Psych422 Research Paper

Running Head: MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION AND SOCIAL IDENTITY 1
The Effects of Multicultural Education
On Students’ Conceptions of Self-Reported Social Identity
Grace Kirkley
University of Michigan
Author Note: Special thank you and acknowledgements to Dr. Lorraine Gutiérrez, Bryan
Montano-Maceda and the Multicultural Praxis Lab for use of their data and materials and for
their overall guidance and direction in completion of this research.

MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION AND SOCIAL IDENTITY 2
Abstract
The primary purpose of this study is to determine the effects of multicultural education
intervention techniques on self-reported Social Identity measures including gender,
race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, religion and sexual identity, and to evaluate the interaction
between different social identity/ demographic groups and social identity change over time. This
study follows a quasi-experimental design, whereby surveys are administered to students at the
start of the elected course and after the course has been completed. Three data groups collected
from diverse students in 2000, 2001 and 2002 from a large, Midwestern university were analyzed
for statistical significance. Our hypotheses were partially supported by the data: We observed
significant mean change increase from time one to time two in Socioeconomic Status Identity,
and that the non-multicultural pedagogical group scored significantly lower in average identity
score than did the multicultural pedagogical diversity course students in the dimension of Sexual
Identity change. Analysis of various social identity groups described significant mean changes
over time in various Social Identity dimensions within certain minority groups, including
students identifying as “Jewish,” “Bisexual,” or “Asian American.” Furthermore, significant
patterns in Social Identity change were found to be negatively correlated with age.

The Impact of Multicultural Education on
Students’ Conceptions of Self-reported Social Identity
Multicultural educational pedagogies are directed towards addressing issues that arise in
an expansive multicultural world. These pedagogies often act as interventional techniques
within institutions of higher education in order to assess and change students’ awareness,
perceptions and, ultimately, behavior surrounding issues in diversity such as racism, classism
and social justice. Multicultural education techniques many times address aspects of social
identity, including its development, pride and degree of association. Different facets of social
identity may include race, ethnicity and culture, gender identity, sexual orientation,
socioeconomic status and religion. Moreover, as societal populations become more diverse and
intricately complex, issues may arise in respect to one’s own place or identification with these
social markers. Multicultural pedagogies are often implemented to a young cohort, namely
college-aged students, ages 18-25. This age group is a source of new and emerging research in
the field of developmental psychology and is a particularly pivotal time period in identity
formation and “exploration” (Arnett, 2000). Multicultural education can thus serve as a
constructive mediator of social identity and, furthermore, aid in developing a greater
understanding of how social identity plays a role in the greater multicultural world. The purpose
of this study is to evaluate how multicultural education impacts self-reported conceptions of
social identity over time, and to determine which social identity groups experience changes in
different dimensions of social identity facets.
Literature Review
Identity refers to “the individual’s psychological relationship to… social category
systems” (Sherif, 1982, as quoted in Frable, 1997). As set forth by Henri Tajfel and J.C Turner,

Social Identity refers to one’s place in a greater social group, and is an important component of
self esteem and how one makes distinctions and comparisons between his group and other’s
(1979). These comparisons are critical in understanding in-group and out-group perceptions, as
well as constructions of “us” and “them” that can be sources of conflict in multicultural societies
(Tajfel and Turner, 1979). It is important to note that social identity as well as identity on a
broader scale are social constructs, which are created by people and are ascribed meaning rather
than inherently possessing it.
Definitions of the various sub-dimensions of social identity vary and are often subject to
definitional change over time. For purposes of this study, the following definitions will be used
in describing the meaning of the variables assessed in the methodology: Racial/Ethnic Identity
can be defined as group self-consciousness when referring to a shared ancestry or cultural
tradition, sometimes including biological indicators such as skin color, although this idea has
largely been abandoned and debated (Brown, 2010). Religious Identity refers to how an
individual or a group is influenced by religious association (Azaransky, 2012). Sexual and
Gender Identity are emerging fields of research that aid in creation of a more comprehensive
view of human social identity. Oftentimes conflated, Sexual Identity and Gender Identity differ.
Sexual Identity predominately refers to one’s preference for sexual partners, whether they be of
the same or different sex (Baker, 2010). Gender Identity relates to how one judges and identifies
oneself on a spectrum ranging from masculine to feminine or somewhere in between. The
definition of Socioeconomic Status (SES) pertains to an “individual’s position in society” within
a hierarchical structure based on “wealth, power, and social status” (Sirin, 2010).
The developmental stage known as “emerging adulthood” has been isolated as a critical
period of identity development. Erik Erikson’s neo-analytic “Psychosocial Stages,” namely the

fifth stage of development entitled “Ego identity vs. Role Confusion,” provide theoretical
backing for newer research on the 18-25 age range and its importance in identity formation
(Erikson, 1959). Further work conducted on this age range reflects the importance of this age
group in self-exploration, curiosity and partial autonomy as individuals leave adolescence and
transition into adults (Arnett, 2000). For multicultural education purposes, this age group is of
the greatest interest as it has been suggested that education during this period may stimulate
changes in outlook, perceptions of the world and fundamental morals, principles and ideals
(Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, quoted in Arnett, 2000).
Using the theoretical framework described above, we predict that students enrolled in the
multicultural pedagogies will exhibit a significant increase in self-reported survey scores across
the dimensions of Social Identity from survey one to survey two, as compared to the non-
multicultural pedagogical control group. Sub-dimensions of Social Identity to be examined
include Race/Ethnic Identity, Religious Identity, Gender Identity, Sexual Orientation Identity
and Socioeconomic Status. We also predict that minority groups will experience greater average
changes over time within the various Social Identity dimensions across all pedagogies.
Furthermore, we hypothesize that the age will be negatively correlated with Social Identity
Change over time.
Method
Participants
The participant demographic consisted of 1189 total college students from a large,
Midwestern University between the ages of 18-45 (Mage= 19.93 years), 95% of whom were
between the ages of 18-22. The participant sample was collected over three years, 2001-2003,

with a new group of students participating each subsequent year. Data was obtained from both
male (39%) and female (61%) participants of varying racial and ethnic groups including
White/Caucasian/European-American (46.7%), Black/African/African-American (22%), Asian-
American/Asian/Pacific Islander (18.8%), Hispanic/Latino/Chicano (4.9%), Native
American/Native Hawaiian/Native Alaskan/American Indian (.8%), Arab-American/Middle
Eastern/Chaldean (2.7%), Bi/Multiracial (2%), Other (1.1%). Participants were selected to
participate in this study through enrollment in one of three Multicultural Education courses:
Intergroup Dialogues, Detroit Initiative and Diversity Course for Residence Hall Advisers (Psych
405). Students enrolled in a non-multicultural pedagogical course, Introduction to Psychology,
served as a Comparison Group.
Materials and Procedure
Pre-test surveys were self-administered to students using pencil and paper in each of the
three Multicultural Educational Pedagogies and the one Comparison Group on the first day of
classes. This survey contained variables related to background or demographic information such
as age, gender and race, as well as variables related to motivations for electing the course, social
identity, multicultural attitudes and beliefs and questions associated with social justice and
diversity issues. On the final day of classes, a post-test survey was self-administered to the
students in each aforementioned class. This survey assessed many of the same variables as the
pre-test, but also included additional questions and variables which involved participants’
reflections on the experience of the course and its efficacy in addressing issues related to
multiculturalism, diversity and intergroup relations. For each year data was collected (i.e. 2000,
2001 and 2002), pre and post-test surveys were altered slightly by omitting or adding additional
scales, questions or variables. It is important to note that students who enrolled in any of the

courses in year one were ineligible to complete the survey in the following two years, just as any
year two students were ineligible to participate in the survey in year three.
Variables Tested
The variables of interest measure aspects of Social identity, which include Gender
Identity, Racial Identity, Socioeconomic Status Identity, Religious Identity and Sexual
Orientation Identity. For each subtype of Social Identity, four survey questions were
administered for each and were consistent across each variable and from survey one (pre-test) to
survey two (post-test). Each question assessed a dimension of the Social Identity subtype,
including an “Importance” dimension, a “Centrality” dimension, a “Common Fate” dimension
and a “Pride” dimension. These scales were adopted from Gurin, et. al, 1999, “Context, identity,
and intergroup relations.” For each question, survey participants were instructed to answer the
questions with respect to their perceived identity and to rate their responses on scales of 1-4. The
Importance dimension asks, “How important is your [insert dimension] identity to you?” and is
judged on a scale of 1-4 ranging from 1 = “Not very important,” to 4 = “Extremely important.”
The Centrality dimension asks, “How often do you think about being a member of your group
and what you have in common with others in this group?” with responses ranging from 1=
“Hardly ever,” to 4 = “A lot.” The Common fate dimension asks the participant to “Indicate the
extent to which something that happens in your life is affected by what happens to other people
in your group?” and is judged on a 1-4 scale, with responses ranging from 1= “Not at all,” to 4 =
“A great deal.” Lastly, the Pride dimension asks, “How proud do you feel when a member of
your group accomplishes something outstanding?” and uses the same 1-4 rating criteria as the
Common Fate dimension.

Results
We predicted that students enrolled in the multicultural education pedagogies
(“Intergroup Dialogues,” “Detroit Initiative Class,” and “Diversity Course for Residence Hall
Advisers (Psych 405)”) would result, on average, in larger scores in each given Social Identity
marker (Gender Identity, Racial Identity, Socioeconomic Status Identity, Religious Identity and
Sexual Orientation Identity) over time from survey one (pre-test) to survey two (post-test), as
compared to the non-multicultural education pedagogy, “Introduction to Psychology.” We also
predicted that minority groups would experience greater average changes over time within the
various Social Identity dimensions across all pedagogies, and that the age will be negatively
correlated with Social Identity Change over time. A combined data set that included the student
survey data from years 2000, 2001 and 2002 was used in analysis through the statistics program,
SPSS. For our purposes, each sub-dimension of the Social Identity markers (“Importance,”
“Centrality,” “Common Fate” and “Pride”) were combined into a single continuous variable for
survey time one, time two and the difference.
Paired T-Tests were conducted to measure the average difference between time one and
time two measures of Social Identity. We found that Gender Identity, from survey time one to
survey time two, undertook a significant change in its average score (p-value= .038, α=.05).
Similarly, Socioeconomic Status Identity from time one to time two resulted in a nearly-
significant change in average score (p-value=.053, α=.05).
1-Way ANOVA was used to analyze Social Identity Scores by course type. Sexual
Orientation Identity scores, on average, saw a significant mean difference by “course type” as the
independent variable (sig= .017, α=.05). The average significant difference also varied between
course groups: “Introduction to Psych” and “Psych 405” (p-value=.022, α=0.05); “Intergroup

Dialogues” and “Psych 405” (p-value=.007, α=.05); “Detroit Initiative” and “Psych 405” (p-
value=.021, α=.05). These results reflect that for the Social Identity marker, “Sexual
Orientation,” students’ average reported scores in Sexual Identity dimensions from survey one to
survey two was significant at a 5% significance level based on course type, as well as between
the specific course type groups mentioned above.
1-Way ANOVA was also utilized to explain differences in Social Identity markers from
survey one to survey two based on Demographic and Social Identity group factors, which
include reported Primary Race, Gender, Socioeconomic Status, Sexual Orientation and Age
Categories. We observed that the average mean difference in Gender Identity Difference was
nearly significant at the 5% level between the Sexual Identity groups
“Homosexual/Lesbian/Gay” and “Bisexual” (μ (difference)= -1.83916, p-value= .051).
Furthermore, the average mean difference in Gender Identity Difference was also nearly
significant at the 5% level (p-value= .056, α=.05) between groups (Group one: 17 and under,
Group two: 18-22, Group three: 23 and older).
For the Racial Identity Difference variable, the mean difference between primary racial
groups was significant at the 5% level: the average racial identity scores by students who
reported “White/Caucasian/European American” was significantly different than average scores
reported by the “Asian American/ Asian/ Pacific Islander” group (μ (difference)= .68463, p-
value=.011, α=.05). Racial Identity change was also significant by sexual orientation. The mean
difference for racial identity scores were significant between the groups
“Homosexual/Lesbian/Gay” and “Other” (μ (difference)= -2.633, p-value= .045, α=.05). Racial
Identity change was additionally impacted by Socioeconomic Status. The average difference
between the following groups was significant at the 5% level: “Upper Class/Rich/Well-Off” and

“Upper Middle Class” (μ (difference)= -.78979, p-value= .026), “Upper Middle Class” and
“Middle Class” (μ (difference)= .58067, p-value= .023). A difference in Racial Identity change
means was most significantly observed in groups of reported Primary Religion. Overall, Racial
Identity Difference and Primary Religion had a significant difference of means with a
significance level of .000. Between groups, the following reported primary racial identities were
significant at a 1% level: “Protestant/Catholic/Greek Orthodox” and “Jewish” (μ (difference)= -
1.47930, p-value= .000); “Jewish” and “Muslim” (μ (difference)= 2.52308, p-value= .000);
“Jewish” and “None/Agnostic/Atheist” (μ (difference)= 1.23913, p-value= .003); “Jewish” and
“Other/Hindu/Buddhist/Mormon/Unitarian/Spiritual/Jainism/Sikhism” (μ (difference)= 1.78558,
p-value= .000).
Socioeconomic Status Identity average scores were shown to have significant differences
in means between demographic groups, including those pertaining to the indicated Primary Race,
Socioeconomic Status and Age Categories. SES Identity change scores were significant at the
5% level between the following primary racial groups: “White/Caucasian/European American”
and “Black/African American/African” (μ (difference)= .50325, p-value= .032);
“White/Caucasian/European American” and “Hispanic/Latino(a)/Chicano” (μ (difference)=
.83808, p-value= .036); “Black/African American/African” and “Asian American/Asian/Pacific
Islander” (μ (difference)= -.56437, p-value= .053); “Asian American / Asian / Pacific Islander”
and “Hispanic / Latino(a) / Chicano” μ (difference)= .89920, p-value= .039). SES Identity
change scores were also significant (α=.05) between the following SES groups: “Upper Class /
Rich / Well-off” and “Lower class / poor” (μ (difference)= 1.00588, p-value= .034); “Upper
Middle Class” and “Lower Class / poor” (μ (difference)= 1.04873, p-value= .020); “Middle
Class” and “Lower Class/poor” (μ (difference)= .83160, p-value= .048).

Finally, we observed that mean Religious Identity change scores were significantly
different by reported Socioeconomic Status categories, with an overall p-value of .009 (α=.05).
There was a significant mean difference at the 5% level between the following Socioeconomic
Identity groups: “Upper Middle Class” and “Middle Class” (μ (difference)= .68667, p-value=
.002); “Middle Class” and “Lower class/poor” (μ (difference)= -1.08561, p-value= .006).
Linear regression analysis was also conducted to evaluate the relationship between Social
Identity Differnce from survey one to survey two and age. It was shown that as Gender Identity
Difference and Age (Exact) exhibited a negative relationship, meaning that, on average, we
observed that as the independent variable, Age (years), increased, Gender Identity Difference
scores decreased (β= -.085). The significance of this relationship was observed to be .052, taken
at a 5% alpha level. Similarly, the variable Religious Identity Difference was observed to exhibit
a negative relationship with Age (years), as well. As the variable Age increased, Religious
Identity Difference tended to decrease (β= -.094, p-value= .024, α=.05).
Discussion
The data show that our initial hypotheses were partially correct in the following ways:
We predicted that aspects of Social Identity would increase from pre-test to post-test, resulting in
a significant mean difference in identity scores. We observed significant mean change in Gender
Identity as well as a nearly significant mean change in Socioeconomic Status Identity scores.
This indicates that the composite score for Gender Identity and SES Identity for students (who
rated their overall conceptions of Social Identity along the 4 dimensions of Importance,
Centrality, Common Fate and Pride) saw a statistically significant change in average scores from
the pre-test to the post-test. However, the direction was not as we had anticipated for Gender
Identity. Gender Identity Average scores were higher for the post-test averages (μ (difference)=

.18406, p-value= .038). However, SES Identity scores did follow the predicted trend, but were
marginally insignificant at a 5% level. From the pre-test to the post-test, the mean change in
Socioeconomic Status Identity scores increased, on average (μ (difference)= 1.17467, p-value=
.053). In this way, our predicted hypothesis was both negated and supported by the data.
Some differences in average scores of Social Identity (Gender, SES, Religion, Sexual
Orientation) did appear to support our hypothesis, which stated that Social Identity scores over
time would be increased, on average, for students enrolled in the multicultural education
pedagogies. Overall mean change from pretest to posttest in Sexual Identity Scores was
statistically significant overall by course type (p-value= .017). As predicted, the Sexual Identity
Difference scores between the non-multicultural education pedagogy, “Intro to Psychology,” and
the multicultural education pedagogy, “Diversity Course for Residence Hall Advisers (Psych
405)” had a difference in means that was statistically significant in comparison to the control
group, “Intro to Psychology,” having the lower average composite identity score (μ (difference)=
-.62384, p-value= .022). Moreover, we observed a significant mean change in Sexual Identity
Difference between students in “Intergroup Dialogues” and “Diversity Course for Residence
Hall Advisers (Psych 405)” as well as between students enrolled in “Detroit Initiative” and
“Diversity Course for Residence Hall Advisers (Psych 405).” In both comparisons, the Diversity
Course was observed to have the greater average Social Identity score and saw the most number
of significant comparisons in analysis of Sexual Identity Difference. Therefore, our hypotheses
were only partially supported, as the instances described above were the only statistically
significant outcomes under these conditions.
More substantial differences, however, were observed in average identity score changes
from pre-test to post-test based on Demographic or Social Identity group. Across all four

pedagogical groups, we witnessed interesting group dynamics and trends in which group(s) saw
the most significant changes from pre-test to post-test analyses. Most notably, in analysis of
Gender Identity Difference scores, we discerned that students who identified as “Bisexual” had
greater mean identity scores on average than did students who reported their sexual orientation to
be “Homosexual/Lesbian/Gay.” One explanation for this result could be that those who identify
as being “Bisexual” may experience their Social Identities as being multidimensional,
encapsulating aspects of both a normative Heterosexual/Straight identity as well as a more
marginal Homosexual/Lesbian/Gay identity simultaneously. Secondly, bisexuals can experience
even more significant discrimination, stigma and other negative outcomes even as compared to
other members of the LGBT community (Movement Advancement Project (MAP), BiNetUSA &
Bisexual Resource Center, 2014).
Racial Identity Difference analysis had the most instances of statistical significance,
including interactions with Race, Sexual Orientation, Socioeconomic Status and Primary
Religion factors. Significant differences in Racial Identity Difference scores between students
identifying as “White/Caucasian/European-American” and those identifying as “Asian-
American/Asian/Pacific Islander” could again be explained through tendencies towards self-
consciousness of identity and/or the experience of having multiple racial or ethnic identities in
non-white, minority populations such as Asian-Americans. Additionally, dynamics within
racial/ethnic and socioeconomic demographics are revealed in the scores relating to
Socioeconomic Status Identity Difference and Racial Identity Difference. Statistically
significant differences in Racial Identity Difference between classes are potentially revealing
insights into connections between race and class. Socioeconomic Status, as research has shown,
is intricately related to race and ethnicity, which then can lead to debilitating realities of

stratification and severe health disparities (House & Williams, 2000). The significant differences
we have observed in Racial and Socioeconomic Status Identities can potentially be attributed to
the fundamental, underlying connections between race and socioeconomic status, particularly in
racial and ethnic minorities and those occupying the working to middle class strata.
Another significant component to Racial Identity Difference was revealed to be the
Primary Religion demographic factor. It was observed that students who reported “Jewish” as
their primary religion had higher Racial Identity Difference scores compared to the
“Protestant/Catholic/Greek Orthodox” group, as well as the “Muslim” group. One could
attribute these findings to be indicative of the long-standing tradition of and perception of
Judaism as being a very tightly-knit, culturally strong, ethnic religion. Strong ethnic, cultural
ties, therefore, could serve as an important factor contributing to higher Racial Identity
Difference scores.
Regression analysis of Gender and Religious Identity Differences with age as the
explanatory variable is concurrent with the literature set forth first by Erik Erikson in the 1950s
and later by Jeffrey Arnett (among others) regarding the theory of identity development in the
period of “Emerging Adulthood,” ages 18-25. Because 98.3% of our population is between the
ages of 18-25 years, the period of “Emerging Adulthood” is of particular interest to our study.
The data suggest that Social Identity development, particularly of Gender and Religious
Identities, takes place within this crucial timeframe. Our study also suggests that change in these
facets of identity tend to decline as age increases. This period of “Emerging Adult” is significant
in that it often coincides with exposure to higher education, which relates back to multicultural
pedagogies and their potential to shape and cultivate identity formation.

The results discussed in this study have a number of implications. First of all, the
patterns displayed throughout the data can be reflective of broader trends of the intersection
between educational strategies and the formation of Social Identity, as well as the various sub
dimensions of Social Identity that interact with each one another, such as Race and
Socioeconomic Status. Furthermore, this study and others suggest that Social Identity is
explored and formed within a relatively small timeframe in early or “Emerging Adulthood.”
Joined with previous knowledge and research on the effects of multicultural education, the
results produced in this study can serve as theoretical backing to implement multicultural
education during this timeframe within higher education.
There are, however, various limitations to the study that was conducted. Limitations
include: a relatively specific timeframe outside of the past ten years that may exhibit cohort
effects, an uneven female to male ratio and self-selection bias (in selecting multicultural
education courses). Additionally, it is unknown how these results in education and Social
Identity are generalizable across cultures. In particular, identity formation in more traditionally
collectivist-oriented societies may undertake different process than in more individualist
countries, such as the United States. It is possible to speculate that traditionally collectivist
societies may place less value on self-focused identity and more on social identity in its
relationship to others and contribution to intergroup needs.
As we are living and participating in an evermore culturally diverse world, the need to
form and nurture one’s own Social Identities as well as be able to act with others’ is undeniably
pertinent. Further questions to pursue in relationship to these trends, and this study in particular,
include: What particular social identity groups are most susceptible to change? Which ones
remain steadfast and unwavering to techniques, such as multicultural pedagogies, especially over

time? How can multicultural education and knowledge on the formation and change of Social
Identities address issues of disparity, inequality and marginalization? Further studies in this
subject area will undoubtedly continue to elucidate and expand the knowledge necessary in
addressing these questions.

References
Arnett, Jeffrey J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens
through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469-480. doi: 10.1037//0003-
066X.55.5.469.
Azaransky, S. (2012). Religious identity. In R. Jackson, & M. Hogg (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
identity, 632-637. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc, doi;
http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/10.4135/9781412979306.n203
Baker, M. (2010). Sexual identity. In R. Jackson, & M. Hogg (Eds.), Encyclopedia of identity,
721-724. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:
Battaglia, J. (2010). Gender. In R. Jackson, & M. Hogg (Eds.), Encyclopedia of identity, 306-
308. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:
Brown, T. (2010). Culture, ethnicity, and race. In R. Jackson, & M. Hogg (Eds.), Encyclopedia
of identity, 186-190. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:
http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/10.4135/9781412979306.n60.
Erikson, Erik H. (1959). Identity and the Life Cycle. New York: Norton.
Frable, Deborrah E.S. (1997). Gender, racial, ethnic, sexual, and class identities. Annual Review
of Psychology, 48, 139-62.
Gurin, P., Peng, T., Lopez, G., & Nagda, B. A. (1999). Context, identity, and intergroup
relations. In D. Prentice & D. Miller (Eds.), Cultural divides: understanding and
overcoming group conflict: 5, 133-172. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

House, J. S., & Williams, D. R. (2000). Understanding and reducing socioeconomic and
racial/ethnic disparities in health. In B. D. Smedley & S. L. Syme (Eds.), Promoting
health: Intervention strategies from social and behavioral research, 81-125. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
Kawakami, Kerry & Dion, Kenneth L. (1995). Social identity and affect as determinants of
collective action: toward an integration of relative deprivation and social identity.
Theory Psychology, 5(4), 551-557.
Konieczka, L. (2010). Group identity. In R. Jackson, & M.Hogg (Eds.), Encyclopedia of identity,
632-637. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc, doi;
Movement Advancement Project (MAP), BiNetUSA & Bisexual Resource Center. (2014).
Understanding issues facing bisexual americans. Retrieved from LGBTmap.org.
Sirin, Selcuk R. (2010). Socioeconomic Status. In Clauss-Ehlers, Caroline S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of Cross-Cultural School Psycholog, 911-918. New York, NY: Springer US, doi;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-71799-9_395
Tajfel, Henri & Turner, John. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict, 33-47.

Psych422 Research Paper

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to Psych422 Research Paper

Similar to Psych422 Research Paper (20)

Psych422 Research Paper