Introduction to Cross-Cultural Psychology Paper Chooseone of the case studies provided in the electronic readings for Week One. (You have case study

Introduction to Cross-Cultural Psychology Paper
Chooseone of the case studies provided in the electronic readings for Week One. (You have case study findings in 3 articles and 2 videos, please choose one to use as your example in the paper.)
Pacific Islands families study (article)
A study involving Western and Chinese cultures (article)
Study on Finn immigrants’ pre- and postmigration stereotypes (article)
African culture versus American Culture (video)
Self-expression through rhythm and melody (video)
Writea 1,050- to 1,200-word paper in which you analyze cross-cultural psychology, using your chosen case study in your analysis.

Use the case study to provide a definition and an exampleof cultural and cross-cultural psychology. (Chooseone of the case studies provided in the electronic readings for Week 1).
Discuss how the case study helps you better understand how ethnicity, race, and worldviews are separate yet related concepts.
Discuss howenculturationmay play a role in the case study you have chosen.

*An academic paper must always have a reference page.The textbook and the reserve reading article are the minimum requirements.Don’t use anonymous web sites or other non-academic sources such as Wikipedia. If you go beyond the text use sources such as the library or our Electronic Reserve Readings.
Incorporatea minimum of three credible, peer-reviewed references.

The Effects of Cognitive Appraisals
of Communication Competence in Conflict Interactions: A Study Involving Western
and Chinese Cultures
Frances P. Brew1, Justin Tan1, Helen Booth1, and Irum Malik1
Abstract
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 42(5) 856874
The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0022022110381121 jccp.sagepub.com
This study investigated differences between people from Western and Chinese cultures on perceived competence (effectiveness and appropriateness) of the other partys communication during conflict. First, a pilot study with 30 employees in Singapore examined appraisals of communication competence in recalled intercultural conflict incidents. Western expatriates judged competence of the other party mainly on whether the communication style was direct and engaged, deemed to be judgments of effectiveness. However, host-nationals judged competence mainly on interactional skills and cultural knowledge, deemed to be judgments of appropriateness. Following the pilot study, a quasi-experimental study (128 Australian and 108 Chinese university students) showed that Australians discriminated between four different types of conflict styles more distinctly with effectiveness than appropriateness judgments and vice versa for Chinese. This supports the pilot work. Furthermore, both effectiveness and appropriateness judgments predicted relationship outcomes postconflict for both groups. For Australians, the trend of effectiveness judgments across the four conflict styles paralleled exactly the trend of their predictions for how much the relationship would improve postconflict, whereas their appropriateness judgments did not. For Chinese, neither competency judgments mirrored predictions on relationship improvement. However, their appropriateness judgments paralleled their predictions for level of status quo maintenance, but their effectiveness judgments did not. The evidence supports the hypothesis that people from different cultures hold dissimilar implicit cognitive theories of what defines in/competent communication in interpersonal conflict. The potent association of competency judgments with relational outcomes signals a new cognitive direction for conflict research, long fixated on behavioral manifestations.
1Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
Corresponding Author:
Frances P. Brew, Psychology Department, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, 2109, Australia. Email: [emailprotected]

Brew et al. 857
Interpersonal disagreements are a mundane and unpleasant part of everyday interactions. The conflict process is inevitably negotiated and defined through communication, which is capable of escalating or defusing the situation. A commonly held assumption is that communication is essential to the human condition and that its complexity is one of the key aspects that differenti- ates us from lower order primates. This leads people to believe that, regardless of language dif- ferences, communication patterns and uses are shared fundamentals across cultures. However, effective communication, defined by the distinguished American scholar Burgoon (1974) as the act of imparting knowledge or making known ones feelings and thoughts in order to achieve certain outcomes, is not necessarily recognized in all cultures. For example, Gao (1998) points out that there is no easy translation into Chinese characters of the English word communica- tion. She argues that conversational behavior in Chinese culture is traditionally used for enhanc- ing relationships and harmony rather than imparting information. Furthermore, a comprehensive literature (e.g., Chua & Gudykunst, 1987; Gao, 1998; Holtgraves, 1997; Hsu, 2004; Kim & Wilson, 1994; Lin, 1997; Oetzel et al., 2001; Ting-Toomey et al., 1991) has shown that communication styles vary dramatically across cultures from the restrained, circumspect speech acts found in East Asian nations to the outspoken, candid expressions of those from Anglo cultures. We con- clude from the equally comprehensive literature on conflict-handling styles (e.g., Brew & Cairns, 2004; Chan & Goto, 2003; Friedman, Chi, & Liu, 2006; Leung, 1997; Leung &Tjosvold, 1998; Morris et al., 1998; Tinsley & Brett, 2001) that these communication patterns are complementary with the various conflict styles, such as conflict avoidance in East Asia and confrontational approaches found in countries like Australia and the United States.
Over the past 30 years, conflict management and communication styles research comparing cultures has been behaviorally focused. It is pertinent that more research examines whether dif- ferent cognitive processes are also at work. We conclude from the preceding points that people in different cultures are likely to hold varying implicit theories of communication that will drive subsequent interactional behavior. Thomass (1990) process model of conflict management pro- poses that the event instigating conflict is viewed through a cognitive-emotional lens. Impor- tantly, this perceptual lens continues to bias judgments on the subsequent action-interaction sequence of the conflictual exchangethat is, the behavioral component. According to Thomas, these cognitive processes are instrumental in affecting the outcome and subsequent interpersonal interactions between the two parties. In line with this, Spitzberg, Canary, and Cupach (1994) found that if the conflict-handling style of the other party is evaluated negatively, then greater responsibility for the conflict is assigned to that party. Thus, we hypothesize that the lens is col- ored not only by an individuals normative assumptions, expectations, and attributions, as Thomas suggests, but also by cultural conditioning. Therefore, the aim of this article is to inves- tigate one aspect of the lens: the perceptual evaluations that people from two culturally distant groups make of the other partys communication competence during an interpersonal conflict event and its perceived effect on the ongoing relationship. Our objective was to examine these evaluations using the appropriateness and effectiveness structure proposed by the three research- ers Spitzberg, Canary, and Cupach (e.g., Cupach & Canary, 1997; Spitzberg et al., 1994; Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984) and the Yin and Yang model of conflict proposed by Brew (2007).
First, some exploratory pilot work based on data collected as part of a larger study on inter- cultural conflict in the workplace in Singapore is presented. Using content analysis, evidence emerged that effectiveness and appropriateness could be defined and identified as separate con- structs and that Westerners and Singaporeans focused differentially on these competencies. Fol- lowing this, a quasi-experimental cross-cultural study with local and Chinese overseas students on an Australian campus is presented. Using the Yin and Yang model of conflict (Brew, 2007) as a framework, stimulus material based on the pilot work, and Canary and Spitzbergs (1987) effectiveness and appropriateness scales, the study investigated (a) whether the two groups would

858 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 42(5) focus differentially on the two competencies as in the pilot work and (b) the effect of these com-
petency assessments on relationship outcomes postconflict.
Appropriateness and Effectiveness
Spitzberg et al.s (1994) cardinal hypothesis states that the perception by one party of the other partys communication competence during a conflict episode will either mediate or moderate the link between conflict management style and relational outcome. Spitzberg et al. argued that con- flict is complex and interdependent, hence using a good conflict management style may not necessarily result in desirable outcomes, if the behavior is interpreted by the other party as being ineffective and inappropriate. An example of this might be where a person brings in a third party to mediate on the assumption that the other party would be favorable to such a neutral approach. However, the person discovers that the other party feels that using a mediator is inappropriate because sensitive issues have to be exposed to a third party and is likely to be ineffective in achieving a good outcome because all communication has to be relayed second-hand to the other party.
Cupach and Canary (1997) distinguished between effectiveness and appropriateness by sug- gesting that effectiveness is related to the accomplishment of ones goals and appropriateness to awareness of the rules of the interaction. Spitzberg and Cupachs (1984) original definitions proposed that communication is effective if interpersonal problems are resolved and the needs and desires of the interactants are met. Thus, in a conflict episode, effectiveness concerns the perceived quality and impact of the content of messages in obtaining such goals. Communication is appropriate if the social norms of the other person are not violated too strongly or if new rules or norms are established during the interaction. Thus, appropriateness concerns the expected social behaviors within the context of the conflict.
Cultural Variations on Effectiveness and Appropriateness
According to Spitzberg et al. (1994), inappropriate and ineffective communication is associated with avoidant conflict management. Although this hypothesis might hold for cultures not too distant from that of the United States, it is problematic when applied to other cultures such as those in East Asia. It has been argued by Gao (1998), Leung and Chan (1999), and others that an avoidant conflict style is preferable in East Asian societies due to living in interdependent and hierarchical social structures, which are generally associated with a collectivist orientation. In Hofstedes (1980) seminal work, East Asian societies were found to be predominantly collectivist with a focus on group needs over individual rights. By contrast, Anglo societies such as Australia and the United States were highly individualistic, with priority given to ones own interests, needs, and goals. Hence, it is highly likely that individualists would find that avoidance behavior frus- trates expression of ones concerns and effective own-goal achievement. The enduring features of these two orientations are still prominent in these societies today (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005).
A notable manifestation of individualism and collectivism is self-construal (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Singelis, 1994), which has been used extensively with studies on conversational indirect- ness (e.g., Gudykunst et al., 1996; Hara & Kim, 2004; Sharkey & Singelis, 1995). Markus and Kitayama (1991) argued that collectivists tend toward an interdependent self-construal in which the point of reference is the embeddedness of self in a social context in such a way that the selfs needs and desires are conditional upon significant others expectations and views. In contrast, they argued that an individualists point of reference is an independent self in which the unique qualities, feelings, and desires of the self separate the individual from others, allowing freedom- to-choose relationships in order to fulfill ones own needs and goals. Past studies and theories

Brew et al. 859
(e.g., Gudykunst et al., 1996; Hara & Kim, 2004; Ting-Toomey, 1988) have linked self-construal type with two prominent conversational constraints, communication clarity and face-support. Kim and Wilson (1994) proposed that the clarity constraint demands explicit and effective com- munication, thus facilitating the achievement of communication goals and task accomplishment. On the other hand, the face-support constraint demands avoiding hurting feelings, minimizing imposition, showing deference, giving approval, and using politeness strategies, thus reducing face-threat and avoiding causing dislike or devaluation of the other. Ting-Toomey (1997) pro- posed that those with independent self-construals value the clarity constraint due to the need to resolve conflict effectively by expressing opinions, interests, and needs and thus are likely to be more concerned with effective rather than appropriate communication. Those with interdepen- dent self-construals, however, value the face-support constraint due to an awareness of past and present obligations and a need to preserve harmony and thus are likely to be more concerned with appropriate communication that respects interactional qualities.
In a straightforward way, effectiveness is easily linked to a direct style of communication, in particular, the content of explicitly worded messages that Hall (1989) observed was an important concern for low-context cultures distinguished by autonomy, individualism, and low reliance on context for ascertaining meaning. Appropriateness is linked to subtle, indirect conversation that has an established association with interdependence (Hara & Kim, 2004) and with high-context cultures like those in Asia (Hall, 1989), which rely on cues from nonverbal signals and the con- text to imbue the exchange with meaning. Due to this greater complexity, appropriateness needs further definition, drawing on the wider properties of communication competence.
In past intercultural communication competence research, there are two main approaches: behavioral and cognitive. The first is concerned with competencies that could be broadly defined as good interaction management, such as empathy, relationship building, listening skills, develop- ing mutual trust and respect, displaying interest in the other, drawing the other person out, patience, and tolerance (e.g., Hammer, Gudykunst, & Wiseman, 1978; Olebe & Koester, 1989; Ruben, 1989; Ruben & Kealey, 1979). The cognitive approach is concerned with knowledge about cul- tural identity, understanding the communication rules of the other, and interpretation of their constitutive meaning (e.g., Collier, 1991; Collier & Thomas, 1988; Driskill & Downs, 1995; Nishida, Hammer, & Wiseman, 1998). We propose that appropriateness is not only expressed with subtlety or politeness but importantly includes the way the interaction is handled in terms of responsiveness to the feelings and needs of the other person. In an intercultural situation, com- munication competence also involves knowledge of the cultural identity of the other.
Summing up, we propose that independent types are more likely to assess communication competence in terms of clarity of the transmission of messages to achieve a solution (effective- ness). Interdependent types are more likely to assess competence in terms of the interactional qualities of the exchange, such as a display of thought and concern for the other partys feelings and face (appropriateness).
The Yin and Yang Model of Conflict
Much of the cross-cultural conflict research referred to earlier used one of the dual-concern mod- els modeled on Blake and Moutons (1964) managerial grid. In a typical model, that of Rahim (1983), two axes representing high and low concern for selfs goals and high and low concern for others goals are crossed to produce five conflict styles (integrating, dominating, accommodat- ing, compromising, and avoiding) by interpreting the four quadrants (e.g., low concern for self, low concern for other relates to avoiding) and using the central crossover point for the fifth style, compromising (mid-concern for self and other). As with Spitzberg et al.s (1994) claims that avoidance engenders negative appraisals, an ontological problem also arises with the dual-concern

860 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 42(5)
Conflict
Destructive Confrontation
Instrumental needs
Ideal aspirations
Smoothing
Harmony
Constructive Controversy
Constructive Diplomacy
Figure 1. The Yin and Yang Model of Harmony (adapted from Brew, 2007)
model when applied cross-culturally. Low concern for self and others goals does not apply to the avoidance of conflict found in East Asia, where interdependence ensures high concern for others. Therefore, we preferred to use the Yin and Yang model (Brew, 2007), which takes account of both Western and Eastern perspectives. The model is based both on the dualistic model of harmony devised by Leung, Tremain-Koch, and Lu (2002) to explain conflict avoidance in East Asian societies and the competitive versus cooperative conflict framework of Western models. The model is constructed on the instrumental-ideal dimension found in Leung et al.s harmony model, which is based on values rather than goal-based outcomes. At one pole, instrumental values are concerned with means to an end (what benefits will accrue from the relationship), and at the other pole, ideal values are associated with a morally desirable endstate (doing the right thing by the other person to enhance the relationship). The other dimension represents the two fundamental approaches to conflict, either confronting the issue directly or maintaining harmony (see Figure 1).
In the model, constructive controversy is defined as ideal conflict. From a Western perspec- tive, Tjosvold (1998) argues that such a style will lead to cooperative and successful outcomes, and Rahim (1983) equates this behavior with the integrating or solution-seeking style wherein both parties goals are met. This style fulfils the individualist agenda in which argument, discus- sion, and debate are favored to resolve conflict (Olekalns, 1998; Wall & Stark, 1998). We expect Australians to perceive this style to be the most appropriate and effective. As this style requires frankness and verbal skill, we expect that Chinese will judge it as effective but less appropriate as their interactional norms of politeness and face-concern may be violated in the process. Con- structive diplomacy, presented as ideal harmony, is advocated by Leung et al. (2002) to be the closest behavior to that which Confucius recommended as being desirable. He promoted respect for different views and encouraged courteous debate particularly in support of goodness and righteousness. However, Leung et al. argued that this behavior was not as common throughout East Asia as conflict avoidance (smoothing), defined as instrumental harmony. This latter type of harmony is an expedient form of dealing with conflict in a society made up of tightly woven and rigid networks, where achieving ones goals in life is often dependent on others. Although the two harmony styles may not be so effective in directly communicating needs and problem

Brew et al. 861
solving, they are less likely to cause offence or face loss or to harm interactional norms. Hence, we expect that the Chinese will perceive the harmony styles to be more appropriate than the conflict styles, with the smoothing style likely to be seen as more appropriate than constructive diplo- macy, which requires skill and tactics and thus entails some risk. As these two styles are non- threatening and may be calming, we expect that Australians will judge them as appropriate but not very effective. Destructive confrontation, defined as instrumental conflict, is similar to the competitive style (Tjosvold, 1998) or dominating style (Rahim, 1983) in which coercive and competitive tactics are used to gain outcomes for the individual at the expense of the relationship. Although it involves direct speech acts, we do not expect either group to favor this style, West- erners because it is likely to be perceived as bullying and Chinese because it is a gross violation of relational rules. Thus, all will judge it to be inappropriate and ineffective.
Hence, using the Yin and Yang model as a firm ontological base, we are able to refine the proposal put forward earlier and outline the first hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Australians are more likely to be responsive to the effectiveness than to the appropriateness of a conflict style.
The four styles are expected to decrease in perceived effectiveness from constructive con- troversy through the harmony styles to destructive confrontation (clockwise round Figure 1), compared to a flatter trend for appropriateness. Conversely, Chinese are more likely to be respon- sive to the appropriateness than to the effectiveness of a conflict style. The four styles are expected to decrease in perceived appropriateness from smoothing to diplomacy to constructive controversy to destructive confrontation (anticlockwise round Figure 1) compared to a flatter trend for effectiveness.
Effects of Cognitive Judgments of Competence on Relational Outcomes
Earlier, we reported that Thomass (1990) process conflict model and Spitzberg et al.s (1994) competence-based model proposed that cognitive assessment of the conflict behavior of the other party is likely to affect the outcome of the conflict, particularly relationships. Thomass (1990) model highlights how a continuous relational dialogue is interrupted by conflict events that have the potential to escalate negativity or stimulate constructive discussion and integrative behavior depending on the intervening conditionsin this case, effectiveness and appropriate- ness judgments. In this piece of research, we focused on relational outcome rather than achieve- ment of economic concerns for one or both parties. Emerging research supports the idea that relational outcomes are more important than maximizing economic returns. For example, Curhan, Elfenbein, and Xu (2006) found that subjective value, which includes feelings about the relationship, was a better predictor than economic outcomes of future negotiation decisions. The longitudinal study by Canary, Cupach, and Serpe (2001) found a reciprocal causal association between communication behavior in a conflict and relationship quality across a time span of several weeks, inferring that the communication experience during conflict episodes is central to the ongoing progression of the relationship. Furthermore, relational goals are very important in collectivist cultures such as that of the Chinese, where long-term individual goals are primarily achieved through the facilitation of successful reciprocal interconnectedness (Leung et al., 2002). We propose the following hypotheses to test the effect of competence evaluations on relational outcome:
Hypothesis 2: For both groups, we expect the more effective and appropriate the com- munication style of the other party is judged to be during conflict, the more likely the

862 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 42(5)
perceiver will predict that the relationship will become closer (integrate). Conversely, the more ineffective and inappropriate the communication style is judged, the more likely the relationship will be predicted to disintegrate.
Hypothesis 3: For Australians, we expect the effectiveness trend for the four styles of the Yin and Yang model predicted in the first hypothesis to be mirrored by a similar profile for predictions of relationship improvement (integration) postconflict, but this will not be the case for appropriateness. Conversely, for Chinese, the appropriateness trend pre- dicted in the first hypothesis for the four styles will mirror the integration profile, but this will not be the case for effectiveness.
Pilot Study
Thirty participants (15 expatriates, 15 host-nationals), mostly in management or consultant roles, with mean ages of 38.6 and 36.3 years, respectively, were recruited from five organizations rep- resenting a range of businesses in Singapore. As part of a larger study examining conflict behav- ior under various conditions, they were asked to think of recent intercultural conflict situations in which they had been involved in order to record their evaluations of the behavior of the other party during the episodes. The first question enquired about conflict that had been handled poorly and the second about conflict that had been handled well. Both negative and positive conflicts were explored in order to control for confounding. Evaluated conflicts tended to be ordinary ones encountered in the normal course of the working day, such as solving a problem, difference of opinion in a meeting or how to do a job, and misunderstandings about requests, information, and similar issues.
Content Analysis
The data were subjected to a content analysis. Following Miles and Huberman (1994), three broad themes were created in accordance with the theory presented earlier: communication styles, personal interactional behavior, and cultural awareness. The communication styles theme cap- tured comments about the method of conveying messages and was deemed to indicate appraisals of in/effectiveness. The interactional behavior theme included evaluations emphasizing quali- ties such as empathy, patience, concern for the other, and listening skills. The cultural aware- ness theme focused on knowledge about cultural identity and understanding the cultural rules and meaning of the other. The latter two themes were used as indicators of in/appropriateness. To aid coding, a further theme representing personal traits was added but not analyzed, and the themes were broken down into subthemes representing the positive and negative side of each for example, good and poor cultural awareness. The communication styles theme was broken down into directness versus avoidance, and other positively perceived styles versus other nega- tively perceived styles.
The responses were reduced by the first author into separate meaning nodes or units that spe- cifically evaluated the other partys conflict behavior. Each unit consisted of a key sentence or part of a sentence that was considered to capture an important aspect of the respondents appraisal of the other partys behavior. General reflections such as when you are approaching conflict your mind is not at its clearest were omitted. The number of units for each respondent varied according to the number of evaluations expressed. The other authors, who were not otherwise involved in the first study, independently sorted each of the 96 anonymous units into a subtheme. Cohens kappas (k) for interrater reliability between the three raters for the four major themes (the main unit of comparison) were all significant, being k = .75, .80, and .85, respectively. The kappa values indicated good to very good interrater reliability, with two values on or above 0.80

Brew et al. 863 and one just below. Where there was disagreement, the majority ruled, and where the three coders
disagreed on the major theme (in only three cases), the unit was removed from further analysis.
Results and Discussion
The small number of statements coded as negative or positively perceived personality traits were not analyzed (two for expatriates, six for host-nationals). Altogether, 79.2% of the remaining expatriate comments were coded as appraisals of communication styles, 11.3% were of interac- tion management, and 9.4% of cultural understanding. For host-nationals, 28.1% of comments were coded as appraisals of communication styles, 46.9% were of interaction management, and 25% of cultural understanding. The chi-square analysis showed that the expatriate pattern of responses was significantly different than that of the host-nationals, c2(2) = 26.31, p < .0005. Typical examples of communication style appraisals for expatriates were as follows: the no answer, which is no answer at all . . . just ignore the question because the answers unpleasant; ducking and weaving round it and not getting to the point (conflict poorly handled); and keep asking questions, they obviously have a clear goal in mind; open and mature enough to talk it out (conflict well handled). Whereas host-nationals focused on the following: the expat is more blunt . . . so that in itself has created conflict; harsh . . . how the facts are presented . . . one party is wrong, one party right (conflict poorly handled); and he doesnt voice his opinion so openly; assure the person not to feel so burdened (conflict well handled). Typical examples of interaction management appraisals for expatriates were sparse but included really listening, trying to take the other persons perspective and think about it from their view (conflict well handled). For host-nationals, examples included lack of respect; [needed to have] more patience; [thinks because hes the boss] he doesnt have to listen (conflict poorly handled); and they are more patient; he is understanding (conflict well handled). Cultural understand- ing appraisals for expatriates tended to be negative, such as misunderstanding, misinterpreting my response . . . they see it as weakness to come and ask you something . . . I see it as alerting me to the issues (conflict poorly handled). For hosts, negative and positive appraisals tended to be mirror images, like he doesnt understand how the locals feel, how we behave (conflict poorly handled) and the reverse for conflict well handled. Overwhelmingly, the majority of Western expatriates focused on the method by which the other party was communicating or failing to communicate. They were concerned about vague, prevaricating language, and judged well-handled conflict as involving direct speech and clear transmission of opinions and concerns. This corresponds with the definitions of effectiveness presented in the introduction, such as the clarity constraint of individualists (Kim, 1993). On the other hand, the majority of host-nationals focused on interactional qualities (or lack thereof), such as listening, patience, and respect or cultural understanding. This supports our conceptual- izations of appropriateness as sustaining face-support and relational quality. We propose that the distinctive themes found in this exploratory data are a demonstration of the separate concepts of effectiveness and appropriateness in the competence model of conflict (Spitzberg et al., 1994). Thus, we operationalized effectiveness in the following study as a conflict- handling style having the twin elements of direct expression of opinion and constructive approach leading to an outcome, and appropriateness as a style focusing on politeness, smoothing down, and concern for the others needs. We expected conflict styles with these distinguishing proper- ties to stimulate differential assessments from Australian and Chinese students (two groups com- parable in cultural background to those in the pilot study) similar to those demonstrated in that study. Furthermore, we expected the two groups predictions of the outcome of the conflict in relational terms to confirm the hypothesized differentiation, providing backbone to Spitzberg et al.s (1994) assertion that competence appraisals of conflict behavior matter in regard to 864 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 42(5) outcome. If confirmed, support is provided for the argument that cultural expectations determine the salient aspects of these assessments. Method for Main Study Participants A total of 236 students (117 males, 119 females) were recruited from local and overseas stu- dents attending a university in Sydney, Australia, according to their stated ethnic background, either European/Anglo Australian (m = 65, f = 63) or Chinese (m = 52, f = 56). Australians of European/Anglo background were recruited as the best representatives of individualist Australian culture, and Chinese participants on the basis of having lived in Australia less than 5 years (M = 1.9