cultural knowledge, category label, and social connections: components of cultural identity in the...

Cultural knowledge, category label, and social connections:Components of cultural identity in the global, multicultural context

Ching Wan and Pony Yuen-Ga ChewDivision of Psychology, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Cultural identity refers to the psychological connection between an individual’s self and a culture. In this paper,we identify three components that make up an individual’s cultural identity – cultural knowledge, category label,and social connections. The cultural knowledge component connects an individual with a culture through theindividual’s direct endorsement of what are widely known to be the culture’s central characteristics. The categorylabel component connects an individual with a culture through the individual’s depersonalized membership in acultural collective. The social connections component connects an individual with a culture through networks ofspecific social relationships. The three components are conceptually distinct, and yet may have interconnectionsin influencing the development of cultural identity. We examine the implications of the three components oncultural identification processes in the context of multiculturalism and global cultural contact.

Key words: category label, cultural identity, cultural knowledge, culture, multiculturalism, social connections.

Cultural identity is a part of an individual’s self-definitionthat signals the individual’s psychological connection witha culture. The development of this identity is tied to theindividual’s experiences with a culture. Such experiencesare multi-faceted as the individual interacts with a culturevia different pathways. First, an individual develops cul-tural competence through gaining knowledge of the cul-ture’s values, beliefs, norms, and practices. Acquisition ofcultural knowledge not only helps the individual act appro-priately in various situations according to cultural demands,but also provides the individual with the cultural contentneeded for cultural identity construction. Second, individu-als acquire a label as a member of a culture depending onthe individual’s categorical membership in a cultural col-lective. In this case, the individual can be psychologicallyconnected to the culture by being part of a depersonalizedcollective. Third, an individual develops social relation-ships in a culture. These social relationships can range fromclose ties such as immediate family and close friendships tomore distant ties such as work colleagues and neighbours.The collection of social ties forms the network of socialconnections that an individual is embedded in. The networkis in turn embedded in a larger cultural milieu, and thusis subject to the influence of the culture. In this case, thenetwork of social connections provides the link between theindividual and the culture.

The different ways in which an individual can relate toa culture entail the existence of distinct components in

the construction of an individual’s cultural identity. In thispaper, we identify three components of cultural identitybased on the person–culture associations mentioned above:cultural knowledge, category label, and social connections.These components are conceptually distinct, with differenttheoretical bases. Our aim in this paper is to provide ananalysis of the connections between the three componentsand cultural identity. We do not intend to exhaustivelyreview past research on cultural identity. Rather, we focuson how the consideration of the three components couldpotentially guide future cultural identity research.

We share other culture researchers’ broad view of cultureas going beyond nationality and ethnicity, encompassingthe cultures of other collectives that have shared knowle-dge traditions within the collective (Chiu & Hong, 2006;Cohen, 2009). These cultures can be the culture of a socialclass, a religion, a profession, or even a shared culturalinterest such as hip hop. Although nationality and ethnicityare the most widely studied cultural identities, they do notsufficiently cover the increasingly dynamic and varied cul-tural identities that individuals develop in an increasinglyglobalized and multicultural world. Individuals gain multi-cultural experience through travelling to a new cultureeither temporarily or over a longer period (Ward, Bochner& Furnham, 2001), through societal development thatresults in the incorporation of originally foreign culturalelements into the local culture (Alter & Kwan, 2009; Lu &Yang, 2006), or even simply through exposure to foreigncultures via the Internet and media. In this context of variedcultural background and increasing multiple cultural expo-sure, we consider cultural identity as a construct that con-nects an individual with any culture, beyond nationality andethnicity. As such, while acknowledging that the impor-tance and interconnections of the components vary accord-ing to the nature of the culture of interest, we intend for our

Correspondence: Ching Wan, Division of Psychology, School ofHumanities and Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological Univer-sity, 14 Nanyang Drive, Singapore 637332. Email: [email protected] 31 May 2012; accepted 11 December 2012.

bs_bs_bannerAsian Journal of Social Psychology

© 2013 Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association

Asian Journal of Social Psychology (2013), 16, 247–259 DOI: 10.1111/ajsp.12029

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

discussion of components of cultural identity to be relevantto all cultural identities.

To understand the components of cultural identity isessentially to understand the various ways in which anindividual can associate with a culture, and in turn constructa cultural identity that suits the individual’s needs. Wesituate our discussion of the implications of this process inthe global cultural context. In Asia and the world beyond,increase in intercultural contact through human and knowl-edge mobility results in increasingly multicultural societiesand individuals. In this context, the three components ofcultural identity allow for the generation of importantpredictions that could move forward research on culturalidentity in a global context. Therefore, after introducing thethree components and their interrelations, we will discussthe implications of the three components for the develop-ment and change of cultural identity in a multiculturalcontext.

Components of cultural identity

Cultural knowledge

The cultural knowledge component of cultural identityinvolves an individual’s psychological connection with aculture through the individual’s personal endorsement ofthe culture’s shared knowledge (Hong, Wan, No & Chiu,2007; Wan & Yu, in press). It goes beyond the mere pos-session of knowledge about a culture. Rather, it is the align-ment between an individual’s personal characteristics andthe culture’s most central and widely shared knowledge.For example, an individual’s identification with Americanculture could be dependent on the individual’s personalagreement with the most important and widely sharedAmerican cultural values, beliefs, normative expectations,and practices. The more the individual personally endorsesthe shared cultural knowledge of American culture, themore the individual will identify with American culture.

The cultural knowledge component draws from theconceptualization of culture as shared knowledge (Honget al., 2007). Various culture scholars have emphasizedthe shared nature of culture in their writing (Geertz, 1973;Keesing, 1974; Romney, Boyd, Moore, Batchelder &Brazill, 1996; Sperber, 1996). Culture’s sharedness is notabout members of a culture having similar personal char-acteristics. Instead, it is about cultural members having asimilar understanding of the symbolic meanings that arerepresented in the cultural milieu and the characteristicsthat are considered to be central to the culture. These under-standings are distributed in a culture across most indivi-duals through individuals’ everyday participation in theculture. The distributed understandings form the sharedcultural knowledge that individuals hold. Shared cultural

knowledge is also carried by external cultural carrierssuch as social institutions, the media, language, and thearts (Lamoreaux & Morling, 2012). These external culturalcarriers further aid the perpetuation of cultural knowledgewithout having to rely on the presence of human agents ofcultural transmission, as is evident in research showing theactivation of culturally consistent responding after expo-sure to external carriers such as language (Ross, Xun &Wilson, 2002; Wang, Shao & Li, 2010) and cultural icons(Hong, Morris, Chiu & Benet-Martínez, 2000). Importantto note is that cultural knowledge distribution in a popula-tion is not perfect (Brumann, 1999). As such, individualsin a culture do not have perfect knowledge about theculture. However, the most central pieces of knowledge ofthe culture are often the most widely shared and can beconsidered as the culture’s knowledge tradition (Barth,2002). Most individuals who have had some exposure toa culture would have gained knowledge of the culture’sknowledge tradition.

Possession of cultural knowledge and the utilization ofthat knowledge in defining the self are separate processes(Hong et al., 2007). To be able to use cultural knowledgefor self-definition, one first needs to acquire and haveaccess to that knowledge. A degree of agentic choicethen allows the individual to decide whether to personallyendorse the cultural knowledge. In other words, knowingthat a certain characteristic is important in a culture doesnot mean that the individual has to personally endorse it.In fact, empirical evidence has shown that individuals’perceptions of the defining characteristics of their cultureand their self-ratings of the same characteristics often showweak correspondence at best (Terracciano et al., 2005; Wanet al., 2007b). This independence of individuals’ knowl-edge of their culture and their personal characteristicsallows for the examination of the process through whichcultural knowledge becomes part of the cultural self.

In a series of studies, Wan and colleagues (Wan, Chiu,Peng & Tam, 2007a; Wan et al., 2007b) asked participantsto rate the extent to which certain values were importantto their culture. From these perceived cultural ratings, theresearchers identified values that most participants per-ceived to be important to the culture. They then measuredthe participants’ personal endorsement of the values andidentification with the culture. They found that the morethe participants personally endorsed the values collectivelyperceived as most important to the culture, the strongertheir cultural identification. Beyond the correlationalfindings, longitudinal studies suggest that endorsement ofshared cultural knowledge can be an antecedent of culturalidentification. Wan et al. (2007b) measured first-year uni-versity students’ endorsement of the core values of theuniversity’s student culture and their identification with thestudent culture at the beginning and the end of their firstsemester at the university. The results showed that the more

248 Ching Wan and Pony Yuen-Ga Chew


the students personally endorsed the core values at thebeginning of the semester, the more they identified with thestudent culture at the end of the semester. Similar longitu-dinal findings were also found with the endorsement ofwidely shared goals of a culture (Zhang & Chiu, 2012).

One important factor in the cultural knowledge compo-nent is the degree of agency in an individual’s culturalidentity development (Wan & Yu, in press). From a socialrepresentations perspective, individuals are able to con-struct a social identity by utilizing the social representationsabout the social group in order to fulfil their identity needs(Breakwell, 2001; Hammack, 2008; Palmer, 2007). Simi-larly, individuals as agents of their own cultural identityconstruction, can utilize the shared knowledge of a culturein self-definition, and thus construct a cultural identitybased on personal choice. The individual may not havemuch control over the cultural knowledge that is acquired;however, there is a personal choice involved in choosingwhether to endorse the shared cultural characteristics orin deciding which part of the cultural knowledge to use todefine the self.

The agentic view of cultural identity construction doesnot exclude the possibility of factors potentially limitingthe amount of freedom that individuals have in construct-ing a desired cultural identity with the shared culturalknowledge. For example, from the perspective of self-determination theory, certain values are more easily inter-nalized than other values because the former are morecompatible with basic human needs (Ryan & Deci, 2003).For example, Chirkov and colleagues (Chirkov, Ryan, Kim& Kaplan, 2003; Chirkov, Ryan & Willness, 2005) showedthat vertical cultural practices, which emphasize traditionand deference to authority, were more difficult to internal-ize than horizontal cultural practices, which emphasizeequality and respect for all, due to the lower compatibilitybetween vertical cultural practices and the basic humanneed for autonomy. It is possible that when a central cul-tural characteristic goes against individuals’ basic needs, itwould be more difficult for individuals to use that charac-teristic as a basis of cultural identification.

Category label

The category label component of cultural identity refers toan individual’s self-reported categorical membership ina cultural collective. It is based on individuals connect-ing with a culture through the self being a member ofa depersonalized collective. Members of this collectivewould share certain common history, values, beliefs,and practices for the collective to be a cultural collective.However, the psychological association of the self to theculture mainly concerns the categorization of the self asbelonging to the collective rather than the personal endorse-ment of cultural values and practices (Wan & Yu, in press).

Categorical cultural collectives often have delineatedboundaries, such as membership in a national group basedon citizenship status and membership in an ethnic groupbased on ancestry. The cultural identity question then iswhether the individual can cross the category boundary andbecome part of the cultural collective.

Categorical membership can be chosen by the self orimposed by others. When an individual’s cultural identityis of concern, however, it is the individual’s personal deci-sion to adopt the category label in describing the self thatmatters most. The category that an individual chooses forthe self may or may not be the same as the label imposed onthe individual by others (Killian & Johnson, 2006). Theself’s choice often implies an association with a culturevia accepted membership to a collective that the individualwould like to express. For example, whereas some Asianimmigrants to the USA primarily label themselves as Asian,others are more comfortable labelling themselves with thehyphenated ‘Asian-American’ label to signify belongingto an ethnic subgroup that is simultaneously Asian andAmerican. The integrated identity expressed in the hyphen-ated label is quite different from that expressed by anindividual who primarily categorizes him- or herself as anAsian who happens to live in America (Stepick, Stepick &Vanderkooy, 2011). Similarly, in Hong Kong, individualchoices in labelling the self as ‘Hong Konger’ or ‘Chinese’have been found to be related to perceptions of socialchange (Kim & Ng, 2008), emphasis on modernity andConfucian values in group judgements (Lam, Lau, Chiu,Hong & Peng, 1999), and patriotism toward Hong Kong(Ng & Lai, 2011).

As the category label component refers to categoricalmembership in a cultural collective, it would be tied to anindividual’s collective self. The collective self is the partof an individual’s self that is defined by membership inlarge social collectives (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). Muchresearch on the collective self has been guided by socialidentity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and its theoreticaloffspring such as self-categorization theory (Turner, Hogg,Oakes, Reicher & Wetherell, 1987) and optimal distinctive-ness theory (Brewer, 1991). On the cognitive activation of acollective identity, a particular collective identity is madesalient when there is high perceptual intergroup contrast ina situation (Turner et al., 1987). Once a collective identityis made salient, the individual becomes an interchangeablemember of the social category and takes on the prototypiccharacteristics of the social category (Turner et al., 1987).In this depersonalized collective, individual identities arelost while the faceless collective takes precedence. On themotivational basis of collective identity, opposing needsfor affiliation and differentiation drive identification with acollective that could simultaneously fulfil the two needs(Brewer, 1991). Also, the need for positive distinctivenessof one’s in-group in intergroup situations drives intergroup

Components of cultural identity 249


bias so that the in-group is compared positively to out-groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).

Following social identity theory, the strength of identifi-cation with the culture through the category label compo-nent would hinge on the context of intergroup contrast andthe possibility of fulfilling social identity motives. Forexample, identification with a smaller rather than a largercollective better fulfils the need for a distinct categoricalmembership (Brewer, 1991). Hence, cultural minoritiesoften show stronger identification with their cultural collec-tive than cultural majorities (Verkuyten, 2005). Also, theneed for positive in-group distinctiveness drives individualsto favour a group identity that reflects positively on theirin-group relative to the out-group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).Hence, whereas non-dominant cultural group memberstend to embrace their heritage cultural identity, dominantcultural group members tend to reject the integration ofthe non-dominant group’s heritage identity into mainstreamsociety (Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2006).

Social connections

The social connections component is an individual’s psy-chological connection with a culture that is based on thespecific networks of social relationships such as family ties,close friendships, and work relationships that the individualhas established in the culture. When such relationshipsare present to link the individual with the culture, the indi-vidual is more likely to identify with the culture. Unlike thecategory label component, the social connections compo-nent focuses on specific social relationships rather thandepersonalized categorical membership. And unlike theshared cultural knowledge component, the social connec-tions component focuses on the existence of social net-works that may serve as a transmission agent of sharedcultural knowledge.

The relationships that individuals have with significantothers form an important part of the individual’s knowledgeabout the self (Aron, Aron, Tudor & Nelson, 1991; Chen,Boucher & Tapias, 2006; Cross, Bacon & Morris, 2000).But social relationships are not just important in contribut-ing to individuals’ knowledge of who they are as a uniqueperson. Social relationships are also important in connect-ing the individual to a larger collective. A sociologicalaccount of role identity places the individual in a networkof social bonds through which the individual assumes thesocial role that is to be played in specific social relation-ships (Serpe & Stryker, 2011). Taking the sociological viewof identity into consideration, Deaux and Martin (2003), intheir analysis of collective identity, argued that both socialcategories and interpersonal networks provide distinct set-tings that might interact in guiding identity development.Even though social category membership might limit thesocial networks that the individual is being exposed to, the

interpersonal relationships within the network couldsupport or hinder the influence of a social category on theindividual’s identity process (Deaux & Martin, 2003).

Empirical research on the social connections componentof cultural identity has addressed the question of how spe-cific social relationships and broader social networks mightcontribute to cultural identity development. On specificsocial connections, the family has been considered a sourceof strong influence in individuals’ early identity develop-ment (Grotevant & Cooper, 1985; Schachter & Ventura,2008). The family, being an important agent of culturaltransmission, often focuses on the transmission of widelyshared cultural knowledge in its socialization process (Cho,Sandel, Miller & Wang, 2005; Friedlmeier, Corapci &Cole, 2011; Tam & Lee, 2010). Beyond the immediatefamily, individuals are also embedded in larger networksof social relationships with multiple specific others. Thenature of these networks often depends on individuals’exposure to relevant cultural settings. For ethnic minorities,for instance, those who are mainly exposed to mainstreamcultural settings are more likely to develop social ties fromthe mainstream culture, whereas those who are mainlyexposed to ethnic cultural settings are more likely todevelop social ties from the ethnic culture (Ting-Toomey,1981). The cultural background of these social networkscould in turn support the development and maintenanceof identification with the mainstream and ethnic culturesrespectively.

In summary, the social connections component puts thefocus on networks of specific social relationships that indi-viduals might develop in a culture. Identification with theculture would mean the development of meaningful socialrelationships that one perceives to be tied to a culture. Thisis the one component of cultural identity where specificsocial others play a direct role in influencing an individual’scultural identity by serving as the bridge between the indi-vidual and the culture.

Interconnections of the components

We have presented the three components of cultural identityas conceptually distinct aspects of cultural identity.However, this does not mean that there are no connectionsamong the three components, especially where real-lifecultural identities are concerned. The presence of theseconnections add to our understanding of how the compo-nents may work in concert or against one another to affectan individual’s cultural identity.

Cultural knowledge and category label

The cultural knowledge and category label componentsoften work together for cultural collectives that are defined



simultaneously by their category labels and shared knowl-edge traditions. Thus, the label ‘American’ would oftenimply a certain set of values, beliefs, and practices thatare commonly considered to be characteristic of Americanculture. As such, one would expect that individuals whoidentify with American culture through its category labelwould also endorse the shared knowledge traditions of thecultural collective. Indeed, it is one of self-categorizationtheory’s central propositions that when the categoricalmembership is made salient, individuals self-stereotype,utilizing the prototypic characteristics of the category todefine the self (Hogg & Turner, 1987).

Given the connection between cultural knowledge andcategory label, for individuals who can claim membershipin multiple cultural collectives, acceptance and rejectionof a category label can reflect individuals’ self-expressionin terms of preference for a particular cultural knowledgetradition. For example, Ng and Lai (2011) found that indi-viduals from Hong Kong who reported higher internaliza-tion of Chinese culture than Western culture were morelikely to label themselves as ‘Chinese’ rather than ‘HongKonger’, whereas those who reported higher internalizationof Western than Chinese culture were more likely to labelthemselves as ‘Hong Konger’ rather than ‘Chinese’. Also,bicultural individuals’ labelling of their cultural member-ship indicates their perceived compatibility of the culturaltraditions. For example, Mexican American adolescentswho label themselves simultaneously as ‘Mexican Ameri-can’ and ‘American’ tend to see Mexican and Americancultures as compatible whereas those who label themselvesas ‘Hispanic’ but not ‘American’ tend to distance them-selves from mainstream American culture (Phinney &Devich-Navarro, 1997).

Despite the overlap, it is important to distinguishbetween the cultural knowledge and category label compo-nents. Category labels emphasize the delineated nature ofgroup boundaries. These group boundaries are often deter-mined by geographical location, ancestry, or legal immi-gration status. Shared cultural knowledge traditions, incontrast, not only exists in delineated groups, but can alsoexist with very loosely connected individuals who are notbound by coexistence in the same physical space. As such,the category label is limited in accounting for cultural iden-tification in the context of global cultural exchange thatresults in individuals’ increasing exposure to cultures nottheir own (Wan & Yu, in press). The advancement of theglobal flow of information has facilitated information trans-mission through loose networks without geographicalconstraints. Even when an individual does not share thesame physical space with others of the same culture, theindividual can still have sufficient exposure to the sharedknowledge of the culture, acquire cultural competence,and identify with the culture through its shared knowledgetraditions. The cultural knowledge component does not

require delineated boundaries and categorical membershipfor individuals to identify with a culture. It allows individu-als to identify with cultures that they do not categoricallybelong to. Therefore, whereas there might be a certainoverlap between the cultural knowledge and category labelcomponents, the shared knowledge component allows foran extension of research to a direction more appropriate forthe development of cultural identity in a globalized, highlyconnected world.

Cultural knowledge and social connections

There are two ways in which cultural knowledge and socialconnections are related in influencing cultural identity.First, social connections could influence the content of cul-tural knowledge that is being transmitted. Second, socialconnections can encourage or discourage the internaliza-tion of certain cultural knowledge traditions.

Social connections serve as agents of cultural knowledgetransmission and maintenance. A substantial part of culturalknowledge is distributed and maintained via the network ofsocial relationships in which an individual is embedded.These representations would in turn affect the individual’sown representation of the culture’s shared knowledge. Thefirst steps of cultural transmission typically happen withinthe family, with parents considered as the predominantagent of transmission (Kwak, 2003; Rohan & Zanna,1996). The implication is that an individual’s knowledgeof a culture is in part dependent on the cultural knowledgethat is being carried by the social relationships that theindividual comes into contact with, especially when socialrelationships are the primary source of cultural knowledge.This can be illustrated in the case of cultural minoritieswho were born and raised in a society where their heritageculture is different from the mainstream culture. For theseindividuals, their knowledge of the heritage culture oftencomes exclusively from within the family and other socialties within the same heritage culture (Giguère, Lalonde &Lou, 2010). The cultural knowledge that is being transmit-ted through these social ties would have strong influence onthe individual’s understanding of their heritage culture, andin turn their cultural identity.

Regarding the second way in which social connectionsare related to cultural knowledge, an individual’s socialrelationships can support or not support identification witha culture because the social relationships may or may notapprove of the knowledge traditions of the culture. Thiswould lead to tension between the individual and his orher social connections, thus creating difficulty for the indi-vidual to identify with the culture. For example, immigrantparents to the USA often prefer their children to engage inselective acculturation so that the children do not acquireAmerican cultural practices that the parents consider to beundesirable for their children’s development (Stepick et al.,



2011). Also, there tends to be an increase in inter-generational value discrepancy due to immigration to a hostsociety in which the mainstream culture does not supportthe values of the heritage culture (Knafo & Schwartz, 2001;Phinney, Ong & Madden, 2000). When the endorsementof certain cultural knowledge traditions is not supported bythe individual’s close social relationships, identificationthrough cultural knowledge could be difficult.

Category label and social connections

As components of cultural identity, category label andsocial connections have been studied quite separately in theliterature. Whereas the category label component calls uponsocial identity theories and associated empirical research,the social connections component calls upon literature onthe importance of interpersonal relationships in the devel-opment of cultural identity. Whereas the category labelcomponent focuses on the self as the member of a collec-tive, the social connections component focuses on theself as a part of certain specific interpersonal relationships.According to Brewer and Gardner (1996), an individual’scollective self refers to the part of the self as a member ofa collective whereas the relational self refers to the part ofthe self in specific social relationships. As such, the cat-egory label component would be more closely linked to thecollective self whereas the social connections componentwould be more closely linked to the relational self. Giventhe separate literature of the collective self and the rela-tional self, the extant knowledge in the literature is notsufficient for us to lay out how the interplay between thecategory label and social connections components mightaffect an individual’s cultural identity.

Certain theoretical discussions did present potentialconnections between categorical membership and socialrelationships that can be examined in future research. Inte-grating social identity theory from social psychology(Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and identity theory from sociology(Serpe & Stryker, 2011), Deaux and Martin (2003) positsthat both categorical membership and interpersonalrelationships provide contexts for identity constructionand negotiation. These contexts could also work togetherin affecting cultural identity. On the one hand, the socialnetwork that an individual comes into contact with islimited by the social category that the individual belongsto. On the other hand, having social ties within a socialcategory might increase the individual’s willingness tocategorize the self as a member of the category. Whereascategorical membership provides the broader environmentin which social relationships contribute to cultural identityconstruction and negotiation, social networks limit whetherthe individual considers the category membership as partof one’s cultural identity. Future studies are needed toexamine these possibilities.

Implications in the globalcultural context

We conceptualize the three components of cultural identityas applicable to all cultural identities. However, the inter-play of the components is most apparent when one placesthe components in a context that involves dynamic changesof an individual’s sense of self in relation to the culturalmilieu. This could be a result of an individual crossingcultural boundaries and needing to negotiate the existingheritage cultural identity with the cultural identity of thehost culture. It could also be a result of globalizationand socioeconomic development leading to changes in thelocal culture, which has implications for how individuals’cultural identification might change as a result of culturalchange. Apart from cultural identity in multicultural expo-sure, the separate roles of the components could also beapparent in different cultures. Cross-cultural differences inthe meaning of group membership imply potentially differ-ent importance of the components in shaping cultural iden-tity. Next, we elaborate on each of these implications andgenerate predictions for future research.

Development of multicultural identities

Multicultural identities can develop as a result of an indi-vidual’s exposure to multiple cultures. The exposure canbe due to the individual being born into a multiculturalenvironment, as in cases of ethnic minorities whose ethnicculture is different from the society’s mainstream culture.The exposure can be due to the individual travelling from aculture of origin to reside in a new culture, as in cases ofimmigrants whose relocation tends to be long-term or evenpermanent, and cases of sojourners whose relocation is of ashort-term nature. The exposure can also be due to theinfluence of global cultural contact that results in individu-als acquiring the cultural knowledge of a foreign culturedespite not having travelled to the foreign culture before.In all these different types of exposure, individuals candevelop identification with more than one culture. Then,with the two or more cultural identities, the individual canchoose to keep the cultural identities separate, blend thecultural identities into one coherent multicultural identity,or even create a new multicultural identity that goes beyonda simple summation of the separate cultural identities(Hong et al., 2007; Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997).

The cultural knowledge component suggests that thedevelopment of multicultural identities would be a functionof the perceived compatibility of the shared knowledgetraditions of the relevant cultures. As individuals areexposed to shared knowledge traditions of multiple cul-tures, they come to know not only the characteristicsof the cultures separately, but also the uniqueness andcompatibility of a culture relative to the other cultures



(Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005; Phinney &Devich-Navarro, 1997; Wan et al., 2007a). Such perceivedincompatibility of the cultural knowledge traditions hasimplications for the negotiation of multicultural identities.Past research has found that when individuals find culturalknowledge traditions of two cultures to be incompati-ble, they find it difficult to integrate the two cultural iden-tities (Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005; Miramontez,Benet-Martínez & Nguyen, 2008). When there is high per-ceived incompatibility of knowledge traditions of cultures,it is very difficult for the individual to endorse the knowl-edge traditions of both cultures simultaneously. As such,instead of being able to integrate the cultural identities intoa bicultural identity, the individual might experience muchidentity conflict and have to choose between the two iden-tities (Mähönen, Jasinskaja-Lahti & Liebkind, 2011).

The category label component of cultural identity posesa different set of concerns for multicultural individuals’cultural identity development. Social identity theory positsthat the permeability of category boundary is a potentialbarrier for individuals to move from one social category toanother (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). For an individual to beidentified with a culture by becoming a categorical memberof the culture, the category boundary would need to beperceived as permeable. Certain categorical membershipsare perceived to be based on birth and ancestry. This wouldalso mean highly impermeable category boundary. Indi-viduals who are not born with the right ancestry would notbe able to become part of the cultural collective. For othercultural collectives where it is possible for the individualto work towards membership, permeability of categoryboundary varies. For example, some cultural collectivesdemand their members to possess certain competence(e.g. language skills) in order for the person to become amember of the cultural collective. Permeability of the col-lective boundary would depend on the difficulty in achiev-ing the level of competence required to become part of thecollective. Also, especially relevant to minorities trying toidentify with mainstream culture, whether a boundary isperceived as permeable could depend on the mainstreamsociety’s beliefs about membership in the mainstream cul-tural collective. In the USA, African Americans and AsianAmericans have been found to be perceived as less Ameri-can than white Americans (Devos & Banaji, 2005). Suchattitudes could make it harder for Asian Americansand African Americans to self-identify as a member of thecategory ‘Americans’.

The social connections component includes specificsocial relationships that serve as a bridge between theindividual and the culture. As such, the development ofmulticultural identities would depend on the developmentand maintenance of social ties in the multiple cultures.For multicultural individuals who are cultural minorities,socialization effort within the family not only instils a par-

ticular version of knowledge about the cultural heritage, butcan also foster pride in one’s cultural heritage (Rodriguez,Umaña-Taylor, Smith & Johnson, 2009). These socializa-tion efforts affect both cultural minority individuals’perceptions of their cultural group in relation to the main-stream culture, and their identification with their culture(Hughes, Witherspoon, Rivas-Drake & West-Bey, 2009;Stevenson & Arrington, 2009). Such family socializationcould be especially important for later generations of immi-grants. Whereas first-generation immigrants have directcontact with both their heritage culture and the mainstreamhost culture, second-generation immigrants tend to relymore on their social relationships to acquire knowledge ofthe heritage culture (Giguère et al., 2010).

For new arrivals to a culture, the social network surround-ing the individuals would be important in fostering thedevelopment of a new cultural identity or maintenance ofthe existing cultural identity depending on the nature of thenetwork. Kosic, Kruglanski, Pierro and Mannetti (2004)found that for Polish immigrants to Italy, the preferredstrategy of acculturation depends on the level of need forcognitive closure and the cultural background of the socialnetwork surrounding the immigrants. Whereas all immi-grants preferred integration, when the immigrants were sur-rounded by mostly host nationals in their social networksimmediately following their arrival in Italy, those with ahigh need for cognitive closure were especially likely toprefer assimilation, showing a preference for adoptingItalian identity and forgoing Polish identity. In contrast,when the immigrants were initially surrounded by mostlyco-nationals from their heritage culture, those with a highneed for cognitive closure were especially likely to preferseparation, showing a preference for maintaining Polishidentity without adopting Italian identity. Also, Kashimaand Pillai (2011) found that for international students with alow need for cognitive closure, the strength of internationalfriendship ties that they developed during their sojourn waspositively related to their identification with being an inter-national student. The difference in the moderating effect ofneed for cognitive closure in the two studies highlights thedifferent nature of the social network examined in the twostudies and the different support that they provide for cul-tural identity. In Kosic et al. (2004), a network is made up ofties with exclusively one culture. This would provide immi-grants with an unambiguous cultural environment that sup-ports identification with one culture, which would be ofparticular use for individuals with a high need for cognitiveclosure as they prefer certainty and lack of ambiguity(Kruglanski & Webster, 1996). In contrast, in Kashima andPillai (2011), the international friendship ties involved rela-tionships with others who were neither from the host culturenor from the participants’ culture of origin. Such a networkfocuses on cultural diversity and does not provide unam-biguous cultural environment. Thus, it is reasonable for



these ties to be more relevant to individuals with a low needfor cognitive closure. Finally, first-generation Chinese-Americans with higher bicultural identity integration havebeen found to have a higher number and denser networkof non-Chinese friends (Mok, Morris, Benet-Martínez &Karakitapoglu-Aygün, 2007). Having a social network thatgoes beyond Chinese to include non-Chinese American tiessupports the integration of Chinese and American culturalidentities.

Beyond considering the components separately, novelresearch questions arise when the components are consid-ered simultaneously in a multicultural context. First,specific multicultural experiences could foster the develop-ment of one component of multicultural identities morethan other components. Take multilingual experience as anexample. Linguistic environment and language use havebeen shown to be related to the cultural self (Wang et al.,2010) and cultural identification for bilingual individuals(Clément, Baker, Josephson & Noels, 2005). In a multilin-gual context, language often serves to simultaneouslyconvey knowledge of a culture, symbolize membershipin a cultural collective, and build social connections withother individuals in the culture. As such, its influence oncultural identity can be through cultural knowledge, cat-egorical membership, and social connections simultane-ously. However, it is also possible that in a particularmulticultural context, linguistic practice is more intimatelyrelated to one component of cultural identity than theothers. In cultural contexts where language symbolizesgroup membership, it can become more a marker of cat-egorical membership in a cultural collective than a tool toconvey specific cultural knowledge. Such consideration ofthe specific links between multicultural experiences and thethree components of cultural identity would provide a morenuanced account of cultural identity development in a mul-ticultural context.

Second, it is conceivable that an individual’s multiplecultural identities are based on different components. Anethnic Chinese who grew up in Singapore, has spent someyears living in Australia, and now resides in Hong Kongmay identify herself categorically as Chinese because it isher ethnic ancestry. However, she may not endorse thevalues and beliefs that are associated with Chinese culture.Instead, her experience in Australia might result in herendorsement of some core Australian values despite the factthat she does not categorically consider herself an Austral-ian. Finally, she feels a sense of closeness with Singaporebecause of the friends and family that she still has living inSingapore. Current research on multicultural identities hasnot addressed this kind of simultaneous identification withmultiple cultures driven by different identity components. Itis conceivable that this is in fact one identity negotiationsolution for individuals who are exposed to conflicting cul-tures through different kinds of cultural experiences.

A third question worth asking is whether the basis of acultural identity would shift as individuals move fromone cultural context to another. Research on remooring ofethnic identity suggests that when an individual is removedfrom the initial social network that supported a culturalidentity, the maintenance of the cultural identity wouldneed to rely on other identity support. Ethier and Deaux(1994) examined this remooring process in a study of His-panic students’ negotiation of their Hispanic identity in thefirst year that they entered an Anglo-dominant university.When these students first attended the university, their His-panic identity was still tied to their family’s Hispanic cul-tural background and their identities as a son or daughter.However, as they stayed longer away from their familyat the university, their family background was no longerlinked to their Hispanic identity. Instead, involvement inHispanic activities at the university became an importantfactor relating to Hispanic identity. Future research canfurther examine the remooring process among the threecultural identity components when a change in culturalexposure could potentially remove a previous link betweenan individual and a culture, and the potential consequencesof the remooring process on cultural identification strengthand identity-driven psychological outcomes.

The impact of cultural change

A culture’s knowledge tradition is by no means static.Public discourse, interpersonal communications, and largersocietal change all contribute to dynamic changes in whatcultural collectives consider to be central to their culture. Insocieties with stable sociopolitical and economic circum-stances, the most central aspects of their cultural knowledgetradition are likely to remain the same despite iterations ofcultural discourse (Sperber, 1996). However, one importantquestion to ask is whether the same would still apply tosocieties experiencing rapid social change. In societies withrapid social change, it is possible that the knowledge tradi-tions of the culture would be subjected to similarly rapidchange, as the central values and beliefs that used to definethe culture start to become obsolete and are replaced byother values and beliefs. Such cultural changes could bedue to the inclusion of initially foreign cultural values andbeliefs as a result of forces such as globalization, or achange in the population composition of the society as aresult of immigration and global workforce mobility.

Globalization often results in the inclusion of foreigncultural elements into a local culture (Alter & Kwan, 2009).Such a process could mean a change in the meaning ofthe local culture while the category label stays the same.For example, China’s economic growth and interactionswith Western culture has increased the importance of self-enhancement values in younger generations of Chinese(Egri & Ralston, 2004). Along similar lines but based on the



Chinese culture in Taiwan, Lu and Yang (2006) proposedthe construct of the bicultural Chinese self to describe howthe modernization of Taiwan resulted in a Chinese culturalidentity that both involves a traditional Chinese cultural selfthat is socially oriented and a modern Chinese cultural selfthat is individually oriented. This kind of cultural changewould not affect the category label as the label remains thesame. However, it does affect the knowledge content of theculture. Rapid social change would mean that the knowl-edge part of the cultural identity has changed so that theinitial person–culture alignment may no longer be in place.The cultural knowledge basis of the individual’s culturalidentification would then need to be adjusted to accommo-date the change in the culture’s values.

Cultural change can also be brought about by a change inpopulation composition. In societies where the influx offoreigners for work and immigration has made a significantcontribution to population growth and maintenance, thepopulation composition experiences rapid change, withthe original majority group decreasing in percentage ofpopulation relative to non-majority groups. Singapore,for example, has seen the population percentage of non-residents rise from 10.2% in 1990 to 25.7% in 2010(Singapore Department of Statistics, 2012). Also, in theUSA, the population percentage of non-Hispanic Whiteshas dropped from 79.6% in 1980 to 63.7% in 2010 (UnitedStates Census Bureau, 2002, 2011). The change in popula-tion composition raises the question of who the legitimatemembers of a cultural category should be. We see this asmore influential on the category label component of cul-tural identity. A change in population demographics mightresult in a change in the criteria used to define categoricalmembership in the culture. Research on national identityhas discussed the differing concept of civic and ethnicdefinitions of nationality (Wakefield et al., 2011). Whereasthe civic definition focuses on nationality as an achievableendpoint based on values and ideology, the ethnic definitionfocuses on nationality as a birthright based on ancestry andblood heritage. On the one hand, the change in a culture’spopulation composition might lead to the endorsement of amore civic definition of cultural membership so as to makeit more inclusive of new members to the culture. On theother hand, the change in composition might result in indi-viduals in the host society holding onto an ethnic definitionmore strongly as a response against the perceived threat totheir existing cultural identity from outsiders.

Finally, whereas cultural change may not have direct,immediate impact on the social relationships that individu-als have in a culture, social relationships may still play arole in affecting an individual’s cultural identity in the faceof cultural change. If individuals’ social networks holdpositive attitudes toward the cultural change, individualswhose social relationships are an important part of theircultural identity may be more receptive to the change and

continue to identify with the culture. Social others mightprovide a stabilizing force that helps the individual main-tain their cultural identity. However, if the cultural changehas a negative impact on social others, it may negativelyimpact individuals’ identification with the culture.

The extant research has not examined much the potentialeffects of cultural change on cultural identity. Our analysesabove suggest that the impact of cultural change on culturalidentity would likely be an interaction between the kind ofchange that is involved in the culture and the component ofcultural identity that is driving the individual’s identifica-tion with the culture. The impact would be stronger whenthe cultural change occurs in an area that is more relevant toa component that has contributed to an individual’s culturalidentity the most.

Cross-cultural differences

Few studies have examined cross-cultural differences in thenature of cultural identity. Despite a recent study byKashima and Hitokoto (2009) identifying some similaritiesand differences in the nature of social identity betweenJapanese and Australians, research on cultural identity hasby and large focused on processes that are presumed tobe universal. However, discussions of cross-cultural differ-ences in the nature of group membership and socialrelationships point to the possibility that there might becross-cultural differences in the prevalence of the differentcomponents of cultural identity in influencing cultural iden-tification processes.

First, past research suggests that there are cross-culturaldifferences in the degree to which individuals considersocial connections to be important. For example, familyinterdependence has been found to be less important inWestern culture than in non-Western cultures. Phinney,Kim-Jo, Osorio and Vilhjalmsdottir (2005) found differ-ences between ethnic groups in the USA in the extentto which adolescents take into account parents’ view-points during disagreements. Adolescents of non-Europeandescent were more likely to comply with their parentsduring conflicts compared to their counterparts of Europeandescent. This ethnicity difference was mediated by thedegree of family interdependence, with adolescents of non-European descent reporting higher family interdependencethan adolescents of European descent.

Moreover, the conceptualization of a collective maydiffer across Western and East Asian cultures. In his analy-sis of the nature of collectivism in Western and East Asiancultures, Yuki (2003) argued that compared to an individualin a Western culture, an individual in an East Asian cultureis more likely to be situated in a network of interconnectedsocial relationships. As such, membership in a collectivehas different implications in the cultures. In Westernculture, especially with empirical research being strongly



influenced by social identity theory, membership in acollective implies becoming a depersonalized, interchange-able member of a faceless collective. In this kind ofdepersonalized collective, specific social relationships arenot emphasized as part of an individual’s belongingness toa collective. In contrast, in East Asian cultures, individualsare connected with others through social ties so that eachindividual is enmeshed in a web of specific social relation-ships that vary in directness and strength. Thus, for EastAsians, being part of a collective refers to occupying aparticular location in an interpersonal network rather thanbeing an interchangeable member of a depersonalizedcollective.

To test his proposal, Yuki (2003) compared Japanese andAmerican participants’ loyalty and identification with smallgroups and their country. Whereas American participants’loyalty and identification were related to their perceivedhomogeneity of the groups, Japanese participants’ loyaltyand identification were related to their knowledge of thesocial connections within the groups and their own per-ceived connectedness with others in the group. As furtherevidence, Yuki, Maddux, Brewer and Takemura (2005)examined the nature of trust in American and Japaneseculture. They found that American participants were morelikely to place their trust in a stranger if the strangerbelonged to the same in-group. Having a potential indirectinterpersonal link with an out-group stranger did notincrease American participants’ trust of the stranger. Incontrast, Japanese participants displayed similar levels ofhigh trust toward an in-group stranger and an out-groupstranger with whom the participants might have an indirectinterpersonal link. Also, Kashima, Hardie, Wakimoto andKashima (2011) demonstrated that sociality was morerelated to the relational self than to the collective self forJapanese and was more related to the collective self than tothe relational self for Australians. These studies supportYuki’s (2003) argument of the depersonalized categoryas the basis of people’s connections with a collective inWestern culture but the interpersonal relational networkas the basis of connections with a collective in East Asianculture.

Taken together, it would seem possible for the categorylabel to be a more important component than social con-nections in cultural identity processes for individuals fromWestern culture. In contrast, social connections might be

more important than category label in cultural identity pro-cesses for individuals from East Asian cultures. As for thecultural knowledge component, all cultures involve sharedknowledge traditions as part of the culture’s definition. Assuch, we would not expect cross-cultural differences in theimportance of cultural knowledge as a component of cul-tural identity. Future research would be needed to test thesepredictions.

Concluding remarks

In this paper, we have identified three components ofcultural identity – cultural knowledge, category label, andsocial connections. The cultural knowledge componentconnects an individual directly to the widely shared knowl-edge tradition of a culture. It does not rely on any socialrelationships or group membership. The category labelcomponent connects an individual with a culture throughthe individual’s categorical membership in a collective thatis associated with the culture. Finally, the social connec-tions component connects an individual with a culturethrough the specific social relationships that the individualhas established in the culture. We have also discussed theimplications of the three components on cultural identity inthe global cultural context of multiculturalism and culturalchange. Although we have emphasized that the three com-ponents are conceptually distinct, any individual’s culturalidentity is likely to have a basis in all three components.Past research on cultural identity has typically focusedon one of the three components at a time, as the differentcomponents draw from different theoretical perspectivesas basis for research. It is an empirical question of whenone of the three components would take precedent as themajor basis for an individual’s cultural identity. It is anotherempirical question of how the three components mightsimultaneously affect cultural identity and potentially haveinteractive effects. It is a third, and very timely, empiricalquestion of how the three components’ impacts on culturalidentity would be influenced by the cultural context, be itmonocultural, cross-cultural, or multicultural, that indi-viduals are exposed to. Addressing these questions wouldprovide the field with a more comprehensive understandingof the nature of cultural identity in an increasingly global,multicultural world.

References

Alter, A. L. & Kwan, V. S. Y. (2009). Culturalsharing in a global village: Evidence forextracultural cognition in European Ameri-cans. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 96, 742–760.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M. & Nelson,G. (1991). Close relationships as includ-ing other in the self. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 60,241–253.

Barth, F. (2002). An anthropology of knowl-edge. Current Anthropology, 43, 1–18.

Benet-Martínez, V. & Haritatos, J. (2005).Bicultural identity integration (BII):Components and psychosocial antecedents.Journal of Personality, 73, 1015–1050.

Breakwell, G. M. (2001). Social repre-sentational constraints upon identity pro-cesses. In: K. Deaux & G. Philogène, eds.



Representations of the Social, pp. 271–284.Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: Onbeing the same and different at the sametime. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 17, 475–482.

Brewer, M. B. & Gardner, W. (1996). Who isthis ‘we’? Levels of collective identity andself representations. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 71, 83–93.

Brumann, C. (1999). Writing for culture:Why a successful concept should not be dis-carded. Current Anthropology, 40 (Suppl.),S1–S27.

Chen, S., Boucher, H. C. & Tapias, M. P.(2006). The relational self revealed: Integra-tive conceptualization and implications forinterpersonal life. Psychological Bulletin,132, 151–179.

Chirkov, V. I., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y. & Kaplan,U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy fromindividualism and independence: A self-determination theory perspective on inter-nalization of cultural orientations andwell-being. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 84, 97–110.

Chirkov, V. I., Ryan, R. M. & Willness, C.(2005). Cultural context and psychologi-cal needs in Canada and Brazil: Testing aself-determination approach to the internali-zation of cultural practices, identity, andwell-being. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy-chology, 36, 423–443.

Chiu, C. & Hong, Y. (2006). Social Psycho-logy of Culture. New York: PsychologyPress.

Cho, G. E., Sandel, T. L., Miller, P. J. & Wang,S. (2005). What do grandmothers thinkabout self-esteem? American and Taiwanesefolk theories revisited. Social Development,14, 701–721.

Clément, R., Baker, S. C., Josephson, G. &Noels, K. A. (2005). Media effects on ethnicidentity among linguistic majorities andminorities:Alongitudinal study of a bilingualsetting. Human Communication Research,31, 399–422.

Cohen, A. B. (2009). Many forms of culture.American Psychologist, 64, 194–204.

Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L. & Morris, M. L.(2000). The relational-interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 78,791–808.

Deaux, K. & Martin, D. (2003). Interpersonalnetworks and social categories: Specifyinglevels of context in identity processes. SocialPsychology Quarterly, 66, 101–117.

Devos, T. & Banaji, M. R. (2005). American =White? Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 88, 447–466.

Egri, C. P. & Ralston, D. A. (2004). Generationcohorts and personal values: A comparisonof China and the United States. Organiza-tion Science, 15, 210–220.

Ethier, K. A. & Deaux, K. (1994). Negotiatingsocial identity when contexts change: Main-taining identification and responding tothreat. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 67, 243–251.

Friedlmeier, W., Corapci, F. & Cole, P. M.(2011). Emotion socialization in cross-cultural perspective. Social and PersonalityPsychology Compass, 5, 410–427.

Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cul-tures. New York: Basic Books.

Giguère, B., Lalonde, R. & Lou, E. (2010).Living at the crossroads of cultural worlds:The experience of normative conflicts bysecond generation immigrant youth. Socialand Personality Psychology Compass, 4,14–29.

Grotevant, H. D. & Cooper, C. R. (1985). Pat-terns of interaction in family relationshipsand the development of identity explorationin adolescence. Child Development, 56,415–428.

Hammack, P. L. (2008). Narrative and thecultural psychology of identity. Personalityand Social Psychology Review, 12, 222–247.

Hogg, M. A. & Turner, J. C. (1987). Intergroupbehaviour, self-stereotyping and the salienceof social categories. British Journal ofSocial Psychology, 26, 325–340.

Hong, Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C. &Benet-Martínez, V. (2000). Multiculturalminds: A dynamic constructivist approach toculture and cognition. American Psycholo-gist, 55, 709–720.

Hong, Y., Wan, C., No, S. & Chiu, C. (2007).Multicultural identities. In: S. Kitayama& D. Cohen, eds. Handbook of CulturalPsychology, pp. 323–345. New York:Guilford.

Hughes, D., Witherspoon, D. P., Rivas-Drake,D. & West-Bey, N. D. (2009). Receivedethnic–racial socialization messages andyouths’ academic and behavioral out-comes: Examining the mediating role ofethnic identity and self-esteem. CulturalDiversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15,148–160.

Kashima, E. S., Hardie, E. A., Wakimoto, R. &Kashima, Y. (2011). Culture- and gender-specific implications of relational and

collective contexts on spontaneous self-descriptions. Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 42, 740–758.

Kashima, E. S. & Hitokoto, H. (2009). Culturalsimilarities and differences in socialidentification in Japan and Australia.Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 12,71–81.

Kashima, E. S. & Pillai, D. (2011). Identitydevelopment in cultural transition: Therole of need for closure. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45, 725–739.

Keesing, R. M. (1974). Theories of culture.Annual Review of Anthropology, 3, 73–97.

Killian, C. & Johnson, C. (2006). I’m not animmigrant! Resistance, redefinition, and therole of resources in identity work. SocialPsychology Quarterly, 69, 60–80.

Kim, J. & Ng, S. H. (2008). Perceptions ofsocial changes and social identity: Studyfocusing on Hong Kong society after reuni-fication. Asian Journal of Social Psychol-ogy, 11, 232–240.

Knafo, A. & Schwartz, S. H. (2001). Valuesocialization in families of Israeli-bornand Soviet-born adolescents in Israel.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32,213–228.

Kosic, A., Kruglanski, A., Pierro, A. &Mannetti, L. (2004). The social cognitionof immigrants’ acculturation: Effects of theneed for closure and the reference group atentry. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 86, 796–813.

Kruglanski, A. W. & Webster, D. M. (1996).Motivated closing of the mind: ‘Seizing’ and‘freezing’. Psychological Review, 103, 263–283.

Kwak, K. (2003). Adolescents and theirparents: A review of intergenerational familyrelations for immigrant and non-immigrantfamilies. Human Development, 46, 115–136.

Lam, S., Lau, I. Y., Chiu, C., Hong, Y. &Peng, S. (1999). Differential emphases onmodernity and Confucian values in socialcategorization: The case of Hong Kongadolescents in political transition. Interna-tional Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23,237–256.

Lamoreaux, M. & Morling, B. (2012). Out-side the head and outside individualism–collectivism: Further meta-analyses ofcultural products. Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 43, 299–327.

Lu, L. & Yang, K.-S. (2006). Emergenceand composition of the traditional–modern



bicultural self of people in contemporaryTaiwanese societies. Asian Journal of SocialPsychology, 9, 167–175.

Mähönen, T. A., Jasinskaja-Lahti, I. &Liebkind, K. (2011). Cultural discordanceand the polarization of identities. GroupProcesses & Intergroup Relations, 14, 505–515.

Miramontez, D., Benet-Martínez, V. &Nguyen, A.-M. (2008). Bicultural identityand self/group personality perceptions. Selfand Identity, 7, 430–445.

Mok, A., Morris, M. W., Benet-Martínez, V. &Karakitapoglu-Aygün, Z. (2007). EmbracingAmerican culture: Structures of socialidentity and social networks among first-generation biculturals. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 629–635.

Ng, S. K. & Lai, J. C. L. (2011). Biculturalself, multiple social identities, and dualpatriotisms among ethnic Chinese in HongKong. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychol-ogy, 42, 89–103.

Palmer, J. D. (2007). Who is the authenticKorean American? Korean-born KoreanAmerican high school students’ negotiationsof ascribed and achieved identities. Journalof Language, Identity, and Education, 6,277–298.

Phinney, J. & Devich-Navarro, M. (1997).Variations in bicultural identification amongAfrican American and Mexican Americanadolescents. Journal of Research on Adoles-cence, 7, 3–32.

Phinney, J. S., Kim-Jo, T., Osorio, S. &Vilhjalmsdottir, P. (2005). Autonomy andrelatedness in adolescent–parent disagree-ments: Ethnic and developmental factors.Journal of Adolescent Research, 20,8–39.

Phinney, J. S., Ong, A. & Madden, T. (2000).Cultural values and intergenerationalvalue discrepancies in immigrant and non-immigrant families. Child Development, 71,528–539.

Rodriguez, J., Umaña-Taylor, A., Smith, E. P.& Johnson, D. J. (2009). Cultural processesin parenting and youth outcomes: Examin-ing a model of racial–ethnic socializationand identity in diverse populations. CulturalDiversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology,15, 106–111.

Rohan, M. J. & Zanna, M. P. (1996). Valuetransmission in families. In: C. Seligman, J.M. Olson & M. P. Zanna, eds. The Psychol-ogy of Values: The Ontario Symposium, Vol.8. pp. 253–276. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Romney, A. K., Boyd, J. P., Moore, C. C.,Batchelder, W. H. & Brazill, T. J. (1996).Culture as shared cognitive representations.Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences, 93, 4699–4705.

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

Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2003). Onassimilating identities to the self: A self-determination theory perspective on inter-nalization and integrity within cultures. In:M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney, eds. Handbookof Self and Identity, pp. 253–272. New York:Guilford.

Schachter, E. P. & Ventura, J. J. (2008). Iden-tity agents: Parents as active and reflectiveparticipants in their children’s identity for-mation. Journal of Research on Adoles-cence, 18, 449–476.

Serpe, R. T. & Stryker, S. (2011). The symbolicinteractionist perspective and identitytheory. In: S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx &V. L. Vignoles, eds. Handbook of IdentityTheory and Research, pp. 225–248.New York: Springer Science + BusinessMedia.

Singapore Department of Statistics (2012).Time series on population (mid-year esti-mates). [Cited 3 Oct 2012.] Available fromURL: http://www.singstat.gov.sg/statistics/browse_by_theme/population.html

Sperber, D. (1996). Explaining Culture:A Naturalistic Approach. Oxford, UK:Blackwell.

Stepick, A., Stepick, C. & Vanderkooy, P.(2011). Becoming American. In: S. J.Schwartz, K. Luyckx & V. L. Vignoles, eds.Handbook of Identity Theory and Research,pp. 867–893. New York: Springer Science +Business Media.

Stevenson, H. C. & Arrington, E. G. (2009).Racial/ethnic socialization mediates per-ceived racism and the racial identity ofAfrican American adolescents. CulturalDiversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15,161–172.

Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integra-tive theory of intergroup conflict. In: W. G.Austin & S. Worchel, eds. The Social Psy-chology of Intergroup Relations, pp. 33–47.Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Tam, K. & Lee, S. (2010). What values doparents want to socialize in their children?The role of perceived normative values.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41,175–181.

Terracciano, A. A., Abdel-Khalek, A. M.,Ádám, N. N., Adamovová, L. L., Ahn, C. K.,Ahn, H. N., et al. (2005). National characterdoes not reflect mean personality trait levelsin 49 cultures. Science, 310 (5745), 96–100.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1981). Ethnic identityand close friendship in Chinese-Americancollege students. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 5, 383–406.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher,S. D. & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscover-ing the Social Group: A Self-CategorizationTheory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

United States Census Bureau (2002). UnitedStates – race and Hispanic origin: 1790 to1990. [Cited 3 Oct 2012.] Available fromURL: http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/tab01.pdf

United States Census Bureau (2011). Overviewof race and Hispanic origin: 2010. [Cited 3Oct 2012.] Available from URL: http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf

Verkuyten, M. (2005). Ethnic group identifica-tion and group evaluation among minorityand majority groups: Testing the multicul-turalism hypothesis. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 88, 121–138.

Verkuyten, M. & Martinovic, B. (2006).Understanding multicultural attitudes: Therole of group status, identification, friend-ships, and justifying ideologies. Interna-tional Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30,1–18.

Wakefield, J. R. H., Hopkins, N., Cockburn, C.,Shek, K. M., Muirhead, A., Reicher, S.,et al. (2011). The impact of adopting ethnicor civic conceptions of national belongingfor others’ treatment. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 37, 1599–1610.

Wan, C., Chiu, C., Peng, S. & Tam, K. (2007a).Measuring cultures through intersubjectivecultural norms: Implications for predictingrelative identification with two or more cul-tures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychol-ogy, 38, 213–226.

Wan, C., Chiu, C., Tam, K., Lee, S., Lau, I.& Peng, S. (2007b). Perceived culturalimportance and actual self-importance ofvalues in cultural identification. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 92,337–354.

Wan, C. & Yu, J. (in press). A knowledge-based account of cultural identification:The role of intersubjective representations.In: Y. Masaki & M. Brewer, eds. Frontiersof Cultural Psychology: Culture and GroupProcesses, Oxford University Press.



http://www.singstat.gov.sg/statistics/browse_by_theme/population.html

http://www.singstat.gov.sg/statistics/browse_by_theme/population.html

http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/tab01.pdf

http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/tab01.pdf

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf



Wang, Q., Shao, Y. & Li, Y. J. (2010). ‘Myway or mom’s way?’ The bilingual andbicultural self in Hong Kong Chinese chil-dren and adolescents. Child Development,81, 555–567.

Ward, C., Bochner, S. & Furnham, A. (2001).The Psychology of Culture Shock. London:Routledge.

Yuki, M. (2003). Intergroup comparison versusintragroup relationships: A cross-culturalexamination of social identity theory inNorth American and East Asian cultural con-texts. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 166–183.

Yuki, M., Maddux, W. W., Brewer, M. B. &Takemura, K. (2005). Cross-cultural

differences in relationship- and group-basedtrust. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 31, 48–62.

Zhang, Y. & Chiu, C. (2012). Goal commit-ment and alignment of personal goalspredict group identification only when thegoals are shared. Group Processes & Inter-group Relations, 15, 425–437.



cultural knowledge, category label, and social connections: components of cultural identity in the...

Documents