Multicultural Psychology. Jennifer T. Pedrotti

and those endorsed by the group explain the dimensions that a particular culture finds beneficial and positive (Carter, 1991). Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck distinguished five main dimensions and asked the question “How might different groups respond to these different dimensions?” Each dimension and its range of variations are listed in Table 3.3.

      Table 3.3

      Source: Adapted from Kluckhohn, F. R., & Strodtbeck, F. I. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Evanston, IL: Row, Patterson, & Co.

      The first dimension described by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) has to do with human nature. The researchers give options of evil, neutral (mixture of good and evil), and good for this particular dimension; these refer to one’s inherent nature (Zaharna, 2000). For this orientation only, there are also qualifiers given to the variations; Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck note that some groups may allow for this dimension to be mutable (i.e., a group belief that human nature can change) while others view it as immutable (i.e., the belief that human nature is set, and thus unchangeable). Dimensions 2 through 5 do not have such qualifiers.

      The second orientation is listed by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) as man-nature, though more recent authors have changed this title to person-nature to be more gender inclusive (Mio, Barker, & Domenech-Rodriguez, 2015). This dimension describes the relationship groups of people might have with nature in terms of their tendency to live in harmony with nature, or to have a relationship that dictates either person or nature as dominant.

      The third orientation, time, refers to the orientation a particular group may have with the past, present, and future. The United States, for example, is very future oriented. If you are a student in college right now, you probably get many more questions about what you will be doing with your degree, than what you are doing right now.

      The fourth orientation, activity, describes the value one has for different types of activity and lists the variations being, being-in-becoming, and doing. These variations are less self-explanatory, and so we will delve into their meanings a bit more here. Groups who value being believe that what one is currently doing is the positive state and might involve less focus on self-development or change. Being-in-becoming instead emphasizes the value of “working on” oneself from where one currently is and striving toward self-development, while doing is more self-explanatory in that groups that value this appreciate what someone does more than who the person is.

      Finally, the fifth orientation described by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) is relational and focuses on the types of interpersonal dynamics that are valued by different groups. For some that relationship is valued most if it is linear, meaning that a hierarchy involving a wide social circle (including family, friends, leaders of the community, etc.) is valued most, and groups that have this orientation may also have specific rules in terms of how to interact with others. Collateral relationships involve those that value input and respect for family members, often including extended family and friends, while groups that value individualism emphasize the individual person in making decisions and in determining how one interacts with others (Carter, 1991; Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961; Zaharna, 2000).

      The values such as those described above greatly influence worldview and thus many have made efforts to categorize various groups on Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s (1961) dimensions. Some distinctions have been found with regard to cultures that embrace more individualist ideals in comparison to those that are more collectivist in orientation. Cheung, Maio, Rees, Kamble, and Mane (2016) conducted a study in which they investigated the connection between individuals and their culture’s values in participants from Britain and the United States (individualist nations), and compared these connections with those of participants from India (a collectivist nation). In this study it was found that individualist nations have stronger connections to the value orientations that refer to self as opposed to community. Specifically, participants from these countries valued their own personal values (which may also be tied to their cultural values, but did not have to be) more than those that they understood they were “supposed to” value based on their culture. The opposite was true for the participants from India, with results showing a strong value for those values set forth by their culture as things they should do and value (Cheung et al., 2016). This provides evidence for the notion that collectivist cultures ask individuals to assimilate (i.e., adhere closely to cultural norms) more often than those in individualist cultures.

      Other studies have linked Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s (1961) framework to particular cultural groups. See Table 3.4 for Ho’s (1987) helpful description of five different cultural groups and their value orientations based on common cultural norms for each group. Note that there are many similarities among Asian Americans, American Indians, African Americans, and Latinx Americans in many of the different value orientations, though some variations are noted. These similarities are in contrast to what is valued as a norm among middle-class White Americans in most cases (Ho, 1987; Sue & Sue, 2016). This type of multicultural comparison is important and may explain some tensions in communication and other factors between racial and ethnic majority and minority cultures.

      Table 3.4

      Source: Ho, M. K. (1987). Family therapy with ethnic minorities. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

      Derald Wing Sue’s Worldview Model

      A second very well-known model of worldview was created by psychologist Derald Wing Sue (1978) and is used in many contexts. Sue discusses two main dimensions as a part of his model: locus of control and locus of responsibility. As shown in Figure 3.6, Sue places these two dimensions perpendicular to one another and gives options for more internal or external locus of control and locus of responsibility.

      Take a look at the four quadrants in this model. Quadrant I is labeled to be high in both locus of control and responsibility (IC-IR). People who fit into this particular quadrant believe that they have much control over the way in which their life unfolds, and that they thus have a high amount of personal responsibility in terms of successes and failures. This is a very traditional worldview for someone who believes in the American Dream, which explains personal success with personal attributes and hard work, as opposed to luck or privilege. Quadrant II describes people who have a high level of personal responsibility and hold themselves accountable for success and failure, but who also believe that they do not have as much control over their lives and how they are situated within them. (EC-IR). This worldview may lead to some despair in individuals who hold it, as they may feel responsible for their lot in life, and yet recognize that much of it is out of their control. Similarly, those in Quadrant III feel out of control of their lot in life, but they also feel they are not responsible for this fact. This group is a particularly problematic group to be a part of, as individuals who fit into this group may give up trying to improve their lives. In their worldview, the system is against them, and there is nothing they can do about it. Finally, those in Quadrant IV have a high level of internal control, but they also have determined that there are some external forces for which they are not responsible (IC-ER). Individuals who fall into this quadrant are more balanced to some extent in terms of their view of the world, as they see that they lack responsibility for some external circumstances, but they also feel that they have some control over the ways in which they move through their lives.

      Description

      Figure 3.6 Sue’s Worldview Model

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

      As you have probably already noticed, social identity facets such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and other facets may impact