Journal of Family Issues2017, Vol. 38(7) 904 –920© The A.docx

Journal of Family Issues
2017, Vol. 38(7) 904 –920
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0192513X15592028
journals.sagepub.com/home/jfi
Article
Externalizing Behaviors
in Multicultural Children
of Immigrant Mothers:
A Mediation Model
Yoonju Cho1
Abstract
Children and adolescents from multicultural families with an
immigrant
mother tend to experience stress due to problems with cross-
cultural
adaptation in South Korea, which has a homogeneous cultural
identity. This
study explored the impact of acculturative stress on
externalizing behavior
problems (e.g., aggressiveness and delinquency) among 121
elementary,
middle, and high school students in Gyeonggi. It analyzed the

mediating
effects of acculturative stress on externalizing behaviors using
structural
equation modeling with bootstrapping method. The results
showed that
stress experienced in relation to cultural adaptation indirectly
affected
externalizing behaviors through school maladaptation. This
indicates that
while acculturative stress itself does not directly affect the
externalizing
behaviors of children and adolescents with immigrant mothers,
it does appear
to increase the difficulty of adjusting to the school environment,
and as the
maladaptation worsens, externalizing behaviors may
subsequently develop.
Schools must function as a protective environment against
externalizing
behavior problems associated with acculturative stress.
Keywords
acculturative stress, school maladaptation, externalizing
behaviors, mediating
effect, bootstrapping method
1Chongshin University, Seoul, South Korea
Corresponding Author:
Yoonju Cho, Department of Child Studies, Chongshin
University, 143, Sadang-ro, Dongjak-gu,
Seoul 156-879, South Korea.
Email: [email protected]
592028 JFIXXX10.1177/0192513X15592028Journal of Family
IssuesCho
research-article2015

mailto:[email protected]
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X15592028
https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/journals-permissions
http://journals.sagepub.com/home/jfi
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F0192513
X15592028&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2015-06-18
Cho 905
Introduction
The number of children and adolescents of multicultural
families in South
Korea is increasing. In 2012, there were over 50,000 such
children attending
elementary, middle, and high schools, and this figure is five
times that
observed in 2006 and a 21% increase from 2011 (Ministry of
Education and
Science Technology, 2012). Not only are children and
adolescents of multi-
cultural families passing through key developmental phases—
namely, peri-
ods wherein they are sensitive to certain types of social
influence, such as
peer influence (Cho & Chung, 2012)—but they are also likely to
encounter
stressful situations in the process of adapting to mainstream
culture. Previous
studies have reported that the difficulties faced by children of
different cul-
tural backgrounds during cultural adaptation influence negative
behaviors
such as delinquency and violence in these children and

adolescents (Jun &
Shin, 2008; Nieri, 2012; Shin, Yun, & Lee, 2010). In particular,
in a society
with a homogeneous ethnic identity like Korea, children and
adolescents of
nonmainstream cultural backgrounds face more difficulties in
adjusting to
and developing within mainstream culture. Stressors occurring
during accul-
turation may be unavoidable byproducts of adjusting to
mainstream culture
(Berry, 2003); however, seeking to prevent and intervene in
ways that are
based on a simple relationship between acculturative stress and
behavioral
problems may not be the most effective approach. The present
study aimed to
determine the processes by which the acculturative stress
experienced by
children and adolescents of multicultural families influences
behavior prob-
lems, and to suggest arbitration and intervention strategies that
are appropri-
ate in light of this information.
The Relation of Acculturative Stress and Externalizing
Behaviors
Children and adolescents of multicultural families are generally
defined as
sons or daughters of a marriage between an immigrant or
naturalized citizen
and an ethnically Korean citizen. With a long tradition as a
homogeneous soci-
ety, Korea is now witnessing a rise in the numbers of families
with diverse and

mixed cultural backgrounds. The majority of multicultural
families in Korea
include immigrant mothers. A multicultural family with an
immigrant mother
is typically formed through a marriage between a woman from
elsewhere in
Southeast Asia and a Korean man who is relatively
disadvantaged financially
or from a rural farming background; these men tend to have
trouble finding a
Korean spouse. These multicultural couples often experience
severe marital
problems, for reasons including a large age gap between
husband and wife, the
presence of language barriers, and the presence of different
ways of thinking.
906 Journal of Family Issues 38(7)
The divorce rate for multicultural couples is currently rising
(Ministry of the
Gender Equality & Family, Multicultural Family Policy
Division, 2013).
Children and adolescents from these families are vulnerable;
stress can be
experienced due to basic cultural differences and general
discrimination from
within the community. These children are aware of the cultural
gap between
their homes and society, and this tends to lead to emotional
confusion caused
by acculturative stress.
Children and adolescents of nonmainstream cultural

backgrounds consis-
tently have difficulty adjusting to mainstream culture. General
psychological
stress theories posit that stress causes negative outcomes and
behavioral
problems (e.g., aggressive behavior and violence; Barlow,
2002). Additionally,
acculturative stress has been shown to increase negative
emotional states
(Williams & Berry, 1991), trigger aggressive behavior
(Smokowski, David-
Ferdon, & Stroupe, 2009), and induce juvenile delinquency and
conduct
problems (Dinh, Castro, Tein, & Kim, 2009).
In contrast, other studies have reported that acculturative stress
does not
affect children’s externalizing behavior problems (Bird et al.,
2006) and have
found no significant direct relationship between acculturation
and youth vio-
lence and delinquency (Gonzales, Deardorff, Formoso, Barr, &
Barrera,
2006). Furthermore, some research has suggested that stress can
enhance
self-respect and helps bring about positive changes (Turner &
Roszell, 1994).
These conflicting results indicate that it is necessary to look at
possible indi-
rect factors related to stress and negative outcomes, rather than
portraying
stress as a direct cause of behavioral problems. Thus, the
present study
focused on the indirect effect of acculturative stress and
explored the rela-
tionship between acculturative stress and externalizing

behaviors in children
and adolescents from multicultural families.
Acculturative Stress, School Maladaptation, and Externalizing
Behaviors
Korean society has traditionally valued “genetic purity,” which
has led to its
long history of homogeneity. Against this background, children
of different
cultural backgrounds often experience discrimination and
isolation, which
makes it difficult for them to adapt and can lead to externalizing
behavior
problems (Nieri, 2012; Shin et al., 2010). Externalizing
behavior problems are
defined as negative behaviors directed toward the external
environment (i.e.,
aggressiveness or delinquency that occurs from failures of
emotional control;
Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1978). Children of multicultural
families have been
reported to display more hostility than their peers from native
families (An,
2008) and have a higher degree of aggressiveness, as well as
being susceptible
Cho 907
to other behavioral problems (Milan & Keiley, 2000).
Furthermore, children
of nonmainstream cultural backgrounds score higher than
children from
native families do on tests measuring light delinquencies,

serious delinquen-
cies, and cyber delinquencies (Jun & Shin, 2008). These data
raise concerns
about externalizing behavior problems displayed by children of
multicultural
families. It is therefore necessary to understand these children’s
distinctive
qualities and circumstances in order to better aid their
adaptation.
Cultural adaptation is a transfer of values between two or more
cultural
systems. Acculturative stress results from inconsistent values
across cultures,
practical hardships, language barriers, and a sense of
discrimination (Gil,
Vega, & Dimas, 1994). Children of multicultural families with
an immigrant
mother are subject to acculturative stress because they are
exposed to diver-
gent cultural systems and social discrimination, and because
they may have
lost a sense of belonging (Smokowski et al., 2009). Such stress
may be a
mostly unavoidable byproduct of cross-cultural adaptation, and
this stress
can intensify social alienation and maladjustment (Hovey, 1998;
Romero &
Roberts, 2003; Sampson & Laub, 1996).
Since stress is intensified during cultural adaptation, and
particularly in
social settings, it is important to focus on the school
environment, where
children spend most of their time. Schools help children
develop their intel-

lectual abilities, general capabilities, and sense of belonging, all
of which
play a significant role in their psychosocial development (Cho
& Lee, 2006).
In addition, schools are an important means for children of
different back-
grounds to learn about the rules, norms, and systems of the local
society and
culture. Schools can serve as a “mini society” for children to
learn about
important cultural mores. As such, children may find themselves
unable to
adapt to the school environment if they acquire negative
attitudes toward or
lose interest in academic advancement, interpersonal
relationships, or com-
pliance with regulations (Chavez, Moran, Reid, & Lopez, 1997).
School maladaptation occurs when a child’s individual needs
cannot be
accommodated by the school system; this can cause conflict and
lead to inap-
propriate behaviors. Research suggests that school
maladaptation is relatively
more pronounced among children from nonmainstream cultural
backgrounds
(Nieri, 2012). First, multicultural children’s distinctive physical
qualities and
potential difficulty with the Korean language are more likely to
be noticed in
a school environment. Multicultural children who are more
conscious of their
physical differences (e.g., skin and eye color) find it more
difficult to adjust
to a school setting than other children do (An, 2008; Wong,
Eccles, &

Sameroff, 2003). Children with poor language ability also
demonstrate less
adaptability (An, 2008). These findings suggest that the
nonhomogeneous
qualities of children of different cultural backgrounds are more
likely to draw
attention at school, creating a more stressful environment and
making adapta-
tion harder. Second, a collective entity, such as a school, can
reflect Korean
society as a homogeneous nation. Korean society has
traditionally sustained
a single-race, single-language social mentality that has valued
or favored
“genetic purity.” This homogenous cultural identity may be
more easily
detected in the restricted school environment, which may
intensify feelings
of alienation among children of different cultural backgrounds.
Although
there has been an increasing amount of support for and interest
in multicul-
tural families, children of diverse backgrounds are still likely to
face some
degree of difficulty and alienation.
Finally, it is important to consider children’s specific
developmental
stages. Childhood and adolescence is a time when peer
influence and confor-
mity become important; children are sensitive to social

influences (Cho &
Chung, 2012). In particular, these are periods when a tendency
toward anti-
social behavior can develop out of blind peer conformity.
Therefore, children
from nonmainstream backgrounds may be more likely to react in
a maladap-
tive manner to negative social influences if they feel rejected or
alienated by
their peer group. In addition, these children and adolescents are
especially
vulnerable to victimization that targets a person’s cultural
background (i.e.,
ethnic bullying). There are power imbalances between majority
and minority
groups in any school setting, and the ethnic composition of a
given school or
classroom plays an important role in ethnic bullying (Graham,
Bellmore,
Nishina, & Juvonen, 2009; Hanish & Guerra, 2000). That is, in
a homoge-
neous-identity society such as Korea, children of
nonmainstream cultural
backgrounds are at greater risk of victimization, and
victimization is apt to
lead to maladaptation to the school environment.
School maladaptation may lead to interpersonal conflict and
inappropriate
behavior, since the individuals’ needs are not being
accommodated by school
life, and this in turn can lead to negative emotional states that
are predictive
of behavioral problems. Students who are not well adapted to
their school
environment tend to behave delinquently (Luster, Bates,

Fitzgerald,
Vandenbelt, & Key, 2000) and antisocially (Nieri, 2012; Shin et
al., 2010).
Children learn social roles and expectations (e.g., norm
compliance, interper-
sonal relationships with peers and teachers, and academic
achievement)
through their school. It is important to ensure that schools
foster self-
confidence and enthusiasm for societal acculturation rather than
leave multi-
cultural children vulnerable to behavioral problems.
The majority of Koreans are more indifferent than open-minded
toward
children of mixed backgrounds (Seol, Lee, & Cho, 2006).
However, as the
number of children of multicultural families has increased in
Korea, more
interest has focused on understanding the acculturation
processes experienced
Cho 909
by these young people. These children are in a vulnerable
position and at risk
of developing behavioral problems due to poor social treatment,
hence if a
school becomes a place where acculturative stress is magnified
rather than
modified or diminished, the resulting maladaptation of its
students may lead
to problematic behavior. Thus, it is vital to develop proper
interventions to

facilitate children’s adaptation to the school environment.
The Present Study
The present study examined externalizing behavior problems in
children and
adolescents of multicultural families with an immigrant mother
resulting
from acculturative stress and maladaptation to school settings.
Previous find-
ings suggest that stress caused by cultural animosity, lack of
group member-
ship, and awareness of discrimination has a negative effect on
school
adaptation (Chavez et al., 1997), and that school maladaptation
may affect
aggressive behavior and delinquency (Luster et al., 2000).
Furthermore, in
children and adolescents from multicultural families, stress
experienced dur-
ing the process of cultural adaptation has been known to
influence external-
izing behaviors (Smokowski et al., 2009). Thus, a model was
created
according to which acculturative stress experienced by children
of nonmain-
stream cultural backgrounds with immigrant mothers has an
indirect effect on
behavioral problems, with school maladaptation as a mediating
variable.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Data were collected from Multicultural Family Support Centers

in Gyeonggi
Province. This area has the highest proportion of multicultural
children and
families in the country. The participants were 123 children of
multicultural
families with an immigrant mother residing in Gyeonggi
Province. Of these,
72 were male (59.5%), and 49 were female (40.5%). Ages
ranged from 12 to
18 years, with 75 participants in elementary school (62%), 35 in
middle
school (28.9%), and 11 in high school (9.1%). All were born in
Korea to
immigrant mothers and ethnically Korean-born fathers. The
mothers had
emigrated from the following countries in the following
numbers: 46 were
from China (38%), 32 from Japan (26.4%), 23 from the
Philippines (19%),
12 from Vietnam (10%), 4 from Thailand (3.3%), and 4 from
other countries
(3.3%). Family economic status was divided across three tiers
as follows: 93
families were low income (76.9%), 20 were middle income
(16.5%), and 8
did not respond (6.6%).
Multicultural Family Support Centers were visited, the purpose
of the
study was explained, and informed consent was obtained from
the partici-
pants as well as from the centers themselves. Twelve to 17

participants took
part from each of the nine centers. All participation was
voluntary. As the
data were multilevel in nature, the intraclass correlation
coefficient for each
analysis was checked for the magnitude of the clustering effect;
intraclass
correlation coefficients were .0027 to .0053, showing that no
action was
needed to correct the effect. A preliminary survey was
conducted with the
participation of 11 elementary and middle school students with
diverse cul-
tural backgrounds to determine if the questions were
appropriately worded
and easily understandable. The main survey was completed
between
December 2011 and July 2012 on visits to each Multicultural
Family Support
Center. A total of 121 questionnaires were used in the final data
analyses after
excluding those with insincere responses (two cases). Missing
data were
addressed by multiple imputation. The present study was
reviewed and
approved by the institutional review board of the author’s
institution.
Measurements
Acculturative Stress. The scales that Kim and Cho (2008)
adopted from Sandhu
and Asrabi (1994) were used to measure acculturative stress.
These scales
were modified to accommodate children from multicultural
families in

Korea. The acculturative stress scale consists of three factors:
animosity,
awareness of discrimination, and sense of belonging. Each item
is rated on a
5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1
point) to strongly
agree (5 points). The sense of belonging factor was reverse
scored, with
higher scores representing less belonging and greater
acculturative stress. In
the present study, the Cronbach’s alpha was .83 for animosity,
.90 for aware-
ness of discrimination, and .75 for sense of belonging.
School Maladaptation. The School Adaptation Flexibility Scale
developed by
Park (1998) was used. The subscales include interest in school,
views on
academic achievement, and compliance with school regulations,
which are
assessed by 22 questions. Each question is rated on a 4-point
Likert-type
scale, and some of the questions are reverse scored, with higher
overall scores
representing greater school maladaptation. The Cronbach’s
alpha for this
scale was .86.
Externalizing Behavior Problems. The Externalizing Behavior
Problems scale
from the Korean Youth Self-Report, derived from Achenbach’s
(1991) Youth
Self-Report and standardized by Oh, Ha, Lee, and Hong (2001),
was used.

Cho 911
This scale consists of 30 questions covering youth delinquency
and aggres-
siveness. Each question is rated on a 3-point Likert-type scale
ranging from
never (0 points) to very often (2 points). Higher accumulated
scores represent
greater externalizing behavior problems. The Cronbach’s alpha
was .90 for
aggressiveness and .87 for delinquency.
Data Analyses
The present study used SPSS 17.0 and AMOS 7.0 (SPSS Inc.,
Chicago, IL)
to conduct statistical analyses. First, descriptive statistics were
reviewed to
examine general tendencies across variables. Second, path
coefficients were
obtained for the mediation model that was designated as the
study model.
Third, indirect effect analyses using a bootstrapping method
were conducted
to verify the mediation effect. Bootstrapping is an analytical
tool that uses
data from the current sample as a “surrogate population” for
approximating
the sampling distribution of a statistic. This method verifies
significant prob-
abilities via bias-corrected percentiles. The advantage of
bootstrapping is that
it can use data with a nonnormal distribution or resolve
normality problems
(Bollen & Stine, 1992). Fourth, the goodness-of-fit of the model

was assessed.
To test goodness-of-fit, the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) and
comparative fit
index (CFI) were used as relative fit indices, and the root mean
square error
of approximation (RMSEA) was used as an absolute fit index
because these
indices are simple to use and can assess a study model without
being influ-
enced by sample size (Browne & Cudeck, 1993).
Results
Assumption of Normalcy
Descriptive statistics are shown in Table 1. Skewness and
kurtosis values met
the requirements for a normal distribution; therefore, the
variables were used
to verify the study model (West, Finch, & Curran, 1995).
Confirmation of the Mediating Effect
A mediating effect is significant when an independent variable
(X) has a sig-
nificant effect on the mediator variable (M), which in turn
affects the depen-
dent variable (Y), and the indirect effect from the independent
variable to the
dependent variable through the mediating variable is
statistically significant
(MacKinnon, 2008). Full mediation occurs when the
relationship between
the independent variable and the dependent variable disappears
with the

912
T
a
b
le
1
.
D
es
cr
ip
ti
ve
S
ta
ti
st
ic
s
fo
r
V
ar

ia
bl
es
(
N
=
1
21
).
V
ar
ia
bl
es
M
in
im
um
M
ax
im
um
M
SD

Sk
ew
ne
ss
K
ur
to
si
s
A
cc
ul
tu
ra
ti
ve
s
tr
es
s
A
ni
m
o
si

ty
6
30
18
.3
0
5.
74
−
.4
4
−
.5
1
A
w
ar
en
es
s
o
f
di
sc

ri
m
in
at
io
n
3
15
9.
58
3.
38
−
.0
7
−
.8
7
Se
ns
e
o
f
be

lo
ng
in
g
2
10
5.
40
1.
51
−
.2
4
.1
9
Sc
ho
o
l m
al
ad
ap
ta
ti
o

n
In
te
re
st
s
in
s
ch
o
o
l
12
28
20
.0
3
3.
39
.6
3
−
.1
2

A
ca
de
m
ic
v
ie
w
s
9
20
14
.2
2
2.
38
.5
1
.5
5
N
o
rm
c
o

m
pl
ia
nc
e
16
40
26
.8
8
7.
14
.6
0
−
.1
0
Ex
te
rn
al
iz
in
g

be
ha
vi
o
r
pr
o
bl
em
s
D
el
in
qu
en
cy
11
28
15
.1
3.
9
1.
33

.8
4
A
gg
re
ss
iv
en
es
s
19
48
26
.3
6.
7
1.
14
.6
7
Cho 913
inclusion of the mediating variable in the regression model.
Partial mediation

occurs when the relationship between the independent and
dependent vari-
able is attenuated with the inclusion of mediating variable in the
regression
model. In the present study, the total effect (c) was the effect of
acculturative
stress on externalizing behaviors. The indirect effect (ab) was
the portion of
the effect of acculturative stress explained by school
maladjustment. The
direct effect (c′) was the effect of acculturative stress on
externalizing behav-
ior problems not transmitted through the mediator. Table 2
shows that the
total effect of acculturative stress on externalizing behaviors
was significant
(t = 2.949, p = .003), and the standardized indirect coefficient
was .217. The
direct path from acculturation stress to externalizing behaviors
was nonsig-
nificant when school maladaptation was included in the model,
indicating
full mediation.
The significance of the indirect effect was assessed using a
bootstrapping
method known to be effective in verifying mediating effects.
The null
hypothesis can be rejected when the confidence interval (CI)
does not
include 0 [95% CI]. As shown in Table 2, the CI for the indirect
effect did
not include 0 [.113, .303], which means that the null hypothesis
could be
rejected, and the indirect effect was statistically significant.
These results

indicate that acculturative stress felt by children from
multicultural families
with an immigrant mother leads to school maladaptation, which
in turn
influences externalizing behavior problems. A schematized
mediation model
is shown in Figure 1.
As a final step, the model’s goodness-of-fit was assessed. Table
3 shows
that all fit indices were in acceptable ranges, suggesting that the
mediation
model had a relatively good fit to the data (Table 3): TLI =
.976, CFI =
.986, and RMSEA = .055. A goodness-of-fit coefficient is
considered
acceptable if the TLI and CFI > .90 and the RMSEA < .06
(Browne &
Cudeck, 1993).
Table 2. Estimates From the Mediation Model.
a b ab c′
95% B-C of indirect
effect
Lower Upper
Mediation model .822*** .264*** .217** .026 .113 .303
Note. Standardized paths are reported. a = X → M, b = M → Y.
The total effect of
acculturative stress on externalizing behavior problems (c) was
.243**. B-C = bias-corrected
percentile.

**p < .01. ***p < .001.
Discussion
The present study confirmed that acculturative stress
experienced by children
of multicultural families with an immigrant mother exerts an
indirect impact
on externalizing behavior problems. Although acculturative
stress did affect
externalizing behaviors, this was not a direct effect—rather,
behavioral prob-
lems were influenced via the mediating variable, maladaptation
to school
settings. Unlike previous studies, which investigated the
relations between
acculturative stress and various externalizing behaviors (e.g.,
aggressive
behaviors and delinquency) without consideration of the
potential reasons for
the association (Milan & Keiley, 2000; Smokowski et al., 2009),
the present
study focused on the mechanisms through which acculturative
stress affects
externalizing behaviors, which will be helpful in developing
interventions
and preventing such behaviors from occurring. Our finding that
acculturative
stress influenced school maladaptation is in line with previous
studies that
have suggested that children of different cultural backgrounds
are likely to

Figure 1. Mediation model.
Note. Standardized path coefficients are reported. The number
inside parentheses is the
standardized regression coefficient between acculturative stress
and externalizing behavior
problems, without including school maladaption.
**p < .01. ***p < .001.
Table 3. Goodness-of-Fit of the Mediation Model.
Model χ2 df TLI CFI RMSEA
Mediation model 23.23 17 .976 .986 .055
Note. df = degrees of freedom; TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index; CFI
= comparative fit index;
RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.
Cho 915
experience a disadvantage in adapting to the school
environment, have diffi-
culties with peer relations, and show lagging academic
performance (Wong
et al., 2003). These results can be interpreted in two ways. First,
children’s
nonhomogeneous qualities are associated with acculturative
stress, which
may cause maladaptation to the school environment. For
instance, physical
differences, such as distinctive skin color or features, are
related to alienation
at school (An, 2008), and poor language ability is related to low

academic
achievement and can cause a lack of comprehension of school
regulations
and so lead to a failure to adhere to norms. Thus, the distinctive
qualities of
children from different cultural backgrounds render the process
of accultura-
tion difficult and stressful, making it even more difficult for
children to adapt.
Another view to consider is that long-held traditionalist
attitudes favor-
able to Korean homogeneity intensify acculturative stress for
children of
multicultural families with immigrant mothers; this may
negatively affect
school adaptation. Children share peer culture and group
mentalities while
learning to comply with social norms in the school setting. In
this context, it
makes sense that nonnative children would not adjust to the
school environ-
ment if schools function as a place where distinctiveness is
magnified and
discrimination is intensified. The fact that children of different
cultural back-
grounds tend to move on to higher education at a notably lower
rate indicates
that acculturative stress at school is rising. Therefore,
multilateral efforts and
systemic changes are needed so that schools can be a supportive
environment
that contributes to lowering acculturative stress.
A relative inability to adapt to school life was found to affect
externalizing

behavior problems. This result confirms those of previous
studies (Noh &
Hong, 2006), which reported that children who failed to adapt
to school life
were relatively more violent than their peers and exhibited a
strong tendency
toward delinquency and antisocial behavior. Maladaptation to
school life can
be a precursor to behavioral problems. For instance, when
children of non-
mainstream cultural backgrounds do not adapt well to their
school life, they
may experience frustration and a sense of failure; this may lead
to violence
and delinquency as the outward expression of their negative
emotions
(McCabe, Clark, & Barnett, 1999). To prevent these issues from
emerging,
special interventions aimed at resolving and alleviating school
maladaptation
need to be implemented. In the current Korean school system,
nonnative chil-
dren are required to attend mainstream educational programs, in
spite of their
disparate abilities and often disadvantaged social standing. This
forces these
children to work even harder to adapt to the school
environment. Therefore,
it is important to provide specifically designed educational
programs that
address these children’s needs by providing relevant support
systems, such as
teachers with multicultural expertise.

Acculturative stress was observed to have an indirect effect on
behavioral
problems among children of multicultural families with
immigrant mothers. This
result implies the following. First, the extrinsic behavioral
problems of children
and adolescents of multicultural families experiencing
acculturative stress should
be addressed by interventions implemented in the school
environment. Second,
although some level of acculturative stress may be unavoidable,
support systems
can reduce the negative effects of acculturative stress, because
acculturative
stress, in and of itself, does not lead directly to behavioral
problems.
To prevent and address behavioral problems affecting children
of different
cultural backgrounds, Korea needs to manage the indirect
effects of accul-
turative stress. For this to occur, researchers need to identify
additional medi-
ating factors, as well as eradicating alienation and
discrimination based on
the “genetic purity” cultural mentality in the school setting.
Limitations and Implications for Future Research
The present study provided a case for the importance of
implementing effec-
tive interventions to aid social adaptation and behavioral
development among
children of nonmainstream cultural backgrounds. This was

accomplished by
verifying the indirect impact of acculturative stress on
externalizing behavior
problems through school maladaptation.
The present study has some important methodological strengths.
For
instance, adopting a bootstrapping method, which is known to
be effective in
verifying indirect effects, helped overcome the limitations of
mediational
analyses based on multivariate data. However, it is important to
note that
causal relations cannot be drawn from the present data, as
verification was
accomplished through a cross-sectional approach. The
limitations of self-
reported data impose another restriction on interpretation of the
results. In
addition, although children of multicultural families with
immigrant mothers
were the participants, more work needs to be done to confirm if
the present
results would be observed in families with other diverse
backgrounds. While
the present study focuses on the relationship among variables
through indirect
effects, there may be limitations due to the lack of a control
group. Moreover,
it is necessary to consider the fact that various risk factors
(such as financial
difficulties or their parents’ satisfaction in their marriage) may
interact in com-
bination to cause cultural adaptation difficulties for the
participants.

Future studies will ideally explore specific measures that are
directly
applicable to real school settings and geared toward helping
children of mul-
ticultural families, such as the development of relevant
educational content,
teaching methods, and prevention programs targeting behavioral
issues. The
present study indicated that the indirect effects of acculturative
stress were
Cho 917
fully mediated by school maladaptation; however, since
complete mediation
does not entail that there are no additional factors (Rucker,
Preacher, Tormala,
& Petty, 2011), there is a need to explore additional mediating
factors based
on theory. Additional research will add to and improve on our
mediation
model to better understand adaptive acculturation among
children of non-
mainstream cultural background in a homogeneous-identity
society.
Author’s Note
All procedures performed in studies involving human
participants were in accordance
with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national
research committee and
with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments
or comparable ethical

standards.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial
support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was
supported by the National
Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean
Government
(NRF-2011-35C-C00010).
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Youth Self-Report
Form and Profile.
Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1978). The classification
of child psychopa-
thology: A review and analysis of empirical efforts.
Psychological Bulletin, 85,
1275-1301.
An, H. J. (2008). A study on school adjustment and mental
health in elementary
school children from multicultural families in a rural city.
Journal of Korean
Academy of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 17, 383-
391.

Barlow, D. H. (2002). Anxiety and its disorders: The nature and
treatment of anxiety
and panic. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Berry, J. W. (2003). Conceptual approaches to acculturation. In
K. M. Chun, P. B.
Organista, & G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in
theory, measurement
and applied research (pp. 17-37). Washington, DC: American
Psychological
Association.
Bird, H. R., Davies, M., Duarte, C. S., Shen, S., Loeber, R., &
Canino, G. J. (2006). A
study of disruptive behavior disorders in Puerto Rican youth: II.
Baseline preva-
lence, comorbidity, and correlates in two sites. Journal of the
American Academy
of Child Adolescence Psychiatry, 45, 1042-1053.
Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. A. (1992). Bootstrapping goodness-
of-fit measures in struc-
tural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 21,
205-229.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of
assessing model fit. In K.
A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation
models (pp. 136-162).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Chavez, D. V., Moran, V. R., Reid, S. L., & Lopez, M. (1997).
Acculturative stress
in children: A modification of the SAFE Scale. Hispanic Journal
of Behavioral
Sciences, 19, 34-44.
Cho, B. H., & Lee, J. Y. (2006). Acculturation strategies and
school adjustment of
Korean-Chinese and Chinese-Korean children. Korean Journal
of Child Studies,
27, 95-111.
Cho, Y., & Chung, O-B. (2012). A mediated moderation model
of conformative peer
bullying. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 12, 520-529.
Dinh, K. T., Castro, F. G., Tein, J.-Y., & Kim, S. Y. (2009).
Cultural predictors of
physical and mental health status among Mexican American
women: A media-
tion model. American Journal of Community Psychology, 43,
35-48.
Gil, A. G., Vega, W. A., & Dimas, J. M. (1994). Acculturative
stress and personal
adjustment among Hispanic adolescent boys. Journal of
Community Psychology,
22, 43-44.
Gonzales, N. A., Deardorff, J., Formoso, D., Barr, A., &
Barrera, M. (2006). Family
mediators of the relation between acculturation and adolescent
mental health.
Family Relations, 55, 318-330.
Graham, S., Bellmore, A., Nishina, A., & Juvonen, J. (2009). “It

must be me”: Ethnic
diversity and attributions for peer victimization in middle
school. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 38, 487-499.
Hanish, L. D., & Guerra, N. G. (2000). The roles of ethnicity
and school context in
predicting children’s victimization by peers. American Journal
of Community
Psychology, 28, 201-223.
Hovey, J. D. (1998). Acculturative stress, depression, and
suicidal ideation among
Mexican American adolescents: Implications for the
development of suicide pre-
vention programs in schools. Psychological Reports, 83, 249-
250.
Jun, J. I., & Shin, H. S. (2008). The effects of the life
environments of multicul-
tural families’ children on their school maladjustment. Journal
of Social Welfare
Development, 14, 251-283.
Kim, J. K., & Cho, A. M. (2008). The effects on social support
and acculturative stress
among migrant North Korean adolescents. Korean Journal of
Future Oriented
Youth Society, 5, 103-119.
Luster, T., Bates, L., Fitzgerald, H., Vandenbelt, M., & Key, J.
P. (2000). Factors
related to successful outcomes among preschool children born
to low-income
adolescent mothers. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62,
133-146.

MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation
analysis. New York,
NY: Erlbaum.
McCabe, K. M., Clark, R., & Barnett, D. (1999). Family
protective factors among
urban African American youth. Journal of Child Clinical
Psychology, 28,
137-150.
Cho 919
Milan, S., & Keiley, M. K. (2000). Biracial youth and families
in therapy: Issues and
interventions. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26, 305-
315.
Ministry of Education and Science Technology. (2012). More
than fifty thousand stu-
dents of multicultural families (Press release). Retrieved from
http://www.moe.
go.kr/web/100026/ko/board/view.do?bbsId=294&pageSize=10&
currentPage=0
&encodeYn=Y&boardSeq=33636&mode=view
Ministry of the Gender Equality & Family, Multicultural Family
Policy Division.
(2013). Statistics of multicultural family. Retrieved from
http://www.mogef.
go.kr/korea/view/policy/policy02_05a.jsp
Nieri, T. (2012). School context and individual acculturation:
How school compo-

sition affects Latino students’ acculturation. Sociological
Inquiry, 82, 460-484.
Noh, C. R., & Hong, J. J. (2006). Adaptation of migrant
workers’ children to Korean
society: Adaptation of Mongolian migrant worker’s children in
Seoul, Gyeonggi
Area. Journal of the Korean Society of Child Welfare, 22, 127-
159.
Oh, K., Ha, E., Lee, H., & Hong, K. (2001). K-YSR. Seoul,
Korea: Chung Ang
Aptitude.
Park, H. S. (1998). The developmental mechanism of school
resilience of Korean
adolescents in poverty. Korean Journal of Youth Studies, 5,
247-165.
Romero, A. J., & Roberts, R. E. (2003). Stress within a
bicultural context for adoles-
cents of Mexican descent. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority
Psychology, 9,
171-184.
Rucker, D. D., Preacher, K. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E.
(2011). Mediation analy-
sis in social psychology: Current practices and new
recommendations. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 359-371.
Sampson, R., & Laub, J. (1996). Urban poverty and family
context of delinquency:
A new look at structure and process in a class study. Child
Development, 65,
523-540.

Sandhu, D. S., & Asrabi, B. R. (1994). Development of an
acculturative stress scale
for international students: Preliminary findings. Psychological
Reports, 75,
435-448.
Seol, D. H., Lee, H. K., & Cho, S. N. (2006). Marriage-based
immigrants and their
families in Korea: Current status and policy measures. Seoul,
Korea: Ministry of
the Gender Equality & Family.
Shin, Y. H., Yun, J. Y., & Lee, S. B. (2010). A study on
executive function and
problem behavior type for children with maladjustment
behaviors in school envi-
ronment and general children. Journal of Special Education &
Rehabilitation
Science, 49, 197-213.
Smokowski, P. R., David-Ferdon, C., & Stroupe, N. (2009).
Acculturation, youth vio-
lence, and suicidal behavior in minority adolescents: A review
of the empirical
literature. Journal of Primary Prevention, 30, 209-214.
Turner, R. J., & Roszell, P. (1994). Psychosocial resources and
the stress process.
In W. R. Avison & I. H. Gotlib (Eds.), Stress and mental health:
Contemporary
issues and prospects for the future (pp. 179-210). New York,
NY: Plenum
Press.
http://www.moe.go.kr/web/100026/ko/board/view.do?bbsId=294

&pageSize=10&currentPage=0&encodeYn=Y&boardSeq=33636
&mode=view
&mode=view
&mode=view
http://www.mogef.go.kr/korea/view/policy/policy02_05a.jsp
http://www.mogef.go.kr/korea/view/policy/policy02_05a.jsp
West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural
equation models with non-
normal variables. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation
modeling: Concepts,
issues, and applications (pp. 56-75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Williams, C. L., & Berry, J. W. (1991). Primary prevention of
acculturative stress
among refugees: Application of psychological theory and
practice. American
Psychologist, 46, 632-641.
Wong, C. A., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. (2003). The
influence of ethnic discrimi-
nation and ethnic identification on African American
adolescents’ school and
socioemotional adjustment. Journal of Personality, 71, 1197-
1232.

Counselor Education & Supervision • June 2014 •
Volume 53 97
© 2014 by the American Counseling Association. All rights
reserved.
Pedagogy
Received 01/15/13
Revised 11/11/13
Accepted 11/15/13
DOI: 10.1002/j.1556-6978.2014.00051.x
Conflict in Multicultural Classes:
Approaches to Resolving Difficult Dialogues
Stephen Burton and Susan Furr
Survey data are presented from instructors (N = 114)
regarding how they would
hypothetically use conflict management interventions within
multicultural courses.
Findings indicate that participants had more difficulty dealing
with conflict
directed at the instructor than with cognitive conflict, which
involved students’
ideas or beliefs. In addition, higher preferences were associated
with the use of
relationship-building interventions across all types of conflict.
Counselor educators experience challenges when helping
counseling students
to develop multicultural sensitivity and awareness
(Fier & Ramsey, 2005; Sue,
Lin, Torino, Capodilupo, & Rivera, 2009; Sue,

Torino, Capodilupo, Rivera, &
Lin, 2009; Watt, 2007). Adding to the
complexity of this task is the intersect-
ing diversity that students and instructors bring in terms of race,
ethnicity,
gender, socioeconomic status, age, religious and spiritual
affiliation, and
sexual orientation (Choudhuri, 2009). When
asked to examine personal
biases and prejudices, many counselor educators
indicate that the conten-
tious reactions of students can contribute to an increase in their
concern
about handling conflicts and disagreements that arise in class
(Choudhuri,
2009; Sue, Torino, et al., 2009). With the
ultimate goal of helping future
counselors to develop skills in broaching topics related to race,
ethnicity,
and culture with clients (Day-Vines et al., 2007),
it is essential that counselor
educators model behaviors of how to infuse cultural
understanding into
discussions about uncomfortable topics.
Various researchers (Choudhuri, 2009; Sue,
Rivera, Capodilupo, Lin, &
Torino, 2010; Sue, Torino, et al., 2009) have
stated that thereis a gap be-
tween instructors’ depth of conceptual understanding of
multicultural issues
and their skills and abilities in responding to challenging
interactions with
students. Gloria, Rieckmann, and Rush (2000)
emphasized how important it
is for multicultural course instructors to have previous teaching

experience
(e.g., coteacher or teaching assistant) in diversity-
related courses as a way
of gaining the insight needed regarding class and individual
dynamics that
are specific to multicultural classes. As with the discomfort
students feel in
multicultural classes, Abrams and Gibson (2007)
asserted that multicultural
Stephen Burton and Susan Furr, Department of Counseling, The
University of North Carolina
at Charlotte. Stephen Burton is now at Fort Campbell,
Kentucky. The authors thank Don C.
Locke for his support of this research study. Correspondence
concerning this article should
be addressed to Stephen Burton, PO Box 903, Fort Campbell,
KY 42223 (e-mail: stephen-
[email protected]).
ACACEAS_v53_n2_0614TEXT.indd 97 5/16/2014 8:12:13
AM
98 Counselor Education & Supervision • June
2014 • Volume 53
course instructors must be prepared to feel discomfort as it
arises while they
teach and raise issues related to difficult multicultural topics.
Types of Conflict and Interventions
Intergroup conflict and tension have been cited as a challenge
for pro-

fessors, and the need to create safe environments has been
emphasized
(Reynolds, 2011). In addition, conflict can be
directed at the professor
when students’ personal views are challenged in
the classroom; this is an
issuethat is particularly faced by faculty of
color(Sue et al., 2011). Skillful
use of de-escalating and mediative strategies and interventions
is necessary
to ensure positive student outcomes in the critical area of
multicultural
development (Choudhuri, 2009; Sue, Torino, et
al., 2009; Young, 2003).
To better conceptualize the variety of response options or
interventions,
we identified threethemes for 12 interventions from
the literature: (a) de-
escalation only (Burgess & Burgess, 1997), (b)
supportive confronting (Sue
et al., 2010; Sue & Sue, 2008), and (c)
protective confronting (Reynolds,
2011; Young, 2003). These interventions and
strategies are used as a basis
for the strategies counselor educators applied to hypothetical
situations
in the current research study.
De-Escalation Only
Burgess and Burgess (1997) defined de-escalation as a
reduction in inten-
sity of a dispute that has occurred rapidly after a situation has
occurred
in which neither side can win but where all individuals are
being harmed

by the dispute. Four interventions have been found in the
literature that
conceptually fit this category and have been suggested for
mediating emo-
tionally laden student reactions and reestablishing emotional
balance. First,
accurate listening and reflection involves an instructor’s use of
reflection as
well as summarization of all perspectives of students involved
in a conflict
(Choudhuri, 2009; Gloria et al., 2000; Sue et
al., 2010; Sue, Torino, et al.,
2009; Young, 2003). Second, acknowledging the
difficulty of being in the course is
a technique for normalizing the emotional reactions
students may experi-
ence in confronting certain topics and issues covered in
multicultural classes
(Jones, Sander, & Booker, 2013; Sue, Torino, et
al., 2009). This approach
may be seen as similar to broaching (Day-Vines
et al., 2007), wherein the
instructor addresses the cultural meaning students attach to
discussions in
the classroom. Third, modeling humility involves the use of the
professors’
anecdotal experiences to model that “it’s okay to be
wrong.” It is based on
the premise that instructors’ sharing of personal assumptions
and biases
regarding course materials has the effect of humanizing the
classroom and
engendering trust (Gloria et al., 2000; Sue et
al., 2010), validating diversity
acceptance (Hill, 2003), and encouraging
students to become more involved

in the learning process through class participation
(Sue, Lin, et al., 2009).
Finally, using humor is possibly the riskiest of instructor
conflict interventions
because it can be seen as lighthearted and also can be
misinterpreted as a
personal attack. The literature recommends not using humor
until trust and
AM
Volume 53 99
safety have been established in the
classroom (Choudhuri, 2009; Martin,
2010; Provine & Emmorey, 2006).
Supportive Confronting
This category of interventions consists of mediative
techniques that are
thought to have the dual effect of de-escalating difficult
classroom dialogue
coupled with the prospect of helping counseling students in
their develop-
ment of multicultural personal awareness, knowledge, and skills
(Sue et al.,
2010; Sue & Sue, 2008). Exploring and challenging
student positions and
beliefs that are incongruent with multicultural counseling
competency is the
focus of these interventions. First, cognitive challenge, also

known as confronta-
tion, involves summarizing student perspectives of the conflict
(Choudhuri,
2009). Carter (2003) noted the importance of
confronting students in this
challenge through instructor feedback coupled with an emphasis
on profes-
sional development and counseling skill development. Second,
linking to the
broader issues of counseling involves processing student
interpretations when
conflict arises and then deflecting or tying the process to the
larger issues of
multicultural counseling. During difficult multicultural
classroom dialogue,
the instructor shifts the focus from how an issue has
emotionally triggered
student or class reactions to how the issue relates to
understanding and
working with similar or related issues that affect
clients (Choudhuri, 2009;
Sue & Sue, 2008). Third, reflective assignments are thought
to allow students
to voice their opinions and feelings regarding difficult dialogue
and issues
in the relatively safer context of writing as well as in the less
intimidating
space of smaller groups of classmates. Reflective assignments
include 1-min-
ute journaling(Locke & Kiselica, 1999), breaking
into smaller groups for
discussion (Sue, Torino, et al., 2009), and
inviting individual research on
difficult topics (Choudhuri, 2009). Finally, a gentle
reminder of ground rules
requires laying down ground rules earlyin the

course (e.g., speak one at a
time, own your opinions, focus on the topic and not the person,
speak for
yourself and not the group) and then gently
reminding students when rules
have been broken or ignored (Choudhuri, 2009).
Protective Confronting
There is a need to protect students and professors from
debilitating levels of
classroom conflict that have the potential to derail positive
student learning
outcomes as well as inflict emotional harmand injury
on those participating
in multicultural activities and instruction (Reynolds,
2011; Young, 2003). The
following four interventions focus primarily on protecting
students as well
as maintaining the safety of classroom learning environments.
First, shutting
down the dialogue involves taking whatever steps are necessary
for stopping
intentionally harmful and discriminatory speech or behavior and
letting it be
known that it is unacceptable (Choudhuri, 2009,
Sue et al., 2010). Second,
protecting the lone outlier consists of taking whatever steps are
necessary to
protect a student, whether that student is being attacked or is
the attacker,
AM

2014 • Volume 53
from being “mobbed” by otherstudents (Choudhuri,
2009). Generally, the
literature refers to the use of this intervention as a way of
protecting stu-
dents from verbal forms of attack or
intimidation (Richman,2005). Third,
time-out involves stopping contentious dialogue, acknowledging
the conflict,
and stating that it will be revisited later (e.g., at the beginning
of the next
class, in conjunction with a reflection assignment,
after the topicis covered
in depth in a subsequent class session).
Choudhuri (2009) emphasized that
when this technique is used, it is important
for the instructor to invite the
class “to take a break to regain their emotional
balance, and the conversa-
tion restarted [later] with instructions on how to
proceed” (p. 168). Finally,
asking to meet privately with a student makes use of the
relationship between
student and instructor by asking to meet privately with a student
one-on-one
(possibly with another professor present) to resolve a
conflict or issueoutside
of class. The literature supports the use of this intervention as a
valuable
tool for confronting difficult and contentious dialogue and
issues related
to maintaining an environment that supports multicultural
competency

training (Gloria et al., 2000). However, research
also indicates that caution
should be used in applying this technique so that it
does not become a tactic
or strategy for ignoring, dismissing, or avoiding difficult
multicultural issues
that arise in the classroom (Sue et al., 2010; Sue,
Torino, et al., 2009).
The literature indicates that these 12 conflict interventions are
important
and effective methods for dealing with conflict and difficult
dialogue during
multicultural instruction and related training. However, we were
unable to
identify research that specifically points to the need for
individual or con-
junctive use of the interventions. We sought to
identify the conflict interven-
tions that would be chosen most frequentlyby
instructors. We also sought to
examine how the severity of multicultural classroom conflict
influenced the
types of conflict management techniques and
interventions that instructors
would choose to implement. We explored two
research questions in this study:
(a) Is therea perceived difference in types of
classroom conflict; are some
conflict situations perceived as more difficult to address than
others? and
(b) Will the categorical type of conflict management
strategies chosen by
professors to respond to difficult classroom dialogue differ
according to the
type of conflict addressed in hypothetical conflict scenarios?

For this study,
we delineated three types of conflict: Type 1 conflict is defined
as cognitive
conflict, Type 2 conflict is defined as student-to-student
conflict, and Type
3 conflict is defined as conflict directed at
the instructor.
Method
Participants and Procedure
We recruited the sample from master’s-level counselor
education programs
listed on the website of the Council for Accreditation of
Counseling and
Related Educational Programs (CACREP). Because
the exact number of
instructors who currently teach or have taught multicultural
courses was
not known, it was not possible to identify the number of
instructors who
AM
Volume 53 101
would be eligible for this study. Previous counselor educator
research has
based response rate on the number of programs contacted as
compared
with those that responded (Neukrug, Peterson,

Bonner, & Lomas, 2013;
Warden & Benshoff, 2012); the response rate ranged
from 29.8% to 51.7%.
In conducting research that was focused on African American
faculty
members, Bradley and Holcomb-McCoy (2004)
indicated that it can be
difficult to develop a roster of counselor educators from
specific groups,
because there is not a database that includes detailed
information about
faculty members or, in the case for this research, information on
teach-
ing specialties. For other research studies involving counselor
educators,
the number of participants ranged from 45
(Bradley & Holcomb-McCoy,
2004) to 185 (Pérusse & Goodnough, 2001).
To ensure maximum survey response, we used a two-pronged
approach
wherein (a) each CACREP program director was
contacted via e-mail and
asked to forward a survey invitation to instructors who were
currently teaching
multicultural counseling courses in that program
and (b) survey invitations
were sent using a comprehensive e-mail list of all instructors
who taught
in CACREP-affiliated counselor education programs to reach
instructors
who may have taught multicultural or cross-cultural courses in
the past.
Participants who chose to respond to the survey provided their
consent and
were randomly assigned to one of the two parallel versions of

the survey.
A total of 158 professors responded to
the invitation to participate in the
anonymous web-based survey; 122 of the
respondents met the multicultural
or cross-cultural teaching experience and CACREP affiliation
criteria. After
eliminating respondents with missing or invalid data (n = 8,
less than 7%),
we obtained a total sample size of 114 for this study.
Instrument
Data were acquired from one administration of the web-
based survey de-
veloped for this study, the Multicultural Class Conflict
Intervention Survey
(MCCIS), which included a demographic
questionnaire as well as conflict
scenarios and questions representing the study
variables. This instrument
elicited (a) participants’ demographic characteristics;
(b) characteristics
of the cross-cultural or multicultural courses in
which participants taught;
(c) the intervention strategies that participants
indicated that they would
use to deal with and resolve hypothetical multicultural
classroom conflict,
which were selected from a list of 12
commonly identified techniques
found in the literature; and (d) the degree of
challenge presented by the
different types of classroom conflict. Difficulty of each type of
classroom
conflict was ratedon a scalefrom 1 to 5 (1 =

not challenging at all, 5 = ex-
tremely challenging).
Classroom conflict scenario prompts were used as a component
of the
MCCIS. Conflict scenarios are defined as an
imagined sequence of pos-
sible events or set of circumstances that describe a difficult
cross-cultural
or multicultural classroom conflict, such as
the following Type 3 scenario
prompt used in the MCCIS.
AM
2014 • Volume 53
Imagine this scenario: In one of your multicultural class
sessions, your identity (e.g., im-
migrant status, race/ethnicity, gender, sexual
orientation [if you have revealed it]) has
become the focus of a confrontation with a student who directly
references your identity by
making very disparaging and prejudiced remarks
about people with your identity and then
angrily tells you “I don’t thinkit is right that
you are ‘pushing’ your social agenda onto our
class just because you are _______ (e.g., Black,
gay, a woman, an immigrant).” The class
falls silent and students are looking to see what happens next.
How would you respond?

The conflict scenarios section of the MCCIS contains six
scenarios that
were drawn from a review of the literature as well as the
personal experiences
of five cross-cultural and multicultural instructors with
extensive teaching
experience; theseindividuals were solicited to provide
examples of difficult
multicultural classroom dialogues. Decisions regarding
selection of the
conflict scenarios used in the MCCIS were accomplished
through the use
of the talk aloud and card sort protocol described later in this
article. To
reduce the time it would take for instructors to participate in the
research
and thereby increase the survey response rate, we created two
versions of
the survey that divided the original six scenario
questions equally among two
surveys (i.e., threescenarios representing Types 1, 2,
and 3 conflicts in each
of two versions of the survey that were determined to be
parallel by outside
reviewers); all othersurvey items were the same in
each version. Participants
read each scenario presented in the MCCIS and were asked to
select at least
three interventions that when used individually or in
combination would
most closely reflect their style of managing and dealing with the
type of
classroom situation presented based on past cross-cultural or
multicultural
class teaching experience. The scenarios addressed three levels
of conflict:

Type 1 was focused on cognitive conflict (i.e., ideasor
beliefs), Type 2 was
focused on conflict between student and student,
and Type 3 was focused
on conflict directed at the instructor.
We took several steps to minimize measurement error in the use
of the
MCCIS, including using (a) the talk aloud
protocol (Wendt, Kenny, & Marks,
2007) and (b) the card sort protocol (Brown, 1996)
to assess construct
and content validity of the MCCIS as well as the conflict
scenarios used
in the instrument. Two professors with extensive teaching
experience in
the field of multicultural counselor education reviewed the 12
interven-
tions outlined earlier and placed the conflict interventions into
the three
intervention categories of de-escalation only, supportive
confronting, and
protective confronting based on the category definitions using
the card
sort protocol.
The expert reviewers also used the card sort protocol to sort the
conflict sce-
narios used in the MCCIS into the appropriate conflict type. In
separate individual
sessions with reviewers, the reviewer read aloud each of the
conflict scenarios and
placed the scenario into one of the three types of conflict
categories. During the
talk aloud session, the reviewers commented on any aspects of
the scenarios that

seemed confusing or unclear to them. Scenarios that did not
represent a clear
delineation of Type 1, 2, and 3 conflicts
were discarded. After the first review
session, we incorporated suggestions made by the reviewers to
edit the remain-
ing scenarios for clarity and to better represent certain conflict
types. After these
AM
Volume 53 103
edits were made, the expert reviewers again used the card sort
protocol for final
agreement on the validity of the type categorization of the
scenarios.
We then conducted a pilot study using three experienced
multicultural
course instructors as pilot participants. On the basis of an
analysis of the
pilot study response data, we made small editing changes to the
surveys to
incorporate the feedback and suggestions for improvement.
Appropriate
approval from the institutional review board was obtained at
each step of
the process. Expert reviewers and pilot study participants were
removed
from the pool of potential participants of the research study to
prevent

contamination of the sample population.
Results
Participant Characteristics
The sample consisted of 76 female (67%) and
38 male (33%) professors,
ranging in age from 29 to 75 years (mean
age = 50 years, SD = 11.27). The
majority of the respondents identified themselves
primarily as White or of
European descent (n = 68, 59.6%); 21 (18.4%)
identified as African American/
Afro Caribbean/African descent, nine (7.9%) as
multiracial, seven (6.1%)
as Asian/Polynesian or Pacific Islander, five (4.4%)
as Hispanic/Latina/La-
tino, and four (3.5%) as Native American/American
Indian or First Nation.
When asked about sexual orientation, the
majority of respondents identified
themselves as heterosexual (n = 96, 84.2%), with 11
(9.6%) identifying as
gay or lesbian, five (4.4%) as bisexual, one (.9%)
as transgender woman,
and one (.9%) as other.
Regarding professional and program characteristics of the
sample, the
majority of professors’ counselor education programs
were located in the
Southern region (n = 50, 43.9%) of the United
States, followed by 12 (10.5%)
in the North Atlantic, 19 (16.7%) in the North
Central, 17 (14.9%) in the

Rocky Mountain, and 14 (12.3%) in the
Western regions of the country.
Two respondents (1.8%) did not indicate the
CACREP region of their
program. Fifty (43.9%) respondents indicated their status
as tenured and
64 (56.1%) as nontenured. The majority of the
respondents were assistant
professors (n = 36, 31.6%); 31 (27.2%) identified as
associate professors,
17 (14.9%) as adjunct professors, 16 (14.0%) as
full professors, six (5.3%)
as retired/emeritus/emerita professors, two (1.8%) as
clinical professors,
and six (5.3%) as other. The majority of
professorsreported their overall
career frequency of teaching multicultural classes as
one class per academic
year (n = 49, 43.0%), 31 (27.2%) indicated a
frequency of two classes, 18
(15.8%) reported teaching less than one class, and 16
(14.0%) taught more
than two classes per academic year.
Level of Conflict Challenge
To examine if there was a difference between the types of
conflict for per-
ceived level of challenge, we completed a repeated measures
analysis of
variance (ANOVA) using one within-subject factor
(i.e., the level of chal-
AM

2014 • Volume 53
lenge responses to the three items of the MCCIS: Type 1
conflict, Type 2
conflict, and Type3 conflict). Mauchly’s test of
sphericity indicated that the
assumption of sphericity had not been violated, χ2(2) =
0.85,p = .65. Analy-
sis of the data suggested that mean level of challenge differed
significantly
between the types of multicultural classroom conflict, F(2,
226) = 7.61,p <
. 01, partial η2 = .06.
Post hoc tests using the Bonferroni correction revealed that the
level of
challenge reported by professors increased slightly from Type 1
to Type 2
conflicts (2.77 ± .90 vs. 2.95 ± .81), but the
difference was not statistically
significant (p =.10). However, the level of challenge
reported by profes-
sors when encountering Type 3 conflicts increased to
3.10 ± .08, which was
significantly when compared with Type 1 conflicts (p < .01)
but not Type 2
conflicts (p = .21). We can therefore conclude that
multicultural classroom
conflict elicits a significant increase in the level of challenge
reported by
professorsbut only when comparing Type 3
conflicts with Type 1 conflicts.

Intervention Usage Across Types of Conflict
We used the Friedman test to determine if there would be
differences
across the types of classroom conflicts on the conflict
management strate-
gies used by professors (i.e., de-escalation only, supportive
confronting, and
protective confronting). Whereas the level of challenge
continuous variable
allowed parametric statistics to be used for
analysis of the first question of
the study, the Friedman test is a nonparametric alternative to the
repeated
measures ANOVA test and is used to determine
whether thereare any sta-
tistically significant differences between the distributions of
three or more
related groups. The independent variable was types of conflict
(i.e., Types
1, 2, and 3), and the dependent variable was the
scores that indicated how
many times professors selected each of the different conflict
interventions
by category (i.e., de-escalation only, supportive confronting,
and protective
confronting). For the de-escalation only category of
interventions, analysis
of the data across Types 1, 2, and 3
suggested that usage of this category of
interventions was statistically different among the types of
conflict, χ2(2) =
10.82, p < .01. However, pairwise comparisons using the
Bonferroni correc-
tion revealed no statistically significant differences in
intervention usage

from Type 1 to Type 2, Type 2 to Type 3, or
Type 1 to Type 3. For the sup-
portive confronting category of interventions, analysis
suggested that usage
of this category of interventions was statistically different
among the types of
conflict, χ2(2) = 17.26, p < .01. Pairwise comparisons
using the Bonferroni
correction revealed statistically significant differences in
intervention usage
from Type 1 (Mdn = 2.0) to Type 3 (Mdn = 1.0, p =
.02), Type 2 (Mdn = 2.0)
to Type 3 (Mdn = 1.0, p < .01), but not Type 1 to
Type 2. For the protective
confronting category of interventions, analysis of the data
suggested that
usage of this category of interventions was not statistically
different among
the types of conflict, χ2(2) = 1.50,p = .47.
On the basis of the previous analyses, there was a significant
overall dif-
ference across the types of classroom conflict for de-escalation
only and
AM
Volume 53 105
supportive confronting intervention conflict management
strategies. The
de-escalation only category showed no change between type of

intervention,
suggesting similar categorical intervention usage no matter what
type of
conflict arises in classes; supportive confronting
intervention data suggested
a significant decrease in usage for Type 3
conflicts. Finally, analysis offered
no support for overall or between-group differences across the
types of class-
room conflicts when examining the use of protective
confronting conflict
management strategies by professors, suggesting that use of this
category of
intervention was the same no matter what type of conflict arises
in classes.
Individual Intervention Usage
The aforementioned results are focused on conflict based on the
broad
intervention categories of de-escalation only, supportive
confronting, and
protective confronting. Outcomes of the study also pointed to
the most
prevalent individual use of interventions by multicultural and
cross-cultural
course instructors when dealing with difficult and conflictual
discourse that
arose in their classes. Descriptive statistics of individual
intervention selec-
tions shown in Table 1 give depth and understanding to the
intervention
usage by instructors as measured by the MCCIS.
Table 1

Descriptive Statistics of Instructor Intervention Selections
for the Three Conflict Types in the Multicultural Class Conflict
Intervention Survey
Intervention
1. Accurate listening and
reflection
2. Acknowledging the
difficulty of being in the
course
3. Modeling humility
4. Using humor
5. Cognitive challenge
6. Linking to the broader
issues of counseling
7. Reflective assignments
8. Gentle reminder of
ground rules
9. Shutting down the
dialogue
10. Protecting the lone outlier
11. Time-out
12. Asking to meet privately
with a student
82

33
15
4
70
56
30
21
3
8
2
18
n
De-Escalation Only Category (N = 413)
Supportive Confronting Category (N = 499)
Protective Confronting Category (N = 114)
Type 1 Conflict
% n
Type 2 Conflict
% n
Type 3 Conflict

%
24.0
9.6
4.4
1.2
20.5
16.4
8.8
6.1
0.9
2.3
0.6
5.3
71
39
12
3
44
55
14

64
10
15
13
2
20.8
11.4
3.5
0.9
12.9
16.1
4.1
18.7
2.9
4.4
3.8
0.6
79
43
23
9
33

62
7
43
7
2
7
27
23.1
12.6
6.7
2.6
9.6
18.1
2.0
12.6
2.0
0.6
2.0
7.9
Note. Type 1 conflict = cognitive conflict; Type 2 conflict =
student-to-student conflict; Type 3
conflict = conflict directed at the instructor.

AM
2014 • Volume 53
Discussion and Implications
We sought to examine the relationship between perceived
severity of mul-
ticultural classroom conflict and the proposed use of conflict
management
interventions and techniques by instructors
teaching multicultural counsel-
ing courses when difficult and conflictual discourse arises in
their classes.
The main findings of this study include the significant
difference between
the types of classroom conflict that occur in multicultural
classes based
on perceived level of challenge that professors experience.
However, post
hoc tests indicated that a significant increase between the types
could be
identified only when comparing Type 1 with Type 3
conflicts. When looking
at professors’ use of categorical conflict management strategies
from the
perspective of intervention usage across
conflicts (i.e., Types 1, 2, and 3), we
found very little support that encountering any particular type
of conflict
in a class would point toward a pattern of categorical conflict
management

strategy different from others (i.e., de-escalation only,
supportive confront-
ing, and protective confronting).
Patterns of individual intervention use suggest a preference for
certain con-
flict interventions across all types of classroom conflict on the
basis of a review
of the descriptive data of participant intervention
selections (see Table 1).
The most preferred individual intervention across all conflict
types chosen in
response to the scenarios of the MCCIS was the de-escalation
and relationship-
building intervention of accurate listening and reflection,
represented by an
average of 23% of the total intervention selections.
This finding was consistent
with Meyers, Bender, Hill, and Thomas’s (2006) on
the nature and correlates
of classroom conflict using a national sample of university
faculty (N = 226),
which showed that the most effective conflict
management techniques were
those that address the relationship between faculty and students.
Other most
preferred interventions averaged across all conflict types were
linking to the
broader issues of counseling (17%) and
cognitive challenge (14%), the im-
portance of which corresponds to research by
Perry (1970) that addressed the
issue of difficulties related to challenging students’ long-held
beliefs in terms
of their progression through sequential interpretations of
meaning reflected

in stages of cognitive and ethical growth. Study data indicating
preference
for linking to the broader issues of counseling and cognitive
challenge also
converge with and support Granello’s (2002)
emphasis on the importance of
counselor educators creating instructional experiences
“that are specifically
and intentionally designed to push students toward higher levels
of cognitive
development” (p. 279).
Least preferred across all conflict types were using humor,
time-out, and
shutting down the dialogue, each represented by an
average of 2% of the
total intervention selections. Even when skillfully used, humor
can be an
unreliable mediator because people are not uniform in their
ability to rec-
ognize it for what it is (Dunning, 2005). Thus,
the total selections of humor
as a conflict intervention (n = 16) indicated that it
was the least preferred
among all of the interventions presented. Time-out and shutting
down the
AM
Volume 53 107
dialogue when used as conflict interventions in multicultural

classes cor-
respond to the type of instructor behaviors that Sue et
al. (2010) described
as frustrating to students, who have interpreted the use of these
kinds of
interventions as “prematurely ending the
conversation or discouraging
emotional exploration” (p. 211).
Another finding was that certain interventions had an increasing
or de-
creasing pattern of use across the types of classroom conflict.
For example,
data indicate that cognitive challenge was used with
decreasing frequency
across the conflict types, with this intervention
being used the most frequently
for Type 1 (n = 70) and Type 2 (n = 44)
conflicts and the least frequently
for Type 3 conflict (n = 33). This usage
pattern may indicate that greater
value is attributed to cognitive challenge as an intervention
when it involves
conflicts of ideasand beliefs (Type 1) than when
dealing with conflicts that
are personal and directed at the instructor (Type
3), which corresponds
with Pieterse’s (2009) view concerning pedagogy.
Likewise, data describing
use of reflective assignments also indicate a decreasing pattern
of use across
the types of conflict for reasons that may be similar to those of
the previ-
ous intervention. Acknowledging the difficulty of being in the
course had
an increasing pattern of usage across the continuum from Type

1 to Type
3, possibly suggesting greater usefulness as a
mediative strategy when the
perceived level of challenge to instructors increases across the
types. This
strategy is supported by Reynolds’s (2011) view
that instructors need to cre-
ate a safe environment in which students can explore emotions.
Overall, only a narrow band of the most prevalent interventions
recom-
mended in the literature were used by participants when
presented with
hypothetical multicultural classroom conflicts. This finding may
indicate
a need for research on effective interventions followed by
proactive ap-
proaches to increase repertoire and fluency in the use of
conflict-resolving
interventions. As with recommendations provided by
Sue, Lin, et al. (2009),
counselor education doctoral programs need to develop basic
principles
to guide and inform students and faculty about how to facilitate
difficult
multicultural discussions. As suggested by Sue, Torino,
et al. (2009), a safe
space for multicultural dialogues cannot be created if
instructors are not
educated about the variety of techniques that
are available to use when
conflicts occur in the classroom.
Limitations
There are several notable limitations of this study. First, the

target sample
consisted of only professors of counselor education programs
accredited by
CACREP. Thus, this criterion eliminated professors of programs
that were
not affiliated with CACREP. Therefore, generalizability of the
study results
is limited to professors of CACREP-affiliated institutions who
teach or have
taught multicultural courses. It is difficult to assess the actual
response ratio
given that no database exists of professors who teach
multicultural counseling
classes. Therefore, we cannot evaluate whether those who
responded to the
survey are representative of those who commonly teach this
course. Another
AM
2014 • Volume 53
limitation of this study was the self-report measure used to
gather the data.
Research that asks mental health care educators to report how
they would
respond in difficult conflictual classroom situations may be
analogous to re-
search that has shown that mental health care professionals’
reports of what
they would do in difficult client situations may be different
from their behaviors

when faced with actual ethical dilemmas (Pope, Tabachnick, &
Keith-Spiegel,
1987). The nature of the desire and need
for professional competency in
handling student biases and prejudicesand issues of
multiculturalism—the
lack of which may contribute to the risk of conflict arising in
multicultural
classes (Sue et al., 2010)—may have resulted in
participants giving answers that
were socially desirable and therefore not reflective of their
actual classroom
experiences. Therefore, somerespondents may have
provided “acceptable”
answers to survey questions based on how they
felt they “should” respond to
classroom conflict rather than describing actual responses to
similar classroom
experiences from the past. Additionally, the small effect size
across the types
of conflict (partial η2 = .06) found in the results
of the first research question
analysis may be an indication that the variability in the data
does not point to
robust differences in the level of challenge instructors
experience between the
three types of multicultural classroom conflict despite the
significant finding
of the test results. Finally, although card sort and talk aloud
protocols were
used to sort conflict scenario prompts used in the MCCIS into
the appropri-
ate conflict categories in the parallel versions of the instrument
(e.g., Types
1, 2, and 3), the unknown equivalence of the
two versions of the instrument

is a potential validity concern.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Why is it important for counselor educators to recognize that
there are different
types of conflicts that occur in class and that there are a variety
of interven-
tions? First, knowing that some conflicts, such as when students
are directly
confrontational with the professor, may lead professorsto
more quickly detect
the potential risks in the way they respond and be more aware
of choosing
strategies to defuse possible destructive confrontations.
Although there was
not a clear delineation of the three levels of conflict, there is
some indication
that these differences do exist, but more research is needed on
this concept.
Second, the possibility exists that professors are limited in their
repertoire of
interventions that can be selected to respond to difficult
classroom discussions.
Professors may not know other uses of interventions relative to
the different
types of conflicts that may arise or that it is possible to achieve
better outcomes
by using other intervention combinations. This possibility is
consistent with
qualitative research by Sue et al. (2010), which
suggests that many instructors
who teach multicultural classes lack fluency in strategies for
facilitating difficult
dialogues. This study presented an array of intervention
possibilities that has

not been represented previously in a single research study.
For the future, research on actual classroom interventions is
needed to
ascertain the types of conflicts that occur, identify interventions
used, and
evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions. One such
approach would
AM
Volume 53 109
be to have students indicate what difficult situations arose
during class and
then have students identify how the professor responded and the
effective-
ness of the response. Such research would involve a willingness
of professors
to encounter the risk of receiving feedback, some of which
might be critical,
when students are challenged to examine their beliefs about
sensitive topics.
Besides this weekly instructor feedback, it would also be
essential to have
students reflect on their perceptions at the end of the semester
(or even
later) to see how greater awareness may change
their views. By increasing
their skills in addressing critical multicultural discussions in the
classroom,
counselor educators can help counseling students to feel safer

during these
encounters and ultimately obtain greater understanding of
themselves in
multicultural encounters.
References
Abrams, L. S., & Gibson, P. (2007). Reframing
multicultural education: Teaching White
privilege
in the social work curriculum. Journal of Social Work
Education, 43 147–160.
Bradley, C., & Holcomb-McCoy, C. (2004). African
American counselor educators:Their experi-
ences, challenges, and recommendations. Counselor Education
and Supervision, 43,258–273.
doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2004.tb01851.x
Brown, S. R. (1996). Q methodology and
qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 6,
561–567. doi:10.1177/104973239600600408
Burgess, H., & Burgess, G. M. (1997).
Encyclopedia of conflict resolution. Santa Barbara, CA:
ABC-CLIO.
Carter, R. T. (2003). Becoming racially and
culturally competent: The racial-cultural counseling
laboratory. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and
Development, 31, 20–30.
Choudhuri, D. D. (2009). Managing diversity in
the counselor education classroom. In G. R.
Walz, J. C. Bleuer, & R. K. Yep (Eds.),

Compelling counseling interventions: Vistas 2009 (pp.
161–171). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling
Association.
Day-Vines, N. L., Wood, S. M., Grothaus,
T., Craigen, L., Holman, A., Dotson-Blake,
K., & Douglass, M. J. (2007). Broaching
the subjects of race, ethnicity, and culture
during the counseling process. Journal of Counseling &
doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2007.tb00608.x
Dunning, D. (2005). Self-insight: Roadblocks and detours
on the path to knowing thyself. New York,
NY: Psychology Press.
Fier, E. B., & Ramsey, M. (2005). Ethical
challenges in the teaching of multicultural course
work. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development,
33, 94–107.
Gloria, A. M., Rieckmann, T. R., & Rush, J.
D. (2000). Issues and recommendations for
teach-
ing an ethnic/culture-based course. Teaching of Psychology, 27,
102–107.
Granello, D. H. (2002). Assessing the cognitive
development of counseling students: Changes
in epistemological assumptions. Counselor Education and
Supervision, 41, 279–293.
Hill, N. R. (2003). Promoting and celebrating
multicultural competence in counselor trainees.
Counselor Education and Supervision, 43, 39–51.

Jones, J. M., Sander, J. B., & Booker, K.
W. (2013). Multicultural competency building:
Practical
solutions for training and evaluating student progress. Training
and Education in Professional
Psychology, 7, 12–22. doi:10.1037/a0030880
Locke, D. C., & Kiselica, M. S. (1999).
Pedagogy of possibilities: Teaching about racism in
multicultural counseling courses. Journal of Counseling &
Martin, K. J. (2010). Student attitudes and the
teaching and learning of race, culture and
politics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 530–539.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.018
Meyers, S. A., Bender, J., Hill, E. K., &
Thomas, S. Y. (2006). How do faculty
experience and
respond to classroom conflict. International Journal of Teaching
and Learning in Higher Educa-
tion, 18, 180–187.
Neukrug, E., Peterson, C. H., Bonner, M., & Lomas,
G. I. (2013). A national survey of assess-
ment instruments taught by counselor educators. Counselor
Education and Supervision, 52,
207–221. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2013.00038.x
Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical
development in the college years: A scheme. New
York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

AM
2014 • Volume 53
Pérusse, R., & Goodnough, G. E. (2001). A
comparison of existing school counselor
program
content with the Education Trust Initiatives. Counselor
Education and Supervision, 41, 100–110.
doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2001.tb01274.x
Pieterse, A. L. (2009). Teaching antiracism in
counselor training: Reflections on a course.
Journal
of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 3, 141–152.
doi:10.1002/j.2161-1912.2009.tb00098.x
Pope, K. S., Tabachnick, B. G., & Keith-
Spiegel, P. (1987). Ethics of practice: The beliefs
and
behaviors of psychologists as therapists. The American
Psychologist, 42, 993–1006.
Provine, R. R., & Emmorey, K. (2006). Laughter
among Deaf signers. Journal of Deaf Studies and
Deaf Education, 11, 403–409. doi:10.1093/deafed/enl008
Reynolds, A. L. (2011). Understanding the perceptions
and experiences of faculty who teach
multicultural counseling courses: An exploratory study.
Training and Education in Professional
Psychology, 5, 167–174. doi:10.1037/a0024613

Richman, C. L. (2005). Teaching about race and
racism: Past experiences and the role of one
White Jewish educator. In S. A. Hughes (Ed.),
What we still don’t know about teaching race: How
to talk about race in the classroom (pp. 299–331). Lewiston,
NY: Mellon Press.
Sue, D. W., Lin, A. I., Torino, G. C., Capodilupo,
C. M., & Rivera, D. P. (2009). Racial
micro-
aggressions and difficult dialogues on race in the classroom.
Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 15, 183–190. doi:10.1037/a0014191
Sue, D. W., Rivera, D. P., Capodilupo, C. M.,
Lin, A. I., & Torino, G. C. (2010). Racial
dialogues
and White trainee fears: Implications for education and training.
Cultural Diversity & Ethnic
Sue, D. W., Rivera, D. P., Watkins, N. L., Kim, R.
H., Kim, S., & Williams, C. D. (2011). Racial
dialogues: Challenges faculty of color face in the classroom.
Cultural Diversity & Ethnic
Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (2008). Counseling the
culturally diverse: Theory and practice. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Sue, D. W., Torino, G. C., Capodilupo, C. M.,
Rivera, D. P., & Lin, A. I. (2009). How
White

faculty perceive and react to difficult dialogues on race. The
Counseling Psychologist, 37,
1090–1115. doi:10.1177/0011000009340443
Warden, S. P., & Benshoff, J. M. (2012). Testing
the engagement theory of program quality in
CACREP-accredited counselor education programs. Counselor
Education and Supervision, 51,
127–140. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2012.00009.x
Watt, S. K. (2007). Difficult dialogues,privilege
and social justice: Uses of the PrivilegedIdentity
Exploration (PIE) Model in student affairs
practice. College Student Affairs Journal, 26, 114–
126.
Wendt, A., Kenny, L. E., & Marks, C. (2007,
Winter). Assessing critical thinking using a
talk-
aloud protocol. CLEAR Exam Review. Retrieved from
https://www.ncsbn.org/Assessing_Criti-
cal_Thinking_Talk_Aloud_Protocol.pdf
Young, G. (2003). Dealing with difficult classroom
dialogue. In P. Bronstein & K. Quina (Eds.),
Teaching gender and multicultural awareness: Resources for the
psychology classroom (pp. 347–360).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
AM

Copyright of Counselor Education & Supervision is the property
of Wiley-Blackwell and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted
to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.
journal of Multicultural counseling and developMent • July
2015 • Vol. 43 173
© 2015 American Counseling Association. All rights reserved.
Received 11/12/12
Revised 07/19/13
Accepted 12/09/13
DOI: 10.1002/jmcd.12013
Competent Counseling for
Middle Eastern American Clients:
Implications for Trainees
Sepideh S. Soheilian and Arpana G. Inman
The authors used a factorial multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) to
determine whether counselor trainees’ group differences on
measures of multi-
cultural competence, empathy, and multicultural counseling
self-efficacy (CSE)
when working with Middle Eastern American (MEA) clients

were moderated
by trainee race. Two hundred and fifty-six trainees responded to
3 different
clinical vignettes that gave information on clients who had
varying degrees
of MEA characteristics. MANOVA results revealed a significant
main effect for
trainee race. Follow-up analyses demonstrated that trainees of
color reported
higher multicultural competence and multicultural CSE than
White trainees.
Keywords: multicultural, cultural competence, Middle Eastern
Americans
Los autores usaron an análisis factorial multivariante de la
varianza (MANOVA,
por sus siglas en inglés) para determinar si las diferencias en
grupos de
consejeros en formación respecto a competencia multicultural,
empatía y
autoeficacia en consejería (CSE) multicultural al trabajar con
clientes ameri-
canos con ascendencia de Oriente Medio (MEA) estaban
moderadas por
la raza del consejero. Doscientos cincuenta y seis consejeros en
formación
respondieron a 3 viñetas clínicas que ofrecían información
sobre clientes
que tenían diversos grados de características de MEA. Los
resultados del
MANOVA revelaron un efecto principal significativo para la
raza del conse-
jero. Análisis de seguimiento demostraron que los consejeros de
color en
formación comunicaron un mayor nivel de competencia

multicultural y CSE
multicultural que los consejeros blancos.
Palabras clave: multicultural, competencia cultural, americanos
con ascen-
dencia de Oriente Medio
The rapidly changing demographics of the United
States within an in-creasingly multicultural
society have challenged counselors to provide
services to greater numbers of racial and
ethnic minority clients. Given
this, the American Psychological Association (APA)
has provided guidelines
for multicultural competence that urge psychologists to
adhere to minimum
practices that are appropriate for working with diverse
clients (APA, 2003). In
addition to multicultural competence, empathy and
counseling self-efficacy
(CSE) have been highlighted as important counselor
characteristics for work-
ing with clients from diverse cultural backgrounds
(Constantine, 2000; Sue
& Sue, 2008). Additionally, studies that have
investigated counselor multicul-
tural competence with diverse client populations
have revealed differences
Sepideh S. Soheilian and Arpana G. Inman, Department of
Counseling Psychology, Lehigh University.
Sepideh S. Soheilian is now at Counseling Center, Loyola
University Maryland. Correspondence con-
cerning this article should be addressed to Sepideh S. Soheilian,
Counseling Center, Loyola University
Maryland, 4501 North Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21210 (e-

mail: [email protected]).
174 journal of Multicultural counseling and developMent • July
2015 • Vol. 43
between White trainees and trainees of coloron
subscales of multicultural
competence (Chao, 2006; Chao, Wei, Good, &
Flores, 2011; Hill, Vereen,
McNeal, & Stotesbury, 2013; Ponterotto et
al., 1996; Pope-Davis & Ottavi,
1994; Vinson & Neimeyer,2000, 2003). One
cultural group for which thereis
limited counseling competence literature is Middle
Eastern American (MEA)
clients (sometimes referred to as Arab Americans
in the literature).
Historically, the U.S. government and media have
negatively portrayed
MEAs. Today, thesetwo powerful sociopolitical forces
continue to influence
negative biases and stereotypes toward MEAs,
which have resulted in greater
anxiety, depression, and acculturation stress for
this population (Amer, 2005).
Although theoretically based guidelinesexist for
counseling MEAs (Jackson &
Nassar-McMillan, 2006), empirical research in this
area is limited. Because of
the lack of empirical research on MEA clients
and the importance of cultur-
ally competentcounseling interventions for this
population, the purpose of
the current study was to use clinical case

vignettes to explore the differences
between White trainees and trainees of colorin
counselor multicultural com-
petence, empathy, and multicultural CSE for working
with MEAs who varied
by MEA characteristics. The use of case vignettes
was adapted from previous
studies that incorporated clinical vignettes to assess
the multicultural case
conceptualization ability of trainees of colorand
White trainees for working
with a client of color(Constantine & Ladany,
2000; Inman, 2006; Ladany,
Inman, Constantine, & Hofheinz, 1997).
meas
MEAs are defined as descendants of countries
located in the Middle East, which
include Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel,
Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman,
Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Somalia,
Syria, Turkey, the United Arab
Emirates, and Yemen (Soheilian& Inman, 2009).
The Arab American Institute
(2008) reported that the total population of Arab
Americans living within
the United States is 3.5 million. Population
figures from the Arab American
Institute can be more reliable than those of the
U.S. Census because the or-
ganization obtains demographic information from
people who self-identify
as Arab American and represent Arab ethnicities from
multiple Arab/Middle
Eastern countries. According to the U.S. Census
Bureau (2000), MEAs are

classified as White, and thus are ignored as a
culturally diverse population.
MEAs experience unique challenges that
clinicians should be aware of and
integrate into their practice when working with these
clients (Soheilian&
Inman, 2009). Specifically, MEAs can experience
discrimination as a result
of their ethnicity and/or religious affiliation with Islam
(Bozorgmehr &
Bakalian, 2008; Forstenlechner & Al-Waqfi, 2010).
Discriminatory behaviors
against Muslims, who make up about 50% of
MEAs, oftenresult from others’
perceived differences with regard to Muslims’
wardrobe, ways of life, tradi-
tions, and religious practices (Forstenlechner &
Al-Waqfi, 2010). In an effort
to avoid being the target of hostility, many
MEAs have been cautious about
journal of Multicultural counseling and developMent • July
2015 • Vol. 43 175
qualities that may draw negative attention to them,
such as their wardrobe
or name (Sue & Sue, 2008).
The limited empirical literature emphasizing MEA
mental health suggests
that MEAs struggle with psychological distress in
the form of anxiety, depres-
sion, acculturation stress, and low self-esteem in
relation to acts of discrimina-
tion (Amer, 2005; Moradi & Hasan, 2004). In

their study that explored the
relationship between discrimination and mental health
with Arab Americans,
Moradi and Hasan (2004) found a direct
link between perceived discrimina-
tion and psychological distress. Moradi and Hasan’s
research suggested that
perceived discrimination events was related to lower
levels of control in one’s
life, which, in turn, was related to lower self-
esteem and greater psychologi-
cal distress for Arab Americans. Amer (2005)
noted that following the World
Trade Center attacks, Arab Americans reported
greater anxiety, depression,
and acculturation stress. She further noted that
acculturation stress correlated
with anxiety and depression.
Hassouneh and Kulwicki (2007) conducted a pilot
study with 30 Arab Muslim
women living in the United States, and the
researchers’ results suggested that
the women were at risk for acculturative stress,
discrimination, and related
psychological distress. Relatedly,in their study of
350 Muslim Arab Americans,
Abu-Ras and Abu-Bader (2009) found significantly
high levels of posttraumatic
stress disorder and depression, which the authors
contributed to Muslim Arab
Americans’ experiences with living in a hostile
post–September 11 anti-Arab
climate. The combination of living in a toxic
environment in conjunction
with the barriers to help seeking, such as the stigma
of seeking mental health

counseling for MEAs (Soheilian& Inman, 2009),
indicates a need for effective,
culturally competentcounseling interventions for this
group. The current
study prompts the mental health field to both
explore counselor variables
of multicultural competence, empathy, and multicultural
CSE when working
with MEA clients and expand existing multicultural
competence literature to
include a focus on MEA clients.
multicultural counseling competency
Empirical literature with a focus on multicultural
counseling competency with
MEAs is limited. In a survey study
conducted by Sabbah, Dinsmore,and Hof
(2009), the authors concluded that although counselors
perceive multicultural
competence with MEAs as important, they lack
knowledge of the worldview
of MEAs and perceive themselves as less
competentin working with MEAs
when compared with otherracial and ethnic
minorities in the United States.
In their guidelinesfor working with Arab Americans
with disabilities and
their families, Al Khateeb, Hadidi, and Al Khatib
(2014) outlined culturally
appropriate counseling considerations when
working with this population,
such as family considerations, help-seeking behaviors,
and stereotypes.
For the purpose of this study, multicultural
competence has been defined
in accordance to Sue and Sue’s (2008) theory

Journal of Family Issues2017, Vol. 38(7) 904 –920© The A.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Journal of Family Issues2017, Vol. 38(7) 904 –920© The A.docx

Similar to Journal of Family Issues2017, Vol. 38(7) 904 –920© The A.docx (20)

More from tawnyataylor528

More from tawnyataylor528 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Journal of Family Issues2017, Vol. 38(7) 904 –920© The A.docx