The Search for Some General Psychological Principles for Improving Intercultural Living in Plural Societies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dramatic increase of intercultural encounters that have resulted from international migration and globalisation has presented challenges for societies, their institutions and their residents. The assumption is usually made that most culturally plural societies and their members seek to engage in positive encounters, rather than having conflictual ones. There are many factors (political, economic and historical) that can promote or limit the attainment of this goal of positive intercultural relations. Beyond these societal-level factors, another set of factors are psychological; these are based on the presence of some shared underlying psychological processes that enable mutual understanding and acceptance. For over 50 years, I have searched for some of these shared psychological principles, guided by some assertions contained in the Canadian policy of multiculturalism. These assertions are the promotion of: feelings of security in a group’s and a person’s place in the society; the presence of social contacts that are mutually respectful; and the existence of multiple identities and ways of living in the diverse population. This article reviews the evidence for these principles, using data from Canadian and international studies. I conclude that this psychological research has provided support for these general principles that are derived from public policy. As a result, they are ripe for possible use in many plural societies now seeking ways to manage and improve their intercultural relations. The journey has been from policy to research, and back to policy formulation and implementation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.076 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".