Thinking like a chameleon: How diversity ideologies differentially enable cultural accommodation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Global business often demands cultural accommodation, acting according to a host country's norms. However, cultural accommodation is often deterred by the threat people can feel about betraying their heritage cultural identity. We investigate an important yet unrecognized antecedent of cultural accommodation: the ideologies that people hold about diversity, which we propose shape people's notions that their cultural identity is changeable. Across field, survey, and experimental studies, we examine how the ideology of polyculturalism (which welcomes the mutual influence of cultures over time) reduces identity threat, enabling cultural accommodation. Greater endorsement of polyculturalism by participants is associated with greater cultural accommodation (Study 1), an effect mediated by lower identity threat (Studies 2 and 4). Experimental manipulation of polyculturalism showed the same effect, supporting the hypothesized causal direction (Study 3). This effect of polyculturalism on cultural accommodation has downstream workplace effects, improving performance proficiency and social acceptance (Study 4). Moreover, our investigation did not reveal similar effects of other ideologies, colorblindness (which deemphasizes cultural differences), or multiculturalism (which emphasizes preserving cultural traditions). By illuminating how polyculturalism facilitates cultural accommodation, we highlight one means by which organizations can foster employees' effectiveness in cross-cultural work. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".