Stereotype Accommodation: A Socio-Cognitive Perspective on Migrants’ Cultural Adaptation

Abstract

Cognitive heuristics, or people’s stereotypes, are central to human interaction. Yet, the literature has been concerned with inter-ethnic stereotypes held by migrants and therefore has insufficiently addressed what might happen to individuals’ cognitive heuristics in the process of acculturating to host cultures. The authors discuss this gap in the literature by drawing on the culture learning perspective and work on cultural adaptation to examine migrants’ cognitive cultural adaptation. The concept of stereotype accommodation is introduced as a cognitive process whereby migrants incorporate the stereotype-relevant information learned in their host cultures into their preexisting stereotypes. Furthermore, a framework is presented for how cross-cultural differences, learning opportunities, individual differences, and cognitive resources might contribute to stereotype accommodation. The conclusion of this analysis is that, like any other individuals, migrants hold cognitive heuristics about varying groups in society and, moreover, these can be influenced and potentially modified by the mental short-cuts that are relevant in their host cultures.

Keywords

stereotypes acculturation cultural adaptation stereotype accommodation

Living in a new country implies numerous psychological obstacles that individuals need to overcome. Am I happy here? How do I manage successfully the daily life routine? What is the “right” way of thinking? The acculturation and adaptation literature has produced numerous studies that address the first (the affective domain) and second kind of questions (the behavioral domain) (Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001), yet the third kind of question (the cognitive domain) has remained insufficiently addressed in our opinion. We seek to contribute to the existing literature by providing a fine-grained look at the cognitive domain in migrants’ cultural adaptation. We focus on migrants’ cognitive heuristics as a form of cognitive adaptation in host cultures. In doing so, we introduce the concept of stereotype accommodation as a cognitive process whereby migrants incorporate the stereotype-relevant information that they learn in their host cultures into their preexisting set of beliefs.

We propose a theoretical approach to the cognitive domain of migrants’ cultural adaptation that builds on the notion of culture learning (Rudmin, 2009). Our main intention is to stress one manifestation out of many manifestations of migrants’ cognitive adaptation, clarify its novelty in the literature, and propose a theoretical framework that can guide the design of empirical studies. We also show how our framework differs from related work (e.g., Crisp & Turner, 2011). The article is divided into five sections. The first section summarizes the literature on the core concepts. We then introduce the concept of stereotype accommodation and the framework’s core postulates are presented in detail, followed by the potential scientific and practical benefits of the newly introduced concept and its framework. Finally, limitations, future research directions, and overall conclusions are discussed.

Theoretical Background

Stereotypes, Content of Stereotypes, Ethnic-Stereotypes, and Auto- and Hetero-Stereotypes

In early stages of life, people learn about the world that surrounds them, and gradually gain abilities for the communication of their feelings and beliefs. Concurrently, they learn about the appropriate and accepted norms in their societies. This has implications in social interactions–the way people approach others is largely dictated by their cognitive heuristics about social groups, or, in other words, by their preexisting stereotypes (Crandall, Bahns, Warner, & Schaller, 2011). Stereotypes are beliefs about the attributes of a social group (Hilton & von Hippel, 1996).

A stereotype therefore entails that a perceiver holds (a) specific beliefs (b) belonging to a social group. One prevailing view on stereotypes in the literature stems from the Stereotype Content Model (SCM; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002). The SCM holds that stereotypes about any social category can be summarized as a combination of perceived warmth and competence. Whereas warmth specifies the perception of social relatedness, competence indicates the perceived agency. There can be four combinations of warmth-competence perceptions (Fiske et al., 2002): high warmth and high competence (HW-HC, e.g., family), high warmth and low competence (HW-LC, e.g., rich people), low warmth and high competence (LW-HC, e.g., elderly people), and low warmth and low competence (LW-LC, e.g., poor people). The literature shows that this bi-dimensional structure of stereotypes is across many different cultures valid (e.g., Asbrock, 2010; Cuddy et al., 2009). In short, the fundamental research approach of the SCM is to examine the content of stereotypes, or, in other words, what is the information that a perceiver attributes to a social group.

The concept of stereotypes is an encompassing term. In the context of multicultural societies, a specific typology of stereotypes is ethnic stereotypes (e.g., Triandis, 1972; Triandis & Vassiliou, 1967). They refer to people’s beliefs about specific ethnic groups. For example, in the current European context a common topic of discussion is the belief that European citizens hold about migrants from Eastern Europe and refugees or asylum seekers from countries like Syria. Individuals can hold stereotypical beliefs about their own ethnic groups, which are termed auto-stereotypes and beliefs about other ethnic groups, which are referred to as hetero-stereotypes (Triandis & Vassiliou, 1967; Vassiliou, Triandis, Vassiliou, & McGuire, 1972).

Content of Stereotypes at the Individual and Group Level

The SCM refers to two levels of “aggregation” regarding the content of stereotypes. At the lower level are the subjective beliefs held by individuals and at the higher level are the beliefs commonly held by individuals in a given culture. Devine (1989) has proposed an identical organization of stereotypes. In this article, we discuss content of stereotypes at the individual level, as one’s subjective belief, and at the culture level, as an aggregation over beliefs of individuals within a culture.¹ Next, we briefly introduce the concept of culture and then further specify our position on stereotype content.

Although there are various ways to define a culture, there are two recurring notions: culture as a system of meanings and behavioral tendencies that is socially shared (Baldwin, Faulkner, Hecht, & Lindsley, 2006) that influences various psychological processes related to cognition and behavior (Kitayama & Uskul, 2011). A culture is not a palpable physical object, rather, it is represented in the minds of people, maintained and developed through communication (Kashima, 2008), and can be identified as an external system of rituals and symbols (S. H. Schwartz, 2014). A culture is known to all its members, an outcome that is evidently the result of a learning process (Lehman, Chiu, & Schaller, 2004).

As stereotypes are extensively defined as beliefs, their content is therefore inherent to a culture. In fact, culture level stereotypes are those beliefs about groups that are culturally embedded and often transmitted across generations (Kashima, 2000). Individuals first acquire/develop the content of their held stereotypes during the process of enculturation/early socialization when learning about the content of stereotypes that prevails in their surrounding (Bigler & Liben, 2006; Ehrlich, 1973; P. A. Katz, 1976).² Individuals can modify or adjust this content later in life depending on their subjective experience (Hilton & von Hippel, 1996).

Cross-Cultural Variation in Stereotypes

An emic-etic view on stereotypes

We know from cross-cultural research (Sam & Berry, 2006; S. H. Schwartz, 2014; Ward et al., 2001) that it would be close to a judgmental error to expect that people experience social reality in an identical manner across cultures. Cross-cultural studies applying the SCM have shown that, for instance, elderly people were similarly evaluated on the warmth dimension by Hong Kong, Japanese, and South Korean study participants, but received higher competence ratings by the Japanese study participants compared with the Hong Kong and South Korean participants (Cuddy et al., 2009). Further evidence stems from work by Durante and colleagues (2013). In a cross-cultural study conducted across 37 different countries, they showed that the more equal a society is in terms of wage distribution the more competitive groups are disliked and disrespected in the respective countries. In other words, the study reveals that the degree of income inequality in a society can correlate with the stereotype content at the culture level. This body of work provides reasonable grounds to expect that the content of stereotypes can vary across cultures. Yet, there is another way in which stereotypes can vary cross-culturally, namely with regard to culturally relevant social groups. In each culture, there can be indigenous social groups that are unknown or irrelevant somewhere else, such as the Maori in New Zealand and Maneliști in Romania (Stanciu, 2015).

To use the specialized terminology, we argue that stereotypes have both an etic (universal) and an emic (culture specific, indigenous) component (Cheung, van de Vijver, & Leong, 2011). The etic component of stereotypes can be twofold: (a) social groups can be universally relevant and (b) the content of stereotypes about these groups can be universally valid as well, for example, family members are almost universally seen as both warm and competent (Cuddy et al., 2009). The emic component of stereotypes can be twofold likewise: (a) social groups can be specifically relevant to one culture and (b) the content of stereotypes about one social group can be culturally specific. It is especially in the case of this emic component of stereotypes that the present article aims to focus on.

Acculturation and adaptation to host cultures

Individuals who migrate to other countries experience a process of acculturation, wherein they learn about the host country’s culture. Acculturation is a period in people’s lives where living in a new culture is associated with psychological changes (S. J. Schwartz, Unger, Zamboanga, & Szapocznik, 2010). The acculturation process can be defined at the affective, behavioral, and cognitive level (Ward et al., 2001). Affective reactions are examined in the framework of stress and coping, in which the acculturation process is considered as a disruptive life experience that causes pathological symptoms to migrants (Berry, 1992). Potential cultural differences can be emotionally overwhelming for migrants, in that they can trigger depression and reduction in overall well-being (Sam & Berry, 2006; Ward et al., 2001). The way migrants cope with these tendencies is often related to their personality and social support (e.g., Podsiadlowski, Vauclair, Spiess, & Stroppa, 2013); for example, extroverts and recipients of social support have typically less challenges in adapting to new cultures.

Behavioral reactions are typically studied in the framework of culture learning (Ward et al., 2001), in which it is proposed that migrants might be unaware of what is the appropriate behavior in the host culture. Migrants adapt by learning the appropriate behaviors in the new culture (Wilson, Ward, & Fischer, 2013). Adaptation to the sociocultural reality in the host society (sociocultural adaptation) is predicted by culture knowledge and contact with locals (Searle & Ward, 1990) and is empirically assessed via measures of language skills, familiarity with social norms (Dimitrova, Bender, Chasiotis, & van de Vijver, 2013).

Finally, cognitive responses are usually studied in the framework of ethnic and cultural identity (Ward et al., 2001). The framework holds that the acculturation process emphasizes individuals’ self-definition in relation to their own and other ethnic groups. Initially, researchers assumed that migrants modify their self-definitions as members of their home ethnic group by gradually assimilating attitudes, behaviors, and values held by members of the host ethnic group (Gordon, 1964). The widely accepted view is the one proposed by Berry (1992). He proposes four types of acculturation orientations, as per combinations of migrant’s desire to maintain identification with the home culture and desire to identify with the host culture, that is, integration, separation, assimilation, and marginalization. The assimilationist perspective has been since extended, and now the bi-culturalism perspective holds that migrants develop a self-definition that is equally rooted in their home and host ethnic groups (Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005). The cognitive focus in this line of research has been on identification and inter-ethnic stereotypes, but has neglected the question of cognitive adaptation regarding other cognitive processes, such as stereotyping.

Perspectives on Stereotypes Held by Migrants in the Acculturation Process

The by-far prevailing approach in research on stereotypes held by migrants in the acculturation process is focused on inter-ethnic stereotypes and rooted in the contact hypothesis (Pettigrew, Tropp, Wagner, & Christ, 2011). Its core postulate states that sustained positive contact can modify any negative stereotypes that one might have concerning an ethnic or cultural group. Individuals’ ethnic stereotypes can change because of contact with members of the stereotyped ethnic group (Pettigrew et al., 2011). For example, a study conducted in Germany revealed that the size of an ethnic group was positively associated with locals having less prejudice toward the group; it is noteworthy that this was mediated by contact frequency between locals and foreigners (Wagner, Christ, Pettigrew, Stellmacher, & Wolf, 2006). Contact between individuals from different cultural background is also associated with the reduction of inaccurate stereotype contents. For example, in a study comparing the auto-stereotypes and hetero-stereotypes of U.S. Americans living in Greece and Greek locals, Triandis and Vassiliou (1967) showed that frequent contact between the two ethnic groups was associated with increased similarity between the two types of stereotypes. The more contact U.S. Americans had with Greek locals the more their hetero-stereotype about Greeks became similar to the Greek auto-stereotype, and vice versa. A more recent study reproduced these findings with samples of Ingrian-Finns who emigrated from Russia to Finland (Lonnqvist, Jasinskaja-Lahti, & Verkasalo, 2013). Lonnqvist and colleagues (2013) showed that in a period of 4 years the hetero-stereotypes held by Ingrian-Finns about Finnish locals slowly became like the auto-stereotypes held by Finnish locals.

Crisp and Turner (2011) have provided an extensive discussion on stereotypes held by individuals in ethnically diverse contexts. They proposed the Categorization–Processing–Adaptation–Generalization (CPAG) model of cognitive adaptation to explain when and under which circumstances inaccurate hetero-stereotypes about the majority ethnic group can be reconciled. Building upon the contact hypothesis, the CPAG holds that when becoming aware of inconsistencies in their stereotype contents, people scrutinize it and reduce it depending on their motivations and abilities. Crisp and Turner’s work is unprecedented in that it combines for the first time evidence from the cognitive, inter-ethnic contact, and society-related strands of research on cultural adaptation in exploring, as we here argue, one manifestation of the phenomenon of cognitive adaptation of migrants. We see an opportunity to further address the topic. The acculturating process presupposes social interactions among migrants and locals and therefore the adaptive outcomes of this event should not be restricted to inter-ethnic stereotypes. Rather, this experience can also be considered as a trigger to a wider process of cognitive adaptation, in which migrants become aware of and learn about stereotypes related to other social groups that are relevant in their host cultures. In other words, the acculturating process can also trigger a process of adaptation of migrants’ cognitive heuristics.

A More Comprehensive Perspective on Stereotype Change in Migrants

To start with, the acculturation research itself had been historically guided by an assimilationist perspective (Gordon, 1964; cf. Rudmin, Wang, & Castro, 2017). Current perspectives nevertheless posit that an individual learns about her host culture and as a result this will change her. Rudmin (2009) comments on three ways of learning about a new culture: (a) via culture-relevant information, (b) via cultural training and mentoring programs, and (c) via observational imitation. Learning of culture-relevant information is embedded in work on sociocultural adaptation (Searle & Ward, 1990) and the seminal piece by Triandis (1972) on subjective culture. This approach to culture learning holds that migrants become aware of what their host culture entails from a variety of sources like novels, movies, or communicating with locals. Individuals have agency in “choosing” whether to incorporate the learned information. A second perspective on culture learning, the intercultural training programs (Landis & Brislin, 1983) and mentoring programs (Earley & Ang, 2003), specifies a directed effort to systematically learn about host culture features. This line of reasoning stems from applied work and deals with the development of resources that individuals can use to gain intercultural competencies (Earley & Ang, 2003). A third approach on culture learning is the observational imitation which simply holds that one learns about features of the host culture by imitating the host culture locals, for example, in regard to their behavior, emotional patterns, or values.

Culture learning is a process resulting in a form of intelligence, which has been coined cultural intelligence (CQ; Earley & Ang, 2003). Cultural intelligence is a trait-like feature of the individual who can effectively adapt in a new culture. Cultural intelligence integrates three domains, (a) the cognitive and metacognitive, (b) the motivational, and (c) the behavioral (Earley & Ang, 2003). The cognitive and metacognitive domain of CQ specifies one’s degree of knowledge content of one’s new culture and one’s “know-how” to use existing cognitive resources (e.g., patterns of thought and situational interpretation) in making sense of the new culture. The motivational domain of CQ specifies one’s motivations, goals, and agency in adapting to a new culture. The behavioral domain of CQ indicates one’s repertoire of habits and traditions, overt behavioral displays in short, with regard to a new culture.

The cognitive and metacognitive domain of CQ provides some promising leads in our proposed discussion of the cognitive adaptation of migrants. This domain of the CQ explicitly deals with information that pertains to a culture, both the declarative (factual) and the procedural (functional) type of cultural information (Earley & Ang, 2003). For example, individuals possess high levels of CQ when they know of the concept of face (declarative knowledge) and likewise know how to apply and interpret it in social situations (procedural knowledge). Cultural intelligence is nevertheless a concept that operates at a high level of abstraction (Triandis, 1972). That is, it describes one’s knowledge of the culture overall, its traditions, habits, or norms. In contrast, we are advocating a type of cultural information that is at a lower level of abstraction (i.e., more focused; Triandis, 1972). We propose stereotype accommodation as referring to individuals’ cognitive heuristics (mental shortcuts, stereotypes) regarding social groups, as it is informed by cultural emic information. This perspective is discussed in detail in the following sections.

The Concept of Stereotype Accommodation

The literature on migrants’ cognitive adaptation addresses insufficiently the perception and stereotypical evaluation of diverse social groups in society. To contribute to this gap in the literature, we propose the concept of stereotype accommodation as one of many possible manifestations of migrants’ cognitive adaptation. Stereotype accommodation is a cognitive process by which migrants incorporate the stereotype-relevant information that they learn in their host culture into preexisting stereotypes. Thus, it goes beyond existing perspectives on inter-ethnic stereotypes (e.g., Crisp & Turner, 2011) and empirical work on ethnic auto- and hetero-stereotypes (e.g., Lonnqvist et al., 2013; Triandis & Vassiliou, 1967; Vassiliou et al., 1972). Stereotype accommodation occurs due to a process of culture learning (Rudmin, 2009) in regard to cognitive heuristics and has three potential outcomes. First, migrants do not incorporate the stereotype-relevant information learned in the host culture into their preexisting stereotypes; in this instance, preexisting stereotypes are “preserved.” Second, migrants incorporate systematically the stereotype-relevant information learned in the host culture into their preexisting stereotypes; in this instance, preexisting stereotypes are “adapted” to the host culture. Third, migrants incorporate unsystematically some of the stereotype-relevant information learned in the host culture into their preexisting stereotypes; in this case, preexisting stereotypes are modified in such a way that that they differ from culturally relevant stereotypes in both their home or host cultures.

Stereotype accommodation occurs primarily in the case of stereotype-relevant information that is culturally emic, namely, in regard to (a) social groups that are indigenous in a migrant’s host culture and (b) content of stereotypes that is culturally specific in a migrant’s host culture. In situations in which one has no previous knowledge of a social group that is culturally relevant in one’s host culture, one learns what the group stands for and implicitly what are the associated beliefs. In situations in which one has knowledge of a social group that is culturally relevant in both one’s home and host cultures, one learns what are the associated beliefs in one’s host culture. Take for instance the case of the New Zealand specific Maori and of the universally present “elderly people.” An international student who first moves to New Zealand is almost surely unaware of this social group, unless, of course, she either has friends from the local population or has by chance read books in which the term is used. The student experiences stereotype accommodation by becoming aware of this culturally relevant social group and of the associated beliefs. The term “elderly people” requires no explanation because the reader is surely familiar with what it stands for regardless of his or her culture. Nevertheless, one might have distinct beliefs associated with the group, part of which stems from the relevant beliefs in one’s culture. For example, two migrants adapting to Japan or Romania will become aware of different age stereotypes in these host cultures. Both the migrant in Japan and in Romania will experience stereotype accommodation by learning the culturally associated beliefs about elderly people.

In the next section, we introduce a theoretical framework (Figure 1) that can inform the design of empirical studies to examine cross-cultural differences, learning opportunities, individual factors, and cognitive resources that contribute to stereotype accommodation and its outcomes. The list in Figure 1 is by no means exhaustive. It depicts nevertheless the overarching constructs that are of immediate relevance, with the concrete typologies given as illustrations. In what follows, we will refer back to this figure when we introduce our specific theoretical considerations as “Propositions.”

Figure 1.

A framework of the cross-cultural differences, learning opportunities, individual differences, and cognitive resources in the study of how disconfirming/novel stereotype-relevant information is incorporated toward stereotype accommodation.

A Framework for the Study of Stereotype Accommodation

Mechanisms of Stereotype Accommodation

Literature on the cognitive adaptation of migrants holds that inter-ethnic relations should be experienced in a way that challenges existing prestereotypes (Crisp & Turner, 2011). In a similar vein, in situations where migrants are aware of social groups in their host cultures, stereotype accommodation requires that migrants learn about information that is inconsistent with (disconfirms) their preexisting stereotypes. It is conceivable that there are culturally relevant stereotypes in the host culture that are different compared with the home culture; what we previously referred to as the emic component of stereotypes. Depending on the amount (whether a small or large part of the local population shares this information) and dispersion of this information (whether the elements that make up the inconsistent stereotype information is dispersed across varying channels of communication or is all concentrated in one channel, for example, mass-media, friendship networks, and work environment), there are three mechanisms that can trigger stereotype accommodation: bookkeeping, conversion, and subtyping (Hewstone, Hopkins, & Routh, 1992; Hewstone, Johnston, & Aird, 1992; Johnston & Hewstone, 1992).

“Bookkeeping” is a mechanism in which inconsistent information gradually changes preexisting stereotypes held by migrants. In this instance, regardless of amount and dispersion, any slight inconsistency with preexisting stereotypes can determine stereotype accommodation. Stereotype accommodation is a lengthy process because of sustained exposure to novel information. “Conversion” is a mechanism in which major inconsistencies trigger radical changes in preexisting stereotypes held by migrants. In this instance, any inconsistent information that is concentrated in a communication channel, that migrants are frequently exposed to, can predict a drastic accommodation of stereotypes. Finally, “subtyping” is a mechanism in which inconsistent information, that is dispersed across communication channels, fine-tune migrants’ preexisting stereotypes. Migrants learn that their preexisting stereotypes are not applicable to all members of a social group, and, as a result, incorporate the novel information by creating subtypes.

In situations where migrants are not aware of social groups in their host culture, any novel information about such groups (i.e., the social group label itself and associated beliefs) will trigger a straightforward mechanism–the novel stereotype-relevant information will or will not be incorporated into the preexisting stereotypes. That is, individuals will either incorporate the novel social group label and associated beliefs as a separate stereotype-relevant typology or will “merge” the newly learned information with preexisting information. For example, some migrants in New Zealand might associate the social group Maori with another social group in their home cultures based on their apparent similarities on aspects such as gender, employment status, religion, and so on (Roccas & Brewer, 2002).

Stereotype Accommodation in Private and Public Life Domains at the Implicit and Explicit Levels of Cognition

Acculturation research has shown that migrants can have distinct patterns of adaptation in private and public domains of life (Arends-Tóth & van de Vijver, 2004; Navas et al., 2005). Or, put differently, individuals’ adaptation is not necessarily constant across domains of the ecological context (Ward & Geeraert, 2016). Ward and Geeraert (2016) speak of three domains.³ The private domain is the familial context in which one experiences the process of cultural adaptation in a “safe” environment—typically together with at least one other (i.e., parent or partner) who shares the same cultural background or with intimate friends. The immediate public domain is the institutional and organizational context in which one experiences the process of cultural adaptation as a classmate, student, or employee in a firm. In such a domain one typically interacts with known others with whom there is a sense of safety/trustworthiness, yet, not as strongly as in the familial context. The distant public domain is the societal context in which one experiences a formal and procedural process of cultural adaptation as, for example, a simply street pedestrian, a customer of a shop or through interactions with state authorities. We propose that migrants can show varying patterns of cognitive adaptation across these life domains and this can be observed as a discrepancy at the implicit and explicit levels (Carlston, 2010) of stereotype accommodation (see Figure 1, Proposition 1: P1). At the implicit level, beliefs are automatically activated and impulsively applied. At the explicit level, beliefs that are activated are rationalized and effortful scrutinized before their application (Strack & Deutsch, 2004). As we further discuss below, individuals with a strong motivation and sufficient abilities to engage in a process of scrutiny regarding the learned information rely typically on factual knowledge and therefore do not take a situation for granted (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Across life domains, there can be distinct pressures to cultural adaptation (Ward & Geeraert, 2016) implying therefore varying motivations and abilities on behalf of the individual (e.g., Ward et al., 2001). That is, in the more private domains individuals are more likely to activate and apply preexisting stereotype-relevant information and in the more public domains they are more likely to activate and apply newly learned stereotype-relevant information (Proposition 2).⁴

Core Factors That Influence Stereotype Accommodation

This section is meant as an initial guide for empirical research to examine specific aspects or as a whole the process of stereotype accommodation and its outcomes. The “Cross-cultural differences as a source of disconfirming/novel information” is particularly interesting to cross-cultural research perspectives. The “Opportunities to learn about disconfirming/novel information” is of high relevance to group level comparative social psychological research. The “Individual differences to stereotype accommodation” is in effect especially relevant to comparative individual-level study approaches. The “Cognitive resources for the incorporation of disconfirming/novel information” is aimed at research concerned particularly with the individual cognition aspects of the process of stereotype accommodation. These propositions can be studied either separately or combined as a puzzle that best fits the research question.

Cross-cultural differences as a source of disconfirming/novel information

The degree of disconfirming/novel information that migrants can experience in their host cultures can be traced back to cross-cultural differences in terms of individualism–collectivism and tightness–looseness (Triandis, 1989). The dimension of individualism–collectivism specifies the degree to which people in a culture prioritize self-interests over the well-being of groups (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). In individualist cultures, people tend to construct themselves in an egocentric fashion, whereas in collectivistic cultures, people emphasize their interdependence to various social groups. The more people identify with their culture, the greater the chance that they endorse the respective behavioral tendencies in the culture (Jetten, Postmes, & McAuliffe, 2002). For instance, people in collectivistic cultures seem more likely to conform to their group norms than people in individualistic cultures (Triandis, 2001). The dimension of tightness–looseness specifies a culture’s degree of conformity to norms and penalizing of deviant behavior (Pelto, 1968). In tight cultures, norms are followed strictly and any deviant behavior is drastically discouraged, on the contrary, in loose cultures norms are less strictly adhered to and deviant behavior is relatively tolerated. Individuals in tight cultures show more frequent prevention behaviors and a higher need for structure relative to individuals in loose cultures (Gelfand, 2012). These dimensions may serve as templates that migrants use to assimilate information on how to relate to societal groups (Lehman et al., 2004). To illustrate, migrants from individualistic cultures can be exposed to and endorse the societal norm that social groups with agentic traits are desirable, which can contrast the norm in a collectivistic culture that social groups with sociable traits are desirable (for a study on how individualism-collectivism can be associated with a preference for groups with a specific trait see Schröder, Rogers, Ike, Mell, & Scholl, 2013). Furthermore, in cases in which the home culture of migrants is loose and collectivistic, individuals who deviate from the norm of sociability may be tolerated by the community (Gelfand et al., 2011). If migrants from these types of societies maintain their home culture, it can cause critical incidents in social situations if their host culture happens to be tight, and collectivistic (Gelfand et al., 2011). Thus, information that disconfirms migrants’ preexisting stereotypes can arise when there is a discrepancy between what migrants are accustomed to (in terms of social relations and deviant behavior) and the cultural norms in their host society. In line with literature on cultural distance (Galchenko & van de Vijver, 2007) we argue that large cross-cultural differences are associated with great inconsistencies/novelties in the stereotype-relevant information, which should have a greater effect on stereotype accommodation (Proposition 3).

Opportunities to learn about disconfirming/novel information

Migrants need to have opportunities for learning about prevailing stereotypes in their host culture. Learning opportunities are a set of contextual factors that might foster (or undermine) migrants’ chances and likelihood to learn about culturally relevant stereotypes in their host culture. One contextual factor is the size of an ethnic group. A sociological perspective proposes that the size of migrants’ ethnic group can determine their likelihood of cultural adaptation (Esser, 2010). Migrants living in small ethnic communities have plenty of opportunities for developing contact with locals. One outcome is that migrants have regular interactions with members of the host culture and therefore can learn about the culturally relevant stereotypes (Zajonc, 1968). Indeed, contact quantity can cater individuals’ stereotypes about other ethnic groups (Pettigrew, 1998; Wagner et al., 2006). Similarly, we state that the relative size of migrants’ ethnic group is associated with stereotype accommodation. The probability of learning about stereotype disconfirming/novel information is higher for migrants living in small ethnic communities than for migrants living in large ethnic communities (Proposition 4).

The vitality of an ethnic group (ethnic vitality), that is, the ability of a group to act as a distinctive and collective entity (Esser, 2010; Gordon, 1964), can also influence migrants’ cultural adaptation (Giles, Bourhis, & Taylor, 1977). In other words, the more vital a migrant’s community, the more likely it is that migrants have access to an ad hoc job market, shops, and other relevant services that could emulate life in their home culture. Migrants’ perceptions that their home culture is well represented in the host culture alleviates feelings of migration-based anxiety, and, at the same time, provides them with support toward sociocultural adaptation (Galchenko & van de Vijver, 2007). Such evidence, especially concerning migrants’ sociocultural adaptation, provides us with reasons to expect that members of the ethnic community also communicate among them stereotype-relevant information. Yet, we propose that migrants in a vital ethnic community are less probable to learn stereotype disconfirming/novel information (Proposition 5) because in such an instance individuals are likely to reproduce their home culture features (Kashima, 2000).

Furthermore, the length of stay in the host culture can also provide opportunities to learn about stereotype-inconsistent/novel information. As previously indicated, in general, cultural adaptation follows a pattern wherein during its initial phases migrants experience a so-called culture shock and gradually after which they adapt both psychologically and socioculturally. Similarly, we propose that a longer stay in the host culture provides migrants with more opportunities to learn about information that is inconsistent/novel with their existing stereotypes (Proposition 6). Subsequently, there can be different patterns of stereotype accommodation over time regarding different social groups (e.g., unemployed people and rich people; Demes & Geeraert, 2015) (Proposition 7). That is, there is no one size fits all outcome of stereotype accommodation–preexisting stereotypes about a social group will accommodate independently from preexisting stereotypes about another social group.

Individual differences to stereotype accommodation

Not all individuals experience the process of incorporating disconfirming/novel stereotype-relevant information in an identical manner. We distinguish three domains of individual-related differences that are relevant to stereotype accommodation. First, individuals differ in their reliance on stereotypes in general. For example, individuals’ personal need for structure (PNS), that is, the desire to mentally structure elements of the external environment into categories, seems to be responsible for stereotyping others (Schaller, Boyd, Yohannes, & O’Brien, 1995). Individuals with high levels of PNS are more likely to apply stereotypes in social interactions, compared with individuals with low levels of PNS. There is also evidence showing that highly prejudiced people are more likely to endorse racial stereotypes in their home culture (Devine, 1989) which suggests that prejudiced people are more likely to make use of stereotypes (Crandall et al., 2011). Nonetheless, there is evidence that higher levels of education can disrupt the reliance on stereotypes; although this seems to be explained by several moderators, such as social status and group deprivation (Wagner & Zick, 1995). We propose therefore that stereotype accommodation is more likely among individuals with lower levels of education, increased levels of PNS, and among prejudiced people overall; because they tend to rely on cognitive heuristics more frequently in daily situations (Proposition 8).

Second, individuals differ with respect to their predisposition to incorporate disconfirming/novel stereotype-relevant information. Age is a highly pertinent factor. Research in the area of Developmental Psychology suggests that, young age is associated with a steep learning curve, whereas older age is associated with a comparably flatter learning curve (e.g., Meeus, van de Schoot, Keijsers, & Branje, 2012; Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006; Soto, John, Gosling, & Potter, 2011). At a young age, individuals develop personalities and identities, and, at the same time, cultivate guiding principles in life. During adolescence, individuals usually experience a major progress in psychological development. Compared with previous life stages, people in this stage experience conflicting life events, and feel internal or external pressure, coming from parents and peers, to achieve a stable identity and personality. In subsequent periods of life, the learning curve stabilizes and even declines in some cases. These major stages of life are often associated with distinct patterns of adaptation to host societies. Children and young adolescent migrants experience higher levels of adaptation compared with late adolescents or adults (Beiser et al., 1988), which can make them even undistinguishable from locals (Abu-Rayya, 2013). Regarding stereotypes, young migrants acquire stereotypes relevant in their host cultures, rather than accommodating newly learnt information into their preexisting stereotypes (Oppedal, 2006; Sam & Oppedal, 2002). Therefore, we propose that age influences the degree of stereotype accommodation in a manner that resembles a decreasing concave-down slope, that is, apart from the early stage of life when migrants acquire the culturally relevant stereotypes in their host cultures, at the age of early adolescence migrants experience strong stereotype accommodation, a process that is less pronounced for adults, and even less so for elderly migrants (Proposition 9). In addition to age, openness to experience can also be associated with the learning of new stereotype-relevant information (Flynn, 2005). It is widely known that individuals with this personality type are “open” to engage in and to learn from new life experiences. Thus, we propose that migrants with high levels of this personality type are more likely to incorporate the stereotype-relevant information from their host culture into their preexisting stereotypes (Proposition 10). Furthermore, fluency in the language of the host society is a necessary condition for the learning of stereotypes in the host culture. Language, in the sense indicated above, provides migrants a common ground with locals to communicate and understand the host culture’s stereotypes (Kashima, 2000). The better the commanding of the local language, the better one’s understanding of the relevant stereotypes in the host culture (Proposition 11).

Third, degree of identification with a social category can provide biases to what information is incorporated into preexisting stereotypes. There is a direct link between group identification and categorization processes, which can lead people to see their ingroups in a more favorable manner compared with their outgroups (Demoulin & Teixeira, 2010; Oakes, Turner, & Haslam, 1991). Regarding stereotype accommodation, migrants can therefore be more likely to maintain a favorable image of their ingroups compared with outgroups (e.g., young-adults, students, rich people, etc.). In other words, if the stereotype-relevant information learned in the host culture is unfavorable regarding their own ingroups, migrants would maintain (and articulate even more pronouncedly) their preexisting stereotypes (Proposition 12). The reciprocal should also be valid. If the stereotype-relevant information learned in the host culture is favorable regarding their own ingroups, migrants would incorporate the information into their existing stereotypes (Proposition 13).

Cognitive resources for the incorporation of disconfirming/novel information

Considering research on the cognitive adaptation of migrants (Crisp & Turner, 2011) and the dual process models of cognition (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), we propose two core postulates to stereotype accommodation. The first is that people desire to hold beliefs about objects or other individuals and social groups that are consistent with beliefs that prevail in their immediate contexts (Proposition 14). Although there is individual variation in striving for cognitive consistency (e.g., social acceptance and materialistic benefits), people can use social comparison as a means to constantly evaluate themselves (Festinger, 1954). Through this socio-cognitive mechanism (information processing), migrants can reduce any inconsistencies between their preexisting stereotypes and stereotypes that are relevant in the host culture. The second postulate is that there is heterogeneity in the degree of processing inconsistent/novel information depending on whether cognitive elaboration is high or low, expressed through thorough versus superficial scrutiny (Proposition 15). High elaboration is more likely to be associated with the reduction of any discrepancy in existing information so that resolution is expected to persist over time (Petty & Wegener, 1999). Whether elaboration is high or low depends on individuals’ motivation and ability to resolve the information discrepancy (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) (Proposition 16).

The motivation to resolve information-inconsistencies is influenced (among others) by personal relevance (Johnson & Eagly, 1989; Petty, Cacioppo, & Goldman, 1981). In a study on persuasion effectiveness, Petty and colleagues (1981) showed that in a personally relevant scenario students were more motivated to engage in cognitive processing of the received message, which elicited favorable attitudes toward an otherwise undesirable policy. We propose that for migrants it is personally relevant to resolve inconsistencies between their existing stereotypes and stereotypes in their host cultures, as it is determined by their acculturation orientation. That is, acculturation orientation can provide the motivation for engaging in a cognitive process that is required to reduce these inconsistencies. Past research has shown that acculturation orientation can determine migrants’ cultural adaptation (De Leersnyder, Mesquita, & Kim, 2011; Ward & Rana-Deuba, 1999). Therefore, we suggest that an interest to adopt the host culture will be positively associated with the incorporation of novel stereotype-relevant information (Proposition 17a). In contrast, a desire to maintain the home culture will be negatively associated with the incorporation of novel stereotype-relevant information (Proposition 17b). It remains to be explored by future research how exactly this pans out in relation to Berry’s (1992) four acculturation orientations typology, which has been as of late under scrutiny (Arends-Tóth & van de Vijver, 2007; Rudmin, 2009).

Constrains can limit individuals’ ability to process any stereotype-relevant information that disconfirms their preexisting stereotypes. Constrains often trigger reactive responses, that is, active efforts to resolve the threatened state (Miron & Brehm, 2006). Regarding stereotype accommodation, migrants may incorporate any information that disconfirms their preexisting stereotypes, or is entirely novel, if they are “free” to resolve these inconsistencies in their own terms; if they perceive no constrains in their adaptation. Otherwise, constrains may lead to discarding of the information. The acculturation process is challenging in itself and the ecological context in which it happens can add obstacles to migrants’ adaptation (Ward & Geeraert, 2016). For example, perceptions of strong assimilationist pressures in society can result in migrants rejecting the host culture and therefore it is less likely that novel stereotype-relevant information is incorporated into the preexisting stereotypes (Proposition 18).

Theoretical and Practical Implications

The cultural adaptation literature has insufficiently addressed migrants’ stereotypes about the variety of social groups in society. We have situated our work in the literature on cognitive adaptation of migrants because we aimed at disentangling the many manifestations of migrants’ cognitive adaptation in their host cultures. We have theorized what might happen to stereotypes when migrants learn the stereotypes that are relevant in their host cultures. We have clarified the difference between ethnic stereotype change as a result of interethnic contact (this perspective prevails in the literature and is studied in the contact hypothesis perspective) and stereotype accommodation as a result of learning about stereotypes relevant in the host culture. Drawing on the existing literature on stereotypes (especially the SCM), we have proposed that individuals hold stereotypes about a variety of social groups in society and, furthermore, individuals can go through a process of learning the stereotype-relevant information from their host culture and incorporating that into their preexisting stereotypes. Moreover, we have suggested a framework, which specifies how cross-cultural differences, learning opportunities, individual differences, and cognitive processes might affect stereotype accommodation and its outcomes. In short, we suggested that migrants’ cultural adaptation can also involve cognitive heuristics like stereotypes.

Theoretical Implications

The present review has implications for further elaborations on individuals’ cultural adaptation and cultural intelligence (CQ). Our theoretical stance on stereotypes and stereotype accommodation is similar to what Earley and Ang (2003) call declarative type of knowledge; or Triandis (1972) would refer to as lower level of subjective culture abstraction. The cognitive and metacognitive domain of the theory of CQ holds that knowledge content that people learn in their new cultures concerns the culture overall, yet, not about specific types of knowledge content. Whereas CQ indeed specifies an individual’s knowledge of a culture’s norms, values, practices, language, and so on, it does not address individuals’ cognitive heuristics as they are informed by cultural emic information. Our contribution to the literature lies in the argument that cultural cognitive adaptation, or enhancing one’s cultural intelligence, can also entail gaining knowledge about predominant stereotypical perceptions about social groups in the host society. This perspective zooms in and disentangles the variety of social groups in society. This new perspective matters because social interactions are governed by cognitive heuristics as we have shown above. Thus, people can in theory change their stereotypes about social groups when exposed to a new culture. What do people think of the elderly in Japan, is it identical to what people think of them in Romania? What do people think of homosexual people in the United States, is it identical to how people think of them in Australia? It is especially in the case of cross-cultural differences that people became aware of the varying ways of how a social group can be perceived. A Romanian that first moves to Japan might not hold the here-culturally normative belief that elderly should be treated with respect. Therefore, this person might go through the process of stereotype accommodation to reconcile this incongruity. In our view, one manifestation of migrants’ (cognitive) cultural adaptation, and therefore also a more pronounced level of CQ, is achieved when a person has gained the culturally consistent knowledge of what locals think of specific groups in their society. In short, we suggest that migrants’ cognitive cultural adaptation can also take place at the cognitive heuristic level.

The present work can provide also a foot-in-the door for an alternative take on the behavioral domain in migrants’ cultural adaptation. Although existing theories have extensively looked at the cognitive (Crisp & Turner, 2011) or the behavioral adaptation of migrants (Ward & Rana-Deuba, 1999), the linkage between the two is yet to be explored in a way that goes beyond ethnicity. The reliance of the present framework on the predictive validity of the SCM (Fiske et al., 2002) can be extended to incorporate elements of the “Behaviors from Intergroup Affect and Stereotypes” (BIAS map; Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007). The BIAS Map postulates that stereotypes and discrimination are closely inter-connected, in that stereotypes coincide with specific behavioral tendencies. Cuddy and colleagues (2007) have argued that the warmth dimension of stereotypes corresponds with active facilitation (e.g., helping) and prevent active harm (e.g., attacking) behaviors, while the competence dimension correlates with passive facilitation (e.g., affiliation) and prevent passive harm (e.g., excluding) behaviors. In applying such a strategy, one might find that behavioral patterns directed to specific social groups in society (e.g., elderly people or rich people) also show cross-cultural differences and a cultural adaptive prospect.

Practical Implication

There is also one practical implication of the present work. In multicultural contexts, individuals of varying cultural upbringings need to find middle ways toward a successful coexistence. Often, however, prejudice and discrimination based on ethnicity are challenges to overcome; an aspect addressed in intercultural training programs (Landis & Brislin, 1983). Among its six major approaches, the fact-oriented method is most relevant to stereotype accommodation. In this method, the concept of stereotypes is introduced as an individual thought process, which describes how people make judgments about their own and others’ behaviors. The method focuses on changing any inaccurate (mostly negative) inter-ethnic stereotypes that individuals from a specific culture may have about people from a different culture. Yet, the literature suggests that addressing negative inter-ethnic stereotypes alone may be too restrictive. This article has presented a theoretical approach that stereotypes, in general, held by individuals are to a large extent shaped by stereotypes, which are culturally consistent in their immediate environments—the home or the host cultures. Thus, a systematic understanding that many social interactions are governed by stereotypes, which are largely shaped by culture, can prove useful to programs dedicated to deconstructing prejudice, especially in multicultural contexts. We argue that prejudice deconstruction programs should first unfold the overarching ethnic category (ethnic/cultural group) into social categories (social groups) and then aim to reduce any negative stereotypes about the specific social groups. For example, rather than addressing solely any negative stereotypes about Romanians in general, a company in Germany, that wants to hire Romanian employees, might benefit better from programs that address any negative stereotypes about Romanian employees held by its workers.

Closing Remarks

Limitations

Although this work is unprecedented in many ways, its claims have several limitations. One critique can be that the concept of stereotype accommodation does not specify whether migrants’ stereotypes can modify the stereotypes that are culturally relevant in their host cultures. Some literature suggests that there is a dynamic exchange and accumulation of culture-relevant information among locals and migrants (Horenczyk, Jasinskaja-Lahti, Sam, & Vedder, 2013). As research on cultural dynamics would suggest (Kashima, 2008), this might have the result of modifying stereotypes in host cultures such that the stereotype-relevant information held by migrants is gradually incorporated into the stereotypes held by locals. Whereas we consider this an outcome that is highly probable, it goes beyond the scope of the present review.

Recent evidence shows that stereotypes that are relevant in a culture can vary across regions of the country (Stanciu, Cohrs, Hanke, & Gavreliuc, 2017). That is, there can be regional specifics, like ethnic density, that can be associated with a pattern of stereotypes that is unique when compared with other regions in the country. The degree to which such within-culture variation of stereotypes influences stereotype accommodation is yet to be addressed. One possible outcome might be that migrants with the same cultural background who live in different regions of one host country will show varying patterns of stereotype accommodation. We expect that the proposed framework can be also applied in the study of stereotype accommodation at the level of within-country migration. In doing so, it can be applied to examine migration contexts between specific regions of migrants’ home and host cultures.

So far, our focus has been on first generation migrants. Postulating that second and later generations of migrants accommodate their preexisting stereotypes to stereotypes that are culturally relevant in their host culture would contradict the basic assumption of enculturation/early socialization. We consider that the second generation migrants are in fact individuals who grew up in two distinct cultures (Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2013). For instance, children of migrants have access to the culture of their parents and in other domains they are exposed also to their host culture. The dual cultural exposure facilitates development of an identity wherein elements of both cultures are incorporated (Tadmor & Tetlock, 2006). Concerning stereotypes held by individuals, there can be a balance among the stereotype-relevant information from her home and host cultures. That is, bi-cultural individuals do not experience stereotype accommodation—they acquire the stereotypes relevant in their home and host cultures. For bi-cultural individuals it is possible that one or the other culturally relevant stereotype information is activated depending on one’s context, that is, interacting with members of the home culture or the migrant culture (Luna, Ringberg, & Peracchio, 2008).

Suggestions for the Empirical Study of Stereotype Accommodation

The theoretical propositions in this chapter can be complemented by future empirical research. As the proposed concept of “stereotype accommodation” is just now introduced, the literature is lacking empirical evidence on its practicability. We therefore propose potential cross-sectional and longitudinal approaches in its examination. In situations where it is not possible to conduct a causal test of stereotype accommodation, the concept can also be studied in a cross-sectional design. Rather than focusing on causality, future studies could examine whether the here proposed framework has universal applications. Research could address whether there are socio-demographic factors, like education level, as well as type of migrant group (e.g., sojourners, work migrants, and refugees) that can differentiate among different types of migrants in their levels of stereotype accommodation. The operationalization of stereotype accommodation in a cross-sectional design requires that data is available concerning both the stereotypes that are relevant in migrants’ home and host cultures and the migrants’ subjective stereotypes. In a first attempt to empirically test the concept, Stanciu, Vauclair, and Rodda (2018) argued that a proxy measure to stereotype accommodation could be computed by using the Euclidean Distance (ED). Considering the SCM’s warmth-competence as a bi-modal space in which stereotypes are measured, they evaluated relative distances between stereotypes held by Romanian migrants to stereotypes in their host cultures (Germany and France) and home culture (Romania). Whereas stereotypes held by individuals were depicted as variable, culturally relevant stereotypes were assumed as constant—one constant per type of culture and target of stereotype. Then, using EDs they calculated two indices, that is, distances from one’s stereotype to constant scores in home and host cultures. In a final step, they used the newly created indices as dependent variables to regress the length of stay and acculturation orientation across five different social groups. The findings showed that for the social group with highest cross-cultural differences in stereotype-knowledge (politicians), a longer stay in the host culture and an interest to adopt the host culture were associated with stereotype accommodation. The authors provide a detailed account of how to compute, apply and interpret this equation.

As the core expectation is that stereotypes held by migrants accommodate because of culture learning processes over time, an ideal tool would be a longitudinal study design. The literature shows a number of studies that are exemplar in this regard (e.g., Varjonen, Arnold, & Jasinskaja-Lahti, 2013; Ward, Okura, Kennedy, & Kojima, 1998). For assessing causality, an ideal procedure would require (a) that a migrant group is surveyed before entering the host country until a specific period after, and (b) that two control groups are compared against the migrant group, one with members of the host society and one with members who remained in the home society. In doing so, future researchers can ensure that any change in stereotypes held by migrants is a consequence of the acculturating process, instead of a change in stereotypes society in general.

Overall, we recommend that future research employs techniques for measuring stereotype accommodation at both the implicit and explicit level (Greenwald, Nosek, & Banaji, 1995). Findings could show a discrepancy between the two levels, and in doing so, they can reveal that stereotype accommodation serves as either the function of social connectivity (i.e., explicit stereotype accommodation) (Clark & Kashima, 2007) or the function of resolving any inaccurate content of stereotypes (i.e., implicit-explicit stereotype accommodation) (Crisp & Turner, 2011).

Because stereotypes usually have negative connotations, individuals may answer in socially desirable ways to questionnaires (Fisher & Katz, 1993). One way to avoid this bias is to apply the qualitative methodology of biographical interviewing, which has been proven useful in gaining access to people’s beliefs and assumptions that guide their behavior (Frese, 1982). The goal of this approach is to examine in great detail the whole life of a few individuals and in doing so a researcher can have a detailed account of their long-term development process (Howe, 1982). With regard to stereotype accommodation, asking migrants to recollect their life in their home cultures as well as their early periods of living in their host cultures might prove beneficial in determining how the acculturation process has influenced their preexisting stereotypes. Because, this strategy is explorative it would inform theory development and novel insights could be discovered about the phenomenon of cognitive adaptation of migrants.

Conclusion

This work draws upon the cross-cultural psychology literature as well as the social psychological literature on stereotypes and proposes a research agenda for the study of migrants’ (cognitive) cultural adaptation using a culture learning approach. Throughout this article, we have argued that it is important to consider a perspective on cultural adaptation and migrants’ cognitive heuristics that goes beyond existing work, which focuses on inter-ethnic stereotypes. We introduced the term of stereotype accommodation as a cognitive process whereby migrants incorporate the stereotype-relevant information learned in their host cultures into their preexisting stereotypical beliefs. By doing so, this article provides a theoretical perspective to systematically study migrants’ cognitive cultural adaptation.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Christopher J. Cohrs, Katja Hanke, and Fons J.R. van de Vijver for their invaluable input at different stages during the development of the present manuscript. Likewise, they would like to thank the editor and the two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful insights toward making this publication possible. Last, but not least, the first author would like to thank the scientific community at the Bremen International Graduate School of Social Sciences (BIGSSS) for the academic input that has challenged and supported at the same time the earlier attempts in developing the present concept and framework.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Adrian Stanciu’s contribution to this article was in part prepared during his doctoral degree at the Bremen International Graduate School of Social Sciences (BIGSSS) and was supported in part by the FAZIT Foundation within the framework of doctoral completion grants.

ORCID iD

Adrian Stanciu

Notes

References

Abu-Rayya

H. M.

(2013). Psychological and socio-cultural adaptation of immigrant and national adolescents in Australia: A test of the acculturative stress hypothesis. American Journal of Applied Psychology, 2, 1-6. doi:10.11648/j.ajap.20130201.11

Arends-Tóth

van de Vijver

F. J. R.

(2004). Domains and dimensions in acculturation: Implicit theories of Turkish-Dutch. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28, 19-35. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2003.09.001

Arends-Tóth

van de Vijver

F. J. R.

(2007). Acculturation attitudes: A comparison of measurement methods. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1462-1488. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00222.x

Asbrock

(2010). Stereotypes of social groups in Germany in terms of warmth and competence. Social Psychology, 41, 76-81. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000011

Baldwin

J. R.

Faulkner

S. L.

Hecht

M. L.

Lindsley

S. L.

(Eds.). (2006). Redefining culture: Perspectives across disciplines. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Beiser

Barwick

Berry

J. W.

da Costa

Fantino

Ganesan

. . . Vela

(1988). After the door has been opened: Mental health issues affecting immigrants and refugees in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Ministries of Multiculturalism and Citizenship, and Health and Welfare.

Benet-Martínez

Haritatos

(2005). Bicultural identity integration (BII): Components and psychosocial antecedents. Journal of Personality, 73, 1015-1050. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00337.x

Berry

J. W.

(1992). Acculturation and adaptation in a new society. International Migration, 30, 69-85.

Bigler

R. S.

Liben

L. S.

(2006). A developmental intergroup theory of social stereotypes and prejudice. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 34, 39-89. doi:10.1016/S0065-2407(06)80004-2

10.

Carlston

(2010). Models of implicit and explicit mental representation. In Gawronski

Payne

B. K.

(Eds.), Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory, and applications (pp. 38-61). New York, NY: Gilford Press.

11.

Cheung

F. M.

van de Vijver

F. J. R.

Leong

F. T. L.

(2011). Toward a new approach to the study of personality in culture. American Psychologist, 66, 1-11. doi:10.1037/a0022389

12.

Clark

A. E.

Kashima

(2007). Stereotypes help people connect with others in the community: A situated functional analysis of the stereotype consistency bias in communication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1028-1039. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.1028

13.

Crandall

C. S.

Bahns

A. J.

Warner

Schaller

(2011). Stereotypes as justifications of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1488-1498. doi:10.1177/0146167211411723

14.

Crisp

R. J.

Turner

R. N.

(2011). Cognitive adaptation to the experience of social and cultural diversity. Psychological Bulletin, 19, 242-266. doi:10.1037/a0021840

15.

Cuddy

A. J. C.

Fiske

S. T.

Glick

(2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 631-648. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631

16.

Cuddy

A. J. C.

Fiske

S. T.

Kwan

V. S. Y.

Glick

Demoulin

Leyens

J.-P.

. . . Ziegler

(2009). Stereotype content model across cultures: Towards universal similarities and some differences. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 1-33. doi:10.1348/014466608X314935

17.

De Leersnyder

Mesquita

Kim

H. S

. (2011). Where do my emotions belong? A study of immigrants’ emotional acculturation. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 451-463. doi:10.1177/0146167211399103

18.

Demes

K. A.

Geeraert

(2015). The highs and lows of a cultural transition: A longitudinal analysis of sojourner stress and adaptation across 50 countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 316-337. doi:10.1037/pspp0000046

19.

Demoulin

Teixeira

C. P.

(2010). Social categorization in interpersonal negotiation: How social structural factors shape negotiations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13, 765-777. doi:10.1177/1368430210376636

20.

Devine

P. G.

(1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5-18. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.56.1.5

21.

Dimitrova

Bender

Chasiotis

van de Vijver

F. J. R.

(2013). Ethnic identity and acculturation of Turkish-Bulgarian adolescents. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37, 1-10. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.04.005

22.

Durante

Fiske

S. T.

Kervyn

Cuddy

A. J. C.

Akande

A. D.

Adetoun

B. E.

. . . Storari

C. C.

(2013). Nations’ income inequality predicts ambivalence in stereotype content: How societies mind the gap. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 726-746. doi:10.1111/bjso.12005

23.

Earley

P. C.

Ang

(2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.

24.

Ehrlich

H. J.

(1973). Socialization and the supporting mechanisms of prejudice. In Ehrlich

H. J.

(Ed.), The social psychology of prejudice (pp. 110-165). New York, NY: John Wiley.

25.

Esser

(2010). Assimilation, ethnic stratification, or selective acculturation? Recent theories of the integration of immigrants and the model of intergenerational integration. Sociologica, 1, 1-28.

26.

Festinger

(1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140. doi:10.1177/001872675400700202

27.

Fisher

R. J.

Katz

J. E.

(1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of self-reported values. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 303-315.

28.

Fiske

S. T.

Cuddy

A. J. C.

Glick

(2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878-902. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.878

29.

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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.5.816

30.

Frese

(1982). Occupational socialization and psychological development: An underemphasized research perspective in industrial psychology. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 55, 209-224. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1982.tb00095.x

31.

Galchenko

van de Vijver

F. J. R.

(2007). The role of perceived cultural distance in the acculturation of exchange students in Russia. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 181-197. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.03.004

32.

Gelfand

M. J.

(2012). Culture’s constraints: International differences in the strength of social norms. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 420-424. doi:10.1177/0963721412460048

33.

Gelfand

M. J.

Raver

J. L.

Nishii

Leslie

L. M.

Lun

Lim

B. C.

. . . Yamaguchi

(2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332, 1100-1104. doi:10.1126/science.1197754

34.

Giles

Bourhis

R. Y.

Taylor

D. M.

(1977). Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations. In Giles

(Ed.), Language, ethnicity and intergroup relations (pp. 307-348). London, England: Academic Press.

35.

Gordon

M. M.

(1964). Assimilation in American life: The role of race, religion, and national origins. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

36.

Greenwald

A. G.

Nosek

a Banaji

M. R.

(1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4-27. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.102.1.4

37.

Hewstone

Hopkins

Routh

D. A.

(1992). Cognitive models of stereotype change: (1) Generalization and subtyping in young people’s views of the police. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 219-234. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420220303

38.

Hewstone

Johnston

Aird

(1992). Cognitive models of stereotype change: (2) Perceptions of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 235-249. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420220304

39.

Hilton

J. L.

von Hippel

(1996). Stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 237-271. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.47.1.237

40.

Horenczyk

Jasinskaja-Lahti

Sam

D. L.

Vedder

(2013). Mutuality in acculturation: Toward an integration. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 221, 205-213. doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000150

41.

Howe

M. J. A.

(1982). Biographical evidence and the development of outstanding individuals. American Psychologist, 37, 1071-1081. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.37.10.1071

42.

Jetten

Postmes

McAuliffe

B. J.

(2002). “We’re all individuals”: Group norms of individualism and collectivism, levels of identification and identity threat. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 189-207. doi:10.1002/ejsp.65

43.

Johnson

B. T.

Eagly

A. H.

(1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290-314.

44.

Johnston

Hewstone

(1992). Cognitive models of stereotype change: (3). Subtyping and the perceived typicality of disconfirming group members. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 360-386. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(92)90051-K

45.

Kashima

(2000). Maintaining cultural stereotypes in the serial reproduction of narratives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 594-604. doi:10.1177/0146167200267007

46.

Kashima

(2008). A social psychology of cultural dynamics: Examining how cultures are formed, maintained, and transformed. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 107-120. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00063.x

47.

Katz

P. A.

(1976). The acquisition of racial attitudes in children. In Katz

P. A.

(Ed.), Towards the elimination of racism (pp. 125-154). New York, NY: Pergamon Press.

48.

Kitayama

Uskul

A. K.

(2011). Culture, mind, and the brain: Current evidence and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 419-449. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145357

49.

Landis

Brislin

R. W.

(1983). Handbook of intercultural training: Issues in theory and design (Vol. I). New York, NY: Pergamon Press.

50.

Lehman

D. R.

Chiu

Schaller

(2004). Psychology and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 689-714. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141927

51.

Lonnqvist

J.-E.

Jasinskaja-Lahti

Verkasalo

(2013). Group-level and intraindividual stability of national stereotypes: A four-year longitudinal study on Ingrian Finn immigrants’ pre-and postmigration stereotypes of a typical Finn. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 765-785. doi:10.1177/0022022112466592

52.

Luna

Ringberg

Peracchio

L. A.

(2008). One individual, two Identities: Frame switching among biculturals. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 279-293. doi:10.1086/586914

53.

Markus

H. R.

Kitayama

(1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

54.

Meeus

van de Schoot

Keijsers

Branje

(2012). Identity statuses as developmental trajectories: A five-wave longitudinal study in early-to-middle and middle-to-late adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 1008-1021. doi:10.1007/s10964-011-9730-y

55.

Miron

A. M.

Brehm

J. W.

(2006). Reactance theory-40 years later. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 37, 3-12. doi:10.1024/0044-3514.37.1.3

56.

Navas

García

M. C.

Sánchez

Rojas

A. J.

Pumares

Fernández

J. S.

(2005). Relative Acculturation Extended Model (RAEM): New contributions with regard to the study of acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 21-37. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.04.001

57.

Nguyen

A.-M. D.

Benet-Martínez

(2013). Biculturalism and adjustment: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 122-159. doi:10.1177/0022022111435097

58.

Oakes

P. J.

Turner

J. C.

Haslam

S. A.

(1991). Perceiving people as group members: The role of fit in the salience of social categorizations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 125-144. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1991.tb00930.x

59.

Oppedal

(2006). Development and acculturation. In Sam

D. L.

Berry

J. W.

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 97-112). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

60.

Pelto

P. J.

(1968). The differences between “tight” and “loose” societies. Transaction, 5, 37-40.

61.

Pettigrew

T. F.

(1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65-85. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65

62.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Tropp

L. R.

Wagner

Christ

(2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 271-280. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.001

63.

Petty

R. E.

Cacioppo

J. T.

(1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-205. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2

64.

Petty

R. E.

Cacioppo

J. T.

Goldman

(1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847-855. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.41.5.847

65.

Petty

R. E.

Wegener

D. T.

(1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In Chaiken

Trope

(Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 37-72). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

66.

Podsiadlowski

Vauclair

C.-M.

Spiess

Stroppa

(2013). Social support on international assignments: The relevance of socioemotional support for locals. International Journal of Psychology, 48, 563-573. doi:10.1080/00207594.2012.669042

67.

Roberts

B. W.

Walton

K. E.

Viechtbauer

(2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 1-25. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1

68.

Roccas

Brewer

M. B.

(2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 88-106. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0602_01

69.

Rudmin

(2009). Constructs, measurements and models of acculturation and acculturative stress. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33, 106-123. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.12.001

70.

Rudmin

Wang

de Castro

(2017). Acculturation research critiques and alternative research designs. In Schwartz

S. J.

Unger

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of acculturation and health (pp. 75-95). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

71.

Sam

D. L.

Berry

J. W.

(2006). The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

72.

Sam

D. L.

Oppedal

. (2003). Acculturation as a Developmental Pathway. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 8(1). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1072

73.

Schaller

Boyd

Yohannes

O’Brien

(1995). The prejudiced personality revisited: Personal need for structure and formation of erroneous group stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 544-555. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.544

74.

Schröder

Rogers

K. B.

Ike

Mell

J. N.

Scholl

(2013). Affective meanings of stereotyped social groups in cross-cultural comparison. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16, 717-733. doi:10.1177/1368430213491788

75.

Schwartz

S. H.

(2014). Rethinking the concept and measurement of societal culture in light of empirical findings. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45, 5-13. doi:10.1177/0022022113490830

76.

Schwartz

S. J.

Unger

J. B.

Zamboanga

B. L.

Szapocznik

(2010). Rethinking the concept of acculturation: Implications for theory and research. American Psychologist, 65, 237-251. doi:10.1037/a0019330

77.

Searle

Ward

(1990). The prediction of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 449-464. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(90)90030-Z

78.

Soto

C. J.

John

O. P.

Gosling

S. D.

Potter

(2011). Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65: Big Five domains and facets in a large cross-sectional sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 330-348. doi:10.1037/a0021717

79.

Stanciu

(2015). Four sub-dimensions of stereotype content: Explanatory evidence from Romania. International Psychology Bulletin, 19, 14-20.

80.

Stanciu

Cohrs

J.-C.

Hanke

Gavreliuc

(2017). Within-culture variation in the content of stereotypes: Application and development of the Stereotype Content Model in an Eastern European culture. The Journal of Social Psychology, 157, 611-628. doi:10.1080/00224545.2016.1262812

81.

Stanciu

Vauclair

C.-M.

Rodda

(2018). Stereotype accommodation: Do migrants incorporate the stereotype-relevant information learned in host societies into their existing stereotypes? Unpublished manuscript.

82.

Strack

Deutsch

(2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 220-247. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_1

83.

Tadmor

C. T.

Tetlock

P. E.

(2006). Biculturalism: A model of the effects of second-culture exposure on acculturation and integrative complexity. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 173-190. doi:10.1177/0022022105284495

84.

Triandis

H. C.

(Ed.). (1972). The analysis of subjective culture. New York, NY: Wiley-Interscience.

85.

Triandis

H. C.

(1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506-520. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.96.3.506

86.

Triandis

H. C.

(2001). Individualism-Collectivism and personality. Journal of Personality, 69, 909-924. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.696169

87.

Triandis

H. C.

Vassiliou

(1967). Frequency of contact and stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 316-328. doi:10.1037/h0025077

88.

Varjonen

Arnold

Jasinskaja-Lahti

(2013). “We’re Finns here, and Russians there”: A longitudinal study on ethnic identity construction in the context of ethnic migration. Discourse & Society, 24, 110-134. doi:10.1177/0957926512463632

89.

Vassiliou

Triandis

H. C.

Vassiliou

McGuire

(1972). Interpersonal contact and stereotyping. In Triandis

H. C.

(Ed.), The analysis of subjective culture (pp. 89-116). New York, NY: Wiley-Interscience.

90.

Wagner

Zick

. (1995). The relation of formal education to ethnic prejudice: Its reliability, validity and explanation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 41-56. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420250105

91.

Wagner

Christ

Pettigrew

T. F.

Stellmacher

Wolf

(2006). Prejudice and minority proportion: Contact instead of threat effects. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69, 380-390. doi:10.1177/019027250606900406

92.

Ward

Bochner

Furnham

(2001). The psychology of culture shock. East Sussex, UK: Routledge.

93.

Ward

Geeraert

(2016). Advancing acculturation theory and research: The acculturation process in its ecological context. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8, 98-104. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.09.021

94.

Ward

Okura

Kennedy

Kojima

(1998). The U-curve on trial: A longitudinal study of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during cross-cultural transition. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 277-291. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(98)00008-X

95.

Ward

Rana-Deuba

(1999). Acculturation and adaptation revisited. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 422-442. doi:10.1177/0022022199030004003

96.

Wilson

Ward

Fischer

(2013). Beyond culture learning theory: What can personality tell us about cultural competence? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 900-927. doi:10.1177/0022022113492889

97.

Zajonc

R. B.

(1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1-27.