Understanding the divergent effects of multicultural exposure

Full text

Running head: MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 1
Citation:
Chao, M. M., Kung, F. Y. H., & Yao, D. J. (2015). Understanding the divergent effects of
multicultural exposure. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 47, 78–88.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.03.032
Understanding the Divergent Effects of Multicultural Exposure
MELODY M. CHAO
Department of Management
School of Business and Management
Hong Kong University of Science & Technology
Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR
E-mail: mchao@ust.hk
FRANKI Y. H. KUNG
Department of Psychology
University of Waterloo
200 University Avenue West
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1
E-mail: franki.kung@uwaterloo.ca
DONNA JINGDAN YAO
Department of Management
School of Business and Management
Hong Kong University of Science & Technology
Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR
E-mail: jyaoab@ust.hk
Authors’ Note:
This paper is partly based on the International Academy of Intercultural Research 2013 Early
Career Award Address at the 8th Biannual Conference of the International Academy for
Intercultural Research. This program of research was partially supported by grants awarded to
Melody Manchi Chao from Research Grants Council, General Research Fund (#16400314) and
Direct Allocation Grant (DAG12BM13-14) in Hong Kong, as well as grant awarded to Franki
Kung as a Vanier Scholar by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (CGV-SSHRC-
00379) in Canada. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Melody
Manchi Chao, Department of Management, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology,
Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong. E-mail: mchao@ust.hk

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 2
Abstract
Cultures, as shared meaning systems, facilitate coordination and provide members within
a given society with a sense of epistemic security. They enable us to comprehend our social and
physical environment. As globalization draws people with diverse cultural meaning systems
together, some individuals open their minds to embrace diversity while others turn their backs on
it. In this review, we present the divergent effects that multicultural exposure has on individual
psychology and discuss their implications on intercultural relations. On the one hand,
multicultural exposure equips individuals with diverse perspectives, enhances their creativity,
and reduces their biases toward the different others. On the other hand, it results in more rigid
thinking style and more intergroup biases. After examining the divergent effects of multicultural
exposure, this review explores the boundary conditions that influence the outcomes of
multicultural exposure and discusses future directions.
Keywords: Culture, Multicultural Experience, Intercultural Relations

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 3
Understanding the Divergent Effects of Multicultural Exposure
Globalization brings people from different cultural backgrounds together. Research has
started to examine how multicultural experience influence individuals in the last decades. Some
studies suggested that multicultural experiences provide individuals with diverse and stimulating
ideas. Such experiences destabilize mundane thinking style and induce a more flexible mindset
(see DiMaggio, 1997). Other studies found that in the face of cultural diversity, individuals
become more closed-minded and are more likely to show exclusionary reaction against foreign
cultures (e.g. Chiu & Cheng, 2007; Morris, Mok, & Mor, 2011). The current paper reviews this
literature and examines the divergent effects of multicultural exposure. As culture, society, and
the individual mutually constitute each other, culture imparts individuals with a sense of
meaning, which in turn facilitates coordinated activities within a society. This meaning provision
function is particularly apparent in intercultural contexts, in which individuals from different
societies with diverse cultural representations and meaning systems come into contact with each
other. The extent to which individuals adopt, manage, and integrate multiple cultural systems has
important psychological and social implications in the increasingly globalized world (e.g.,
Morris, Chiu, & Liu, 2015). In this review, we begin by examining the functions that culture
serves for the individuals and the society. Then, we investigate the divergent social and
psychological impacts of multicultural exposure to intercultural relations. Finally, we explore
potential boundary conditions that result in the diverging findings and discuss potential future
research directions.
Culture as Shared Meaning System
Culture has been conceptualized as a shared meaning system. The tradition can be traced
back to early discussions in anthropology, psychology, and sociology (see Rohner, 1984).

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 4
Culture consists of representations such as norms, values, symbols, and behavioral scripts that
are shared by individuals within a given society (also see Chiu & Hong, 2007). Such
representations are often embedded in daily news, arts, folk stories, and cultural icons, and are
actively constructed and reconstructed by individuals. Humans are cultural animals. We rely on
culture to impart a sense of meaning (Baumeister, 2005). Culture helps connect individuals to the
society—Individuals as members of a society share similar cultural representations, and such
sharedness facilitates the organization of a society (Rohner, 1984). As such, culture gives rise to
a stable and enduring pattern of relationships between the individual and the collective, and
between individuals within a collective. Such relationships constitute the foundation of a society
(Kashima, 2000).
Facilitate Social Coordination
Culture imparts individuals with a sense of meaning. Meaning shared within a culture can
be concrete or abstract (Chao & Kesebir, 2013; also see Janoff-Bulman & Yopyk, 2004). The
concrete and abstract meaning embedded in culture, such as norms, values, and behavioral
scripts, helps individuals make sense of their surroundings and facilitate coordination in the
society (see Baumeister, 2005; Lehman, Chiu, & Schaller, 2004). Concrete meaning refers to
cultural heuristics and behavioral scripts that help us to comprehend our social and physical
environment. For example, when we hear the utterance, “Would you like to have dinner with me
on Friday?” we know that dinner is a meal of the day and that Friday is the day after Thursday.
This aspect of culture helps us to coordinate daily activities almost effortlessly. Shared meaning
can also be abstract. It has to do with a broader sense of significance and worth. It connects
individuals to something larger than the self and transpires individuals beyond their physical
existence through such entities as social traditions, values, and beliefs that provide a sense of

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 5
worth to our everyday existence (see Chao & Kesebir, 2013; Mascaro, Rosen, & Morey, 2004).
Concrete and abstract meaning reinforces each other among people within a given society,
guiding our daily activities and helping us to make sense of the social and phenomenological
world. In line with this idea, Holtgraves and Kashima (2008) suggested that meaning, in a
concrete sense, is shared in joint activities to provide a common ground for social collaboration.
The common ground, once established, can be generalized across contexts, influencing the
abstract representation of meaning among people within a collective in the long run. The
accumulation of collective representations facilitates social coordination by allowing individuals
know what to expect and what they would be expected of in collaborative activities.
Culture, as a social coordination device, also serves social control function. It transcends
self-interest and promotes common good within a society (Chiu & Chao, 2009). In everyday life,
individuals are often confronted with the social dilemma of acting selfishly or acting
cooperatively (Dawes, 1980; Kollock, 1998; Schroeder, 1995). From the perspective of an
individual, being selfish is tempting because it enables oneself to take advantage of those who
are cooperative, and at the same time protects oneself from being exploited by those who are
selfish; however, from the standpoint at the collective level, societies that are dominated by
selfish choices would fail to coordinate and would unlikely be sustainable (Sober & Wilson,
1998; Wilson & Sober, 1994). Norms and accountability systems are evolved as an integral part
of culture to sanction behaviors that are deemed disruptive to the society (Chao & Chiu, 2011a;
Chao, Zhang, & Chiu, 2008; Gelfand et al., 2011). For instance, a common social control
practice is to hold wrongdoers personally responsible for engaging in acts that violate the code of
conduct. Culpability is judged according to the relative contributions of personal causality and
environmental damage. Individual would be held personally accountable to different extents,

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 6
increasing from mere association to foreseeable intentional harm doing (Fincham & Shultz,
1981; Heider, 1958; Shultz, Schleifer, & Altman, 1981). Such shared social practice helps
manage individuals and constraints their behaviors.
In addition to the universal need to coordinate among individuals within a society, it
should be noted that the formation and propagation of the shared meaning system are influenced
by a collection of ecological and historical factors that are related to adaptation, such as
surviving harsh habitats, scarcity of food, and recurring pandemics (Gilmore, 1990). Different
shared meaning systems are evolved accordingly to provide diverse adaptive solutions across
different societies (Barkow, Cosmides, & Tooby, 1992; Gelfand et al., 2011). Cultural values,
such as individualism and collectivism, are examples of such evolved adaptive solutions.
Whereas individualism emphasizes independence and personal achievement, collectivism
emphasizes obedience and conformity (Hofstede, 1984). These cultural values can be the
products of adaptation to ecological threats. For example, research has shown that pathogen
prevalence in a given ecology is strongly positively correlated with collectivistic values,
presumably because the cultural practices and norms associated with collectivism encourage
communal behaviors that help control the transmission of infectious diseases (Fincher, Thornhill,
Murray, & Schaller, 2008).
As another example, Gelfand and colleagues (2011) demonstrated that differences
between tight and loose cultures are afforded by ecological and societal threats and reinforced by
institutional practices. Tight cultures have strong social norms with little tolerance for deviance,
whereas loose cultures have relatively weak social norms and higher tolerance for deviant
behaviors. Societies facing severe ecological- and human-threats (e.g., historical territorial
conflict, resource scarcity, environmental threats) have higher need for strong norms and

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 7
punishment of deviant behavior; thus, tight cultures are evolved in these societies to facilitate
social coordination and social control. On the contrary, regions that are relatively free from such
threats tend to develop loose cultures.
Other research also suggested that different substance styles (e.g., herding versus
farming) afforded by the ecological environment gave rise to diverging cultural values and
practices in the East and the West. For instance, the mobility and independence of herders
resulted in more individualistic culture in the West, whereas the stability and intense demand for
labor resulted in more collectivistic culture in the East (Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenazyan,
2001). Recent research further revealed that variations in farming practices (e.g., rice-growing
versus wheat-growing) could result in cultural differences among individuals who lived in
neighboring regions. For example, rice farming required farmers to coordinate water usage with
their neighbors and to establish irrigation system. It was much more labor intensive than wheat
farming, which could rely on rainfall and required less social coordination. Such differences in
farming practices were associated with cultural differences in southern versus northern China. In
rice-growing southern China, people were found to engage in more holistic thinking and to be
relatively more interdependent than those who were in the wheat-growing northern China
(Talhelm et al., 2014). These findings suggested that cultural system is evolved to serve adaptive
function in a given ecology.
In sum, culture is an evolved mechanism that serves to coordinate activities among
individuals within a collective and maintain social control within a society. Although the exact
coordination mechanisms evolved might vary from one society to another depending on the
physical and social constraints the society confronts, they serve a universal need to maintain
social order. In the following section, we focus on the individual and discuss how cultures

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 8
provide individuals with cognitive and behavioral guidelines. It is the sense of epistemic security
we turn to next.
Provide Epistemic Security
Culture provides schemas, enabling individuals to know what to expect and how to
conduct themselves in a given situation (Chao & Chiu, 2011b). This meets the psychological
need for epistemic security, which is also known as need for cognitive closure (Kruglanski,
2004). The need for cognitive closure is characterized by a reliance on established answers and
knowledge to make judgments and responses in a given circumstance; however, in the face of
uncertainty, it is exemplified by an urgency to search for a firm answer. Accordingly, culture as a
consensually validated meaning system provides individuals with a sense of closure within a
given society; it imparts people with the feeling of knowing answers to questions.
As mentioned above, certain cultural attributes are more prevalent in one culture than
another because they provide solutions to adaptation problems faced by the society; such
sharedness of dominant cultural practices confers individuals with epistemic security in a given
society. As a case in point, there are cross-cultural differences in the use of conflict management
strategies (e.g., Gelfand et al., 2001; Leung, 1987, Leung & Morris, 2001). Early research on
third-party dispute resolution procedures finds that having an independent third-party to arbitrate
and settle disagreements is a common practice among Americans, whereas engaging a third-
party who has existing relationship with the disputants is a more prevalent practice among
Chinese (Leung, 1987; Leung & Fan, 1997). Other studies also found that when distributing
resources to ingroup members, compared with their American counterparts, Chinese allocators
prefer equality norm and distribute resources equally, which reflect their desire for maintaining
group solidarity and interpersonal harmony (Leung & Bond, 1984). Individuals with high need

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 9
for closure are particularly likely to adhere to the dominant cultural practices in their respective
culture, such that American respondents who have high need for closure prefer to have an
independent third-party to settle dispute and endorse equity allocation practices more readily,
while their Chinese counterparts with high need for closure show stronger preference toward a
connected third-party in reconciling disagreements and adopt equality allocation rules more
readily (Fu et al., 2007). In short, knowledge about cultures serves as epistemic closure provider;
it provides useful information that allows individuals to adapt by adjusting their practices to the
cultural context (see Tam, Lee, Kim, Li, & Chao, 2012; Yakunina, Weigold, Weigold,
Hercegovac, & Elsayed, 2012).
Thus far, we have investigated how cultures, as shared meaning systems, help individuals
make sense of their surroundings. They are evolved mechanisms that facilitate social
coordination and social control in a given society, guiding individuals’ thoughts and actions. The
sharedness of culture imparts individuals with epistemic security. By internalizing cultural
values, norms, and practices, it enables individuals to adapt and function in a society. As the
world becomes increasingly globalized, however, individuals are no longer encapsulated by one
shared meaning system. They are often exposed to multiple meaning systems simultaneously
through such channels as direct interpersonal contacts, the mass media, as well as social media.
What are the implications of multicultural exposure? We turn to this question next.
Effects of Multicultural Exposure
Culture can shape our sense of self and our social relations (Kitayama & Markus, 2000),
influencing our cognition, emotion, and behaviors (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Being socialized
into a given culture, individuals often habitually act and react in accordance to existing
perceptual schemas and behavioral scripts shared in their society (see Langer, 1978; Louis &

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 10
Sutton, 1991). Exposure to unfamiliar cultures might sensitize individuals from their own
cultural assumptions that have gone unnoticed and expose them to alternative ways of thinking
and acting. On the one hand, given that cultural meaning systems are evolved mechanisms that
facilitate adaptation to different ecologies, exposure to foreign ideas might open minds to
alternatives, facilitate creative syntheses, and enable individuals to function efficiently in
different societies (Maddux & Galinsky, 2009). On the other hand, being exposed to ideas that
are different from those embedded in our own meaning system might result in conflicting values,
social judgments, and behavioral standards on both intrapersonal and interpersonal levels,
disrupting adaptation and social function (Adair, Okumura, & Brett, 2001). Research has found
support to both possibilities. In the following, we briefly summarize the existing findings. We
then identify boundary conditions under which individuals would synergize or reject different
cultures.
Synergizing cultures
Some scholars have suggested that exposure to multiple cultures can open minds to novel
experiences (Appiah, 2006). As mentioned above, different cultural systems are evolved to
provide diverse adaptive solutions in different societies. Conceptualizing these adaptive cultural
solutions as tools in a toolkit (DiMaggio, 1997), individuals who are exposed to multiple cultures
would acquire more cultural tools. With more tools available, they are then sensitized to diverse
ideas and enable them to consider alternative perspectives. This suggests that multicultural
exposure can facilitate social coordination and provide epistemic security, not only within a
society, but also across different societies, and promote intercultural understanding. For example,
Hong Kong Chinese biculturals are often exposed to the influence of traditional Chinese values
(Ho, 1986) and Western ideologies (Bond, 1993). Studies that examined biculturalism among

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 11
Hong Kong Chinese revealed that when the biculturals were reminded of Chinese culture (e.g.,
through exposure to images of the Chinese dragon and the Great Wall), they were more likely to
respond in ways that are more typical of Chinese, such as making more group attributions and
showing more cooperative behaviors (Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet- Martínez, 2000; Wong &
Hong, 2005). But they showed more Westernized responses when they were reminded of the
American culture (e.g., through exposure to images of the Statue of Liberty and Mount
Rushmore). Similar effects were also found among other bicultural individuals, such as Chinese-
Canadians and Dutch-Greek bicultural individuals (Ross, Xun & Wilson, 2002; Verkuyten &
Pouliasi, 2002). Furthermore, in our increasingly globalized world, individuals living within one
cultural milieu also possess shared representations of other cultures, which can influence their
judgments and decisions (Alter & Kwan, 2009). Findings from these studies showed that
individuals internalize different cultural knowledge readily, which can help them see the world
through different cultural perspectives and, potentially, facilitate coordination and idea
integration across cultural boundaries.
The diverse toolsets enable individuals to break down routine responses and behavioral
patterns, increasing their ability in generating creative solutions to solve complex problems
(Leung & Chiu, 2008; Tadmor, Galinsky, & Maddux, 2012). Specifically, result from a series of
studies showed that those who were exposed to multiple cultures showed higher creativity, they
are more able to generate unconventional ideas and show increased receptiveness to foreign
ideas (Leung, Maddux, Galinsky, & Chiu, 2008). Similarly, bicultural individuals who
internalized both cultures equally strongly were more able to recognize and integrate multiple
perspectives, produced more novel ideas, and were more innovative at work (Tadmor, Galinsky
et al., 2012). Furthermore, the creative benefits can also go beyond the individuals and manifest

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 12
themselves at the group level, leading to higher collective creativity (Tadmor, Satterstrom, Jang,
& Polzer, 2012). These studies revealed that when individuals are being exposed to multiple
culture, they would synergize these cultures to produce novel products that transcend cultural
boundaries.
The increase in receptiveness to foreign ideas should also reduce individuals’ reliance on
a single established cultural mindset when making social judgment and promote more tolerance
toward others who are different, breaking down intergroup biases (e.g., Pettigrew, 1997;
Pettigrew, 2008; Pettigrew, 2009; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2000; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). For
instance, studies had showed that after exposing European Americans to both American and
Chinese cultural images experimentally, participants endorsed stereotypes about African
Americans less and reduced biases in their hiring decisions. A similar intergroup bias reduction
effect was also found among Israeli participants. Specifically, higher levels of multicultural
experience among Israeli respondents were negatively associated with the endorsement of
stereotypes about Ethiopians, a major minority group in Israel, as well as native Israeli, an
ingroup. More importantly, the effects of multicultural exposure also generalized to other
minority groups, such as homosexuals (Tadmor, Hong, Chao, Wiruchnipawan, & Wang, 2012).
Taken together, research has suggested that individuals who are exposed to more than
one cultural meaning system acquire diverse perspectives. Recognizing the existence of diverse
perspectives benefits the individuals by fostering their creativity and receptiveness to ideas that
might seem foreign and unconventional; it can also help individuals adapt to different cultural
context more efficiently and reduce biased judgments, promoting positive intergroup outcomes.
Rejecting cultures

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 13
Despite these fervent views over the positive impacts of multicultural exposure, some
scholars are less optimistic (Barber, 1996; Huntington, 1996). They observe that exposure to
foreign cultures awaken the desire to defend ones’ own cultural values and worldviews.
Differences and incompatibilities between cultures would be exaggerated (Chiu, Mallorie, Keh,
& Law, 2009), leading to increased animosities between groups (Jayaratne et al., 2006). Thus,
the increase in intercultural contacts results in “clash of civilizations” marked by acute
intercultural competitions. As Huntington (1996) put it, “The fault lines between civilizations
will be the battle lines of the future.” (p. 22)
Consistent with this “fault lines” perspective, research has suggested that minimal and
even arbitrary perceived differences between social groups are sufficient to induce people to
exaggerate differences between social categories (Prentice & Miller, 2006). In one experiment,
compared with European Americans who were exposed to an American advertisement only,
those who were exposed to both an American and a Chinese advertisement were more likely to
exaggerate differences between American and Chinese cultural values and expect members of
their own cultural group to internalize coherent cultural attributes (Chiu et al., 2009). Research
studies that examined the effects of intercultural exposure during the 2008 Beijing Olympics
have come to similar conclusions; they revealed that the “One World, One Dream” ideal that had
been widely promoted during the Olympic Games had, ironically, remained to be no more than
just a dream (Cheng et al., 2011; Rosner, Li, Chao, & Hong, 2010). Specifically, the Beijing
Olympics did not only increase ingroup favoritism of Chinese (Cheng et al., 2011), it also led to
exaggerated perceived differences between Chinese and Western cultural values (Rosner et al.,
2010). Even after the game was over, mere exposure to icons that were symbolic of the Games
were sufficient in eliciting perceived intercultural differentiation. Apparently, highlighting

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 14
cultural differences could induce a sense of incompatibility between “we” versus “they,”
influencing intercultural relations adversely (Schwartz & Struch, 1989; Schwartz, Struch &
Bilsky, 1990).
Contrary to the optimistic view presented earlier, individuals who are exposed to more
than one cultural meaning system do not necessarily acquire diverse perspectives and become
more receptive to foreign ideas. Instead, individuals tend to exaggerate the perceived differences
and incompatibilities between cultures, resulting in more biased judgments and negative
intergroup outcomes. From this perspective, exposing individuals to different cultures present
challenges to societies if they adhere to one culture and reject other foreign cultures. It might
disrupt social coordination and result in cultural disharmony both between individuals and
between groups within a society or across different societies.
Reconciling the contradictions
On the one hand, some studies suggest that being exposed to multiple cultures can be
mind-opening. It enables individuals to see things from diverse perspectives and be more
receptive to unconventional ideas. It can also promote intercultural understanding and positive
intergroup outcomes, facilitating interpersonal exchanges and social coordination within and
across different societies. On the other hand, other studies reveal that culture clashes when they
come into contact with each other. People tend to exaggerate perceived incompatibilities
between categories and show more rigidity in their thinking. They adhere more strongly to
conventional ideas which can fuel negative intergroup outcomes, disrupting social coordination.
How can we reconcile these contradictions? In the following, we identify boundary conditions
that provide some preliminary answers to address this question and suggest some future
directions.

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 15
Openness to experience. Individuals with high openness to experience tend to appreciate
novel ideas. They are receptive to diverse perspectives, and are able to solve problems in an
unconventional manner (Costa & McCrae, 1992; McCrae & Costa, 1997). Multicultural
exposure presents individuals with rich conceptual structures. For individuals who are open to
new experiences, they are more receptive to new ideas. They tend to break their routine
responses in order to synergize different cultural ideas. In contrast, those with low openness may
resist foreign ideas and practices. For example, Leung and Chiu (2008) found that extensive
multicultural experiences predicted better performance in creativity tasks only among those who
were open to new experience. Specifically, high openness individuals were more fluent and
flexible in generating unconventional uses for a garbage bag, and more able to generate
normatively inaccessible occupation exemplars. In contrast, among their low openness
counterparts, multicultural experience was related to less creativity. This suggests that openness
to experience enables individuals to reach out to foreign cultures and makes use of novel cultural
knowledge to generate creative solutions to resolve problems. The cognitive flexibility enables
individuals with high openness to embrace different cultures, equipping them with different
adaptive cultural tools in their toolkit. Such cultural tools empower individuals to think out of the
box and generate novel solutions for problems, which might facilitate social coordination and
advance the societies as a whole.
Need for closure. The acquisition and internalization of cultural knowledge provide
individuals with epistemic security (Fu et al., 2007). They impart individuals with a sense of
order and predictability within their own societies. Individuals with high need for closure are
generally characterized by the tendency to “freeze” on established normative standards of their
own culture. But when their own cultural standards cannot provide them with consensually valid

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 16
answers in foreign cultures, they would reach out to the foreign cultures to “seize” alternative
solutions. This suggested that compared with low need for closure, high need for closure
individuals are generally associated with closed-mindedness and rejection of foreign ideas. In the
search for epistemic security in a foreign environment, however, they become highly receptive to
foreign cultural practices. That is, high need for closure can result in distinct psychological
consequences in the face of foreign culture. On one hand, individuals with high need for closure
tend to adhere to their own cultural normative standards and reject foreign cultures. For example,
Shah, Kruglanski and Thompson (1998) found that need for closure positively predicted ingroup
identification, while negatively predicted identification with an outgroup member and acceptance
of outgroup beliefs and attitudes. Similarly, Kruglanski, Pierro, Mannetti, and De Grada (2006)
suggested that need for closure induces group centrism syndrome, such as intolerance toward
diversity, rejection of normatively deviant ideas, adherence to group norm, as well as ingroup
favoritism and outgroup derogation. On the other hand, their need for epistemic security also
motivates them to open themselves up and to look for alternatives in foreign contexts, when their
own cultural norms can no longer meet their need. For example, when new immigrants find that
knowledge from their home country is not applicable in a new environment, those who desire
closure are motivated to seize and freeze on the consensually validated knowledge in the new
environment and are acculturated more quickly (Kashima & Loh, 2006; Kosic, Kruglanski,
Pierro, & Mannetti, 2004). Studies that investigated conflict management strategies across
cultural borders provided support to this idea (Chao, Zhang, & Chiu, 2009). As previously
mentioned, when allocating resources among ingroup, compared with their American
counterparts, Chinese allocators tend to adopt equality-based allocation strategies in order to
pursue interpersonal harmony (Leung & Bond, 1984). Studies on need for closure revealed that

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 17
Chinese participants who perceived more salient differences between Chinese and American
cultures adapted their strategies according to the specific cultural normative practices if they had
high need for closure. Thus, they were more likely to endorse equality-based allocation method
in Chinese context than in American context (Chao et al., 2009). These results are important
because they reveal the dynamic of psychological processes in multicultural environment. In
particular, individuals who appear to adhere to their own cultural normative standards rigidly in
their home cultures are also the ones who embrace foreign cultures in the face of diversity. The
different cultural tools provide them with answers to solve the problems at hand, facilitating
social coordination.
Essentialist beliefs. Essentialism is the beliefs that social groups possess underlying
essences that give rise to immutable characteristics (Gelman & Hirschfeld, 1999). It sets up a
social categorization mindset (e.g., Chao, Hong, & Chiu, 2013; Medin, 1989; Medin & Ortony,
1989), leading individuals to see groups as discrete categories with little overlapping attributes
(Kalish, 2002; No et al., 2008; Plaks, Malahy, Sedlins, & Shoda, 2012). In a multicultural
environment, attempting to reconcile and integrate seemingly incompatible essences between the
two cultures can be challenging for people with an essentialist categorization mindset (Chao,
Chen, Roisman, & Hong, 2007; also see Tong, Hui, Kwan, & Peng, 2011). For example, studies
showed that Asian Americans who essentialized group differences showed psychological
reactivity, such that when they were reminded of the American culture, they responded in a more
typical East Asian manner (No et al., 2008). This pattern of psychological reactivity also
manifested itself in their physiological responses. They showed greater stress and anxiety
responses when discussing their Asian-American intercultural experiences (Chao et al., 2007).

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 18
Moreover, essentialist thinking can hinder individuals from harvesting the creativity
benefit of multicultural exposure (Chua, 2013; Tadmor, Chao, Hong, & Polzer, 2013). Across
three experiments (Tadmor et al., 2013), participants were asked to read an article describing
fictitious scientific research that supports either essentialist or non-essentialist beliefs. The article
that aimed to reinforce essentialist beliefs argued that there were immutable attributes underlying
racial groups and that racial groups were meaningful social categories that divided people in
accordance to their inner qualities. The article that reinforced non-essentialist beliefs posited that
race consisted of malleable, socially constructed categories (see Chao et al., 2013; No et al.,
2008). After reading one of the articles, Jewish-Israeli undergraduate students were asked to
perform a task involving word associations to test their creativity in the first experiment. The
results showed that those who were primed with the essentialist article solved significantly less
problems compared with those who were primed with the non-essentialist article. Similar effects
were also found among European American and Asian American participants. Findings of these
studies across different samples and across different measures of creativity supported the idea
that essentializing differences between groups leads to more rigid thinking mindset and hinders
creative problem solving.
Rigid adherence to category characteristics hinders creativity (Sassenberg & Moskowitz,
2005; Schooler & Melcher, 1995), whereas strict adherence to conventional social category
attributes results in stereotyping (MaCrae & Bodenhausen, 2000; Stangor & Lange, 1994).
Although creativity and stereotyping appear to be two unrelated constructs and have often been
examined separately, they are rooted in a similar tendency to rely on existing category attributes
and conventional judgment mindsets. Not surprisingly, essentialist beliefs are found to be
negatively associated with creativity and positively associated with stereotype endorsements

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 19
(Tadmor et al., 2013). The endorsement of stereotypes can, in turn, bias social judgments and
attitudes, potentially leading to intergroup animosities (Devine, 1989).
Research has shown that European Americans who essentialized racial differences tended
to be more prejudiced against African Americans (Jayaratne et al., 2006; Williams & Eberhardt,
2008). In an experiment, German participants who read an article that enforced essentialist
beliefs (e.g., emphasized genetic heritage of European people) showed more negative attitude
toward their outgroup (i.e., Eastern Europeans) compared with those who read a neutral control
article; this effect was particularly salient among those who chronically endorsed essentialist
beliefs (Keller, 2005). Essentializing group differences also has behavioral implications.
Specifically, it reduced the emotional engagement of European Americans toward inequity issues
experienced by African Americans in the society and diminished interest in interacting with
racial outgroups (Williams & Eberhardt, 2008).
In sum, although multicultural exposure presents individuals with diverse ideas,
essentialist beliefs lead individuals to turn their backs on foreign ideas and hold onto their own
cultures vehemently. Unlike individuals with high need for closure, who are motivated to adhere
to different existing cultural frameworks depending on the immediate situations they are in,
individuals who endorse essentialist beliefs perceive incompatibilities between different cultures.
Thus, they adhere to their native cultures, avoid and even reject foreign cultures. In other words,
when different cultural tools are presented to them, individuals who endorse essentialist beliefs
would hold onto their own cultural tools even more firmly and rely on their own cultural tools,
even when the use of such tools might not be deemed effective.
Their zealous adherence to their own cultural norms and values can be adaptive if the
goal of the society is to protect and defend the uniqueness of different cultures and to enhance

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 20
differentiation between cultures. However, it can disrupt social coordination if the goal of the
society is to promote exchanges of ideas and mutual understanding across cultural boundaries
because essentialist beliefs tend individuals to increase the reliance on stereotypes and have
negative impacts on intercultural relations.
Majority/minority status and cultural identification. Majority and minority groups might
respond differently in the face of foreign cultures (see Craig & Richeson, 2014; Ryan, Hunt,
Weible, Peterson, & Casas, 2007). Although majority group members might embrace
intercultural learning in order to promote their cultural values among other majority and minority
group members in the community, they might also reject foreign cultures because they might see
the minority groups, who hold different cultural values and standards, as competitors striving for
realistic and/or symbolic resources (Ginges & Cairns, 2000; Stephan & Stephan, 1985). This is
particularly true for those who have a strong cultural identification. High identifying individuals
tend to see their culture as an important component in self-concept and thus are motivated to
preserve their own culture. Thus, when being reminded of racial and ethnic differences, majority
group members who possess strong cultural identification tend to perceive more threat, show
more prejudice, and are less willing to cooperate with outgroups (Morrison, Plaut, &Ybarra,
2010). That is, they are more likely to reject foreign cultures and adhere to their own cultural
stance.
For minority group members navigating in a society with a dominant culture that is
different from their own ethnic culture, although they might be inclined to adhere to a particular
culture identity, they might also develop dual identification with their native culture and the
dominant culture (Gillespie, McBride, & Riddle, 2010; Tadmor, Tetlock, & Peng, 2009),
fostering their ability in considering and combining multiple perspectives (Tadmor, Galinsky et

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 21
al., 2012). Importantly, individuals who develop dual identification might integrate their
identities to different extents. The extent to which individuals perceive the two identities as
compatible and integrated is known as bicultural identity integration (BII; Benet-Martínez &
Haritatos, 2005; Benet-Martínez, Leu, Lee, & Morris, 2002). Research has suggested that
bicultural individuals with high BII were more able to integrate information to generate creative
ideas (Cheng, Sanchez-Burks, & Lee, 2008), whereas biculturals with low BII tended to
experience greater cultural conflict, leading them to become more open to alternative
possibilities and to show higher cognitive complexity (Benet-Martínez, Lee, & Leu, 2006). This
suggests that individuals with high and low BII are able to synergize cultures to think creatively.
The findings that both high and low BII individuals are able to integrate ideas and are cognitively
complex seem to contradict each other at first glance; however, the cultural synthesis generated
by high versus low BII individuals might be qualitatively different. Whereas high BII individuals
produce creative cultural synthesis by accepting and integrating existing knowledge acquired
from given cultures, the experience of cultural conflicts enables low BII individuals to become
more cognitively complex, which might enable them to question existing cultural knowledge and
bring cultural synergy into a new level, beyond the established cultural mindsets. In other words,
high BII individuals are likely to be innovative by building on existing knowledge to produce
incremental ideas that are novel, whereas low BII individuals tend to innovate by introducing
radical ideas that go beyond established knowledge boundaries. Research has yet to examine
these apparently similar but qualitatively distinctive types of cultural synergy.
In short, being exposed to multiple cultures might have differential effects among the
majority and minority group members. In culturally diverse societies, majority group members
might perceive other cultures as sources of threat to the well-being of their ingroups. Thus, they

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 22
might avoid or even reject other cultures. Furthermore, as majority group members, individuals
define the normative standard of behaviors within their societies, which might further demotivate
them from opening their minds in acquiring other cultural tools. Minority group members,
however, might perceive other cultures as resources to help them adapt to different
environments. For these individuals, the multiple cultures foster their ability in considering and
combining multiple perspectives to generate creative synthesis.
Future directions
Taken together, these studies suggest that cultural diversity presents individuals with
challenges as well as opportunities. They have provided preliminary answers to help us
understand when individuals might synergize or reject foreign cultures. In general, the studies
reveal that it is the intrinsic interest to explore and the desire to know about foreign cultures that
enable individuals to synergize their cultural experiences. However, perceived cultural
incompatibility and the sense of threat lead individuals to reject foreign cultures in the face of
diversity. Existing studies tend to investigate the effects of these psychological processes
independently. Most studies also tend to focus on investigating the main effects of these factors
on multicultural exposure. The next important step is to identify the situations under which these
processes might operate and how these processes might be related.
For instance, existing studies on essentialism tend to focus on its main effects in
intergroup or intercultural contexts; however, little is known about whether and how essentialist
beliefs might interplay with other individual and social factors, for example, openness to
experiences and cultural ideologies. The default assumption of essentialist beliefs is that values
and norms from different cultures are inherently different and incompatible. They tend to close
people’s minds to foreign culture. However, for individuals who are open to different

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 23
experiences, essentialist thinking might sensitize them to the unique characteristics of different
cultures, which could potentially facilitate more creative integration of unique cultural
components and create products that are more than the sum of its parts. This ability to synergize
apparently incompatible attributes might enable individuals to transcend across cultural
boundaries and present societies with creative solutions to emerging social coordination
problems.
Furthermore, recent empirical and conceptual advances on cultural attachment (Hong,
Fang, Yang, & Phua, 2013; Hong, Roisman, & Chen, 2006) also present the bases to help
understand when and how multicultural exposure might ignite individuals’ interest in exploring
foreign cultures and when they might reject foreign others. The model of cultural attachment
suggests that when individuals have secured a sense of meaning about their self and their valued
group, their native culture can serve as a secure base of attachment and enable them to explore
novel ideas. They become more receptive to novel perspectives and are more open to others who
are different. But when their sense of security is undermined, they might seek to restore their
feeling of security by rejecting the unfamiliar and shunning the different others away. This
model suggests that developing a sense of security about ones’ own culture might be a buffer for
individuals to open themselves to knowledge from different cultures, whereas the experience of
insecurity or threat might lead individuals to hold on to their own cultures even more strongly
(see Fu, Morris, & Hong, in press). In short, future studies can examine factors that can help
establish and affirm the sense of security, when this sense of security would be undermined, and
how the sense of security or insecurity might result in different multicultural dynamics.
Recent conceptualization of culture from a polyculturalist perspective also helps guide
future research. Polyculturalism presents a network view of culture in which different cultural

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 24
traditions interact and influence each other. It recognizes the coexistence of cultural traditions
and the possibility to recombine different cultural elements to generate hybrid culture (Morris et
al., 2015). It embraces cultural learning and adaptation (Prashad, 2001). This dynamic and
pluralistic view diverges from the traditional culturalist perspective, which focuses on the
authenticity and purity of cultural traditions and represents cultures categorically. It is consistent
with our conceptualization of culture as a dynamic shared meaning system that serves to solve
social coordination problems and helps individuals to make sense of their environment. It also
goes beyond understanding of culture and has important policy implications. Policies derived
from a polyculturalist perspective are termed interculturalism. They recognize the dynamic and
complexity of culture. Rather than focusing on cultural purity, they aim to foster interactions and
dialogues between cultures (Morris et al., 2015). Recent research suggested that polyculturalism
is associated with positive intergroup expectation (e.g., Cho, Morris, & Dow, 2014; Bernardo,
Rosenthal, & Levy, 2013; Rosenthal & Levy, 2012). Would promoting polyculturalism and
intercultural policies facilitate intergroup contact? Would they help resolve conflict between
groups with long history of conflicts? How do they interplay with individuals’ personal
characters, beliefs, social status, and identification to shape individuals’ cognition, emotion, and
behaviors in the global villages? Whether and when would they backfire and result in negative
intergroup or interpersonal consequences? In sum, our conceptualization and understanding of
culture could have important implications to interpersonal dynamics, intergroup relations, as well
as social and public policies in our increasingly diverse society (see Morris et al., 2015). These
are all important questions that merit research attention in the future. Given their far-reaching
implications to the individual and the society, there is much room for more interdisciplinary
cooperation to understand the divergent effects of multicultural exposure.

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 25
Concluding Thoughts
Although we have learned much about the dynamic interplay between culture, society,
and the individual, and the relationship between multicultural exposure, individuals’ cognitive
flexibility, and implications to the society, there are still much for us to learn and to explore. Our
analyses present the two sides of the multiculturalism coins. Whereas one side suggests that
exposure to multiple cultures can be mind-opening and increase receptiveness to diversity, the
other side shows that that multicultural exposure might hinder social coordination. Awareness of
the divergent impacts of multicultural exposure and the factors that might contribute to these
apparent divergences is important. Although exposure to divergent cultural ideas might enable
individuals to analyze and solve problems from multiple cultural perspectives, perceived
incompatibility and conflicts between cultures might post identity and epistemic threat to
individuals and the collectives that they belong to. This might undermine the sense of security
and have adverse impacts on intercultural dynamics. The major challenges for researchers and
practitioners would be to dissect when and how diverse cultural perspectives might benefit the
individuals and the societies and when they might result in drawback (see Buchtel, 2014).

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 26
References
Adair, W. L., Okumura, T., & Brett, J. M. (2001). Negotiation behavior when cultures collide:
The United States and Japan. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 371–385.
Alter, A. L., & Kwan, V. S. (2009). Cultural sharing in a global village: Evidence for
extracultural cognition in European Americans. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 96, 742–760.
Appiah, K. A. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. New York: W. W.
Norton.
Barber, B. R. (1996). Jihad vs. McWorld. New York: Ballantine Books.
Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology
and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
Baumeister, R. F. (2005). The cultural animal: Human nature, meaning, and social life. New
Yor: Oxford University Press.
Bond, M. H. (1993). Beyond the Chinese face. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. (In
Chinese)
Benet-Martínez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural Identity Integration (BII): Components
and psychosocial antecedents. Journal of Personality, 73, 1015–1050.
Benet-Martínez, V., Lee, F., & Leu, J. (2006). Biculturalism and cognitive complexity: Expertise
in cultural representations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 386–407. Benet-
Martínez, V., Leu, J., Lee, F., & Morris, M. W. (2002). Negotiating biculturalism:
Cultural frame switching in biculturals with oppositional versus compatible cultural
identities. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 492–516.

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 27
Bernardo, A. I., Rosenthal, L., & Levy, S. R. (2013). Polyculturalism and attitudes towards
people from other countries. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37, 335–344.
Buchtel, E. E. (2014). Cultural sensitivity or cultural stereotyping? Positive and negative effects
of a cultural psychology class. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 39, 40–
52.
Chao, M. M., Chen, J., Roisman, G. I., & Hong, Y. (2007). Essentializing race: Implications for
bicultural individuals’ cognition and physiological reactivity. Psychological Science, 18,
341–348.
Chao, M. M., & Chiu, C. (2011a). Culture as norm representations: The case of collective
responsibility attribution. In A. K. -y. Leung, C. Chiu, & Y. Hong (Eds.), Cultural
processes: A social psychological perspective. (pp. 65–77). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Chao, M. M., & Chiu, C. (2011b). Epistemic functions of culture. In A. K. -y. Leung, C. Chiu, &
Y. Hong (Eds.), Cultural processes: A social psychological perspective. (pp. 81–95).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chao, M. M., Hong, Y., & Chiu, C. (2013). Essentializing race: Its implications on racial
categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 619–634.
Chao, M. M., & Kesebir, P. (2013). Culture: The grand web of meaning. In J. A. Hicks & C.
Routledge (Eds.), The experience of meaning in life: Classical perspectives, emerging
themes, and controversies. (pp. 317–331). New York: Springer Press.
Chao, M. M., Zhang, Z., & Chiu, C. (2008). Personal and collective culpability judgment: A
functional analysis of East Asian-North American differences. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 39, 730–744.

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 28
Chao, M. M., Zhang, Z., & Chiu, C. (2009). Adherence to perceived norms across cultural
boundaries: The role of need for cognitive closure and ingroup identification. Group
Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13, 69–89.
Cheng, C. Y., Sanchez-Burks, J., & Lee, F. (2008). Connecting the dots within: Creative
performance and identity integration. Psychological Science, 19, 1178–1184.
Cheng, S. Y. Y., Rosner, J. L., Chao, M. M., Peng, S., Chen, X., Li, Y., … Chiu, C. (2011). One
world, one dream? Intergroup consequences of the 2008 Beijing Olympics. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 296–306.
Chiu, C., & Chao, M. M. (2009). Society, culture, and the person: Ways to personalize and
socialize cultural psychology. In R. S. Wyer, C. Chiu, & Y. Hong (Eds.), Understanding
culture: Theory, research, and application. (pp. 457–466). New York: Psychology Press.
Chiu, C., & Cheng, S. Y. Y. (2007). Toward a Social Psychology of Culture and Globalization:
Some Social Cognitive Consequences of Activating Two Cultures Simultaneously. Social
and Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 84–100.
Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (2007). Cultural processes: Basic principles. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T.
Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed.). (pp. 785–
804). New York: Guilford Press.
Chiu, C., Mallorie, L., Keh, H. T., & Law, W. (2009). Perceptions of culture in multicultural
space: Joint presentation of images from two cultures increases in-group attribution of
culture-typical characteristics. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40, 282–300.
Cho, J., Morris, M. W., & Dow, B. (2014). When in Rome, what do Romans think about
newcomers? Locals perceptionsof a newcomer’s cultural adaptation. In Trans-Atlantic Dr.
Consort. London: London Bus. Sch.

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 29
Chua, R. Y. J. (2013). The costs of ambient cultural disharmony: Indirect intercultural conflicts
in social environment undermine creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1545–
1577.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae. R. R. (1992). Reply to Ben-Porath and Waller. Psychological
Assessment, 4, 20–22.
Craig, M. A., & Richeson, J. A. (2014). More diverse yet less tolerant? How the increasingly
diverse racial landscape affects White Americans’ racial attitudes. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 40, 750–761.
Dawes, R. M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 169–193.
Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5–18.
DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 263–287.
Fincham, F. D., & Shultz, T. R. (1981). Intervening causation and the mitigation of responsibility
for harm. British Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 113–120.
Fincher, C. L., Thornhill, R., Murray, D. R., & Schaller, M. (2008). Pathogen prevalence predicts
human cross-cultural variability in individualism/collectivism. Proceedings of the Royal
Society B, 275, 1279–1285.
Fu, J., Morris, M., & Hong, Y. (in press). A transformative taste of home: Home culture primes
foster expatriates’ adjustment through bolstering relational security. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology.
Fu, J. H., Morris, M. W., Lee, S., Chao, M., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (2007). Epistemic motives and
cultural conformity: Need for closure, culture, and context as determinants of conflict
judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 191–207.

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 30
Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H., Holcombe, K. M., Dyer, N., Ohbuchi, K., & Fukuno, M. (2001).
Cultural influences on cognitive representations of conflict: Interpretations of conflict
episodes in the United States and Japan. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1059–1074.
Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim, B. C., … Yamaguchi, S.
(2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332,
1100–1104.
Gelman, S. A., & Hirschfeld, L. A. (1999). How biological is essentialism? In D. L. Medin & S.
Atran (Eds.), Folkbiology. (pp. 403–446). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Gillespie, K., McBride, J. B., & Riddle, L. (2010). Globalization, biculturalism and
cosmopolitanism: The acculturation status of Mexicans in upper management. International
Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 10, 37–53.
Gilmore, D. D. (1990). Manhood in the making: Cultural concepts of masculinity. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Ginges, J., & Cairns, D. (2000). Social representations of multiculturalism: A faceted analysis.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1345–1370.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons
Inc.
Ho, D. Y. F. (1986). Chinese patterns of socialization: A critical review. In M. H. Bond (Ed.),
The psychology of the Chinese people. (pp. 1–37). New York: Oxford University Press.
Hofstede, G. (1984). The cultural relativity of the quality of life concept. The Academy of
Management Review, 9, 389–398.
Holtgraves, T. M., & Kashima, Y. (2008). Language, meaning, and social cognition. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 12, 73–94.

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 31
Hong, Y., Fang, Y., Yang, Y., & Phua, D. Y. (2013). Cultural attachment: A new theory and
method to understand cross-cultural competence. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
44, 1024–1044.
Hong, Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2000). Multicultural 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: Measurement and development. (pp. 135–170). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Huntington, S. P. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Janoff-Bulman, R., & Yopyk, D. J. (2004). Random oOutcomes and valued commitments:
Existential dilemmas and the paradox of meaning. In J. Greenberg, S. L. Koole, & T.
Pyszczynski (Eds.), Handbook of Experimental Existential Psychology. (pp. 122–138). New
York: Guilford Press.
Jayaratne, T. E., Ybarra, O., Sheldon, J. P., Brown, T. N., Feldbaum, M., Pfeffer, C. A., & Petty,
E. M. (2006). White Americans’ genetic lay theories of race differences and sexual
orientation: Their relationship with prejudice toward blacks, and gay men and lesbians.
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9, 77–94.
Kalish, C. W. (2002). Essentialist to some degree: Beliefs about the structure of natural kind
categories. Memory & Cognition, 30, 340–352.

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 32
Kashima, E. S., & Loh, E. (2006). International students’ acculturation: Effects of international,
conational, and local ties and need for closure. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 30, 471–485.
Kashima, Y. (2000). Conceptions of culture and person for psychology. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 31, 14–32.
Keller, J. (2005). In genes we trust: The biological component of psychological essentialism and
its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 88, 686–702.
Kitayama, S., & Markus, H. R. (2000). The pursuit of happiness and the realization of sympathy:
Cultural patterns of self, social relations, and well-being. In E. Diener & E. M. Suh
(Eds.), Culture and subjective well-being. (pp. 113–161). Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.
Kollock, P. (1998). Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology,
24, 183–214.
Kosic, A., Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., & Mannetti, L. (2004). The social cognition of
immigrants’ acculturation: Effects of the need for closure and the reference group at entry.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 796–813.
Kruglanski, A. W. (2004). The psychology of closed mindedness. New York: Psychology Press.
Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., & De Grada, E. (2006). Groups as epistemic
providers: need for closure and the unfolding of group-centrism. Psychological Review,
113, 84–100.
Langer, E. J. (1978). Minding matters: The consequences of mindlessness/mindfulness.
Advances in experimental social psychology, 22, 137-173.

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 33
Lehman, D. R., Chiu, C. Y., & Schaller, M. (2004). Psychology and culture. Annual Review of
Psychology, 55, 689–714.
Leung, K. (1987). Some determinants of reactions to procedural models for conflict resolution: A
cross-national study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 898–908.
Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (1984). The impact of cultural collectivism on reward allocation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 793–804.
Leung, K., & Chiu, C. (2008). Interactive effects of multicultural experiences and openness to
experience on creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 376–382.
Leung, K., & Fan, R. M. (1997). Dispute processing: An Asian perspective. In H. S. R. Kao & D.
Sinha (Eds.), Asian perspectives on psychology. (pp. 201–217). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Leung, K., Maddux, W. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Chiu, C. (2008). Multicultural experience
enhances creativity: The when and how. American Psychologist, 63, 169–181.
Leung, K., & Morris, M. W. (2001). Justice through the lens of culture and ethnicity. In J.
Sanders & V. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of justice research in law. (pp. 343–378).
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Louis, M. R., & Sutton, R. I. (1991). Switching cognitive gears: From habits of mind to active
thinking. Human Relations, 44, 55–76.
Macrae, C. N., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2000). Social cognition: Thinking categorically about
others. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 93–120.
Maddux, W. W., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Cultural borders and mental barriers: the relationship
between living abroad and creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96,
1047-1061.

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 34
Mascaro, N., Rosen, D. H., & Morey, L. C. (2004). The development, construct validity, and
clinical utility of the Spiritual Meaning Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 37,
845–860.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American
Psychologist, 52, 509–516.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion,
and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
Medin, D. L. (1989). Concepts and conceptual structure. American Psychologist, 44, 1469–1481.
Medin, D. L., & Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological essentialism. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony
(Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning. (pp. 179–195). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Morris, M. W., Chiu, C. Y., & Liu, Z. (2015). Polycultural psychology. Annual Review of
Psychology, 66, 631–6 59.
Morris, M. W., Mok, A., & Mor, S. (2011). Cultural identity treat: The role of cultural
identifications in moderating closure responses to foreign cultural inflow. Journal of
Social Issues, 67, 760–773.
Morrison, K. R., Plaut, V. C., & Ybarra, O. (2010). Predicting whether multiculturalism
positively or negatively influences white Americans’ intergroup attitudes: The role of
ethnic identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1648–1661.
Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2008). Culture and systems of thought:
Holistic versus analytic cognition. In J. E. Adler, L. J. Rips, J. E. Adler, L. J. Rips (Eds.),
Reasoning: Studies of human inference and its foundations (pp. 956–985). New York:
Cambridge University Press.

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 35
No, S., Hong, Y., Liao, H., Lee, K., Wood, D., & Chao, M. M. (2008). Lay theory of race affects
and moderates Asian Americans’ responses toward American culture. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 991–1004.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Generalized intergroup contact effects on prejudice. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 173-185.
Pettigrew, T. F. (2008). Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 187-199.
Pettigrew, T. F. (2009). Secondary transfer effect of contact: Do intergroup contact effects
spread to noncontacted outgroups? Social Psychology, 40, 55-65.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2000). Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice: Recent meta-
analytic findings. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination. (pp. 93–
114). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751-783.
Plaks, J. E., Malahy, L. W., Sedlins, M., & Shoda, Y. (2012). Folk beliefs about human genetic
variation predict discrete versus continuous racial categorization and evaluative bias.
Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 31–39.
Prashad, V. (2001). Everybody was Kung Fu fighting: Afro-Asian connections and the myth of
cultural purity. Boston: Beacon
Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (2006). Essentializing differences between women and men.
Psychological Science, 17, 129–135.
Rohner, R. P. (1984). Toward a conception of culture for cross-cultural psychology. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15, 111–138.

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 36
Rosenthal, L., & Levy, S. R. (2012). The relation between polyculturalism and intergroup
attitudes among racially and ethnically diverse adults. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 18, 1–16.
Rosner, J. L., Li, Y., Chao, M. M., & Hong, Y. (2010). One world, just a dream? Effects of the
Beijing Olympic icon on perceived differences between Eastern and Western culture.
Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 139–151.
Ross, M., Xun, W. Q. E., & Wilson, A. E. (2002). Language and the bicultural self. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1040–1050.
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 & Intergroup Relations, 10, 617–637.
Sassenberg, K., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2005). Don’t stereotype, think different! Overcoming
automatic stereotype activation by mindset priming. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 41, 506–514.
Schooler, J. W., & Melcher, J. (1995). The ineffability of insight. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, &
R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach. (pp. 97–133). Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Schroeder, D. A. (1995). Social Dilemmas: Perspectives on Individuals and Groups. US:
Greenwood Publishing Group.
Schwartz, S. H., & Struch, N. (1989). Values, stereotypes, and inter-group antagonism. In D.
Bar-Tal, C. F. Grauman, A. W. Kruglanski, & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Stereotypes and
prejudice: Changing conceptions (pp. 151–167). New York: Springer-Verlag.

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 37
Schwartz, S. H., Struch, N., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Values and intergroup social motives: A study
of Israeli and German students. Social Psychology Quarterly, 53, 185–198.
Shah, J. Y., Kruglanski, A. W., & Thompson, E. P. (1998). Membership has its (epistemic)
rewards: need for closure effects on in-group bias. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75, 383–393.
Shultz, T. R., Schleifer, M., & Altman, I. (1981). Judgments of causation, responsibility, and
punishment in cases of harm-doing. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue
Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 13, 238–253.
Sober, E., & Wilson, D. S. (1998). Unto others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish
behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Stangor, C., & Lange, J. E. (1994). Mental representations of social groups: Advances in
understanding stereotypes and stereotyping. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 26, pp. 357–416). London, England: Academic
Press.
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 157–
175.
Tadmor, C. T., Chao, M. M., Hong, Y., & Polzer, J. T. (2013). Not just for stereotyping
anymore: Racial essentialism reduces domain-general creativity. Psychological Science,
24, 99–105.
Tadmor, C. T., Galinsky, A. D., & Maddux, W. W. (2012). Getting the most out of living
abroad: Biculturalism and integrative complexity as key drivers of creative and
professional success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 520–542.

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 38
Tadmor, C. T., Hong, Y., Chao, M. M., Wiruchnipawan, F., & Wang, W. (2012). Multicultural
experiences reduce intergroup bias through epistemic unfreezing. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 103, 750–772
Tadmor, C. T., Satterstrom, P., Jang, S., & Polzer, J. T. (2012). Beyond individual creativity:
The superadditive benefits of multicultural experience for collective creativity in
culturally diverse teams. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 384–392.
Tadmor, C. T., Tetlock, P. E., & Peng, K. (2009). Acculturation strategies and integrative
complexity: The cognitive implications of biculturalism. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 40, 105–139.
Talhelm, T., Zhang, X., Oishi, S., Shimin, C., Duan, D., Lan, X., & Kitayama, S. (2014). Large-
scale psychological differences within China explained by rice versus wheat agriculture.
Science, 344, 603–608.
Tam, K., Lee, S., Kim, Y., Li, Y., & Chao, M. M. (2012). Intersubjective model of value
transmission: Parents using perceived norms as reference when socializing children.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1041–1052.
Tong, Y., Hui, P., Kwan, L., & Peng, S. (2011). National feelings or rational dealings? The role
of procedural priming on the perceptions of cross-border acquisitions. Journal of Social
Issues, 67, 743-759.
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.
Williams, M. J., & Eberhardt, J. L. (2008). Biological conceptions of race and the motivation to
cross racial boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 1033–1047.

MULTICULTURAL EXPOSURE 39
Wilson, D. S., & Sober, E. (1994). Reintroducing group selection to the human behavioral
sciences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17, 585–654.
Wong, R. Y., & Hong, Y. (2005). Dynamic Influences of Culture on Cooperation in the
Prisoner’s Dilemma. Psychological Science, 16, 429–434.
Yakunina, E. S., Weigold, I. K., Weigold, A., Hercegovac, S., & Elsayed, N. (2012). The
multicultural personality: Does it predict international students’ openness to diversity and
adjustment? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 533–540.