Search

Cross-border transactions are often perceived by the general public as national threats instead of rational business deals. We propose two interpretational mindsets that attenuate (transactional mindset) and agitate (categorization mindset) these culturally motivated responses. Three studies were conducted in Singapore and the United States with various cross-border acquisition scenarios. As predicted, transactional mindset, which centers around cost-benefit calculations, nudged participants to evaluate the foreign acquisition more rationally and evoked fewer social-cultural considerations than categorization mindset, which focuses on categorizing and comparison procedures, and when no mindset was primed. Furthermore, the effects of categorization mindset are particularly strong when one perceives the two transacting parties as dissimilar and when he/she identifies closely with the local culture. We conclude that while economic activities such as cross-border acquisitions can inadvertently evoke nationalistic reactions, it is possible to mitigate them or even encourage rational evaluations by influencing people's interpretational mindset. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Central to many immigration debates in the United States, past and present, are questions about what it means to be an American. In this article, I address three forms of this question: (a) What is an immigrant? (b) What is an American? and (c) What is a hyphenated American. Answers to these questions can vary, depending upon whether one is taking the perspective of the observer/host or of the immigrant himself or herself. Data suggest that neither unidimensionality nor simple dichotomy are appropriate frames for analyzing national identity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

FIREBREAKS is a nuclear war education game in which participants role play U.S. or Soviet advisors weighing possible military action in a simulated Persian Gulf conflict. As a consequence of the insights gained from the experience, game participants are expected to show (a) reduced nationalism, (b) reduced negativity toward the Soviets, (c) less reliance on nuclear solutions to conflicts. and (d) greater political activism on nuclear topics. However, on the basis of social psychological theory and research, we predicted and found that the team competition character of the game would lead to intergroup hostility and bias, thereby inhibiting the achievement of the game's implicit goals. Most players became less inclined toward nuclear activism, and U.S. team members showed more favoritism toward the United States and more negativity toward the Soviet Union as a result of game participation. We also predicted that creating a superordinate (i.e., unifying) identity before splitting players into competing teams would reduce the bias and, consequently, the negative outcomes of the game, but this manipulation was not effective. The findings emphasize the need for social scientists to provide theory- and research-based counsel to groups developing societal interventions, and the importance of doing so at the design stages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

National survey questions have been asked in the United States about the Soviet Union since 1937. with repeated use of standard global favorability questions by Gallup since 1953 and by NORC since 1974. Americans expressed declining negativity toward the Soviets from 1953 until 1974, then rising hostility until 1982–1983. with another decline between 1983 and 1988. Problems in interpreting such survey data are discussed, including discrepancies between closed and open questions. Although closed questions elicit generally negative attitudes, there is reason to question their salience and depth, just as Stouffer (1955) did in interpreting attitudes toward domestic communists during the McCarthy period. Survey data are used to explore two plausible theories about anti-Soviet attitudes in the United States: that such attitudes are (a) primarily ideological, reflecting hostility toward socialism and communism as social systems, or (b) that they are mainly a function of U.S. nationalism, indicating that the Soviets are viewed as national rivals in a competition for world dominance. The available data, although far from adequate to the task, seem more consistent with the nationalism explanation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]