Open to Diversity: Openness to Experience Predicts Beliefs in Multiculturalism and Colorblindness Through Perspective Taking David J. Sparkman, Scott Eidelman, Aubrey R. Dueweke, Mikenna S. Marin, and Belkis Dominguez

Original Article

Open to Diversity

Openness to Experience Predicts Beliefs in Multiculturalism and Colorblindness Through Perspective Taking

David J. Sparkman, Scott Eidelman, Aubrey R. Dueweke, Mikenna S. Marin, and Belkis Dominguez

Department of Psychological Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA

Abstract: The present research examines the influence of personality on ideologies about diversity in society. In two studies (N = 668), we test whether Openness to Experience predicts beliefs in multiculturalism and colorblindness, and whether these relationships are mediated by perspective-taking tendencies. In Study 1, Openness positively predicted multiculturalism but negatively predicted colorblindness through ethnic perspective taking –findings that were independent of empathy, age, gender, and race/ethnicity. In Study 2, we attempted to replicate and extend our findings by using different measures of multiculturalism and colorblindness and a more general, interpersonal operationalization of perspective taking. Results indicate Openness positively predicted both multiculturalism and colorblindness through interpersonal perspective taking (also independent of age, gender, and race/ethnicity), suggesting the pattern of findings varied as a function of perspective-taking type. Implications for the complexity of the Openness dimension and future research directions are discussed.

Keywords: Openness to Experience, perspective taking, multiculturalism, colorblindness, diversity ideologies

In the decades since the construction and validation of the Openness to Experience personality dimension, we have learned much about the influence of Openness on aesthetic and social experiences, including an appreciation for art, music, and mystery, varied interpersonal interactions, liberal and progressive values, and tolerant, non-prejudiced attitudes (McCrae, 1996; McCrae & Costa, 1997). But in a review of Openness and its social correlates, McCrae and Sutin (2009) called for more research into the association between Openness and prejudice, saying, “social psychologists have overlooked one of the key determinants in one of their most studied phenomena” (p. 266). In the years since, research has shown a reliable and negative relationship between Openness and prejudice across a range of racial, ethnic, and sexual minority groups (for meta-analytic evidence, see Sibley & Duckitt, 2008; cf. Brandt, Chambers, Crawford, Wetherell, & Reyna, 2015). Though such research has expanded our understanding of the relationship between Openness and prejudiced attitudes, we know comparatively little about whether and how Openness influences one’s perception or recognition of the racial, ethnic, or cultural group membership of others. Do those high in Openness believe in recognizing and appreciating the diverse group membership of others (multiculturalism), or ignoring and minimizing it for the sake of commonality (colorblindness)? This was the aim of the present work.

We test whether Openness predicts multiculturalism or colorblindness (or both), and examine whether these associations are mediated by individual differences in perspective taking.

Openness to Experience and Diversity Ideologies

Openness is conceptualized as an intrapsychic personality dimension describing individuals who are creative, imaginative, insatiably curious, unconventional, and broadminded (Costa & McCrae, 1992; McCrae, 1996). Historically, Openness was thought to represent a factor initially termed Culture (Norman, 1963; Tupes & Christal, 1961/1992), although not in the typical sense of the word. In fact, the Culture factor of openness largely meant cultured, or being sophisticated, intellectual, liberal in thought or education, and critical of accepted norms and values (McCrae & Costa, 1997; Sparkman, in press). Despite this overlap between Openness to Experience and being cultured (e.g., see Xu, Mar, & Peterson, 2013), there are also clear links between the Openness dimension and aspects of Culture. In the present work, we reinvestigate these links.

Multiculturalism is a diversity ideology reflecting beliefs about how to achieve harmonious intergroup relations in

society. Supporters of multiculturalism believe in recognizing and appreciating the specific racial, ethnic, or cultural identity of individuals, and argue the distinct experiences and contributions of ethnocultural groups should be maintained and celebrated (for a review, see Plaut, 2010). Demonstrating a possible link between Openness to Experience and beliefs in multiculturalism, some researchers suggest one dimension of a “Multicultural Personality” is openness. While conceptually distinct from the Openness to Experience dimension, researchers conceptualized openness as an open, non-prejudiced orientation toward outgroups and those from different cultures (van der Zee & van Oudenhoven, 2000), drawing some similarity to a multicultural ideology. Other research suggests Openness to Experience positively predicts multicultural acquisition, a broad construct capturing (in part) one’s recognition of the importance of cultural diversity (Chen et al., 2016). However, Chen and colleagues (2016) also included a more direct measure of multicultural ideology in their research, but reported a non-significant (albeit positive) relationship with Openness. Thus, previous research hints at a relationship between Openness and multiculturalism, but more research is needed.

Colorblindness, another widely held diversity ideology (particularly in the United States; e.g., see Plaut, 2002), suggests the best way to achieve harmonious intergroup relations is by ignoring or otherwise minimizing racial, ethnic, or cultural group differences (Plaut, 2010). Suggesting a possible link between Openness and colorblindness, McFarland, Webb, and Brown (2012) show Openness to Experience positively predicts identifying with “all of humanity” –an allencompassing human category that makes no distinction based on race, ethnicity, or culture. Researchers have broadly conceptualized multiculturalism and colorblindness as somewhat contrasting ideologies, the former focusing on diversity and intergroup differences (distinct groups exist and should be recognized) and the latter on interpersonal or intergroup similarities (all people are the same; Neville, Awad, Brooks, Flores, & Bluemel, 2013; Plaut, 2002, 2010; Rosenthal & Levy, 2010; cf. Park & Judd, 2005). Recognition of similarities and differences may be an important distinction for Openness, but operationalizations of constructs in the literature have made this somewhat difficult to examine. For instance, Openness to Experience is positively correlated with a universal-diverse orientation (UDO), capturing one’s awareness of and appreciation for the similarities and differences among people, groups, and cultures (Thompson, Brossart, Carlozzi, & Miville, 2002; also see Miville et al., 1999). But UDO conflates similarities and differences together, making it difficult to determine which aspect –similarities, differences, or both –is uniquely related to Openness. Below, we discuss research on an intervening variable –perspective taking –that links together and

has the potential to provide greater clarity on the relationship between Openness to Experience and diversity ideologies. In doing so, we gain a more nuanced understanding of whether (and how) Openness to Experience predicts beliefs in recognizing the intergroup differences embedded in multiculturalism, the overarching similarities inherent to colorblindness, or both.

Openness to Experience, Perspective Taking, and Diversity Ideologies

Curious and cognitively reflective, open individuals are motivated to seek out –rather than avoid –alternative viewpoints and perspectives (McCrae & Costa, 1997; McCrae & Sutin, 2009). Indeed, Openness to Experience correlates positively with various forms of perspective taking, including cultural and interpersonal perspective taking (Sparkman & Blanchar, 2017). Research has also shown that, while distinct, perspective taking and multiculturalism share a reciprocal relationship. Not only does priming multiculturalism lead people to spontaneously take the perspective of racial outgroups, but taking the perspective of a racial outgroup member also increases endorsement of multiculturalism (Todd & Galinsky, 2012). This is perhaps because actively considering the perspective of those from other ethnocultural backgrounds highlights the importance and value of group identities to many minorities. If Openness influences tendencies to take the perspective of those from other ethnocultural backgrounds, this greater awareness of the psychological perspective of ethnocultural minorities, in turn, should be associated with stronger endorsement of multiculturalism, an ideology espousing the importance of recognizing and appreciating the diverse group memberships of others. At the same time, if Openness to Experience influences the desire to take others’ perspectives more generally –regardless of racial or ethnic background –doing so may highlight perceptions of interconnectedness and similarity (e.g., Davis, Conklin, Smith, & Luce, 1996) and, in turn, belief in the colorblind ideal that “we are all the same.” Each conceptual model has merit and may vary as a function of perspective-taking type. We test both in the present work.

Overview of the Current Research

In two studies, we investigate the influence of Openness to Experience on diversity ideologies (multiculturalism, colorblindness), and examine whether this relationship is mediated by perspective-taking tendencies. We hypothesize that Openness will positively predict multiculturalism and colorblindness through greater perspective taking, but also

consider the possibility that these relationships may depend upon the particular operationalization of perspective taking. Study 1 tests whether Openness predicts beliefs in multiculturalism and colorblindness, and whether these relationships are mediated by tendencies to take the perspective of racial/ethnic outgroups. To account for possible alternative explanations, we control for age, gender, race/ethnicity, and a more affective form of perspective taking: empathy. In Study 2, we attempt to replicate and extend our findings. We use different measures of multiculturalism and colorblindness to assess the generalizability of our findings, and also broaden our operationalization of perspective taking to reflect a more general form of interpersonal perspective taking. Across studies, data are analyzed using a structural equation modeling (SEM) framework.

Study 1

Method

Participants and Procedure Two hundred ninety-six undergraduates at the University of Arkansas completed an online study about public opinion and social perception in exchange for partial fulfillment of a course requirement. We excluded from the sample 27 participants who failed at least one of two attention checks (e.g., “This is an attention check item. Please select ‘slightly disagree’ for this answer.”), three participants who provided a response 3 SD from the mean on empathy, two participants with missing data, and one participant who identified as transgender and could not be used as a comparison group in subsequent analyses. This left a final sample of 263 participants for analyses (race/ethnicity: 85% White, 4% Black/African-American, 5% Hispanic/Latino, 3% Asian, 3% Other; gender: 69% female; age: M = 20.08 years, SD = 4.66). After providing informed consent, participants completed a series of measures presented in random order, followed by a demographics page. At the conclusion of the survey, participants were thanked and awarded credit.

Measures Measures of Openness to Experience, ethnic perspective taking, multiculturalism, colorblindness, empathy, and demographics were collected. Other variables unrelated to the current study were also collected (for additional details, see Sparkman & Eidelman, 2016) but not included in analyses.

Openness to Experience Openness was measured using items from the Big-Five Inventory (taken from John & Srivastava, 1999). Example

items include, “I see myself as someone who... is inventive,” “... has an active imagination,” and “... has few artistic interests” [reverse-scored]. All items were answered on a 1 (= not at all like me) to 5 (= just like me) scale, and averaging together all items created a reliable index of Openness to Experience (α = .82).

Ethnic Perspective Taking We modified Davis’ ( 1983) perspective-taking subscale of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) to reflect cognitive tendencies to take the perspective of other races/ethnicities (Sparkman & Eidelman, 2016). In our modifications, we replaced general, interpersonal statements (e.g., “I sometimes find it difficult to see things from the ‘other guy’s’ point of view”) with statements including race/ethnicity (e.g., “I sometimes find it difficult to see things from the perspective of people from other racial/ethnic backgrounds” [reverse-scored]; for all items, see Electronic Supplementary Material, ESM 1). Each item was answered on a 1 (= not at all like me) to 5 (= very much like me) scale, and averaging together all modified items created a reliable index of ethnic perspective taking (α = .81).

Diversity Ideologies We adapted three items from previous research (Ryan, Hunt, Weible, Peterson, & Casas, 2007) measuring multicultural beliefs in recognizing and appreciating ethnic group differences in society (“I would say I take a multicultural perspective in life,” “People should recognize the ethnic group differences of others and be more sensitive to group differences,” and “People should recognize and appreciate the ethnic diversity in our country”). We also adapted three items from Ryan and colleagues (2007) measuring colorblind beliefs in ignoring or minimizing ethnic group differences (“It is important that people begin to think of themselves as an American and not African-American, Mexican-American, or Arab-American,” “People should ignore the ethnic group memberships of others and treat everyone as an individual,” and “I would say I take a colorblind perspective in life”). All items were answered using the same 1 (= strongly disagree) to 7 (= strongly agree) scale, and averaging together items created a reliable index of multiculturalism (α = .75) but not colorblindness (α = .55). Multiculturalism and colorblindness were negatively correlated, r =
.17, p < .01.

Covariates Participants completed demographics (age, gender, race/ ethnicity) along with a measure of empathy. Empathy was measured using the original items of Davis’ (1983) empathy subscale of the IRI (e.g., “I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me,” “I would describe myself as a pretty soft-hearted person,” and

Variable M (SD) 1 2 34

1. Openness to Experience 3.45 (0.59)

2. Ethnic perspective taking 3.51 (0.65) .30***

3. Multiculturalism 5.35 (1.11) .18** .54***

4. Colorblindness 4.93 (1.24) .06

.10

.17**

5. Empathy 3.89 (0.58) .14* .40*** .30*** .02

Notes. Empathy was a covariate in the present study. All variables depicted are in total aggregate form. ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05 (all two-tailed).

“Other people’s misfortunes do not usually disturb me a great deal” [reverse-scored]). Items were answered on the same 1–5 scale as ethnic perspective taking, and averaging together all items created a reliable index of empathy (α = .80).

Results

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations are shown in Table 1. Openness to Experience was positively correlated with ethnic perspective taking and multiculturalism, but uncorrelated with colorblindness. Ethnic perspective taking was strongly and positively correlated with multiculturalism, but negatively (albeit nonsignificantly) correlated with colorblindness.

Structural Equation Modeling Given the low internal consistency of the colorblindness items, we decided to analyze our model using latent factors in an SEM framework because it takes measurement error (e.g., low reliability) into account (e.g., John & Benet-Martínez, 2000; Kline, 2005). Using AMOS 20 software, we represented Openness as a manifest variable 1

and our adapted measures of ethnic perspective taking, multiculturalism, and colorblindness as latent factors (each with 7, 3, and 3 indicators, respectively). In line with the recommendations of Tabachnick & Fidell (2013), the goodness-of-fit of the model was assessed using the chi-square test (w 2 /df ratio of less than 2), comparative fit index (CFI; greater than or equal to .95), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; less than or equal to .06). The proposed measurement model indicated an unacceptable fit to the data, w 2 /df= 140.27/72 = 1.95, p < .001, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .06. To improve model fit, we removed one indicator from the latent factor of ethnic perspective taking (“I sometimes find it difficult to see things from the perspective of people from other racial/ethnic backgrounds”) because it did not load adequately on the factor (β = .26, R 2

= .07) relative to other indicators. This modification to the measurement model yielded an acceptable fit to the data, w 2 /df = 109.20/ 60 = 1.82, p < .001, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .06. To construct the structural model, we drew direct paths from Openness to ethnic perspective taking, multiculturalism, and colorblindness, and from ethnic perspective taking to multiculturalism and colorblindness. As our exogenous covariates, we drew direct paths from age, gender (0 = male, 1 = female), race/ethnicity (0 = ethnic majority/White, 1 = ethnic minority/non-White), and empathy to endogenous variables of ethnic perspective taking, multiculturalism, and colorblindness. We covaried all exogenous variables and also covaried the error terms of multiculturalism and colorblindness (to reflect their similar scale development and measurement). The proposed structural model indicated an acceptable fit to the data, w 2 /df = 158.63/ 96 = 1.65, p < .001, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .05. Given there were non-significant effects of age on all endogenous variables, gender on ethnic perspective taking, race/ethnicity on ethnic perspective taking and colorblindness, and empathy on multiculturalism, we iteratively 2

deleted these nonsignificant variables and paths for greater model simplicity. The parsimonious structural model (see Figure 1) indicated an acceptable fit to the data, w 2 /df = 152.90/91 = 1.68, p < .001, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .05, and was used in subsequent analyses.

Mediation As shown in Figure 1, Openness to Experience uniquely and positively predicted multiculturalism (total effect: β = .20, p = .01), but not colorblindness (total effect: β =
.01,

1

We chose to represent Openness as a manifest, or total aggregate (Bagozzi & Heatherton, 1994), variable given our conceptualization of the scale as a direct, unifying measure of the Openness construct without measurement error. When all items of the Openness to Experience scale were used as single indicators of a latent factor, the Openness factor contributed negatively to the overall fit of the measurement model, w 2

/df = 527.78/224 = 2.36, p < .001, CFI = .85, RMSEA = .07. 2

We use the term “iteratively” to indicate our deletion of nonsignificant paths (and variables, if appropriate) occurred one at a time. To do so, we deleted whichever estimated path coefficient had a value closest to zero. After a single deletion, we reassessed the path coefficients and deleted the next path with a value closest to zero. This process continued until all estimated paths were at marginal or conventional levels of significance. In taking this approach, model fit did not differ from a structural model in which all variables and paths were retained.

Figure 1. Structural equation model depicting the indirect effects of Openness to Experience on multiculturalism and colorblindness through ethnic perspective taking, controlling for age, gender (0 = male, 1 = female), race/ ethnicity (0 = ethnic majority/White, 1 = ethnic minority/non-White), and empathy. Dashed lines represent the removal of a variable or path in subsequent analyses. Coefficients are standardized and total effects are listed in parentheses. Model fit: w 2

/df = 152.90/91 = 1.68, p < .001, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .05. ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05, y p < .10 (all twotailed).

p = .86). Openness uniquely and positively predicted ethnic perspective taking (β = .24, p < .001), and ethnic perspective taking uniquely and positively predicted multiculturalism (β = .61, p < .001), but negatively predicted colorblindness (β =
.21, p = .03). To examine whether Openness predicted multiculturalism and colorblindness through ethnic perspective taking (after controlling for gender, race/ethnicity, and empathy), we tested for evidence of mediation using 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals based on 5,000 bootstrap samples. Results suggest the indirect effect of Openness on multiculturalism through ethnic perspective taking was positive and significant, β = .14, SE = 0.04, 95% CI [0.07, 0.23], p < .001; whereas the indirect effect of Openness on colorblindness through ethnic perspective taking was negative and significant, β =
.05, SE = 0.03, 95% CI [
0.12,
0.01], p = .01 (see Figure 1). When accounting for the indirect effect of ethnic perspective taking, the direct effect of Openness on multiculturalism was reduced to non-significance, suggesting full mediation, β = .06, SE = 0.07, 95% CI [
0.08, 0.20], p = .43. However, because there was no significant total effect of Openness on colorblindness, β =
0.01, SE = 0.09, 95% CI [
0.17, 0.16], p = .86, accounting for the indirect effect of ethnic perspective taking did not change the interpretation of the direct effect, which remained non-significant, β = .04, SE = 0.09, 95% CI [
0.12, 0.22], p = .69. Thus, the only significant influence of Openness on colorblindness was negative and carried indirectly through ethnic perspective taking.

Discussion

though conclusions to be drawn about colorblindness are different and potentially less clear. Regarding the former finding, the positive association between Openness and multiculturalism persisted after controlling for other variables (most notably empathy, a more affective form of perspective taking), and results further suggested Openness independently predicted beliefs in multiculturalism through greater ethnic perspective taking. A potential limitation of the present finding, however, is the strong correlation between ethnic perspective taking and multiculturalism (r = .53). With such highly overlapping constructs, it is no surprise ethnic perspective taking mediates the relationship between Openness and multiculturalism (see Fiedler, Schott, & Meiser, 2011). In Study 2, we address this limitation and investigate whether the link between Openness and multiculturalism is mediated through a more general perspective-taking process.

The pattern of findings related to colorblindness differed from those of multiculturalism. Openness independently and negatively predicted beliefs in colorblindness, but only through ethnic perspective taking. This result appears to be, in part, because ethnic perspective taking negatively predicted colorblindness, suggesting the more individuals take the perspective of those from other racial/ethnic backgrounds, the less likely they are to believe colorblindness is a viable option for a diverse society. To be clear, however, Openness did not significantly predict colorblindness in its own right. It is a common assumption that, in order to establish evidence of mediation, an independent variable must directly impact an outcome variable. Recently, however, researchers and statisticians have demonstrated that an independent variable need not have a direct impact on the outcome variable to establish mediation (see Hayes, 2013). In line with this thinking, results suggest Openness had no direct impact on colorblindness, but did negatively impact

colorblindness indirectly through ethnic perspective taking. Thus, those high in Openness were more likely to report taking the perspective of racial/ethnic outgroups, and this ethnic perspective taking, in turn, was associated with greater disagreement with colorblindness. To provide more clarity on this pattern of findings, we reinvestigate the link between Openness and colorblindness in our next study.

Study 2

In Study 2, we attempted to replicate and extend our findings while improving upon an operational limitation of Study 1. First, we included different measures of multiculturalism and colorblindness (each from the same validated scale; Hahn, Banchefsky, Park, & Judd, 2015) to assess the generalizability of our findings. Second, we operationalized perspective taking more generally –as interpersonal perspective taking –to examine whether Openness only predicts multiculturalism through a specific perspective-taking process (toward those from other races/ethnicities) or a more general perspective-taking process as well. The inclusion of interpersonal perspective taking also allowed us to examine whether the pattern of findings would differ for beliefs in colorblindness. As in Study 1, we controlled for demographic variables, but did not include a measure of empathy. Together, these additions test whether Openness uniquely predicts multiculturalism and colorblindness through more general, interpersonal perspective-taking tendencies.

Method

Participants and Procedure Four hundred forty-seven undergraduates at the University of Arkansas completed an online study about public opinion and social perception. Roughly half completed the study in exchange for partial fulfillment of a course requirement, whereas the other half were approached around the student union in exchange for a piece of candy. We excluded from the sample 34 participants who failed an attention check (i.e., “This is an attention check item. Please select ‘somewhat agree’ to indicate you are paying attention.”), an additional five participants who provided a response more than 3 SD from the mean on one or more dependent variables, two participants for missing data, and one participant who identified as transgender and could not be used as a comparison group in subsequent analyses. This left a final sample of 405 participants for analyses (race/ethnicity: 68% White, 4% Black/African-American, 10% Hispanic/Latino, 6% Asian/Pacific Islander, 1% Native American, 1% Arab/ Middle Eastern, 9% Bi-racial; 1% Other; gender: 61% female; age: M = 20.31 years, SD = 3.58). After providing informed or verbal consent, participants completed a series of dependent measures presented in random order, followed by a demographics page. At the conclusion of the survey, participants were thanked and awarded credit or a piece of candy.

Measures Measures of Openness to Experience, interpersonal perspective taking, multiculturalism, colorblindness, and demographics were completed. No other measures were presented in the survey.

Openness to Experience Openness (α = .80) was measured using the same scale as in Study 1.

Interpersonal Perspective Taking To provide a more general measure of interpersonal perspective taking, we used the original perspective-taking subscale of the IRI (Davis, 1983). We selected only four items from this measure to save space on our survey (see ESM 1), three of which come from a recently validated brief form of the perspective-taking subscale (B-IRI; Ingoglia, Lo Coco, & Albiero, 2016). Each item was answered on 1 (= not at all like me) to 5 (= very much like me) scales, and averaging together all items created a reliable index of interpersonal perspective taking (α = .78).

Diversity Ideologies To measure multiculturalism and colorblindness, we consulted work by Hahn and colleagues (2015). Four items measuring multiculturalism (e.g., “Learning about the ways that different ethnic groups resolve conflict will help us develop a more harmonious society,” “I would like my children to be exposed to the language and cultural traditions of different ethnic groups”) and four items measuring colorblindness (e.g., “You can find commonalities with every person no matter what their background is,” “All humans are fundamentally the same, regardless of where they come from or what their background is”) were answered on 1 (= strongly disagree) to 7 (= strongly agree) scales. Averaging together the multiculturalism items created a reliable index of multiculturalism (α = .81), but the internal consistency of the colorblindness scale was poor (α = .59). In contrast to Study 1, multiculturalism and colorblindness were positively correlated, r = .47, p < .001.

Covariates Participants reported demographics (age, gender, race/ ethnicity).

Variable M (SD)1 2 3

1. Openness to Experience 3.47 (0.59)

2. Interpersonal perspective taking 3.81 (0.71) .23***

3. Multiculturalism 6.08 (0.83) .20*** .21***

4. Colorblindness 5.91 (0.85) .12* .15** .47***

Notes. All variables depicted are in total aggregate form. ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05 (all two-tailed).

Results

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations are shown in Table 2. Openness to Experience was positively correlated with interpersonal perspective taking and multiculturalism, but, in contrast to Study 1, Openness and colorblindness were positively correlated. Additionally, interpersonal perspective taking was positively correlated with multiculturalism and colorblindness.

Structural Equation Modeling Given the low reliability of the colorblindness scale, we again decided to analyze our model using latent factors in SEM to account for measurement error (e.g., John & Benet-Martínez, 2000; Kline, 2005). Using AMOS 20 software, we represented Openness as a manifest variable and interpersonal perspective taking, multiculturalism, and colorblindness as latent factors (each with 4 indicators). The goodness-of-fit of the model was assessed using the same guidelines as in Study 1 (see Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). The proposed measurement model indicated a good fit to the data, w 2 /df = 116.41/60 = 1.89, p < .001, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .05. To construct the structural model, we drew direct paths from Openness to interpersonal perspective taking, multiculturalism, and colorblindness, and from interpersonal perspective taking to multiculturalism and colorblindness. As our exogenous covariates, we drew direct paths from age, gender (0 = male, 1 = female), and race/ethnicity (0 = ethnic majority/White, 1 = ethnic minority/non-White) to endogenous variables of interpersonal perspective taking, multiculturalism, and colorblindness. As in Study 1, we covaried all exogenous variables and also covaried the error terms of multiculturalism and colorblindness (to reflect their similar scale development and measurement; see Hahn et al., 2015). The proposed structural model indicated a good fit to the data, w 2 /df = 152.87/87 = 1.76, p < .001, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .04. Given there were non-significant effects of age on all endogenous variables and gender on interpersonal perspective taking, we iteratively (for description see Footnote 2) deleted these nonsignificant variables and paths for simplicity. The parsimonious structural model (see Figure 2) indicated a good fit to the data,

w2 /df= 148.60/79 = 1.88, p < .001, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .05, and was used in subsequent analyses.

Mediation As shown in Figure 2, Openness to Experience uniquely and positively predicted multiculturalism (total effect: β = .25, p < .001) as well as colorblindness (total effect: β = .20, p = .01). Openness uniquely and positively predicted interpersonal perspective taking (β = .26, p < .001), and interpersonal perspective taking uniquely and positively predicted both multiculturalism (β = .17, p = .01) and colorblindness (β = .17, p = .02). To examine whether Openness to Experience uniquely predicted beliefs in multiculturalism and colorblindness through interpersonal perspective taking (after controlling for gender and race/ethnicity), we tested for evidence of mediation using 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals based on 5,000 bootstrap samples. Results suggest the indirect effect of Openness on multiculturalism through interpersonal perspective taking was positive and significant, β = .04, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [0.01, 0.10 ], p = .01; as was the indirect effect of Openness on colorblindness through interpersonal perspective taking, β = .05, SE = 0.03, 95% CI [0.003, 0.11], p = .03 (see Figure 2). When accounting for the indirect effect of interpersonal perspective taking, the direct effect of Openness on multiculturalism remained significant, suggesting partial mediation, β = .21, SE = 0.06, 95% CI [0.10, 0.32], p < .001; whereas the direct effect of Openness on colorblindness was reduced to marginal significance, β = .15, SE = 0.08, 95% CI [
0.004, 0.30], p = .06.

Discussion

In brief, results largely replicate and extend those of Study 1. Replicating previous findings, Openness to Experience positively predicted beliefs in multiculturalism. Extending previous findings, results show Openness also predicted multiculturalism through a more general, interpersonal perspective-taking process. Again, these findings occurred independently of age, gender, and race/ethnicity. In contrast to Study 1 but consistent with our initial theorizing, Openness to Experience also uniquely and positively

Figure 2. Structural equation model depicting the indirect effects of Openness to Experience on multiculturalism and colorblindness through perspective taking, controlling for age, gender (0 = male, 1 = female), and race/ ethnicity (0 = ethnic majority/White, 1 = ethnic minority/non-White). Dashed lines represent the removal of a variable or path in subsequent analyses. Coefficients are standardized and total effects are listed in parentheses. Model fit: w 2

/df = 148.60/79 = 1.88, p < .001, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .05. ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05, y p < .10 (all twotailed).

predicted beliefs in colorblindness, and did so through greater interpersonal perspective taking.

General Discussion

In two studies, we tested whether Openness to Experience predicted one’s belief in the importance of recognizing and appreciating diversity and intergroup differences (multiculturalism), or ignoring and minimizing such differences in favor of“sameness” (colorblindness). We further examined whether this relationship between Openness and diversity ideologies was mediated by perspective-taking tendencies. In Study 1, Openness positively predicted support for multiculturalism through greater ethnic perspective taking, but negatively predicted support for colorblindness through the same underlying mechanism. In Study 2, with different measures of multiculturalism and colorblindness and a more general operationalization of perspective taking, results suggest Openness positively predicted support for multiculturalism and colorblindness, and did so through greater interpersonal perspective taking. Importantly, all findings persisted after controlling for variables such as empathy (Study 1 only), age, gender, and race/ethnicity. Together, these data suggest individuals who are artistic, imaginative, unconventional, and curious may be just as likely to believe the racial, ethnic, or cultural group membership of others should be recognized and appreciated, as they are to believe such categories should be minimized or ignored. These seemingly contradictory findings are largely driven by motivations to reflect on the psychological viewpoint of other people, and the particular downstream consequences depend on the type of perspective taking. Openness

influences one’s tendency to take the perspective of those from different racial/ethnic backgrounds, and in doing so, is associated with stronger beliefs in multiculturalism but weaker beliefs in colorblindness. However, Openness also influences interpersonal perspective taking toward everyone, and in doing so, is associated with stronger beliefs in both multiculturalism and colorblindness. Thus, the influence of Openness on believing we should recognize ethnocultural differences may have rather broad perspectivetaking roots, facilitated not only by ethnic perspective taking but also perspective taking more generally. The influence of Openness on believing we should recognize our shared commonalities, however, may have more narrow perspective-taking roots, often varying as a function of the particular perspective-taking process engaged.

Contextualizing the Present Findings and Examining Future Directions

Although previous research has investigated links between Openness and multiculturalism (e.g., Chen et al., 2016; van der Zee & van Oudenhoven, 2000), we provide additional evidence to confirm Openness is related to multiculturalism. Other research has shown Openness positively predicts a UDO, an appreciation for the similarities and differences among people (Thompson et al., 2002), but this combination of colorblind and multicultural tenets makes disentangling their potential independent influences somewhat difficult. Our research provides more clarity and complexity on this issue. In Study 2, for instance, we show Openness independently and positively predicted colorblindness and multiculturalism when these constructs were measured separately. Regarding complexity, we show Openness

predicted these diversity ideologies through a particular perspective-taking mechanism. While past research indicates Openness predicts perspective taking (Sparkman & Blanchar, 2017), and perspective taking influences diversity ideologies (Todd & Galinsky, 2012), this is the first research (to our knowledge) integrating them together in a mediational framework. Overall, we interpret the present findings as evidence of the complexity and often contradictory impact of the Openness dimension on social perception. Openness has a reliable and negative influence on prejudice (Sibley & Duckitt, 2008), but this depends on the conventionality of the target group (Brandt et al., 2015). Openness positively predicts recognizing and appreciating the differences among people (e.g., Chen et al., 2016; Thompson et al., 2002), but it also predicts recognizing broad similarities, including the universalism of human nature (ParksLeduc, Feldman, & Bardi, 2015), seeing all of humanity as part of the ingroup (McFarland et al., 2012), and, now, beliefs in colorblindness.

Though the pattern of findings for multiculturalism was consistent across studies, we should note this was not always the case for colorblindness and therefore caution the interpretation of findings outlined above. When perspective taking was operationalized as ethnic perspective taking in Study 1, colorblindness was negatively correlated with perspective-taking tendencies. But when operationalized as interpersonal perspective taking in Study 2, colorblindness was positively correlated with perspective-taking tendencies. This could be due to the different operationalizations of perspective taking, but could also be a function of the different measures of colorblindness between studies. Indeed, previous research shows that when colorblindness is operationalized as an ideology denying the outright existence of race, racism, and unequal opportunity in society (color-blind racial attitudes scale, or CoBRAS; Neville, Lilly, Duran, Lee, & Browne, 2000), colorblindness and interpersonal perspective taking were negatively correlated (Burkard & Knox, 2004). Thus, the relationship between perspective taking and colorblindness likely depends on important contextual factors, and future research should continue to investigate these relationships by examining yet additional measures of each construct. Related to this point, we also suspect Openness may yield different associations with colorblindness depending on the measure used, such as a possible negative correlation with the CoBRAS. As such, future research should investigate moderators of the relationship between Openness and diversity ideologies to examine under what conditions Openness predicts multiculturalism versus colorblindness.

How might other relevant broadband personality dimensions, such as Agreeableness, influence beliefs in multiculturalism and colorblindness? Agreeableness typically has a stronger influence on pro-social behaviors and

affective reactions to the experiences of others (Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997), and thus Agreeableness should more strongly and uniquely predict behavioral dimensions of diversity through affective empathy (e.g., Butrus & Witenberg, 2013). In contrast, Openness to Experience is recognized as having a stronger cognitive component than other personality dimensions (McCrae & Costa, 1997; Onraet, Van Hiel, Roets, & Cornelis, 2011; Parks-Leduc et al., 2015), and thus Openness should more strongly and uniquely predict attitude/belief dimensions of diversity through cognitive perspective taking (Butrus & Witenberg, 2013). In Study 1, the influence of Openness on multiculturalism through cognitive (ethnic) perspective taking occurred independently of affective empathy, providing some preliminary support for these ideas. However, they must be followed up more directly with Agreeableness. Overall, the contribution of this future research is twofold: (1) it could highlight the potentially nuanced and independent effects of Agreeableness and Openness on different dimensions of diversity, and (2) it could address how these associations are explained through different affective and cognitive mechanisms.

In the present research, we took an individual difference approach and examined whether dispositional traits (openness) drive relevant behavior (perspective taking) that in turn influences attitudes and beliefs (i.e., multiculturalism, colorblindness). However, we wonder if the reverse model might also be possible. For example, can multiculturalism facilitate ethnic perspective taking (e.g., Todd & Galinsky, 2012) and, in turn, self-perceptions of Openness to Experience? This is a rather provocative suggestion given the stability of the openness dimension and personality in general (Caspi & Roberts, 2001; Costa & McCrae, 1988; McCrae & Costa, 1994; Terracciano, Costa, & McCrae, 2006). But personality is not inevitably fixed throughout the lifespan and does show some degree of change (e.g., Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006). One potential cause of personality change is a shift in the sociocultural norms surrounding the individual. If social norms guide behavior (Cialdini & Trost, 1998), norms about the importance of recognizing and appreciating group memberships might influence one’s desire to engage in novel behavior, such as taking the perspective of someone from a different ethnocultural background (see Todd & Galinsky, 2012). When individuals watch themselves engage in novel behavior they may begin to draw different conclusions about their personality as a function of these behaviors (e.g., Caspi & Roberts, 2001). In this way, consistent shifts in perspective-taking behavior over time might ultimately change one’s selfperception as someone who actively seeks out alternative viewpoints and perspectives, a core feature of the Openness dimension (McCrae & Costa, 1997; McCrae & Sutin, 2009). While such a reverse social-personality process model is

possible, few studies have investigated its merits. Future research in this area may help bridge the divide between personality and social psychological perspectives.

Limitations

The present research provides new insights into the relationships among Openness to Experience, perspective taking, and diversity ideologies, but it is not without its limitations. First, the data are based on samples of college students, limiting the generalizability of our findings. Second, the cross-sectional design prevents us from making causal inferences from the data and suggests a number of alternative mediation models may also be supported. Third, all responses were based on self-report measures, suggesting the results may be due to social desirability concerns (for which we did not control). There is, however, typically little indication that social desirability influences participants to present themselves as “open-minded” or high in Openness. Only highly open individuals admire Openness; those low in Openness abhor it (McCrae & Sutin, 2009).

Conclusion

Our research illustrates how personality influences perspective-taking behavior and, in turn, beliefs about the best way to achieve intergroup harmony in society. Individuals characterized by their rich imagination and intellectual curiosity, cognitive flexibility, and preference for social change tend to seek out other psychological perspectives –including those from racial/ethnic outgroups, in particular, but also people, in general. This tendency to engage in and reflect on the perspectives of others underlies why highly open individuals not only believe in recognizing and appreciating the ethnocultural differences among people, but also recognizing our shared commonalities.

Electronic Supplementary Material The electronic supplementary material is available with the online version of the article at https://doi.org/10.1027/ 1614-0001/a000270

ESM 1. Text (.docx) Perspective-taking measures of Study 1 and 2.

Acknowledgments We would like to thank Ana J. Bridges and Juventino Hernandez Rodriguez for their help with feedback on this research and an earlier draft of the manuscript.

References

Bagozzi, R. P., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). A general approach to representing multifaceted personality constructs: Application to state self-esteem. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 1 , 35–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10705519409539961 Brandt, M. J., Chambers, J. R., Crawford, J. T., Wetherell, G., & Reyna, C. (2015). Bounded openness: The effect of openness to experience on intolerance is moderated by target group conventionality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 549–568. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000055 Burkard, A. W., & Knox, S. (2004). Effect of therapist colorblindness on empathy and attributions in cross-cultural counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51 , 387–397. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.51.4.387 Butrus, N., & Witenberg, R. T. (2013). Some personality predictors of tolerance to human diversity: The roles of openness, agreeableness, and empathy. Australian Psychologist, 48, 290–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-9544.2012.00081.x Caspi, A., & Roberts, B. W. (2001). Personality development across the life course: The argument for change and continuity. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 49–66. https://doi.org/10.1207/ S15327965PLI1202_01 Chen, S. X., Lam, B. P., Hui, B. H., Ng, J. K., Mak, W. S., Guan, Y., ... Lau, V. Y. (2016). Conceptualizing psychological processes in response to globalization: Components, antecedents, and consequences of global orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 302–331. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0039647 Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 151 –192). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 853–863. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.54.5.853 Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113 Davis, M. H., Conklin, L., Smith, A., & Luce, C. (1996). Effect of perspective taking on the cognitive representation of persons: A merging of self and other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 713–726. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.70.4.713 Fiedler, K., Schott, M., & Meiser, T. (2011). What mediation analysis can (not) do. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1231 –1236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011. 05.007 Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 795–824). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Hahn, A., Banchefsky, S., Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (2015). Measuring intergroup ideologies: Positive and negative aspects of emphasizing versus looking beyond group differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41 , 1646–1664. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0146167215607351

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Ingoglia, S., Lo Coco, A., & Albiero, P. (2016). Development of a brief form of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (B–IRI). Journal of Personality Assessment, 98, 461 –471. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00223891.2016.1149858 John, O. P., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2000). Measurement, scale construction, and reliability. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 339–369). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–139). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press. McCrae, R. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 323–337. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0033-2909.120.3.323 McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1994). The stability of personality: Observation and evaluations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 173–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721. ep10770693 McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of Openness to Experience. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 825–847). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. McCrae, R. R., & Sutin, A. R. (2009). Openness to experience. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 257–273). New York, NY: Guilford Press. McFarland, S., Webb, M., & Brown, D. (2012). All humanity is my ingroup: A measure and studies of identification with all humanity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 830–853. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028724 Miville, M. L., Gelso, C. J., Pannu, R., Liu, W., Touradji, P., Holloway, P., & Fuertes, J. (1999). Appreciating similarities and valuing differences: The Miville-Guzman UniversalityDiversity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 291 –307. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.46.3.291 Neville, H. A., Awad, G. H., Brooks, J. E., Flores, M. P., & Bluemel, J. (2013). Color-blind racial ideology: Theory, training, and measurement implications in psychology. The American Psychologist, 68, 455–466. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0033282 Neville, H. A., Lilly, R. L., Duran, G., Lee, R. M., & Browne, L. V. (2000). Construction and initial validation of the color-blind racial attitudes scale (CoBRAS). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.47.1.59 Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes. Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040291 Onraet, E., Van Hiel, A., Roets, A., & Cornelis, I. (2011). The closed mind: “Experience” and “cognition” aspects of openness to experience and need for closure as psychological bases for right-wing attitudes. European Journal of Personality, 25, 184–197. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.775 Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (2005). Rethinking the link between categorization and prejudice within the social cognition perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 108–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0902_2 Parks-Leduc, L., Feldman, G., & Bardi, A. (2015). Personality traits and personal values: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social

2018 Hogrefe Publishing Psychology Review, 19, 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1088868314538548 Plaut, V. C. (2002). Cultural models of diversity in America: The psychology of difference and inclusion. In R. A. Shweder, M. Minow, & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Engaging cultural differences: The multicultural challenge in liberal democracies (pp. 365–395). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Plaut, V. C. (2010). Diversity science: Why and how difference makes a difference. Psychological Inquiry, 21 , 77–99. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10478401003676501 Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 1 –25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1 Rosenthal, L., & Levy, S. R. (2010). The colorblind, multicultural, and polycultural ideological approaches to improving intergroup attitudes and relations. Social Issues and Policy Review, 4, 215–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2010.01022.x Ryan, C. S., Hunt, J. S., Weible, J. A., Peterson, C. R., & Casas, J. F. (2007). Multicultural and colorblind ideology, stereotypes, and ethnocentrism among Black and White Americans. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 617–637. https://doi. org/10.1177/136843020708410 Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2008). Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis and theoretical review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 248–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1088868308319226 Sparkman, D. J. (in press). Openness. In B. J. Carducci (Editor-inChief) & C. S. Nave (Vol. Ed.) (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell encyclopedia of personality and individual differences: Vol. I. Models and theories. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Sparkman, D. J., & Blanchar, J. C. (2017). Examining relationships among epistemic motivation, perspective taking, and prejudice: A test of two explanatory models. Personality and Individual Differences, 114, 48–56. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.paid.2017. 03.049 Sparkman, D. J., & Eidelman, S. (2016). “Putting myself in their shoes”: Ethnic perspective taking explains liberal-conservative differences in prejudice and stereotyping. Personality and Individual Differences, 98, 1 –5. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.paid.2016.03.095 Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Terracciano, A., Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (2006). Personality plasticity after age 30. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 999–1009. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616720 6288599 Thompson, R. L., Brossart, D. F., Carlozzi, A. F., & Miville, M. L. (2002). Five-factor model (Big Five) personality traits and universal-diverse orientation in counselor trainees. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 136, 561 –572. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980209605551 Todd, A. R., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). The reciprocal link between multiculturalism and perspective-taking: How ideological and self-regulatory approaches to managing diversity reinforce each other. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1394–1398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.07.007 Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1992). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings. Journal of Personality, 60, 225–251. Original published in 1961. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 6494.1992.tb00973.x van der Zee, K. I., & van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2000). The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire: A multidimensional instrument of multicultural effectiveness. European Journal of Personality, 14, 291 –309. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0984(200007/08) 14:4<291::AID-PER377>3.0.CO;2-6

Xu, X., Mar, R. A., & Peterson, J. B. (2013). Does cultural exposure partially explain the association between personality and political orientation? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1497–1517. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213499235

Received May 9, 2017 Revision received January 30, 2018 Accepted January 31, 2018 Published online September 3, 2018 David J. Sparkman Department of Psychological Science University of Arkansas 216 Memorial Hall Fayetteville, AR 72701 USA djsparkm@uark.edu