GROUP

10.1177/1059601105275264
Berry, Ward
& ORGANIZATION
/ REDEFINING INTERACTIONS
MANAGEMENT

Commentary on “Redefining
Interactions Across Cultures
and Organizations”

JOHN W. BERRY
Queen’s University
COLLEEN WARD
Victoria University of Wellington

The authors make two basic points in their commentary, both stemming from the field of cross-
cultural psychology. First, in their view, intelligence is a concept that is highly variable across
cultures; its meaning, development, display, and assessment are all embedded in cultural con-
texts. Thus, they consider that a single concept such as cultural intelligence (CQ) is unlikely to be
culturally appropriate in all sociocultural settings. Second, when groups and individuals of dif-
ferent cultural backgrounds come into contact, the process of acculturation is set in motion. In
this situation, two differing meanings of intelligence are likely to engage each other, bringing
some challenges to the intercultural interaction, often resulting in stress, and sometimes in con-
flict. Eventually, some forms of adaptation are achieved, with the emergence of some effective
ways of acting in the intercultural situation. The authors believe that these two points need
attention during the further development of the concept of CQ.

Keywords: acculturation; adaptation; ecocultural; intelligence; universalism

In this commentary, we make two main points, based on more than 30 years
of research in the field of cross-cultural psychology. First, from the perspec-
tive of the ecocultural framework, we argue that the notion of intelligence is
highly culturally variable and, hence, is unlikely to be an invariant feature of
intercultural interactions; on the contrary, what is “culturally intelligent” will
be a function of the meanings and practices that have developed within the
ecosystems of the two cultures involved and of the nature of their interac-
tions. Second, we identify a substantial literature in the general domain of
intercultural relations, and more specifically on the topic of acculturation; we
then relate findings in this field to the adaptation aspects of cultural
intelligence (CQ).

Group & Organization Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, February 2006 64-77

DOI: 10.1177/1059601105275264
© 2006 Sage Publications
64

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016

 Berry, Ward / REDEFINING INTERACTIONS 65

THE ECOCULTURAL FRAMEWORK

During the years, an attempt has been made to develop a framework

within which to carry out cross-cultural psychological research (Berry, 1966,
1976; Berry et al., 1986; Mishra, Sinha, & Berry, 1996). This ecocultural
framework is a kind of map that lays out the categories of variables that need
to be examined in studies seeking to understand human behavioral diversity
in context (see Berry, 2003b, for an overview).
This ecocultural perspective has evolved through a series of research
studies devoted to understanding similarities and differences in cognition
and social behavior and is now being used as a broad approach to understand-
ing human diversity. The core ideas have a long history (Jahoda, 1995) and
have become assembled into conceptual frameworks (Berry, 1975, 1995)
used in empirical research, and in coordinating textbooks in cross-cultural
psychology (Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 2002; Segall, Dasen, Berry,
& Poortinga, 1999). Similar ideas and frameworks have been advanced by
anthropologists (e.g., Whiting, 1974) and psychologists (e.g., Bronfen-
brenner, 1979) who share the view that human activity can only be under-
stood within the context in which it develops and takes place.
The ecocultural perspective is rooted in two basic assumptions. The first,
(the universalist assumption) is that all human societies exhibit commonali-
ties (cultural universals) and that basic psychological processes are shared,
species-common characteristics of all human beings on which culture plays
variations during the course of development and daily activity. The second
(the adaptation assumption) is that behavior is differentially developed and
expressed in response to ecological and cultural contexts. In the field of
cross-cultural psychology, the first of these allows for comparisons across
cultures (based on the common underlying process), while the second makes
comparison worthwhile (using the surface variation as basic evidence). In
the field of intercultural relations, this commonality makes such relations
possible, while the variation sometimes makes them problematic (Berry,
2004).
With respect to the first assumption, in population-level sciences, such as
ethology, cultural anthropology, and sociology, there is substantial evidence
that groups everywhere possess shared sociocultural attributes. For example,
all peoples have language, tools, social structures (e.g., norms, roles), and
social institutions (e.g., marriage, justice). At the individual level, it is clear
from overviews of cross-cultural psychological research (e.g., Berry et al.,
2002) that individuals everywhere share common processes such as those
involved in perception, learning, memory, emotion, personality, and social

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016

66 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

relations. Although this view is referred to as an assumption, we believe that

it is widely supported by the research evidence.
With respect to the second assumption, it is also evident that such underly-
ing commonalities are expressed by groups in different ways from one time
and place to another; the anthropological record clearly supports the exis-
tence of this variation across societies. Similarly, there is parallel evidence at
the psychological level for variation in how these common processes are
developed and used in daily life (e.g., Berry et al., 1997). For example,
although all individuals have the competence to develop, learn, and perform
speech, technology, role-playing, and norm observance, there are obviously
group and individual differences in the development, use, and style of
expression of these shared underlying processes.
This combination of underlying similarity of processes with surface vari-
ation in behavioral expression has been given the name universal by Berry
et al. (2002). This point of view is distinguished from absolutism that tends to
deny cultural influence on behavioral development and expression and from
relativism that tends to deny the existence of common underlying psycholog-
ical processes. Of course, although variations in behavioral expression can
be directly observed, underlying commonalities are a theoretical construc-
tion and cannot be observed directly (Troadec, 2001). It is paradoxical to
note, this search for our common humanity can only be pursued by observing
our diversity. And this dual task is the essence of cross-cultural psychology
(Berry, 1969, 2000).
We turn now to a discussion of the second assumption, presenting an out-
line of our current thinking about how people adapt culturally (as a group) to
their long-standing ecological settings. It continues with a proposal about
how people develop and perform (as individuals) in adaptation to their
ecocultural situation. The current version of the ecocultural framework pro-
poses to account for human psychological diversity (individual and group
similarities and differences) by taking into account two fundamental sources
of influence (ecological and sociopolitical), and two features of human popu-
lations that are adapted to them: cultural and biological characteristics. These
population variables are transmitted to individuals by various so-called
transmission variables such as enculturation, socialization, genetics, and
acculturation. Our understanding of cultural and genetic transmission have
been greatly advanced by recent work on culture learning (e.g., Tomasello,
Kruger, & Ratner, 1993) and on the human genome project (e.g., Paabo,
2001). The essence of both these domains is the fundamental similarity of all
human beings (at a deep level), combined with variation in the expression of
these shared attributes (at the surface level). Work on the process and out-
comes of acculturation has also been advancing (e.g., Chun, Balls-Organista,

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016

 Berry, Ward / REDEFINING INTERACTIONS 67

& Marin, 2003), necessitated by the dramatic increase in intercultural contact

and change.
To summarize, the ecocultural framework considers human diversity
(cultural and psychological) to be a set of collective and individual adapta-
tions to context. Within this general perspective, it views cultures as evolving
adaptations to ecological and sociopolitical influences and views individual
psychological characteristics in a population as adaptive to their cultural con-
text. It also views (group) culture and (individual) behavior as distinct phe-
nomena at their own levels that need to be examined independently.
Within psychology, the early ecological work in the burgeoning field of
environmental psychology attempted to specify the links between ecological
context and individual human development and behavior. Cross-cultural
psychology has tended to view cultures (one’s own, and others one is in con-
tact with) as differential contexts for development and view behavior as
adaptive to these different contexts.
An advantage of the ecocultural approach is that it offers a so-called
value-neutral framework for describing and interpreting similarities and dif-
ferences in human behavior across cultures (Berry, 1994). As adaptive to
context, psychological phenomena can be understood “in their own terms”
(as Malinowski insisted), and external evaluations can usually be avoided.
This is a critical point because it allows for the conceptualization, assess-
ment, and interpretation of culture and behavior in nonethnocentric ways. It
explicitly rejects the idea that some cultures or behaviors are more advanced
or more developed than others (Dasen, Berry, & Witkin, 1979). Any argu-
ment about cultural or behavioral differences being ordered hierarchically
requires the adoption of some absolute (usually external) standard. However,
who is so bold, or so wise, to assert and verify such a standard?
As noted earlier, the sociopolitical context brings about contact among
cultures, so that individuals have to adapt to more than one context. When
many cultural contexts are involved (as in situations of culture contact and
acculturation), psychological phenomena can be viewed as attempts to deal
simultaneously with two (sometimes inconsistent, sometimes conflicting)
cultural contexts. These attempts at understanding people in their multiple
contexts is an important alternative to the more usual pathologizing of colo-
nized or immigrant cultures and peoples. Of course, these intercultural set-
tings need to be approached with the same nonethnocentric perspective as
cross-cultural ones (Berry, 1985).
Empirical work with the ecocultural framework began (Berry, 1966) with
an examination of the links between ecology, culture, and behavior. It was
elaborated into a framework to predict differential development of some per-
ceptual and cognitive abilities between hunting-based and agriculture-based

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016

68 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

peoples. The first step was to propose that the so-called ecological demands
for survival that were placed on hunting peoples were for a high level of these
perceptual-cognitive abilities, in contrast with people employing other (par-
ticularly agricultural) subsistence strategies. Second, it was proposed that so-
called cultural aids (such as socialization practices, linguistic differentiation
of spatial information, and the use of arts and crafts) would promote the
development of these abilities. As predicted, empirical studies of Inuit (then
called Eskimo) in the Canadian Arctic and Temne (in Sierra Leone) revealed
marked differences in these abilities. Further studies were carried out, and
during the course of this empirical work, the ideas became further elaborated
into an ecocultural framework. In each case, a consideration of ecological
and cultural features of the group was taken as a basis for predicting differen-
tial psychological outcomes in a variety of domains. For example (Berry,
1976), differential degrees of reliance on hunting, and variations in social
stratification (ranging from “loose” to “tight”; Pelto, 1968) and in child
socialization practices (ranging from emphases on assertion to compliance;
Barry, Child, & Bacon, 1959) were used to predict variations in the
development of these functional abilities.
Further work on perceptual and cognitive abilities (aligned in part to the
theory of psychological differentiation, particularly the cognitive style of
field dependence—field independence; Witkin & Berry, 1975) resulted in
three volumes (Berry, 1976; Berry et al., 1986; Mishra et al., 1996) reporting
results of studies in the Arctic, Africa, Australia, New Guinea, and India. The
ecocultural framework has also been used to understand sources of variation
in perceptual-cognitive development (Dasen, 1975; Nsamenang, 1992).
Although most use of the ecocultural framework has been in the study of
perception and cognition, it equally applies to the exploration of social
behavior. For example, studies of social conformity (Berry, 1979) have
shown that greater conformity to a suggested group norm is likely to occur in
cultures that are structurally tight (with high norm obligation). The relation-
ship is robust, whether examined at the level of individuals, or by using the
group’s mean score as the variable related to ecology (see Bond & Smith,
1996, for a review). A further example shows how ecocultural indicators are
related to the currently popular concepts of individualism and collectivism
(Berry, 1993). It is suggested that individualism may be related to the differ-
entiation (structural complexity) dimensions, with greater differentiation in a
society being predictive of greater personal individualism. However, collec-
tivism is proposed to be related more to the integration (structural tightness)
dimensions, with greater integration predictive of greater collectivism. It is
further suggested that when individualism and collectivism are found to be at
opposite ends of one value dimension it is because data are usually obtained

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016

 Berry, Ward / REDEFINING INTERACTIONS 69

in societies (industrial urban) where the two cultural dimensions (differentia-

tion and integration) are strongly distinguished; if data were to be collected
over a broader range, in other types of societies (e.g., hunting or agricultural)
where the two dimensions coincide, then this value opposition or
incompatibility may not be observed.
Recent work (Georgas & Berry, 1995; Georgas, van de Vijver, & Berry,
2004) has further extended this interest in social aspects of behavior. A first
study sought to discover ecological and social indicators that might allow
societies to be clustered according to their similarities and differences on six
dimensions: ecology, education, economy, mass communications, popula-
tion, and religion. The second study further examined ecosocial indicators
across cultures and then sought evidence of their relationships with a number
of psychological variables (such as values and subjective well-being).
Results showed that many of the indicators came together to form a single
economic dimension (affluence), and this was distinct from a second
variable—religion—in the pattern of relationships with the psychological
variables. Specifically, across cultures, a high placement on affluence (along
with Protestant religion) was associated with more emphasis on individual-
ism, utilitarianism, and personal well-being. In contrast, for other religions,
together with low affluence, there was an emphasis on power, loyalty, and
hierarchy values.

MEANING OF INTELLIGENCE

A contemporary review of the meaning of intelligence across cultures

(Berry, 2003b) outlines the fundamental problems with a concept (such as
intelligence) that attempts to define a human quality independent of its eco-
logical and cultural contexts. In essence, intelligence is a cultural product,
and to the extent that cultures vary, so too will the meaning and expression of
intelligence vary (for further evidence, see Sternberg and Grigorenko, 2005).
As we have noted, the ecocultural perspective first takes the position that all
human psychological processes are common, shared features of the human
species. This universalist position allows for comparisons in cross-cultural
studies and is the basis for intercultural interactions. Without these common
psychological, linguistic, and sociocultural features of human groups, no
valid cross-cultural comparisons could be made, and no sensible
intercultural interactions could take place (Berry, 2004). As we have also
seen, the second aspect of the ecocultural and universalist perspective is that
that variation is a fundamental feature of human behavior across cultures.
Such variation is rooted in the anthropological tradition of viewing cultural

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016

70 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

systems and practices as long-term adaptations to their habitats; that is,

human groups, and their cultures, vary in a coordinated way over time, so that
they achieve a more adaptive fit with their circumstances. These two aspects
of the universalist perspective (species commonality at the process level,
combined with cultural and behavioral variation as an adaptive response to
ecological context) may now be used to assess the concept of CQ proposed
by Earley (2002) .
First, he argued that CQ “is a person’s capacity to adapt to new cultural
settings” (Earley, 2002, p. 271) and as “a person’s capability to adapt effec-
tively to new cultural contexts” (p. 274). These definitions refer to the pro-
cess of adaptation and to cultural context and, hence, are clearly in the same
domain of interest as the ecocultural framework. However, from the
ecocultural perspective, although the processes may be common to all peo-
ples in all cultures, their development and performance are likely to be highly
variable. What is considered to be culturally intelligent in one culture (and
hence a goal of personal development) may well be different in another
culture.
For example, we can take the notion of respect as an aspect of intelligence
(see Berry & Bennett, 1992, where this aspect emerged as part of the core of
the Cree concept of intelligence). We assume that there is likely to be a com-
mon process in social interaction that involves respect; although it may be
present in all peoples, it may be developed differently, expressed differently,
and interpreted differently across cultures. Thus, the cultural context of
respect makes it a highly variable behavior across cultures (even when we do
not engage in intercultural interaction). When we now consider these cultural
and behavioral differences in respect during intercultural encounters, we
multiply the difficulties in attempting to define a single notion of CQ that
would work well in Culture A, in Culture B, and during interactions between
people from Culture A and Culture B. The problems with the one-size-fits-all
approach to conceptualizing and measuring general intelligence (IQ) is now
well documented. We believe that it is almost certainly a problem with the
concept and measurement of CQ, in its comparative and in its intercultural
use.
In another example, one mentioned by Earley (2002, p. 294), the cogni-
tive style of “field dependence and/or independence” is suggested as relevant
to CQ. Variations across cultures in this cognitive style were noted in the dis-
cussion of research findings using the ecocultural framework. The empirical
evidence supports Earley’s (2002) proposal that it is important in inter-
cultural interactions; however, it works in opposite ways in different cultural
groups. In the work of Kealey (1989), with international aid advisors work-
ing with partners on projects in developing countries, there is evidence that

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016

 Berry, Ward / REDEFINING INTERACTIONS 71

those who are more field dependent were more interpersonally skilled, had
greater success in transferring skills, and were more satisfied with their
intercultural involvement. In contrast, among Cree peoples in northern Que-
bec (Berry, Wintrob, Sindell, & Mawhinney, 1982), those adapting better
(with less stress) to intercultural life were relatively more field independent.
Thus, although cognitive style is a dimension that is a part of effective
adaptation to new cultural contexts, it does not work in the same way in-
dependently of a person’s cultural background.
More generally, it can be seen that a single, unitary definition of CQ may
be plagued with the same kinds of conceptual, measurement, and empirical
variations across cultures that seriously undermined the use of the IQ
construct cross-culturally. In essence, we believe that because there is no
culture-free behavior, there can be no culture-free CQ. This conclusion is
consistent with the universalist and ecocultural perspectives, which distin-
guish between underlying psychological processes, and surface behavioral
development and expression. From these perspectives, it is possible that
there is some common (perhaps metacognitive) underlying aspect to CQ;
however, we have concerns about how it is defined, and eventually mea-
sured, at the level of individual behavior in different cultures.

ACCULTURATION AND ADAPTATION

Earley (2002) drew on core concepts in cognitive psychology to redefine

interactions across cultures and to explain the process of acculturation and
adaptation. The conceptual underpinnings of his approach, influenced by
cognitive theory and research on intelligence, offer a new perspective on
intercultural encounters and the possibility of new lines of investigation on
intercultural effectiveness. However, Earley (2002) pursues the redefinition
of intercultural interaction with little reference to current definitions and with
almost no mention of three decades of international theory and research in
the area.
Two major theoretical frameworks are currently used in psychological
research on culture contact and change; they and CQ are concerned with
intercultural effectiveness and adaptation. The first is the culture learning
approach, which, strongly influenced by Argyle’s (1969) work on social
skills and interpersonal behaviors, has its roots in social and experimental
psychology. Viewed from this perspective, adaptation is understood in terms
of the acquisition of the culture-specific skills required to survive and thrive
in a new environment (Bochner, 1972). This approach overlaps to some
extent with Earley’s (2002) discussion of the behavioral component of CQ,

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016

72 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

which “reflects a person’s capability to acquire or adapt behaviors appropri-

ate for a new culture” (p. 279). However, culture-learning researchers are
less interested in the capacity to adapt than in actual learning processes
(Bochner, 1982), the measurement of the adaptive outcomes (Ward & Ken-
nedy, 1999) and the broader factors that predict sociocultural adaptation,
including previous intercultural experience, training, length of residence in
the new culture, amount of contact with host nationals, and cultural distance
(Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001).
The second major approach to culture contact and change (that of stress
and coping) has conceptualized cross-cultural transition as a series of stress-
provoking life changes that draw on adjustive resources and require coping
responses. This approach has been strongly influenced by Lazarus and
Folkman’s (1984) work on stress and coping. Stress, appraisal, and coping
responses are viewed as important elements of the acculturation process, and
adaptation is typically defined in terms of psychological well-being or satis-
faction (Berry, 1990, 1997, 2003a). The analytical framework is broad and
incorporates characteristics of the individual and of the situation that may
facilitate or impede adjustment to a new cultural milieu. Accordingly,
researchers who seek to identify the factors that affect cross-cultural adjust-
ment have examined many of the same variables as those who investigate
stress and coping in other domains. These include life changes, cognitive
appraisal of change, coping strategies, personality, and social support. With
respect to more culture-specific variables, cultural identity and acculturation
status have also been considered (Berry & Sam, 1997). There is less overlap
between stress and coping processes and Earley’s (2002) CQ approach to
culture contact as the latter is more concerned with effectiveness than well-
being; however, both approaches acknowledge the significance of individual
differences, such as self-efficacy and flexibility, that may function as assets
or liabilities during the acculturation process (Ward, 2001).
In addition to the intersection of Earley’s (2002) theorizing with long-
standing psychological perspectives on acculturation, CQ also crosses into
the area of intercultural communication. The description of a culturally intel-
ligent individual as one who is “able to adapt personal behaviors to be consis-
tent with those of others so as to put them at ease” (Earley, 2002, p. 290)
resembles the portrayal of effective intercultural communicators and evokes
reference to Gudykunst’s (1995) work on anxiety and/or uncertainty man-
agement in intercultural encounters. Indeed, communication experts have
previously discussed some of Earley’s (2002) cross-cultural propositions
about field dependence and independence and differences across high and
low context cultures and individuals in relation to effective intercultural
communication (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988).

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016

 Berry, Ward / REDEFINING INTERACTIONS 73

Although Earley and Ang’s (2003) approach to the measurement of CQ is

not discussed in this article, such a measure is currently being developed. Yet
to be answered is the question: “What is the distinction between CQ and
adaptation or effectiveness?” (i.e., between the predictor and the criterion).
Without some indication of the content or operationalization of each of these
constructs, the boundaries seem blurred. For example, Earley (2002) stated,
“CQ reflects a person’s capability to acquire or adapt behaviors appropriate
for a new culture” (p. 279), and “Adapting the behaviors that are consistent
with a target culture is an important aspect of intercultural adjustment”
(p. 280). Put in this way, CQ is dangerously close to providing the description
and explanation of intercultural effectiveness; that is, CQ is defined in terms
of capacity to demonstrate adaptive behaviors and the demonstration of
adaptive behaviors occur because of CQ. Admittedly, Earley (2002) refers to
“capability” rather than the behaviors themselves; however, it is not made
explicit as to whether the so-called capability is assessed in relation to an
actual set of adaptive behaviors or in connection with those individual differ-
ences that are assumed to underpin them. If the former, there are conceptual
difficulties with the model. If the latter, it would be useful to know how
Earley and Ang’s (2003) measure of CQ differs from other assessment tools
such as Matsumoto et al.’s (2001) Intercultural Potential Adjustment Scale,
which taps emotional regulation, flexibility, openness, and critical thinking;
Kelley and Meyers’s (1995) Cross-cultural Adaptability Inventory that mea-
sures emotional resilience, flexibility/openness, perceptual acuity, and per-
sonal autonomy; and Van der Zee and Van Oudenhoven’s (2000) Multicul-
tural Personality Questionnaire that assesses cultural empathy, open-
mindedness, emotional stability, flexibility and social initiative. All of these
instruments are concerned with individual differences that are believed to be
predictive of cross-cultural adaptation, without dependence on the
megaconstruct of CQ.
In addition to the conceptual frameworks and measurement tools that
appear relevant to CQ, Earley (2002) might well have cited (if space had suf-
ficed) a large body of empirical research, including studies that would sup-
port aspects of his model. For example, he suggested that empathy, flexibil-
ity, and self-efficacy are aspects of CQ and lead to greater intercultural
effectiveness. This contention is supported in studies by Harrison,
Chadwick, and Scales (1996), Reuben and Kealey (1979), and Ali, Van der
Zee, and Sanders (2003), just to cite a few. The vast literature on intercultural
training, including techniques such as the culture-general assimilator that
encourages the development of metacognitive strategies for understanding
people from different cultures, may also offer support to Earley’s (2002)
theorizing (Brislin, 1995).

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016

74 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

Although the notion of CQ is a novel one and perhaps comprehensive one,

it is not clear that it delivers anything other than a so-called repackaging of 30
years of theory and research on acculturation. Does the construct synthesize
and simplify theory and research on intercultural effectiveness or does it add
to the complexity and unnecessarily complicate our understanding? Only
more time, sophisticated measurements, and empirical research will tell.
Although Earley (2002) proposed a comprehensive model for understanding
intercultural adaptation, it is largely unintegrated with existing theory and
research. Its main contribution is that we now have a new perspective that
takes into account fundamental-cognitive and motivational factors that have
largely been neglected in the field.

REFERENCES

Ali, A., Van der Zee, K. I., & Sanders, G. (2003). Determinants of intercultural adjustment
among expatriate spouses. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 563-558.
Argyle, M. (1969). Social interaction. London: Methuen.
Barry, H., Child, I., & Bacon, M. (1959). Relations of child training to subsistence economy.
American Anthropologist, 61, 51-63.
Berry, J. W. (1966). Temne and Eskimo perceptual skills. International Journal of Psychology,
1, 207-229.
Berry, J. W. (1969). On cross-cultural comparability. International Journal of Psychology, 4,
119-128.
Berry, J. W. (1975). An ecological approach to cross-cultural psychology. Nederlands
Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie, 30, 51-84.
Berry, J. W. (1976). Human ecology and cognitive style: Comparative studies in cultural and
psychological adaptation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Berry, J. W. (1979). A cultural ecology of social behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 177-206). New York: Academic Press.
Berry, J. W. (1985). Cultural psychology and ethnic psychology. In I. R. Lagunes, &
Y. Poortinga (Eds.), From a different perspective (pp. 3-15). Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets &
Zeitlinger.
Berry, J. W. (1990). The psychology of acculturation: Understanding individuals moving
between cultures. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Applied cross-cultural psychology (pp. 232-253).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Berry, J. W. (1993). Ecology of individualism and collectivism. In U. Kim, C. Kagitcibasi, H. C.
Triandis, & S. C. Choi (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism (pp. 77-84). London: Sage.
Berry, J. W. (1994). An ecological approach to cultural and ethnic psychology. In E. Trickett
(Ed.), Human diversity (pp. 115-141). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Berry, J. W. (1995). The descendants of a model. Culture and Psychology, 1, 373-380.
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An Inter-
national Review, 46, 5-34.
Berry, J. W. (2000). Cross-cultural psychology: A symbiosis of cultural and comparative
approaches. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 197-205.

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016

 Berry, Ward / REDEFINING INTERACTIONS 75

Berry. J. W. (2003a). Conceptual approaches to acculturation. In K. Chun, P. Balls-Organista, &

G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation (pp. 17-37). Washington, DC: APA Press.
Berry, J. W. (2003b). An ecocultural perspective on the development of competence. In R. J.
Sternberg & E. Grigorenko (Eds.), Culture and competence (pp. 3-22). Washington, DC:
APA Books.
Berry, J. W. (2004). Fundamental psychological processes in intercultural relations. In
D. Landis, J. Bennett, & M. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (3rd ed.,
pp. 166-184). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Berry, J. W., & Bennett, J. A. (1992). Cree conceptions of cognitive competence. International
Journal of Psychology, 24, 429-450.
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, H. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P.R. (2002). Cross-cultural psychology:
Research and applications (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Pandey, J., Dasen, P. R., Saraswathi, T. S., Segall, M. H., et al.
(1997). Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (3 vols.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Berry, J. W., & Sam, D. (1997). Acculturation and adaptation. In J. W. Berry, M. H. Segall, &
C. Kagitçibasi (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Vol. 3. Social behavior and
applications (pp. 291-326). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Berry, J. W., van de Koppel, J. M. H., Sénéchal, C., Annis, R. C., Bahuchet, S., Cavalli-Sforza,
L. L., et al. (1986). On the edge of the forest: Cultural adaptation and cognitive development
in central Africa. Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Berry, J. W., Wintrob, R., Sindell, P., & Mawhinney, T. (1982). Psychological adaptation to cul-
ture change among the James Bay Cree. Naturaliste Canadien, 109, 965-975.
Bochner, S., (1972). Problems in culture learning. In S. Bochner & P. Wicks (Eds.), Overseas
students in Australia (pp. 65-81). Sydney, Australia: New South Wales University Press.
Bochner, S. (1982). The social psychology of cross-cultural relations. In S. Bochner (Ed.), Cul-
tures in contact: Studies in cross-cultural interaction (pp. 5-44). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Bond, R., & Smith, P. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
119, 111-137.
Brislin, R. W. (1995). The culture-general assimilator. In S. Fowler & M. G. Mumford (Eds.),
Intercultural sourcebook: Cross-cultural training methods (Vol. 1, pp. 169-178). Yarmouth,
MN: Intercultural Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Chun, K., Balls-Organista, P., & Marin, G. (Eds.). (2003). Acculturation. Washington, DC: APA
Books.
Dasen, P. R. (1975). Concrete operational development in three cultures. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 6, 156-172.
Dasen, P. R., Berry, J. W., & Witkin, H. A. (1979). The use of developmental theories cross-
culturally. In L. Eckensberger, W. Lonner, & Y. Poortinga (Eds.), Cross-cultural contribu-
tions to psychology (pp. 69-82). Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Earley, P. C. (2002). Redefining interactions across culture and organisations: Moving forward
with cultural intelligence. Research on Organisational Behaviour, 24, 271-299.
Early, C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Georgas, J., & Berry, J. W. (1995). An ecocultural taxonomy for cross-cultural psychology.
Cross-Cultural Research, 29, 121-157.
Georgas, J., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Berry, J. W. (2004). The ecocultural framework, ecosocial
indicators and psychological variables in cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 35, 74-96.

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016

76 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

Gudykunst, W. (1995). Anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory. In R. L. Wiseman

(Ed.), Intercultural communication theory (pp. 8-58). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and interpersonal communication.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Harrison, J. K., Chadwick, M., & Scales, M. (1996). The relationship between cross-cultural
adjustment and the personality variables of self-efficacy and self-monitoring. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 167-188.
Jahoda, G. (1995). The ancestry of a model. Culture and Psychology, 1, 11-24.
Kealey, D. (1989). A study of cross-cultural effectiveness: Theoretical issues, practical applica-
tions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 387-428.
Kelley, C., & Meyers, J. E. (1995). The Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory manual. Minne-
apolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, coping and appraisal. New York: Springer.
Matsumoto, D., LeRoux, J. A., Ratlaff, C., Tatani, H., Uchida, H., Kim, C., et al. (2001). Devel-
opment and validation of a measure of intercultural adjustment potential in Japanese sojourn-
ers: The Intercultural Adjustment Potential Scale (ICAPS). International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 25, 1-28.
Mishra, R. C., Sinha, D., & Berry, J. W. (1996). Ecology, acculturation and psychological adap-
tation: A study of Advasi in Bihar. Delhi, India: Sage.
Nsamenang, B. (1992). Human development in cultural context. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Paabo, S. (2001). The human genome and our view of ourselves. Science, 291, 1219-1220.
Pelto, P. (1968). The difference between “tight” and “loose” societies. Transaction, 5, 37-40.
Ruben, B. D., & Kealey, D. J. (1979). Behavioral assessment of communication competency and
the prediction of cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
3, 15-47.
Segall, M. H., Dasen, P. R., Berry, J. W., & Poortinga, Y. H. (1999). Human behavior in global
perspective: An introduction to cross-cultural psychology (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2005). Cultural intelligence and successful intelligence.
Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 27-39.
Tomasello, M., Kruger, A., & Ratner, H. (1993). Culture learning. Behavioral and Brain Sci-
ences, 16, 495-552.
Troadec, B. (2001). Le modèle écoculturel: Un cadre pour la psychologie culturelle comparative
[The ecocultural model: A framework for cross-cultural psychology]. International Journal
of Psychology, 36, 53-64.
Van der Zee, K. I., & Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2000). The Multi-Cultural Personality Question-
naire: A multi-dimensional instrument of multicultural measure of multicultural effective-
ness. European Journal of Personality, 14, 291-309.
Ward, C. (2001). The ABCs of acculturation. In D. Matsumoto (Ed.), The handbook of culture
and psychology (pp. 411-445). New York: Oxford University Press.
Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock. London:
Routledge.
Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1999). The measurement of sociocultural adaptation. International
Journal of Intercultural Relation, 56, 1-19.
Whiting, J. W. M. (1974). A model for psychocultural research [Annual report]. Washington,
DC: American Anthropological Association.
Witkin, H., & Berry, J. W. (1975). Psychological differentiation in cross-cultural perspective.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 6, 4-87.

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016

 Berry, Ward / REDEFINING INTERACTIONS 77

John W. Berry is professor emeritus of psychology at Queen’s University, Canada. He

obtained his Ph.D. at the University of Edinburgh in 1966 and received honorary doctor-
ates from the University of Athens and Universite de Geneve in 2001. He is a Fellow of
the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, the International Acad-
emy of Intercultural Research, and the Canadian Psychological Association.

Colleen Ward is a professor of psychology and director of the Center for Applied Cross-
Cultural Research at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Her major
research interest is in acculturation, and she is coauthor (W. S. Bochner and A.
Furnham) of The Psychology of Culture Shock.

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016