1.1 Conceptual Overlap

Given the fast growth of Multiracial and Multicultural populations, research on the psychological and social experiences of these groups has increased (Reference Garay and RemediosGaray & Remedios, 2021). It is important to note that there may be overlap between these populations both in demographics and self-identification (Reference McFarland and FingerhutMcFarland & Fingerhut, 2011). For example, a researcher might consider a participant to be both Multiracial and Multicultural based on their operationalization of these terms, or participants themselves may self-identify as both Multiracial and Multicultural. However, most research has either investigated the psychological experiences of Multiracial and Multicultural people separately or has not meaningfully distinguished between the two. The research that has treated these two populations as separate fails to capture how some experiences of identifying with two groups within one identity domain may be shared across domains and not be specific to either holding multiple racial identities or multiple cultural identities. In contrast, research that does not distinguish between these two often operationalizes Multiracial and Multicultural in ways that conflate race and culture. This may obscure nuanced differences in the experience of race and culture.

Notably, these fields have been most integrated in the context of identity socialization, where researchers have observed that people, especially younger populations, do not necessarily differentiate between their racial and cultural identities, and the developmental trajectory of identity socialization is similar for race and culture (Reference Cross, Cross, Quintana and McKownCross & Cross, 2008; Reference Umaña-Taylor, Zeiders and UpdegraffUmaña-Taylor et al., 2013). This has culminated in the merging of racial and ethnic socialization into a metaconstruct referred to as ethnic-racial socialization, which has been studied among monoracial racial minorities and Multicultural people (Reference Umaña-Taylor, Zeiders and UpdegraffUmaña-Taylor et al., 2013).

1.2 Present Review

However, this integration has not been applied to Multiracial and Multicultural identity experiences and processes. Therefore, the present work outlines research areas that have been studied among both Multiracial and Multicultural populations, but have often been examined completely separately. For each section, we integrate existing findings to highlight similarities and differences between Multiracial and Multicultural antecedents, processes, and outcomes, and underscore opportunities for future integration and comparison. Consistent with critical race theory’s call to challenge ahistoricism and center analyses related to race within a historical context (Reference HarrisHarris, 2016; Reference Solórzano, Yosso and ChapmanSolórzano & Yosso, 2001), we begin by reviewing the historical tradition and antecedents of research with Multiracial and Multicultural populations. Within this historical context, we then review the methodological approaches used in both traditions to understand researchers’ processes in this work. Next, we compare research on socialization, identity negotiation, and discrimination between Multiracial and Multicultural populations, as these topics have received wide attention across disciplines and are central outcomes of the multiracial and multicultural experience. Within each section, we review the literature on each population broadly across psychological, sociological, educational, and social work disciplines, among others, and integrate the findings, first for Multiracial populations and second for Multicultural populations. Each section concludes with a systematic comparison and integration across populations, with the goal of elucidating areas of overlap and distinction to encourage nuanced consideration of multiraciality and multiculturalism in future research.

This Element integrates the existing literatures focusing on Multiracial and Multicultural people to highlight both similarities and differences between these populations, and the methods used to study them. We believe all researchers, even those whose research specialization does not include the study of these populations, have much to learn from the study of Multiracial and Multicultural populations. Given cognitive, academic, and societal preferences for singular and fixed understandings of identity, the experiences of Multiracial and Multicultural people are unique and demand that we extend our thinking of identity to be broader and more flexible. This Element will demonstrate how, compared to monoracial and monocultural people, the history of Multiracial and Multicultural people in the US is unique, how these populations in particular pose distinct research challenges, and how Multiracial and Multicultural people may be socialized about race differently, in addition to discussing how negotiating multiple racial and cultural identities leads to unique experiences of discrimination. By acknowledging these differences, and focusing specifically on the overlap between these two populations, we will highlight how the boundaries of research on race, culture, and identity must expand to accurately understand and represent the diversity of experience in the US. Furthermore, the quick growth of these populations underscores the importance of this research, as growing numbers of people continue to be underrepresented and poorly understood in academic research. Finally, this Element holds important implications and applications for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers as the Multiracial and Multicultural populations in the US continue to grow. For example, this work would be informative to decision makers involved in processes such as designing and interpreting the US census, making health care more equitable, and legislating citizenship (Reference Sanchez, Gaither, Albuja and EddySanchez et al., 2020; Reference VerkuytenVerkuyten, 2018).

2.1 Multiracial People throughout US History

Multiraciality is not a novel phenomenon, as Multiracial people have been part of the early history of the US and other countries. This section focuses on the history and psychological theorizing about Multiracial people in the US because specific historical circumstances (i.e., the role of slavery in racial definitions) have led to most research on the multiracial experience focusing on US Multiracial people, especially Multiracial people who have White ancestry (Reference Garay and RemediosGaray & Remedios, 2021; Reference IfekwunigweIfekwunigwe, 2004; Reference NoblesNobles, 2000; Reference SongSong, 2021). As such, we do not generalize these historical foundations to other countries.

The multiracial experience in the US has been shaped by historical and current sociopolitical forces. Although racial mixing began as early as colonial settlers interacted with Native Americans, controlling race and racial identification was key to owning property, gaining wealth, and maintaining slavery and segregation (Reference CarterCarter, 2013; Reference DavisDavis, 1991). For example, Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on Virginia advocated against racial mixing, and anti-miscegenation laws banning interracial marriage were enacted in the seventeenth-century colonies (Reference DavisDavis, 1991; Reference WallensteinWallenstein, 2004). Ultimately, thirty states had anti-miscegenation laws (American Civil Liberties Union, n.d.). States varied in which racial groups they prohibited from marriage, underscoring the prejudicial motivation that targeted specific racial minorities based on their regional representation (Reference BrowningBrowning, 1951; Reference SohoniSohoni, 2007).

Despite this legislation, interracial relationships continued, including those between White indentured servants and freed Black people in the Upper South, and those forced onto enslaved Black women by White slave owners in the Lower South (Reference DavisDavis, 1991). Because the Multiracial offspring of these relationships complicated determinations of who was free and who was enslaved, attitudes toward racial mixing often mirrored attitudes toward slavery (Reference CarterCarter, 2013). The racial hierarchy was further threatened by the end of slavery. Thus, to justify and maintain the White supremacist hierarchy, Multiracial identity was scrutinized and controlled through the US census (Reference BennettBennett, 2000; Reference Hochschild and PowellHochschild & Powell, 2008). Between 1850 and 1930, the US census experimented broadly with racial categories, leading to inconsistent and unstable population estimates during these years (Reference Hochschild and PowellHochschild & Powell, 2008). For example, in 1850, the scope of the US census expanded from enumerating free and enslaved people to gathering more detailed information about each person to support racist arguments justifying the enslavement of Black people. As a result, the category “mulatto” was included, which was identified by skin tone and used to demonstrate the purported negative consequences of racial mixing (Reference Hochschild and PowellHochschild & Powell, 2008). By 1890, subcategories of “mulatto” appeared on the census, categorizing people based on their fraction of “Black blood” (Reference Hochschild and PowellHochschild & Powell, 2008).

These categories were dropped from the census after 1920 because they were deemed statistically unreliable, and because of political pressure. For example, Du Bois advocated against a separate census category for Multiracial people, as he believed that it would weaken solidarity within a White supremacist system. Consequently, the one-drop rule became uniformly accepted in the 1920s (Reference DavisDavis, 1991). The one-drop rule, also referred to as hypodescent, categorized people who had any Black ancestry as Black, though it eventually spread to categorize anyone who had non-White ancestry as members of their racial minority group (Reference DavisDavis, 1991; Reference SohoniSohoni, 2007; Reference ThompsonThompson, 2012). This categorization persisted during the Jim Crow period, serving to enforce segregation (Reference DavisDavis, 1991).

Despite consistent politicization of Multiracial identification, Multiracial people often resisted attempts to control their identity. For example, many Multiracial people passed as White, or incorporated themselves into White community permanently or briefly, in order to secure better jobs and increase their safety (Reference Daniel and RootDaniel, 1992). Passing may have only been accessible to Multiracial people with ambiguous phenotypic presentation. A legal challenge to anti-miscegenation laws brought forward by a Black and White interracial couple led to the end of bans on interracial marriage in the 1967 Loving v. Virginia Supreme Court ruling (Reference LombardoLombardo, 1988). Since then, public opinion toward interracial marriage has become more positive, with as many as 87 percent of respondents to a Gallup poll approving of marriage between Black and White people (Reference SaadSaad, 2017). Multiracial people’s resistance is also seen through advocacy for formal recognition of Multiracial people in the US census in the 1990s (Reference ThompsonThompson, 2012). For example, 500,000 people selected two or more responses in the 1990 census in protest of the instructions forcing only one choice (Reference Wallman, Evinger and SchechterWallman et al., 2000). Despite political pressure from civil rights activists such as Jesse Jackson, who argued that allowing multiple racial identifications would dilute the Census Bureau’s ability to document racial disparities, Multiracial activists from organizations such as RACE (Reclassify All Children Equally) successfully lobbied for the allowance of selecting multiple racial options on the census (Reference Rockquemore and BrunsmaRockquemore & Brunsma, 2002; Reference SnippSnipp, 2003). This change began with the 2000 census (Reference WilliamsWilliams, 2006).

2.2 History of the Study of Multiracial People

2.3 Multicultural People Throughout US History

The early twentieth century was characterized by mass migration in the US, leading the foreign-born population to account for 12–15 percent of the US population between 1880 and 1930 (Reference Birman, Simon, Leong, Comas-Díaz, Nagayama Hall, McLoyd and TrimbleBirman & Simon, 2014; Reference GriecoGrieco, 2014). The Chinese population within the US tripled between 1860 and 1890, and the Japanese population grew from 2,000 people in 1890 to over 70,000 in 1920 (Reference SohoniSohoni, 2007). Alongside this influx of immigration came legislation restricting immigration and naturalization, which excluded these populations from full participation in mainstream culture (Reference SohoniSohoni, 2007). For example, the 1875 Naturalization Act only allowed naturalization for White and African Americans, and the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act restricted immigration from China (Reference SohoniSohoni, 2007). In order to classify the growing immigrant populations, by 1930 there were US census categories for Mexican, Filipino, Hindu, and Korean (Reference SnippSnipp, 2003). Though immigration decreased by the 1970s, the “Second Great Wave” of immigration began after the 1970s, leading to a 400 percent increase in the foreign-born population by 2010 and comprising 14.8 percent of the population by 2019 (Reference Batalova, Hanna and LevesqueBatalova et al., 2021; Reference GriecoGrieco, 2014).

Within this zeitgeist, social scientific research began studying immigrant populations, primarily using the framework of acculturation (Reference Birman, Simon, Leong, Comas-Díaz, Nagayama Hall, McLoyd and TrimbleBirman & Simon, 2014). Indeed, beginning as early as 1918 with Thomas and Znaniecki’s publication of The Polish Peasant in Europe and America, theories of multiculturalism were rooted in acculturation research, which examines how people adapt individually, interpersonally, and at a group level as a result of continuous and direct contact with others from diverse cultural groups (Reference Berry, Phinney, Sam and VedderBerry et al., 2006; Reference Redfield, Linton and HerskovitsRedfield et al., 1936; Reference Rudmin, Wang, de Castro, Schwartz and UngerRudmin et al., 2017). Early models of acculturation posited that only “primitive” people acculturate after encountering “advanced” people, while those “advanced” people do not acculturate (Reference Rudmin, Wang, de Castro, Schwartz and UngerRudmin et al., 2017). Later models noted that acculturation is a bidirectional process where both local and immigrant populations may acculturate (Reference Kunst, Lefringhausen, Sam, Berry and DovidioKunst et al., 2021; Reference Redfield, Linton and HerskovitsRedfield et al., 1936). Models of Multicultural people’s identity usually proposed that individuals maintained (1) a singular cultural identity (either their mainstream or their heritage group; e.g., an Ecuadorian immigrant to the US identifying only as Ecuadorian or only as American) or (2) both mainstream and heritage cultural identities (see Reference Ryder, Alden and PaulhusRyder et al., 2000; e.g., an Ecuadorian immigrant to the US identifying as Ecuadorian and American, or as Ecuadorian-American). Later multiculturalism theories focused on people who identify with both mainstream and heritage cultural identities and provided insight into the processes people use to maintain their two cultures.

2.4 History of the Study of Multicultural People

2.5 Comparing Historical and Theoretical Foundations

Theoretical approaches to research on Multiracial and Multicultural populations have changed over time. For both populations, early conceptualization was centered on Multiracial and Multicultural people selecting only one identity, primarily the lower status identity. In the case of Multiracial identity, status differences between White and Black people in the US were perceived to be too vast to successfully integrate into one identity (Reference Thornton and RootThornton, 1996). Similarly, given the xenophobic roots of acculturation theory (Reference Rudmin, Wang, de Castro, Schwartz and UngerRudmin et al., 2017), research on Multicultural identity also began from a unidimensional perspective where Multicultural people were perceived to only identify with one end of a bipolar distribution (Reference RudminRudmin, 2003). For Multiracial people, this view followed from hypodescent norms while for Multicultural people it stemmed from increased globalization. Nonetheless, these two traditions share the initial theoretical approach that sought to apply monoracial or monocultural norms and expectations to Multiracial and Multicultural populations.

Later theoretical developments incorporated dynamic and ecological perspectives to understanding Multiracial and Multicultural identity. For both populations, this involved acknowledging how situations make racial or cultural identities more accessible, and minimized the perception that there is one optimal “endpoint” for Multiracial or Multicultural identity development (Reference Rockquemore, Brunsma and DelgadoRockquemore et al., 2009). Among Multiracial populations, most of this work examined identity change longitudinally over the course of two to ten years, including several studies using the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Reference DeFina and HannonDeFina & Hannon 2016; Reference Doyle and KaoDoyle & Kao, 2007; Reference Hitlin, Scott Brown and ElderHitlin et al., 2006; Reference Liebler, Porter, Fernandez, Noon and EnnisLiebler et al., 2017; Reference ReeceReece, 2019; see Reference Wilton, Sanchez and GarciaWilton et al., 2013 for a study using daily diary methodology), or through self-report of identity fluidity (e.g., Reference Lou, Lalonde and WilsonLou et al., 2011; Reference Lou and LalondeLou & Lalonde, 2015; Reference Lusk, Taylor, Nanney and AustinLusk et al., 2010; Reference Rockquemore and ArendRockquemore & Arend, 2002; Reference Rockquemore and BrunsmaRockquemore & Brunsma, 2004; Reference Sanchez, Shih and GarciaSanchez et al., 2009), while relatively less work has tested different situations within one timepoint (e.g., Reference Chiao, Heck, Nakayama and AmbadyChiao et al., 2006; Reference Gaither, Sommers and AmbadyGaither et al., 2013; Reference Gaither, Remedios, Schultz and SommersGaither, Cohen-Goldberg, et al., 2015; Reference Gaither, Remedios, Schultz and SommersGaither, Remedios, et al., 2015; Reference Harris and SimHarris & Sim, 2002; Reference Pauker, Ambady and FreemanPauker et al., 2013). This perspective highlights how factors such as gender, socioeconomic status, and phenotype influence the likelihood and directionality of racial identity change, rather than situational accessibility of racial identity schemas. In contrast, research among Multicultural populations has examined identity change in the moment after exposure to a laboratory cultural prime (e.g., Reference Benet-Martínez, Leu, Lee and MorrisBenet-Martínez et al., 2002; Reference Mok and MorrisMok & Morris, 2009; Ramirez-Esparza et al., 2006; Reference Verkuyten and PouliasiVerkuyten & Pouliasi, 2006), as well as longitudinally (e.g., Reference Matsunaga, Hecht, Elek and NdiayeMatsunaga et al., 2010; Reference Schwartz, Unger and Baezconde‐GarbanatiSchwartz et al., 2015; Reference TartakovskyTartakovsky, 2009). This work identified gender, socioeconomic status, and immigration status as relevant factors to identity fluidity. Taken together, identity fluidity may be a shared experience across both Multiracial and Multicultural populations, though currently less research has examined the situational access to different racial identities elicited through experimental designs among Multiracial people.

While multiracial research also included an equivalent approach, where Multiracial and monoracial people were directly compared on outcomes such as social adjustment and well-being (Reference Campbell and Eggerling-BoeckCampbell & Eggerling-Boeck, 2006), multicultural research has focused less on direct comparisons between Multicultural and monocultural people. Rather, much research has focused on differences in outcomes among Multicultural people with different identity profiles (Reference Schwartz, Unger and Baezconde‐GarbanatiSchwartz et al., 2015). Within the context of race, monoracial identity is seen as the norm and is supported socially and institutionally, leaving multiraciality to be positioned as deviant, and understood relative to monoracial benchmarks (Reference HarrisHarris, 2016). Given more expansive definitions of multiculturalism, and the historical roots of this research tradition in understanding different patterns of response to immigration, research on Multicultural populations has seen less of an equivalent approach.

Finally, the latest developments in multiracial theorizing take a critical race approach that acknowledges systemic issues and demonstrates how multiraciality is shaped by power structures (Reference HarrisHarris, 2016). In contrast, the latest developments in multicultural theorizing focus on processes of identity negotiation, considering how internal and individual approaches to identity shape those identities rather than systemic structures (Reference West, Zhang, Yampolsky and SasakiWest et al., 2017). Future research would benefit from a blend of these approaches that considers both how individual choices and internal processes are shaped by structural and external forces, interacting to create Multiracial and Multicultural identities that are not only internally dynamic, but externally dynamic as well. For example, studies exploring identity fluidity may incorporate both daily diary methodology to account for within-person differences in factors such as a sense of belonging, and longitudinal methodology to assess changes over time. Moreover, recruiting participants from across the US would further allow for the incorporation of neighborhood variables such as racial composition.

3.1 Methodological Approach of Multiracial Research

Alongside theoretical developments focused on Multiracial populations, methodological approaches have similarly evolved. A content review of research on Multiracial people between 1990 and 2009 identified 133 studies, demonstrating growing research interest in this population (Reference Charmaraman, Woo, Quach and ErkutCharmaraman et al., 2014). The majority (69 percent) of research during this time was quantitative, though earlier research was more likely to be qualitative, including case studies and observational studies of support groups for Multiracial people (Reference Charmaraman, Woo, Quach and ErkutCharmaraman et al., 2014; Reference Rockquemore, Brunsma and DelgadoRockquemore et al., 2009; Reference Shih and SanchezShih & Sanchez, 2005). Similarly, a 2005 review of Multiracial people’s identity development and well-being across relationships, school outcomes, and self-esteem identified more qualitative studies than quantitative studies (twenty-eight compared to fifteen), demonstrating an earlier focus on qualitative work (Reference Shih and SanchezShih & Sanchez, 2005). Yet, a content analysis within counseling psychology up to 2006 revealed equal numbers of qualitative and quantitative studies, suggesting heterogeneity of approaches by subfield (Reference Edwards and PedrottiEdwards & Pedrotti, 2008). The growth of quantitative research has been propelled by an increased availability of large-scale surveys that include information about parents’ race, such as the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Reference Rockquemore, Brunsma and DelgadoRockquemore et al., 2009).

The most frequently studied topics have been racial identity and phenotypic presentation, with many studies focusing on how Multiracial people categorize themselves and are categorized by others based on their phenotype (Reference Charmaraman, Woo, Quach and ErkutCharmaraman et al., 2014; Reference Edwards and PedrottiEdwards & Pedrotti, 2008; Reference Miville and CarterMiville, 2005). A review of experimental multiracial research within social psychology between 2000 and 2020 identified racial categorization, interracial interactions, and experiences of Multiracial people as the most frequently studied topics (Reference Garay and RemediosGaray & Remedios, 2021). Studies of how Multiracial people are categorized by others have demonstrated that perceptions of Multiracial people differ based on perceivers’ racial and political ideology, racial attitudes, and racial identity (Reference Chao, Hong and ChiuChao et al., 2013; Reference Eberhardt, Dasgupta and BanaszynskiEberhardt et al., 2003; Reference Gaither, Pauker, Slepian and SommersGaither et al., 2016; Reference Ho, Sidanius, Cuddy and BanajiHo et al., 2013, Reference Ho, Roberts and Gelman2015; Reference Hugenberg and BodenhausenHugenberg & Bodenhausen, 2004; Reference Krosch, Berntsen, Amodio, Jost and Van BavelKrosch et al., 2013; Reference Kteily, Cotterill, Sidanius, Sheehy‐Skeffington and BerghKteily et al., 2014; see Reference Pauker, Meyers, Sanchez, Gaither and YoungPauker, Meyers, et al., 2018 for a review). For example, the Sociopolitical Motive × Intergroup Threat Model posits that categorization of Multiracial people is influenced by people’s perceptions of threat to the hierarchy and to ingroup norms, such that high status group members are more likely to categorize Multiracial people as outgroup members in instances of high hierarchy and group norm threat (Reference Ho, Kteily and ChenHo et al., 2020). Categorization can also be influenced by the targets’ gender, racial identity, phenotype, and socioeconomic status (Reference Freeman, Penner, Saperstein, Scheutz and AmbadyFreeman et al., 2011; Reference MacLin and MalpassMacLin & Malpass, 2001; Reference Pauker, Carpinella, Lick, Sanchez and JohnsonPauker, Carpinella et al., 2018). Finally, contextual factors such as exposure to racial diversity, economic scarcity, and group threat can also influence categorization of Multiracial faces (Reference Dickter and KittelDickter & Kittel, 2012; Reference Freeman, Pauker and SanchezFreeman et al., 2016; Reference Krosch and AmodioKrosch & Amodio, 2014; Reference Krosch, Park, Walker and LisnerKrosch et al., 2022; Reference Rodeheffer, Hill and LordRodeheffer et al., 2012). This work has shown that Multiracial people can be categorized as members of their lower status group (i.e., according to hypodescent), as a minority group member that is not part of their ancestry, or as Multiracial (see Reference ChenChen, 2019 for a review). A meta-analytic review also demonstrates the importance of methodological decisions, as evidence of hypodescent was only seen when multiraciality was operationalized through ancestry information, the target of categorization was male, and categorization was done through multiple Likert scales or through a dichotomous outcome (Reference Young, Sanchez, Pauker and GaitherYoung et al., 2021). Across this research, several methodological challenges arose, particularly surrounding how to define and measure Multiracial populations in ways that are responsive to people’s own self-identification and to the fluidity of racial identity.

3.2 Methodological Approach of Multicultural Research

A highly studied topic with multicultural samples is the process of acculturation (Reference ChirkovChirkov, 2009). Indeed, approximately 6,000 studies on acculturation were conducted in the last decade alone (Reference Rudmin, Wang, de Castro, Schwartz and UngerRudmin et al., 2017). A review of forty-two articles in leading journals in the study of acculturation demonstrated that most studies were empirical (95 percent of articles) and correlational (82.5 percent of articles) and only one article included qualitative methodology (Reference ChirkovChirkov, 2009). This methodological approach reflects a universalist perspective adopted by many acculturation researchers, which indicates that acculturation processes occur similarly across different groups (Reference BerryBerry, 2009; Reference Berry, Sam, Berry, Segall and KagitcibasiBerry & Sam, 1997). Critics of this approach have employed different frameworks, such as liberation psychology (i.e., a clinical and academic approach that prioritizes oppressed populations) by incorporating individual empowerment processes into acculturation (Reference García-Ramírez, de la Mata, Paloma and Hernández-PlazaGarcía-Ramírez et al., 2011). Meta-analyses with broader search criteria have also identified qualitative studies on the association between acculturation and psychological adjustment among students (Reference Makarova and BirmanMakarova & Birman, 2016). Most often, acculturation research focuses on cultural identity as the medium for cultural orientation, and includes various outcomes such as health and academic achievement (Reference ChirkovChirkov, 2009; Reference Makarova and BirmanMakarova & Birman, 2015).

Various critiques of acculturation research claim there is an inconsistent use of methods and constructs across the literature that prohibits researchers from drawing broad conclusions across studies, particularly with regards to how acculturation relates to health outcomes (Reference Birman, Simon, Leong, Comas-Díaz, Nagayama Hall, McLoyd and TrimbleBirman & Simon, 2014; Reference Koneru, Weisman, Flynn and BetancourtKoneru et al., 2007; Reference RudminRudmin, 2009; Reference Rudmin, Wang, de Castro, Schwartz and UngerRudmin et al., 2017). For example, several definitions of acculturation exist, leading to different operationalizations across studies, including frequent use of proxy measures (e.g., country of birth and length of time in the US) rather than direct measures of acculturation (Reference Birman, Simon, Leong, Comas-Díaz, Nagayama Hall, McLoyd and TrimbleBirman & Simon, 2014). Moreover, researchers continue to use unilinear measures (e.g., asking participants which language they use the most) rather than bilinear measures despite a theoretical shift to understanding acculturation as bilinear (Reference Birman, Simon, Leong, Comas-Díaz, Nagayama Hall, McLoyd and TrimbleBirman & Simon, 2014). Finally, acculturation research often confounds dimensions of acculturation, such as measuring which culture Multicultural people participate in most, which could represent language, behavior, attitudes, or identity (Reference Birman, Simon, Leong, Comas-Díaz, Nagayama Hall, McLoyd and TrimbleBirman & Simon, 2014; Reference Schwartz, Unger, Zamboanga and SzapocznikSchwartz et al., 2010). Similarly, past work has been critiqued for other important confounds that are not often accounted for, including socioeconomic status, or using large pan-ethnic groups of participants and failing to examine subgroup differences, such as differences in acculturation between Latinx Americans from different countries (Reference Birman, Simon, Leong, Comas-Díaz, Nagayama Hall, McLoyd and TrimbleBirman & Simon, 2014; Reference RudminRudmin, 2009).

3.3 Comparing Methodological Approaches

Across both Multiracial and Multicultural populations, researchers have faced a challenge in defining who is considered a member of these groups. Across both bodies of work, inclusion criteria are often inconsistent between studies, making it difficult to draw broad, generalizable conclusions. For example, researchers disagree on whether to consider Latinx a separate racial group, and thereby consider people who have Latinx and another racial background as Multiracial. The socially constructed nature of race makes these determinations dynamic and fluid (Reference SongSong, 2021). The US census considers Latinx an ethnicity, so people who select a racial identity and Latinx ethnicity are not counted among the “Two or More” Multiracial population. However, there is evidence that Latinx populations themselves consider Latinx a racial group, with as many as 18.5 million people selecting “Some Other Race” and writing in “Latino” or “Hispanic” in the 2010 US census (Reference Gonzalez-Barrera and LopezGonzalez-Barrera & Lopez, 2015; Reference HermanHerman, 2020; Reference Hitlin, Brown and ElderHitlin et al., 2007). Thus, people with multiple racial backgrounds where one is Latinx may consider themselves Multiracial but would not be considered such by the US census and some researchers (e.g., Reference Amaro and ZambranaAmaro & Zambrana, 2000; Reference Doyle and KaoDoyle & Kao, 2007; Reference Udry, Li and Hendrickson-SmithUdry et al., 2003). Because the multiracial literature is also inconsistent in its inclusion of Latinx people as Multiracial, it is difficult to know whether findings may be expected to generalize to Multiracial people with Latinx heritage.

Similarly, Latinx Americans are highly represented in studies on the association between multiculturalism and adjustment (Reference Nguyen and Benet‐MartínezNguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2013), but how multiculturalism was defined within this population varies (Reference Safa and Umaña-TaylorSafa & Umaña-Taylor, 2021). For example, multiculturalism among Latinx Americans has been operationalized as dual-cultural adaptation (e.g., integrating cultural practices, values, and identifications from both cultures; Reference BerryBerry, 1974), dual-cultural identity (e.g., measuring processes through which cultural identities are formed and maintained), Bicultural identity integration, and Bicultural competence (Reference Safa and Umaña-TaylorSafa & Umaña-Taylor, 2021). Thus, whether Latinx Americans would be considered Multiracial, Multicultural, or both, is conceptually unclear based on current definitions of being Latinx. Therefore, future research would benefit from clearer and more justified inclusion criteria to properly test for generalizability of multiracial findings for those with Latinx heritage.

There are some similarities in the topics studied across both populations. For example, a large body of work is dedicated to understanding identity development of both Multiracial and Multicultural populations. Both approaches focus on correlates between these identities and well-being. Here, the literatures share similar limitations in the lack of experimental tests and future research would benefit from greater use of longitudinal and experimental methods to address the directionality of this relationship (Reference KunstBierwiaczonek & Kunst, 2021). Moreover, while multicultural research often tests measurement invariance when making comparisons across subpopulations, research with Multiracial populations would benefit from including this psychometric test in relevant studies more often.

There are also differences in each field’s approach to the study of identity. Multiracial research focuses both on understanding people’s identity development, as well as how they are categorized by others (e.g., Reference Ho, Kteily and ChenHo et al., 2020). As a result, there is also an emphasis on phenotypic presentation within this work. In contrast, multicultural research is dominated by an acculturation perspective that highlights identity integration as an acculturation strategy and identity endorsed by Multicultural people (e.g., Reference Nguyen and Benet‐MartínezNguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2013). While some work also examines how Multicultural people are perceived and categorized by others (e.g., Reference Kosic and PhaletKosic & Phalet, 2006; Reference Kunst, Dovidio and DotschKunst et al., 2018), theory and empirical findings are further developed in research among Multiracial people. Open questions remain surrounding how phenotypic presentation influences categorization of Multicultural people and their own identity development processes. For example, are Multicultural people categorized according to hypodescent? How are cultural and racial hierarchies used when categorizing a Multicultural person? Similarly, the construct of acculturation has scarcely been applied to Multiracial populations, although it could be argued that Multiracial people have sustained contact with two racial groups through socialization (Reference Liu, Liu and GarrisonLiu et al., 2019). Does an integrated racial identity convey similar benefits for Multiracial people as for Multicultural people?

4.1 Multiracial Socialization

Racial socialization describes the multidimensional process through which children learn about race, identity, and discrimination (Reference Atkin and YooAtkin & Yoo, 2019). Cultural socialization, promotion of mistrust, preparation for bias, and egalitarianism are the most studied types of socialization among monoracial minority group members (Reference Hughes, Rodriguez and SmithHughes et al., 2006). Racial socialization includes cultural socialization, or teaching children the cultural practices and customs of their racial group. Promotion of mistrust encourages children to be cautious around racial outgroup members, while preparation for bias describes teaching children about inequality and preparing them to deal with discrimination. Finally, egalitarianism promotes equality between racial groups and intergroup friendships (Reference Hughes, Rodriguez and SmithHughes et al., 2006). Racial socialization is associated with various outcomes, including racial identity, quality of interpersonal relationships, self-esteem, academic achievement, psychological health, and behavioral adjustment (see Reference Hughes, Rodriguez and SmithHughes et al., 2006; Reference Huguley, Wang, Vasquez and GuoHuguley et al., 2019; Reference Umaña‐Taylor and HillUmaña-Taylor & Hill, 2020; Reference Wang, Smith, Miller‐Cotto and HuguleyWang, Henry et al., 2020; Reference Wang, Smith, Miller‐Cotto and HuguleyWang, Smith et al., 2020 for reviews). However, because most of this research has been conducted with minoritized monoracial families, racial socialization among Multiracial families is less understood (see Reference Priest, Walton and WhitePriest et al., 2014 for a review).

The existing findings among monoracial families are unlikely to generalize to Multiracial families, where children may be socialized to multiple racial groups, and may not share a racial identity with their parents (Reference Atkin and YooAtkin & Yoo, 2019). For example, a Multiracial Asian/Latinx child would have an Asian and a Latinx parent, neither of whom would have the lived experience of growing up as a Multiracial child. Parents in interracial relationships have reported sadness and concern with the potential loss of cultural knowledge between generations and a lack of phenotypic connection to extended family (Reference Song and GutierrezSong & Gutierrez, 2015; Reference Wu, Lee and ZhouWu et al., 2020). Previous work on the racial socialization practices of parents of monoracial children has not demonstrated similar concerns, indicating this may be a unique aspect of Multiracial socialization.

As described earlier, Multiracial identity development models were historically a focus of multiracial research, and some of these models explicitly attended to socialization processes (e.g., Reference CollinsCollins, 2000; Reference Jacobs and RootJacobs, 1992; Reference Kerwin, Ponterotto, Jackson and HarrisKerwin et al., 1993; Reference Kich and RootKich, 1992; Reference PostonPoston, 1990; Reference Wijeyesinghe, Wijeyesinghe and JacksonWijeyesinghe, 2001; Reference WilliamsWilliams, 1999). For example, Reference Wijeyesinghe, Wijeyesinghe and JacksonWijeyesinghe’s (2001) Factor Model of Multiracial Identity Development and Reference RootRoot’s (2003) Ecological Framework for Understanding Multiracial Identity Development include socialization as a predictor of identity development. A recent review of twenty-one articles studying Multiracial racial socialization found most studies (fourteen) were qualitative, and many (nine) included Black/White participants. These studies focused largely on cultural and egalitarian socialization, and often applied monoracial frames to the Multiracial population (Reference Atkin and YooAtkin & Yoo, 2019). However, racial socialization, as it has been typically conceptualized and studied among monoracial families, may relate to identity development differently for Multiracial families. For example, racial socialization was associated with greater identity exploration, but not with identity affirmation among Multiracial families (Reference Brittian, Umaña-Taylor and DerlanBrittian et al., 2013).

Indeed, Reference Atkin and YooAtkin and Yoo (2019) identified research on other dimensions of racial socialization specific to Multiracial families, including identity socialization, negative socialization, exposure to diversity, and no socialization. A meta-ethnographic review of qualitative research on Black/White Multiracial socialization identified three themes overlapping with the Reference Atkin and YooAtkin and Yoo (2019) findings, including messages about monoracial Black people, color-evasiveness (i.e., avoiding discussing race and being racially categorized), and messages about multiracial experiences (e.g., encouraging pride in being Multiracial and preparing children for both bias and privilege they may experience due to their background; Reference Stokes, Charity‐Parker and HopeStokes et al., 2021).

Identity socialization describes messages family members transmit about how Multiracial people should identify (Reference Atkin and YooAtkin & Yoo, 2019). For example, identity socialization was often seen through family members encouraging their Multiracial child to identify with their racial minority background, following the norms of hypodescent (Reference Chancler, Webb and MillerChancler et al., 2017; Reference Jackson, Wolven and CrudupJackson et al., 2019; Reference O’DonoghueO’Donoghue, 2005), though others, particularly if they did not have Black ancestry, were encouraged to identify as White (Reference KingKing, 2013). Socialization as monoracial Black often includes both messages to prepare children for bias, and teaching affirmative racial group practices (Reference Stokes, Charity‐Parker and HopeStokes et al., 2021). Other families reported encouraging their child to identify as Biracial, either directly by providing them this label, or indirectly (Reference Rauktis, Fusco, Goodkind and Bradley-KingRauktis et al., 2016; Reference Stone and Dolbin-MacNabStone & Dolbin-MacNab, 2017; Reference Stokes, Charity‐Parker and HopeStokes et al., 2021). Some parents report researching best socialization practices for Biracial children and teaching their child to be proud that they are mixed (Reference Stone and Dolbin-MacNabStone & Dolbin-MacNab, 2017). Caregivers sometimes demonstrated cultural humility, wherein they supported their child’s autonomy in selecting their own identity (Reference Franco and McElroy-HeltzelFranco & McElroy-Heltzel, 2019). Which of these different approaches is taken may depend on ecological factors, such as how salient race is in the family’s social context (Reference Stokes, Charity‐Parker and HopeStokes et al., 2021).

Those families who engaged in negative socialization encouraged their child to avoid or mistrust racial groups, even those racial groups that comprise the child’s ancestry (Reference Harris, Henriksen and OnwuegbuzieHarris et al., 2013). For example, one sample of Multiracial emerging adults recalled feeling disconnected from their parents in their childhood because of a lack of communication surrounding race, identity, and discrimination (Reference Atkin and JacksonAtkin & Jackson, 2021). In contrast, some Multiracial families intentionally try to expose their child to diversity by living in a Multiracial community in order to fill socialization gaps that parents themselves may not be able to do (Reference O’DonoghueO’Donoghue, 2005; Reference SnyderSnyder, 2012). Living in diverse communities can provide role models and teach children about experiences their parents may not have themselves, such as White parents who may not experience the racism their child is exposed to. Other work demonstrates interracial contact may be a significant event that catalyzes socialization and identity development (Reference Cardwell, Soliz, Crockett and BergquistCardwell et al., 2020). Finally, some research has demonstrated that Multiracial families may opt out of racial socialization by failing to discuss race at all, avoiding the topic whenever it comes up (Reference Jackson, Wolven and CrudupJackson et al., 2019; Reference KingKing, 2013; Reference SnyderSnyder, 2012). This may lead to less closeness between parents, and some emerging adults report resentment at not having learned more about their racial backgrounds (Reference Stokes, Charity‐Parker and HopeStokes et al., 2021). Though nascent, this existing literature demonstrates how Multiracial socialization shares commonalities with traditional studies of monoracial socialization, and also requires specific attention to the socialization of multiple racial identities.

Very few studies have directly compared Multiracial and monoracial socialization. Among a sample of caregivers drawn from five regions of the US, caregivers of Multiracial children reported similar levels of cultural socialization as caregivers of Asian, Black, and White children, and higher cultural socialization than caregivers of Latinx children (Reference Albuja, Ansari and Ortiz-PayneAlbuja et al., 2022). Caregivers of Multiracial children also reported similar levels of preparation for bias as caregivers of Asian, White, Black, and Latinx children. Finally, caregivers of Multiracial children reported similar levels of egalitarian socialization as caregivers of Black, Latinx, and White children, and higher egalitarian socialization than caregivers of Asian children (Reference Albuja, Ansari and Ortiz-PayneAlbuja et al., 2022). Though there may be some differences, in general, these findings demonstrate similar overall amounts of socialization between Multiracial and monoracial families when socialization is not measured using multiracial-specific scales.

4.2 Multicultural Socialization

Research on ethnic socialization often includes Multicultural populations as defined here, without necessarily using the term “Multicultural.” For example, ethnic socialization stemmed from research with immigrant Asian and Latinx populations, and studied how families socialized their children to both mainstream American culture and their heritage culture (Reference Knight, Bernal, Cota, Garza, Ocampo, Bernal and KnightKnight et al., 1993a,; Reference Knight, Bernal, Garza, Cota and OcampoKnight et al., 1993b; Reference Ou, McAdoo and McAdooOu & McAdoo, 1993; Reference Quintana and VeraQuintana & Vera, 1999). Thus, there is conceptual overlap in ethnic and racial socialization, and both are conceptualized to include cultural socialization, preparation for bias, promotion of mistrust, and egalitarianism (Reference Hughes, Rodriguez and SmithHughes et al., 2006). Moreover, ethnic socialization is associated with similar outcomes as racial socialization, including ethnic identity, academic achievement, and well-being (see Reference Ayón, Nieri and RuanoAyón et al., 2020; Reference Hughes, Rodriguez and SmithHughes et al., 2006; Reference Huguley, Wang, Vasquez and GuoHuguley et al., 2019; Reference Umaña‐Taylor and HillUmaña-Taylor & Hill, 2020; Reference Wang, Smith, Miller‐Cotto and HuguleyWang, Henry et al., 2020; Reference Wang, Smith, Miller‐Cotto and HuguleyWang, Smith et al., 2020 for reviews).

For Multicultural families, socialization represents an attempt to pass on the heritage culture in the face of pressures to assimilate to mainstream US culture (Reference Hughes, Rodriguez and SmithHughes et al., 2006; Reference Knight, Berkel and Umaña‐TaylorKnight et al., 2011; Reference Mchitarjan and ReisenzeinMchitarjan & Reisenzein, 2015; Reference Umaña-Taylor, Alfaro, Bámaca and GuimondUmaña-Taylor et al., 2009). Indeed, parents’ lower assimilation to mainstream US culture is associated with greater ethnic socialization to the heritage culture (Reference Knight, Bernal, Garza, Cota and OcampoKnight et al., 1993b; Reference Quintana and VeraQuintana & Vera, 1999). Similarly, earlier generational immigrants socialize their children to their heritage culture, and discuss discrimination more than later generational immigrants, because they have more first-hand experience with the heritage culture than later generational immigrants (Reference Knight, Berkel and Umaña‐TaylorKnight et al., 2011; Reference Umaña-Taylor, Alfaro, Bámaca and GuimondUmaña-Taylor et al., 2009; Reference Umaña‐Taylor, Quintana and LeeUmaña-Taylor et al., 2014). Yet, aspects of ethnic socialization such as family gatherings, traditional meals, and Spanish language use were found to be shared across different generations of Mexican American and Puerto Rican mothers (Reference Umaña-Taylor and YazedjianUmaña-Taylor & Yazedjian, 2006).

Specifically, ethnic socialization involves the transmission of cultural values (Reference Knight, Berkel and Umaña‐TaylorKnight et al., 2011). For example, Mexican American parents’ cultural values of respect, obligation, reference, religion, and support were associated with greater ethnic socialization, and ultimately greater adoption of these values by Mexican American adolescents (Reference Knight, Berkel and Umaña‐TaylorKnight et al., 2011). Similarly, Mexican American parents passed on their familism values, which prioritize family ties and obligations, to their adolescents (Reference Calderón-Tena, Knight and CarloCalderón et al., 2011; Reference Knight, Carlo, Mahrer and DavisKnight et al., 2016; Reference Kulish, Cavanaugh and SteinKulish et al., 2019). Among Chinese American parents, shame, modesty, and filial piety (i.e., a value that intersects with face and harmony) are passed onto children through ethnic socialization (Reference Lieber, Nihira and MinkLieber et al., 2004; Reference Luo, Tamis-LeMonda and SongLuo et al., 2013). Ethnic socialization can also include sociopolitical discussions that socialize youth to civic engagement (Reference CarranzaCarranza, 2007; Reference Pinetta, Blanco Martinez, Cross and Rivas‐DrakePinetta et al., 2020) and documentation status socialization that orients youth to the causes and consequences of their legal immigration status in the US (Reference AyónAyón, 2016; Reference Cross, Martinez and Rivas‐DrakeCross et al., 2021). Finally, socialization among Multicultural families can also involve teaching children a heritage language or traveling to a parent’s home country (Reference Ayón, Nieri and RuanoAyón et al., 2020; though see Reference Villalobos SolísVillalobo Solís [2021] for evidence that visits to Puerto Rico constitute a construct separate from ethnic socialization).

Multicultural parents not only seek to pass on traditional values and beliefs from their heritage culture, but also socialize their child to be successful in the US through “American” ways (Reference Aldoney and CabreraAldoney & Cabrera 2016; Reference Cheah, Leung and ZhouCheah et al. 2013; Reference John and MontgomeryJohn & Montgomery, 2012; Reference Lieber, Nihira and MinkLieber et al. 2004; Reference Uttal and HanUttal & Han, 2011). For example, Chinese mothers’ cultural orientation toward Chinese-American culture (rather than toward Chinese culture or American culture, respectively) was associated with higher Multicultural socialization beliefs, and with adolescents’ Chinese-American cultural orientation (Reference Kim and HouKim & Hou, 2016). However, Chinese mothers’ cultural orientation toward Chinese or American cultures was not related to adolescents’ Chinese or American cultural orientation, demonstrating that Multicultural socialization may be transmitted intergenerationally when parents are high in Multicultural socialization beliefs (Reference Kim and HouKim & Hou, 2016). Similarly, Multicultural adolescents of various backgrounds reported receiving cultural socialization to both their heritage culture and the mainstream culture (Reference Wang, Benner and KimWang et al., 2015).

Other work has examined parents’ socialization goals for their Multicultural children, or their ideal for their children’s cultural orientations that would most help them have healthy and successful lives (Reference John and MontgomeryJohn & Montgomery, 2012). For Indian American families, these goals may vary in the extent to which they are autonomy versus family-centered, promote a Multicultural versus an ethnic identity, and encourage academic achievement versus social competence (Reference John and MontgomeryJohn & Montgomery, 2012). One study found that parents may take a blended approach, where their socialization goals include both values of the heritage culture and mainstream American values, or a traditional approach that prioritizes cultural continuity through family-centered and ethnic identity goals (Reference John and MontgomeryJohn & Montgomery, 2012). Similarly, Mexican American families included both heritage cultural values of respeto and more mainstream cultural values of independence in their socialization of their adolescents (Reference Kim, Chen, Hou, Zeiders and CalzadaKim et al., 2019). Finally, recent theoretical developments propose a developmental approach to understanding how Multicultural people negotiate their two identities. For example, people may negotiate their identities through exploration, alternating, integration, and hybridizing (Reference Meca, Eichas, Schwartz, Titzmann and JugertMeca et al., 2019). The use of these strategies is influenced by the familial cultural context, including parents’ socialization toward each cultural orientation (Reference Meca, Eichas, Schwartz, Titzmann and JugertMeca et al., 2019; Reference Umaña-Taylor, Bhanot and ShinUmaña-Taylor et al., 2006).

4.3 Comparing Multiracial and Multicultural Socialization

Racial and ethnic socialization share a theoretical foundation primarily grounded in a bioecological model of child development that emphasizes children’s socialization within the microsystem of the family, as well as within broader societal and structural factors (Reference Bronfenbrenner, Morris and LernerBronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Reference Titzmann and LeeTitzmann & Lee, 2018). Following, many constructs overlap, including the cultural socialization, preparation for bias, egalitarianism, and promotion of mistrust dimensions of both racial and ethnic socialization (Reference Hughes, Rodriguez and SmithHughes et al., 2006). However, several other dimensions of socialization have been added to the study of ethnic socialization, including familism and documentation socialization among Latinx Multicultural families (Reference AyónAyón, 2016; Reference Cross, Martinez and Rivas‐DrakeCross et al., 2021; Reference Kulish, Cavanaugh and SteinKulish et al., 2019), and filial piety among Chinese Multicultural families (Reference Lieber, Nihira and MinkLieber et al., 2004; Reference Luo, Tamis-LeMonda and SongLuo et al., 2013). These dimensions have not been studied among families with Multiracial children. In contrast, racial socialization of Multiracial children has expanded to also include identity socialization, negative socialization, exposure to diversity, and no socialization (Reference Atkin and YooAtkin & Yoo, 2019). These dimensions have not been studied among Multicultural families. Thus, while racial and ethnic socialization share many theoretical foundations, each has been expanded to include dimensions of socialization more specific to each population.

Moreover, parents and families are often studied as the principal socializing agents within both populations (Reference Brittian, Umaña-Taylor and DerlanBrittian et al., 2013; Reference Chancler, Webb and MillerChancler et al., 2017; Reference Knight, Berkel and Umaña‐TaylorKnight et al., 2011). Specifically, cultural socialization most often focuses on mothers as the socializing agents (Reference Knight, Berkel and Umaña‐TaylorKnight et al. 2011; Reference Su and CostiganSu & Costigan, 2009). For example, the family obligation expectations of Chinese mothers in Canada were related to children’s ethnic identity development, while fathers’ expectations were not (Reference Su and CostiganSu & Costigan, 2009). However, other work demonstrates that fathers’ role may be more substantive than mothers’ in cultural socialization toward mainstream American culture (Reference PaquettePaquette, 2004; Reference Zeiders, Updegraff, Umaña-Taylor, McHale and PadillaZeiders et al. 2015). Yet, other work has failed to find caregiver gender differences in cultural socialization of adolescents (Reference Kim and HouKim & Hou, 2016). Grandparents also have a critical role, as they may promote multiracial and multicultural pride, or may serve as monocentric gatekeepers who deny Multiracial and Multicultural identities and limit identification with a monoracial or monocultural group by gatekeeping behaviors such as language (Reference Jackson, Mitchell, Snyder and SamuelsJackson et al., 2020). Future research should expand study on socialization from grandparents and other agents, especially because each socialization agent may pass on their racial or cultural background. Thus, in studies of Multiracial and Multicultural children, it is especially important to study how socialization from both parents or other caregivers interact to influence children’s identities. Relatedly, much research has focused on adolescence as a time of identity development, though research with Multicultural populations also accounts for the developmental period when participants immigrated to the US (Reference Hong and SchmidtHong & Schmidt, 2021). This suggests there may be developmental differences in socialization time periods between Multiracial and Multicultural children that have not been studied.

The dimensions of socialization specific to Multiracial children focus on Multiracial identification and interracial intergroup relations, such as through negative socialization that encourages mistrust of other racial groups (Reference Harris, Henriksen and OnwuegbuzieHarris et al., 2013). In contrast, the dimensions of socialization specific to Multicultural children focus on value transmission and issues surrounding immigration (Reference AyónAyón, 2016). While theoretical models of both racial and ethnic identity development include socialization as an important mechanism for identity development (Reference Umaña-Taylor and FineUmaña-Taylor & Fine, 2004; Reference Wijeyesinghe, Wijeyesinghe and JacksonWijeyesinghe, 2001), to date there is less research on socialization to the Multicultural identity label compared to the Multiracial identity label (Reference Atkin and YooAtkin & Yoo, 2019). Indeed, research on cultural identity often studies people’s identification with their ethnic identity (e.g., Latinx American or Asian American) rather than with a “Multicultural” identity (e.g., Reference Gartner, Kiang and SuppleGartner et al., 2014). This likely stems from conceptual and methodological overlap between racial and ethnic identity that has prompted the use of similar measures among monoracial and Multicultural populations (Reference Umaña‐Taylor, Quintana and LeeUmaña-Taylor et al., 2014). Open questions remain surrounding what demographic, contextual, and psychological variables influence people’s identification with a pan-ethnic label of “Multicultural.” This has important implications for coalition-building across Multicultural people with different cultural backgrounds.

5.1 Multiracial Identity Negotiation

5.2 Multicultural Identity Negotiation

Initial investigations focused on the acculturation strategies of immigrants in order to categorize Multicultural people into “types.” As described earlier, Reference Berry and PadillaBerry’s (1980) highly influential acculturation model provided four categories that Multicultural people fall into, depending on how strongly and actively connected they are to their heritage (i.e., minority) culture and to the mainstream (i.e., majority) culture: integration, assimilation, separation, and marginalization (Reference Berry and PadillaBerry, 1980; Reference Berry, Phinney, Sam and VedderBerry et al., 2006). These initial four categories formed the basis for additional “microcategories” that endeavored to further differentiate the experiences of Multicultural individuals within these four types. The greatest attention was given to the integration category, but Reference LaFromboise, Coleman and GertonLaFromboise and colleagues (1993) provided distinctions between Multicultural individuals who alternated between their contextually bound identities (later inspiring work on frame switching), versus those who embraced a stable multicultural strategy by identifying simultaneously with their two independent cultures, versus those who adopted a fusion strategy leading to a singular hybridized culture. Thus, how a Multicultural person maintains both cultures manifests differently between Multicultural individuals and for each individual over time and context. Here, we review multicultural subcategories and subsequent negotiation processes that have been identified within those individuals who identify with all their cultures.

5.3 Comparing Identity Negotiation

A review of the identity negotiation research with Multiracial and Multicultural people reveals many commonalities. In both cases, initial investigations were primarily concerned with creating types according to people’s relative strengths of identification with each of their racial or cultural groups (e.g., Reference Berry and PadillaBerry, 1980; Reference Roccas and BrewerRoccas & Brewer, 2002). There are some common themes in the overlap between the categories created within the different typological models. For instance, a cluster of categories represent people who feel torn between their groups, perceiving those groups to conflict with one another and be mutually exclusive, as reflected by the protean Multiracial individual and the compartmentalized or alternating Multicultural individual (Reference LaFromboise, Coleman and GertonLaFromboise et al., 1993; Reference RockquemoreRockquemore, 1999; Reference Ward, Ng Tseung-Wong, Szabo, Qumseya and BhowonWard et al., 2018). On the other hand, the border Multiracial and integrated Multicultural (Reference Amiot, De la Sablonniere, Terry and SmithAmiot et al., 2007; Reference RockquemoreRockquemore, 1999) categories include individuals who bridge their groups, finding shared elements and seeing harmony or complements in the differences. If these border and integrated strategies are akin to bridge building between two lands, the merger Multiracial and hybridizing Multicultural (Reference Roccas and BrewerRoccas & Brewer, 2002; Reference West, Zhang, Yampolsky and SasakiWest et al., 2017; Reference Zhang, Schimel and FaucherZhang et al., 2014) strategies instead entail creating a new island between two lands – the individual holds a single identity that reflects the idiosyncratic way they have combined elements of their two groups.

Importantly, a person’s negotiation strategies are most often unfixed, varying across their lifespan as well as moment to moment in response to external pressures and support. Social interactions with friends, family, and society at large powerfully shape and constrain Multiracial and Multicultural identities, whether through historical or ongoing conflict between their groups or more general messaging that a person can or cannot fully belong to more than one group (Reference West, Muise and SasakiWest et al., 2021; Reference Yampolsky, West, Zhou, Muise and LalondeYampolsky et al., 2021). For example, discrimination experiences push individuals in both populations toward more fractured identities and can thwart efforts to integrate and find stability in their dual identities (Yampolsky et al., 2015; 2020). A pressing challenge in modern ever-diversifying societies will be to identify and ameliorate the barriers Multiracial and Multicultural people face in their identity journeys. Future research would benefit from understanding how supportive environments that promote identity autonomy and exploration influence identity negotiation strategies as one pathway to support Multiracial and Multicultural people’s well-being.

In both literatures, we also see increased microcategorizing of Multiracial and Multicultural people as the dominant trend until only recently. A budding new perspective in both fields moves away from labeling individuals according to categories and instead reconceptualizes the strategies that underlie the prior categories as skills that a person can develop and draw on flexibly as they negotiate their changing social relationships and attitudes (Reference Hong, Wyer, Chiu and HongHong, 2013; Reference West, Zhang, Yampolsky and SasakiWest et al., 2017). One promise of this new approach is the potential to pinpoint the mechanisms through which being Multiracial or Multicultural affects a person’s characteristics and abilities. For instance, both multiraciality and multiculturalism have been repeatedly linked to greater cognitive flexibility, but the precise reason for these effects is less clear. In considering the range of identity configurations as processes that individuals use to negotiate their groups, new research can investigate what exactly individuals are doing that fosters their flexible thinking. As examples provided by Reference West, Zhang, Yampolsky and SasakiWest and colleagues (2017), does frame switching strengthen the more general executive functions of task switching and inhibition? Might the extensive bridge-building work that makes integration possible transfer to greater dialecticism and wise reasoning, which are characterized by the ability to simultaneously consider opposing perspectives? Reframing prior work on identity categories as active processes – what Multiracial and Multicultural people do instead of what they are – holds potential to advance our understanding and methods around the causes and effects of being Multiracial or Multicultural (Reference Sam, Ward, Bender and AdamsSam & Ward, 2021).

Despite commonalities between multiracial and multicultural typologies, differences also emerge in the nuances of certain configurations. For example, the intersectional identity is a more specific, discrete classification of a Multiracial individual who only identifies with their exact combination of races (Reference Roccas and BrewerRoccas & Brewer, 2002) in a way that differs from Multicultural hybridization. Namely, the intersectional Multiracial identity can be thought of as multiplicative or interactive in nature where identity A is moderated or qualified by identity B, and intersectional identity AB can only be understood fully through their interaction. In contrast, a hybridized Multicultural identity is a personalized combination of aspects of identity A and identity B into a new identity AB that is rather removed from its two sources. Another category difference emerges in considering the strategy of focusing on superordinate identities rather than one’s cultural or racial identities (Reference RockquemoreRockquemore, 1999; Reference Yampolsky, Amiot and de la SablonnièreYampolsky et al., 2016). It is unclear whether these differences reflect unexplored identity configurations that exist for each population, and/or if there may be important differences in the social construction of race and culture that lead to certain distinct identity choices and configurations. Extending research with both populations to include multiple other social identities, and account for the unique influence of the social context, would help researchers understand the complexity of identity negotiation more comprehensively.

6.1 Multiracial Discrimination

Multiracial populations are marginalized in various ways, including through monoracism, challenges to their identities, and microaggressions (Reference Franco, Durkee and McElroy-HeltzelFranco et al., 2021a). In fact, Multiracial college students report experiencing discrimination at higher rates than White, Latinx (Reference Hurtado, Alvarado and Guillermo-WannHurtado et al., 2015), and Black students (Reference Brackett, Marcus, McKenzie, Mullins, Tang and AllenBrackett et al., 2006). Similarly, in a nationally representative study of US adults, Multiracial people reported experiencing greater discrimination than White and Asian adults, and lower discrimination than Black adults (Reference Nalven, Spillane and RossiNalven et al., 2021). For Multiracial people, discrimination may be perpetrated by both White people and people of color (Reference Rockquemore and BrunsmaRockquemore & Brunsma, 2007), though some evidence suggests Multiracial people may be rejected less by other Multiracial people than monoracial ingroup members (Reference Norman, Franco and ChenNorman et al., 2021). Moreover, the racism Multiracial people experience may target their minoritized identities, or their Multiracial identity (Reference Salahuddin and O’BrienSalahuddin & O’Brien, 2011), and can be perpetrated by strangers as well as family members (Reference Franco and CarterFranco & Carter, 2019; Reference Franco, Durkee and McElroy-HeltzelFranco et al., 2021a; Reference Nadal, Wong and GriffinNadal et al., 2011; Reference Salahuddin and O’BrienSalahuddin & O’Brien, 2011).

6.2 Multicultural Discrimination

In the US, widespread associations equating American and White often lead to the perception that Multicultural Americans are not fully American (Reference Devos and BanajiDevos & Banaji, 2005; Reference Devos and MaDevos & Ma, 2008; Reference Devos, Gavin and QuintanaDevos et al., 2010). As a result, Multicultural people can experience both interpersonal and structural discrimination (Reference Araújo and BorrellAraújo & Borrell, 2006; Reference Miller, Kim and Benet-MartínezMiller et al., 2011, Reference Miller, Kim, Chen and Alvarez2012). Interpersonal discrimination can include social exclusion, stigmatization, and physical or verbal harassment (Reference Contrada, Ashmore and GaryContrada et al., 2001; Reference Zhao and BiernatZhao & Biernat, 2017), while structural discrimination can include anti-immigration policies, profiling by police, and a sociopolitical environment hostile to immigrants (Reference Ayón and BecerraAyón & Becerra, 2013; Reference Perreira and PedrozaPerreira & Pedroza, 2019). Multicultural populations report high levels of discrimination. For example, between 30 percent and 79.5 percent of Multicultural Latinx (Reference Arellano-Morales, Roesch and GalloArellano-Morales et al., 2015; Reference Pérez, Fortuna and AlegriaPérez et al., 2008; Reference Todorova, Falcon, Lincoln and PriceTodorova et al., 2010), and approximately 30 percent of Multicultural immigrants of Southeast Asian, or African backgrounds (Reference Tran, Lee and BurgessTran et al., 2010) reported experiencing discrimination in their lifetime. While aspects of the discrimination Multicultural people face may be similar to that faced by racial minorities who do not identify as Multicultural, discrimination as perpetual foreigners, microaggressions, and the association between discrimination and acculturative stress and acculturation may be specific to Multicultural Americans.

6.3 Comparing Multiracial and Multicultural Discrimination

The association between discrimination and poorer well-being was both consistent across Multiracial and Multicultural populations, and consistent with various theoretical perspectives. For example, symbolic interactionism (Reference Goffman, Smelser and SmelserGoffman, 1963) posits that stigmatization can be internalized, and reduce people’s well-being and sense of belonging (Reference Baumeister and LearyBaumeister & Leary, 1995). Indeed, across both populations, more frequent experiences of discrimination were associated with poorer mental and physical health, and greater substance use. Among Multiracial people, these associations were moderated and mediated by identity integration, and emergent research has begun to consider the moderating role of ecological context such as subjective racial diversity (Reference Gabriel, Yoo, Jackson and GuevarraGabriel et al., 2021; Reference Jackson, Yoo, Guevarra and HarringtonJackson et al., 2012; Reference Reid Marks, Thurston, Kamody and Schaeffer-SmithReid Marks et al., 2020). Among Multicultural people, these associations were mediated by poorer sleep (Reference Green, Shipman and ValrieGreen et al., 2021), and moderated by participants’ ethnic identity, and the density of ingroup members in the ecological context (Reference Syed and JuanSyed & Juan, 2012; Reference Yip, Gee and TakeuchiYip et al., 2008). One study directly comparing Multiracial and Multicultural populations found decreased social belonging to be a consistent mediator of the association between identity denial and depressive symptoms and stress (Reference Albuja, Sanchez and GaitherAlbuja et al., 2019a). Future research would benefit from clarifying the role of identity integration as a mediator, moderator, or both in the association between discrimination and well-being. Additionally, greater focus on contextual variables such as ingroup density, racial and cultural diversity, and social cohesion would advance an understanding of how the social context can perpetuate or attenuate discrimination for these populations.

Although both populations shared similar experiences and outcomes of discrimination, there may be differences in what drives discrimination toward Multiracial and Multicultural people. For example, people expect Multiracial children to be less well-adjusted than monoracial children because of their complex racial background (Brandell, 1998). People of color reported more positive attitudes toward Multiracial children than White people (Reference Jackman, Wagner and JohnsonJackman et al., 2001) and more positive attitudes toward Multiracial children were associated with a stronger ethnic identity and better psychological adjustment among Multiracial adults (Reference AdamsAdams, 2008). Relatedly, Multiracial adults reported warmer feelings toward Multiracial people than White, Black, Latinx, or Asian adults, and warmer feelings were associated with less conservative beliefs (Reference Campbell and HermanCampbell & Herman, 2010). Beyond this initial work, there is a dearth of understanding of what drives attitudes toward Multiracial people. Although Multiracial people’s identity and phenotypic racial ambiguity often disrupts people’s concepts of race by reducing endorsement of ideologies of race as biological and a topic that should be avoided (Reference Gaither, Toosi, Babbitt and SommersGaither et al., 2019; Reference Young, Sanchez and WiltonYoung et al., 2013), it is unclear how these or other racial ideologies relate to negative attitudes toward Multiracial people. In contrast, negative attitudes toward Multicultural people may stem from perceived symbolic and realistic threats (Reference Stephan and StephanStephan & Stephan, 1996; Reference Stephan, Ybarra and BachmanStephan et al., 1999). Symbolic threats threaten “the American way of life,” such as through the perception that Multicultural people are not assimilating to the US, and are associated with higher right-wing authoritarianism (i.e., individual obedience to authorities and adherence to traditional norms and values; Reference AltemeyerAltemeyer, 1988; Reference Duckitt and ZannaDuckitt, 2001). Realistic threats threaten people’s material resources, such as through the perception that Multicultural people are taking jobs in the US, and are associated with higher social dominance orientation (i.e., individual preference for social hierarchies; Reference Duckitt and ZannaDuckitt, 2001; Reference Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth and MallePratto et al., 1994). Thus, although there is evidence for ideological and trait underpinnings of attitudes toward Multicultural people, less is known about similar drivers of attitudes toward Multiracial people. Future research would benefit from understanding whether attitudes toward Multiracial people are similarly driven by perceived symbolic threats (e.g., perceived threats to the current racial hierarchy) and realistic threats (e.g., perceived threats to resources through an expanded application of affirmative action; Reference Good, Chavez and SanchezGood et al., 2010; Reference Sanchez, Good and ChavezSanchez et al., 2011).

Generational status is often considered in studies of discrimination among Multicultural populations, and some work has found generational status to be an important moderator. For example, the negative association between discrimination and identity harmony was only found among second generation, but not among first generation, Multicultural people (Reference Huynh, Benet-Martínez and NguyenHuynh et al., 2018). Similarly, the association between acculturation and discrimination was positive among second-generation Multicultural Americans, but negative among first-generation Multicultural Americans (Reference Finch, Kolody and VegaFinch et al., 2000). The experiences of first- and second-generation Multicultural people may differ in a variety of ways, including in their Multicultural identity orientation (Reference Huynh, Benet-Martínez and NguyenHuynh et al., 2018), experiences of discrimination (Reference Huynh, Benet-Martínez and NguyenHuynh et al., 2018), and vulnerability to identity denial (Reference Wang, Minervino and CheryanWang et al., 2013). Future research would benefit from additional consideration of generational differences in Multicultural people’s experiences of microaggressions, and the association between various types of discrimination and well-being. In contrast, generational status is not often considered in research on Multiracial discrimination. Some definitions of Multiracial do not include later generation Multiracial people, but multigenerational Multiracial people who continue to identify as Multiracial may be especially interested in maintaining their ties to their multiple racial backgrounds and may experience discrimination differently than first-generation Multiracial people (Reference SongSong, 2021). Future research may consider the role of generational status in the discrimination experiences of Multiracial people.

Some microaggressions were similar between the populations. For example, both Multiracial and Multicultural people experience exoticization and exclusion (Reference Johnston, Nadal and SueJohnston & Nadal, 2010; Reference Rivera, Forquer, Rangel and SueRivera et al., 2010). Microaggressions based on lower status were also shared between some Multiracial and Multicultural populations, though Multicultural Asian Americans are often stereotyped as high-status rather than low status (Reference Johnston, Nadal and SueJohnston & Nadal, 2010; Reference Nadal, Wong, Sriken, Griffin and Fujii-DoeNadal et al., 2015). Multicultural microaggressions also focused more on values than multiracial microaggressions. For example, Multicultural people reported that their cultural values and speaking style were pathologized, while for Multiracial people, pathologizing microaggressions focused on perceptions of them as confused about their identity rather than focused on their values. While both populations may experience similar microaggressions, including pathologizing from others, there may be differences in the content of the microaggressions. Relatedly, Multiracial people reported experiencing identity denial more often and identity questioning less often than Multicultural people, suggesting race may be policed more strictly than culture, but foreigner stereotypes may be especially relevant to questions Multicultural people face. Future research may seek to better understand the impact of these various types of microaggressions across both populations through methods that allow for the study of the cumulative impact of these experiences over time, rather than testing one isolated event.

There was evidence consistent with rejection-identification theory among both Multiracial and Multicultural samples (Reference Giamo, Schmitt and OuttenGiamo et al., 2012; Reference WileyWiley, 2013). Indeed, people may come to identify more strongly as Multiracial or Multicultural when either these identities, or their monoracial or monocultural identities are rejected. However, evidence of this among Multicultural people is weaker and should be replicated in future research. Future research should also systematically test the implications of rejection for each identity, including a Multiracial or Multicultural identity, and how these vary based on the background of the perpetrator, as this would clarify how rejection-identification and rejection-disidentification theories apply to these populations.

Qualitative research has identified various ways that Multiracial people may cope with discrimination, including through avoidance, anger, advocacy, seeking community, and shifting racial identities (Reference SnyderSnyder, 2016). Yet, antidiscrimination policies in the US currently do not apply specifically to Multiracial populations, and there is opposition among the lay public to include Multiracial in antidiscrimination laws (Reference Campbell and HermanCampbell & Herman, 2010). Nevertheless, Multiracial people demonstrate resilience and resistance to discrimination through appreciation of human differences and pride in being Multiracial (Reference Salahuddin and O’BrienSalahuddin & O’Brien, 2011). Similarly, Multicultural people have shown resistance and resilience when facing discrimination (Reference CasanovaCasanova, 2012). For example, through a strong identity, and through support from family and mentors, Multicultural people are able to foster resilience processes in the face of discrimination (Reference CasanovaCasanova, 2012; Reference Sajquim and LuskSajquim de Torres & Lusk, 2018). Multicultural people also show resilience and resistance to discrimination through civic engagement, such as participating in protests and community organizing (Reference Suárez-Orozco, Hernández and CasanovaSuárez-Orozco et al., 2015). Future research could test targeted interventions to help Multiracial and Multicultural people foster greater resilience through Multiracial and Multicultural pride, and through support from others.