Examining Psychological Theories Applied To Diverse Groups ✓ Solved

In examining psychological theories as applied to diverse gr

In examining psychological theories as applied to diverse groups, students will interview family members and research family history. At minimum, students should: 1. Identify the country or countries of origin and provide a brief summary of how ancestors came to live in the United States. 2. Discuss values, morals, religious or spiritual beliefs, or other items important to the student's nuclear and extended family. 3. Explain how the family has handled interactions with racial/ethnic groups different from their background and how family members who belong to other minority groups (e.g., women, sexual minorities, multiracial individuals, persons with disabilities, older adults) have been treated or what they have experienced. 4. Reflect upon and briefly recount what has been learned about the family system and explore any biases the student may maintain toward those who are different. This assignment should focus on family and cultural upbringing rather than biology. Standard APA format is required; first person is permitted.

Paper For Above Instructions

Personal Family Cultural Inventory and Theoretical Reflection

This paper summarizes my family history and cultural upbringing, examines family values and intergroup interactions, and reflects on biases I hold. I integrate psychological theories to interpret family dynamics and cultural transmission.

1. Countries of Origin and Migration Summary

My family’s ancestry traces to two primary places: my paternal grandparents emigrated from rural Jalisco, Mexico, to California in the 1950s following agricultural labor opportunities, while my maternal great-grandparents left County Cork, Ireland, in the early 1900s during economic hardship and settled in the Northeastern United States. Oral histories and immigration records collected during family interviews confirm these patterns and align with broader waves of labor- and opportunity-driven migration described in migration studies (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001).

2. Family Values, Morals, and Religious/Spiritual Beliefs

Values emphasized across my nuclear and extended family include strong familismo (family loyalty and obligation), a work ethic centered on perseverance, and Catholic religious practices—baptisms, weekly Mass attendance, and feast-day traditions—especially strong on the paternal side. On the maternal side, values skew toward frugality, community mutual aid, and an emphasis on education as a pathway to stability. These cultural patterns reflect how cultural values transmit intergenerationally and shape behavior within the microsystem of the family (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 2001) help explain pronounced collectivist tendencies (higher emphasis on group cohesion) in the Mexican-origin branch of the family compared to more individualist tendencies on the Irish-American side.

3. Family Interactions with Racial/Ethnic Groups and Treatment of Minority Members

Historically, my Mexican-origin relatives experienced segregation and discrimination in employment and schooling in the 1950s–1970s, often being steered into manual labor jobs and excluded from certain neighborhood amenities. The Irish-American side experienced early anti-Irish sentiment upon arrival but gradually integrated into white ethnic neighborhoods and gained socioeconomic mobility across generations. In terms of intra-family minority experiences, my aunt, who identifies as a lesbian, reported family ambivalence in earlier decades—religious doctrine created initial friction, but over time, close relational bonds and exposure led to increased acceptance. A multiracial cousin described repeated questioning of identity outside the family, and my grandfather with a physical disability reported mixed treatment: respect within family networks but limited access to public accommodations in his youth.

The family’s patterns of contact, discrimination, and gradual change are consistent with Allport’s contact hypothesis and the role of sustained interpersonal interactions in reducing prejudice (Allport, 1954). Additionally, social identity processes—ingroup/outgroup distinctions described by Tajfel and Turner (1986)—help explain shifts in how different family branches categorized others as threats or as partners over time.

4. Reflection on Family System and Personal Biases

Engaging in interviews and historical research highlighted family resilience and adaptation, but also revealed implicit attitudes and blind spots. For example, older relatives occasionally used stereotyped language about other racial groups; younger family members generally adopt more inclusive language, suggesting intergenerational value shifts. A family-systems perspective (Bowen, 1978) clarifies how beliefs propagate through relational patterns—rules, loyalties, and anxieties—so that change in one generation influences the next.

On a personal level, I recognize two salient biases. First, I have occasionally assumed competence based on socioeconomic cues—a class-based bias that can mask structural constraints. Second, subtle in-group favoritism toward family members who share my cultural habits (language, food preferences) surfaced during self-reflection. Recognizing these biases aligns with reflexive practice advocated in culturally competent counseling (Sue & Sue, 2016), which stresses awareness of one’s positionality and the need to guard against unexamined assumptions.

Theoretical Integration and Implications

Several psychological frameworks illuminate my family’s cultural story. Berry’s acculturation model (1997) helps explain differing strategies across relatives: assimilation trends are visible in some Irish-American descendants who relinquished cultural practices for mainstream norms, while integration is evident among Mexican-origin relatives who maintain cultural traditions while participating in broader society. Phinney’s work on ethnic identity development (1990) maps generational differences in identity salience and exploration—young adults show more active identity integration and pride than some older relatives.

Intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991) is crucial for understanding experiences of family members who occupy multiple marginalized statuses (e.g., a multiracial queer cousin). These layered identities result in distinct patterns of discrimination that single-axis frameworks would miss. Finally, Portes and Rumbaut’s longitudinal perspective on immigrant incorporation (2001) underscores how structural factors—labor markets, schooling, legislation—shape trajectories often more than individual attributes alone.

Conclusion and Action Steps

Studying my family through psychological theories revealed cultural continuity, adaptation, and areas requiring deliberate change. To reduce my biases I commit to (a) ongoing education on systemic inequalities, (b) purposeful intergroup contact beyond family networks to counter stereotyping (Allport, 1954), and (c) reflective practice—documenting and challenging assumptions in real time per culturally competent frameworks (Sue & Sue, 2016). These steps align with theory-informed strategies to promote inclusion across family and community contexts.

References

• Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
• Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology, 46(1), 5–34.
• Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. Jason Aronson.
• Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
• Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
• Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 499–514.
• Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. University of California Press.
• Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (2016). Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Wiley.
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall.
• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.