As a consequence of favorable political and economic circumstances in the second half of the 20th and early 21st century, many Western countries—in addition to the United States and Canada—have developed into important immigrant countries. In Norway, for instance, almost 10% of the population is born abroad, of whom a growing number are from non-Western cultures. In the Netherlands over 20% of the population is first- or second-generation immigrant. Due to less fortunate political circumstances in the Middle East, 2015 was also characterized by record-breaking numbers of refugees moving to Western countries in search of a better life, particularly from Syria, Eritrea, Afghanistan, or Kosovo (UNHCR, 2015). In 1 week in September 2015, Germany’s population grew with 1%.
It is safe to say that in many places, cultural diversity has become a great part of our daily lives. The premise of this chapter is that both immigrants and natives in a multicultural society should be interculturally effective to a certain degree. Googling for the term “intercultural effectiveness” yields over a million hits. This is not surprising. There are good grounds for arguing that the need for intercultural effectiveness was never greater than in the last decades. One consequence of the enormous growth of transnational relocations is that at the workplace today, employees from all levels in an organization must be able to operate with coworkers, customers, and clients from cultures that might share little similarity with their home culture. The same holds for students and teachers in educational settings, as well as for inhabitants of multicultural neighborhoods. It is important to find ways in which multicultural societies, their inhabitants, and institutions can operate in competent ways.
Unfortunately, competence in dealing with diversity is by no means a matter of course. Intercultural interactions are potentially threatening, because they confront us with uncertainty, loss of control, and a potential loss of resources. We know from empirical research that diversity in groups is associated with lower cohesion and interpersonal trust and with a higher probability of interpersonal conflict (Baumeister, Masicampo, & Twenge, 2013; Mannix & Neale, 2005; Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007; Williams, 2007). In this regard, Stephan and Stephan’s (2000) Integrated Threat Theory explains how cultural differences can be threatening. The theory distinguishes three types of threat that may be experienced in a culturally diverse environment: symbolic threat, intergroup anxiety, and realistic threat.
At the positive side, confrontations with different cultures provide opportunities for learning. Empirical research shows that transition to a new culture or collaboration in culturally diverse contexts leads to cultural learning (Leung, Maddux, Galinsky, & Chiu, 2008; Schneider & Barsoux, 1997). This learning process is not restricted to specific knowledge about a new culture, such as learning that preventing face loss is important in collectivistic cultures. An intercultural context can more generally enhance our cognitive flexibility by providing us with ideas that are new and different from our own (e.g., Austin, 1997; Nemeth & Nemeth-Brown, 2003; Van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004). Consistent with this idea, there is evidence that diversity in groups of individuals working together on a task enhances creativity and innovation (McLeod & Lobel, 1992; Nakui, Paulus, & Van der Zee, 2011; Watson, Kumar, & Michaelsen, 1993).
The distinction between threatening and challenging features of intercultural situations fits well with the coping literature that tries to understand how individuals appraise and deal with stressful circumstances (e.g., Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). From the coping literature, we know that some individuals are more inclined to perceive positive challenges of diversity, whereas others primarily perceive its threats (Hobfoll, 1989; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). This tendency stems from personality, but also from experiences we had throughout our lives that allowed us to feel secure in the presence of strangers or not.
In this chapter, we will focus on personality variables that contribute to the ability to deal with the threats and challenges of intercultural situations. For decades, researchers have investigated personality characteristics and skills that influence successful adaptation to a new culture. Factors such as empathy, respect, interest in local culture, flexibility, tolerance, technical skill, open-mindedness, self-confidence, sociability, positive self-image, and initiative have been identified in several studies (e.g., Arthur & Bennett, 1995; Bhawuk & Brislin, 1992; Cui & Awa, 1992; Hannigan, 1990; Harris, 1973; Kets de Vries & Mead, 1991; Ruben & Kealey, 1979). A noteworthy attempt to empirically specify some of the major indicators of intercultural effectiveness was conducted by Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman (1978). In their study, subjects who reported functioning effectively in other cultures rated 24 abilities in terms of their importance in facilitating intercultural effectiveness. These authors particularly pointed at the relevance of emotional stability and extraversion for intercultural success. Building upon this earlier work, we developed a five-dimensional model of intercultural effectiveness: cultural empathy, open-mindedness, emotional stability, flexibility, and social initiative (Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000, 2001). As the first dimension, cultural empathy regards the ability to empathize with the feelings, thoughts, and behaviors of individuals from a different cultural background (e.g., “Is able to voice other people’s thoughts”). Second, open-mindedness refers to the extent to which people have an open and unprejudiced attitude toward different groups and toward different cultural norms and values (e.g., “Finds other religions interesting”). Emotional stability indicates people’s tendency to remain calm in stressful situations versus a tendency to show strong emotional reactions under stressful circumstances (e.g., “Suffers from conflicts with others”). Fourth, flexibility refers to people’s ability to adjust their behavioral strategies to different or more restricted circumstances within a foreign culture (“Changes easily from one activity to another”). Finally, high social initiative indicates a tendency to approach social situations in an active way and to take initiative (e.g., “Easily approaches other people”).
Four of the five dimensions are closely related to general models of personality such as the Big Five (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992): agreeableness, extraversion, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience. Cultural empathy and open-mindedness show strong links with the dimensions of agreeableness and openness to experience, social initiative is akin to the Big Five dimension of extraversion, and, finally, emotional stability is negatively related to neuroticism. Nevertheless, evidence suggests that the intercultural dimensions have superior and additive predictive value over the Big Five in predicting indicators of intercultural aspiration and success. For example, in a study among students, Van der Zee and Van Oudenhoven (2000) showed that the five intercultural dimensions had superior explanatory power in predicting international orientation and aspiration of an international career. In a similar vein, Van der Zee, Zaal, and Piekstra (2003) found evidence for the predictive value of the five dimensions against an overall competency rating of job applicants by recruiters. This overall competency rating was a composite of scores on 14 behavioral criteria, such as group leadership, planning/organizing, judging, and persuasiveness. Cultural empathy and open-mindedness appeared as independent predictors.
How are the five dimensions related to the perception of threat and challenges in intercultural situations? The dimensions of emotional stability and flexibility seem to protect individuals against the experience of diversity as a threat (see Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2013, 2014). We have named these traits stress-reducing traits. Emotionally instable and inflexible individuals tend to respond to uncertainty and loss of control with anxiety. Individuals low in stress-reducing traits seem to need the protection of their own cultural world view in order to feel safe. Confronted with different cultures, they put pressure on others to assimilate or they try to exclude those others, in order to get rid of their anxious feelings.
By contrast, the intercultural traits of cultural empathy, open-mindedness, and social initiative predispose individuals to experience diversity as a positive learning experience (see Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2013, 2014). We have named these traits social-perceptual traits. Being confronted with different cultural perspectives, high scorers on such traits respond with curiosity and eagerness to learn.
Traits related to avoidance and approach tendencies in response to culturally diverse situations may act independently, that is, individual scores on stress-reducing traits can vary independently from their scores on socio-perceptual traits. However, on the basis of earlier research we know that serious threat prohibits positive responses among individuals who otherwise perceive intercultural situations as a challenge (Van der Zee & Van der Gang, 2007; Van der Zee, Van Oudenhoven, & de Grijs, 2004). For example, Van der Zee and Van der Gang found that whereas under neutral conditions, social initiative had a significantly positive effect on positive affective responses to a diverse team, this effect disappeared upon threat. By contrast, for emotional stability, no effect of being emotionally stable was found on affective responses to homogeneous teams, but this trait enhanced respondents’ positive affective responses to diverse teams. These findings suggest that high scores on social-perceptual traits will only lead to explorative behavior in a potentially stressful confrontation with a new culture when individuals also score highly on stress-reducing traits. Otherwise their desire to reduce uncertainty will stop them from opening up to different cultures.
In sum, whereas stress-reducing traits may buffer negative responses to intercultural situations by reducing threat appraisals, socio-perceptual traits facilitate cultural growth by promoting perceptions of challenge. In what follows, we will link both categories of traits to effective affective responses, cognitions, and behaviors in concrete intercultural situations. Before doing so, we will first provide a definition of intercultural effectiveness.
Up until now, most research on the link between personality and success in an intercultural context has focused on intercultural adaptation and adjustment. Whereas intercultural adaptation refers to the process of accommodating to a new culture, intercultural adjustment is defined as the outcome of the adaptation process (e.g., Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2001). Earlier in this chapter, we referred to the coping literature that regards affective and behavioral responses to potentially threatening situations as the outcome of cognitive appraisals of these situations as either a threat or a challenge (Lazarus, 1991; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Whereas threat appraisals result in negative emotions, challenge appraisals are assumed to evoke positive emotions.
In their A(ffect) B(ehavior) C(ognition) model of culture shock, Ward and colleagues regard cultural learning as a constructive behavioral response in intercultural situations, assuming that newcomers to a culture need to learn the rules and conventions that regulate interpersonal interactions in that specific culture (Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001; see also Wilson, Ward, & Fischer, 2013). Cultural learning refers to learning the necessary social skills to be effective in interpersonal interactions in the new culture.
An important limitation of dominant approaches to cultural adaptation such as the ABC model is that they focus on the effectiveness of individuals who move from one culture to another, such as immigrants and expatriates (e.g., Ward et al., 2001). Moreover, the process of cultural learning is defined one-sidedly in terms of accommodating one’s behavior to the norms and rules of the new culture. Increasingly, however, individuals need to be effective in intercultural encounters within their home countries. Changing demographics mean that host societies are becoming increasingly culturally heterogeneous, and boundaries are blurring between majority and minority groups (Van Oudenhoven & Ward, 2013). There are many examples where a previously culturally dominant group ceases to be the majority group. For example, in cities like Amsterdam, New York, or London, the “native” cultural groups are no longer in the majority. Third, the approach by Ward and colleagues assumes that there is an equilibrium state in which the individual has accommodated to the new culture. In our approach, we take a competency rather than an adaptation approach to success. We regard the emotional, behavioral, and cognitive adjustments that are needed in intercultural settings as a skill that is generally needed to succeed in daily intercultural situations and that is not connected to a specific transition phase.
In our definition of intercultural competence, we first rely on the distinction of Ward and colleagues between behavioral, cognitive, and emotional aspects. In addition, we complement insights from the coping and acculturation literature with insights from the literature on diversity in (work) groups in order to arrive at a skill-based definition of intercultural competence. As we stated at the beginning of this chapter, negative outcomes of diversity in a group context that have been reported in the literature concern increased conflict and lowered satisfaction and cohesion (Baumeister et al., 2013; Mannix & Neale, 2005; Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007; Williams, 2007). Such aversive outcomes primarily refer to emotions of insecurity, anxiety, and frustration. Equally importantly, aversive cognitive and behavioral consequences refer to conflict and miscommunication. Less frequently mentioned in the diversity literature, but prominent in the acculturation and coping literature, are responses of avoidance (Lazarus & Folkman, 1981) or separation (e.g., Berry, 1997).
Interestingly, positive consequences of diversity are usually described in terms of cognitive (cognitive flexibility) and behavioral outcomes (learning, creativity and innovation) (e.g., Austin, 1997; McLeod & Lobel, 1992; Nakui et al., 2011; Nemeth & Nemeth-Brown, 2003; Van Knippenberg et al., 2004; Watson et al., 1993). Positive emotional states (e.g., pleasure and excitement) resulting from diversity are less frequently mentioned in the diversity literature. An exception is an experimental study in which Van der Zee and Van der Gang (2007) presented students with videotaped scenes of a team that was either culturally homogeneous or diverse. The authors showed that in the absence of threat, individuals high in social initiative responded with more positive affect to diverse than to homogeneous teams. For example, participants responded to the diverse teams by endorsing affective states such as energetic, reassured, pleasant, calm, content, and encouraged.
Combining insights from these theories on coping, cultural adaptation, and diversity, we will consider intercultural competence to consist of:
In the following section, we will discuss how intercultural competency can be achieved at the interpersonal and intrapersonal levels. With respect to the interpersonal level, we will distinguish between the level of dyads and groups. At all levels, we will show that achieving both well-being and, at the same time, creativity and flexibility requires creating forms of interconnectedness that are based on differences rather than on similarities. Stress-reducing and social-perceptual traits facilitate the development of these forms of interconnectedness.
In 1935, Kurt Lewin proposed that group activities can be categorized as either cohesion or locomotion. That is, group members generally have two desires: they want to achieve a feeling of belonging to the group and to develop a group identity (cohesion goals) but they also want to achieve their group’s goals (locomotion goals). Cohesion goals in groups are usually served by belonging to a group with others who share similar norms and values. Trust in those groups is based on similarity (e.g., Brewer, 1981, 1991). Mutually unknown value systems and unpredictability of behavior of members from different cultural groups make it more difficult to develop a shared view on tasks, with negative consequences for mutual trust (see Van der Zee, Vos, & Luijters, 2009 for a discussion). For example, in two survey studies among employees, Luijters, Van der Zee, and Otten (2008) showed that identification with the organization and the workgroup is a negative function of perceived differences in cultural values.
Usually, when new members enter groups, the group identity is imposed on these members, requiring them to conform to norms and values that are shared among existing group members. For example at work, individuals give up part of their individuality when they enter the company and get a work place identity in return. This identity provides them with a sense of security and a sense of belongingness. Imposing group identities on individuals can be problematic in the context of diverse groups, where individual norms may be conflicting with the dominant norms in the group (Van der Zee et al., 2009). According to Brewer’s Model of Optimal Distinctiveness, identification with groups stems from a need to belong as well as a need to be distinctive (Brewer, 1991, p. 477). For the need to belong, Brewer argues that it is necessary to create a group membership in which all members perceive similarities with fellow group members. By contrast, the need for distinctiveness entails a need to distinguish oneself from other people. In order to be positively identifiable, groups need to find a balance between both needs. This balance may be disturbed by imposing a shared identity in diverse groups. As members of more inclusive ingroups are less similar to each other, group members’ sense of belonging will be threatened. In a similar vein, higher diversity of shared ingroups threatens distinctiveness because those groups have fewer unique features than groups that are less inclusive. Another negative outcome of imposing shared identities in diverse groups based on similarity is that the group’s creative potential is lost by asking individuals to give up the unique parts of their identities.
Recent work has proposed that social identities can also be induced from individual qualities within the group (Postmes, Spears, Lee, & Novak, 2005; cf. Turner, 1982). Group members can mutually exchange what their unique contributions to the group are, and group norms are inferred from individual expressions within the group. This may occur naturally, as in groups of friends, or by means of a consciously induced process, in which individuals start the process of identity formation by sharing their individual contribution with the group (Jans, Postmes, & Van der Zee, 2011). At a Dutch university, this approach was, for example, applied in an international class where students generated solutions to the so-called “Black Peter debate.” In the Netherlands in recent years, protest has evolved against the character Black Peter figuring as the servant of Santa Claus. Particularly, cultural minority members regard this part of the Santa Claus tradition as racist, while the majority refuses to give up this tradition to which they feel emotionally attached and according to them is disconnected from racism. As part of a small-scale interactive course, international students were asked to share their individual experiences with Black Peter with the group. These experiences varied from positive memories of presents and poems by native Dutch students to experiences of feeling uncomfortable by being associated with the primitive character of Black Peter by Surinamese-Dutch students, and feelings of astonishment over the Dutch dressing up like a black person in a servant role by British students. The sharing of perspectives had a very positive impact on the quality of the discussion about Black Peter that followed, as well as the creativity of the solutions that were suggested by the group.
There also is scientific evidence that groups that are formed inductively can be just as cohesive as deductively formed groups while at the same time their individual members feel acknowledged in their unique individual characteristics (Jans et al., 2011). In other words, the group provides a safe environment in which it is OK to be different. In an experimental study in which identities were manipulated by varying the amount of individual contribution to a team T-shirt, we found that in homogeneous groups identification was higher with groups that are deductively formed, whereas in diverse groups identification was higher when the groups were inductively formed. These findings were paralleled for cooperation as the dependent variable (i.e., sharing money with the group). More interestingly, a subsequent series of studies showed that diverse groups who had induced a shared identity were more likely to generate original ideas that went against preexisting social norms, which may ultimately enhance the creative potential of the group (Jans, Postmes, Van der Zee, & Seewald, 2015). Although there is some evidence that it is possible to create diverse groups inductively that are both a safe place and a source of creativity, research on the long-term effects of bottom up formation of group identities is still in its infancy. Even groups that are inductively formed may in the long run become less inclusive toward newcomers and less open to new perspectives of fellow group members.
Personalities of group members may play an important role in sustaining the effects of groups that are inductively formed. In general, research suggests that individual difference variables predict attitudes toward cultural outgroup members and diversity (Ekehammar & Akrami, 2007; Flynn, 2005; Van der Zee, Paulus, Vos, & Parthasarathy, 2009). For example, Ekehammar and Akrami (2007) related Big Five personality scores as indicated by the Revised NEO-PI (NEO-PI-R, Costa & McCrae, 1992) to indicators of prejudice in a sample of Swedish students. Their study indicates that, at the factor level, the Big Five dimensions of openness, agreeableness, and to a lesser extent extraversion are meaningful predictors of prejudice. These factors are conceptually related to the social-perceptual traits of open-mindedness, cultural empathy, and social initiative (e.g., Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000). At the facet level, the most important traits were tender-mindedness (a facet of agreeableness), values (a facet of openness), and warmth (a facet of extraversion). Van der Zee et al. (2009) presented students with pictures of work groups varying in diversity and found that individual differences in attitudes toward diversity predicted anticipated productive and affective outcomes of the group. Students with positive attitudes toward diversity anticipated more positive outcomes of medium and highly diverse work groups compared to students with less favorable attitudes. Earlier studies have revealed that these attitudes have a basis in the personality traits of agreeableness, extraversion, and openness to experience (Nakui et al., 2011). These traits are conceptually close to our social-perceptual traits of cultural empathy, social initiative, and open-mindedness (Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2001).
There is also evidence that social-perceptual traits may affect the ability of group members to cognitively benefit from mutual differences. For example, a study by Astrid Homan and her colleagues showed that openness to experience facilitated the performance of teams in which gender differences are salient (Homan et al., 2008). In their study, 58 heterogeneous four-person teams engaged in a networked computer task in which they had to monitor and defend a restricted airspace within a geographic region against an invasion from unfriendly ground or air. The task requires coordination and interaction between team members, as they need to be highly interdependent to perform well on the task. High openness to experience positively influenced performance of teams in which differences were salient. This effect was mediated by information elaboration. These authors argue that individuals high in openness to experience engender a more open-minded approach to dissimilar others, making them more likely to share ideas with others and more communicative toward ideas of others different from themselves. This enhances the elaboration of available information in groups in which mutual differences are salient.
Attention for integrating different perspectives in group identities is relatively new. Research on connecting perspectives of the self with perspectives of others at the dyadic level has a much longer tradition. For example, in the 1960s, Blake and Mouton (1964) introduced two factors to describe strategies that represent combinations of low and high concern for self versus other (integrating, obliging, dominating, and avoiding) and one style representing moderate concern for self and other (compromising). An individual’s conflict style can also be described with the help of an integrative and a distributive dimension (Lax & Sebenius, 1986; Putnam, 1990; Thomas, 1976). The integrative dimension represents the extent to which a conflict party is trying to maximize the total outcomes for the conflict parties together. The distributive dimension represents the extent to which a party is trying to maximize unequal outcomes for the respective conflict parties.
Relevant to diversity is identity conflict (Leong & Ward, 2000). Identity conflict occurs when a person encounters difficulties in reconciling different components of identity that prescribe behaviors that are incompatible to each other. An example concerns an imam who refused to shake hands with a former female minister of integration in the Netherlands. The minister displayed no understanding for this behavior and declared the imam’s behavior to be “disrespectful.” Such distributive conflict behavior that is identity driven seems to result in psychological distancing between conflict partners as well as negative affect. It has been argued and found that negotiators in intercultural contexts are less likely to have cooperative motives than negotiators in intracultural contexts (e.g., Adler & Graham, 1989; Brett & Okumura, 1998; Natlandsmyr & Rognes, 1995). This is not surprising when considering the number of psychological and behavioral challenges that negotiators face in an intercultural context (see Adair & Brett, 2005; Lee, Yang, & Graham, 2006). As we discussed earlier in this chapter, one of these challenges concerns intergroup threat (Stephan & Stephan, 2000).
In the book “Moral tribes,” Joshua Greene (2013) describes the difficulties of achieving moral behavior between members of different cultural groups. He argues that meta-morality is necessary when cultural groups that embrace different value systems meet. In his view, impartiality toward different value systems is the essential aspect of meta-morality. An example from the Dutch context will make clear that Greene’s principle of impartiality is oftentimes not fully ingrained into our approach to intercultural challenges:
When Charlie Hebdo was killed, there were children in Dutch schools who expressed that the killing was not true, but simply invented as Western propaganda against Islam. A Dutch politician of the Christian democratic party responded in a TV interview that Dutch schools are ruled by dominant Christian values and that it is the task of parents and churches to make sure that these children adjust to that Christian perspective when they go to school. In her eyes, we cannot ask schools to spend time on these issues.
Apparently, there is still a long way to go. One of the rules that Joshua Green describes in his book for achieving meta-morality concerns focusing on facts and making others do the same. In this regard, Keil (2003) has showed the phenomena of “explanatory depth.” In general, we tend to think that we understand the world even when we do not. Experiments focusing on heavily debated political issues such as health-care systems have shown that when you ask individuals to reflect on how certain policies work and how well they understand these policies, they will downgrade their estimates of their own understanding and become more moderate in their opinions (Fernbach, Rogers, Fox, & Sloman, 2013).
Again, personality plays a role in the ability to arrive at integrative solutions. In general, emotions of anger and frustration seem to drive distributive conflict behaviors, whereas compassion seems to drive integrative conflict behavior (Allred, Malozzi, Matsui, & Raia, 1997). Anger points at low scores on our stress-management dimensions, compassion at high scores on our social-perceptual dimensions. Other studies suggest a more complex pattern of relationships between personality and conflict style. In line with the idea that compassion promotes integrative behaviors, an empirical study by Antonioni (1998) among students and managers suggests that the social-perceptual traits of extraversion, openness, and agreeableness have a positive relationship with an integrating style. However, in conflict with this idea, their study also showed that extraversion was positively related with dominating, whereas agreeableness revealed a positive relationship with avoiding (e.g., see Dweck & Ehrlinger, 2006; Moberg, 2001). With respect to intercultural conflicts, Imai and Gelfand (2010) showed that cultural intelligence, a dimension that is akin to our social-perceptual dimensions (see Ang, Van Dyne, & Koh, 2006 for correlations with openness to experience), was positively related to integrative conflict behaviors.
A way in which group identities can be linked to creative processes at the individual level is by promoting biculturalism. Biculturals are individuals who have been exposed to and have internalized two or more sets of cultural meaning systems. They are assumed to navigate between their different cultural orientations by a process of cultural frame switching. Cultural frame switching refers to shifting between two culturally based interpretative lenses in response to cultural cues (Benet-Martínez, Leu, Lee, & Morris, 2002). For biculturalism to generate positive outcomes, it is important that bicultural individuals have integrated both identities (see Benet-Martínez, 2012, for a review). This means that biculturals perceive overlap rather than disassociation between their two cultural orientations and perceive harmony rather than tension between their two cultures. Integration of cultural identities predicts cognitive complexity and creative performance (e.g., Miramontez, Benet-Martínez, & Nguyen, 2008; Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2013). This is nicely illustrated by empirical work by Zhang, Schimel, and Faucher (2014, study 3). These authors performed an experiment among individuals with two cultural backgrounds and showed that in a condition in which they induced threat by means of a mortality salience intervention, individuals with integrated identities displayed heightened interest in educational programs that facilitate exploration. Individuals whose identities were not integrated displayed a stronger need for structure (study 1) and were less willing to explore in the social, intellectual, and environmental domains (study 2) under conditions of threat. In a similar vein, Tadmor, Galinsky, and Maddux (2012) showed in three studies that integration of identities among individuals who had lived in different countries predicted creativity and innovation. In a first study, MBA students brainstormed on how to use a brick creatively. In a second study, MBA students reflected on innovations they had accomplished in an actual work setting. In a third study, the authors extended their findings to general professional outcomes among Israelis employed in Silicon Valley: professionals with integrated identities achieved higher promotion rates and more positive reputations compared with individuals who had not integrated their identities. Across the three studies, the relationship between biculturalism and creativity could be explained by a more complex thinking style. Apparently, integrated identities enhance cognitive flexibility, facilitating performance outcomes. It must be noted that unlike Zhang et al. (2014), Tadmor, Galinsky, and Madux (2012) measured integration by focusing on identification with relevant cultural identities but did not tap into how much these individuals perceived their identities to be integrated (e.g., blended vs. clashing).
It is surprising that most work on biculturalism focuses on minority members. The same holds for work on the integration of immigrants in society, which has usually addressed the question of whether immigrants keep identifying with their original culture and whether they engage in contacts with the dominant cultural group in the new society (Berry, 1997). Many Western societies nowadays require that immigrants, who enter a new culture, learn the new culture (e.g., naturalization courses), whereas no adaptation is required from native individuals. With the presence of a dominant culture or a clear majority group gradually disappearing, the question increasingly becomes who identifies with whom? There are some studies that do focus on biculturalism among majority members (for an overview, see Leung et al., 2008). Leung and Chiu (2010), for example, conducted an experiment in which they asked European-American students with little knowledge of Chinese culture to watch a slide show on Chinese and American cultures. After the slides, students received information about Turkey and were asked to write a creative version of the Cinderella story for Turkish children. Students in the experimental conditions in which both Chinese and American cultures were presented wrote stories that were more creative compared to control conditions (no slides, or solely American or Chinese slides). Note that what these authors did as part of experimental research can easily be part of an educational program in an international or intercultural classroom. Translating the idea of biculturalism to the group level, Tadmor, Satterstrom, Jang, and Polzer (2012) instructed dyads of Caucasian-Americans coupled with Asian Americans to engage in a brainstorming task (i.e., generating creative uses of a brick). Participants filled out a survey on their earlier multicultural experiences (e.g., number of foreign languages and number of foreign friends). These authors showed that brainstorming pairs in which both partners had multicultural experience generated the highest levels of creative ideas.
Research has supported the role of personality as an antecedent of biculturalism (see Benet-Martínez, 2012). In a survey study among first-generation Chinese American individuals, Benet-Martínez and Haritatos (2005) have shown that individuals high in neuroticism as measured by the Big Five Inventory (BFI; Benet-Martínez & John, 1998) are more inclined to perceive a clash between their native and host cultures. For biculturals high on neuroticism, switching cognitive and behavioral frames in response to different cultural cues may threaten their ability to maintain consistent self-identities (Benet-Martínez, 2012). Moreover, lack of emotional stability may cause individuals to be less resilient against conflicting behavioral and normative expectations associated with both cultures (Luijters, Van der Zee, & Otten, 2006). Interestingly, in the same study, Benet-Martínez and Haritatos (2005) showed that individuals low in openness to experience perceive a larger distance between native and host cultures. Close-mindedness may cause individuals to perceive ethnic and mainstream cultures more rigidly in terms of their “essential” defining characteristics and these individuals may be less permeable to new cultural values and lifestyles. Such attitudes may lead to the belief that one’s two cultural identities cannot “come together” and must remain separate. Personality-related differences in perceived cultural distance may also be related to the need for optimal distinctiveness (Brewer, 1991). Close-minded biculturals may choose to keep their ethnic and mainstream identities separate in an effort to affirm their intragroup similarity and intergroup differentiation (Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005). Interestingly, stress-reducing and social-perceptual traits each seem to have a unique role in facilitating identity integration. Apparently, whereas stress-reducing traits facilitate perceptions of harmony between cultural perspectives, socio-perceptual traits promote assimilation of different cultural perspectives to one’s own perspective. Future studies may examine the unique contribution of the different subdimensions in this process. For example, whereas individuals high in flexibility may tend to perceive harmony because they can easily switch frames, individuals high in emotional stability may have the same tendency for different reasons: they may be more resilient against conflicting behavioral and normative expectations associated with both cultures compared to individuals who are less emotionally stable.
We hope to have described personality traits that predispose individuals to be interculturally competent as well as behavioral strategies that reflect interculturally competent responses to intercultural situations. As a device to measure intercultural traits both for the purpose of scientific research and for diagnostic purposes, we have developed the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire (MPQ) as a measure of intercultural effectiveness (Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000, 2001). To this end, items were constructed describing concrete behaviors or tendencies that were indicative of the specific dimension, resulting in a 91-item inventory. The instrument has been designed for use in the selection and training of employees who have a job with an international scope, for international students who are contemplating studying abroad, or, more generally and increasingly, for assessing the effectiveness of individuals in dealing with groups or individuals that differ culturally from themselves. The Dutch and English versions of the instrument are the most well-tested, but other language versions are also available (e.g., Spanish, Italian, and Chinese). For example, studies in the Netherlands and Italy have revealed that the scales are reliable and that they have sufficient construct validity, that is, they correlate in the predicted way with related personality and attitudinal variables (Leone, Van der Zee, Van Oudenhoven, Perugini, & Ercolani, 2005; Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000, 2001; Van Oudenhoven, Timmerman, & Van der Zee, 2007).
How can our insights regarding intercultural traits and behavioral strategies obtained from the studies that we described be applied to actually improve intercultural competence? In an extensive evaluation of cross-cultural training effectiveness, Black and Mendenhall (1990) concluded that cross-cultural training has a positive impact on skill development, adjustment, and performance. With respect to the five intercultural traits that we presented, a training program has been developed to enhance individual levels of cultural empathy, open-mindedness, and social initiative: the Intercultural Effectiveness Training (IET) (Herfst, Van Oudenhoven, & Timmerman, 2008). The IET is an interactive multimedia training that consists of a set of 28 cross-cultural critical incidents. The program can be carried out individually or—preferably—in a group. The goal is to make individuals more effective in their behavior toward other cultures in general, instead of dictating how to behave when in contact with specific cultures. The critical incidents are descriptions of situations, presented in audio and visual format, in which individuals may experience a misunderstanding caused by their different cultural backgrounds. The critical incidents are based upon experiences of several hundreds of sojourners and immigrants in the Netherlands (Herfst et al., 2008) and form a cross-section of key problems one may experience in an intercultural setting, such as making contact with others, hospitality, friendship, communication and language problems, or respect for authority, as examples. An example of a critical incident and four reactions, reflecting (lack of) cultural empathy, open-mindedness, or social initiative, is given below.
You are working for the customer service department of an Australian (German, Dutch) company. For a while, you have been getting complaints from foreign callers. They are complaining about not being able to understand the English (German, Dutch) customer service phone tapes. What do you do?
Participants receive feedback on the extent to which the trainee is inclined to display open-mindedness, cultural empathy, and social initiative when dealing with the intercultural situation. The critical incidents were tested in Australia, Germany, and the Netherlands. First evidence by Herfst et al. (2008) supports the cross-cultural equivalence of the instrument. For 21 critical incidents, these authors were able to show that experts from the Netherlands, Germany, and Australia agreed in their judgment about the intercultural effectiveness of the reactions to the critical incidents. Further research on the predictive and construct validity of the IET is needed. Research has shown that intercultural competencies can indeed be improved via intercultural training and intercultural experience. At the same time, there is evidence to suggest that the five intercultural competencies are relatively stable, with stability coefficients (2-month interval) varying between .75 and .87 (Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2001). It seems therefore useful in intercultural training to additionally provide trainees with skills in the three strategies that we discussed. For example, at the individual level, multicultural identities can be induced as described in the experiment by Leung and Chiu (2010), by presenting individuals with materials from different cultures or by activating different cultures represented by the multiple backgrounds of trainees in the group and requiring them to apply different cultural perspectives in individual assignments. In a similar vein, inductive ways of group formation can be facilitated in the way that we described earlier in this chapter with the example of the group discussion on Black Peter, starting with asking individuals to share their unique contributions to the group and using these unique contributions as building blocks for a shared group identity (see also Jans et al., 2011).
Stimulating individuals to arrive at integrative outcomes in negotiations can be achieved in several different ways. First, an interesting culture-training technique is the culture assimilator, also called intercultural sensitizer. Like the IET, which was inspired by the literature on culture assimilators, culture assimilators consist of critical incidents, describing situations in which individuals experience misunderstandings caused by their different cultural backgrounds. The critical incidents are followed by four or five explanations or attributions of why the member of the other culture or group has acted in a specific way. The trainee selects one of the options. The chosen option is then checked against the option that is most appropriate in the other culture (Triandis, 1994). A review of the cross-cultural training literature indicates that the culture assimilator is the most researched and accepted method of cross-cultural training (Bhawuk & Brislin, 2000). Additionally, in a number of studies the effectiveness of this method has been established, although the effects are mainly limited to changes in perceptions and not in behavior (Bhawuk, 1998; Harrison, 1992). With respect to conflicts, being able to reach at appropriate attributions of the behavior of the other person may reduce feelings of threat and may enhance the likelihood of an integrative solution. An important limitation is that cultural assimilators usually focus on one specific culture. Particularly in a multicultural environment at school or at work, individuals have to deal with others from varying cultural backgrounds. Alternatively, stimulating individuals to think about how much they know about the perspective of the other person may help them to be less polarized in their responses. In this regard, Keil’s (2003) idea of inducing “explanatory depth” can be applied to intercultural issues such as accepting Muslim women to wear headscarves and is easily applicable in training.
In societies nowadays, intercultural competency seems crucial to both social and economic wealth. When we are really capable of opening up to and integrating the different cultural perspectives available, we will be less vulnerable to events such as the Charlie Hebdo shooting or violent acts by Islamic State as a trigger for national tensions. When we are really capable of defining identities within ourselves, in dyads, and in groups in terms of the richness of resources available, that will also enhance the innovative power. With this chapter, we hope to have shown the importance of intercultural traits to our ability to do so.
This chapter is partly based on the unpublished inaugural speech of the first author (Van der Zee, K. I., Expanding horizons: Intercultural competence of individuals and organizations. May 22, 2015, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands).
Adair, W. L., & Brett, J. M. (2005). The negotiation dance: Time, culture, and behavioral sequences in negotiation. Organization Science, 16, 33–51.
Adler, N. J., & Graham, J. L. (1989). Cross-cultural interaction: The international comparison fallacy? Journal of International Business Studies, 20, 515–537.
Allred, K., Malozzi, S., Matsui, F., & Raia, C. P. (1997). The influence of anger and compassion on negotiation performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 175–187.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Koh, C. K. S. (2006). Personality correlates of the four-factor model of cultural intelligence. Group and Organization Management, 31, 100–123.
Antonioni, D. (1998). Relationship between the Big Five personality factors and conflict management styles. International Journal of Conflict Management Styles, 9, 336–355.
Arthur, W., & Bennett, W. (1995). The international assignee: The relative importance of factors perceived to contribute to success. Personnel Psychology, 48, 99–114.
Austin, J. R. (1997). A cognitive framework for understanding demographic influences in groups. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 5, 342–359.
Baumeister, R. F., Masicampo, E. J., & Twenge, J. M. (2013). The social self. In H. Tennen, J. Suls, & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, Vol. 5: Personality and social psychology (pp. 247–273). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Benet-Martínez, V. (2012). Multiculturalism: Cultural, social, and social processes. In K. Deaux & M. Snyder (Eds.), Handbook of personality and social psychology (pp. 623–648). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Benet-Martínez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural identity integration (BII): Components and psychosocial antecedents. Journal of Personality, 73, 1015–1050.
Benet-Martínez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait method analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 729–750.
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.
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 5–68.
Bhawuk, D. P. S. (1998). The role of culture theory in cross-cultural training. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 630–656.
Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Brislin, R. W. (1992). The measurement of intercultural sensitivity using the concepts of individualism and collectivism. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, 413–436.
Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Brislin, R. W. (2000). Cross-cultural training: A review. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 162–191.
Black, J. S., & Mendenhall, M. (1990). Cross-cultural training effectiveness: A review and a theoretical framework for future research. Academy of Management Review, 15, 113–136.
Blake, R., & Mouton, J. (1964). The managerial grid: The key to leadership excellence. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Co.
Brett, J. M., & Okumura, T. (1998). Inter- and intra-cultural negotiation: U.S. and Japanese negotiators. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 495–510.
Brewer, M. B. (1981). Ethnocentrism and its role in intergroup conflict. In M. Brewer & B. Collins (Eds.), Scientific inquiry in the social sciences (pp. 214–231). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Cui, G., & Awa, N. E. (1992). Measuring intercultural effectiveness: An integrative approach. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, 311–328.
Curseu, P. L., Stoop, R., & Schalk, R. (2007). Prejudice toward immigrant workers among Dutch employees: Integrated Threat Theory revisited. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 125–140.
Dweck, C. S., & Ehrlinger, J. (2006). Implicit theories and conflict resolution. In M. Deutch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 317–330). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Ekehammar, B., & Akrami, N. (2007). Personality and prejudice: From Big Five personality factors to facets. Journal of Personality, 75, 899–926.
Fernbach, P. M., Rogers, T. R., Fox, C. R., & Sloman, S. A. (2013). Political extremism is supported by an illusion of understanding. Psychological Science, 24, 939–946.
Flynn, F. J. (2005). Having an open mind: The impact of openness to experience on interracial attitudes and impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 816–826.
Greene, J. (2013). Moral tribes: Emotion, reason, and the gap between us and them. New York, NY: The Penguin Press.
Hammer, M. R., Gudykunst, W. B., & Wiseman, R. L. (1978). Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: An exploratory study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2, 382–393.
Hannigan, T. P. (1990). Traits, attitudes, and skills that are related to intercultural effectiveness and their implications for cross-cultural training: A review of the literature. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 89–111.
Harris, J. G. (1973). A science of the South Pacific: An analysis of the character structure of the Peace Corps volunteer. American Psychologist, 28, 232–247.
Harrison, J. K., (1992). Individual and combined effects of behaviour modelling and the cultural assimilator in cross-cultural management training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 952–962.
Herfst, S., Van Oudenhoven, J. P., & Timmerman, M. E. (2008). Intercultural effectiveness training in three Western immigration countries: A cross-cultural evaluation of critical incidents. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 67–80.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524.
Homan, A. C., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Van Knippenberg, D., Ilgen, D. R., & VanKleef, G. A. (2008). Facing differences with an open mind: Openness to experience, salience of intragroup differences, and performance of diverse work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 1204–1222.
Imai, L., & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). The culturally intelligent negotiator: The impact of cultural intelligence (CQ) on negotiation sequences and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112, 83–98.
Jans, L., Postmes, T., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2011). The induction of shared identity: The positive role of individual distinctiveness for groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1130–1141.
Jans, L., Postmes, T., Van der Zee, K. I., & Seewald, D. (2015). Achieving freedom from normative constraints through the formation of shared social identity. Manuscript in preparation, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Keil, F. C. (2003). Folkscience: Coarse interpretations of a complex reality. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 368–373.
Kets de Vries, M., & Mead, C. (1991). Identifying management talent for a pan-European environment. In S. Makridakas (Ed.), Single market Europe (pp. 215–235). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Lax, D., & Sebenius, J. (1986). The manager as negotiator. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. American Psychologist, 46, 819–834.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer.
Lee, K., Yang, G., & Graham, J. L. (2006). Tension and trust in international business negotiations: American executives negotiating with Chinese executives. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 623–641.
Leone, L., Van der Zee, K. I., Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Perugini, M., & Ercolani, A. P. (2005). The cross-cultural generalizability and validity of the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1449–1462.
Leong, C. H., & Ward, C. (2000). Identity conflict in sojourners. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 763–776.
Leung, K. Y., & Chiu, C. Y. (2010). Multicultural experience, idea receptiveness and creativity. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 41, 723–741.
Leung, K. Y., Maddux, W. M., Galinsky, A. D., & Chiu, C. Y. (2008). Multicultural experience enhances creativity: The when and how. American Psychologist, 63, 169–181.
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Luijters, K., Van der Zee, K. I., & Otten, S. (2006). Acculturation strategies among ethnic minority workers and the role of intercultural personality traits. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9, 561–575.
Luijters, K., Van der Zee, K. I., & Otten, S. (2008). Cultural diversity in organizations: Enhancing identification by valuing differences. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Relationships, 32, 154–163.
Mannix, E. A., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What difference makes a difference: The promise and reality of diverse groups in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6, 31–55.
McLeod, P. L., & Lobel, S. A. (1992, August). The effect of ethnic diversity on idea generation in small groups. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.
Miramontez, D., Benet-Martínez, V., & Nguyen, A. N. (2008). Bicultural identity integration and self-group personality perceptions. Self and Identity, 7, 430–445.
Moberg, P. J. (2001). Linking conflict strategy to the five-factor model: Theoretical and empirical foundations. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 47–68.
Nakui, T., Paulus, P. B. & Van der Zee, K. I. (2011). The role of attitudes in reactions to diversity in work groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 2327–2351.
Natlandsmyr, J. H., & Rognes, J. (1995). Culture, behavior, and negotiation outcomes: A comparative and cross-cultural study of Mexican and Norwegian negotiators. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 47–68.
Nemeth, C. J., & Nemeth-Brown, B. (2003). Better than individuals? The potential benefits of dissent and diversity for group creativity. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 63–84). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Nguyen, A. M., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2013). Biculturalism and adjustment: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 122–159.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., Lee, A. T., & Novak, R. J. (2005). Individuality and social influence in groups: Inductive and deductive routes to group identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 747–763.
Putnam, L. L. (1990). Refraining integrative and distributive bargaining: A process perspective. In M. Bazerman, R. Lewicki, & B. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 2, pp. 3–30). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Ruben, B. D., & Kealey, D. J. (1979). Behavioural assessment of communication competency and the prediction of cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 3, 15–47.
Schneider, S., & Barsoux, J. L. (1997). Managing across cultures. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
Stephan, W., & Stephan, C. (2000). An integrated theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination: The Claremont Symposium on applied social psychology (pp. 23–45). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Tadmor, C., Satterstrom, P., Jang, S., & Polzer, J. (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., Galinsky, A., & Maddux, 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.
Thomas, K. W. (1976). Conflict and conflict management. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15–40). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
UNHCR. (2015). Global Appeal 2015. http://www.unhcr.org/ga15/index.xml
Van der Zee, K. I., Paulus, P., Vos, M. W., & Parthasarathy, N. (2009). The impact of group composition and attitudes towards diversity on anticipated outcomes of diversity in groups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 12, 257–280.
Van der Zee, K. I., & Van der Gang, I. (2007). Personality, threat and affective responses to cultural diversity. European Journal of Personality, 21, 453–470.
Van der Zee, K. I., & Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2000). The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire: A multidimensional instrument of multicultural effectiveness. European Journal of Personality, 14, 291–309.
Van der Zee, K. I., & Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2001). The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire: Reliability and validity of self- and other ratings of multicultural effectiveness. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 278–288.
Van der Zee, K. I., & Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2013). Culture shock or challenge? The role of personality as a determinant of intercultural competence. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 928–940.
Van der Zee, K. I., & Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2014). Personality and multiculturalism. In V. Benet-Martínez & Y. Y. Hong (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multicultural identity (pp. 255–275). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Van der Zee, K. I., Van Oudenhoven, J. P., & de Grijs, E. (2004). Personality, threat, and cognitive and emotional reactions to intercultural situations. Journal of Personality, 72, 1069–1096.
Van der Zee, K. I., Vos, M. W., & Luijters, K. (2009). Social identity patterns and trust in demographically diverse work teams. Social Science Information, 48, 175–198.
Van der Zee, K. I., Zaal, J. N., & Piekstra, J. (2003). Validation of the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire in the context of personnel selection. European Journal of Personality, 117, S77–S100.
Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008–1022.
Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515–541.
Van Oudenhoven, J. P., & Ward, C. (2013). Fading majority cultures: The implications of transnationalism and demographic changes for immigrant acculturation. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 23, 81–97.
Van Oudenhoven, J. P. L. M., Timmerman, M. E., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2007). Cross-cultural equivalence and validity of the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire in an intercultural context. The Journal of International Communication, 13, 51–65.
Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock. New York, NY: Routledge.
Ward, C., & Masgoret, A. M. (2006). An integrative model of attitudes toward immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 671–682.
Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 590–602.
Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425–452.
Wilson, J., Ward, C., & Fischer, R. (2013). Beyond cultural learning theory: What can personality tell us about cultural competence? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 900–927.
Zhang, R., Schimel, J., & Faucher, E. H. (2014). Bicultural terror management: Identity hybridity moderates the effect of mortality salience on biculturals’ familiarity versus novelty seeking tendency. Self and Identity, 13, 714–739.