The different sources of cultural bias
Sources of Cultural Biases can be interpreting through different frameworks which meaning is attributed. Sue and Sue (1990) attributed class, culture bound values; differences in verbal, emotional, and behavioral expressiveness, differences in causes and effect orientation, and differences in patterns of communication. The discrepancy in attributional systems that are culturally different clients and counselors bring to their interactions may present a barrier. The interactions may fail because of underlying mechanisms of culturally mediated attributional differences. The relationship between subjective culture (Triandis, (1972) and attributional processes are illuminated by theoretical and empirical work conducted by social psychologists as well as important insights from the field of linguistics. The occurrence, form and meaning of a particular behavior in a particular situation may differ from culture to culture because of differences in norms, values, role perceptions, expectations, and historical experience. Individuals from different cultural traditions bring to cross-cultural interactions different implicit, as well as explicit, frameworks for interpreting these experiences (Albert, 1983). These differences in interpretation may lead culturally different people to view the same situation or behavior very differently. There is a great range of within-group variation in the attribution and cause and meaning, between-group variation may account for failed interactions because of differential attributions likely to occur (Salzman, 1990). The silence of an individual from one culture may be interpreted by a culturally different as indifferent or hostility when it was intended as respectful noninterference. The behavioral consequences of this discrepancy could interfere with the development of mutually respectful, cooperative, professional and personal relationships.
Attributions are inferences about the causes of behavior. Heider (1958) indicated that humans are constantly engaged in the process of making inferences about behavior that is observed. Even though the behavior in any interactions that are or not performed can be important, it is the interpretations that are given to these behaviors that are critical (Albert & Triandis, 1979). A compliment can be interpreted as a way to manipulate, help can be seen as demeaning and a gift as a bribe. These interpretations have predictable behavioral consequences and may serve to define the interaction. Discrepant attributions have been found to result in misunderstandings, low personal attraction, rejection and even conflict (Albert, Trianis, 1979; Salzman, 1990). It is thought that such discrepancies are more likely to occur in cross-cultural interactions because of differences in norms, roles, values and expectation that each culture has developed in adapting to life geographically, economically and historical circumstances. Heider (1958) saw all people behaving as naA?ve scientists, constantly engaged in making inferences about events and observed behaviors by attributing causes and motives. Casual attributions, then answer the “why” questions about behaviors. They serve as mediators between all stimuli encountered in the world and responses made to these stimuli. Humans do not respond directly to events around us, we respond to the meanings or interpretations given to these events (Albert and Triandis, 1979).
Pedersen (1987) noted that one source of bias is the implicit assumption that normal means the same to people of different social, economic, political and cultural backgrounds. Instead he argued that “what is considered normal will change according to the situation, the cultural background being judged and the time during which a behavior is being displayed or observed” Pedersen (1987), p. 16). He pointed out the dangers of diagnostic errors when using definitions of normality generated from the perspective of one culture with people of different cultures. Rogers objected to therapists making diagnosis of clients on their own evaluations (Rogers, 1951). He believed however that the individual client should be the only one who should make specific evaluations and set goals. Rogers (1980) advocated the location of power in the person not in the expert. Rogers espoused the view that only the individual embedded in a particular social, cultural and historical context could define normal behavior for him or herself.
Pedersen (1987) asserted that many counselors neglect the development of the family, organizations and society in favor of emphasis on the welfare of the individual. According to Pedersen, counselors are encouraged to focus on changes in the individual client, sometimes blaming the group demands for the client adjustment problems and disregarding the effects of individual change on the groups to which the client belongs. Traditional counseling approaches according to Pedersen (1987) have all too often neglected other academic disciplines that speak to problems and issues of humanity such as sociology, anthropology, theology and medicine. Counselors tend to view their clients problem from a very limited perspective; however their problems are not confined to the disciplines of
psychology and counseling. Pedersen (1989) believed that it is important for counselors to go outside the boundaries of their specialized knowledge and interest, to examine the issue or problem from the client’s cultural perspective. According to Pedersen (1989) many counselors downplay the role of family and peers in providing support to a troubled individual and instead emphasize their professional services. He argued that counselors should attempt to incorporate the client natural support system into a treatment plan, which in some cultures is more acceptable than disclosing intimate information to the counselor, who is likely to be a stranger. Pedersen (1987) argued that too often counselors assume that their role is to change the individual to fit the system and too often fail to question whether the system should be changed to fit the individual.
Counseling and therapy has a history of protecting the status quo against change, at least as perceived by minority cultures, through what has become to be called scientific racism (D.W. Sue &Sue 2003). Counseling psychology has been slow to respond to evidence of cultural bias. Sampson (1993) suggests that psychology and counseling have at best accommodated add on eclectic strategies in response to culturally different movements and special interest groups without fundamentally transforming conventional frameworks of understanding.
Wren (1962) first introduced the concept of cultural encapsulation. The perspective assumes five basic identifying features. First, reality is defined according to one set of cultural assumptions. Second, people become insensitive to cultural variations among individuals and assume their own view is the right one. Third, assumptions are not dependent upon reasonable proof or rational consistency but are believed true, regardless of evidence to the contrary. Fourth, solutions are sought in technique oriented strategies or quick and simple remedies. Fifth every one is judged from the viewpoint of one’s self-reference criteria without regard for the other person’s separate cultural context. There is evidence that the profession of counseling is even more encapsulated now than it was then when Wren wrote his original article (Albee, 1994; Wren, 1995).
Counselors’ bias coming from two sources, such as their own cultural backgrounds and their professional training were highlighted in studies their actions toward groups other than whites. In a study examining this particular source of bias, the degree of cultural stereotyping among practicing counselors was explored using structured interviews (Bloombaum, Yamamoto, & James, 1968). The results indicated that counselor’s attitudes toward Mexican Americans, African Americans, Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans and Jews reflected the similar degree of cultural stereotyping usually found in the general population.
Counselors must recognize racism, prejudice and discrimination, and accept them as real to better understand the living reality of clients who without the benefit of choice find themselves members of minority groups on the basis of differences from the dominant culture in our society, (Glauser, 1999). Each individual counselor must identify and accept his/her personal capacity to help or hinder clients whose life experiences, beliefs and physical makeup and or culture are different from their own. A counselor who is aware of his/her own limitations, when working with members of minority groups will conform to ethical guidelines and assure that their clinical efforts have the potential to help rather than do harm.
Research has shown that prejudicial responses, in the form of stereotype activation, can persist long after an individual makes a conscious break with habitual prejudice thinking (Devine, 1989). Individuals in low prejudice tend to carefully scrutinize messages from minority groups to guard against unfair reactions. The care they take may interfere with the communication process in interaction with minority group and hinder full engagement by a counselor in the therapeutic setting (Petty, Fleming and White, 1999).
The following examples indicate the types of cultural issues and their effects on the counseling situation. In the cultural value system of the Chinese American passivity rather than assertiveness is revered, quiescence rather than verbal articulation is a sign of wisdom and self-effacement rather than confrontation is a model of refinement(Ching and Prosen, 1980). Since humility and modesty is so valued it is difficult for counselors to draw out responses from a Chinese American in a group setting. The reticence which reinforces silence and withdrawal as appropriate ways of dealing with conflict may be interpreted as resistance by the uneducated counselor. Democratic counselors may also be uneasy with the role of the “all knowing father” that the Chinese respect bestows upon them (Ching and Prosen, 1980). African Americans place great value on family, especially their children, who are seen as a gift from God and on social relationships with a great emphasis on community and their place in it. In this context social conflict resolution becomes important, so that peace and equilibrium may be restored to the community while personal conduct becomes secondary. (McFadden and Gbekobov, 1984). In his discussion of counseling the Northern Natives of Canada, Darou (1987) notes that counseling is seen as cultural racism when it does not fit native values. These values are cooperation, concreteness, lack of interference, respect for elders, and the tendency to organize by space rather than time and dealing with the land as animate not an inanimate object. Bernard and Flores-Ortiz (1982) point out that Latin cultures view the family as primary support for its members. Any suggestions that the family is not fulfilling that obligation can bring shame, added stress and an increased reluctance to seek professional services. Involving family members in treatment will most likely ensure successful counseling outcomes with Latinos.
In examining the aspect of grief, the way the client reacts to it should be noted and respected this helps them to normalize their experience. The counselor should not try and fix the person’s pain, but be as present as possible and pay attention to what the person is telling you in the moment. Give clients the permission to talk; they may have a need to tell their story over and over, as a part of the healing process. The counselor should give the client room to express their feelings and not censor them. It is okay to ask culturally different clients how grief and loss are addressed in their culture. As counselors we must be aware of our own feelings about grief and loss from personal experiences. Self-awareness helps avoid expecting clients to act like we would in a similar situation.
Alcohol and other drug treatment programs continually report relatively low success rates among African-American participants. There is a need to consider treatment approaches that are more culturally competent.
Counselors must view the identity and the development of culturally diverse people in terms of multiple interactive factors rather than strictly cultural framework (Romero, 1985). A pluralistic counselor considers all facets of the clients’ personal history, family history, and social and cultural orientation (Arcinega and Newlou, 1981).
