Professional Psychology: Research and Practice1989, Vol. 20, No. 6, 369-376
Copyright 1989 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.0735-7028/89/S00.75
Development of Culturally Sensitive Psychotherapists
Steven Regeser Lopez, K. Pany Grover, Debra Holland, Melissa J. Johnson, Craig D. Kain,Kristi Kanel, Claude Ann Mellins, and Maureen Culkin Rhyne
University of Southern California
We propose a developmental model to describe how student-therapists learn to appropriately con-sider cultural factors in their clinical work with culturally diverse clients. The model is derived fromdiscussions held in a seminar concerning mental health services and culture and from students'written accounts of how they considered cultural factors in providing therapy. Vignettes based onthe written accounts are presented to illustrate the key developmental processes hypothesized tounderlie psychotherapists' growing cultural sensitivity. The proposed model is contrasted with pastmodels of therapist development. A research agenda guided by a social cognitive perspective is offeredto test the proposed model.
Many authors have written about how mental health profes-sionals need to be sensitive to cultural issues in their clinicalpractice. Some authors have framed these concerns within thecontext of ethics (Pedersen & Marsella, 1982). Others have at-tempted to identify specific competencies and guidelines associ-ated with the effective treatment and assessment of special pop-ulations (Figueroa, Sandoval, & Merino, 1984; D. W. Sue etal., 1982; S. Sue & Zane, 1987). The perspective taken in thisliterature is that of the expert pointing out why cultural skillsare important and what one should do to enhance one's exper-tise in this area. Authors have given little attention to the per-spective of the student developing or improving skills in the as-sessment and treatment of special populations. Given the over-all lack of attention to students' training in these areas, we knowlittle about the developmental processes associated with suchtraining.
Our main purpose was to consider the process by which ther-
apists-in-training develop cultural sensitivity. Our conceptual-ization is guided by a developmental perspective (Loganbill,Hardy, & Delworth, 1982; Stoltenberg & Delworth, 1987) anda social cognitive perspective (Abramson, 1988; Fiske & Taylor,1984; Showers & Cantor, 1985). First, we believe that the con-cept of developmental stages is a useful heuristic for examiningthe growing expertise of student-therapists; that is, therapists'functioning is likely to proceed through stages or levels thatbuild on previous levels and represent progressively more com-plex and adaptive responses (Stoltenberg & Delworth, 1987).Second, the social cognitive framework enables us to considerhow student-therapists process information (e.g., test hypothe-ses) as they develop their expertise. This framework is particu-larly helpful in delineating hypotheses that can be tested in eval-uations of the proposed developmental model of cultural sensi-tivity.
The impetus of this article came from a seminar concerningissues that arise in the delivery of mental health services to cul-
STEVEN REGESER LOPEZ, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Psychologyat the University of Southern California (USC). His research concernshow clinicians consider cultural factors in assessment and psycho-therapy.K. PANY GROVER received her PhD in counseling psychology fromUSC. Her research interests include the study of interethnic offspringand their self-concept, identity issues, and psychological adjustment ascompared with those of intraethnic offspring.DEBRA HOLLAND received her MS and is currently pursuing her doc-torate in counseling psychology from USC. Her clinical practice andresearch focus on adult children of dysfunctional families.MELISSA J. JOHNSON, MS, is a doctoral candidate in counseling psy-chology at USC. Her areas of specialization are gender and nuclearthreat concerns.CRAIG D. KAIN received his PhD in counseling psychology from USC.He has a private practice in West Hollywood, California, and editedthe book No Longer Immune: A Counselor's Guide to AIDS, recentlypublished by the American Association for Counseling and Develop-ment.KRISTI KANEL received her MS in counseling psychology from Califor-nia State University, Fullerton (CSUF), and is currently working on her
doctorate in counseling psychology at USC. She teaches human ser-vice and psychology courses at CSUF and Rancho Santiago Collegeand engages in private practice as a marriage, family, and child coun-selor.CLAUDE ANN MELLINS, MA, is currently a psychology intern at Co-lumbia Presbyterian Medical Center in New \brk and will receive herdoctorate in clinical psychology from USC. Her dissertation researchconcerns genetic and environmental influences on how children copewith stress.MAUREEN CULKIN RHYNE is a doctoral candidate in counseling psy-chology at USC. She is a psychotherapist and assistant professor in theDepartment of Nursing at California State University, Long Beach, andher research focuses on divorcing families.THIS ARTICLE WAS PRESENTED at "Psychotherapeutic InterventionsWith Hispanic and Native American Children and Families," a confer-ence sponsored by the University of New Mexico School of Medicine,May 1988.CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THIS ARTICLE should be addressed toSteven Regeser Lopez, Department of Psychology, University of South-ern California, Los Angeles, California 90089-1061.
370 LOPEZ ET AL.
tural minorities. Borrowing from a recent study in which clini-cians were asked to briefly recount a time when they consideredcultural factors in their evaluation of culturally diiferent clients(Lopez & Hernandez, 1986), the instructor asked the students,who were all involved in some clinical work, to keep a weeklyjournal describing how they considered cultural issues in theirclinical practice. The students were enrolled in doctoral pro-grams in either counseling or clinical psychology. The class wascomposed of 5 White women, 1 White man, and 1 woman bornin India and raised primarily in the United States. Initially, theweekly journal assignment was viewed by the instructor as aminor adjunct to a course that was to be concerned primarilywith research. The journal entries proved to be a most stimulat-ing vehicle by which to address many of the complexities inher-ent in considering cultural factors. As the course progressed,the clinical issues raised by the journal entries proved to be ofconsiderable interest to both the students and the instructor.After just a few weeks, much more time was devoted to the vi-gnettes and the ensuing discussions than was originallyplanned. From these discussions came the idea that studentswere proceeding in a stagelike fashion as they increased theircultural sensitivity. Further discussion and reflection served toidentify the hypothesized stages.
We present vignettes to illustrate the characteristics of thestages that we believe reflect the development of cultural sensi-tivity. Stage 1 is an unawareness of cultural issues; Stage 2 is aheightened awareness of culture; Stage 3 is the burden of con-sidering cultural issues; and Stage 4 is moving toward the inte-gration of culture in one's clinical work. After presenting thevignettes representative of each developmental stage, we de-scribe the stage, paying particular attention to what we believeto be the critical processes associated with the therapist's devel-opment. Furthermore, to assess this model's comparability withprevious work, we discuss how each stage compares with thosepresented in other models of therapists' development (Loganbillet al., 1982; Stoltenberg & Delworth, 1987). Last, we offer aresearch agenda to assess the social cognitive processes that un-derlie this developmental model.
It is important to note that we broadly define culture as thevalues, beliefs, and practices that are frequently shared bygroups identified by variables such as ethnicity, gender, and sex-ual orientation. Although nearly all of the vignettes concernethnic minority group members, there are references to issuesconcerning gender roles and sexual orientation. Though few innumber, the latter references illustrate our belief in a broaddefinition of culture.
Perhaps the biggest struggle for psychotherapists and studentswho attempt to consider cultural factors in therapy is to knowwhen to apply specific norms for a particular group memberand when to apply universal norms. This conflict has been iden-tified as the etic-emic conflict: Etic refers to universal norms,and emic refers to group-specific norms (Draguns, 1981). Prac-titioners can err on the side of assuming that certain behaviorshave the same meaning for all persons, when in fact the meaningof these behaviors is quite different for certain cultural group
members. Egeland and her colleagues made this point in de-scribing how diagnosticians may have misinterpreted the ner-vous laughter of Amish bipolar patients as characteristic of ahebephreniclike schizophrenia, instead of social anxiety that re-sults from being in a public institution (hospital) outside theAmish community (Egeland, Hosteller, & Eshleman, 1983).
In conlrasl lo Ihis lype of error, Iherapisls can err in ihe oppo-site direction of applying special norms to the behavior of aspecific group member, when in fact the special norms may nolapply; ralher, a more universal norm is more appropriate. OnIhe basis of a survey of how menial heallh professionals con-sider cullure in evalualions, Lopez and Hernandez (1986) pro-vided suggestive evidence of Ihis second lype of error. Theyfound lhal clinicians were al risk lo normalize or minimizetheir judgments of pathology when laking cullural factors inloaccount. For example, one clinician reported that he judged aHispanic woman's ego strength in a more positive lighl becauseher cullure "condoned" men's having exlramarilal affairs. Inolher words, he saw Ihe woman as belter adjusted as a resultof his consideration of the Hispanic cullure. Although culturaladjustmenls may be appropriate in many cases, such adjust-ments may be inappropriate in olher cases, as suggested by theexample.
Unlike the clinical judgment reflected in Ihe examples justgiven, cultural sensitivity refers to clinicians' abilily to balancea consideration of universal norms, specific group norms, andindividual norms in (a) differenlialing between normal and ab-normal behavior, (b) considering eliologic factors, and (c) im-plementing appropriate interventions. In addition, an assess-ment of Ihe hypotheses generated by Ihese differing perspec-tives, rather than an a priori acceplance of a given perspective,further reflects cultural expertise. For example, it may be truethai some Hispanic woman view their husband's extramarilalrelationships as culturally normative and acceptable behavior;however, many Hispanic women do not. Moreover, there is nosystematic evidence to support the notion that the marilal rela-tionship of Mexican Americans, for example, are characterizedby a dominant husband and a submissive wife (Cromwell &Ruiz, 1979). Therefore, it is critical thai clinicians vigorouslyassess what the client's view is in regard to the supposed cultur-ally normative behavior. A failure lo do so could resull in Iheclinician's minimizing or overlooking aclual palhology (Lopez,1989; Lopez & Hernandez, 1987). Cultural sensitivily then in-volves balancing different norms and conslanlly testing alterna-tive hypolheses. The following stages reflect Ihe sludenl-lhera-pisls' development of Ihese importanl skills. (See Table 1 fora summary of the proposed developmental stages of culturalsensitivily.)
An Unawareness of Cultural Issues
A lack of awareness regarding cullural issues appears lo bean initial slage in the development of cultural sensitivity. Thefollowing two vignettes reflecl Ihe Iherapisl's failure lo considerIhe potential role of cullure in shaping ihe presenting problems.
A 41 -year-old man requested an emergency session in regard to hismarriage. Upon his request, I saw him Saturday morning. He spoke
DEVELOPMENT OF CULTURAL SENSITIVITY 371
Table 1Proposed Stages and Stage-Specific Consequences inTherapists' Development of Cultural Sensitivity
Unawareness of cultural issues
Therapist does not entertaincultural hypotheses
Does not understand thesignificance of the clients'cultural background to theirfunctioning
Heightened awareness of culture
Therapist is aware that culturalfactors are important in fullyunderstanding clients
Feels unprepared to work withculturally different clients;frequently applies therapist'sperception of the client'scultural background andtherefore fails to understandthe cultural significance for thespecific client; can at timesaccurately recognize theinfluence of the clients'cultural background on theirfunctioning
Burden of considering culture
Therapist is hypervigilant inidentifying cultural factors andis, at times, confused indetermining the culturalsignificance of the client'sactions
Consideration of culture isperceived as detracting fromclinical effectiveness
Toward cultural sensitivity
Therapist entertains culturalhypotheses and carefully teststhese hypotheses from multiplesources before acceptingcultural explanations
Increased likelihood ofaccurately understanding therole of culture in the client'sfunctioning
with an Asian accent, and identified himself as half Chinese andhalf Spanish. He was born in China.
As we discussed his presenting problem, he resisted any of mysuggestions that perhaps part of his problems had to do with hiswife being Caucasian and her parents and siblings disapproving ofhim. He had come to appease his wife who said she would leavehim unless he sought counseling. They have a poor sex life and hewas resistant to discuss this openly with me. He kept insisting thathe had the problem; he described himself as cold and not liking tobe around people.
I noticed myself becoming very frustrated. He refused to acceptthe idea that he and his wife had a relationship problem. I guess hesensed my frustration because he asked me if I could refer him toanother therapist. He had many demands regarding times to beseen and refused marital therapy, which I had recommended. I canonly guess that part of his issues are cultural in nature, but unfortu-nately I will not have the opportunity to explore this with him.
One family that I worked with for almost a year at the clinic hasbeen a Hispanic family. The mother brought her seven-year-olddaughter into the clinic because she was having a lot of difficulty atschool and was not obeying her mother's requests. The mother hadtwo other children, a one-year-old and a nine-year-old son, all fromthe same father. The mother never married the father. The father
was living with another woman and their children. My client andher children were aware of this situation. The father would wanderback into the family's life when he so desired and assume a parentalrole, resulting in major disturbance in the children's behavior.
The mother's choice to remain indecisive regarding her relation-ship with this man greatly affected the children's self-esteem andtheir acting out. The children were attached to their father andwould beg him not to leave. Sometimes he would promise to attenda school activity and would not show up. In therapy, I wanted tofocus on the mother's failure to set limits on the father's visits, par-ticularly given the children's disruptive behavior after he left.Whenever I broached this subject, the mother did not want to talkor she was not willing to discuss this in any detail.
Reflecting back on this case, it dawned on me that maybe thecouple's dynamics reflected cultural issues more than relationshipissues. Maybe in this client's cultural upbringing it is considerednormal for the husband to maintain more than one family and forthe wife to accept this arrangement. Finding out about a person'scultural norms is a very delicate and sensitive issue. How does onego about assessing the role of culture in such situations, besidesdoing some research of the literature pertaining to that particularethnic community?
These vignettes indicate that the respective therapists did notconsider cultural factors in their work with ethnic minority cli-ents. In the first case, the therapist appears to be denning theproblem for the client without considering the client's definitionof the problem and working from there. This is not to say thatthe therapist is wrong in her assessment; the client is likely hav-ing marital problems. However, her failure to validate his ex-planatory model (Kleinman, 1980) or interpretation of theproblem may have led to his request for another therapist. Inthe second vignette, the clinician appears to be entertaining cul-tural explanations for the first time after having worked with thefamily for nearly a year. As one would expect, her first culturalconsiderations fall short of reflecting cultural sensitivity. For ex-ample, the comment that the couple's dynamics may be normalgiven the client's cultural upbringing reflects a cultural stereo-type. The couples' cultural background is only one of severalpossible explanations for the nature of their relationship. Theimportant point of this vignette is that for nearly a year theclinician did not consider cultural factors in the treatment ofthis Hispanic family.
Given the lack of sufficient attention to culture in these cases,it appears that both therapists were working from an etic or uni-versal view in regard to their evaluation of the problems andtheir considerations for treatment. The cultural-specific or emicviews of these patients were not entertained. As suggested bythese vignettes, an early stage in the development of culturalsensitivity is adhering to an etic perspective with little or noregard for emic considerations. Given this view, therapists donot assess the cultural context of the presenting problems. Thetherapist's question about how to assess the role of culture re-flects this early stage of development.
This first stage parallels Loganbill et al.'s (1982) first stage intherapist training: unawareness and stagnation. In this stage,therapists are viewed as being unable to recognize difficultiesand deficits in their clinical work. The therapists in both casesdid not recognize the potential for cultural interpretations ofthe identifying problem, which was clearly a deficit in their clin-ical work with ethnic minority clients. Furthermore, this stageis consistent with part of the initial stage of Stoltenberg and Del-
372 LOPEZ ET AL.
worth's (1987) developmental model, specifically the domainthat they referred to as "individual differences." This concerns,in part, clinicians' awareness of cultural differences. Stoltenbergand Delworth pointed out that beginning therapists eitherdownplay cultural differences or exaggerate them. Our experi-ence at this early stage of development is consistent with theformer: Culture is not even acknowledged.
Growth toward an awareness of the importance of culturelikely came about because of the student-therapists' participa-tion in a course focusing on culture and mental health. Outsideinfluences such as coursework, supervision, or personal experi-ence may serve as an impetus for therapists to begin valuingthe cultural context of their clients' lives. These influences helptherapists learn that there are many valid world views or framesof reference other than their own. Furthermore, clinicians beginto respect these various interpretations and begin not to judgethem as better or worse with respect to psychological adjust-ment. Therapists without this perspective may plod along untilthey note a pattern in the premature client-initiated termina-tions of their culturally different clients or until they recognizetheir frequent misinterpretations with these clients. Even then,clinicians may not be open to the notion of cultural variability.Another impetus for considering culture can come from clientsthemselves, who educate therapists in regard to the significanceof cultural nuances. Without such experiences, clinicians arelikely to remain in Stage 1, with little awareness of the impor-tance of culture. As a result, culturally different clients are likelyto receive less-than-optimal mental health care.
A Heightened Awareness of Culture
Because of previous clinical and personal experiences, not allstudents began the course at the unawareness stage. However,most if not all appeared to go through, to some degree, a stagein which awareness of group differences grew quite rapidly. Stu-dents reported having a heightened interest in learning aboutdifferent groups. This was evident in their bringing newspaperarticles to class or discussing ideas from recent journal articlesrelated to cultural issues. Students frequently referred to thisnewly acquired interest or more fully developed interest withgreat enthusiasm, as is evident in the following vignette:
As a result of last week's class, I realize how little I know about theexperience of being bilingual. I know I was sensitive to the issue inthat I was conscious of not being able to communicate with somepeople in their native tongue. But I did not understand the depthof the bilingual experience. This understanding reinforces my ownpolicy as a therapist of asking clients to define the words they use.For example, I often ask my clients to explain what they meanwhen they say they are "gay." I never assume that their definitionand my definition are the same. I spent the rest of last week askingfriends who were bilingual what it was like for them. I enjoyed talk-ing to them to see how they use or don't use the other language.
The appreciation of group differences seemed to have severalconsequences. On the one hand, it may have assisted therapistsin identifying factors that would have gone unnoticed. Anotherapparent consequence was that students became more aware ofpotential difficulties in treating culturally different clients andmay have been discouraged. Some students rightly questioned
their ability to work with specific group members. A third con-sequence appeared to be an increased consideration of culturalexplanations for presenting problems at the expense of consid-ering other explanations. In other words, some student thera-pists may have been too quick to apply cultural interpretations.The following three vignettes capture each of these apparentconsequences of a heightened awareness to group differences:
In a marital session today with a professional woman who triplesher husband's income, we were discussing the impact this fact hason the power structure in their relationship. Although the husbandis glad that she brings home the money, it also contributes to a senseof lowered worth. He says that lately she has been "throwing it inhis face" that she makes more money and that he should be doingmore housework and parenting. I suspect that this situation is be-coming more common in today's culture. Unfortunately, the menand women of today were raised with the values and mores of yes-terday. Men obtained status and value by how much money theymade and women earned respect by how well they kept the houseand raised their children.
This discussion led to a related gender issue. The wife was com-plaining that her husband kept his feelings inside and that shewanted a partner and more emotional intimacy. However, shedidn't have the energy to be his therapist. She wanted me to workwith him individually to help him find his "lost self."
Until today I had a definite bias that women were the ones whohad to sacrifice their identities for the sake of their men. It occursto me that men also sacrifice a part of their identities toothemore sensitive, vulnerable side, for the sake of being a so-calledreal man.
. . .my perspective has been jostled and I am humbled by the chal-lenge that awaits. Increasingly I am becoming aware of how muchI do not know and how many skills I have yet to acquire, and Iwonder if it is at all possible. Perhaps the answer lies in being awareof my limitations and becoming more comfortable seeking an-swers, forgetting the awkwardness of my occasional feelings of voy-eurism, and trying to enter the world of the person I am trying tounderstand, no matter what the initial barriers may seem to be. Ican try. . . and I can also be aware of when I am in over my head.
Because I had done so much clinical work with low-income andminority families in New \ork, I thought that I had a fairly goodunderstanding of the needs of these populations and that I was freefrom stereotypes and prejudice. However, I have recently begun toquestion how free from stereotypes I actually am. I have developedan image of what it is like to be poor, Black, and living in the slumsof New York. I have associated the anger, the frustration, the aggres-sion, and the uncontrolled behavior I have seen in emotionally dis-turbed inner-city children to growing up in these conditions. It pro-vides me with a framework with which to understand the peoplewith whom I work. As a result, I think I have been more patientwith the acting-out behavior of my clients, believing that they didnot know other ways to act, that they had legitimate reasons fortheir anger, and that patience, empathy, and structure would helpthem.
I am not sure that I feel too differently now. It is just that theimage I have of the poor minority, inner-city family may have sev-eral variables confounded within it. As a result, I may be projecting[onto families] characteristics . . . which are not there. I may alsobe attributing characteristics to the wrong causes. The anger, theaggression, the uncontrolled behavior, was that a function of mi-nority status, of living in slum conditions, of having a chaotic fam-ily household, of biological factors, or of some combination of anyof the above? It isn't clear to me.
When I first started seeing Jeanne, I classified her as being froma poor, Black, slum-dwelling family. As a result, an image of thistype of family was conjured up in my mind, one which may haveprevented me from seeing the case in a different light. I may have
DEVELOPMENT OF CULTURAL SENSITIVITY 373
imposed my stereotypes on to this family and may have not beensensitive to some of the factors that made them different. For exam-ple, it was interesting for me to hear classmates suggest thatJeanne's lack of ethnic identity may have exacerbated her border-line pathology. I had been attributing everything to her living in apoor chaotic family. I was not noticing the differences (which thereclearly are) between Jeanne's family and the families I saw in NewYork. This was an important lesson for me to learn and one whichhelped widen the blinders I seem to be wearing. (I realize that weall do to some extent.) In order to understand group differences, Ithink I need to work with a much more heterogeneous population,including wealthy White families. Only then will I begin to be qual-ified to make statements about group differences.
Stage 2 represents an increased awareness of group differ-ences or an increased awareness of culture-specific issues. Thedeveloping emic perspective can lead to the recognition of issuesthat escaped attention in the past, as was revealed in the thera-pist's recognition of the potential costs of the male role. Thisnewfound perspective, however, is not without limitations. Theheightened awareness can also lead to the recognition of one'sown lack of knowledge or training in treating certain popula-tions, as evident in the second vignette. The responsibility ofproviding therapy to a client from a culturally different back-ground may now seem overwhelming. Another apparent conse-quence of a growing emic view is the application of perceivedculture-specific norms in situations that may call for more eticviews, as suggested by the vignette of the Black family. Thisemic overemphasis may reflect an overcorrection of the thera-pist's previous adherence to a strictly etic perspective. In all,this stage reflects a beginning awareness of culture's import andthe beginning efforts to translate this awareness into treatment.
In comparing this stage with the stages of other models oftherapists' development, we found no overlap with Loganbill etal.'s (1982) model and considerable overlap with Stoltenbergand Delworth's (1987) model, particularly the first two develop-mental levels. According to the latter model, some trainees atthe first developmental level may believe that the differences be-tween cultural groups are so great that clinicians feel incapableof understanding the experience of a client with a backgrounddifferent from their own. This is consistent with the second vi-gnette, in which the student-therapist wondered whether shecould learn the requisite skills to treat culturally different cli-ents. Stoltenberg and Delworth pointed out that at the secondlevel, the trainee is likely to be more aware of cultural influ-ences; however, he or she tends to apply this knowledge in astereotypical fashion. This may have been the case with the ther-apist who worked with the African-American family. She con-sidered the possibility that she was applying a stereotype of theurban Black family that she learned in a prior clinical settingwithout carefully considering the specific dynamics of that indi-vidual family.
Despite the limitations of student-therapists at this stage, theyare now more amenable to training than they were in the previ-ous stage; they now accept the view that the client's culturalbackground is significant. With proper supervision, student-therapists can learn that they have the capability of understand-ing and helping someone from a distinct cultural group. Fur-thermore, they can learn to monitor their use of stereotypes andlearn to be more cautious in applying what they think might
be (but actually may not be) culture-specific norms. Althoughsignificant errors in considering culture are likely to occur dur-ing this stage, a heightened awareness of cultural factors appearsto be critical in developing cultural sensitivity.
The Burden of Considering Culture
An unexpected development in the seminar was that somestudents felt overburdened with having to keep in mind ethnicissues in their clinical work, to the extent that it detracted fromoverall clinical endeavors. This phase seemed to appear afterstudents passed through the heightened-awareness stage. Onestudent aptly captured this experience in reacting to anotherstudent's concerns:
I too have experienced the new awareness of ethnic issues as cum-bersome baggage in the therapy room. I have felt that to some ex-tent in my groups, especially since I have so many internationalstudents. I feel like for the first few weeks (maybe three or four) Ifelt almost intellectually preoccupied with "paying attention" tothe ethnic innuendos of the group experience. I also felt preoccu-pied with trying to "figure out" how to process this ethnicity"stuff" once I noticed it. Then, during the past few weeks I just feltsick of being preoccupied. I decided I was just going to try to bemore present and to facilitate my groups in whatever way felt natu-ral for me. If ethnicity "stuff" came up, fine; if it got addressed,fine; if it did not come up, fine; if it did not get addressed, fine. Ijust wanted to shake off this sense of being preoccupied and Imissed being more present with my groups. I have actually enjoyedmy groups much more the last several weeks and have felt betterabout my work as a facilitator. I have not been as consciously awareof ethnic issues and yet the group experience has been rich, someof the discussions dealing directly with thoughts, feelings and expe-riences about special populations.
In reflecting on my experience it seems like this could be a devel-opmental aspect of becoming a culturally sensitive therapist. Theprocess of over-extension and then gradual integration may be aprocess that many go through in an attempt to become somethingnewin this case becoming culturally sensitive.
This stage may be an extension of overemphasizing an emicperspective: the developing therapist is forever vigilant in con-sidering how culture relates to the clinical material even whenit may not be relevant, or this stage may reflect the therapist'sawareness of the increased effort that is required to integratean emic perspective. Whatever the explanation, most studentsappeared to go through this phase, which suggests that thissense of feeling burdened is part of the normal progression to-ward cultural sensitivity. It is important for therapists who gothrough this stage to distinguish between their devaluing cul-tural issues and their beginning to integrate this newfoundawareness in a mature manner. It seems possible that a therapistcould misperceive his or her growing disinterest in this area aspart of a developmental stage that is leading to a greater culturalsensitivity when in fact it is leading to less sensitivity.
In Stoltenberg and Delworth's (1987) discussion of howtrainees progress in being aware of group differences, there wasno mention of this type of therapists' behavior. However, in theoverall model of therapist development as presented by Logan-bill et al. (1982) and Stoltenberg and Delworth (1987), thenoted sense of feeling burdened may reflect a broader issue oftherapists' development addressed in Stage 2 of both models.Both groups of authors suggested that as students question andchallenge old ways and values, they become confused and am-
374 LOPEZ ET AL.
bivalent. Students rightly question their old views about theirclients and their roles as therapists, but they are not yet able tointegrate new perspectives. Stoltenberg and Delworth referredto this stage as one of "adolescence." Although a sense of confu-sion and ambivalence is different from the sense of feeling bur-dened that we identified, there are similarities. Perhaps this feel-ing of being burdened reflects the trainees' confusion over howmuch to emphasize cultural issues, or perhaps it reflects ambiv-alence regarding the significance of culture. In either case, thethree developmental models are consistent in that this stage isviewed as the critical transition to "adulthood" in practicingpsychotherapy and, more specifically, practicing psychotherapywith culturally diverse clients. Supervisors who provide a sup-portive atmosphere and allow student-therapists to voice theirsense of feeling burdened or their confusion are likely to con-tribute to their trainees' maturing cultural sensitivity.
Toward Cultural Sensitivity: A New Synthesis
The following vignette reflects a more sophisticated view ofcultural issues, one that best approximates a culturally sensitiveapproach. In this case, the therapist considered a cultural expla-nation for a child's behavior and collected additional data toassess the appropriateness of this explanation.
I worked for several summers at a camp for emotionally disturbedchildren. The population of children is largely Black and Hispanic;most are from low-income, inner-city families. During my firstsummer as a supervisor, a problem arose with a five-year-old His-panic girl who was refusing to take showers at night and had diffi-culty dressing and undressing with other people around. She wasthrowing huge tantrums and required considerable individual at-tention from her female counselors. They were about to install abehavior modification program to get her to take showers and dressin the morning. Her behavior was considered to be a consequenceof her emotional disturbance. However, it was not clear to me thather tantrums were symptoms of emotionally disturbed behavior.She seemed terrified of being violated. I wondered if there might beany issues related to her cultural background and/or upbringing. Icalled her parents to discuss this case. They confirmed that thechild was brought up to be very modest about her body and to notexpose herself to anyone except her mother. One can imagine theterror that this child must have been feeling when her counselorswere trying to get her in the shower. The staff was asking her toviolate her parents' code of honor and to act in ways that previouslywould have resulted in punishment. A behavior modification planwould have been disastrous. Instead we took the cultural issues intoconsideration and modified camp rules, allowing her to showerwith just one other adult and to dress quickly after other childrenhad left the bunk. The tantrums stopped. I learned a very big lessonin considering more than one angle on a case. Issues arose for meconcerning whether presenting problems were a reflection of up-bringing, of culture, and/or of emotional disturbance.
The therapist in this vignette acted in a culturally sensitivemanner because she went beyond both the etic and emic per-spectives by considering the cultural relevance as it applied tothe individual client. She hypothesized that the girl's "tan-trums" might be related to cultural or familial beliefs aboutundressing in front of others. Instead of assuming that thechild's behavior was culturally based, as might have been thecase for a therapist in Stage 2, the therapist very appropriatelycontacted the parents, who verified the cultural hypothesis.
Thus clinicians in this stage of development (a) recognize theimportance of culture and behavior, (b) are able to entertainmore than one interpretation of their client's observed behavior(in this case, tantrums vs. fear), (c) have some knowledge of howculture influences behavior, and (d) collect clinical data to testtheir cultural hypotheses.
This stage is consistent with the last stage of the general devel-opmental models offered by Loganbill et al. (1982) and by Stol-tenberg and Delworth (1987). In general, their final stages rep-resent a synthesis or an integration of the new and old learning.Unlike their earlier stages of confusion and transition, cliniciansin this final stage, like the therapist in the vignette just given,are able to apply new perspectives to their clinical endeavors.Our stage is also consistent with the manner in which Stage 3therapists, as designated by Stoltenberg and Delworth, addressgroup differences; they are able to balance a consideration of theindividual and his or her cultural background without applyingstereotypes. In sum, there is considerable overlap between thelast stage of our model and the last stage of the other two models.
In the next and final vignette, a student summarized her per-sonal development in increasing her cultural sensitivity.Whereas the previous vignettes represented only one develop-mental stage, this entry reflects passage through most of theidentified stages. Furthermore, she rightly identified the ongo-ing struggle in assessing whether specific group norms or moregeneric norms are applicable to a given client.
I know that I have passed through several developmental stages andI am becoming progressively more comfortable as the semesterpasses. The first few weeks I was just receptive to acquiring factualinformation about different cultures and how to use this informa-tion in therapy. As the weeks went by and I did more and morereading, I discovered that being culturally sensitive meant morethan that. Looking at the way I process information and examiningmy own personal values was an important part of developing thissensitivity. I became confused as I learned to consider both etic andemic aspects of a given case. Looking back on it now, I suppose thata therapist faces the etic-emic struggle with all clients. Reflectiveof this struggle are the questions going through therapists' minds:How much of the symptoms and presenting problems is due todevelopmental issues, how much is due to society, how much is dueto intrapsychic conflicts, and how much is due to family systems?
I am now more relaxed with all these areas and I am now inte-grating the client's culture as just one more area to keep in mindas I listen and try to understand my client's life world. At first Iwas concentrating on ethnic issues to such an extent that I was notstaying with my clients. With any beginning therapist, a new ideaor perspective seems stilted and inauthentic until it becomes in-grained through practice and consultation. The cultural issues arenow flowing more smoothly for me. I no longer have to think aboutthe client's ethnicity with so much effort. It is one of the manyfactors to take into account during a session.
In regard to training student-therapists to become sensitiveto cultural issues, these vignettes suggest that it is important toview this training from a developmental perspective. Moreover,we believe that the identified stages provide a useful heuristicfor understanding how therapists develop this sensitivity. Ac-cordingly, clinicians and supervisors may be able to use thesestages to monitor their own progress or that of their trainees inlearning how to provide culturally sensitive psychotherapy. For
DEVELOPMENT OF CULTURAL SENSITIVITY 375
example, knowing that therapists may feel the consideration ofcultural factors to be burdensome may assist supervisors in bet-ter addressing this issue in the therapist's development. Withthis knowledge, supervisors might best be supportive, allowingtrainees to vent their frustrations. Validation of this frustrationmight serve to facilitate the therapists' progression to the inte-gration stage. Supervisors without this developmental perspec-tive might perceive the trainees' sense of feeling burdened asresistance to cultural issues and possibly intervene to challengethis "resistance." Such an approach is less likely to further thedevelopment of cultural sensitivity.
The vignettes also suggest that the etic-emic conflict (Dra-guns, 1981) is a useful conceptual tool for understanding clini-cians' development of cultural skills. We found that therapistsprogressed from an etic perspective to an overemphasized emicperspective and then to a balanced etic-emic perspective. It isworth noting that cultural sensitivity is not the replacement ofetic (universal) norms with emic (culture-specific) norms.Rather, it is the ability to entertain both etic and emic viewswithin the context of the individual.
Although some students appeared to progress through theidentified stages in the outlined sequence, it is important to notethat others did not. For some students, their early work at timesreflected cultural sensitivity, whereas their later work at timesdid not. Also, there were times when students showed consider-able insight into cultural issues with one client but not withothers. There are many plausible explanations for this variabil-ity. Some students had considerable exposure to cultural issuesbefore the course, although few, if any, had previous opportuni-ties to integrate an academic/research focus with a clinical fo-cus. Another explanation is that there were differing levels ofmotivation to explore these issues. Also, the noted variabilitymay have been in part a function of the therapists' clients; someclients and their presenting problems may have facilitated cul-tural sensitivity for a given therapist, whereas other clients maynot have elicited such sensitivity. Probably the best explanationis that this developmental process, particularly early in one'straining, may be better characterized as a fluid, discontinuousprocess than as a continuous stagelike process.
The implication of considering therapists' development asfluid and discontinuous is that sensitivity to cultural issues is aprocess or a set of processes in which clinicians must engagewith each client throughout psychotherapy. Given the ongoingnature of this process, we do not assume that the students in thiscourse are now definitively culturally sensitive and will functionwithin the final stage with all their clients. We expect that theywill continue to pass through the given stages, although they areless likely to make the types of errors made by other therapistswho have not been supervised in their struggle with the etic-emic conflict. Cultural sensitivity strikes us as being a continu-ing therapeutic challenge rather than a rigid, developmental-stage learning process.
It is important to note the limitations of the identified stages.First, the stages were based on the experiences of a very smallnumber of therapists-in-training. The students' backgrounds,their prior exposure to cultural issues, and their involvement ina course concerning culture may have uniquely contributed tothe noted developmental phases. Second, the time framework
was limited (to one semester). Clearly, the training of therapiststakes place over a much longer period of time.
Despite these limitations, it is noteworthy that the identifiedstages parallel the developmental stages observed by others (Lo-ganbill et al, 1982; Stoltenberg & Delworth, 1987). Our stagesinvolved issues consistent with those addressed by Loganbill etal. (1982), from unawareness in Stage 1 to synthesis or integra-tion in the final stage. The major difference is that our Stage2, a heightened awareness of cultural differences, did not haveanything in common with Loganbill et al.'s model. With regardto the developmental levels identified by Stoltenberg and Del-worth, our stages were quite similar to their description of howtrainees developed in the specific domain, which they entitled"individual differences"that is, clinicians' consideration ofgroup differences. Our Stage 3, the burden of considering cul-tural factors, however, is not included in Stoltenberg and Del-worth's discussion of this particular domain of development.The overall similarity between the models is encouraging in thatour independent efforts resulted in rather consistent findings.The differences could be attributed to many factors, includingthe different focus of our observations. We considered one spe-cific domain, the development of cultural sensitivity, whereasthe previous authors considered a more generic developmentalmodel.
We encourage researchers to test and further refine the pro-posed developmental stages of cultural sensitivity. We proposebeginning a program of research to assess clinicians' develop-ment of cultural expertise by examining two important con-cepts: clinicians' knowledge base and hypothesis-testing strate-gies. These concepts are drawn from our understanding of thedevelopment of cultural sensitivity and from social cognitive re-search on how we make sense of our world (Fiske & Taylor,1984). Of particular interest is how such researchers have con-ceptualized and studied differences between novices and ex-perts in nonclinical domains (Fiske, Kinder, & Larter, 1983;Showers & Cantor, 1985).
In regard to knowledge base, psychotherapists should havevarious amounts of information concerning culture and its rela-tion to psychopathology, assessment, and intervention. Clini-cians unaware of cultural factors (Stage 1) are likely to havelittle cultural knowledge, whereas clinicians at later stages arelikely to have more cultural knowledge. At the last stage, notonly should therapists have the greatest amount of information,but such information should be most efficiently organized. Forexample, therapists with more cultural expertise should havemore linkages among concepts stored in memory, which wouldallow quick and easy access to the underlying body of informa-tion.
With regard to hypothesis testing, clinicians who are unfa-miliar with the significance of cultural factors (Stage 1) are un-likely to entertain cultural hypotheses as explanations for theclient's presenting problem. They are not likely to know thatthe client's cultural values can shape the meaning that the clientascribes to his or her functioning. At Stage 2, a heightenedawareness of culture, not only are clinicians likely to entertainsuch hypothesis, but they are likely to apply them in a stereo-typic fashion, failing to consider other plausible hypotheses. Atthis stage, therapists are likely to use a confirmatory hypothesis-
376 LOPEZ ET AL.
testing strategy, collecting only evidence that confirms their cul-tural explanation (Snyder & Thomsen, 1988). Hypothesis test-ing may also explain, in part, the sense of feeling burdened thattrainees experience in Stage 3. Their feelings of overload maybe the result of overusing cultural explanations, even for behav-ior or presenting problems that are not likely to have culturalassociations. This may then interfere with their considerationof other important hypotheses.
In the final stage of development, therapists are expected tomore discriminately generate cultural explanations and then re-ject or accept such explanations after carefully considering mul-tiple hypotheses. This careful evaluation of all plausiblehypotheses is likely to represent a disconfirmatory hypothesis-testing strategy in which clinicians seek evidence to disconfirmcultural and noncultural hypotheses alike (Snyder & Thomsen,1988). By doing so, psychotherapists are more likely to avoidbiases in their evaluation and intervention with culturally di-verse clients.
These rather general research hypotheses are presented asrecommendations to begin examining the development of cul-tural sensitivity. Although we have not discussed specific meth-odologies, the interested reader is encouraged to examine spe-cific studies of expertise (e.g., Fiske et al., 1983) and overviewsof social cognition and related research (Abramson, 1988; Fiske& Taylor, 1984; Lopez, 1989; Showers & Cantor, 1985; Turk &Salovey, 1988) to identify the significant methodological issuespertaining to this type of research.
The development of cultural sensitivity is an ongoing processthat requires an ongoing dialogue. The vignettes demonstratethat trainees are able to monitor their personal reactions to sig-nificant cultural issues, thereby contributing to this dialogue.We hope that clinicians take the necessary steps to continue thisdialogue by sharing their questions, thoughts, and feelingsabout cultural issues with supervisors, colleagues, and, to someextent, their clients. The willingness to address these issues inan open fashion will likely lead to a reduction in the stereotypes,misunderstandings, and prejudices that can adversely affect thequality of therapy to all. A frank dialogue can also contributeto generating the necessary research agenda to better under-stand the development of cultural sensitivity in psychothera-pists.
ReferencesAbramson, L. Y. (Ed.) (1988). Social cognition and clinical psychology:
A synthesis. New York: Guilford.Cromwell, R. E., & Ruiz, R. A. (1979). The myth of macho dominance
in decision making within Mexican and Chicano families. HispanicJournal of Behavioral Sciences, 1, 355-373.
Draguns, J. G. (1981). Counseling across cultures: Common themesand distinct approaches. In P. B. Pedersen, J. G. Draguns, W. J. Lon-ner, & S. E. Trimble (Eds.), Counseling across cultures (2nd ed., pp.3-21). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Egeland, J. A., Hostetter, A. M., & Eshleman, S. K. Ill (1983). Amishstudy, III: The impact of cultural factors on diagnosis of bipolar ill-ness. American Journal of Psychiatry, 140, 67-71.
Figueroa, R. A., Sandoval, J., & Merino, B. (1984). School psychologyand limited-English proficient (LEP) children: New competencies.Journal of School Psychology, 22, 131-143.
Fiske, S. T., Kinder, D. R., & Larter, W. M. (1983). The novice and theexpert: Knowledge-based strategies in political cognition. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 19, 381-400.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. Reading, MA: Ad-dison-Wesley.
Kleinman, A. (1980). Patients and healers in the context of culture.Berkeley: University of California Press.
Loganbill, C, Hardy, E., & Delworth, U. (1982). Supervision: A con-ceptual model. The Counseling Psychologist, 10(\), 3-43.
Lopez, S. R. (1989). Patient variable biases in clinical judgment: Con-ceptual overview and methodological considerations. PsychologicalBulletin, 106, 184-203.
Lopez, S., & Hernandez, P. (1986). How culture is considered in evalua-tions of psychopathology. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease,774,598-606.
Lopez, S., & Hernandez, P. (1987). When culture is considered in theevaluation and treatment of Hispanic patients. Psychotherapy, 24,120-126.
Pedersen, P. B., & Marsella, A. J. (1982). The ethical crisis for cross-cultural counseling and therapy. Professional Psychology, 13, 492-500.
Showers, C., & Cantor, N. (1985). Social cognition: A look at motivatedstrategies. Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 275-305.
Snyder, M., & Thomsen, C. J. (1988). Interactions between therapistsand clients: Hypothesis testing and behavioral confirmation. In D. C.Turk & P. Salovey (Eds.), Reasoning, inference, and judgment in clini-cal psychology (pp. 124-152). New York: Free Press.
Stoltenberg, C. D., & Delworth, U. (1987). Supervising counselors andtherapists: A developmental approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sue, D. W., Bernier, J. E., Durran, A., Feinberg, L., Pedersen, P. B.,Smith, E. J., & Vasquez-Nuttall, E. (1982). Cross-cultural counselingcompetencies. The Counseling Psychologist, 10(2), 45-52.
Sue, S., & Zane, N. (1987). The role of culture and cultural techniquesin psychotherapy: A critique and reformulation. American Psycholo-gist, 42, 37-45.
Turk, D. C., & Salovey, P. (Eds.) (1988). Reasoning, inference, and judg-ment in clinical psychology. New York: Free Press.
Received October 17, 1988Revision received April 11, 1989
Accepted July 14, 1989