Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2021-7
The Cost of Being “True to Yourself” for Mixed Selves: Frame Switching Leads to Perceived Inauthenticity and Downstream Social Consequences for Biculturals
A growing population of biculturals—who identify with at least two cultures—often frame switch, adapting their behavior to their shifting cultural contexts. We demonstrate that frame switching biculturals are perceived as inauthentic by majority Americans and consequently seen as less likable, trustworthy, warm, and competent compared to biculturals who do not frame switch or a neutral control (Studies 1–3, N = 763). In Study 2, describing the bicultural’s behavior as authentic despite its inconsistency partly alleviated the negative effects of frame switching. In our preregistered Study 3, majority American women were less romantically interested in and less willing to date a bicultural who frame switched in his dating profiles (mediated by inauthenticity). The way biculturals negotiate their cultures can have social costs and create a barrier to intercultural relations.
AlbujaA. F.SanchezD. T.GaitherS. E. (2018). Fluid racial presentation: Perceptions of contextual “passing” among biracial people. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 77, 132–142.
2.
AlvesH. (2018). Sharing rare attitudes attracts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(8), 1270–1283.
3.
CilaJ.LalondeR. N. (2019). What’s in a name? Motivations for baby-naming in multicultural contexts. In Al-HoorieA.MacIntyreP. D. (Eds.), Contemporary Language Motivation Research: 60 Years Since Gardner and Lambert (1959) (pp. 130–152). Multilingual Matters.
4.
CrossS. E.GoreJ. S.MorrisM. L. (2003). The relational-interdependent self-construal, self-concept consistency, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 933–944. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.933
5.
CuddyA. J. C.FiskeS. T.GlickP. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 631–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631
6.
CuddyA. J. C.FiskeS. T.GlickP. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(07)00002-0
7.
DoucerainM.DereJ.RyderA. G. (2013). Travels in hyper-diversity: Multiculturalism and the contextual assessment of acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37(6), 686–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.09.007
8.
EnglishT.ChenS. (2011). Self-concept consistency and culture: The differential impact of two forms of consistency. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(6), 838–849. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211400621
9.
FletcherG. J.SimpsonJ. A.ThomasG. (2000). The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 340–354.
10.
HayesA. F.PreacherK. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67, 451–770. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12028
11.
HongY.-y.KheiM. (2014). Dynamic multiculturalism: The interplay of socio-cognitive, neural, and genetic mechanisms. In Benet-MartínezV.HongY. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multicultural identity (pp. 11–34). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199796694.013.026
JosephsL.WarachB.GoldinK. L.JonasonP. K.GormanB. S.MasroorS.LebronN. (2019). Be yourself: Authenticity as a long-term mating strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 143, 118–127.
14.
KashimaY.KashimaE.FarsidesT.KimU.StrackF.WerthL.YukiM. (2004). Culture and context-sensitive self: The amount and meaning of context-sensitivity of phenomenal self differ across cultures. Self and Identity, 3(2), 125–141.
15.
KernisM. H.GoldmanB. M. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: Theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 283–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38006-9
16.
KrumhuberE.MansteadA. S.CoskerD.MarshallD.RosinP. L.KappasA. (2007). Facial dynamics as indicators of trustworthiness and cooperative behavior. Emotion, 7(4), 730–735. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.4.730
17.
KunstJ. R.ThomsenL.DovidioJ. F. (2018). Divided loyalties: Perceptions of disloyalty underpin bias toward dually-identified minority-group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000168
18.
LaFromboiseT.ColemanH. L. K.GertonJ. (1993). Psychological impact of biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 395–412. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.395
19.
LalondeR. N.CilaJ.LouE.GiguèreB. (2013). Delineating groups for cultural comparisons in a multicultural setting: Not all Westerners should be put into the same melting pot. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 45(4), 296–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034257
20.
LopezF. G.RiceK. G. (2006). Preliminary development and validation of a measure of relationship authenticity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(3), 362–371. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.3.362
21.
McConahayJ. B.HardeeB. B.BattsV. (1981). Has racism declined in America? It depends on who is asking and what is asked. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 25(4), 563–579.
22.
MokA.MorrisM. W. (2013). Bicultural self-defense in consumer contexts: Self-protection motives are the basis for contrast versus assimilation to cultural cues. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(2), 175–188.
23.
NisbettR. E.PengK.ChoiI.NorenzayanA. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.291
24.
PerunovicW. Q. E.HellerD.RafaeliE. (2007). Within-person changes in the structure of emotion: The role of cultural identification and language. Psychological Science, 18, 607–613. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01947.x
25.
RempelJ. K.HolmesJ. G.ZannaM. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 95.
26.
RycynaC. C.ChampionC. D.KellyA. E. (2009). First impressions after various types of deception: Less favorable following expectancy violation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31(1), 40–48.
27.
SkinnerA. L.PerryS. P.GaitherS. (2019). Not quite monoracial: Biracial stereotypes explored. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219858344
28.
SpencerS. J.ZannaM. P.FongG. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 845.
29.
TomaC. L.HancockJ. T.EllisonN. B. (2008). Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(8), 1023–1036.
30.
WestA. L.ZhangR.YampolskyM.SasakiJ. (2017). More than the sum of its parts: A transformative theory of biculturalism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48 (7), 963–990. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022117709533
31.
WestA. L.ZhangR.YampolskyM. A.SasakiJ. (2018). The potential cost of cultural fit: Frame switching undermines perceptions of authenticity. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2622.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
