- cation has been addressed for nearly a century (a historical perspective is provided by Suzuki & Valencia, 1997). In- deed the constructs of race, culture, and intergroup rela- tionships have been areas of research for psychologists since nearly the beginning of psychology, including Clark and Clark (1940), Allport (1954), and Lewin (1945; see Duckitt, 1992, for a historical review).

Within the profession of psychology, attention to cul- ture as a variable in clinical practice was first mentioned at the Vail Conference of 1973 (Korman, 1974). One of the recommendations from this conference was to include training in cultural diversity in all doctoral programs and through continuing education workshops. Attention to ap- propriate training based on multicultural and culture-spe- cific constructs and contexts continued through the next two decades. The APA Committee on Accreditation’s Ac- creditation Handbook (APA Committee on Accreditation & Accreditation Office, 1986) included cultural diversity as a component of effective training in 1986, and this contin- ued in the 2002 guidelines (APA, 2002). These efforts recognized the importance of cultural and individual dif- ferences and diversity in the training of clinical, counsel- ing, and school psychologists. Subsequently, the training councils of these disciplines began to incorporate cultural diversity into their model programs, including the Council of Counseling Psychology’s model training program in counseling psychology (Murdock, Alcorn, Heesacker, & Stoltenberg, 1998) and the standards of the National Coun- cil of Schools of Professional Psychology (Peterson, Peter- son, & Abrams, 1999).

Concomitantly, changes to reflect greater attention to cultural diversity were occurring through structural and functional changes within the APA organization. The Of- fice of Ethnic Minority Affairs was established in 1979. A year later, the Board of Ethnic Minority Affairs (BEMA) was established. BEMA was charged with promoting the scientific underpinning of the influence and impact of cul- ture, race, and ethnicity on individuals’ behavior, as well as

with advancing the participation of ethnic minority psy- chologists within the organization. BEMA established a Task Force on Minority Education and Training in 1981, and a second Task Force on Communication With Minority Constituents was formed in 1984. In 1990, the Board for the Advancement of Psychology in the Public Interest was formed, as was the Committee on Ethnic Minority Affairs. These entities replaced BEMA within APA’s governance structure. The Commission on Ethnic Minority Recruit- ment, Retention, and Training was formed in 1994 and published a report and five-year plan to increase the num- ber of students in psychology. These multiple efforts of APA and the divisions began to culminate in the production of policy. The “General Guidelines for Providers of Psy- chological Services” were “developed with the understand- ing that psychological services must be planned and im- plemented so that they are sensitive to factors related to life in a pluralistic society such as age, gender, affectional orientation, culture, and ethnicity” (APA, 1987, p. 713).

In 1990, APA published the Guidelines for Providers of Psychological Services to Ethnic, Linguistic, and Cul- turally Diverse Populations (APA, 1990). Following this, the 1992 revision of the Ethics Code included Principle D: Respect of People’s Rights and Dignity, which stated in part, “Psychologists are aware of cultural, individual, and role differences, including those related to age, gender, race, ethnicity, national origin” (APA, 1992, p. 1598). The Ethics Code also contained ethical standards related to cultural diversity related to competence (Standard 1.08), assessment (Standard 2.04), and research (Standards 6.07 & 6.11).

The current “Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Training, Research, Practice, and Organizational Change for Psychologists” have developed as a result of the socio- political environment within the United States and the resulting work of psychologists within the professional organization. While there have been a variety of organiza- tional initiatives that have focused on race and ethnicity, these guidelines are the first to address the implications of race and ethnicity in psychological education, training, research, practice, and organizational change. These guide- lines are the latest step in an ongoing effort to provide psychologists in the United States with a framework for services to an increasingly diverse population and to assist psychologists in the provision of those services. In effect, there is a societal and guild/organizational history steadily indicating a rationale for attending to a multicultural and culture-specific agenda more formally.

Introduction to the Guidelines: Assumptions and Principles These guidelines, as noted earlier, pertain to the role of psychologists of both racial/ethnic minority and nonminor- ity status in education, training, research, practice, and organizations, as well as to students, research participants, and clients of racial/ethnic heritage or minority heritage. In psychological education, training, research, and practice, all transactions occur between members of two or more

381May 2003 ● American Psychologist

cultures. As identity constructs and dynamic forces, race and ethnicity can impact psychological practice and inter- ventions at all levels. These tenets articulate respect and inclusiveness for the national heritage of all cultural groups, recognition of cultural contexts as defining forces for individuals’ and groups’ lived experiences, and the role of external forces such as historical, economic, and socio- political events.

This philosophical grounding serves to influence the planning and implementation of culturally and scientifi- cally sound education, research, practice, and organiza- tional change and policy development in the larger society. To have a profession of psychology that is culturally in- formed in theory and practice calls for psychologists, as primary transmitters of the culture of the profession, to assume the responsibility for contributing to the advance- ment of cultural knowledge, sensitivity, and understanding. In other words, psychologists are in a position to provide leadership as agents of prosocial change, advocacy, and social justice, thereby promoting societal understanding, affirmation, and appreciation of multiculturalism against the damaging effects of individual, institutional, and soci- etal racism, prejudice, and all forms of oppression based on stereotyping and discrimination.

The “Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Train- ing, Research, Practice, and Organizational Change for Psychologists” are founded upon the following principles:

1. Ethical conduct of psychologists is enhanced by knowledge of differences in beliefs and practices that emerge from socialization through racial and ethnic group affiliation and membership and how those beliefs and prac- tices will necessarily affect the education, training, re- search, and practice of psychology (Principles D & F of the APA [1992] Ethics Code; Council of National Psycholog- ical Associations for the Advancement of Ethnic Minority Interests [CNPAAEMI], 2000).

2. Understanding and recognizing the interface be- tween individuals’ socialization experiences based on eth- nic and racial heritage can enhance the quality of educa- tion, training, practice, and research in the field of psychology (American Council on Education, 2000; Amer- ican Council on Education & American Association of University Professors, 2000; Biddle, Bank, & Slavings, 1990).

3. Recognition of the ways in which the intersection of racial and ethnic group membership with other dimensions of identity (e.g., gender, age, sexual orientation, disability, religion/spiritual orientation, educational attainment/expe- riences, and socioeconomic status) enhances the under- standing and treatment of all people (Berberich, 1998; Greene, 2000; Jackson-Triche et al., 2000; Wu, 2000).

4. Knowledge of historically derived approaches that have viewed cultural differences as deficits and have not valued certain social identities helps psychologists to un- derstand the underrepresentation of ethnic minorities in the profession and affirms and values the role of ethnicity and race in developing personal identity (Coll, Akerman, & Cicchetti, 2000; Medved et al., 2001; Mosley-Howard &

Burgan Evans, 2000; S. Sue, 1999; Witte & Morrison, 1995).

5. Psychologists are uniquely able to promote racial equity and social justice. This is aided by their awareness of their impact on others and the influence of their personal and professional roles in society (Comas-Dı́az, 2000).

6. Psychologists’ knowledge about the roles of orga- nizations, including employers and professional psycholog- ical associations, is a potential source of behavioral prac- tices that encourage discourse, education and training, institutional change, and research and policy development that reflect, rather than neglect, cultural differences. Psy- chologists recognize that organizations can be gatekeepers or agents of the status quo, rather than leaders in a changing society, with respect to multiculturalism.

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 includ- ing ethnic and racial identity development, gender social- ization, socioeconomic experiences, and other dimensions of identity that predispose individual psychologists to cer- tain biases and assumptions about themselves and others. Psychologists approach interpersonal interactions with a set of attitudes, or worldview, that helps shape their percep- tions of others. This worldview is shaped in part by their cultural experiences. Indeed, cross-cultural and multicul- tural 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; M. B. Brewer & Brown, 1998; A. P. Fiske et al., 1998; Fouad & Brown, 2000; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Pedersen, 2000; D. W. Sue et al., 1982, 1992; D. W. 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, who are focused on achieving and success, who have determined (and are in control of) their own personal goals, and who value rational decision making (A. P. Fiske et al., 1998; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002). By contrast, individuals with origins in cultures of East Asia may prefer interdependence with others, orien- tation toward harmony with others, conformity with social norms, and subordination of personal goals and objectives to the will of the group (A. P. Fiske et al., 1998). A

382 May 2003 ● American Psychologist

preference for an independent orientation may shape atti- tudes toward those with preferences for same or other orientations. This preference is a concern when a different orientation is unconsciously and automatically judged neg- atively (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 appear- ance, 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 infor- mation in perceiving others is to place people in categories, thereby reducing the information into manageable chunks that go together (S. T. Fiske, 1998). This normal process leads to associating various traits and behaviors with par- ticular 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 under- standing approaches that emphasize attention to categories has been social categorization theory, originally conceptu- alized by Allport (1954). In this framework, people make sense of their social world by creating categories of the individuals around them, a process that includes separating the categories into in-groups and out-groups (M. B. Brewer & Brown, 1998; S. T. 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 (S. T. Fiske, 1998).

Relevant to these guidelines are factors that influence categorization and its effect on attitudes toward 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 (S. T. Fiske, 1998). In-groups are more highly valued, are more trusted, and engender greater cooperation as opposed to competition (M. B. 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 in-groups 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 as- pect 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 interpreta-

tions of behavior and influence people’s judgments about that behavior (S. T. Fiske, 1998; Kunda & Thagard, 1996). Automatic biases and attitudes may also lead to miscom- munication 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 names may be acceptable for some individuals but may be considered a sign of disre- spect 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 stereo- typic attitudes and resulting behaviors have not been con- sistently found, group categorization has been shown to influence intergroup behavior including behavioral confir- mation (Stukas & Snyder, 2002), in-group favoritism (Hewstone et al., 2002), and subtle forms of behaviors (Crosby, Bromley, & Saxe, 1980). Psychologists are urged to become more aware of and sensitive to their own atti- tudes toward 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 pro- mote social justice may also unconsciously hold negative attitudes or stereotypes.

Given these findings, many have advocated that im- provements 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 assimi- lation, 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 in- stance, 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 dif- ferences 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 on 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. M. B. Brewer and Brown (1998), in their review of the literature, noted, “ignoring group differences often means that, by default,

383May 2003 ● American Psychologist

existing intergroup inequalities are perpetuated” (p. 583). For example, Schofield (1986) found that disregarding cul- tural differences in a school led to reestablishing segrega- tion by ethnicity. Color-blind policies have also been doc- umented as playing a role in differential employment practices (M. B. Brewer & Brown, 1998). In these cases, the color-blind approach may have the effect of maintain- ing a status quo in which Whites have more power than do people of color. There is also some evidence that a color- blind approach is less accurate in perception of others than a multicultural approach. Wolsko et al. (2000), for exam- ple, found that when White students were instructed to adopt either a color-blind or a 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 color-blind 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 appre- ciate group similarities and differences is considered to inhibit more harmonious interactions between people from different backgrounds. (Wolsko et al., 2000, p. 649)

Consistent with the multicultural approach used by Wolsko et al. (2000), culture-centered training and inter- ventions acknowledge cultural differences and differing worldviews among cultures, as well as experiences of being stigmatized (Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998). This perspective is discussed more fully in Guideline 2. How- ever, mere knowledge of a person’s ethnic and racial back- ground is not sufficient to be effective unless psychologists are cognizant of their positions as individuals with a world- view and that this worldview is brought to bear on inter- actions they have with others. As noted earlier, the world- views of the client, student, or research participant and of the psychologist may be quite different, leading to com- munication problems or premature relationship termina- tion. This does not argue that psychologists should shape their worldviews to be consistent with those of clients and students but rather that they have awareness of their own worldview, thereby enabling them to understand others’ frame of cultural reference (Ibrahim, 1999; Sodowsky & Kuo, 2001; Triandis & Singelis, 1998).

The literature on social categorization places all hu- man 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; there- fore, ongoing development of one’s personal and cross- cultural awareness, knowledge, and skills is recommended. S. T. Fiske (1998) noted that automatic biases can be controlled with motivation, information, and appropriate mood. Given the above research, psychologists are encour-

aged to explore their worldview— beliefs, values, and at- titudes—from a personal and professional perspective. They are encouraged to examine their potential preferences for within-group similarity and to realize that, once impres- sions 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 under- standing (Arredondo et al., 1996; Hofstede, 1980; Ibrahim, 1985; Jones, Lynch, Tenglund, & Gaertner, 2000; Locke, 1992; D. W. Sue, 1978; D. W. Sue & Sue, 1999; Triandis & Singelis, 1998).

The research on reducing stereotypic attitudes and biases suggests a number of strategies (Hewstone et al., 2002) that psychologists may use. The first and most crit- ical is awareness of those attitudes and values (Devine, Plant, & Buswell, 2000; Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). The second and third strategies, respectively, are effort and practice in changing the automatically favorable percep- tions 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 (Hew- stone et al., 2002). It appears, though, that increased con- tact with other groups (Pettigrew, 1998) is helpful, partic- ularly 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 or 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 (M. B. Brewer & Miller, 1988). Another strategy is to change the perception of us versus them to we or to recategorize the out-group as members of the in-group (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). Both of these models have been shown to be effective, particularly under low-preju- dice conditions and when the focus is on interpersonal communication (M. B. Brewer & Brown, 1998; Hewstone et al., 2002). In addition, psychologists may want to ac- tively increase their tolerance (Greenberg et al., 1992) and trust of racial/ethnic groups (Kramer, 1999).

Thus, psychologists are encouraged to be aware of their attitudes and to work to increase their contact with members of other racial/ethnic groups, building trust in others and increasing their tolerance for others. Since co- vert attempts to suppress automatic associations can back- fire, with attempts at suppression resulting in increased use of stereotypes (Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2000), psycholo- gists are urged to become overtly aware of their attitudes toward others. It has been shown, though, that repeated attempts at suppression 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

384 May 2003 ● American Psychologist

their relationships with students, research participants, and clients who are racially/ethnically different from them.

Guideline 2: Psychologists are encouraged to recognize the importance of multicultural sensitivity/responsiveness to, knowledge of, and understanding about ethnically and racially different individuals. As noted in Guideline 1, membership in one group helps to shape perceptions of not only one’s own group but also other groups. The links between those perceptions and attitudes are loyalty to and valuing of one’s own group and devaluing the other group. The Minority Identity Develop- ment model (Atkinson, Morten, & Sue, 1998) is one such example, applying to ethnic/racial minority individuals but also to others who have experienced historical oppression and marginalization. The devaluing of the other group occurs in a variety of ways, including the “ultimate attri- butional error” (Pettigrew, 1979), the tendency to attribute positive behaviors to internal traits within one’s own group but negative behaviors to the internal traits of the out-group (although Gilbert [1998] suggested that the ultimate attri- butional error may be culturally specific to individually oriented cultures, such as the United States). In the United States, then, the result may be positive, such as ensuring greater cooperation within one’s group, or negative, such as the development of prejudice and stereotyping of other groups. Decades of research have been conducted and multiple theories have been developed to reduce prejudice toward other groups, most developing around the central premise that greater knowledge of and contact with the other groups will result in greater intercultural communi- cation and less prejudice and stereotyping (M. B. Brewer & Miller, 1988; Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). M. B. Brewer and Miller (1988) delineated the factors that have been found to be successful in facilitating prejudice reduction through contact among groups: social and institutional sup- port, sufficient frequency and duration for relationships to occur, equal status among participants, and cooperation. It appears, as discussed in Guideline 1, that attention to out-group stereotyping reduces prejudice (K. J. Reynolds & Oakes, 2000), as does overt training to reduce stereotyping (Kawakami, Dovidio, Moll, Hermsen, & Russin, 2000).

It is within this framework that psychologists are urged to gain a better understanding and appreciation of the worldview and perspectives of those racially and ethnically different from themselves. Psychologists are also encour- aged to understand the stigmatizing aspects of being a member of a culturally devalued other group (Crocker et al., 1998; Major et al., in press). This includes experience, sometimes daily, with overt experiences of prejudice and discrimination, awareness of the negative value of one’s own group in the cultural hierarchy, the threat of one’s behavior being found consistent with a racial/ethnic stereo- type (stereotype threat), and the uncertainty (e.g., due to prejudice or individual behavior) of the attribution of stig- matizing comments and outcomes.

Understanding a client’s or student’s or research par- ticipant’s worldview, including the effect of being in a

stigmatized group, helps to understand his or her perspec- tives and behaviors. Racial and ethnic heritage, worldview, and life experiences as a result of this identity may affect such factors as the ways students present themselves in class, their learning style, their willingness to seek and trust the advice from and consultation with faculty, and their ability and interest in working with others on class projects (Neville & Mobley, 2001). In the clinical realm, worldview and life experiences may affect how clients present symp- toms to therapists, the meaning that illness has in their lives, their motivation and willingness to seek treatment and social support networks, and their perseverance in treatment (Anderson, 1995; USDHHS, 2001). People of color are underrepresented in mental health services in large part because they are less likely to seek services (Kessler et al., 1996; Zhang, Snowden, & Sue, 1998). The Surgeon General’s report on culture and mental health (USDHHS, 2001) strongly suggested, “cultural misunder- standing or communication problems between clients and therapists may prevent minority group members from using services and receiving appropriate care” (p. 42). One way to address this problem is for psychologists to gain greater knowledge and understanding of the cultural practices of clients.

Psychologists are encouraged to increase their knowl- edge of the multicultural bases of general psychological theories and information from a variety of cultures and cultural/racial perspectives and theories, such as Mestizo psychology (Ramirez, 1998), psychology of Nigrescence (W. E. Cross, 1978; Helms, 1990; Parham, 1989, 2001; Vandiver, Fhagen-Smith, Cokley, Cross, & Worrell, 2001; Worrell, Cross, & Vandiver, 2001), Latino/Hispanic frame- works (Padilla, 1995; Ruiz, 1990; Santiago-Rivera, Arre- dondo, & Gallardo-Cooper, 2002), Native American mod- els (Cameron, in press; LaFromboise & Jackson, 1996), and biracial/multiracial models (Root, 1992; Wehrly et al., 1999) specific to racial/ethnic minority groups in the United States. In addition, psychologists are encouraged to become knowledgeable about how history has been differ- ent for the major U.S. cultural groups. Past experiences in relation to the dominant culture, including slavery, Asian concentration camps, the American Indian holocaust, and the colonization of the major Latino groups on their pre- vious Southwest homelands, contribute to some of the sociopolitical dynamics influencing worldview. Psycholo- gists may also become knowledgeable about the psycho- logical issues and gender-related concerns related to immi- gration and refugee status (Cienfuegos & Monelli, 1983; Comas-Dı́az & Jansen, 1995; Espin, 1997, 1999; Fullilove, 1996).

As noted in Guideline 1, one of the premises under- lying these guidelines is that all interpersonal interactions occur within a multicultural context. To enhance sensitivity and understanding further, psychologists are encouraged to become knowledgeable about federal legislation including the Civil Rights Act (1964), affirmative action, and equal employment opportunity that were enacted to protect groups marginalized due to ethnicity, race, national origin, religion, age, and gender (Crosby & Cordova, 1996). Con-

385May 2003 ● American Psychologist

comitantly, psychologists are encouraged to understand the impact of the dismantling of affirmative action and of antibilingual education legislation on the lives of ethnic and racial minority groups (Fine, Weis, Powell, & Wong, 1997; Glasser, 1988).

Built on variations of the social categorization models described in Guideline 1, ethnic and racial identity models, such as the Minority Identity Development model (Atkin- son et al., 1998) noted earlier, have also been developed for specific racial/ethnic minority groups (W. E. Cross, 1978; Helms, 1990; Parham, 1989, 2001; Ruiz, 1990; Vandiver et al., 2001; Worrell et al., 2001). These models propose that members of racial/ethnic minority groups initially value the other group (dominant culture) and devalue their own cul- ture, move to valuing their own group and devaluing the dominant culture, and integrate a value for both groups in a final stage. These models are key constructs in the cross- cultural domain, and psychologists are encouraged to un- derstand how the individual’s ethnic and racial identity status and development affect beliefs, emotions, behavior, and interaction styles (M. B. Brewer & Brown, 1998; A. P. Fiske et al., 1998; Hays, 1995; Helms & Cook, 1999). This information will help psychologists to communicate more effectively with clients, peers, students, research partici- pants, and organizations and to understand their coping responses (Crocker et al., 1998; Major et al., in press; Swim & Mallet, 2002). Psychologists are encouraged to become knowledgeable about ethnic and racial identity research including research on Asian, Black, White, Mexican, Mes- tizo, minority, Native American, and biracial identity mod- els (Atkinson et al., 1998; W. E. Cross, 1991; Fouad & Brown, 2000; Helms, 1990; Hong & Ham, 2001; Phinney, 1991; Ramirez, 1998; Root, 1992; Ruiz, 1990; Sodowsky, Kuo-Jackson, & Loya, 1997; Wehrly et al., 1999). Addi- tionally, psychologists may also learn about other theories of identity development that are not stage models, as well as other models that demonstrate the multidimensionality of individual identity across different historical contexts (Oetting & Beauvais, 1990 –1991; Oyserman, Gant, & Ager, 1995; Robinson & Howard-Hamilton, 2000; Root, 1999; Santiago-Rivera et al., 2002; Sellers, Smith, Shelton, Rowley, & Chavous, 1998; Thompson & Carter, 1997).

Education Guideline 3: As educators, psychologists are encouraged to employ the constructs of multiculturalism and diversity in psychological education.

Psychology has historically focused on biological determi- nants of behavior versus historical and sociopolitical forces (Bronstein & Quina, 1988). Some have expressed fear of creating stereotypes by addressing cultural differences (dis- cussed earlier as the color-blind approach; Ridley, 1995), fear of categorization processes such as cognitive and be- havioral confirmation biases (Wolsko et al., 2000), and a discomfort with discussing difficult and uncomfortable subjects (Abreu, 2001). D. W. Sue and Sue (1999) de- scribed another historical concern— ethnocentric monocul-

turalism—that is characterized in part by a belief in the superiority of one’s own group and the inferiority of an- other’s group and the use of power to impose one’s values on the less powerful group. Finally, the omission of culture in psychology has in part stemmed from a belief that culture and multiculturalism are not legitimate areas of study (Betancourt & Lopez, 1993; Bronstein & Quina, 1988; Fowers & Richardson, 1996; Hall, 2001). This has been manifested in preventing graduate students from con- ducting cross-cultural and multicultural research, nonac- ceptance of manuscripts in this area due to studies with small samples, lack of available measures to assess the effects of multicultural training, and the emphasis on quan- titative versus qualitative research (CNPAAEMI, 2000; D. W. Sue et al., 1998). These concerns have extended to incorporating a culture-centered approach to education as well. However, scholars and cross-cultural researchers be- gan calling for a revision of psychology education and training to incorporate a more culture-centered perspective in the mid-1980s. In this document, the context of educa- tion refers to teaching of psychology at the undergraduate and graduate levels, as well as in clinical and research supervision, advisement and mentoring, and continuing postgraduate education.

In the past two decades, studies have documented an increase in programs that have incorporated an emphasis on cultural diversity into the curriculum in graduate programs as well as in internship settings (Constantine, Ladany, Inman, & Ponterotto, 1996; R. M. Lee et al., 1999; Pon- terotto, 1997; Quintana & Bernal, 1995; Rogers, Hoffman, & Wade, 1998). This infusion is based on the premise that multicultural and culture-specific knowledge in education is effective in producing more competent researchers, ed- ucators, therapists, and other applied practitioners and ad- heres to accreditation guidelines to incorporate diversity into the curriculum.

As discussed in Guideline 1, all interactions are cross- cultural, and by extension, all classroom interactions are multicultural. Thus, these guidelines apply to teaching about multiculturalism as well as to the practice of teaching in general. Multicultural education has been found to pro- mote students’ self-awareness and to increase their thera- peutic competence (Brown, Parham, & Yonker, 1996; D’Andrea, Daniels, & Heck, 1991; Pope-Davis & Ottavi, 1994). Multicultural and culture-specific education may also help to counteract stereotyping and automatic social processes leading to prejudice against ethnic minority in- dividuals (Abreu, 2001; Steele, 1997).

The benefits of diversity, as well as the teaching from culture-centered perspectives, have been reported by a va- riety of researchers and organizations (American Council on Education & American Association of University Pro- fessors, 2000; Chang, Witt, Jones, & Hakuta, 2000). It has been found that individual, institutional, and societal ben- efits result from a culture-centered perspective. At the individual level, benefits include an enhanced commitment to work toward racial understanding. Institutional advan- tages may be found for employers, who have a workforce with greater preparation in cross-cultural understanding.

386 May 2003 ● American Psychologist

Societal benefits may be located, for example, in institu- tions of higher education, where scholars conduct research addressing issues of gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as research on affirmative action in the workplace (American Council on Education & American Association of Univer- sity Professors, 2000).

Other forces of change influencing attention to culture in education come from accrediting bodies. For example, the California Postsecondary Education Commission (1992, cited in Grieger & Toliver, 2001) mandated that all postsecondary institutions in California bear responsibility for creating an equitable environment for all students and for preparing them to function in a multicultural setting. As previously noted, the APA Committee on Accreditation, which accredits training programs in counseling, clinical, and school psychology, now requires programs to docu- ment the ways that they have both included education about diversity for students and attended to creating an ethnically/ racially diverse faculty and student body (APA, 2002).

During the past 10 –15 years, more reports and per- spectives about best practices and guidelines for cross- culture-centered education and training have emerged. Psy- chologists in the role of educators in multicultural training have reported on the excitement of teaching, conducting research, and providing supervision (Arredondo, 1985; Constantine, 1997; Grieger & Toliver, 2001; Kiselica, 1998; Rooney, Flores, & Mercier, 1998; Stone, 1997). At the same time, they have acknowledged that, by focusing on ethnic/racial issues, approaches, literature, projects, and so forth, they have often encountered resistance from stu- dents and professional colleagues (Mio & Morris, 1990; Ponterotto, 1998; D. W. Sue et al., 1998). Unlike other psychology course work, multicultural course work moves into what is viewed as more personal domains beyond listening skills and personality theories. Culture-centered faculty introduce material many students have never thought about, may not care about, and may have reluc- tance to engage in, even if the course work is required (Jackson, 1999). Thus, the challenges for faculty, advisors, and supervisors include ensuring a safe learning environ- ment, knowing the course content, and managing emotions that emerge (Abreu, 2001; American Council on Education & American Association of University Professors, 2000; Chang et al., 2000; Lenington-Lara, 1999).

Psychologists as educators strive to become knowl- edgeable about different learning models and approaches to teaching from multiple cultural perspectives. In order to go beyond a single multicultural counseling course or to men- tion in passing that racial/ethnic diversity is increasing in the United States, it is suggested that educators include statements of philosophy and principles in course syllabi that guide the multicultural educational focus (Leach & Carlton, 1997). Psychologists are encouraged to review philosophical models that influence multicultural training. These include race-based models (Carter, 1995; Helms, 1990), theories regarding oppression (Atkinson et al., 1998; Freire, 1970; Katz, 1985), multicultural counseling and therapy (D. W. Sue et al., 1996), multicultural facets of cultural competence (D. W. Sue, 2001), common factors

within psychotherapy and healing (Fischer, Jome, & At- kinson, 1998; Frank & Frank, 1998), and multicultural competency– based models (Arredondo & Arciniega, 2001; Arredondo et al., 1996; Middleton, Rollins, & Harley, 1999). In addition, the research on intergroup biases and categorization theories described in Guidelines 1 and 2 suggests that optimal intergroup contact is predicted by equal status among those interacting (e.g., teacher and students), cooperation as opposed to competition, perspec- tive taking, and empathy (Finlay & Stephan, 2000; Gaert- ner & Dovidio, 2000; Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000; Hew- stone et al., 2002; Pettigrew, 1998). These models and approaches, then, may be used to encompass didactic courses across the curriculum (e.g., learning about career theories and practices related to various cultural groups), as well as assessment, organizational behavior, clinical prac- tice and supervision, and research approaches.

Literature based on tried and effective approaches is available to assist psychologists in adapting existing cur- ricula and creating new curricula; infusing multicultural and culture-specific concepts into research, assessment, and clinical course work; and developing more culturally sen- sitive and inclusive learning environments for faculty, staff, and students alike (Arredondo, 1999; Arredondo & Ar- ciniega, 2001; Evans & Larabee, 2002; W. M. L. Lee, 1999; Manese, Wu, & Nepomuceno, 2001; Pope-Davis & Coleman, 1997; Ridley, Espelage, & Rubinstein, 1997; D. Sue, 1997). Psychologists as educators are encouraged to consider these approaches when designing culture-centered curriculum. Rather than attempting to cover culture-spe- cific and multicultural material in one course, psychologists are encouraged to consider ways to make the multicultural focus thematic to the educational program.

It was previously noted that resistance to multicultural course work and to the assigned faculty of color, who are often charged with teaching a single course on multicul- tural issues or practices, is not uncommon (Abreu, 2001; Jackson, 1999; Mio & Awakuni, 2000). Several studies have reported on issues of emotions, including resistance, that may be stirred up when a multicultural course is taught or when course content addresses multicultural perspec- tives. These studies investigated variables such as racial prejudice, individual and collective guilt, and other forms of emotional reactions (Jackson, 1999; A. L. Reynolds, 1995; Shanbhag, 1999; Steward, Wright, Jackson, & Jo, 1998). Psychologists as educators may need to anticipate a range of emotional reactions and be prepared to understand and facilitate respectful discussion and disagreement. Ac- cordingly, psychologists may also want to examine a study in which students indicated that the professors’ amiability, nonjudgmental demeanor, enthusiasm, self-disclosure, and overall leadership in the class were sources of encourage- ment and positive modeling (Lenington-Lara, 1999). Find- ings support the importance of this posture by faculty when teaching about multicultural issues. While this is challeng- ing to maintain, psychologists are encouraged to consider the implications of this study.

Psychologists as educators are encouraged to continue to be knowledgeable about research findings about the

387May 2003 ● American Psychologist

effects of multicultural counseling and psychology course work (Constantine & Yeh, 2001; Holcomb-McCoy & My- ers, 1999; Kiselica, 1998; Klausner, 1998; Koeltzow, 2000; Manese et al., 2001; Parker, Moore, & Neimeyer, 1998; Ponterotto, 1998; Pope-Davis, Breaux, & Lui, 1997; Sal- vador, 1998; Sevig & Etzkorn, 2001; Sodowsky, Kuo- Jackson, Richardson, & Corey, 1998) and general under- graduate education (American Council on Education & American Association of University Professors, 2000; Chang et al., 2000).

Research Guideline 4: Culturally sensitive psychological researchers are encouraged to recognize the importance of conducting culture-centered and ethical psychological research among persons from ethnic, linguistic, and racial minority backgrounds.

Major demographic shifts in the United States (noted ear- lier) are under way. These population shifts have resulted in different constituencies for which new and expanded psychological research will be necessary. The aging baby boomers, new immigrants (particularly from China, India, Mexico, and the Philippines), younger individuals of Latino heritage (Judy & D’Amico, 1997), and growing biracial populations will likely require new research agen- das (Ory, Lipman, Barr, Harden, & Stahl, 2000). Addition- ally, according to the U.S. Census Bureau (2001), a greater share of Americans speak a language other than English at home (27 million speak Spanish, 1 million or more speak Chinese, French, German, Tagalog, Vienamese, Korean, or Italian). Expanding age, cultural, and linguistic diversity, to name just three examples, has implications for research in a wide variety of psychological specialty areas, includ- ing, but not limited to, developmental, gender, health, school, clinical, counseling, and organizational aspects of psychology.

The treatment of culture in psychological research has shifted in the past century from ignoring cultural variables to treating culture as a nuisance variable. Thus, for exam- ple, early research participants were White males, yet the results were assumed to generalize to the entire population. Feminists began to call attention to this and to decry the bias inherent in this practice (Grady, 1981; Keller, 1982; Sherif, 1979), as did early multicultural researchers (Katz, 1985; Korchin, 1980; D. W. Sue & Sue, 1977; Triandis & Brislin, 1984). Both groups questioned the practice of using White middle-class males to define normal behavior and of declaring that all behavior that differed from White norms was either deviant or less desirable. The result was a movement to incorporate gender and ethnicity/race in re- search studies as a nuisance variable rather than as a central contextual variable that helps to explain human behavior. Compounding this practice was failure to consider within- group differences of an ethnic minority group, such as regional differences, socioeconomic status, education, and national origin, for example, Blacks who may have come from Africa, Haiti, or the United States, voluntarily or

involuntarily. The fundamental problem remained that when research does not adequately incorporate culture as a central and specific contextual variable, behavior is mis- identified and pathologized and, in some cases, psycholo- gists are at risk of perpetuating harm (Hall, 2001; Rogler, 1999; D. W. Sue et al., 1998; D. W. Sue & Sue, 1999). As an example, Kwan (1999) found, in a study of the com- parison of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inven- tory (MMPI) in China and the United States, that on some MMPI scales, Chinese participants’ scores were elevated relative to the norms in the United States. Not incorporat- ing a culture-centered perspective might lead a researcher to conclude a high level of psychopathology in the Chinese sample. Kwan asked, however, whether the elevated scales may have been the result of cultural influences, which would lead to a different conclusion for this study and one presumes, in treatment based on the test scores. As another example, Reid (2002) noted the decades of conclusions about women’s and racial/ethnic minority students’ lack of educational attainment from research studies that focused on the students’ lack of individual achievement rather than on social disadvantage. Again, using a culture-centered perspective would lead to different conclusions in these studies, as well as in the application of this research in school systems and college admissions.

A number of scholars have voiced concerns about the cultural limitations of psychological research in the United States. First, as noted above, when human behavior is viewed as individualistically determined, culture is viewed as a nuisance variable—something to be controlled and statistically manipulated rather than a central explanatory variable (Perez, 1999; Quintana, Troyano, & Taylor, 2001). Second, although scholars began to heed the call for cul- turally diverse samples in research, many research samples continue to be predominantly White and middle class, with people of color underrepresented in these samples. When the samples have been racially diverse, they have been much more likely to be samples of convenience, which may not have been representative of the target group, such as samples of college students representing all Asian Amer- icans. This has affected the external validity of a study or to whom the findings may be generalized (Fuertes, Bar- tolomeo, & Nichols, 2001; S. Sue, 1999). S. Sue (1999) suggested that psychological science has ignored external validity problems and that psychologists have erred in the direction of inaccurately generalizing from findings based on small subsets of people to the population at large.

A third concern is that all people of color are pre- sumed to be similar and, as discussed in Guideline 1, large within-group differences are ignored (Fouad & Brown, 2000; Quintana et al., 2001). In fact, the CNPAAEMI (2000) Guidelines for Research in Ethnic Minority Com- munities described the great within-group heterogeneity of all the major racial/ethnic groups in the United States, as did the Surgeon General’s Report on race, culture, and mental health (USDHHS, 2001). Indeed, using only Afri- can Americans from the southern United States and gen- eralizing from this sample to all African Americans would raise questions about the appropriateness of doing so. Sim-

388 May 2003 ● American Psychologist

ilarly, there are studies that make reference to Native Americans, overlooking the fact that there are more than 550 tribes in the United States. Psychologists are encour- aged to consider the multidimensionality of ethnic, linguis- tic, and racial minority individuals and groups when plan- ning research studies.

Finally, some scholars have voiced concerns that ra- cial/ethnic communities do not directly benefit from studies in which their members participate. These concerns have led to calls for research designed explicitly to be of benefit to the participants’ communities (CNPAAEMI, 2000; La- Fromboise & Jackson, 1996; Marin & Marin, 1991; Par- ham, 1993). To insure fidelity to the community that will be involved in the study, psychologists are encouraged to develop relationships with leaders and/or cultural brokers who may be essential brokers in the community. Even though researchers may have a particular design and im- plementation plan in mind, through collaborations with members of the community and potential participants they are likely to develop credibility and trust. They also are likely to develop a study more beneficial to the community.

Thus, psychological researchers are encouraged to be grounded in the empirical and conceptual literature on the ways that culture influences the variables under investiga- tion, as well as psychological and social science research traditions and skills. This may be divided into three areas: research generation and design, assessment, and analysis.

Research generation and design. This first area begins with the research question that is asked. Good- win (1996) delineated this with three steps: generation of the research question, suitability of the research question, and piloting the research question. All three steps are influenced by the researcher’s cultural milieu. For example, S. T. Fiske (1998) noted that the perceptions of Whites by racial/ethnic minority individuals are rarely studied be- cause most researchers are White, and they are more inter- ested in the perceptions their own group has of others. This is consistent, as we noted in Guidelines 1 and 2, with preferences for in-group over out-group in social categori- zation. Clearly, one’s cultural worldview helps to shape the questions one has about behavioral phenomena. This is not necessarily a problem unless the researcher believes that his or her worldview is universal and objective. Davis, Nakayama, and Martin (2000) suggested that this is the fallacy of objectivity, followed by the fallacy of homoge- neity, the latter defined as the assumption that all members of a group are similar. Psychological researchers are en- couraged to be aware of the cultural assumptions on which their research questions are based (Egharevba, 2001).

Related to the research question is choosing culturally appropriate theories and models with which to inform theory-driven inquiry (Quintana et al., 2001). Psychologi- cal researchers are encouraged to be aware of and, if appropriate, to apply indigenous theories when conceptu- alizing research studies. They are encouraged to include members of cultural communities when conceptualizing research, with particular concern for the benefits of the research to the community (Fontes, 1998; LaFromboise, 1988). This may include involving representatives from the

population and the host communities in research design and sampling and inviting feedback from the community in the final written versions of the report (Gil & Bob, 1999; Rogler, 1999). Culturally centered psychological research- ers are encouraged to consider the psychological (rather than demographic) contextual factors of race, ethnicity, language, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and other social dimensions of personal experience in con- ceptualizing their research designs (Fouad & Brown, 2000; Quintana et al., 2001).

Culturally centered psychological researchers are en- couraged to seek appropriate grounding in various modes of inquiry and to understand both the strengths and limita- tions of the research paradigms applied to culturally diverse populations (Atkinson, 1985; Costantino, Malgady, & Rog- ler, 1986, 1994; Highlen, 1994; LaFromboise & Foster, 1992; Marin & Marin, 1991; D. W. Sue & Sue, 1999; S. Sue, 1999; Suzuki, Prendes-Lintel, Wertlieb, & Stallings, 1999). They should strive to recognize and incorporate research methods that most effectively complement the worldview and lifestyles of persons who come from a specific cultural and linguistic population, for example, quantitative and qualitative research strategies (Hoshmand, 1989; Marin & Marin, 1991; Ponterotto & Casas, 1991). This may include being knowledgeable about the ways in which ethnic and racial life experiences influence and shape participants’ responses to research questions (Clarke, 2000; Kim, Atkinson, & Umemoto, 2001; Westermeyer & Janca, 1997).

Assessment. The second area of research is as- sessment. Culturally sensitive psychological researchers should strive to be knowledgeable about a broad range of assessment techniques, data-generating procedures, and standardized instruments whose validity, reliability, and measurement equivalence have been investigated across culturally diverse sample groups (CNPAAEMI, 2000; Helms, 1992; Marin & Marin, 1991; Padilla, 1995; Speng- ler, 1998). They are encouraged not to use instruments that have not been adapted for the target population, and they are also encouraged to use both pilot tests and interviews to determine the cultural validity of their instruments (Samuda, 1998; S. Sue, 1999). They are encouraged to be knowledgeable not only about the linguistic equivalence of the instrument (e.g., that it is appropriately translated into the target language) but also about the conceptual and functional equivalence of the constructs tested. In other words, they are encouraged to ascertain whether the con- structs assessed by their instruments have the same mean- ing across cultures, as well as the same function across cultures (Rogler, 1999). In this, psychological researchers are urged to consider culturally sensitive assessment tech- niques, data-generating procedures, and standardized in- struments whose validity, reliability, and measurement equivalence have been tested across culturally diverse sam- ple groups, particularly the target research group(s). They are encouraged to present reliability, validity, and cultural equivalence data for use of instruments across diverse populations.

389May 2003 ● American Psychologist

Analysis and interpretation. The final area of consideration in culturally sensitive research is analysis and interpretation. In analyzing and interpreting their data, culturally sensitive psychological researchers are encour- aged to consider cultural hypotheses as possible explana- tions for their findings, to examine moderator effects, and to use statistical procedures to examine cultural variables (Quintana et al., 2001).

Finally, culture-centered psychological researchers are encouraged to report on the sample group’s cultural, ethnic, and racial characteristics and to report on the cul- tural limitations and generalizability of the research results as well. It is also recommended that researchers design the study to be of benefit to participants and to include partic- ipants in the interpretation of results. They are encouraged to find ways for the results to be of benefit to the commu- nity and to represent the participants’ perspectives accu- rately and authentically (CNPAAEMI, 2000).

Practice Guideline 5: Psychologists are encouraged to apply culturally appropriate skills in clinical and other applied psychological practices.

Consistent with previous discussions in Guidelines 1 and 2, culturally appropriate psychological applications assume awareness and knowledge about one’s worldview as a cultural being and as a professional psychologist and about the worldview of others, particularly as influenced by eth- nic/racial heritage. This guideline refers to applying that awareness and knowledge in psychological practice. It is not necessary to develop an entirely new repertoire of psychological skills to practice in a culture-centered man- ner. Rather, it is helpful for psychologists to realize that there will likely be situations where culture-centered adap- tations in interventions and practices will be more effec- tive. Psychological practice is defined here as the use of psychological skills in a variety of settings and for a variety of purposes, encompassing counseling, clinical, school, consulting, and organizational psychology. This guideline further suggests that regardless of their practice site and purview of practice, psychologists are responsive to the Ethics Code (APA, 1992). In the Preamble of the Ethics Code is language that advocates behavior that values hu- man welfare and basic human rights.

Psychologists are likely to find themselves increas- ingly engaged with others ethnically, linguistically, and racially different from and similar to themselves as human- resource specialists, school psychologists, consultants, agency administrators, and clinicians. Moreover, visible group membership differences (Atkinson & Hackett, 1995; Carter, 1995; W. E. Cross, 1991; Helms, 1990; Herring, 1999; Hong & Ham, 2001; Niemann, 2001; Padilla, 1995; Santiago-Rivera et al., 2002; D. W. Sue & Sue, 1999) may belie other identity factors also at work and strong forces in individuals’ socialization process and life experiences. These include language, gender, biracial/multiracial heri- tage, spiritual/religious orientations, sexual orientation, age, disability, socioeconomic situation, and historical life

experience, for example, immigration and refugee status (Arredondo & Glauner, 1992; Davenport & Yurich, 1991; Espin, 1997; Hong & Ham, 2001; Lowe & Mascher, 2001; Prendes-Lintel, 2001). Projections regarding the increasing numbers of individuals categorized as ethnic and racial minorities have been discussed earlier in these guidelines. The result of these changes is that in urban, rural, and other contexts, psychologists will interface regularly with cultur- ally pluralistic populations (Ellis, Arredondo, & D’Andrea, 2000; Lewis, Lewis, Daniels, & D’Andrea, 1998; Middle- ton, Arredondo, & D’Andrea, 2000).

However, while Census 2000 showed that the popu- lation of the United States is more culturally and linguis- tically diverse than it has ever been (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001), individuals seeking and utilizing psychological ser- vices continue to underrepresent those populations. With respect to clinical/counseling services, D. W. Sue and Sue (1999) highlighted some of the reasons for the underutili- zation of services, including lack of cultural sensitivity of therapists, distrust of services by racial/ethnic clients, and the perspective that therapy “can be used as an oppressive instrument by those in power to . . . mistreat large groups of people” (p. 7). A number of authors (Arroyo, Wester- berg, & Tonigan, 1998; Dana, 1998; Flaskerud & Liu 1991; McGoldrick, Giordano, & Pearce, 1996; Ridley, 1995; Santiago-Rivera et al., 2002; D. W. Sue, Bingham, Porche- Burke, & Vasquez, 1999; D. W. Sue et al., 1998; D. W. Sue & Sue, 1999) have outlined the urgent need for clinicians to develop multicultural sensitivity and understanding.

Essentially, the concern of the authors noted above is that the traditional Eurocentric therapeutic and interven- tions models in which most therapists have been trained are based on and designed to meet the needs of a small pro- portion of the population (White, male, and middle-class persons). Ironically, the typical dyad in psychotherapy his- torically was a White middle-class woman treated by a White middle-class therapist. These authors have noted that Eurocentric models may not be effective in working with other populations as well and, indeed, may do harm by mislabeling or misdiagnosing problems and treatments.

Psychologists are encouraged to develop cultural sen- sitivity and understanding to be the most effective practi- tioners (therapists) for all clients. The discussion that fol- lows, however, primarily relates to therapeutic settings where individual, family, and group psychotherapy inter- ventions are likely to take place. The discussion addresses three areas: focusing on the client within his or her cultural context, using culturally appropriate assessment tools, and having a broad repertoire of interventions (Arredondo, 1998, 1999; Arredondo et al., 1996; Arredondo & Glauner, 1992; Costantino et al., 1994; Dana, 1998; Duclos et al., 1998; Flores & Carey, 2000; Fouad & Brown, 2000; Hays, 1995; Ivey & Ivey, 1999; Kopelowicz, 1997; López, 1989; Lukasiewicz & Harvey, 1991; Parham, White, & Ajamu, 1999; Pedersen, 1999; Ponterotto & Pedersen, 1993; Prieto, McNeill, Walls, & Gomez, 2001; Rodriguez & Walls, 2000; Root, 1992; Santiago-Rivera et al., 2002; Seeley, 2000; D. W. Sue et al., 1996; S. Sue, 1998).

390 May 2003 ● American Psychologist

Client in context. Clients might have socializa- tion experiences, health and mental health issues, and workplace concerns associated with discrimination and op- pression (e.g., ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, ableism, and homophobia). Thus, psychologists are encouraged to ac- quire an understanding of the ways in which these experi- ences relate to presenting psychological concerns (Byars & McCubbin, 2001; Fischer et al., 1998; Flores & Carey, 2000; Fuertes & Gretchen, 2001; Helms & Cook, 1999; Herring, 1999; Hong & Ham, 2001; Lowe & Mascher, 2001; Middleton et al., 1999; Sanchez, 2001; D. W. Sue & Sue, 1999). This may include how the client’s worldview and cultural background(s) interact with individual, family, or group concerns.

Thus, in client treatment situations, culturally and sociopolitically relevant factors in a client’s history may include relevant generational history (e.g., number of gen- erations in the country, manner of coming to the country), citizenship or residency status (e.g., number of years in the country, parental history of migration, refugee flight, or immigration), fluency in standard English (and other lan- guages or dialects), extent of family support or disintegra- tion of family, availability of community resources, level of education, change in social status as a result of coming to this country (for immigrant or refugee), work history, and level of stress related to acculturation (Arredondo, 2002; Ruiz, 1990; Saldana, 1995; Smart & Smart, 1995). When the client is a group or organization in an employment context, another set of factors may apply. Recognizing these factors, culturally centered practitioners are encour- aged to take into account how contextual factors may affect the client worldview (behavior, thoughts, or feelings).

Historical experiences for various populations differ. This may be manifested in the expression of different belief systems and value sets among clients and across age co- horts. For example, therapists are strongly encouraged to be aware of the ways that enslavement has shaped the world- views of African Americans (W. E. Cross, 1991; Parham et al., 1999). At the same time, the within-group differences among African Americans and others of African descent also suggest the importance of not assuming that all per- sons of African descent share this perspective. Thus, knowledge about sociopolitical viewpoints and ethnic/ra- cial identity literature would be important and extremely helpful when working with individuals of ethnic minority descent. Culturally centered practitioners assist clients in determining whether a problem stems from institutional or societal racism (or other prejudice) or individual bias in others so that the client does not inappropriately personal- ize problems (Helms & Cook, 1999; Ridley, 1995; D. W. Sue et al., 1992). Consistent with the discussion in Guide- line 2 about the effects of stigmatizing, psychologists are urged to help clients recognize the cognitive and affective motivational processes involved in determining whether they are targets of prejudice (Crocker et al., 1998). Psy- chologists are also encouraged to be aware of the environ- ment (neighborhood, building, and specific office) and how this may appear to clients or employees. For example, bilingual phone service, receptionists, magazines in the

waiting room, and other signage can demonstrate cultural and linguistic sensitivity (Arredondo, 1996; Arredondo et al., 1996; Grieger & Ponterotto, 1998).

Psychologists are also encouraged to be aware of the role that culture may play in the establishment and main- tenance of a relationship between the client and therapist. Culture, ethnicity, race, and gender are among the factors that may play a role in the perception of and expectations for therapy and the role the therapist plays (American Psychiatric Association, 1994; Carter, 1995; Comas-Dı́az & Jacobsen, 1991; Cooper-Patrick et al., 1999; Seeley, 2000).

Assessment. Consistent with Standard 2.04 of the APA Ethics Code (APA, 1992), multiculturally sensi- tive practitioners are encouraged to be aware of the limi- tations of assessment practices, from intakes to the use of standardized assessment instruments (Constantine, 1998; Helms, 2002; Ridley, Hill, & Li, 1998), diagnostic methods (Ivey & Ivey, 1998; S. Sue, 1998), and instruments used for employment screening and personality assessments in work settings. Clients unfamiliar with mental health services and who hold worldviews that value relationship over task may experience disrespect if procedures are not fully explained. Thus, if such a client does not feel that the therapist is valuing the relationship between the therapist and client enough, the client may not adhere to the suggestions of the therapist. Psychologists are encouraged to know and con- sider the validity of a given instrument or procedure. This includes interpreting resulting data appropriately and keep- ing in mind the cultural and linguistic characteristics of the person being assessed. Culture-centered psychologists are also encouraged to have knowledge of a test’s reference population and possible limitations of the instrument with other populations. When using standardized assessment tools and methods, multicultural practitioners should exer- cise critical judgment (Sandoval, Frisby, Geisinger, Scheuneman, & Ramos-Grenier, 1998). Multiculturally sensitive practitioners are encouraged to attend to the ef- fects on the validity of measures of issues related to test bias, test fairness, and cultural equivalence (APA, 1990, 1992; Arredondo, 1999; Arredondo et al., 1996; Dana, 1998; Grieger & Ponterotto, 1995; López, 1989; Paniagua, 1994, 1998; Ponterotto, Casas, Suzuki, & Alexander, 1995; Samuda, 1998).

Interventions. Cross-culturally sensitive practi- tioners are encouraged to develop skills and practices that are attuned to the unique worldviews and cultural back- grounds of clients by striving to incorporate understanding of a client’s ethnic, linguistic, racial, and cultural back- ground into therapy (American Psychiatric Association, 1994; Falicov, 1998; Flores & Carey, 2000; Fukuyama & Ferguson, 2000; Helms & Cook, 1999; Hong & Ham, 2001; Langman, 1998; Middleton et al., 1999; Santiago- Rivera et al., 2002). They are encouraged to become knowledgeable about the Guidelines for Providers of Psy- chological Services to Ethnic, Linguistic, and Culturally Diverse Populations (APA, 1990) and the Guidelines for Research in Ethnic Minority Communities (CNPAAEMI, 2000). They are encouraged to learn about helping prac-

391May 2003 ● American Psychologist

tices used in non-Western cultures within as well as outside the North American and Northern European context that may be appropriately included as part of psychological practice. Multiculturally sensitive psychologists should recognize that culture-specific therapy (individual, family, and group) may require nontraditional interventions and should strive to apply this knowledge in practice (Alex- ander & Sussman, 1995; Fukuyama & Sevig, 1999; Ridley, 1995; Santiago-Rivera et al., 2002; Sciarra, 1999; Society for the Psychological Study of Ethnic Minority Issues, Division 45 of the American Psychological Association & Microtraining Associates, Inc., 2000; D. W. Sue et al., 1998; D. W. Sue & Sue, 1999). This may include inviting recognized helpers to assist with assessment and interven- tion plans. Psychologists are encouraged to participate in culturally diverse and culture-specific activities. They are also encouraged to seek out community leaders, change agents, and influential individuals (ministers, store owners, nontraditional healers, natural helpers) when appropriate, enlisting their assistance with clients as part of a total family or community-centered (healing) approach (Arre- dondo et al., 1996; Grieger & Ponterotto, 1998; Lewis et al., 1998).

Multiculturally sensitive and effective therapists are encouraged to examine traditional psychotherapy practice interventions for their cultural appropriateness, for exam- ple, person-centered, cognitive– behavioral, psychody- namic forms of therapy (Bernal & Scharoo-del-Rio, 2001). They are urged to expand these interventions to include multicultural awareness and culture-specific strategies. This may include respecting the language preference of the client and ensuring that the accurate translation of docu- ments occurs by providing informed consent about the language in which therapy, assessments, or other proce- dures will be conducted. Psychologists are also encouraged to respect the client’s boundaries by not using interpreters who are family members, authorities in the community, or unskilled in the area of mental health practice.

Organizational Change and Policy Development Guideline 6: Psychologists are encouraged to use organizational change processes to support culturally informed organizational (policy) development and practices.

Psychology exists in relationship to other disciplines, or- ganizations, and facets of society. It is a dynamic profes- sion, and our education in it prepares us to be change agents, promulgators of new knowledge through research that informs policies in different sectors of society, and organizational leaders in the profession, the private sector, government agencies, and other work environments. In the application of their skills in a wide range of organizations and contexts, psychologists are encouraged to become knowledgeable about the possible ways to facilitate cultur- ally informed organizational development of policies and practices.

This guideline is designed to inform psychologists about the following: (a) the contemporary and future con- texts that provide motivators for psychologists’ proactive behavior with organizational change processes, (b) per- spectives about psychologists in transition, (c) frameworks and models to facilitate multicultural organizational devel- opment, and (d) examples of processes and practices re- flective of psychologists’ leadership in the development of culture-centered organizations. Supporting this guideline are contextual data that provide a rationale for positioning multiculturalism as thematic to structures, functions, and strategic planning within an organization, as well as exam- ples of changes in psychology policies and practices.

Changing Context for Psychologists While the debate about multiculturalism continues within psychology with varying and mutually exclusive perspec- tives (Betancourt & Lopez, 1993; Fowers & Richardson, 1996; Gergen, 2001; D. W. Sue, 2001), looking externally, not just internally, becomes increasingly necessary. Psy- chology education, research, and practice today are driven by multiple societal forces introduced by other disciplines and the consequences of worldwide events. Cloning, global terrorism, genetic research breakthroughs, the efficacy of different medications for both health and mental health care, worldwide migration, and environmental climate change are but a few of the external forces influencing our work and training. In addition, as noted earlier, continuing increases of ethnic minority and non-English-speaking populations in the United States, the accelerating gap be- tween the richest and the poorest in the United States (the top 10 states for this gap have been identified; U.S. Census Bureau, 2001), the aging and longer living baby boomers, and changing family patterns have implications for psy- chology at large.

The demographic shifts and implications for educa- tion discussed earlier in the introduction also have impli- cations for employment projections, such as who works, where they work, and how their work may change. For example, the demographic changes noted earlier include a growth in the population between 50 – 65 years old, the so-called aging baby boomer. Ethnic/racial minority el- derly account for a significant proportion of the overall increase in longevity in the United States, and their rates of growth are expected to exceed those of Whites over the next 50 years (Ory et al., 2000). There is a greater need for psychologists working with the elderly overall and a need for them to be able to work with a racially/ethnically diverse population, as well as working with employers and organizations as they cope with an aging workforce.

In another demographic shift, it is projected that 50% of new entrants to the workforce between 1994 and 2005 will be women of all ethnic groups (Judy & D’Amico, 1997); psychologists will be called upon to help women make work and family choices, help employers cope with the transitions to the workforce, and, ideally, help commu- nities understand and develop resources as more families have both parents working (Haas, Hwang, & Russell, 2000). As another example, Latinos are the youngest eth-

392 May 2003 ● American Psychologist

nic/racial group and the fastest growing one as well (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001); they will be entering schools in greater numbers, as well as representing a greater propor- tion of the workforce. Psychologists will likely be called upon to help school systems, organizations, and communi- ties cope successfully with these transitions. In addition, U.S. organizations are dealing with global and rapid tech- nology evolution, more global integration into the U.S. economy, national and global deregulation, and quick eco- nomic growth in heretofore-underdeveloped nations (Judy & D’Amico, 1997). All of these examples have implica- tions for psychology, as psychologists will be called upon to engage with other disciplines and sectors of society, including government agencies, in attempting to forge new policies and guidelines that promote human development, knowledge building, and societal improvement. While these forces will, of necessity, influence our own work, we are also uniquely trained to help others cope with these changes. All of these data and forces highlight the necessity for institutional change, particularly for the delivery of health and mental health services (Schlesinger & Gray, 1999), psychology education, and employment practices.

Psychologists in Transition The changing landscape of psychology is also apparent as we consider psychologists who have entered political life, psychologists as administrators in health care institutions and employee assistance programs, as deans and provosts in higher education, as agents of the CIA (“Psychologists in the CIA,” 2002), and as consultants to corporate entities. All of these roles involve psychologists in different types of functions and systems driven by forces cited in Workforce 2020 (Judy & D’Amico, 1997) and of course involved with people of different social identities and professions.

Examples of changes in policy and practices have also come from within the profession. In 1993, the Massachu- setts state licensing board approved a regulation change (Rules and Regulations of the Massachusetts Board of Registration of Psychologists, 1993) requiring doctoral course work and internship experiences with multicultural and cross-cultural foci (Daniel, 1994). Georgia passed a similar change in 2000 (Rules of State Board of Examiners of Psychologists, 2001). More recently, the state of New Mexico passed legislation (Professional and Occupational Licenses: Psychologists, 2002) that now allows psycholo- gists to prescribe medication, recognition of their scientific roots. Part of the rationale for change in prescription priv- ileges was to provide greater access for rural patients and clients with mental health concerns, which includes a large number of people of color. When such policies go into effect, there are challenges and opportunities that ensue for training programs, internship sites, and institutions that hire psychologists.

Examples of change within APA were cited in the introductory section. In addition, the organization has spon- sored initiatives such as the development of guidelines to address concerns of women (Fitzgerald & Nutt, 1986) and gay, lesbian, and transgendered individuals (APA, 2001); creation of guidelines for conducting research with linguis-

tic minority populations (CNPAAEMI, 2000) and for pro- viding health care and culture-specific mental health ser- vices (APA, 1990; CNPAAEMI, 2000); and interdivisional efforts promoted by the Committee on Division/APA Re- lations (Arredondo, 2000). The establishment of a number of divisions with a special interest focus in the past 15–20 years is also noteworthy. Divisions that have developed to address health psychology; the study of peace, conflict, and violence; addictions; interests of men; international psy- chology; and pediatric psychology are a few examples of psychologists’ organizational change behavior. These or- ganizational outcomes are indicative of psychologists’ re- sponsiveness to societal changes. It is unlikely that new divisions will be established for all current and emerging issues. Psychologists are encouraged to continue to apply learning organization principles. One of the primary prin- ciples is to scan the environment and anticipate trends and changes allowing for a systemic proactive, rather than reactive, response.

Frameworks and Models for Multicultural Organizational Development Psychologists play a variety of roles in a society that is undergoing rapid change and are therefore encouraged to familiarize themselves with methods, frameworks, and models for multicultural organizational development (Adler, 1986; Arredondo, 1996; Cox, 1993; Cox & Finley, 1995; Garcia-Caban, 2001; D. W. Sue, 2001). These mod- els, among others, provide blueprints for planning for or- ganizational change that may lead to cultural awareness and knowledge and result in a best practices approach for culture-centered organizations. In addition, a culture-cen- tered focus provides processes for weaving together con- textual forces, the mission of the organization, and devel- opment of people that may lead to enhanced and culturally proficient and inclusive systems and practices. Most of these models or frameworks describe attributes at particular phases or statuses and cognitive, affective, and behavioral processes that promote multicultural organizational change and growth. For example, T. Cross, Bazron, Dennis, and Issacs (1989) have outlined a cultural competence contin- uum with stages and indicators from “cultural destructive- ness” to “cultural proficiency.” Underscoring work in global businesses, Adler (1986) offered three models: pa- rochial, ethnocentric, and synergistic. The last is described as a response to organizational cultural diversity: “In syn- ergistic organizations members believe that . . . the combi- nation of our ways and their ways produces the best ways to organize and work” (Adler, 1986, p. 87).

To assist organizations in clarifying their approach to multiculturalism and diversity, Thomas and Ely (1996) conceptualized a continuum of philosophical positions that range from fairness and equity to valuing diversity. D. W. Sue (2001) offered another conceptualization through his multidimensional-facets-of-cultural-competence model. He posited cultural competence at individual, professional, organizational, and societal levels. By bringing in the so-

393May 2003 ● American Psychologist

cietal foci, D. W. Sue also addressed issues of social justice and responsibility, as well as opportunities for psycholo- gists’ change agency.

On the basis of empirical research, Cox (1993) pro- posed organizational transformation based on the interplay of the climate for diversity, individual outcomes, and or- ganizational effectiveness. His model has three states: monolithic, pluralistic, and multicultural. Each state is in- fluenced by the interplay between the climate for diversity, individual (employee) outcomes, and organizational effec- tiveness on a number of criteria. Another scientifically informed model outlines a development process with var- ious stages and tasks that lead to a multicultural and diver- sity-centered organization (Arredondo, 1996). Unlike other models, this is not a typology but rather a data-driven approach to promote organizational change and develop- ment through a focus on multiculturalism and diversity. Among its stages are planning for a diversity initiative, a self-study, and an evaluation of measurable objectives. This developmental approach has served as the basis for conducting applied research in more than 50 organizations such as social and mental health agencies, colleges and universities, and the private sector.

One of the most comprehensive reviews of organiza- tional cultural competence models, instrumentation, re- search, and focus was prepared by Garcia-Caban (2001). She identified 19 instruments used to conduct organiza- tional research in a variety of domains including relational behavioral styles, cultural competence in service delivery, and psychologists’ knowledge, attitude and behavior skills.

Borrowing from the work of organizational change consultants, psychologists can become knowledgeable about recommendations from learning organization models (Morgan, 1997; Senge, 1990). These advocate for organi- zations to anticipate environmental change, “developing an ability to question, challenge and change operating norms and assumptions” (Morgan, 1997, p. 90), and engage in new planning. By so doing, psychologists, prepared as change agents, have the opportunity to apply clinical and research methodology to promote goal-oriented systems change with measurable outcomes.

Examples of Multicultural Practices Within Organizations Psychologists are encouraged to review examples of mul- ticultural organizational change that are reported in publi- cations from a variety of sources within APA, as well as from the American Counseling Association and manage- ment journals. These evolutionary processes of change are both deliberate and systemic (see, e.g., Arredondo & D’Andrea, 2000; D’Andrea, Daniels, & Arredondo, 1999; D’Andrea et al., 2001). Examples from both APA and the American Counseling Association point to behaviors at the professional organization level with implications for the practice of psychology. Thematic to these examples are the role of leadership, sustained attention to diversity-related objectives, and changes in policy and practices that make the organization operationalize its mission of inclusiveness

and pluralism. Division 17, Counseling Psychology; Divi- sion 35, Society for the Psychology of Women; Division 44, Society for the Psychological Study for Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues; Division 51, Society for the Psycho- logical Study of Men and Masculinity; and Division 42, Psychologists in Independent Practice, all have dedicated slates or positions for an ethnic/racial minority psycholo- gist on their executive councils or as representatives to the Council of Representatives. Division 12, Society of Clini- cal Psychology, has recently voted to have an ethnic mi- nority slate for Council of Representatives when two po- sitions are vacant at the same time. Additional examples come from Divisions 12, 17, and 35, which have subcom- mittees or sections to address ethnic/racial minority objec- tives. Finally, Division 45, Society for the Psychological Study of Ethnic Minority Issues, has added a diversity member-at-large position, inviting representation from a member who is not a person of color (all other positions have traditionally been persons of color). These are prac- tices that operationalize a given division’s mission and objectives to promote multiculturalism, diversity, and or- ganizational change. By the same token, APA’s immediate response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the work of individual psychologists within their commu- nities are ways that psychologists have responded quickly to a changing world.

The strategies applied by these divisions and the or- ganization parallel ones that have taken place in the em- ployment sector for more than 15 years and that undoubt- edly will continue. Moreover, psychologists are well suited to be central to these structural changes, as well as likely candidates to implement these new developments. For ex- ample, universities have begun to create positions for cam- pus diversity directors and ombudspersons. Both roles of- ten require knowledge and skills that are psychological and well grounded in the understanding of diversity and mul- ticultural issues. Accrediting bodies, including the Joint Commission for Accreditation of Hospital Organizations and the National Council on Accreditation of Teacher Education, require that institutions demonstrate how they address diversity. Industries of all types, from the govern- ment to media, sports, recreation, hospitality, high-tech, and manufacturing (e.g., aviation, consumer products), have diversity and multiculturalism in their business plans. With the presence of psychologists from different special- izations in nontraditional and other disciplinary contexts (e.g., the CIA) as noted previously, knowledge and under- standing of these guidelines seem very timely.

Psychologists as Change Agents and Policy Planners The focus on organizational change and policy develop- ment in these guidelines highlights the multiple opportuni- ties for psychologists, regardless of their specialty domains, to lead change and influence policy. The Surgeon General’s report on gaps in mental health care for ethnic minorities in the United States is one example (USDHHS, 2001). Psy- chologists representing different specializations were in-

394 May 2003 ● American Psychologist

volved in the development of this report, sharing their research and other data that have contributed to a compel- ling document. Psychologists are often called upon to pro- vide expert testimony to legislative bodies, boards of di- rectors, and the courts on issues that involve ethnic/racial minority individuals and groups. Though it may appear that we are speaking from our informed voices as psycholo- gists, psychologists’ participation in these venues reflects the potential for policy development and structural organi- zational change.

Psychologists are encouraged to become familiar with findings from specific psychology training program self- studies and empirical studies (e.g., Rogers et al., 1998) that can provide information about how different constituencies (faculty, students, staff, and community partners) experi- ence psychology training programs. These experiences may be evaluated on organizational climate criteria: inter- personal respect and valuing, curriculum, policies and prac- tices, advisement and mentoring, research methodology flexibility, resource availability and support, rewards and recognition, community relations, and professional devel- opment for faculty and staff.

Practices such as mentoring, promoting cross-racial dialogues, reducing in-group and out-group behavior, re- cruitment and selection processes, and the infusion of mul- ticultural and diversity concepts in traditional psychology education (undergraduate through continuing education) have been demonstrated to be effective mechanisms for systems change (S. T. Fiske, 1993; Major, Sciaccitano, & Crocker, 1993; Schmader, Major, & Gramzow, 2001; Thomas & Gabarro, 1999). The expanding literature from social psychology on stereotype threat (Steele, 1997), to- kenism (Wright & Taylor, 1998), social stigma (Crocker et al., 1998), the social identity approach (Haslam, 2001), and social cognition (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002) as these relate to organizational diversity can inform objectives and pro- cesses of change. Psychologists are encouraged to become familiar with practices that can be replicated in different organizational settings, thereby leading to multicultural organizational enhancement and policy development.

Promoting organizational change through multicultur- alism and diversity offers psychologists opportunities to learn about best practices and also to view the domain of multicultural development as an opportunity for personal and professional growth. Psychological interventions in organizations are not new, but there are various approaches that can be examined and integrated into one’s leadership within an educational department, agency, or business.

Traditional and evolutionary perspectives in applied psychology (Carter, 2000; Colarelli, 1998) and models of organizational change (Hofstede, 1980; Lewin, 1951; Mor- gan, 1997) can guide behavior that allows psychology to bridge with the multiple communities with which it inter- acts. Psychologists are encouraged to become familiar with leadership literature (Greenleaf, 1998; Nanus, 1992) as this offers constructs and descriptions of roles relevant to psy- chologists in policy planning. In effect, policy development is a change management process, one that can be informed by the vision, research, and experiences of psychologists.

Conclusion Psychology has been traditionally defined by and based upon Western, Eurocentric, and biological perspectives and assumptions. These traditional premises in psychological education, research, practice, and organizational change have not always considered the influence and impact of racial and cultural socialization. They also have not con- sidered that the effects of related biases have, at times, been detrimental to the increasingly complex needs of clients and the public interest. These guidelines have been de- signed to aid psychologists as they increase their knowl- edge and skills in multicultural education, training, re- search, practice, and organizational change.

Readers will note that these guidelines are scheduled to expire in 2009. This document is intended as a living document. The empirical research on which the rationales for the various guidelines are based will continue to ex- pand, as will legislation and practices related to an increas- ingly diverse population. The integration of the psycholog- ical constructs of racial and ethnic identity into psychological theory, research, and therapy has only just begun. Psychologists are starting to investigate the differ- ential impact of historical, economic, and sociopolitical forces on individuals’ behavior and perceptions. Psychol- ogy will continue to develop a deeper knowledge and awareness of race and ethnicity in psychological constructs and to actively respond by integrating the psychological aspects of race and ethnicity into the various areas of application in psychology. It is anticipated that, with this increased knowledge base and effectiveness of applica- tions, the guidelines will continue to evolve over the next several years.

REFERENCES

Abreu, J. M. (2001). Theory and research on stereotypes and perceptual bias: A resource guide for multicultural counseling trainers. Counseling Psychologist, 29, 487–512.

Adler, N. J. (1986). International dimensions of organizational behavior. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Alexander, C. M., & Sussman, L. (1995). Creative approaches to multi- cultural counseling. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 375–384). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addi- son-Wesley.

American Council on Education. (2000). 18th annual status report on minorities in higher education. Washington, DC: Author.

American Council on Education & American Association of University Professors. (2000). Does diversity make a difference? Three research studies on diversity in college classrooms. Washington, DC: Authors.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychological Association. (1987). General guidelines for pro- viders of psychological services. American Psychologist, 42, 712–723.

American Psychological Association. (1990). Guidelines for providers of psychological services to ethnic, linguistic, and culturally diverse pop- ulations. Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 48, 1597–1611.

American Psychological Association. (2000). Guidelines for psychother- apy with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. American Psychologist, 55, 1440 –1451.

395May 2003 ● American Psychologist

American Psychological Association. (2001). Criteria for practice guide- line development and evaluation. Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychological Association. (2002). Guidelines and principles for accreditation. Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychological Association Committee on Accreditation & Ac- creditation Office. (1986). Accreditation handbook. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

American Psychological Association Research Office. (2002a). Demo- graphic characteristics of APA members by race/ethnicity, analyses of APA directory survey: 2000. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

American Psychological Association Research Office. (2002b). Race/ ethnicity of APA members and APA governance members: Analyses of APA governance survey. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Anderson, N. B. (1995). Behavioral and sociological perspectives on ethnicity and health: Introduction to the special issue. Health Psychol- ogy, 14, 589 –591.

Arredondo, P. (1985). Cross cultural counselor education and training. In P. Pedersen (Ed.). Handbook of cross cultural counseling and therapy (pp. 281–289). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Arredondo, P. (1996). Successful diversity management initiatives: A blueprint for planning and implementation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Arredondo, P. (1998). Integrating multicultural counseling competencies and universal helping conditions in culture-specific contexts. Counsel- ing Psychologist, 26, 592– 601.

Arredondo, P. (1999). Multicultural counseling competencies as tools to address oppression and racism. Journal of Counseling and Develop- ment, 77, 102–108.

Arredondo, P. (2000, November/December). Suggested “best practices” for increasing diversity in APA divisions. APA/Division Dialogue, pp. 1–3.

Arredondo, P. (2002). Counseling individuals from specialized, margin- alized and underserved groups. In P. Pedersen, J. G. Draguns, W. J. Lonner, & J. E. Trimble (Eds.), Counseling across cultures (5th ed., pp. 241–250). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Arredondo, P., & Arciniega, G. M. (2001). Strategies and techniques for counselor training based on the multicultural counseling competencies. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 29, 263–273.

Arredondo, P., & D’Andrea, M. (2000, July). Assessing multicultural competence: A professional issue of relevance. Counseling Today, 43(1), 30, 35.

Arredondo, P., & Glauner, T. (1992). Personal dimensions of identity model. Boston: Empowerment Workshops.

Arredondo, P., Toporek, R., Brown, S. P., Jones, J., Locke, D. C., Sanchez, J., & Stadler, H. (1996). Operationalization of the multicul- tural counseling competencies. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 24, 42–78.

Arroyo, J. A., Westerberg, V. S., & Tonigan, J. S. (1998). Comparison of treatment utilization and outcome for Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 59, 286 –291.

Atkinson, D. R. (1985). A meta-review of research on multicultural counseling and psychotherapy. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 13, 138 –153.

Atkinson, D. R., & Hackett, G. (1995). Counseling diverse populations (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Atkinson, D. R., Morten, G., & Sue, D. W. (1998). Counseling American minorities (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Benjamin, L. T., Jr., & Crouse, E. M. (2002). The American Psycholog- ical Association’s response to Brown v. Board of Education: The case of Kenneth B. Clark. American Psychologist, 57, 38 –50.

Berberich, D. A. (1998). Posttraumatic stress disorder: Gender and cross- cultural clinical issues. Psychotherapy in Private Practice, 17, 29 – 41.

Bernal, G., & Scharro-del-Rio, M. R. (2001). Are empirically supported treatments valid for ethnic minorities? Toward an alternative approach for treatment research. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychol- ogy, 7, 328 –342.

Betancourt, H., & Lopez, S. R. (1993). The study of culture, ethnicity, and race in American psychology. American Psychologist, 48, 629 – 637.

Biddle, B. J., Bank, B. J., & Slavings, R. L. (1990). Modality of thought, campus experiences, and the development of values. Journal of Edu- cational Psychology, 82, 671-682.

Brewer, C. A., & Suchan, T. A. (2001). Mapping Census 2000: The geography of U.S. diversity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print- ing Office.

Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429 – 444.

Brewer, M. B., & Brown, R. J. (1998). Intergroup relations. In D. T. Gilbert & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 554 –594). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1988). Contact and cooperation: When do they work? In P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism: Profiles in controversy (pp. 315–326). New York: Plenum Press.

Bronstein, P. A., & Quina, K. (1988). Teaching a psychology of people. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Brown, S. P., Parham, T. A., & Yonker, R. (1996). Influence of a cross-cultural training on racial identity attitudes of White women and men. Journal of Counseling and Development, 74, 510 –516.

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Byars, A. M., & McCubbin, L. D. (2001). Trends in career development

research with racial/ethnic minorities: Prospects and challenges. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (2nd ed., pp. 633– 654). Thou- sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cameron, S. (in press). American Indian mental health: An examination of resiliency in the face of overwhelming odds. In F. D. Harper & J. McFadden (Eds.), Culture and counseling: New approaches (in press). Boston: Allyn/Bacon.

Carter, R. T. (1995). The influence of race and racial identity in psycho- therapy. New York: Wiley.

Carter, R. T. (Ed.). (2000). Addressing cultural issues in organizations: Beyond the corporate context. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chang, M., Witt, D., Jones, J., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (2000). Compelling interest: Examining the evidence on racial dynamics in higher educa- tion. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Cienfuegos, A. J., & Monelli, C. (1983). The testimony of political repression as a therapeutic instrument. American Journal of Orthopsy- chiatry, 53, 43–51.

Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §S2000D et seq. (1964). Clark, K. B., & Clark, M. K. (1940). Skin color as a factor in racial

identification of Negro preschool children. Journal of Social Psychol- ogy, 11, 159 –169.

Clarke, I., III. (2000). Extreme response style in multicultural research: An empirical investigation. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 137–152.

Colarelli, S. M. (1998). Psychological interventions in organizations: An evolutionary perspective. American Psychologist, 53, 1044 –1056.

Coll, C. G., Akerman, A., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). Cultural influences on developmental processes and outcomes: Implications for the study of development and psychopathology. Development and Psychopathol- ogy, 12, 333–356.

Comas-Dı́az, L. (2000). An ethnopolitical approach to working with People of Color. American Psychologist, 55, 1319 –1325.

Comas-Dı́az, L., & Jacobsen, F. M. (1991). Ethnocultural transference and countertransference in the therapeutic dyad. American Journal of Or- thopsychiatry, 61, 392– 402.

Comas-Dı́az, L., & Jansen, M. A. (1995). Global conflict and violence against women. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 1, 315–331.

Constantine, M. G. (1997). Facilitating multicultural competency in coun- seling supervision: Operationalizing a practical framework. In D. B. Pope-Davis & H. L. K. Coleman (Eds.), Multicultural counseling competencies: Assessment, education and training, and supervision (pp. 310 –324). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Constantine, M. G. (1998). Developing competence in multicultural as- sessment: Implications for counseling psychology training and practice. Counseling Psychologist, 6, 922–929.

Constantine, M. G., Ladany, N., Inman, A. G., & Ponterotto, J. G. (1996). Students’ perceptions of multicultural training in counseling psychol- ogy programs. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 24, 155–164.

Constantine, M. G., & Yeh, C. (2001). Multicultural training, self-con- struals, and multicultural competence of school counselors. Profes- sional School Counseling, 4, 202–207.

396 May 2003 ● American Psychologist

Cooper-Patrick, L., Gallo, J. J., Gonzales, J. J., Vu, H. T., Powe, N. R., Nelson C., & Ford, D. E. (1999). Race, gender, and partnership in the patient–physician relationship. JAMA, 282, 583–589.

Costantino, G., Malgady, R. G., & Rogler, L. H. (1986). Cuento therapy: A culturally sensitive modality for Puerto Rican children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 639 – 645.

Costantino, G., Malgady, R. G., & Rogler, L. H. (1994). Storytelling through pictures: Culturally sensitive psychotherapy for Hispanic chil- dren and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 23, 13–20.

Council of National Psychological Associations for the Advancement of Ethnic Minority Interests. (2000). Guidelines for research in ethnic minority communities. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Cox, T. H., Jr. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Cox, T. H., Jr., & Finley, J. A. (1995). An analysis of work specialization and organizational level as a dimension of workforce diversity. In M. M. Chemers & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Diversity in organizations: New perspectives for a changing workplace (pp. 62– 88). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In D. T. Gilbert & S. T. Fiske, (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 504 –553). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Crosby, F. J., Bromley, S., & Saxe, L. (1980). Recent unobtrusive studies of Black and White discrimination and prejudice: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 546 –563.

Crosby, F. J., & Cordova, D. I. (1996). Words worth of wisdom: Toward an understanding of affirmative action. Journal of Social Issues, 52, 33– 49.

Cross, T., Bazron, B., Dennis, K., & Issacs, M. (1989). Toward a cultur- ally competent system of care: Vol. 1. Monograph on effective services for minority children who are severely emotionally disturbed. Wash- ington, DC: CASSP Technical Assistance Center. Georgetown Univer- sity Child Development Center.

Cross, W. E., Jr. (1978). The Thomas and Cross models of psychological nigrescence: A review. Journal of Black Psychologist, 5, 15–31.

Cross, W. E., Jr. (1991). Shades of Black: Diversity in African American identity. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Dana, R. H. (1998). Understanding cultural identity in intervention and assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

D’Andrea, M., Daniels, J., & Arredondo, P. (1999, August). Using cul- tural audits as tools for change. Counseling Today, 42(2), 14.

D’Andrea, M., Daniels, J., Arredondo, P., Ivey, A. E., Ivey, M. B., Locke, D. C., et al. (2001). Fostering organizational changes to realize the revolutionary potential of the multicultural movement: An updated case study. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (2nd ed., pp. 222–254). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

D’Andrea, M., Daniels, J., & Heck, R. (1991). Evaluating the impact of multicultural counseling training. Journal of Counseling and Develop- ment, 70, 143–150.

Daniel, J. H. (1994). Leadership and legacy in psychology. FOCUS: Notes from the Society for the Psychological Study of Ethnic Minority Issues, 8, 2.

Davenport, D. S., & Yurich, J. M. (1991). Multicultural gender issues. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 64 –71.

Davis, O. I., Nakayama, T. K., & Martin, J. N. (2000). Current and future directions in ethnicity and methodology. International Journal of In- tercultural Relations, 24, 525-539.

Devine, P. G., Plant, E. A., & Buswell, B. N. (2000). Breaking the prejudice habit: Progress and obstacles. In S. Oskamp (Ed), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 185–208). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1998). On the nature of contemporary prejudice: The causes, consequences, and challenges of aversive rac- ism. In J. L. Eberhardt & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Confronting racism: The problem and the response (pp. 3–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Validzic, A. (1998). Intergroup bias: Status, differentiation, and a common in-group identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 109 –120.

Duckitt, J. H. (1992). Psychology and prejudice: A historical analysis and integrative framework. American Psychologist, 47, 1182–1193.

Duclos, C. W., Beals, J., Novins, D. K., Martin, C., Jewett, C. S., &

Manson, S. M. (1998). Prevalence of common psychiatric disorders among American Indian adolescent detainees. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 37, 866 – 873.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109 –132.

Egharevba, I. (2001). Researching an-“other” minority ethnic community: Reflections of a Black female researcher on the intersections of race, gender and other power positions in the research process. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice, 4, 225–241.

Ellis, C., Arredondo, P., & D’Andrea, M. (2000, November). How cul- tural diversity affects predominantly White towns. Counseling Today, 43(5), 25.

Espin, O. M. (1997). Latina realities: Essays on healing, migration, and sexuality. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Espin, O. M. (1999). Women crossing boundaries: A psychology of immigration and transformation of sexuality. New York: Routledge.

Evans, K. M., & Larabee, M. J. (2002). Teaching the multicultural counseling competencies and revised career counseling competencies simultaneously. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 30, 21–39.

Falicov, C. J. (1998). Latino families in therapy: A guide to multicultural practice. New York: Guilford Press.

Fine, M., Weis, L. Powell, L. C., & Wong, L. M. (Eds.). (1997). Off white: Readings on race, power, and society. Florence, KY: Taylor & Francis/ Routledge.

Finlay, K. A., & Stephan, W. G. (2000). Improving intergroup relations: The effects of empathy on racial attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1720 –1737.

Fischer, A. R., Jome, L. M., & Atkinson, D. R. (1998). Reconceptualizing multicultural counseling: Universal healing conditions in a culturally specific context. Counseling Psychologist, 26, 525–588.

Fish, J. M. (1995). Why psychologists should learn some anthropology. American Psychologist, 50, 44 – 45.

Fiske, A. P., Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Nisbett, R. E. (1998). The cultural matrix of social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 915– 981). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621– 628.

Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In D. T. Gilbert & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 357– 411). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fitzgerald, L. F., & Nutt, R. (1986). The Division 17 principles concern- ing the counseling/psychotherapy of women: Rationale and implemen- tation. Counseling Psychologist, 14, 180 –216.

Flaskerud, J. H., & Liu, P. Y. (1991). Effects of an Asian client–therapist language, ethnicity, and gender match on utilization and outcome of therapy. Community Mental Health Journal, 27, 31– 41.

Flores, M. T., & Carey, G. (Eds.). (2000). Family therapy with Hispanics. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Fontes, L. A. (1998). Ethics in family violence research: Multicultural issues. Family Relations. Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 47, 53– 61.

Fouad, N. A., & Brown, M. (2000). Race, ethnicity, culture, class and human development. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (3rd. ed., pp. 379 – 410). New York: Wiley.

Fowers, B. J., & Richardson, F. C. (1996). Why is multiculturalism good? American Psychologist, 51, 609 – 621.

Frank, J. D., & Frank, J. B. (1998). Comments on “Reconceptualizing Multicultural Counseling: Universal Healing Conditions.” Counseling Psychologist, 26, 589 –591.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Fuertes, J. N., Bartolomeo, M., & Nichols, C. M. (2001). Future research

directions in the study of counselor multicultural competency. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 29, 3–12.

Fuertes, J. N., & Gretchen, D. (2001). Emerging theories of multicultural counseling. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (2nd ed., pp. 509 –541). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fukuyama, M. A., & Ferguson, A. D. (2000). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual People of Color: Understanding cultural complexity and managing

397May 2003 ● American Psychologist

multiple oppressions. In R. M. Perez, K. A. DeBord, & K. J. Bieschke (Eds.), Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients (pp. 81–106). Washington, DC: American Psycho- logical Association.

Fukuyama, M. A., & Sevig, T. D. (1999). Integrating spirituality into multicultural counseling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fullilove, M. T. (1996). Psychiatric implications of displacement: Con- tributions from the psychology of place. American Journal of Psychi- atry, 153, 1516 –1523.

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel.

Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: De- creasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 708 –724.

Garcia-Caban, I. (2001). Improving systems of care for racial and ethnic minority consumers: Measuring cultural competence in Massachusetts acute care hospital settings. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bran- deis University, Waltham, MA.

Gergen, K. (2001). Psychological science in a postmodern context. Amer- ican Psychologist, 56, 803– 813.

Gil, E. F., & Bob, S. (1999). Culturally competent research: An ethical perspective. Clinical Psychology Review, 19, 45–55.

Gilbert, D. T. (1998). Ordinary personalogy. In. D. T. Gilbert & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 89 –150). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Glasser, I. (1988). Affirmative action and the legacy of racial injustice. In P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism: Profiles in controversy (pp. 341–357). New York: Plenum Press.

Goodwin, R. (1996). A brief guide to cross-cultural psychological re- search. In J. Haworth (Ed.), Psychological research: Innovative meth- ods and strategies (pp. 78 –91). Florence, KY: Taylor & Francis/ Routledge.

Grady, K. E. (1981). Sex bias in research design. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 628 – 636.

Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Pyszczynski, T., Rosenblatt, A., Burling, J., Lyon, D., et al. (1992). Why do people need self-esteem? Converging evidence that self-esteem serves an anxiety-buffering function. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 63, 913–922.

Greene, B. (2000). African American lesbian and bisexual women. Jour- nal of Social Issues, 56, 239 –249.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1998). The power of servant-leadership: Essays. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4 –27.

Grieger, I., & Ponterotto, J. G. (1995). A framework for assessment in multicultural counseling. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 357–374). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Grieger, I., & Ponterotto, J. G. (1998). Challenging intolerance. In C. L. Lee & G. R. Walz (Eds.), Social action: A mandate for counselors (pp. 17–50). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association & Greens- boro, NC: ERIC Counseling & Student Services Clearinghouse.

Grieger, I., & Toliver, S. (2001). Multiculturalism on predominantly White campuses: Multiple roles and functions for the counselor. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (2nd ed., pp. 825– 848). Thou- sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Haas, L. L., Hwang, P., & Russell, G. (2000). Organizational change and gender equity: International perspectives on fathers and mothers in the workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hall, G. C. N. (2001). Psychotherapy research with ethnic minorities: Empirical, ethical, and conceptual issues. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 502–510.

Haslam, S. A. (2001). Psychology in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hays, P. A. (1995). Multicultural applications of cognitive-behavior ther- apy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26, 309 –315.

Helms, J. E. (1990). Black and White racial identity: Theory, research, and practice. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Helms, J. E. (1992). Why is there no study of cultural equivalence in

standardized cognitive ability testing? American Psychologist, 47, 1083–1101.

Helms, J. E. (2002). A remedy for the Black–White test-score disparity. American Psychologist, 57, 303–304.

Helms, J. E., & Cook, D. A. (1999). Using race and culture in counseling and psychotherapy: Theory and process. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Helms, J. E., & Talleyrand, R. M. (1997). Race is not ethnicity. American Psychologist, 52, 1246 –1247.

Herring, R. D. (1999). Counseling with Native American Indians and Alaska Natives: Strategies for helping professionals. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 575– 604.

Highlen, P. S. (1994). Racial/ethnic diversity in doctoral programs of psychology: Challenges for the twenty-first century. Applied and Pre- ventive Psychology, 3, 91–108.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. London: Sage. Holcomb-McCoy, C., & Myers, J. E. (1999). Multicultural competence

and counselor training: A national survey. Journal of Counseling and Development, 77, 294 –302.

Hong, G. K., & Ham, M. D. C. (2001). Psychotherapy and counseling with Asian American clients. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psy- chology Review, 4, 143–156.

Hoshmand, L. S. T. (1989). Alternate research paradigms: A review and teaching proposal. Counseling Psychologist, 17, 3–79.

Ibrahim, F. A. (1985). Effective cross cultural counseling and psychother- apy: A framework. Counseling Psychologist, 13, 625– 638.

Ibrahim, F. A. (1999). Transcultural counseling: Existential worldview theory and cultural identity. In J. McFadden (Ed.), Transcultural coun- seling (2nd ed., pp. 23–58). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Ivey, A., & Ivey, M. (1998). Reframing DSM–IV: Positive strategies from developmental counseling and therapy. Journal of Counseling and Development, 76, 334 –350.

Ivey, A., & Ivey, M. (1999). Intentional interviewing and counseling: Facilitating multicultural development. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/ Cole.

Jackson, L. C. (1999). Ethnocultural resistance to multicultural training: Students and faculty. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychol- ogy, 5, 27–36.

Jackson-Triche, M. E., Sullivan, J. G., Wells, K. B., Rogers, W., Camp, P., & Mazel, R. (2000). Depression and health-related quality of life in ethnic minorities seeking care in general medical settings. Journal of Affective Disorders, 58, 89 –97.

Jensen, A. R. (1995). Psychological research on race differences. Amer- ican Psychologist, 50, 41– 42.

Johnson, W. B., & Packer, A. H. (1987). Workforce 2000. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute.

Jones, J. M., Lynch, P. D., Tenglund, A. A. & Gaertner, S. L. (2000). Toward a diversity hypothesis multidimensional effects of intergroup contact. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 9, 53– 62.

Judy, R. W., & D’Amico, C. (1997). Workforce 2020. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute.

Katz, J. H. (1985). The sociopolitical nature of counseling. Counseling Psychologist, 13, 615– 624.

Kawakami, K., Dovidio, J. F., Moll, J., Hermsen, S., & Russin, A. (2000). Just say no (to stereotyping): Effects of training in the negation of stereotypic associations on stereotype activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 871– 888.

Keller, E. F. (1982). Feminism and science. Signs, 7, 589 – 602. Kessler, R. C., Berglund, P. A., Zhao, S., Leaf, P. I., Kouzis, A. C., Bruce,

M. L., et al. (1996). The 12-month prevalence and correlates of serious mental illness. In R. W. Manderscheid & M. A. Sonnenschein (Eds.), Mental health, United States (Pub. No. [SMA] 96-3098, pp. 59 –70). Rockville, MD: Center for Mental Health Services.

Kim, B. S. K., Atkinson, D. R., & Umemoto, D. (2001). Asian cultural values and the counseling process: Current knowledge and directions for future research. Counseling Psychologist, 29, 570 – 603.

Kiselica, M. S. (1998). Preparing Anglos for the challenges and joys of multiculturalism. Counseling Psychologist, 26, 5–21.

398 May 2003 ● American Psychologist

Kite, M. E., Russo, N. F., Brehm, S. S., Fouad, N. A., Hall, C. C., Hyde, J. S., & Keita, G. P. (2001). Women psychologists in academe: Mixed progress, unwarranted complacency. American Psychologist, 56, 1080- 1098.

Klausner, M. B. (1998). Multicultural training in graduate psychology programs: Impacts and implications. Dissertation Abstracts Interna- tional, 58(9-B), 5124.

Kluckhohn, F. R., & Strodbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in value orien- tations. Evanston, IL: Row, Patterson.

Koeltzow, D. A. (2000). Research into the relationships among multicul- tural training, racial and gender identity attitudes and multicultural competencies for counselors. Dissertation Abstracts International: The Sciences and Engineering, 61, 1672.

Kopelowicz, A. (1997). Social skills training: The moderating influence of culture in the treatment of Latinos with schizophrenia. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 19, 101–108.

Korchin, S. J. (1980). Clinical psychology and minority problems. Amer- ican Psychologist, 35, 262–269.

Korman, M. (1974). National conference on levels and patterns of pro- fessional training in psychology. American Psychologist, 29, 441– 449.

Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569 –598.

Kunda, Z., & Sinclair, L. (1999). Motivated reasoning with stereotypes: Activation, application, and inhibition. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 12– 22.

Kunda, Z., & Thagard, P. (1996). Forming impressions from stereotypes, traits, and behaviors: A parallel-constraint-satisfaction theory. Psycho- logical Review, 103, 284 –308.

Kwan, K.-L. K. (1999). MMPI and MMPI-2 performance of the Chinese cross-cultural applicability. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 30, 260 –268.

LaFromboise, T. D. (1988). American Indian mental health policy. Amer- ican Psychologist, 43, 388 –397.

LaFromboise, T. D., & Foster, S. L. (1992). Multicultural training: Sci- entist-practitioner model and methods. Counseling Psychologist, 20, 472– 489.

LaFromboise, T. D., & Jackson, M. (1996). MCT theory and Native- American populations. In D. W. Sue, A. E. Ivey, & P. B. Pedersen (Eds.), A theory of multicultural counseling and therapy (pp. 192–203). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Langman, P. F. (1998). Jewish issues in multiculturalism: A handbook for educators and clinicians. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.

Leach, M. M., & Carlton, M. A. (1997). Toward defining a multicultural training philosophy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lee, R. M., Chalk, L. Conner, S. E., Kawasaki, N., Janetti, A, LaRue, T., & Rodolfa, E. (1999). The status of multicultural training at counseling center internship sites. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Devel- opment, 27, 58 –74.

Lee, W. M. L. (1999). An introduction to multicultural counseling. Phil- adelphia: Accelerated Development.

Lenington-Lara, M. (1999). Exploring the subjective experience of par- ticipants in multicultural awareness training course. Dissertation Ab- stracts International, 60(2-B), 085.

Levin, M. (1995). Does race matter? American Psychologist, 50, 45– 46. Lewin, K. (1945). The Research Center for Group Dynamics at Massa-

chusetts Institute of Technology. Sociometry, 8, 126 –136. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical

papers. New York: Harper. Lewis, J. A., Lewis, M. D., Daniels, J. A., & D’Andrea, M. J. (1998).

Community counseling: Empowerment strategies for a diverse society. San Francisco: Brooks/Cole.

Locke, D. C. (1992). Increasing multicultural understanding. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Loden, M. (1996). Implementing diversity. Chicago: Irwin. López, S. R. (1989). Patient variable biases in clinical judgment: Con-

ceptual overview and methodological consideration. Psychological Bul- letin, 106, 184 –203.

Lowe, S. M., & Mascher, J. (2001). The role of sexual orientation in multicultural counseling: Integrating bodies of knowledge. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.),

Handbook of multicultural counseling (2nd ed., pp. 755–778). Thou- sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lukasiewicz, M., & Harvey, E. (Producers). (1991, September 26). True Colors on 20/20: Primetime Live. New York: ABC.

Macrae, C. N., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2000). Social cognition: Thinking categorically about others. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 93–120.

Major, B., Quinton, W. J., & McCoy, S. K. (in press). Antecedents and consequences of attributions to discrimination: Theoretical and empir- ical advances. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34). New York: Academic Press.

Major, B., Sciaccitano, A. M., & Crocker, J. (1993). In-group versus out-group comparisons and self-esteem. Personality and Social Psy- chology Bulletin, 19, 711–721.

Manese, J. E., Wu, J. T., & Nepomuceno, C. A. (2001). The effect of training on multicultural competencies: An exploratory study over a ten-year period. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 29, 31– 40.

Marin, G., & Marin, B. V. (1991). Research with Hispanic populations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224 –253.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2001). The cultural construction of self and emotion: Implications for social behavior. In W. G. Perrod (Ed.), Emotions in social psychology: Essential reading (pp 119 –137). Phil- adelphia: Brunner-Routledge.

McGoldrick, M., Giordano, J., & Pearce, J. K. (Eds.). (1996). Ethnicity and family therapy (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

Medved, C. E., Morrison, K., Dearing, J. E., Larson, R. S., Cline, G., & Brummans, B. H. (2001). Tensions in community health improvement initiatives: Communication and collaboration in a managed care envi- ronment. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29, 137–151.

Middleton, R. A., Arredondo, P., & D’Andrea, M. (2000, December). The impact of Spanish-speaking newcomers in Alabama towns. Counseling Today, 43(6), 24.

Middleton, R. A., Rollins, C. W., & Harley, D. A. (1999). The historical and political context of the civil rights of persons with disabilities: A multicultural perspective for counselors. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 27, 105–120.

Mio, J. S., & Awakuni, G. I. (2000). Resistance to multiculturalism: Issues and interventions. Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel.

Mio, J. S., & Morris, D. R. (1990). Cross-cultural issues in psychology training programs: An invitation for discussion. Professional Psychol- ogy: Research and Practice, 21, 434 – 441.

Morgan, G. (1997). Images in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mosley-Howard, G. S., & Burgan Evans, C. (2000). Relationships and

contemporary experiences of the African American family: An ethno- graphic case study. Journal of Black Studies, 30, 428 – 452.

Murdock, N. L., Alcorn, J., Heesacker, M., & Stoltenberg, C. (1998). Model training program in counseling psychology. Counseling Psy- chologist, 26, 658 – 672.

Nanus, B. (1992). Visionary leadership: Creating a compelling sense of direction for your organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). The condition of educa- tion. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Neville, H. A., & Mobley, M. (2001). Social identities in contexts: An ecological model of multicultural counseling psychology processes. Counseling Psychologist, 29, 471– 486.

Niemann, Y. F. (2001). Stereotypes about Chicanas and Chicanos: Impli- cations for counseling. Counseling Psychologist, 29, 55–90.

Oetting, G. R., & Beauvais, F. (1990 –1991). Orthogonal cultural identi- fication theory: The cultural identification of minority adolescents. International Journal of the Addictions, 25, 655– 685.

Ory, M. G., Lipman, P. D., Barr, R., Harden, J. T., & Stahl, S. M. (2000). A national program to enhance research on minority aging and health promotion. Journal of Mental Health and Aging, 6, 9 –18.

Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–72.

Oyserman, D., Gant, L., & Ager, J. (1995). A socially contextualized model of African American identity: Possible selves and school per-

399May 2003 ● American Psychologist

sistence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1216 – 1232.

Padilla, A. M. (Ed.). (1995). Hispanic psychology: Critical issues in theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Paniagua, F. (1994). Assessing and treating culturally different clients. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Paniagua, F. (1998). Assessing and treating culturally diverse clients (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Parham, T. A. (1989). Cycles of psychological nigrescence. Counseling Psychologist, 17, 187–226.

Parham, T. A. (1993). White researchers conducting multicultural coun- seling research: Can their efforts be “mo betta”? Counseling Psychol- ogist, 21, 250 –256.

Parham, T. A. (2001). Psychological nigrescence revisited: A foreword. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 29, 162–164.

Parham, T. A., White, J. L., & Ajamu, A. (1999). The psychology of Blacks: An African centered perspective (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Parker, W. A., Moore, M. A., & Neimeyer, G. J. (1998). Altering White racial identity and interracial comfort through multicultural training. Journal of Counseling and Development, 76, 302–310.

Pedersen, P. (1997). Culture-centered counseling interventions: Striving for accuracy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pedersen, P. (1999). Multiculturalism as a fourth force. Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel.

Pedersen, P. (2000). Hidden messages in culture-centered counseling: A triad training model. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Perez, J. E. (1999). Clients deserve empirically supported treatments, not romanticism. American Psychologist, 54, 205–206.

Peterson, R. L., Peterson, D. R., & Abrams, J. C. (Eds.). (1999). Standards for education in professional psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association & National Council of Schools of Profes- sional Psychology.

Pettigrew, T. F. (1979). The ultimate attribution error: Extending Allport’s cognitive analysis of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 461– 476.

Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Applying social psychology to international social issues. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 663– 675.

Phinney, J. S. (1991). Ethnic identity and self-esteem: A review and integration. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 13, 193–208.

Phinney, J. S. (1996). When we talk about American ethnic groups, what do we mean? American Psychologist, 51, 918 –927.

Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 75, 811– 832.

Ponterotto, J. G. (1997). Multicultural counseling training: A competency model and national survey. In D. B. Pope-Davis & H. L. K. Coleman (Eds.), Multicultural counseling competencies: Assessment, education and training, and supervision (pp. 111–130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ponterotto, J. G. (1998). Charting a course for research in multicultural counseling training. Counseling Psychologist, 26, 43– 68.

Ponterotto, J. G., & Casas, J. M. (1991). Handbook of racial/ethnic minority counseling research. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Ponterotto, J. G., Casas, J. M., Suzuki, L. A., & Alexander, C. M. (Eds.). (1995). Handbook of multicultural counseling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ponterotto, J. G., & Pedersen, P. B. (1993). Preventing prejudice: A guide for counselors and educators. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Pope-Davis, D. B., Breaux, C., & Lui, W. M. (1997). A multicultural immersion experience: Filling a void in multicultural training. Thou- sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pope-Davis, D. B., & Coleman, H. L. K. (1997). Multicultural counseling competencies: Assessment, education and training, and supervision. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pope-Davis, D. B., & Ottavi, T. M. (1994). Examining the association between self-expressed multicultural counseling competencies and de- mographic variables among counselors. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72, 651– 660.

Prendes-Lintel, M. (2001). A working model in counseling recent refu- gees. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander

(Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (2nd ed., pp. 729 –752). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Prieto, L. R., McNeill, B. W., Walls, R. G., & Gomez, S. P. (2001). Chicanas/os and mental health services: An overview of utilization, counselor preference and assessment issues. Counseling Psychologist, 29, 18 –54.

Professional and Occupational Licenses: Psychologists, N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 61-9-17– 6-9-17.2 (Michie 2002).

Psychologists in the CIA. (2002, April). APA Monitor on Psychology, 33, 26 –28.

Quintana, S. M., & Bernal, M. E. (1995). Ethnic minority training in counseling psychology: Comparisons with clinical psychology and proposed standards. Counseling Psychologist, 23, 102–121.

Quintana, S. M., Troyano, N., & Taylor, G. (2001). Cultural validity and inherent challenges in quantitative methods for multicultural research. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling, (2nd ed., pp. 604 – 630). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ramirez, M. (1998). Multicultural/multiracial psychology: Mestizo per- spectives in personality and mental health. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.

Reid, P. T. (2002). Multicultural psychology: Bringing together gender and ethnicity. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8, 103–114.

Reynolds, A. L. (1995). Challenges and strategies for teaching multicul- tural counseling courses. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 312–330). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Reynolds, K. J., & Oakes, P. J. (2000). Variability in impression forma- tion: Investigating the role of motivation, capacity, and the categoriza- tion process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 355–373.

Ridley, C. R. (1995). Overcoming unintentional racism in counseling and therapy: A practitioner’s guide to intentional intervention. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ridley, C. R., Espelage, D. L., & Rubinstein, K. J. (1997). Course development in multicultural counseling. In D. B. Pope-Davis & H. L. K. Coleman (Eds.), Multicultural counseling competencies: As- sessment, education and training, and supervision (pp. 131–158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ridley, C. R., Hill, C., & Li, L. (1998). Revisiting and refining the multicultural assessment procedure. Counseling Psychologist, 6, 939 – 947.

Robinson, T. L., & Howard-Hamilton, M. (2000). The convergence of race, ethnicity, and gender. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Rodriguez, R., & Walls, N. (2000). Culturally educated questioning: Toward a skill-based approach in multicultural counselor training. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 2, 89 –99.

Rogers, M. R., Hoffman, M. A., & Wade, J. (1998). Notable multicultural training in APA-approved counseling psychology and school psychol- ogy programs. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 4, 212–226.

Rogler, L. H. (1999). Methodological sources of cultural insensitivity in mental health research. American Psychologist, 54, 424 – 433.

Rooney, S. C., Flores, L. Y., & Mercier, C. A. (1998). Making multicul- tural education effective for everyone. Counseling Psychologist, 26, 22–32.

Root, M. P. P. (Ed.). (1992). Racially mixed people in America. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Root, M. P. P. (1999). The biracial baby boom: Understanding ecological constructions of racial identity in the 21st century. In R. H. Sheets & E. R. Hollins (Eds.), Racial and ethnic identity in school practices: Aspects of human development (pp. 67– 89). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ruiz, A. S. (1990). Ethnic identity: Crisis and resolution. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 18, 29 – 40.

Rules and Regulations of the Massachusetts Board of Registration of Psychologists, 251 Mass. Regs. Code tit. 251, § 4.00 (1993).

Rules of State Board of Examiners of Psychologists, Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 510-8-01 (2001).

Rushton, J. P. (1995). Construct validity, censorship, and the genetics of race. American Psychologist, 50, 40 – 41.

Saldana, D. (1995). Acculturative stress: Minority status and distress. In

400 May 2003 ● American Psychologist

A. M. Padilla (Ed.), Hispanic psychology (pp. 43–56). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Salvador, C. M. (1998). Effects of the intercultural awareness develop- ment courses on first year students’ multicultural competency. Disser- tation Abstracts International, 58(11-B), 5874.

Samuda, R. J. (1998). Psychological testing of American minorities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sanchez, A. R. (2001). Multicultural family counseling: Toward cultural sensibility. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (2nd ed., pp. 672–700). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sandoval, J., Frisby, C. L., Geisinger, K. F., Scheuneman, J. D., & Grenier, J. R. (Eds.). (1998). Test interpretation and diversity: Achiev- ing equity in assessment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Santiago-Rivera, A., Arredondo, P., & Gallardo-Cooper, M. (2002). Counseling Latinos and la familia: A practitioner’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schlesinger, M., & Gray, B. (1999). Institutional change and its conse- quences for the delivery of mental health services. In A. Horwitz & T. Scheid (Eds.), A handbook for the study of mental health: Social contexts, theories, and systems (pp. 427– 448). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Schmader, T., Major, B., & Gramzow, R. H. (2001). Coping with ethnic stereotypes in the academic domain: Perceived injustice and psycho- logical disengagement. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 93–111.

Schofield, J. W. (1986). Causes and consequences of the colorblind perspective. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 231–253). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Sciarra, D. T. (1999). Multiculturalism in counseling. Itasca, IL: Peacock. Sedikides, C., & Brewer, M. B. (2001). Individual self, relational self,

collective self. Philadelphia: Brunner-Routledge. Seeley, K. M. (2000). Cultural psychotherapy. Northvale, NJ: Jason

Aronson. Sellers, R. M., Smith, M. A., Shelton, J. N., Rowley, S. A., & Chavous,

T. M. (1998). Multidimensional model of racial identity: A reconcep- tualization of African American racial identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 18 –39.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday. Sevig, T., & Etzkorn, J. (2001). Transformative training: A year-long

multicultural counseling seminar for graduate students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 29, 57–72.

Shanbhag, M. G. (1999). The role of covert racial prejudice, attitudinal ambivalence, and guilt in receptivity to multicultural training. Disser- tation Abstracts International, 59(9-B), 5111.

Sherif, C. W. (1979). Social values, attitudes, and involvement of the self. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 27, 1– 64.

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Smart, J., & Smart, D. W. (1995). Acculturative stress of Hispanics: Loss and challenge. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 390 –396.

Society for the Psychological Study of Ethnic Minority Issues, Division 45 of the American Psychological Association & Microtraining Asso- ciates, Inc. (Sponsors/Producers). (2000). Culturally-competent coun- seling and therapy: Live demonstrations of innovative approaches [Motion picture]. (Available from Microtraining Associates, Inc., P.O. Box 9641, North Amherst, MA 01059-9641)

Sodowsky, G. R., & Kuo, P. Y. (2001). Determining cultural validity of personality assessment: Some guidelines. In D. B. Pope-Davis & H. L. K. Coleman (Eds.), The intersection of race, class, and gender: Implications for multicultural counseling (pp. 213–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sodowsky, G. R., Kuo-Jackson, P. Y., & Loya, G. (1997). Outcome of training in the philosophy of assessment: Multicultural counseling competencies. In D. B. Pope-Davis & H. L. K. Coleman (Eds.), Mul- ticultural counseling competencies: Assessment education and training, and supervision (pp. 3– 42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sodowsky, G. R., Kuo-Jackson, P. Y., Richardson, M. F., & Corey, A. T. (1998). Correlates of self-reported multicultural competencies: Coun- selor multicultural social desirability, race, social inadequacy, locus of

control, racial ideology, and multicultural training. Journal of Coun- seling Psychology, 45, 256 –264.

Spengler, P. M. (1998). Multicultural assessment and a scientist-practi- tioner model of psychological assessment. Counseling Psychologist, 6, 930 –938.

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellec- tual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613– 629.

Steward, R. J., Wright, D. J., Jackson, J. D., & Jo, H. (1998). The relationship between multicultural counseling training and the evalua- tion of culturally sensitive and culturally insensitive counselors. Jour- nal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 3, 205–217.

Stone, G. L. (1997). Multiculturalism as a context for supervision: Per- spectives, limitations, and implications. In D. B. Pope-Davis & H. L. K. Coleman (Eds.), Multicultural counseling competencies: Assessment, education and anecdotal training (pp. 263–289). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stukas, A. A., Jr., & Snyder, M. (2002). Targets’ awareness of expecta- tions and behavioral confirmation in ongoing interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 31– 40.

Sue, D. (1997). Multicultural training. International Journal of Intercul- tural Relations, 21, 175–193.

Sue, D. W. (1978). Eliminating cultural oppression in counseling: Toward a general theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 25, 419 – 428.

Sue, D. W. (2001). Multidimensional facets of cultural competence. Counseling Psychologist, 29, 790 – 821.

Sue, D. W., Arredondo, P., & McDavis, R. J. (1992). Multicultural counseling competencies and standards: A call to the profession. Jour- nal of Counseling and Development, 70, 477– 483.

Sue, D. W., Bernier, J., Durran, M., Feinberg, L., Pedersen, P., Smith, E., & Vasquez-Nuttall, E. (1982). Position paper: Cross-cultural counsel- ing competencies. Counseling Psychologist, 10, 45–52.

Sue, D. W., Bingham, R. P., Porche-Burke, L., & Vasquez, M. (1999). The diversification of psychology: A multicultural revolution. Ameri- can Psychologist, 54, 1061–1069.

Sue, D. W., Carter, R. T., Casas, J. M., Fouad, N. A., Ivey, A. E., Jensen, M., et al. (1998). Multicultural counseling competencies: Individual and organizational development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sue, D. W., Ivey, A. E., & Pedersen, P. B. (1996). A theory of multicul- tural counseling and therapy. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (1977). Ethnic minorities: Failures and responsi- bilities of the social sciences. Journal of Non-White Concerns in Per- sonnel and Guidance, 5, 99 –106.

Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (1999). Counseling the culturally different: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Sue, S. (1998). In search of cultural competence in psychotherapy and counseling. American Psychologist, 53, 440 – 448.

Sue, S. (1999). Science, ethnicity, and bias: Where have we gone wrong? American Psychologist, 54, 1070 –1077.

Sun, K. (1995). The definition of race. American Psychologist, 50, 43– 44. Suzuki, L. A., Prendes-Lintel, M., Wertlieb, L., & Stallings, A. (1999).

Exploring multicultural issues using qualitative methods. In M. Kopala & L. A. Suzuki (Eds.), Using qualitative methods in psychology (pp. 123–133). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Suzuki, L. A., & Valencia, R. R. (1997). Race-ethnicity and measured intelligence: Educational implications. American Psychologist, 52, 1103–1114.

Swim, J., & Mallett, R. (2002). Pride and prejudice: A multi-group model of identity and its association with intergroup and intragroup attitudes. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Swim, J., & Stangor, C. (1998). Prejudice: The target’s perspective. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of inter- group relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Thomas, D. A., & Ely, R. J. (1996). Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managing diversity. Harvard Business Review, 74, 79 –90.

Thomas, D. A., & Gabarro, J. (1999). Breaking through: The making of minority executives in corporate America. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Thompson, C. E., & Carter, R. T. (1997). Racial identity theory: Appli- cations to individual, group, and organizational interventions. Mah- wah, NJ: Erlbaum.

401May 2003 ● American Psychologist

Triandis, H. C., & Brislin, R. W. (1984). Multicultural psychology. American Psychologist, 39, 1006 –1016.

Triandis, H. C., & Singelis, T. M. (1998). Training to recognize individual differences in collectivism and individualism within culture. Interna- tional Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 35– 47.

Turner, J. C., Brown, R. J., & Tajfel, H. (1979). Social comparison and group interest in ingroup favouritism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 187–204.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2001). U.S. Census 2000, Summary Files 1 and 2. Retrieved May 13, 2003, from http://www.census.gov/main/www/ cen2000.html

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). Mental health: Culture, race and ethnicity—A supplement to Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Office, Office of the Surgeon General.

Vandiver, B. J., Fhagen-Smith, P. E., Cokley, K. O., Cross, W. E., Jr., & Worrell, F. C. (2001). Cross’ nigrescence model: From theory to scale to theory. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 29, 174 –200.

Wehrly, B., Kenney, K. R., & Kenney, M. E. (1999). Counseling multi- racial families. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Westermeyer, J., & Janca, A. (1997). Language, culture and psychopa- thology: Conceptual and methodological issues. Transcultural Psychi- atry, 34, 291–311.

Witte, K., & Morrison, K. (1995). Intercultural and cross-cultural health communication: Understanding people and motivating healthy behav- iors. In R. L. Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory (pp. 216 –246). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wolsko, C., Park, B., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2000). Framing interethnic ideology: Effects of multicultural and color-blind perspec- tives on judgments of groups and individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 635– 654.

Worrell, F. C., Cross, W. E., Jr., & Vandiver, B. J. (2001). Nigrescence theory: Current status and challenges for the future. Journal of Coun- seling and Development, 29, 201–213.

Wright, S. C., & Taylor, D. M. (1998). Responding to tokenism: Individ- ual action in the face of collective justice. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 647– 667.

Wu, A. W. (2000). Quality-of-life assessment in clinical research: Appli- cation in diverse populations. Medical Care, 38, II130 –II135.

Yee, A. H., Fairchild, H. H., Weizmann, F., & Wyatt, G. E. (1993). Addressing psychology’s problem with race. American Psychologist, 48, 1132–1140.

Zhang, A. Y., Snowden, L. R., & Sue, S. (1998). Differences between Asian and White-Americans’ help-seeking and utilization patterns for the Los Angeles area. Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 317– 326.

402 May 2003 ● American Psychologist