CC BY
9Volume 5 Issue 4, 2021, pp. 47-64
https://rudn.tlcjournal.org
Not 'culture' as Hofstede assumed, but 'context' is the software of the mind: The neuroscience of a dynamic, contextual, and polycultural self
by Mai Nguyen-Phuong-Mai
Mai Nguyen-Phuong-Mai Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands [email protected]
Article history Received August 12, 2021 | Revised Nobember 11, 2021 | Accepted November 29, 2021
Conflicts of interest The author declared no conflicts of interest
Research funding No funding was reported for this research
doi 10.22363/2521-442X-2021-5-4-47-64
For citation Nguyen-Phuong-Mai, M. (2021). Not 'culture' as Hofstede assumed, but 'context' is the software of the mind: The neuroscience of a dynamic, contextual, and polycultural self. Training, Language and Culture, 5(4), 47-64.
This paper reviews and discusses the neuroscience of a dynamic, contextual and polycultural self. Advances in neuroscience suggests that: (!) the brain can acquire contradictory cultural systems at the same time; (2) all three groups of bi/multi/ and mono-cultural individuals can activate corresponding cultural patterns of the self, based on the cultural cues given in a specific cultural context; (3) individuals may be born with some genetic predispositions and these interact with the cultural environment, such that the same genetic predisposition may have opposite expressions of the self in different cultural contexts. Based on these insights, future research could invest more in (!) understanding the neuroscience of polycultural and global citizens who may have a universal identity; (2) advancing new identity development models for monocultural individuals who have the potential of a dynamic, contextual and polycultural self, but don't benefit from living in a diverse cultural environment; and (3) because people can be both products and producers of culture, future research can focus on 'technologies of the self', in the sense that individuals, organisations and governments can promote human agency (i.e. people as producers/authors of culture), proactively raise awareness and support the cultivation of a dynamic, contextual and polycultural self.
KEYWORDS: cultural neuroscience, intercultural communication, multicultural identity, polycultural identity, identity development, Hofstede
G ®
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, including transformation and building upon the material for any purpose, provided the original author(s) and source are properly cited (CC BY 4.0)
Studies have long examined the impact of culture at different levels of analysis, e.g. at the 'interpersonal level' when people interact within a social context, and at the 'collective level' such as nations and organisations. However, culture is also a schema of knowledge structure within each individual. This 'intra-individual/personal level' of
1. INTRODUCTION
analysis reflects the reality of globalisation and increasingly intercultural contact. As the world is becoming more of an interconnected community, many aspects of globalisation have forced as well as allowed individuals to extend beyond their own socialised worldviews, enriching and integrating multiple cultural schemas into their identities (Cross, 1991; Hong et al., 2016).
© Mai Nguyen-Phuong-Mai 2021
This content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Volume 5 Issue 4, 2021, pp. 47-64
The topic of analysing and developing a multicultural orientation to life has gained well deserved attention in the literature. According to a review by Ponterotto and Fietzer (2014), three major lines of theory are: (1) racial identity development indicates a fluidity between statuses and stages of racial identities; (2) biculturalism and acculturation indicate dynamic processes of change (e.g. assimilation, separation, integration or marginalisation) as individuals interact with and adapt to two different cultural systems; and (3) multicultural personality focuses more on success-based adaption and moving beyond biculturalism.
From an evolutionary point of view, individuals with multiple sets of tools in their toolbox (DiMaggio, 1997) may adapt more successfully, using their dynamic multicultural mind as a buffer or a coping mechanism to deal with the challenges of the increasing intercultural heterogeneous environments (Ramirez, 1999; Ponterotto, 2010). A meta-analysis shows that biculturalism is associated with positive psychological and social adjustment such as self-esteem and career success (Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2013). While some studies pointed out disadvantages such as 'cultural homelessness' (Hoersting & Jenkins, 2011), other studies argued that these 'marginal' individuals were culturally competent, successful, creative, with a strong potential of being global leaders (Moore & Barker, 2012; Tadmor et al., 2012; Fitzsimmons et al., 2013). Based on these insights, multicultural identity has been given a new definition, as it reflects an identity that does not belong to any particular culture, but a blend of multiple cultures and contexts (Arasaratnam, 2013). This is the foundation for the recent rise of polycultural-ism (Morris et al., 2015).
Advances in neuroscience lend supportive biological foundation for the argument of a dynamic self. First of all, neurogenesis (i.e. the production of new neurons) occur mainly in two important stages of life: early childhood and adolescence. Thus, Kitayama and Park (2010) argued that the second peak around the time when individuals become ready for reproduction could reflect a biological adaption for humans to accelerate the
https://rudn.tlcjournal.org
process of culture acquisition, among others. By cultivating and selecting among different identities and self-narratives, teenagers strive to organise their cultural minds and become a cultural member of a community before they enter the reproduction market.
Secondly, neuroscience has provided more understanding of how the brain evolves distinct mechanisms for knowing the self, the development of the self and self-regulation (Heatherton, 2011). The notion of a polycultural and dynamic self has gained increasing evidence from findings on brain plasticity, epigenetics and especially how culture and specific contexts shape neural pathways. For example, we are now aware of how the brain can be primed with cultural cues, so individuals will be more likely to have a culturally corresponding cognitive, affective, and behavioural response (Hong et al., 2000; Oyserman, 2016).
This paper aims to review and discuss literature on the neuroscience of a dynamic, contextual and polycultural self by describing three major approaches to the subject. The first approach focuses on how the brain reflects a dominant culture, the second approach focuses on bi/multicultural individuals, and the third one focuses on monocultural individuals. The paper then points out the potentials and shortcomings of each approach. It continues by adding another aspect of genetic inheritance in the dynamic interplay of culture and biology in the development process of the self. The paper finishes with implications for theories and practices in an intercultural context.
2. THE NEUROSCIENCE OF A DYNAMIC, CONTEXTUAL AND POLYCULTURAL SELF
2.1. Cultural determinism approach
For a long time, the human brain was viewed as a device for mental computation. Below all the cultural variations, the deep mechanisms were universal and innate (Pinker, 2002, p. 39). This computer metaphor portrayed the human's mind as a set of algorithms with inputs and outputs, indicating the mind as fixed, bounded, and housed neatly in the head (Kitayama & Park, 2010). This section describes and discusses how this notion
by Mai Nguyen-Phuong-Mai
has evolved, and together with advances in neuroscience, has led to a dynamic, contextual and polycultural notion of the self rather than a static one.
Over the last two decades, a growing body of studies have demonstrated that the brain's connectivity and functions change dynamically as a result of experiences in cultural encounters. Studies often found heightened activity in the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) when individuals process information about the self (Northoff et al., 2006). When culture is considered, studies found that in collectivistic cultures, the self and closely connected others may overlap (Zhang et al., 2006; Chiao et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2013; Wuyun et al., 2014). For example, the MPFC was strongly engaged when Chinese participants thought about the self, but also their mother. For Chinese participants, the personal self and parents were also intertwined in the motivational system in the brain (Zhu et al., 2016). This was not the case among people of Western backgrounds who tend to embrace individualistic values (Zhu et al., 2007).
Similar findings have been reported with respect to religion. In the study of Han et al. (2010), the Buddhist doctrine of no-self resulted in weakened neural activity in the ventral part of the MPFC - a region associated with self-judgement. At the same time, Buddhist doctrine also enhanced the activity of the dorsal part of the MPFC - a region associated with reappraisal and evaluation of one's own feeling. The authors suggested that Buddhists may think about the self from a third person perspective as a result of no-self and blurring the boundary between self and others.
All together, these studies suggested that culture influences the neurobiology of the self. In fact, a great number of studies in cultural neuroscience is dedicated to this direction of research, i.e. how culture shapes the brain (Bjornsdottir & Rule, 2018). While these studies advance the field significantly, critics have voiced concerns. Building upon the foundation of the cross-cultural discipline, cultural neuroscience tends to adopt the mainstream theories of culture, for example, a school of thought led by Hofstede (1980). These
theories posit that culture is static, national values are 'as hard as a country's geographic position' (Hofstede et al., 2005, p. 13), and are very hard to change across multiple generations, regardless of global movements (Nakata, 2009; Mc-Sweeney et al., 2016). Moreover, this school of thought assumes that basic values have been programmed into a person's mind from a young age and remain stable: 'We assume that each person carries a certain amount of mental programming which is stable over time' (Hofstede, 1980, p. 14).
When applying these theories to neuroscience, cultural values become embedded in biology. Hence, it's argued that cultural neuroscience should exercise caution in picking up the traditions of the cross-cultural studies to avoid the tendency of perpetuating cultural determinism, essen-tialism, reductionism, Eurocentrism, and dichotomising. For example, by associating culture with geographical territory while blurring the boundaries between 'culture' and 'race', we may risk 'neo-racism' (Martínez Mateo et al., 2013). The monolithic view of culture as a determinant of cognition, affection and behaviours may deny the autonomy of individuals, and force them to correspond to a conceptual essence. 'An Oriental man was first an Oriental and only second a man' (Said, 1979). It's not uncommon to see studies advocating 'collectivistic brains' (Wang et al., 2013) or searching for the 'Chinese self' (Zhang et al., 2006). Such race-based terminologies have been argued to be used in a vague, inconsistent manner, and carry the potential to be misleading (Mali-nowska, 2016).
On the question of whether neuroscience could affect the lay understanding of personhood, O'Connor and Joffe (2013) argued that studies may foster essentialist representations of cultural groups, promoting a sharp 'us-them' split in which particular groups are wrongly perceived as biological 'other', thus, perpetuating stigmatisation and discrimination (Soylu Yalcinkaya et al., 2017). Similarly, Denkhaus and Bös (2012) warned that practitioners may interpret cultural neuroscience studies as evidence of well-established cultural clichés rather than mind-broadening knowledge.
Volume 5 Issue 4, 2021, pp. 47-64
In response to the critics in the previous section, some authors studying cultural neuroscience have distanced themselves from the static essen-tialist conception of 'cultural mapping', and turned their attention to its dynamic side, focusing more on the 'processes' (Denkhaus & Bös, 2012) of not only how culture shapes the mind but also how it evolves and manifests itself within each individual. This line of research is fundamentally based on the notion that culture is internalised as a loose network of shared knowledge structures and the principles of knowledge activation (Higgins, 1996) based on specific context. There are two major lines of theory in studies of this direction: (1) the dynamic-constructivist approach, and (2) the situated-cognition approach. The next two sections will discuss these two approaches and point out in what way they have advanced the understanding of a dynamic, contextual, and polycultural self.
2.2. Dynamic-constructivist approach
The dynamic-constructivist approach is pioneered by Hong (2009) and colleagues (Hong et al., 2000; Hong & Chiu, 2001; Hong et al., 2009) with a focus on bicultural and multicultural individuals. It is rooted in the assumption that human brains are biologically prepared to acquire knowledge and more importantly, can acquire more than one cultural knowledge system, even when these systems contain conflicting values and behaviours. When an individual is exposed to different cultural knowledge systems such as a multicultural society, these systems become 'available' in the cognitive inventory, and 'accessible' for individuals to 'apply' in the specific context (Higgins, 1996).
One common method to study this cultural frame switching is priming - a process that activates mental representations of a concept such as memories, thinking and doing procedures (Bargh & Chartrand, 2000). Individuals can be primed with languages such as reading a text with collective pronouns (we, they, us), individual pronouns (I, me, my), or looking at cultural icons such as the Statue of Liberty or the Great Wall. Primed bicul-tural individuals tended to respond in ways that
https://rudn.tlcjournal.org
are typical of the priming cultures. For example, in Hong et al. (2000), being shown an ambiguous event such as a picture of a fish swimming in front of a school of fish, bicultural individuals who were primed with Chinese icons interpreted it as the fish being chased (external attribution), while those who were primed with American icons perceived the fish as a leader (internal attribution). Similar findings of cultural frame switching in bicultural individuals have been reported with regard to many aspects of self-view and identity evaluation (Cheng et al., 2014). Cultural-priming effects are robust, exerting influences at both explicit and implicit level of consciousness (Devos, 2006).
Further evidence from neural studies weighed in (Chiao et al., 2010; Harada et al., 2010; Huff et al., 2013). For example, the distinction between 'self' and 'others' in the ventral part of the MPFC can be weakened or eliminated by exposure to collectivistic cultural primes (Ng et al., 2010). Interestingly, in Chiao et al. (2010), collectivistic priming led to greater self-referential activation for contextual self-judgments in this region of the brain. The opposite occurred with individualistic priming for general self-judgement. This means the same brain region (i.e. MPFC) can be activated by opposing cultural values (collectivistic vs individualistic), allowing individuals to respond in a culturally corresponding way (contextual vs general).
Thus, for bicultural and multicultural individuals, conflicting cultural knowledge systems coexist and are shifted flexibly in a dynamic process. A major contribution of this approach is that it argues against the static paradigm of culture by suggesting that culture does not rigidly determine human behaviours from the early age in form of a 'software' that does not change across generations. Bicultural and multicultural individuals experience culture as flexible, open, and ever changing, unbound by their racial, ethic, group, or national identities.
However, a major issue with the dynamic-constructivist approach is that it focuses only on individuals who are bicultural or multicultural. While globalisation has increased their population, these individuals still belong to small, distinct
Not 'culture' as Hofstede assumed, but 'context' is the software of the mind: The neuroscience of a dynamic, contextual, and polycultural self
by Mai Nguyen-Phuong-Mai
and specific subgroups. The approach does not give a clear indication of whether monocultural individuals could exercise, benefit or cultivate such a dynamic activation of cultural knowledge systems (Oyserman & Lee, 2008). While the approach breaks free from the notion that people internalise cultural values from a young age and these values remain stable throughout their life, it still hinges on the notion that long-term cultural experiences in life shape the brain, albeit this shaping is dynamic and ever changing. It leaves open the question of what opportunities and potentials there are for those who do not benefit from a life enriched with bicultural or multicultural experiences.
2.3. Situated-cognition approach
The situated-cognition approach was proposed by Oyserman and Lee (2008). They argued that individuals have access to and can adopt different culturally grounded mental representations, depending on the cue given in context. However, different from the dynamic-constructivist approach, this cue-triggered process of selection does not require individuals to be bicultural or multicultural (Kühnen & Oyserman, 2002). When culture A seems to be different from culture B, these differences are not necessarily fixed in the mind in the individuals coming from those cultures. Many seemingly fixed cultural differences are actually differences in the accessible constructs, or cultural mindsets, that come to mind when situations render them accessible. In other words, people in any society are sensitive to cues that trigger opposing values such as an individualistic or collectivistic mindset. Once this mindset is activated, individuals will process the world and behave in a particular way.
Priming has been used to examine this approach with evidence in both between-subject and within-subject studies, comparing two priming conditions of two opposing mindsets (Oyserman, 2016). For example, across diverse cultures of European America, China, Hong Kong, Korea and Norway, monocultural individuals primed with an individualistic mindset were better at ignoring
'Many seemingly fixed cultural differences are actually differences in the accessible constructs, or cultural mindsets, that come to mind when situations render them accessible. In other words, people in any society are sensitive to cues that trigger opposing values such as an individualistic or collectivistic mindset. Once this mindset is activated, individuals will process the world and behave in a particular way'
context. On the contrary, when primed with a collectivistic mindset, they were better at paying attention to relationship (Kühnen & Oyserman, 2002; Lin & Han, 2009; Oyserman & Sorensen, 2009).
Neuroscience has also provided some evidence supporting this approach. For example, Sui et al. (2013) measured neural response to face recognition. Among Chinese participants whose chronical accessible cultural mindset is collectivis-tic, when primed with a mindset of individualistic, the faces of their friends became less salient. On the contrary, for British participants who have individualistic chronic cultural accessibility, when primed with collectivism, their own face became less salient. In another study, priming collectivistic prime led to an overlap of neural response for reward activation, so that 'my reward' is also 'my friend's reward' (Varnum, 2014). Other studies also suggested results that were congruent with the approach of culture as situated cognition, such that subtle environmental cues can activate relevant cultural mindsets and their associated neural networks (Sui & Han, 2007; Jiang et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014). Impressively, this process of preparation for incoming cues occurs even in the brain's resting state (Wang et al., 2013).
A major contribution of the culture as situated cognition approach is the emphasis it places on context, or the specific situation that an individual is encountering. It argues against the assumption
Volume 5 Issue 4, 2021, pp. 47-64
that people are static products of their original culture at birth. Even without bicultural or multicultural life experiences, people can acquire, activate, and apply different mindsets, based on the cues given in the context. This resonates with what Osland and Bird (2000) called 'value trumping', that is, in a specific context, certain cultural values take precedence over others. Culture is not static, because it is embedded in the context. Not culture, but the dynamics of context contribute to the dynamics of the self.
However, context is more than cultural cues given in experimental settings. In reality, a specific context could refer to a particular situation in which there is an interplay of many factors that all together, create a unique dynamic. From an interdisciplinary point of view, context covers not only the external environment in which an individual interacts, but also her/his internal biology. The culture as situated cognition approach has gained support from neuroscience with regard to the role of the brain in dynamic responses to cultural cues. The next session brings genes into the picture, adding another element to what a context may entail, broadening the view of the neuroscience of the self and how it is developed.
2.4. Culture-gene interaction approach
The static paradigm of culture (see Hofstede et al., 2005) assumed that culture is socially learned, and people are born more or less as blank slates, ready to absorb their first culture in the form of a 'mental program'. In other words, inherited biology is not directly involved with cultural learning. However, the 'gene-culture co-evolution' theory (or dual inheritance) sees a dynamic connection between them. In essence, genes help to perpetuate important cultural traits that enhance survival (Boyd & Richerson, 1985). For example, in regions of the world with a high load of pathogens and other environmental risks, the value of collectivism and acceptance of hierarchy could be supported by the s5-HTTLPR - a shorter variant of the gene that encodes the serotonin transporter (Finch-er et al., 2008; Murray & Schaller, 2010; Chiao & Blizinsky, 2010; Fischer, 2013; Mrazek et al.,
https://rudn.tlcjournal.org
2013). This version of the gene is associated with stress reactivity and, hence, it has been argued to have played a crucial role in fostering threat avoidance and social cohesion in environments that need these cultural strategies for survival. To this day, the population of East-Asia still has twice of rate of s5-HTTLPR in comparison with other Western populations (Gelernter et al., 1997).
However, genes do not necessarily determine cultural tendencies. Genes co-evolve, but also interact dynamically with the cultural environment. The 'gene-culture interaction' theory posits that genetic influences shape psychological and behavioural predispositions, while cultural influences shape how these predispositions turn into outcomes (Sasaki et al., 2016). In other words, genes shape the possibilities and culture shapes both the selection and the direction.
For example, the 5-HTTLPR polymorphism mentioned earlier increases the likelihood of symptoms associated with depression, but this likelihood tends to happen when coupled with exposure to life stress (Caspi et al., 2003; Karg et al., 2011; Risch et al., 2009). Focusing on the same gene, Cheon et al. (2014) reported that those who had previous negative contacts with outgroups and perceived the social world as dangerous were more likely to report intergroup biases, but this relationship was stronger for those with the stress reactivity variant s5-HTTLPR. Interestingly, the same study reported that those with this gene variant showed more positive outcomes in a favourable and safe cultural environment. Thus, the 5-HTTLPR could be either positive or negative, depending on the socio-cultural environment.
A number of other studies supported the dynamics of gene x culture interplay. In Chi et al. (2016), carriers of the 7-repeat variation of the dopamine transporter gene (DRD4-7R) who came from a higher socioeconomic status were associated with higher educational achievement and thus, higher frequency of voluntary job changes. In contrast, carriers of the same variant coming from higher neighbourhood poverty were associated with lower educational achievement, and thereafter higher frequency of involuntary job change,
by Mai Nguyen-Phuong-Mai
'The 'gene-culture interaction' theory posits that genetic influences shape psychological and behavioural predispositions, while cultural influences shape how these predispositions turn into outcomes'
such as being let go. Together with this 7-repeat variation, another version - the 2-repeat (DRD4-2R) - was more associated with independence among European American carriers, but interdependence among East Asian carriers (Kitayama et al., 2014). In the same vein, the GG variant of the oxytocin receptor gene is associated with more emotion sensitivity, however in Kim et al. (2011), the behavioural outcomes were almost opposite among carriers from a Korean background (reportedly using more emotion suppression) and a European American background (more emotion expression).
Such a differential plasticity is the reason why many genes previously named 'depression' or 'risk-taking' have been re-labelled as 'plasticity genes' (Sasaki et al., 2016). Individuals with the same genetic inheritance can have different outcomes, depending on the specific socio-cultural context. Likewise, the same socio-cultural environment can create different consequences for people, depending on their genetic tendencies. How an individual perceives and expresses the self as outcomes of intercultural experiences would be a result of an interplay between both biological predispositions together with the particular socio-cultural environment. Thus, for an individual, culture is not just socially learned, but to a certain extent, could be genetically influenced (Nguyen-Phuong-Mai, 2019).
Taken together, in this section, it has been argued that the cultural pattern of the self is not static. There are many factors that contribute to the development of the cultural self. Firstly, the brain can acquire more than one cultural system, even when these systems are contradictory. Secondly, an individual can switch frames and express the
self in accordance with the cues given in a specific cultural context. Thirdly, this frame switching can occur regardless of whether an individual has bicultural or multicultural life experiences. Finally, genetic predisposition in each individual can lead to different expressions of the self even when being exposed to the same socio-cultural environment. Likewise, the same genetic predisposition may have opposite expressions of the self in different cultural contexts.
Such a dynamic view of the self suggests that we may reconsider the cultural deterministic view proposed by Hofstede et al. (2005), i.e. 'culture is the software of the mind'. As shown in the aforementioned studies, culture does not stand alone but interacts with other factors. Together, their interaction creates a specific context. The Diversity Pathways (see Figure 1) illustrate context as a dynamic interplay of five factors: (1) the opportunities and challenges posed by geographical environment; (2) the guiding power of collective culture; (3) the potentials and limits of genes; (4) the plasticity of the brain; and (5) the impact of behaviours (Nguyen-Phuong-Mai, 2017a, 2017b). Culture, as a participating factor, probably does not impose its deterministic and unidirectional power on environment, brain, gene, and behaviour. Instead, culture interacts dynamically with these factors, creating a unique context through which the cultural diversity of life is manifested. In other words, the cultural pattern of the self is not the 'consequence of culture' (Hofstede et al., 2005) alone, but the result of a much more multidimensional, holistic, complex, interactive, and dynamic interplay among culture, geographical environment, gene, brain, and behaviour. For each individual or collective, this interplay may manifest differently, creating different specific contexts, expressing different cultural patterns in reality. The power of a specific context makes even more sense if we look at the globalised world where cultural borders are constantly merged and emerged, both online and offline, for both individuals and collectives. Thus, not culture, as Hofstede assumed, but potentially, 'context is the software of the mind' (Nguyen-Phuong-Mai, 2017a, 2017b).
Volume 5 Issue 4, 2021, pp. 47-64
https://rudn.tlcjournal.org
Figure 1. The Diversity Pathways (Nguyen-Phuong-Mai, 2017b)
3. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SELF IN AN INTERCULTURAL CONTEXT
3.1. From a dynamic, contextual and polycul-tural self to global citizen and universal identity
Taking into account the insights from interdisciplinary studies, future research could take note of a number of implications. This section suggests further attention to the neuroscience of not only bi/multicultural individuals, but also those who identify and have traits of global citizen and universal identity. Next, future studies should advance identity models not only for bi/multicultural individuals but also monocultural individuals. Finally, there could be incorporation of a change agent spirit in how individuals can proactively influence and shape their dynamic, contextual and polycultural self.
The idea of a changing self is not new. In Technologies of the Self, Foucault (1988) said he didn't feel that it is necessary to know exactly what he is. The main interest in life and work is to become someone else that you were not in the beginning. Some scholars even go further by arguing that the self does not exist (Puett & Gross-Loh,
2016) - a view that resonates with the Buddhist concept of 'anatta', meaning 'no self'. Neuroscience has provided some support that there is no stable selfhood because the brain and body are constantly in flux (Dahl et al., 2015; Rosenberg et al., 2015). As previous sections have shown, individuals can acquire conflicting cultural systems and implicit cues can activate corresponding cultural patterns of self-expression in terms of cognition, affection and behaviour. More importantly, this process can occur despite a lack of bicultural or multicultural experiences.
This dynamic not only argues against essen-tialising of the self in terms of race, nationalities, gender or social class, but also suggests a potential connection with the emerging body of literature on 'global citizenship' (Reysen & Katzarska-Miller, 2013) and 'universal identity' (Kanayama, 2006). In the age of hyper-connection and increased intercultural encounters, the depth of identity may build upon and exist in parallel with other local cultural identities in the process of creative self-destruction, and as Jung (2014) argued, may invoke the transcendent function of universal uncon-
by Mai Nguyen-Phuong-Mai
sciousness. Going beyond the focus on bi/multicultural individuals, future research could give more attention to the neuroscience of those that identify themselves with a superordinate identity. This would help us gain more understanding of how a dynamic, contextual and polycultural self manifests. Although this may sound far-fetched, we could ask whether this dynamics could go beyond cultural frame-switching, even potentially reach a 'culture-free' mindset, to the extent that to be individual is to be universal (Kanayama, 2006). As Kanayama (2006) argued, through intercultural encounters, individuals don't necessarily become cultural drifters. They could become culturally fluid, achieve universal identity, and exist with others in symbiosis.
3.2. Advancing models of identity development
The neuroscience behind a dynamic, contextual and polycultural self suggests that future research could advance models of identity development. Current models are, to a certain extent, still influenced by how different cultural identities interact rather than how they synergise and exist 'in symbiosis', as Kanayama (2006) suggested. For example, the 'multiple identity development' model posits that while people may have multiple cultural identities, they are inevitably caught between them and may suffer from fragmented or marginalised self-concepts (Shih & Sanchez, 2005). Stepping away from this problem-approach, the general racial identity development models suggested that a person could achieve a stable identity of mixed races. However, this model did not allow a person to identity with multiple cultural identities at the same time (Gillem et al., 2001). In response to this critic, researchers developed many identity models specifically for people with mixed cultural backgrounds (Collins, 2000), yet these models could force individuals to choose between their different components of self.
Models with a fusion approach (Bennett, 1986; LaFromboise et al., 1993) addressed this issue, and suggested that a person can reach an integrated stage when (s)he can move in and out of
different cultural views and create a new cultural identity. However, the popular DMIS model created by Bennett (1986) indicates a linier path of development which may not reflect the complexity of how the self is socially constructed (Zafar et al., 2013). An ecological approach (Rockquemore et al., 2009) overcomes this shortcoming by recognising that cultural identities are not predictable, not linear, and not even goal-consistent. This is because the creation of the self depends on how each specific context interacts with both self-views and other-views. This model tends to resonate more with insights from neuroscience discussed in previous sections, in the sense that cultural patterns in the brain could be activated depending on a specific context in which specific cultural cues are given and a specific intercultural relation is set up. With three levels (i.e. context, self-view, and other-view), this model also allows us to understand situations in which cultural priming does not lead to the corresponding cultural patterns of thinking and doing, because self-view and other-view interact and influence the context. For example, among individuals who held an essentialist view of culture, seeing American primes may remind them of their Asian identity, and that they might never become a 'real' American. Thus, despite being primed with American cues, they would backfire, react against the primes, and respond in a typical Asian way, creating a contrast effect (No et al., 2008).
However, none of these models involves application for monocultural individuals who have less exposure to multicultural experiences. As discussed earlier, these individuals do have the potential to activate the corresponding cultural mindset associated with the cultural cue given, as long as they are aware of such cultural patterns. For those who live in a homogeneous cultural environment, using the theory of Higgins (1996) stated earlier, knowledge is not 'available' in the cognitive inventory, hence will not be 'accessible' to 'apply'. Mourey et al. (2015) gave a specific example: during Lunar New Year, Chinese participants put more food on their plates in a Chinese buffet if given plates with the design for Lunar New Year.
Volume 5 Issue 4, 2021, pp. 47-64
However, if it was not Lunar New Year, and if the participants did not know about this holiday, there was no effect.
The insight that monocultural individuals can switch cultural mindsets indicates that education should play a crucial role in creating 'available knowledge' so that learners can access and apply them, despite the fact that they are not living in multicultural environments. Intercultural education, hence, is at the forefront of the task to develop such a dynamic and contextual mind. Future studies could invest more in the development of identity models that could be applied in non-multicultural societies. One suggestion could be the insights from a rich line of research in Identity-Based Motivation theory. It posits that people's self-concepts of who they want to be will motivate and trigger them to take action towards how that identity is socially perceived (Oyserman, 2015). Literature on identity (re)construction is also abundant. For example, identity can be cultivated through discourse (Bamberg et al., 2011), self-regulation (Nurra & Oyserman, 2018) or participation in different communities (Blaka & Filstad, 2007). Moving from priming identities to cultivating identities takes time and may demand the systematic restructure and cooperation of different stakeholders. However, the immense advantage of internalising an identity that is contextual, dynamic and polycultural should not be undermined.
3.3. Human agency in neural grafting of the
self
Finally, future research could investigate how insights from mechanisms such as the culture-gene interaction, neural plasticity, neurogenesis and epigenetics could contribute to the understanding and development of the self.
With regard to culture-gene interaction, studies on the interlay of genes and cultures suggested that for those who carry a number of genotypes (e.g. the s5-HTTLPR, the DRD4, or the GG allele of the oxytocin receptor gene as discussed earlier), cultural differences may be more pronounced than others (Kim & Sasaki, 2012, 2014). For instance, cross-cultural differences of individualism vs col-
https://rudn.tlcjournal.org
'Moving from priming identities to cultivating identities takes time and may demand the systematic restructure and cooperation of different stakeholders. However, the immense advantage of internalising an identity that is contextual, dynamic and polycultural should not be undermined'
lectivism (e.g. 'European Americans as independent' vs 'Asians as interdependent') were more pronounced among the carriers of the 7- or 2-s of the DRD4 gene. However, no cultural difference was apparent among the noncarriers (Kitayama et al., 2014). Also, as cited earlier in Cheon et al. (2014), among the carriers of the s5-HTTLPR, negative intercultural experiences were associated with more intergroup biases, but positive intercultural experiences were associated with less intergroup biases, compared to those without the variant. In other words, these environmental susceptibility or 'plasticity' genes could be either positive or negative, depending on the socio-cultural environment. They could be associated with a tendency to have better or worse experiences in different cultural contexts, depending on how supportive their cultural context is.
Considered that these 'plasticity' genes are more prevalent in some regions of the world than other, for example the GG genotype is more prevalent in Europe (Kim et al., 2010), the s5-HT-TLPR in Asia (Gelernter et al., 1997) and the 7-re-peat variant of DRD4 in North and South America (Wang, 2004), there is much to explore in terms of the interaction between culture and genes. A case in point is the study of Kashima et al. (2015). Immigrants from a country with a higher frequency of the s5-HTTLPR carriers tend to have a decrease in life satisfaction compared with those from a country with a low frequency. For example, if we combine the result of this study and the finding that the s5-HTTLPR is associated with positive outcomes (i.e. reduced intergroup biases and prejudices) in a
by Mai Nguyen-Phuong-Mai
favourable safe intergroup environment (Cheon et al., 2014), then a potential hypothesis could be: will immigrants from countries with a higher frequency of the s5-HTTLPR such as Asia psychologically benefit more from a safe cultural environment and suffer more from a threatening one, compared to those from countries with a lower frequency? This kind of research could help to formulate governmental and organisational policies in terms of international mobility and supportive systems, aiming at providing the most effective cultural support for expats and immigrants in their acculturation process.
Such a proactive approach to influencing the culture-gene interaction is of immense significance because it capitalises on the change within our own power. As a philosopher, Foucault (1988) emphasised a variety of means to work and transform the self, so much so that one must become the doctor of oneself, knowing oneself well enough to be willing to renounce anything. Advances of neuroscience could add a contemporary application of Foucault's technologies of the self (Brenninkmeijer, 2010). Examples of such technologies are (1) mindfulness - a method that has been suggested to help create a more flexible sense of self and identity (Atkins & Styles, 2015); and (2) neurofeedback - a therapy that uses negative or positive feedback for brain activities, and thus, train the brain to self-regulate, for example, to help people learn open listening (Schaefer, 2018).
More importantly, technologies of the self could also be understood as the kind of self-awareness that would positively influence consequential behaviours. Take neuro-education for example. Among elementary students, a brief class visit with an introduction on brain plasticity and how their effort matters had a positive influence on student attitudes towards science and shifted their attitude from a fixed mindset to a growth mindset (Fitzakerley et al., 2013). Among seventh-graders, students who were taught that intelligence can be developed predicted an upward trajectory in grades over the two years (Blackwell et al., 2007).
In the context of intercultural communication, such a proactive approach indicates human agency in our relationship with culture. The static paradigm of Hofstede posits that as a collective, people are the 'consequences', or the product of their culture. However, viewing people as passive 'cultural dope' (Crane, 1994) may undermine our own role of authority (Swidler, 1986). Proposing a shift of paradigm, Nguyen-Phuong-Mai (2019, 2020) argued that humans are both products and producers of culture. People are shaped by their cultures, but they can also actively be change agents, re-shaping both themselves and the cultures around them. Individuals don't just passively absorb a cultural programme from young age, which is 'stable over time' (Hofstede, 1980), but they can be the programmers themselves throughout their lives. In other words, the shaping power of culture does not override the possibilities of people exercising their authority, agency and creation in the process of re-shaping cultures. People can be both the 'consequences' of their 'cultural software' and the creators of that very software.
This view also suggests a move away from the problem- and difference- focused approach which regards 'culture as a source of conflict than of synergy' a 'nuance at best and often a disaster' (Hofstede, 2001). By promoting human's agency in the shaping of culture, people can actively turn cultural diversity into resource rather than threats, potentials rather than problems (Nguyen-Phuong-Mai, 2020). As much as knowing about brain plasticity can change students' attitudes towards intelligence and personal development (Blackwell et al., 2007; Fitzakerley et al., 2013), it is argued that a similar hypothesis can be formed. We may want to know whether learning the possibility of cultivating a dynamic, contextual and polycultural self may encourage people to work towards building one. This could lead to a reduction in essentialist views, increase autonomy in dealing with self-concepts, and motivate individuals to actively advocate positive cultural change in a wider society.
Such a notion of human agency also resonates with the third major line of research on multicultural orientation of life in the review of Ponterotto
Volume 5 Issue 4, 2021, pp. 47-64
and Fietzer (2014) mentioned in the introduction to this paper. Specifically, it aligns with the 'multicultural person' construct by Nieto (2000) which advocates a behavioural activism component with teachers as role models. Other constructs in this line of research also emphasise the development aspect, or a focus on success-based adaption. For example, traits of successful multicultural personality such as cultural empathy, open-mindedness, emotional stability, social initiative, and flexibility (Van der Zee & Van Oudenhoven, 2000, 2001) can be cultivated. This indicates the crucial role of empowering multicultural education (Banks, 2014) as well as the significant impact of national policies (Novoa & Moghaddam, 2014) and organisational policies in cultural diversity (Brannen & Lee, 2014).
4. CONCLUSION
This paper reviews and discusses the neuroscience of a dynamic, contextual and polycultural self. It points out the shortcomings and potentials of different approaches in understanding how the self interacts with specific cultural contexts. Taken
https://rudn.tlcjournal.org
together, advances in neuroscience suggest that: (1) the brain can acquire contradictory cultural systems at the same time; (2) all three groups of bi/ multi and mono-cultural individuals can activate corresponding cultural patterns of the self, based on the cultural cues given in a specific cultural context; (3) individuals may be born with some genetic predispositions and these interact with the cultural environment, such that the same genetic predisposition may have opposite expressions of the self in different cultural contexts.
Based on these insights, future research could invest more in (1) understanding the neuroscience of polycultural and global citizens who may have a universal identity; (2) advancing new identity development models for monocultural individuals who have the potential of a dynamic, contextual and polycultural self, but don't benefit from living in a diverse cultural environment; and (3) advocating for technologies of the self, in the sense that individuals, organisations and governments can promote human agency, proactively raise awareness and support the cultivation of a dynamic, contextual and polycultural self.
References
Arasaratnam, L. A. (2013). A review of articles on multi-culturalism in 35 years of IJIR. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37(6), 676685. https://dx.doi.org/10.101 6/j.ijintrel.2013. 09.006
Atkins, P. W. B., & Styles, R. (2015). Mindfulness, identity and work: Mindfulness training creates a more flexible sense of self. In J. Reb & P. W. B. Atkins (Eds.), Cambridge companions to management. Mindfulness in organizations: Foundations, research, and applications (pp. 133162). Cambridge University Press. https://doi. org/10.1017/CB09781107587793.008
Bamberg, M., De Fina, A., & Schiffrin, D. (2011). Discourse and identity construction. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 177-199). Springer. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-1-4419-7988-9_8
Banks, J. A. (2014). Multicultural education and global citizens. In V. Benet-Martínez & Y. Y. Hong (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multicultural identity (pp. 379-395). Oxford University Press. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/978 0199796694.013.019
Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (2000). The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and auto-maticity research. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 253-285). Cambridge University Press.
Bennett, M. (1986). A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(2), 179196. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(86) 90005-2
Bjornsdottir, R. T., & Rule, N. O. (2018). Cultural neuroscience. In C. Faucher (Ed.), Advances in
Not 'culture' as Hofstede assumed, but 'context' is the software of the mind: The neuroscience of a dynamic, contextual, and polycultural self
by Mai Nguyen-Phuong-Mai
culturally-aware intelligent systems and in cross-cultural psychological studies (pp. 265282). Springer. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67024-9_12 Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246-263. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x Bláka, G., & Filstad, C. (2007). How does a newcomer construct identity? A socio-cultural approach to workplace learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26(1), 59-73. https://doi. org/10.1080/02601370601151406 Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process. University of Chicago Press.
Brannen, M. Y., & Lee, F. (2014). Bridging cultural divides: Traversing organizational and psychological perspectives on multiculturalism. In V. Benet-Martínez & Y. Y. Hong (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multicultural identity (pp. 417-437). Oxford University Press. https:// doi.org/1 0.1 093/oxfordhb/9780199796694. 013.021
Brenninkmeijer, J. (2010). Taking care of one's brain: How manipulating the brain changes people's selves. History of the Human Sciences, 23(1), 107-126. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/09526951 09352824
Caspi, A., Sugden, K., Moffitt, T. E., Taylor, A., Craig, I. W., Harrington, H., ... & Poulton, R. (2003). Influence of life stress on depression: Moderation by a polymorphism in the 5-HTT gene. Science, 301(5631), 386-389. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.1083968 Cheng, C. Y., Lee, F., Benet-Martínez, V., & Huynh, Q. L. (2014). Variations in multicultural experience: Influence of bicultural identity integration on socio-cognitive processes and outcomes. In V. Benet-Martínez & Y. Y. Hong (Eds.)., The Oxford handbook of multicultural identity (pp. 276-299). Oxford University Press. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/978 0199796694.013.025 Cheon, B. K., Livingston, R. W., Hong, Y. Y., & Chiao, J. Y. (2014). Gene x environment interaction on intergroup bias: The role of 5-HTTLPR and
perceived outgroup threat. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(9), 1268-1275. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/scan/nst111 Chi, W., Li, W. D., Wang, N., & Song, Z. (2016). Can genes play a role in explaining frequent job changes? An examination of gene-environment interaction from human capital theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(7), 1030-1044. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000093 Chiao, J. Y., & Blizinsky, K. D. (2010). Culture-gene co-evolution of individualism-collectivism and the serotonin transporter gene. Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences, 277(1681), 529-537. https://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009. 1650
Chiao, J. Y., Harada, T., Komeda, H., Li, Z., Mano, Y., Saito, D., ... & lidaka, T. (2010). Dynamic cultural influences on neural representations of the self. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(1), 1-11. https://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jo cn.2009.21192 Chiao, J. Y., Harada, T., Komeda, H., Li, Z., Mano, Y., Saito, D., ... & lidaka, T. (2009). Neural basis of individualistic and collectivistic views of self. Human Brain Mapping, 30(9), 2813-2820. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20707 Collins, J. F. (2000). Biracial Japanese American identity: An evolving process. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 6(2), 115133. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.6. 2.115
Crane, D. (1994). Introduction: The challenge of the sociology of culture to sociology as a discipline. In D. Crane (Ed.), The sociology of culture: Emerging theoretical perspectives (pp. 1-19). Blackwell
Cross, W. E. (1991). Shades of black: Diversity in African-American identity. Temple University Press.
Dahl, C. J., Lutz, A., & Davidson, R. J. (2015). Reconstructing and deconstructing the self: Cognitive mechanisms in meditation practice. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(9), 515-523. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.001 Denkhaus, R., & Bos, M. (2012). How cultural is 'cultural neuroscience'? Some comments on an emerging research paradigm. BioSoci-eties, 7(4), 433-458. https://doi.org/10.1057/ biosoc.2012.30
Training, Language and Culture Volume 5 Issue 4, 2021, pp. 47-64
Devos, T. (2006). Implicit bicultural identity among Mexican American and Asian American college students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12(3), 381-402. https://doi. org/10.1037/1099-9809.12.3.381 DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23(1), 263-287. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev.soc.23.1.263 Fincher, C. L., Thornhill, R., Murray, D. R., & Schaller, M. (2008). Pathogen prevalence predicts human cross-cultural variability in individualism/ collectivism. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275(1640), 1279-1285. https://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.0094 Fischer, R. (2013). Gene-environment interactions are associated with endorsement of social hierarchy values and beliefs across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(7), 11071121. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022112 471896
Fitzakerley, J. L., Michlin, M. L., Paton, J., & Dubinsky, J. M. (2013). Neuroscientists' classroom visits positively impact student attitudes. PloS One, 8(12), Article e84035. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0084035 Fitzsimmons, S. R., Lee, Y. T., & Brannen, M. Y. (2013). Demystifying the myth about marginals: Implications for global leadership. European Journal of International Management, 7(5), 587-603. https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/EJIM.2013.056479 Foucault, M. (1988). Technologies of the self: A seminar
with Michel Foucault. Tavistock. Gelernter, J., Kranzler, H., & Cubells, J. F. (1997). Serotonin transporter protein (SLC6A4) allele and haplotype frequencies and linkage disequilib-ria in African-and European-American and Japanese populations and in alcohol-dependent subjects. Human Genetics, 101(2), 243-246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004390050624 Gillem, A. R., Cohn, L. R., & Thorne, C. (2001). Black identity in biracial black/white people: A comparison of Jacqueline who refuses to be exclusively black and Adolphus who wishes he were. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 7(2), 182-196. Han, S., Gu, X., Mao, L., Ge, J., Wang, G., & Ma, Y. (2010). Neural substrates of self-referential processing in Chinese Buddhists. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5(2-3), 332-339.
doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2021-5-4-47-64 https://rudn.tlcjournal.org
Harada, T., Li, Z., & Chiao, J. Y. (2010). Differential dorsal and ventral medial prefrontal representations of the implicit self-modulated by individualism and collectivism: An fMRI study. Social Neuroscience, 5(3), 257-271. https://doi. org/10.1080/17470910903374895
Heatherton, T. F. (2011). Neuroscience of self and self-regulation. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 363-390. https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/ annurev.psych.121208.131616
Higgins, E. T. (1996). Activation: Accessibility and salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133-168). The Guilford Press.
Hoersting, R. C., & Jenkins, S. R. (2011). No place to call home: Cultural homelessness, self-esteem and cross-cultural identities. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(1), 17-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.11.005
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage publications.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M.
(2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. Mcgraw-Hill.
Hong, Y. Y. (2009). A dynamic constructivist approach to culture: Moving from describing culture to explaining culture. In R. S. Wyer, C. Y. Chiu, & Y. Y. Hong (Eds.), Understanding culture: Theory, research and application (pp. 3-23). Psychology Press.
Hong, Y. Y., & Chiu, C. Y. (2001). Toward a paradigm shift: From cross-cultural differences in social cognition to social-cognitive mediation of cultural differences. Social Cognition, 19(3), 181196. https://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.193.181. 21471
Hong, Y. Y., Chao, M. M., & No, S. (2009). Dynamic interracial/intercultural processes: The role of lay theories of race. Journal of Personality, 77(5), 1283-1310.
Hong, Y. Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C. Y., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2000). Multicultural minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55(7), 709720.
by Mai Nguyen-Phuong-Mai
Hong, Y. Y., Zhan, S., Morris, M. W., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2016). Multicultural identity processes. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8, 49-53. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016Zj.copsyc.201 5.09.020
Huff, S., Yoon, C., Lee, F., Mandadi, A., & Gutchess, A. H. (2013). Self-referential processing and encoding in bicultural individuals. Culture and Brain, 1(1), 16-33. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s40167-013-0005-1 Jiang, C., Varnum, M. E., Hou, Y., & Han, S. (2014).
Distinct effects of self-construal priming on empathic neural responses in Chinese and Westerners. Social Neuroscience, 9(2), 130138. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470919.201 3.867899
Jung, C. G. (2014). The archetypes and the collective unconscious. Routledge. https://dx.doi.org/10.4 324/9781315725642 Kanayama, R. (2006). Depth of identity: In search of a universal identity in the age of globalization. The Journal of Social Science, 57, 59-79. Karg, K., Burmeister, M., Shedden, K., & Sen, S. (2011). The serotonin transporter promoter variant (5-HTTLPR), stress, and depression meta-analysis revisited: Evidence of genetic moderation. Archives of General Psychiatry, 68(5), 444-454. https://doi.org/10.1001/archgenpsy-chiatry.2010.189 Kashima, E. S., Kent, S., & Kashima, Y. (2015). Life satisfaction in the new country: A multilevel longitudinal analysis of effects of culture and 5-HTT allele frequency distribution in country of origin. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10(1), 50-54. https://dx.doi.org/10.109 3/scan/nsu036 Kim, H. S., & Sasaki, J. Y. (2012). Emotion regulation: The interplay of culture and genes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(12), 865877. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12003 Kim, H. S., & Sasaki, J. Y. (2014). Cultural neuroscience: Biology of the mind in cultural contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 487-514. https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010 213-115040
Kim, H. S., Sherman, D. K., Mojaverian, T., Sasaki, J., Park, J., Suh, E., & Taylor, S. (2011). Gene-culture interaction: Oxytocin receptor polymorphism (OXTR) and emotion regulation. Social
Psychological and Personality Science, 2(6), 665-672. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/19485506 11405854
Kim, H. S., Sherman, D. K., Sasaki, J. Y., Xu, J., Chu, T. Q., Ryu, C., ... & Taylor, S. E. (2010). Culture, distress, and oxytocin receptor polymorphism (OXTR) interact to influence emotional support seeking. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(36), 15717-15721. https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.1010830107
Kitayama, S., & Park, J. (2010). Cultural neuroscience of the self: Understanding the social grounding of the brain. Social cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5(2-3), 111-129. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1093/scan/nsq052
Kitayama, S., King, A., Yoon, C., Tompson, S., Huff, S., & Liberzon, I. (2014). The dopamine D4 receptor gene (DRD4) moderates cultural difference in independent versus interdependent social orientation. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1169-1177. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/095679 7614528338
Kühnen, U., & Oyserman, D. (2002). Thinking about the self influences thinking in general: Cognitive consequences of salient self-concept. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(5), 492-499. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-10 31(02)00011-2
LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 395-412. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-290 9.114.3.395
Lin, Z., & Han, S. (2009). Self-construal priming modulates the scope of visual attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(4), 802-813. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470210 802271650
Malinowska, J. K. (2016). Cultural neuroscience and the category of race: The case of the other-race effect. Synthese, 193(12), 3865-3887. https:// link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-01 6-1108-y
Martínez Mateo, M., Cabanis, M., Stenmanns, J., & Krach, S. (2013). Essentializing the binary self: Individualism and collectivism in cultural neuroscience. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, Article 289. https://dx.doi.org/10.338 9/fnhum.2013.00289
Volume 5 Issue 4, 2021, pp. 47-64 https://rudn.tlcjournal.org
McSweeney, B., Brown, D., & Iliopoulou, S. (2016). Claiming too much, delivering too little: Testing some of Hofstede's generalisations. Irish Journal of Management, 35(1), 34-57. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1515/ijm-2016-0003 Moore, A. M., & Barker, G. G. (2012). Confused or multicultural: Third culture individuals' cultural identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(4), 553-562. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.11.002 Morris, M. W., Chiu, C. Y., & Liu, Z. (2015). Polycultur-al psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 631-659. https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/an-nurev-psych-010814-015001 Mourey, J. A., Lam, B. C., & Oyserman, D. (2015). Consequences of cultural fluency. Social Cognition, 33(4), 308-344. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1521/soco.2015.33.4.308 Mrazek, A. J., Chiao, J. Y., Blizinsky, K. D., Lun, J., & Gelfand, M. J. (2013). The role of culture-gene coevolution in morality judgment: Examining the interplay between tightness-looseness and allelic variation of the serotonin transporter gene. Culture and Brain, 1, 100-117. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s40167-013-0009-x Murray, D. R., & Schaller, M. (2010). Historical prevalence of infectious diseases within 230 geopolitical regions: A tool for investigating origins of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 4 1(1), 99-1 08. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0022022109349510 Nakata, C. (2009). Beyond Hofstede culture frameworks for global marketing and management. Palgrave Macmillan. Ng, S. H., Han, S., Mao, L., & Lai, J. C. (2010). Dynamic bicultural brains: fMRI study of their flexible neural representation of self and significant others in response to culture primes. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 13(2), 83-91. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2010. 01303.x
Nguyen, A. M. D., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2013). Biculturalism and adjustment: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(1), 122159. https://dx.doi.org/10.11 77/00220221114 35097
Nguyen-Phuong-Mai, M. (2017a). A critical analysis of cultural metaphors and static cultural frameworks with insight from cultural neuroscience
and evolutionary biology. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 24(4), 530-553. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-07-2016-0144 Nguyen-Phuong-Mai, M. (2017b). Intercultural communication: An interdisciplinary approach. When neurons, genes, and evolution joined the discourse. Amsterdam University Press. Nguyen-Phuong-Mai, M. (2019). Cross-cultural management: With insights from brain science. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/978020372 9915
Nguyen-Phuong-Mai, M. (2020). Fear-Free Cross-Cultural communication: Toward a more balanced approach with insight from neuroscience. Frontiers in Communication, 5, Article 14. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020. 00014
Nieto, S. (2000). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical
context of teaching and learning. Longman. No, S., Hong, Y. Y., Liao, H. Y., Lee, K., Wood, D., & Chao, M. M. (2008). Lay theory of race affects and moderates Asian Americans' responses toward American culture. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(4), 991-1004. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012978 Northoff, G., Heinzel, A., De Greck, M., Bermpohl, F., Dobrowolny, H., & Panksepp, J. (2006). Self-referential processing in our brain: A metaanalysis of imaging studies on the self. Neuroimage, 31(1), 440-457. https://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.neuroimage.2005.12.002 Novoa, C., & Moghaddam, F. M. (2014). Policies for managing cultural diversity. In V. Benet-Martínez & Y. Y. Hong (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multicultural identity (pp. 462483). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199796694.013.009 Nurra, C., & Oyserman, D. (2018). From future self to current action: An identity-based motivation perspective. Self and Identity, 17(3), 343-364. O'Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2013). How has neuroscience affected lay understandings of person-hood? A review of the evidence. Public Understanding of Science, 22(3), 254-268. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0963662513476812 Osland, J. S., & Bird, A. (2000). Beyond sophisticated stereotyping: Cultural sensemaking in context. Academy of Management Perspectives, 14(1), 65-77.
by Mai Nguyen-Phuong-Mai
Oyserman, D., & Lee, S. W. S. (2008). A situated cognition perspective on culture: Effects of priming cultural syndromes on cognition and motivation. In R. M. Sorrentino & S. Yamagushi (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition across cultures. (pp. 237-265). Academic Press.
Oyserman, D. (2015). Identity-based motivation. In R. A. Scott & M. C. Buchmann (Eds.), Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences: An interdisciplinary, searchable, and linkable resource (pp. 1-11). John Wiley & Sons. https:// dx.doi.org/1 0.1002/97811 1 8900772.etrds 0171
Oyserman, D. (2016). What does a priming perspective reveal about culture: Culture-as-situated cognition. Current Opinion in Psychology, 12, 9499. https://dx.doi.org/10.101 6/j.copsyc.201 6. 10.002
Oyserman, D., & Sorensen, N. (2009). Understanding cultural syndrome effects on what and how we think: A situated cognition model. In C. Chiu, R. Wyer, & Y. Y. Hong (Eds.), Understanding culture: Theory, research and application (pp. 25-52). Psychology Press. https://dx.doi.org/10. 4324/9781441605054
Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate: The Modern denial of human nature. Penguin.
Ponterotto, J. G. (2010). Multicultural personality: An evolving theory of optimal functioning in culturally heterogeneous societies. The Counseling Psychologist, 38(5), 714-758. https://doi. org/10.1177/0011000009359203
Ponterotto, J. G., & Fietzer, A. W. (2014). Multicultural-ism and adjustment. In V. Benet-Martínez & Y. Y. Hong (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multicultural identity (pp. 300-331). Oxford University Press. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/ 9780199796694.013.007
Puett, M., & Gross-Loh, C. (2016). The path: What Chinese philosophers can teach us about the good life. Simon and Schuster.
Ramirez, M. (1999). Multicultural psychotherapy: An approach to individual and cultural differences. Allyn & Bacon.
Reysen, S., & Katzarska-Miller, I. (2013). A model of global citizenship: Antecedents and outcomes. International Journal of Psychology, 48(5), 858-870. https://dx.doi.org/10.10 80/00207594.2012.701749
Risch, N., Herrell, R., Lehner, T., Liang, K. Y., Eaves, L., Hoh, J., ... & Merikangas, K. R. (2009). Interaction between the serotonin transporter gene (5-HTTLPR), stressful life events, and risk of depression: A meta-analysis. Jama, 301(23), 2462-2471. https://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.20 09.878
Rockquemore, K., Brunsma, D., & Delgado, D. (2009). Racing to theory or retheorizing race? Understanding the struggle to build a multiracial identity theory. Journal of Social Issues, 65(1), 13-34. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111Zj.1540-4560. 2008.01585.x
Rosenberg, E., Zanesco, A., King, B., Aichele, S., Jacobs, T., Bridwell, D., ... & Saron, C. (2015). Intensive meditation training influences emotional responses to suffering. Emotion, 15(6), 775-790. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/emo0000 080
Said, E. W. (1979). Orientalism. Vintage.
Sasaki, J. Y., LeClair, J., West, A. L., & Kim, H. S.
(2016). The gene-culture interaction framework and implications for health. In J. Y. Chiao, S. C. Li, R. Seligman, & R. Turner (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cultural neuroscience. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199357376.013.20
Schaefer, E. (2018). Using neurofeedback and mindfulness pedagogies to teach open listening. Computers and Composition, 50, 78-104. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2018.07.002
Shih, M., & Sanchez, D. T. (2005). Perspectives and research on the positive and negative implications of having multiple racial identities. Psychological Bulletin, 131(4), 569-591. https://dx. doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.4.569
Soylu Yalcinkaya, N., Estrada-Villalta, S., & Adams, G.
(2017). The essence of essentialism: Implications for policy support among dominant and subordinated groups. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 900. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2017.00900
Sui, J., & Han, S. (2007). Self-construal priming modulates neural substrates of self-awareness. Psychological Science, 18(10), 861-866. https://dx. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01992.x
Sui, J., Hong, Y. Y., Hong Liu, C., Humphreys, G. W., & Han, S. (2013). Dynamic cultural modulation of neural responses to one's own and friend's
Training, Language and Culture Volume 5 Issue 4, 2021, pp. 47-64
faces. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8(3), 326-332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ scan/nss001
Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51 (2), 273-286. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095521 Tadmor, C. T., Galinsky, A. D., & Maddux, W. W. (2012). Getting the most out of living abroad: Biculturalism and integrative complexity as key drivers of creative and professional success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(3), 520-542. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/a0029360 Van der Zee, K. I., & Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2000). The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire: A multidimensional instrument of multicultural effectiveness. The European Journal of Personality, 14(4), 291-309. https://dx.doi.org/10.100 2/1099-0984(200007/08)14:4%3C291::AID-PER377%3E3.0.CO;2-6 Van der Zee, K. I., & Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2001). The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire: Reliability and validity of self-and other ratings of multicultural effectiveness. Journal of Research in Personality, 35(3), 278-288. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.2001.2320 Varnum, M. E., Shi, Z., Chen, A., Qiu, J., & Han, S. (2014). When 'Your' reward is the same as 'My' reward: Self-construal priming shifts neural responses to own vs. friends' rewards. Neu-rolmage, 87, 164-169. https://dx.doi.org/10.10 16/j.neuroimage.2013.10.042 Wang, C., Ma, Y., & Han, S. (2014). Self-construal priming modulates pain perception: Event-related potential evidence. Cognitive Neuroscience, 5(1), 3-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/175889 28.2013.797388
doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2021-5-4-47-64 https://rudn.tlcjournal.org
Wang, C., Oyserman, D., Liu, Q., Li, H., & Han, S. (2013). Accessible cultural mind-set modulates default mode activity: Evidence for the culturally situated brain. Social Neuroscience, 8(3), 203-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/1 7470919. 2013.775966
Wang, E., Ding, Y. C., Flodman, P., Kidd, J., Kidd, K. K., Grady, D. L., ... & Moyzis, R. K. (2004). The genetic architecture of selection at the human dopamine receptor D4 (DRD4) gene locus. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 74(5), 931-944. https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/ 420854
Wuyun, G., Shu, M., Cao, Z., Huang, W., Zou, X., Li, S., ... & Wu, Y. (2014). Neural representations of the self and the mother for Chinese individuals. PloS One, 9(3), Article e91556. https://dx. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091556 Zafar, S., Sandhu, S. Z., & Khan, Z. A. (2013). A critical analysis of 'Developing intercultural competence in the language classroom' by Bennett, Bennett and Allen. World Applied Sciences Journal, 21(4), 565-571. Zhang, L., Zhou, T., Zhang, J., Liu, Z., Fan, J., & Zhu, Y. (2006). In search of the Chinese self: An fMRI study. Science in China Series C, 49(1), 89-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11427-004-5105-x Zhu, X., Wang, L., Yang, S., Gu, R., Wu, H., & Luo, Y. (2016). The motivational hierarchy between the personal self and close others in the Chinese brain: An ERP study. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 1467. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2016.01467 Zhu, Y., Zhang, L., Fan, J., & Han, S. (2007). Neural basis of cultural influence on self-representation. Neuroimage, 34(3), 1310-1316. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.08.047
MAI NGUYEN-PHUONG-MAI
Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences | Borchlandweg 6-12, 1099 CT Amsterdam, The Netherlands
