the psychology of social and cultural diversity (crisp/the psychology of social and cultural...

6

What I Know in My Mindand Where My Heart BelongsMulticultural Identity Negotiationand its Cognitive Consequences

Carmit T. Tadmor, Ying-yi Hong,Chi-Yue Chiu, and Sun No

With the increasing globalization of the early twenty-first century moreand more individuals are exposed to cultures strikingly different fromtheir own. Early studies of the experience of living at the junction oftwo or more cultures stressed the negative psychological consequencesof conflict, ambivalence, and a disjointed sense of self (Park, 1928;Stonequist, 1935). However, researchers now agree that immersionin different cultures can also have positive effects on psychologicalfunctioning (e.g., LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993). Indeed,some researchers have begun to focus on the benefits of multiculturalexposure at all levels of analysis, arguing that diversity of cultural per-spectives can increase tolerance and reduce prejudice (e.g., Crisp &Hewstone, 2007; Gaertner, Dovidio, Nier, Ward, & Banker, 1999;Roccas & Brewer, 2002) as well as foster flexibility, creativity, and deci-sion quality (e.g., Cheng, Sanchez-Burks, & Lee, 2008; Chiu & Hong,2005; Hong, Chiu, & Kung, 1997; Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martınez, 2000; Leung & Chiu, in press; Leung, Maddux, Galinsky, &Chiu, 2008; Maddux & Galinsky, 2009; McLeod, Lobel, & Cox, 1996;Tadmor, Galinsky, & Maddux, 2009; Tadmor, Hernandez, Jang, &Polzer, 2009). Research has also begun to investigate the impactof negotiating multicultural identity on cognitive functioning, andconsequently, has begun to elucidate the underlying link between

The Psychology of Social and Cultural Diversity Edited by Richard J. Crisp© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Limited. ISBN: 978-1-405-19562-1

116 Tadmor, Hong, Chiu, & No

multiculturalism and its associated benefits (Benet-Martınez, Lee, &Leu, 2006; Roccas & Brewer, 2002; Leung & Chiu, in press; Nguyen& Benet-Martınez, this volume; Tadmor & Tetlock, 2006; Tadmor,Tetlock, & Peng, 2009).

And yet, despite the optimistic view of the expected benefits associ-ated with multicultural experience, incidents of racial tension, prejudice,and intergroup violence abound in multicultural societies. Culturallydiverse groups often experience conflict, communication breakdown,and lack of trust leading to worse, not better performance relativeto culturally homogeneous groups (e.g., Earley & Gibson, 2002).Intercultural negotiations often yield outcomes that are lower in jointgains than those that result from intracultural negotiations (Brett &Okumura, 1998). Immigrants traveling to other countries in pursuitof job opportunities with the hopes of personal and professional devel-opment often fail (Wederspahn, 1992). Research has yet to uncoverthe reasons for these mixed findings. Our primary goal in this chap-ter is to draw attention to these issues and to propose an integrativemodel to account for the development and cognitive consequences ofmulticultural identity.

Specifically, we propose there are two potential reasons for mixedfindings regarding the potential advantages associated with multicultur-alism. First, researchers have tended to treat multicultural experience asif it were a rather unitary concept; however, it can actually refer to differ-ent things, ranging from passive, brief, incidental exposure to a foreignculture to actively sought-after, extensive exposure to two or more cul-tures. Moreover, an individual can be exposed to cultures that are onlyminimally different from each other (e.g., an American in Canada) orto cultures that are radically different (e.g., an American in Japan).Finally, multicultural experiences can be imposed on individuals, suchas in the case of many refugees, or they can be actively sought out, suchas when an individual initiates a relocation assignment to a foreign land.Each of these factors—quantity, quality, and voluntariness— is likelyto differentially affect how much multicultural knowledge is actuallyinternalized during multicultural exposure. We argue that independentof the nature of multicultural experiences, the greater the amount ofmulticultural knowledge internalized, the greater the potential for theexpected benefits associated with multicultural experience to come tofruition.

A second potential explanation for the mixed results may be due tofailure to differentiate between multicultural mind and multiculturalself, where the former refers to the acquisition of a cultural knowledgetradition and the latter refers to cultural identification with the acquiredcultural knowledge tradition (e.g., Hong, Wan, No, & Chiu, 2007).

Negotiating Multiple Identities 117

Given that knowledge tradition is the object of cultural identification,it is implausible that a person would identify with a culture withouthaving at least some vague ideas about what constitutes the culture’sknowledge tradition; however, a person may acquire and apply a cul-tural tradition without identifying with it (No et al., 2008; Wan, Chiu,Peng, & Tam, 2007a; Wan et al., 2007b; Zou et al., in press). We con-tend that although multicultural experiences can lead to the acquisitionof diverse cultural knowledge traditions that in turn can lead to a vari-ety of benefits, people’s cultural identification patterns will determinethe ease of accessibility to this information. Specifically, we proposethat identification levels will determine the degree to which this diverseknowledge will be applied and, consequently, whether its benefits willbe actualized.

Taken together, in our integrated model we propose that individualsnegotiating multicultural identity will (a) integrate (or compartmen-talize) ideas and practices from different cultures to different extents,and (b) decide to affiliate with or distance themselves from the stake-holding cultures, depending on the accountability pressures they face.The first factor will influence the depth of multicultural knowledge andconsequently the level of cognitive flexibility, creativity, and intercul-tural competence obtained, whereas the second factor will influencethe long-term likelihood of accessing multicultural knowledge as wellas chronic changes in levels of integrative complexity.

To flesh out these ideas, we have organized the chapter into fourmajor sections. First, we briefly review the cognitive principles thatunderlie application and utility of multicultural knowledge. Next, wereview the psychological processes involved in the development andmanagement of multicultural identities as well as delineate the effectsof cultural identification patterns on adaptive and creative utilization ofmulticultural knowledge. Next, we discuss the individual and sociopo-litical factors that affect the process of multicultural identity negotiationand affiliation decisions. Finally, we discuss the model’s implications forimmigration policies and suggest social interventions geared towardmulticultural competence development.

Multicultural Mind: Application and Benefitsof Multicultural Knowledge

Application of Multicultural Knowledge

Past research (see Au, Wan, & Chiu, in press; Chiu & Hong, 2005,2006, 2007; Hong et al., 2000) has revealed the psychological


principles that underlie how multicultural individuals appropriateknowledge to guide their behaviors. Very briefly, multicultural experi-ences expand the individual’s cognitive toolkit and enable the individualto appropriate culturally applicable cognitive tools to solve problems inconcrete cultural settings. That is, individuals with extensive exposureto multiple cultures have acquired and hence have at their disposalknowledge (implicit beliefs, values, norms, and practices) from therespective cultural tradition to guide their behaviors in the respectivecultural communities.

Multicultural experiences also foster contextualization of culturalknowledge. Individuals with extensive multicultural experiences areaware of the culture-specificity of the knowledge items in their cog-nitive toolkit; they are aware of the differential connectedness ofdifferent knowledge items to different cultural traditions (e.g., foran American-Indian bicultural, the notion of human rights is morestrongly connected to the American tradition and the notion ofdharma is more strongly connected to the Indian tradition). Equippedwith such contextualized knowledge, multicultural individuals oftenexhibit a high level of behavioral responsiveness to situational cuesthat signal the relevance of different cultural scripts. Experimental evi-dence supporting this idea abounds (Hong et al., 1997, 2000; Hong,Benet-Martınez, Chiu, & Morris, 2003). For example, in one exper-iment, Chinese American biculturals (Hong Kong Chinese, ChineseAmericans) were exposed to either Chinese cultural icons (e.g., theChinese dragon) or American cultural icons (e.g., Mickey Mouse).Incidental exposure to Chinese (vs. American) cultural icons increasedthese biculturals’ tendency to focus on factors external to the actor tointerpret an ambiguous event; they made more external (vs. internal)attributions (Hong et al., 1997, see Figure 6.1). Subsequent stud-ies have replicated this effect, referred to as culture-priming effect orcultural frame-switching (Hong et al., 2000), on spontaneous self-construal (Ross, Xun, & Wilson, 2002), self-referential memory (Sui,Zhu, & Chiu, 2007) and cooperative behaviors (Wong & Hong,2005), in a variety of bicultural samples (Chinese Canadians, Dutch–Greek bicultural children) using different kinds of cultural primes(e.g., language, experimenter’s cultural identity; Ross et al., 2002;Verkuyten & Pouliasi, 2002; see also Verkuyten, this volume). Inaddition, researchers have also found neurological evidence for theculture-priming effect of self-representations (Chiao et al., in press),and have begun to investigate the effects of simultaneously activatingcompeting cultural networks (Chiu & Cheng, 2007; Chiu, Mallorie,Keh, & Law, 2009; Tadmor et al., 2009).


Figure 6.1 Chinese American bicultural participants’ likelihood of exter-nal (vs. internal) attributions as a function of American, neutral, and Chinesecultural priming (data from Hong et al., 1997).

However, bicultural individuals do not passively respond to situa-tional cueing of cultural knowledge. Instead, after a situational cue hascalled out a certain cultural knowledge item, bicultural individuals willspontaneously assess the item’s applicability to solving the presentingproblem in the immediate situation, and apply the item only when theitem’s situational appropriateness is evident. In the same vein, switchingcultural frame is not a knee-jerk response to cultural cues in the environ-ment. The evoked cultural frame will be appraised for its applicability tothe judgment context before it is applied; an accessible cultural idea willnot impact judgments or behaviors unless it is applicable to the task athand. As noted, Chinese American biculturals would more likely focuson factors external to the individual actor, applying a group (vs. indi-vidual) agency perspective to interpret a stimulus event when they are


primed with Chinese cultural cues than when they are primed withAmerican cultural cues. However, this occurs only when the group (vs.individual) agency perspective is applicable in the judgment context,as when the tension between group agency and individual agency ishighlighted (Hong et al., 2003).

Similarly, in Chinese cultural contexts, a cooperative (vs. compet-itive) script is applicable only in interaction with friends, but notin interactions with strangers. Thus, subsequent to being primedwith Chinese (vs. American or culture-neutral) cultural cues, ChineseAmerican biculturals are more cooperative when they play the Pris-oner’s Dilemma game with their friends. However, culture primingdoes not impact these biculturals’ cooperative or competitive choiceswhen they play the game with strangers (Wong & Hong, 2005).Nonetheless, when individuals encounter an ill-defined situation withunclear cultural expectations, they may perform a memory search ofall pertinent past experiences to identify and select the most context-appropriate response based on the individuals’ subjective reading of thesituation.

In summary, culture, like other knowledge, impacts judgments andbehaviors when it is activated. A cultural knowledge item will be acti-vated when it is available, chronically or temporarily accessible, andapplicable. Thus, retrieval of a specific cultural knowledge item is aprobabilistic (as opposed to deterministic) process contingent upon theindividual’s chronic cultural experiences, the unfolding cultural milieu,and the situation-appropriateness of cultural knowledge. That is, cul-ture does not rigidly determine human behaviors. Instead, like otherknowledge, culture is a cognitive resource for grasping experiences andpursuing life goals.

Benefits of Multicultural Knowledge

The foregoing analysis suggests that bicultural individuals, by virtue oftheir multicultural experience, have at their disposal a broader set ofcontextualized cultural knowledge that enables them to respond flex-ibly and discriminatively to shifting cultural demands in the situation.Indeed, some theoreticians hold that individuals who have acquiredmultiple cultural knowledge traditions have more than one set of cul-tural tools to interpret the world (DiMaggio, 1997; Shore, 1996).Moreover, their greater awareness of a wider array of ideas, concepts,artifacts, practices, norms, habits, and values may foster competent


behaviors in at least three ways: increased integrative complexity, greatercreative expansion, and greater intercultural competence.

Integrative complexity As a dimension of information processing, inte-grative complexity refers to the capacity and willingness to acknowledgethe legitimacy of competing perspectives on the same issue (differ-entiation) and to forge conceptual links among these perspectives(integration) (Suedfeld, Tetlock, & Streufert, 1992). Within a cross-cultural context, integrative complexity reflects the degree to whichpeople accept the reasonableness of clashing cultural perspectives onhow to live and, consequently, the degree to which they are motivatedto develop cognitive schemas that integrate these competing world-views (Tadmor & Tetlock, 2006). Recent research suggests that asindividuals who have had extensive multicultural experiences repeat-edly shift cultural frames in response to changing situational cues, theyare likely to develop more complex modes of thinking than individualswho lack such experiences. Cognitively complex multicultural individ-uals are likely to engage in effortful processing of cues and recognizethe self-relevance of cultural information (Benet-Martınez et al., 2006;Nguyen & Benet-Martınez, this volume).

Research on bilingualism has provided some indirect support for thissuggestion. For example, compared to monolingual children, bilingualshave been found to be more successful in solving a card-sorting taskthat required an understanding of conflicting rules (Bialystok, 2001).Bilinguals’ more advanced use of higher-order rules allows them tosee things from different perspectives and understand that differentjudgments are appropriate for different situations. More direct evi-dence comes from a recent study (Benet-Martınez et al., 2006) showingthat Chinese American biculturals’ free descriptions of both Americanand Chinese cultures are more complex than those of Anglo-Americanmonoculturals.

Multiculturals’ greater levels of integrative complexity, in turn, arelikely to foster both enhanced creative abilities as well as more compe-tent intercultural interactions.

Creativity Creativity is typically defined as the process of bringing intobeing something that is both novel and useful (Amabile, 1996). Thecreative cognition approach, a major psychological approach to under-standing creativity, suggests that accessibility of different knowledgetraditions is critical to the generation of creative ideas. According


to this approach (Smith, Ward, & Finke, 1995), creative conceptualexpansion—a cognitive process that takes place when attributes ofseemingly irrelevant concepts are added to an existing concept to extendits conceptual boundary—can lead to creative performance (Hampton,1997; Wan & Chiu, 2002; Ward, Smith, & Vaid, 1997). The underlyinglogic is that exposure to and acquisition of different sets of knowledgeequips the individual with a broader set of concepts that can then beutilized for creative expansion.

Within the cultural context, if individuals are frequently exposed toonly a single cultural lens, it becomes a learned routine that automat-ically filters how individuals view their world (Briley & Wyer, 2002;Chiu & Hong, 2005; Ng & Bradac, 1993; Tadmor & Tetlock, 2006).Although culture provides conventional tools for sense making andproblem solving, it can also impede creativity through reliance on highlyaccessible exemplars and a relatively constrained conceptual network(Ward, 1994). In contrast, the acquisition of multicultural knowledgetraditions and the resulting integrative complexity should foster creativ-ity directly by providing access to a wider base of ideas and concepts thatcan be retrieved and integrated into novel combinations. The processof acquiring new cultural knowledge can also increase the psycholog-ical readiness to recruit and seek out ideas from unfamiliar sources touse as inputs in the creative process, thereby allowing continued expo-sure to a wide range of new ideas, norms, and practices (Chiu & Hong,2005; Leung & Chiu, in press; Leung et al., 2008; Maddux & Galinsky,2009).

Some early findings have provided indirect evidence for the poten-tial of multicultural experience to facilitate creativity. For example, atthe individual level, research has documented that a high proportionof prominent creators and leaders are first- or second-generation immi-grants (Goertzel, Goertzel, & Goertzel, 1978). Bilingualism researchhas further shown that compared to monolinguals, bilinguals are morecreative and are more successful in a variety of cognitive tasks (Bialystok,2001). At the group level, culturally heterogeneous groups have some-times been found to be more creative and more flexible and tolerant ofambiguous information than culturally homogeneous groups. Cultur-ally heterogeneous groups also tend to reach higher-quality decisions(e.g., Elron, 1997; McLeod, Lobel, & Cox, 1996; Watson, Kumar, &Michaelsen, 1993; also see Nemeth & Kwan, 1987). Finally, at the soci-etal level, research has shown that civilizations are more likely to prosperafter they open themselves to the foreign influences which ensue fromimmigration (Simonton, 1997).


More recent research has provided direct support for the hypothe-sized relationship. For example, at the individual level, there is evidencethat time spent living abroad is positively correlated with creativity andthat temporarily priming foreign living experiences can further enhancecreative tendencies for individuals who have previously lived abroad.These relationships are mediated by the degree to which individualshave adapted to different cultures (Maddux & Galinsky, 2009), pro-viding support for the suggestion that it is the acquisition of culturalknowledge that lies at the heart of the creative benefits associated withmulticultural exposure. Similarly, among European American univer-sity students, those who have had more experiences with other cultureshave a greater tendency to sample ideas from other cultures and inte-grate them in a creative conceptual expansion task (Leung & Chiu, inpress). Furthermore, direct evidence has also been found for the causaleffect of multicultural exposure on creativity. In one study (Leung &Chiu, in press), relative to European Americans who were exposed toa monocultural slideshow of American or Chinese culture, those whowere exposed to a multicultural slideshow of American and Chinese cul-tures showed increased creative performance on tasks completed bothimmediately after exposure and almost a week later (see Figure 6.2).Most recent research has further demonstrated the creative utility ofmulticultural experiences at both the dyadic and group levels of analy-ses (Tadmor et al., 2009; Cheng, Mor, & Morris, 2009). Importantly,all the studies reviewed in this section relied on creativity tasks that donot require culturally specific knowledge, thereby indicating that thecreative benefits related to multicultural experiences are not limited tothe cultural domain.

Notably, it appears that in order for the creative benefits of mul-ticultural experiences to materialize it is necessary that the differencebetween cultural knowledge networks be salient. Indeed, as illustratedin Leung and Chiu’s research (in press), exposing European Americansto only Chinese culture did not result in increased creativity. Onlysimultaneous exposure to both Chinese and American culture yieldedcreative benefits. As shown in Figure 6.2, it is when cultural networksare mentally placed side by side that individuals are able to perceivethe conceptual contrast between the ideas in each network and areable to utilize their increased complexity to integrate or synthesize theseemingly incompatible ideas from different cultural sources. Thus, itseems that it is not enough to have access to competing cultural infor-mation; rather it is how the information is processed in the mind ofindividuals that is crucial for the actualization of the creative benefits


Figure 6.2 Creative performance following exposure to American cultureonly, Chinese culture only, and Chinese and American cultures simultaneously.The participants were European Americans, and the creativity task was (a)rewriting the Cinderella story for children in Turkey immediately followingthe exposure and (b) constructing creative analogies of time 4–7 days after theexposure. Data from Leung & Chiu (in press).

of multicultural experiences (Leung & Chiu, in press; Tadmor et al.,2009).

Intercultural Competence In multicultural communications, multi-cultural knowledge allows individuals to discover, adjust, and integratenew attitudes and values from foreign cultures (Casmir, 1992). As such,knowledge of other cultures may help to establish common ground inintercultural interactions, such as during international business nego-tiations or management of culturally heterogeneous work teams (e.g.,Earley & Ang, 2003; Earley & Gibson, 2002; Tadmor, 2006). Specifi-cally, given that each culture may prescribe different kinds of behaviors


and norms that are deemed acceptable, multiculturals’ ability to modifytheir thoughts and behaviors to suit the cultural context should allowthem to facilitate smoother interactions with members of each culture(Triandis, 1975).

In contrast, individuals who lack multicultural knowledge, given thatthey can only rely on a single cultural lens to construe reality, are likelyto run into difficulties when interacting with members of new cultures.Consistent with this idea, Chinese Americans, who are familiar withboth Chinese and American culture, are likely to know that Americansare more motivated by gains than are Chinese. Therefore, when ChineseAmericans tried to persuade a Chinese or an American to purchase aninsurance policy, they were found to use more gain-focused argumentsfor an American than for a Chinese target. American participants’ choiceof persuasive messages, however, was not affected by the target’s ethnicidentity (see Chiu & Hong, 2005).

In addition, accurate knowledge of another culture is linked to betterintercultural interaction quality. For example, Mainland Chinese uni-versity students in Hong Kong who have more accurate knowledge ofthe values of their host culture have more satisfactory interactions withthe local students and the university staff than students who have lessaccurate knowledge (Li & Hong, 2001). In contrast, lack of multi-cultural knowledge may lead to misperception, misinterpretation, andeven fear of interacting with members of foreign cultures (Cushner &Brislin, 1996).

Importantly, as we suggested in the case of creativity, multiculturals’cultural sensitivity may also be the result of their greater levels of inte-grative complexity, which provide them not only with a more nuancedunderstanding of intercultural variation but also with an awareness thatthere are many viable and legitimate constructions of reality (Tadmor& Tetlock, 2006; also see Bennett, 2004).

In summary, there is considerable evidence that as high-quality andvoluntary multicultural experiences accumulate, individuals broadentheir multicultural knowledge, which in turn facilitates integrative com-plexity, creative expansion, and intercultural competence. Nevertheless,multicultural individuals may choose not to recruit multicultural knowl-edge as behavioral guides. We propose that one determinant ofmulticultural knowledge application is how equally identified individ-uals are with their multiple cultural networks. In the next section, wereview evidence that suggests that the more an individual identifies withmore than one culture, the more likely the individual will access andapply these cultural networks, and the more likely the potential benefitsof multiculturalism should come to fruition.


Multicultural Self: Patterns of Cultural Identification

When individuals are exposed to and acquire a second cultural tra-dition (or more), they do not just retrieve their knowledge of thepertinent cultures. Rather issues of cultural identification (i.e., definingthe self with reference to these cultural traditions) come to the fore(Hong, Roisman, & Chen, 2006; Sussman, 2000). As individuals turntheir knowledge traditions into objects of reflection, these knowledgenetworks are cognitively juxtaposed and their significance with refer-ence to prior cultural experiences and current intercultural relations isevaluated.

Although early research on acculturation was based on the assump-tion that changes in cultural identity take place along a single continuumthat moves from one cultural identity (i.e., culture of origin) to theother (i.e., the host culture’s identity), more recent research has empha-sized the multidimensionality of cultural selves and has conceptualizedhome and host cultural identities as orthogonal domains. Conse-quently, individuals are seen as capable of having more than one culturalidentity, each of which can independently vary in strength (Berry, 1997;LaFromboise et al., 1993; Ryder, Alden, & Paulhus, 2000; also seeCrisp & Hewstone, 2007; Hong et al., 2006; Roccas & Brewer, 2002).

Until recently, the factors that affect intrapsychic attitudes towardacculturation as well as the role played by second-culture exposure inshaping cognitive, affective, and motivational processes has receivedlittle attention (Benet-Martınez, Leu, Lee, & Morris, 2002). In theirAcculturation Complexity Model, Tadmor & Tetlock (2006) haveattempted to address these gaps by modeling the impact of second-culture exposure on acculturation choice and on individual cognitionand coping skills. Specifically, the model delineates: (a) the factors thataffect individuals’ adoption and achievement of specific acculturationstrategies, and (b) the differential effects that second-culture exposurecan have on the integrative complexity of social cognitive functioning.

Development of Multicultural Identities

According to the Acculturation Complexity Model (Tadmor & Tetlock,2006), as individuals who are exposed to a second culture become awareof the different and potentially conflicting cultural traditions whichexist in each cultural milieu, internal and external accountability pres-sures will affect whether individuals will affiliate or distance themselvesfrom the stakeholding cultures, where accountability refers to the need


to justify one’s thoughts and actions to significant others in accordwith shared norms. This pressure to account for behavior is rooted inpeople’s fundamental need for social approval, whether as an end initself, as a way to bolster their self-worth, or as a way to procure powerover scarce resources (Tetlock, 2002). How people respond to account-ability demands will depend, however, on the types of accountabilitypressure they experience.

Accountability pressures can come from inside or outside the indi-vidual. External accountability refers to the matrix of all interpersonalrelationships in which an individual is engaged and to which s/he feelss/he must answer for particular attitudes and behaviors. However, theexistence of an external audience is not necessary for the creation ofaccountability pressures. People often internalize the voices of thosewith whom they feel strong affinity (Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate,2000). This type of audience internalization makes it difficult to escapeevaluative scrutiny (Tetlock, 2002). In addition, the audience to whomthe individual is accountable need not be uniform. It can represent asingle unified set of values or a complex, even flatly contradictory set ofvalues (Tetlock, 2002). Within the cultural context, a single audiencerefers to one composed of perspectives with a unified cultural orienta-tion (e.g., an exclusively Chinese audience valuing harmony), whereas amixed audience refers to one composed of at least two distinct culturalperspectives (e.g., a combination of Chinese and Americans, with theformer valuing harmony and the latter debate).

Ultimately, if the individual becomes accountable to a single audi-ence, motivated by the desire to align multicultural identities with priorexperiences and current goals and affordances, s/he will foster alle-giance primarily with a single identity. In contrast, if a person becomesaccountable to a mixed audience composed of both his/her old andnew cultural groups, a dual-identity pattern will be sought.

The model further stipulates that people who seek dual identificationwill experience more severe cultural dissonance during acculturationthan those who seek single identification. This happens because themixed accountability pressures facing such individuals require them tojustify their conduct to representative members of both cultural groupssimultaneously. By contrast, individuals who seek single identificationand who are held accountable to a single cultural constituency experi-ence less conflict (Tadmor, 2006; Tetlock, 1992; also see Baumeister,1986). Drawing on cognitive consistency theories (Roccas & Brewer,2002; Tetlock, 1986), the model suggests that the more severe thecultural conflict, the greater the need to resort to more effortful, inte-gratively complex solutions. Repeated exposure to cultural conflicts will


lead to the development of increasingly automatic coping responses,either simple (for single identifiers) or complex (for dual identifiers).Finally, it is suggested that it is through the resolution of multipleinstances of dissonance that acculturation takes place and sustainedidentity shifts ensue. Based on how multicultural identities are struc-turally represented—dual or single identification—different likelihoodsof accessing each cultural knowledge network will result.

Likelihood of Accessing Multicultural Knowledge

As previously suggested, multicultural individuals’ responses to cul-tural cues involve more than automatic cognitive processes. Suchindividuals do not automatically shift cultural frames in response to sit-uational cues, but rather fashion their reactions based on their motivesto embrace or disavow particular cultural identities (Zou, Morris, &Benet-Martınez, 2008). Indeed, there is evidence that the effects ofcultural frame-switching are partially mediated by the activation of cul-tural identities—a cultural icon activates its attendant cultural identity,which in turn leads to culturally congruent responses (Verkuyten &Pouliasi, 2006; also see Briley & Wyer, 2002). Research further showsthat when identification with a culture is strong, perceptions of thesocial world are filtered through the lens of that culture and indi-viduals shift their responses to match cultural prototypes (assimilativeresponses; No et al., 2008; Zou et al., 2008). In contrast, when indi-viduals disidentify with a culture, they demonstrate a contrast effect,shifting their responses away from the cued culture and responding inaccordance to the norms of their preferred cultural identity (Zou et al.,2008).

Based on this conceptualization, we contend that a person’s identi-fication pattern may regulate accessibility to cultural knowledge. Themore strongly an individual identifies with a single culture, the morelikely this individual would be motivated to habitually access andrigidly apply only its attendant knowledge network (Tadmor, 2006; cf.,Abelson, 1959). In support of this suggestion, it has been shown thatamong people who have been exposed to two cultures, those who iden-tify strongly with Culture A (rather than with Culture B) tend to morestrongly endorse values that are prototypical features of Culture A (Wanet al., 2007a). Studies have also shown that when individuals view theirculture as conflicting rather than compatible, they exhibit a contrasteffect (Benet-Martınez et al., 2002). In contrast, when individuals areequally identified with both cultures, both cultural knowledge networks


are likely to become more salient and chronically accessible than whenidentification patterns are unequal. Not only are dual identifiers likelyto view multicultural knowledge as relevant self-concepts and thereforemore likely to access it (Markus, 1977), but with their greater levels ofintegrative complexity, they can readily appreciate cultural differencesand simultaneously access both cultural knowledge networks, despitetheir apparent dissimilarities and contradictions (Tadmor and Tetlock,2006).

Implications for Cultural Competence

Given dual identifiers’ more chronic access to multicultural knowledge,they are likely to exhibit greater cultural competence across domainsthan single identifiers. Empirical research has provided support for thissuggestion. For example, Tadmor, Tetlock et al. (2009) find in samplesof both Israelis living in the United States and Asian Americans that dualidentifiers expressed more integratively complex thoughts about bothculture- and work-related topics than did single identifiers. Providingsupport for the causal effect of dual identification, Tadmor, Tetlocket al. (2009) further find that Asian Americans primed with dual iden-tification show a preference for a more complex thinking style than dothose primed with a single identification. In addition, Tadmor, Tetlocket al. (2009) find that dual identifiers are more creative than single iden-tifiers. Similarly, Cheng et al. (2009) find that greater levels of perceivedcompatibility between two identities (i.e., Asian and American; femaleand engineer) predict higher levels of creative performance. Finally, aplethora of research has demonstrated the positive effects of dual iden-tification for intercultural competence and greater tolerance towardoutgroup members (e.g., Brewer & Pierce, 2005; Crisp & Hewstone,2007; Dovidio, Gartner, & Validzic, 1998; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000;Roccas & Brewer, 2002).

These findings suggest that mere exposure to foreign cultures isinsufficient to actualize the potential cognitive benefits of multicul-turalism. Rather what is crucial is how individuals internally representthe different cultures. Indeed, past research has found large variationsin how people manage and experience dual cultural identities (e.g.,Benet-Martınez et al., 2002, LaFromboise et al., 1993; Phinney &Devich-Navarro, 1997; Tsai, Ying, & Lee, 2000). One variation—theextent of lopsided identification with one culture versus balanced iden-tification with both cultures—appears to be directly related to degreeof cultural competence achieved.


In this section we propose that although cultural knowledge gainedfrom multicultural experiences may provide individuals with a widerarray of intellectual resources to choose from, a person’s accountabilitymatrix and the resulting cultural identification pattern will determinewhether multiple cultural networks are likely to be simultaneouslyaccessible. In the remaining sections, we explore the factors that affectpeople’s perceived accountability pressures and what type of interven-tions can be used to increase the probability of dual identification.

Factors Affecting the Managementof Multicultural Identities

Researchers have paid considerable attention to the relation betweendemographics, personality, and situational characteristics and the pref-erences for the different patterns of multicultural identities (Berry,1997; Bourhis, Moıse, Perreault, & Senecal, 1997; Padilla & Perez,2003; Roccas & Brewer, 2002). From our perspective, what thesecharacteristics have in common is that they all affect the type of account-ability pressure a person will feel. Indeed, according to social cognitionresearchers (e.g., Fiske, 1993), people’s cognitive processes stem fromtheir pragmatic goals, which themselves derive from multiple sources,including internal person-related variables and external situational con-straints. Hence we contend that the cognitive organization of culturesand affiliation decisions will depend in part on multicultural individuals’internal motivational concerns and in part on the external sociopoliti-cal determinants of these individuals’ accountability to the stakeholdingcultures.

Internal Factors

When the dominant motivational concerns call for adherence to con-ventional norms in one’s own culture, individuals, independent of theiramount of multicultural experiences, tend to resist ideas from foreigncultures. Three motivational factors that have been shown to promotecultural conformity are need for cognitive closure, existential terror, andessentialization of race.

The need for cognitive closure (NFCC), or the need for firm answers,may limit people’s willingness to affiliate with multiple cultures. Indeed,research has shown that because cultural conventions provide definiteanswers with high consensual validity and individuals with high NFCC


prefer firm answers and dislike ambiguity, these individuals are particu-larly motivated to follow cultural conventions (Chao, Zhang, & Chiu,in press; Chiu, Morris, Hong, & Menon, 2000; Fu et al., 2007). Bycontrast, low-NFCC individuals do not reliably prefer one set of cul-tural norms to the other. If anything, they display a slight tendencyto endorse counter-normative responses (Fu et al., 2007). Researchfurther shows that high- (vs. low-) NFCC immigrants adhere morestrongly to a single cultural identification. Because the specific refer-ence group at entry offers clear direction on how to behave, think andfeel, it provides high-NFCC individuals with the certainty they desire.Which culture high-NFCC individuals choose to identify with andstay accountable to would depend on whether the social support theyexperience during the initial stay in a new culture comes mainly fromtheir culture of origin or from their new culture (Kosic, Kruglanski,Pierro, & Mannetti, 2004). Finally, high- (vs. low-) NFCC AmericanChinese bicultural individuals are less susceptible to situational cueingof culture-characteristic judgments; instead, contrast effects have beenobserved (Fu et al., 2007).

These findings resonate with the dispositional version of the Accul-turation Complexity Model (Tadmor & Tetlock, 2006; Tadmor,Tetlock et al., 2009), which hypothesizes that those disposed to havemore complex thinking styles are more likely to develop a dual-identification pattern, because these individuals’ chronic tolerance fordissonance (Crockett, 1965) allows them to internalize contradictoryaspects of both cultures. Taken together, these results suggest that ifhigh-NFCC individuals who adhere strongly to a single cultural tra-dition and habitually access knowledge from this tradition only, they(compared to low-NFCC individuals) should exhibit lower levels ofcultural competence. In support of this hypothesis, Leung and Chiu(in press) show that the association between multicultural experiencesand willingness to recruit ideas from unfamiliar cultures is significantlyattenuated when individuals are placed under conditions that elicit highNFCC (see Figure 6.2).

A second motivational factor is mortality salience. According tothe Terror Management Theory (TMT; Greenberg, Solomon, &Pzszczynski, 1997), when individuals are reminded of their eventualfinitude, they will experience existential terror. To cope with it, theywill increase their adherence to cultural conventions and, through thisstrategy, obtain a sense of symbolic immortality—the body may perishafter death, but the culture one belongs to will continue to propagate(Solomon, Greenberg, Schimel, Arndt, & Pzszczynski, 2004). More-over, when such a cultural defense mindset is activated, it will motivate a


search for positive distinctiveness of the threatened culture and a desireto defend the viability of the culture against erosive effects of the foreignculture (Chiu, 2007). Research has provided ample evidence for thissuggestion, showing that increasing mortality salience in the situationresults in stronger identification with the threatened culture (Kashima,Halloran, Yuki, & Kashima, 2004), more favorable responses to peo-ple who support their cultural worldview and less favorable responses topeople who threaten it (Greenberg et al., 1990), and that ingroup threatleads to lower social identity complexity (Roccas & Brewer, 2002; seealso Brewer, this volume).

Once again, given that multicultural individuals who are con-fronted with mortality threat are more likely to identify with andadhere to a single cultural tradition, we would expect them to alsoshow limited cultural competence relative to individuals who do notreceive such threats. Indeed, research has shown that mortality salienceincreases affective aversion toward creative activities (Arndt, Green-berg, Solomon, & Pzszczynski, 1999), and that existential terrormoderated the positive association between multicultural experiencesand receptiveness to ideas from foreign cultures (Leung & Chiu,in press).

Finally, Hong and her colleagues (Chao, Chen, Roisman, & Hong,2007; Hong, Chao, & No, in press; No et al., 2008) proposed thatbiculturals’ beliefs about race—whether race is an essentialist entity(reflecting biological essence, is unalterable, and indicative of abilitiesand traits) or a socially constructed, dynamic construct—predict theextent to which they can successfully achieve psychological adaptationto both cultures. The researchers contend that an essentialist race beliefwould lower the perceived permeability between racial group bound-aries. Therefore, ethnic minorities holding an essentialist race theorywould have a harder time integrating experiences with both their ethnicand host cultures.

Consistent with this idea, Chao et al. (2007) find that ChineseAmericans with stronger endorsement of an essentialist race theoryexhibited higher skin conductance reactivity when talking about theirown bicultural experiences, suggesting that an essentialist race the-ory is associated with more effortful defense. No et al. (2008) furtherfind that when presented with Korean culture primes, Korean Ameri-can participants responded by assimilating their responses toward theprimes, irrespective of their lay race beliefs. However, when presentedwith American culture primes, theory of race moderated participants’responses: those who endorsed the social constructionist race theoryassimilated toward the primes, whereas those who strongly endorsedessentialist beliefs did not show such assimilation. Thus it appears that


an essentialist race belief also leads to greater reliance on a single culturalnetwork.

External Factors

Importantly, even when individuals are internally motivated to integratemultiple identities, external factors may limit the identification optionsavailable to them. Two obvious factors that may affect the propen-sity to develop dual identification are friendship ties and acculturationorientations of the host community.

First, accountability pressures are likely to depend to a large extenton the nature of people’s friendship and acquaintance patterns andon the psychological functions that these relationships serve (Bochner,1982;Tadmor & Tetlock, 2006). For example, Novakovic (1977)showed that the ethnicity of one’s closest friends predicts acculturationpatterns of Yugoslavian children living in Australia. Over time, partici-pants with friends from both cultures develop greater dual identificationthan children with friends from only one cultural group. Similarly, Feld-man and Rosenthal (1990) found that Chinese high-schoolers living inAustralia tend to become more unitarily identified with the local Aus-tralian culture than Chinese high-schoolers living in the United States.They explain that because in Australia the Chinese population is small,Chinese children have no choice but to create new friendships with Aus-tralians, and, consequently, develop greater levels of identification withAustralian culture. In contrast, the Chinese population in the UnitedStates is relatively vast, and therefore the children are not pressured togive up their culture of origin. Hence, they could maintain friendshipswith both cultural groups and identify with both.

Second, immigrants’ adoption of a particular multicultural identitynegotiation strategy is further influenced by the acculturation prefer-ences of the host community (e.g., Berry, 1997; Bourhis et al., 1997;Montreuil & Bourhis, 2001). For example, if mainstream culturalmembers endorse an integration orientation, accepting the rights ofimmigrants to adopt mainstream culture while simultaneously retainingtheir heritage cultural identity, immigrants are more likely to develop adual identification pattern than if mainstream cultural members endorsean assimilation, segregation, or exclusionist orientation.

In summary, it appears that successful management of multiculturalidentities depends on both internal and external factors. Given thatthere are important benefits linked to accessing and applying multicul-tural knowledge, the next section details specific policy initiatives thatwill facilitate the development of equal identification and the integra-tion of multicultural knowledge.


Social Intervention and Policy Implications

We have presented evidence for the potential benefits of multicul-tural knowledge and multicultural identification. The conclusions wereach in the present review have implications on policies and pro-gramming of public attitudes directed toward promoting multiculturalintegration in the society (Berry, 1999). We argue that future policydecisions should facilitate people’s chances of gaining extended mul-ticultural experiences while discouraging factionalism and separatismwithin societies. These policies should be most effective if they are car-ried out in social milieux that encourage tolerance, social-political andeconomic equality, and intermingling among individuals of diverse cul-tural backgrounds—qualities that many multicultural societies struggleto possess still today (Esses, Wagner, Wolf, Preiser, & Wilbur, 2006;Zick, Pettigrew, & Wagner, 2008). In the remainder of this section wereview existing ideologies regarding multiculturalism and discuss theirimplications on promoting multicultural identification and maximizingaccess to multicultural knowledge.

Multiculturalism and immigration are inextricably linked; social poli-cies intended to promote multicultural knowledge and experiences aretied to immigration policy (Deaux, 2008). Social policies fosteringmulticultural integration may target individuals, members of the dom-inant group, and the society at large. Policies targeting individuals mayhave greater chances of success if they encourage the development ofaccountability to multiple cultural audiences. Examples of such policiesinclude mixed schooling for fostering cross-cultural friendship networks(Mendoza-Denton & Page-Gould, 2008; Turner & Brown, 2008).

Three multiculturalism ideologies have shaped the debates surround-ing immigration-related social policies: assimilation, colorblind, andmulticulturalism ideologies. The assimilation ideology mandates thatimmigrants abandon their previous language and cultural distinc-tiveness for the host-country language and culture (Bourhis et al.,1997). Extreme forms of assimilation ideology argue that nationalidentification with the host country is incompatible with multiculturalidentification (Verkuyten, 2009), and immigrants are expected to relin-quish their heritage identity and knowledge entirely. The colorblindideology advocates the irrelevance of race (or country of origin) to indi-vidual outcomes or treatment by others in the host country (Knowles,Lowery, Hogan, & Chow, 2009). Lastly, the multiculturalism (plural-ism) ideology supports tolerance for diverse cultures and accepts equalparticipation from all groups (Liu, 2007).


While assimilation and colorblind policies may sometimes helpreduce conflict and increase tolerance, they may run the risk of wipingout the advantages that multiculturalism can confer. This is because thegoal of assimilation policies is to eliminate all other cultural influencesother than the national culture of the host country, and the goal ofcolorblind policies is to downplay both negative and positive influ-ences of race and culture on individual performance and outcomes(Verkuyten, 2006; Verkuyten, this volume). In contrast, multiculturalpolicies that promote genuine acceptance of members of immi-grant backgrounds are more likely to foster balanced identificationswith multicultural cultures and the achievement of a cohesive liberaldemocracy.

Yet, existing evidence indicates that in many societies, promotingmulticulturalism is an uphill battle. For multiculturalism policies to suc-ceed, immigrant/minority members and dominant/host members ofthe society must be equally invested in these policies (Berry, 2006).Nonetheless, rallying society-wide support for these policies couldbe challenging. Findings in the United States show that Americans,whether Black, Asian, or White, predominantly equate Americannesswith being White (Devos & Banaji, 2005).

Nonetheless, there are reasons to remain hopeful. Despite the ten-sion between New Zealand Maori (indigenous people of New Zealand)and Pakeha (people of European descent in New Zealand) over the dis-tribution of economic resources (Sibley, Liu, Duckitt, & Khan, 2008),the two groups have had a long-standing legal and social agreementthat both groups contribute equally to the national culture and identity(Sibley & Liu, 2004). When Maori and Pakeha were tested for implicitpreferences for their own group, no strong biases emerged (Sibley &Liu, 2007), suggesting that both groups support a bicultural nationalpartnership for New Zealand, at least at an implicit level.

In summary, future policies need to address not only the meansto increase multicultural civic engagement and participation fromall groups, but also address the deeper roots of cultural insecurityamong the host majority, which could lead to divisiveness, preju-dice, and discrimination against immigrants. Efforts to implement suchchanges can be constructively directed to offering effective training pro-grams and social interventions that (a) facilitate multicultural learning,(b) reduce cultural and racial essentialism, and create open, safe environ-ments where identity threats are minimized. Such interventions wouldhopefully promote a society where all individuals, majority and minorityalike, would benefit from the meeting of multiple cultures.


Conclusion

In an increasingly interdependent world, understanding the interplay ofmulticulturalism and social cognitive functioning has become critical.In this chapter, we have proposed two factors that influence multicul-tural identity negotiation. The first factor focuses on the multiculturalmind that grows out of multicultural experiences. The second factordeals with the multicultural self and the inclinations to affiliate withor distance oneself from the stakeholding cultures. We have suggestedthat although greater levels of multicultural knowledge can potentiallyyield important psychological benefits, including enhanced integrativecomplexity, creativity, and intercultural competence, the actualizationof these potentials depends in part on how individuals resolve theiridentity concerns. Specifically, we propose that multicultural individu-als who balance their identifications with multiple cultures are inclinedto habitually access the cultures’ attendant knowledge networks, andare therefore likely to benefit from multicultural experiences. On thecontrary, having preclosed identification with a single culture becauseof internal motivational factors or external sociopolitical pressures willthwart these advantages, and even lead to attitudinal rigidity, extrem-ism, and intolerance. Although minority groups are particularly likelyto encounter these potential problems, mainstream cultural memberswill also be affected, particularly when they feel that the “purity” oftheir cultural group is contaminated by other cultures (Chiu, 2007).We close by inviting researchers and practitioners to work together topromote a constructive multicultural social agenda to empower theindividual and to benefit the society at large.

References

Abelson, R. P. (1959). Modes of resolution of belief dilemmas. Journal ofConflict Resolution, 3(4): 343–352.

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Arndt, J., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Pzszczynski, T., & Schimel, J. (1999).

Creativity and terror management: Evidence that creative activity increasesguilt and social projection following mortality salience. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 77, 19–32.

Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day’s work:Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25,472–491.


Au, E., Wan, W., & Chiu, C.-y. (in press). The social and cultural contextof cognition: A knowledge perspective. In S. Kreitler & K. A. Renninger(Eds.), Cognition and motivation: Forging an interdisciplinary perspective.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Baumeister, R. F. (1986). Identity: Cultural change and the struggle for self.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Benet-Martınez, V., Lee, F., & Leu, J. (2006). Biculturalism and cognitivecomplexity: Expertise in cultural representations. Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 37, 386–407.

Benet-Martınez, V., Leu, J., Lee, F., & Morris, M. W. (2002). Negotiatingbiculturalism—cultural frame switching in biculturals with oppositional ver-sus compatible cultural identities. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33,492–516.

Bennett, M. J. (2004). Becoming interculturally competent. In J. Wurjzel(Ed.), Toward multiculturalism: A reader in multicultural education (pp.62–77). Newton, MA: Intercultural Resource Corporation.

Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psy-chology: An International Review, 46, 5–68.

Berry, J. W. (1999). Intercultural relations in plural societies. CanadianPsychology/Psychologie canadienne, 40, 12–21.

Berry, J. W. (2006). Mutual attitudes among immigrants and ethnoculturalgroups in Canada. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 719–734.

Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, andcognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bochner, S. (1982). The social psychology of cross-cultural relations. In S.Bochner (Ed.), Cultures in contact: Studies in cross-cultural interaction (pp.5–44). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.

Bourhis, R. Y., Moıse, L. C., Perreault, S., & Senecal, S. (1997). Towards aninteractive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. Interna-tional Journal of Psychology, 32, 369–386.

Brett, J. M., & Okumura, T. (1998). Inter- and intracultural negotiations:U.S. and Japanese negotiators. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 495–510.

Brewer, M. B., & Pierce, K. P. (2005). Social identity complexity and outgrouptolerance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 428–437.

Briley, D. A., & Wyer, R. S. (2002). The effect of group membership salienceon the avoidance of negative outcomes: Implications for social and consumerdecisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 400–415.

Casmir, F. L. (1992). Third-culture building: A paradigm shift for interna-tional and intercultural communication. Communication Yearbook, 16, 407–428.

Chao, M., Chen, J., Roisman, G., & Hong, Y. (2007). Essentializing race:Implications for bicultural individuals’ cognition and physiological reactivity.Psychological Science, 18, 341–348.


Chao, M. M., Zhang, Z.-X., & Chiu, C.-y. (in press). Adherence to perceivednorms across cultural boundaries: The role of need for cognitive closure andingroup identification. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations,.

Cheng, C.-y., Mor, S., & Morris, M. W. (2009). Culture in mind(s) of cre-ative teams: Multicultural exposure and cultural habits as catalysts for teamcreativity. Manuscript in preparation.

Cheng, C.-y., Sanchez-Burks, J., & Lee, F. (2008). Connecting the dotswithin: Creative performance and identity integration. Psychological Science,1, 1178–1184.

Chiao, J. Y., Harada, T., Komeda, H., Li, Z., Mano, Y., Saito, D., Parrish, T.B., Sadato, N., & Iidaka, T.(in press). Dynamic cultural influences on neuralrepresentations of the self. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

Chiu, C.-y. (2007). Managing cultures in a multicultural world: A socialcognitive perspective. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies, 8, 101–120.

Chiu, C.-y., & Cheng, S. Y. Y. (2007). Toward a social psychology of cul-ture and globalization: Some social cognitive consequences of activatingtwo cultures simultaneously. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1,84–100.

Chiu, C.-y., & Hong, Y.-y (2005). Cultural competence: Dynamic processes.In A. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and competence(pp. 489–505). New York: Guilford Press.

Chiu, C.-y., & Hong, Y. (2006). Social psychology of culture. New York: Psy-chology Press.

Chiu, C.-y., & Hong, Y.-y (2007). Cultural processes: Basic principles. In E.T. Higgins & A. E. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basicprinciples (pp. 785–809). New York: Guilford Press.

Chiu, C.-y., Mallorie, L., Keh, H.-T., & Law, W. (2009). Perceptions of cul-ture in multicultural space: Joint presentation of images from two culturesincreases ingroup attribution of culture-typical characteristics. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 40, 282–300.

Chiu, C.-y., Morris, M. W., Hong, Y. Y., & Menon, T. (2000). Motivatedcultural cognition: The impact of implicit cultural theories on dispositionalattribution varies as a function of need for closure. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 78, 247–259.

Crisp, R. J., & Hewstone, M. (2007). Multiple social categorization. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol. 39, pp.163–254). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Crockett, W. H. (1965). Cognitive complexity and impression formation. InB. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in experimental personality research (pp. 47–90).New York: Academic Press.

Cushner, K., & Brislin, R. W. (1996). Intercultural interactions: A practicalguide. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Deaux, K. (2008). To be an American: Immigration, hyphenation, and incor-poration. Journal of Social Issues, 64, 925–943.


Devos, T., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). American = White? Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 88, 447–466.

DiMaggio, D. (1997). Culture cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 263–287.

Dovidio, J. F., Gartner, S. L., & Validzic, A. (1998). Intergroup bias: Status,differentiation, and a common ingroup identity. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 75, 109–120.

Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactionsacross cultures. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Earley, P. C., & Gibson, C. B. (2002). Multinational work teams: A newperspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Elron, E. (1997). Top management teams within multinational corporations:effects of cultural heterogeneity. Leadership Quarterly, 8, 393–412.

Esses, V., Wagner, U., Wolf, C., Preiser, M., & Wilbur, C. J. (2006). Percep-tions of national identity and attitudes toward immigrants and immigrationin Canada and Germany. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,30, 653–669.

Feldman, S. S., & Rosenthal, D. A. (1990). The acculturation of autonomyexpectations in Chinese high schoolers residing in two western nations.International Journal of Psychology, 25, 259–281.

Fiske, S. T. (1993). Social cognition and social perception. In M. R. Rosen-zweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (pp. 155–194).Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

Fu, J. H. Y., Morris, M. W., Lee, S. L., Chao, M., Chiu, C-y., & Hong,Y. (2007). Epistemic motives and cultural conformity: Need for closure,culture, and context as determinants of conflict judgments. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 92(2): 191–207.

Gaertner, S., Dovidio, J., Nier, J., Ward, C., & Banker, B. (1999). Acrosscultural divides: The value of a superordinate identity. In D. Prentice &D. Miller (Eds.), Cultural divides: Understanding and overcoming groupconflict. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Goertzel, M. G., Goertzel, V., & Goertzel, T. G. (1978). 300 eminent person-alities: A psychosocial analysis of the famous. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Greenberg, J., Pzszczynski, T., Solomon, S., Resenblatt, A., Veeded, M., &Kirkland, S. (1990). Evidence of terror management theory II: The effectsof mortality salience on reactions to those who threaten or bolster thecultural worldview. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 308–318.

Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., & Pzszczynski, T. (1997). Terror manage-ment theory of self-esteem and cultural worldviews: Empirical assessmentsand conceptual refinements. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in exper-imental social psychology (vol. 29, pp. 61–139). New York: AcademicPress.

Hampton, J. A. (1997). Emergent attributes in combined concepts. In T. B.Ward, S. M. Smith, & J. Vaid (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of


conceptual structures and processes (pp. 83–110). Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Hong, Y., Benet-Martınez, V., Chiu, C., & Morris, M. W. (2003). Bound-aries of cultural influence: Construct activation as a mechanism for culturaldifferences in social perception. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34,453–464.

Hong, Y., Chao, M., & No, S.(in press). Dynamic interracial/interculturalprocesses: The role of lay theories of race. Journal of Personality.

Hong, Y., Chiu, C., & Kung, T. M. (1997). Bringing culture out in front:Effects of cultural meaning system activation on social cognition. In K.Leung, Y. Kashima, U. Kim, & S. Yamaguchi (Eds.), Progress in Asian socialpsychology (vol. 1, pp. 135–146). Singapore: Wiley.

Hong, Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C., & Benet-Martınez, V. (2000). Multicul-tural minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition.American Psychologist, 55, 709–720.

Hong, Y., Roisman, G. I., & Chen, J. (2006). A model of cultural attachment:A new approach for studying bicultural experience. In M. H. Bornstein & L.R. Cote (Eds.), Acculturation and parent–child relationships: Measurementand development (pp. 135–170). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hong, Y., Wan, C., No, S., & Chiu, C. (2007). Multicultural identities. In S.Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology. New York:Guilford Press.

Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Subgroup relations: A comparisonof mutual intergroup differentiation and common ingroup identity modelsof prejudice reduction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 242–256.

Kashima, E. S., Halloran, M., Yuki, M., & Kashima, Y. (2004). The effectsof personal and collective mortality salience on individualism: ComparingAustralians and Japanese with higher and lower self-esteem. Journal of Exper-imental Social Psychology, 40, 384–392.

Knowles, E. D., Lowery, B. S., Hogan, C. M., & Chow, R. M. (2009). On themalleability of ideology: Motivated construals of color blindness. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 96, 857–869.

Kosic, A., Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., & Mannetti, L. (2004). The socialcognitions of immigrants’ acculturation: Effects of the need for closure andreference group at entry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86,796–813.

LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H. L. K., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychologicalimpact of biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114,395–412.

Leung, A. K.-y., & Chiu, C.-y. (in press). Multicultural experiences, idea recep-tiveness, and creativity. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology.

Leung, A. K.-y., Maddux, W. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Chiu, C.-y. (2008). Mul-ticultural experience enhances creativity—The when and how. AmericanPsychologist, 63, 169–181.


Li, Q., & Hong, Y.-y. (2001). Intergroup perceptual accuracy predicts real-lifeintergroup interactions. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 4, 341–354.

Liu, S. (2007). Living with others: Mapping the routes to acculturation in amulticultural society. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31,761–778.

Maddux, W. W., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Cultural borders and mentalbarriers: The relationship between living abroad and creativity. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 96, 1047–1061.

Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63–78.

McLeod, P. L., Lobel, S. A., & Cox, T. H., Jr. (1996). Ethnic diversity andcreativity in small groups. Small Group Research, 27, 248–264.

Mendoza-Denton, R., & Page-Gould, E. (2008). Can cross-group friendshipsinfluence minority students’ well-being at historically White universities?Psychological Science, 19, 933–939.

Montreuil, A., & Bourhis, R. Y. (2001). Majority acculturation orientationstowards “valued” and “devalued” immigrants. Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 32, 698–719.

Nemeth, C. J., & Kwan, J. L. (1987). Minority influence, divergent thinking,and detection of correct solutions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17,786–797.

Ng, S. H., & Bradac, J. (1993). Power in language: Verbal communication andsocial influence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

No, S., Hong, Y., Liao, H., Lee, K., Wood, D., & Chao, M. M. (2008).Lay theory of race affects and moderates Asian Americans’ responses towardAmerican culture. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 991–1004.

Novakovic, J. (1977). The assimilation myth revisited: Rejection of home cul-ture by second generation Yugoslav immigrant children as a function of age,friendship group, and sex. Unpublished honors thesis, School of Psychology,University of New South Wales.

Padilla, A. M., & Perez, W. (2003). Acculturation, social identity, and socialcognition: A new perspective. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25,35–55.

Park, R. E. (1928). Human migration and the marginal man. American Journalof Sociology, 5, 881–893.

Phinney, J. S., & Devich-Navarro, M. (1997). Variations in bicultural identifi-cation among African American and Mexican American adolescents. Journalof Research on Adolescence, 7, 3–32.

Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personalityand Social Psychology Review, 6, 88–106.

Ross, M., Xun, W. Q. E., & Wilson, A. E. (2002). Language and the biculturalself. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1040–1050.

Ryder, A. G., Alden, L. E., & Paulhus, D. L. (2000). Is acculturation unidi-mensional or bidimensional? A head-to-head comparison in the prediction


of personality, self-identity, and adjustment. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 79, 49–65.

Shore, B. (1996). Culture in mind: Cognition, culture, and the problem ofmeaning. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sibley, C. G., & Liu, J. H. (2004). Social dominance and Pakeha attitudestowards the general principles and resource-specific aspects of biculturalpolicy. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 33, 88–99.

Sibley, C. G., & Liu, J. H. (2007). New Zealand = bicultural? Implicit andexplicit associations between ethnicity and nationhood in the New Zealandcontext. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1222–1243.

Sibley, C. G., Liu, J. H., Duckitt, J., & Khan, S. S. (2008). Social represen-tations of history and the legitimation of social inequality: The form andfunction of historical negation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38,542–565.

Simonton, D. K. (1997). Foreign influence and national achievement: Theimpact of open milieus on Japanese civilizations. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 72, 86–94.

Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B., & Finke, R. A. (1995). The creative cognitionapproach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., Schimel, J., Arndt, J., & Pzszczynski, T. (2004).Human awareness of morality and evolution of culture. In M. Schaller &C. S. Crandall (Eds.), The psychological foundations of culture (pp. 15–40).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stonequist, E. V. (1935). The problem of marginal man. American Journal ofSociology, 7, 1–12.

Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P. E., & Streufert, S. (1992). Conceptual/integrativecomplexity. In C. P. Smith (Ed.), Motivation and personality: Handbookof thematic content analysis (pp. 393–400). Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Sui, J., Zhu, Y., & Chiu C.-y., (2007). Bicultural mind, self-construal, andrecognition memory: Cultural priming effects on self- and mother-referenceeffect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 818–824.

Sussman, N. M. (2000). The dynamic nature of cultural identity through-out cultural transitions: Why home is not so sweet. Personality and SocialPsychology Review, 4, 355–373.

Tadmor, C. T. (2006). Biculturalism: The plus side of leaving home? The effectsof second-culture exposure on integrative complexity and its consequences foroverseas performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cal-ifornia, Berkeley.

Tadmor, C. T., Galinsky, A. D., & Maddux, W. W. (2009). Biculturalism: Dualidentification with home and host cultures predicts creative and professionalperformance. Manuscript to be submitted for publication.

Tadmor, C. T., Hernandez, P., Jang, S., & Polzer, J. T. (2009). The influence ofmulticulturalism and self-verification on creativity in culturally diverse dyads.Manuscript to be submitted for publication.


Tadmor, C. T., & Tetlock, P. E. (2006). Biculturalism: A model of the effects ofsecond-culture exposure on acculturation and integrative complexity. Jour-nal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 173–190.

Tadmor, C. T., Tetlock, P. E., & Peng, K. (2009). Biculturalism and integrativecomplexity: Testing the Acculturation Complexity Model. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40, 105–139.

Tetlock, P. E. (1986). A value pluralism model of ideological reasoning. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 819–827.

Tetlock, P. E. (1992). The impact of accountability on judgment and choice:Toward a social contingency model. Advances in Experimental Social Psy-chology, 25, 331–376.

Tetlock, P. E. (2002). Social functionalist frameworks for judgment and choice:Intuitive politicians, theologians, and prosecutors. Psychological Review, 109,451–471.

Triandis, H. C. (1975). Culture training, cognitive complexity, and inter-personal attitudes. In R. W. Brislin, S. Bochner, & W. J. Lonner (Eds.),Cross-cultural perspectives on learning (pp. 39–77). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Tsai, J. L., Ying, Y., & Lee, P. A. (2000). The meaning of “being Chinese”and “being American”: Variation among Chinese American young adults.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 302–332.

Turner, R. N., & Brown, R. (2008). Improving children’s attitudes towardrefugees: An evaluation of a school-based multicultural curriculum andan anti-racist intervention. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 1295–1328.

Verkuyten, M. (2006). Multicultural recognition and ethnic minority rights:A social identity perspective. European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 148–184.

Verkuyten, M. (2009). Support for multiculturalism and minority rights: Therole of national identification and out-group threat. Social Justice Research,22, 31–52.

Verkuyten, M., & Pouliasi, K. (2002). Biculturalism among older children:Cultural frame switching, attributions, self-identification, and attitudes.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 596–609.

Wan, C., Chiu, C. -y., Peng, S., & Tam, K.-p. (2007a). Measuring culturesthrough intersubjective norms: Implications for predicting relative identifi-cation with two or more cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38,213–226.

Wan, C., Chiu, C.-y., Tam, K.-p., Lee, S.-l., Lau, I. Y.-m., & Peng, S.-q.(2007b). Perceived cultural importance and actual self-importance of valuesin cultural identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92,337–354.

Wan, W. W.-n. & Chiu, C.-y. (2002). Effects of novel conceptual combinationon creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 36, 227–240.

Ward, T. B. (1994). Structured imagination: The role of conceptual structurein exemplar generation. Cognitive Psychology, 27, 1–40.


Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Vaid, J. (1997). Conceptual structures and pro-cesses in creative thought. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith, & J. Vaid (Eds.),Creative thought: an investigation of conceptual structures and processes. Wash-ington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity’simpact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogenousand diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 590–602.

Wederspahn, G. M. (1992). Costing failures in expatriate human resourcemanagement. Human Resource Planning, 15, 27–35.

Wong, R. Y., & Hong, Y. (2005). Dynamic influences of culture on cooperationin the prisoner’s dilemma. Psychological Science, 16, 429–434.

Zick, A., Pettigrew, T. F., & Wagner, U. (2008). Ethnic prejudice and discrim-ination in Europe. Journal of Social Issues, 64, 233–251.

Zou, X., Morris, M. W., & Benet-Martınez, V. (2008). Identity motives andcultural priming: Cultural (dis)identification in assimilative and contrastiveresponses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1151–1159.

Zou, X., Tam, K.-p., Morris, M. W., Lee, S.-l., Lau, Y.-m., & Chiu, C.-y.(in press). Culture as common sense: Perceived consensus vs. personalbeliefs as mechanisms of cultural influence. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology.

the psychology of social and cultural diversity (crisp/the psychology of social and cultural...

Documents