Received: 14 March 2021

| Accepted: 13 May 2021

DOI: 10.1111/apps.12332

INVITED LEAD ARTICLE

How shall we all live together?: Meta-­analytical

review of the mutual intercultural relations in plural
societies project

John W. Berry1,2 | Zarina Lepshokova2 | MIRIPS Collaboration |

Dmitry Grigoryev2

1
Department of Psychology, Queen's
University, Kingston, Canada Abstract
2
Center for Sociocultural Research, Living together in culturally plural societies poses numer-
National Research University Higher ous challenges for members of ethnocultural groups and
School of Economics, Moscow, Russian
Federation
for the larger society. An important goal of these socie-
ties is to achieve positive intercultural relations among all
Correspondence their peoples. Successful management of these relations
Dmitry Grigoryev, National Research
University Higher School of Economics, depends on many factors including a research-­based un-
20 Myasnitskaya Ulitsa, 101000, Moscow, derstanding of the historical, political, economic, religious
Russian Federation.
and psychological features of the groups that are in contact.
Email: [email protected]
The core question is ‘how we shall we all live together?’
Funding information In the project reported in this paper (Mutual Intercultural
This article is an output of a research
Relations in Plural Societies; MIRIPS), we seek to pro-
project implemented as part of the Basic
Research Program at the National Research vide such research by reviewing three core psychological
University Higher School of Economics hypotheses of intercultural relations (multiculturalism,
(HSE University)
contact and integration) in 21 culturally plural societies.
The main goal of the project is to evaluate these hypoth-
eses across societies within the MIRIPS project in order
to identify if there are some basic psychological principles
that underlie intercultural relations panculturally. If there
are, the eventual goal is to employ the findings to propose
some policies and programmes that may improve the qual-
ity of intercultural relationship globally. An internal meta-­
analysis using the MIRIPS project data showed that the
empirical findings from these societies generally support
the validity of the three hypotheses. Implications for the

© 2021 International Association of Applied Psychology

1014 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/apps Applied Psychology. 2022;71:1014–1041.

VIRTUALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS 1015

development of policies and programmes to enhance the

quality of intercultural relations are discussed.

KEYWORDS
acculturation, adaptation, cultural diversity, integration, intercultural
relations, intergroup contact, multiculturalism

I NT RO D U C TIO N

Achieving mutual accommodation among cultural groups is a goal that citizens and policy-­makers
in most culturally diverse societies are now seeking to achieve (Berry & Sam, 2013). The presence
of many immigrants, ethnocultural groups, national minorities, and Indigenous Peoples presents sit-
uations and challenges that everyone must now seek to understand and navigate in order to achieve
a harmonious society. The core question of ‘how shall we all live together?’ may be answered by
examining what policies and practices have been attempted in different countries, and by carrying out
research to discover whether these policies and practice are working elsewhere. Indeed, such an inter-
national examination may well lead to evidence of some general principles of how best to engage in
intercultural relations. If there are such general principles to be found, it is possible to share them with
policy makers in the domains of immigration and settlement, and with social and psychological ser-
vice providers who work with both the non-­dominant and dominant members of these larger societies.
Previous research on this question has provided some leads, but gaps remain. We know that in-
tergroup contact may lead to more positive relations (e.g. Paluck et al., 2019; Pettigrew & Tropp,
2011), and that discrimination leads to negative relations and poor wellbeing (e.g. Carter et al., 2019;
Paradies, 2006; Paradies et al., 2015). We also know that when individuals are able to engage in the
integration strategy (Berry, 1997), and identify with more than one culture, they achieve more har-
monious intercultural relations and have better personal wellbeing (e.g. Berry et al., 2006). Although
some of these findings have been drawn from a number of different areas of the world, they represent
only a small fraction of the evidence needed to respond to the need for some general principles that
might be applicable in many other societies. Moreover, much of this evidence is drawn from samples
that are non-­dominant (minorities) in their societies, and much less is known about the ways that
dominant groups (majorities) may be adapting to these complex intercultural arenas. In an attempt to
remedy these problems, we have designed a project that is international in scope and that includes both
non-­dominant and dominant samples. The expectation is that we may uncover some general principles
of intercultural relations that may be mutual and apply to both kinds of groups.
This paper begins with a presentation of the goal of a project ‘Mutual Intercultural Relations in Plural
Societies’ (MIRIPS; see Berry, 2017, and http://www.victo​ria.ac.nz/cacr/resea​rch/mirips), including a
statement of the guiding hypotheses. It then provides an overview of some previous psychological ap-
proaches and research on the issues, set within the joint fields of cross-­cultural and intercultural psychol-
ogy. A research framework is used to show the main concepts and components of the research, including
the background factors that are considered to be antecedent to three main outcomes: sociocultural, psy-
chological and intercultural adaptation. The method and results follow, including a short summary of
some previous analyses of the MIRIPS data, and a new meta-­analysis of them. The paper concludes with
a discussion of these findings, and with some thoughts about their implications for policy and practice.
This paper reports on a meta-­analytical review of the MIRIPS project. We propose and empirically
examine three core psychological hypotheses of intercultural relations: multiculturalism; contact; and
integration. This research was carried out across 21 culturally plural societies: Azerbaijan, Belgium,
1016 BERRY Et al.

Canada, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia,
Lithuania, Malta, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Switzerland and Tajikistan. The first goal of the
project is to evaluate these three hypotheses of intercultural relations across these societies. The sec-
ond goal is to examine the findings to see whether they constitute some ‘universal’ principles of inter-
cultural relations that may be applied in many societies. If they are, it may be possible to propose some
policies and programmes to improve the quality of intercultural relationships globally.
The design of the project is an exercise in replication across contexts in order to discern what may
be culturally universal and what may be culturally specific in how diverse groups of peoples engage in
their intercultural relations. Across the whole project, these replications were carried out with a shared
conceptualisation and a common research instrument. However, the project employed culturally ap-
propriate operationalisations of the concepts and methods with the highly varied samples.
The three hypotheses that are evaluated in the MIRIPS project are:

1. Multiculturalism hypothesis: When individuals feel secure in their place in a society, they
will be able to better accept those who are different from themselves; conversely when in-
dividuals feel threatened, they will reject those who are different.
2. Contact hypothesis: When individuals have contact with, and engage with those who are culturally
different from themselves, under certain conditions, they will achieve greater mutual acceptance.
3. Integration hypothesis: When individuals identify with and are socially connected to, both their
heritage culture and to the larger society in which they live, they will achieve higher levels of mu-
tual adaptation than if they relate to only one or the other culture, or to neither culture.

Psychological approaches to intercultural relations

The MIRIPS project focuses on the psychological aspects of intercultural relations, but takes into ac-
count some of the social and political contextual features of the larger societies and of the interacting
groups within them. The study is situated within the broad field of cross-­cultural psychology, which
seeks to discover whether individual human behaviours are shaped by the cultural contexts in which
they develop (Berry et al., 2011). The eventual goal is to achieve a set of universal psychological
principles that underlie human behaviour globally. By universal, we mean: (i) a phenomenon that
shares a common, species-­wide substrate of psychological processes and functioning and also (ii) a
phenomenon that exhibits behavioural variations across cultures as a result of this substrate being dif-
ferentially developed and expressed in daily life in the society.
The project is also situated in the field of intercultural psychology (Sam & Berry, 2016). This
field deals with the question: If individual behaviours are shaped in particular cultural contexts, what
happens when individuals who have developed in different cultural contexts meet and interact within
another society? There are two domains of psychological interest here: (i) ethnocultural group rela-
tions and (ii) acculturation.
In both these domains, there has been a bias in the focus of research. In the first domain, studies
have usually examined the views and behaviours of the dominant group toward the non-­dominant
group, with little examination of the attitudes of the non-­dominant groups toward the dominant group.
In the second domain, the usual interest has been in the ways that non-­dominant groups acculturate
the following contact, with almost no interest in the changes taking place among the dominant group.
That is, in both domains, there has been a ‘one-­way’ examination of these phenomena, with almost no
examination of the mutual relationships, thereby providing an incomplete view of the complexity of
VIRTUALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS 1017

these intercultural phenomena. This bias has been noted by Berry (2006) and by Ward et al. (2017),
who argued that these two domains are intimately entwined, and that they require research in both
directions in order to provide a complete view of these intercultural phenomena. To remedy this bias
and lack, the MIRIPS study has examined the intercultural views of both kinds of groups in contact,
using the same concepts and measures with both dominant and non-­dominant groups.

General framework for the MIRIPS project

The MIRIPS project is guided by a framework that identifies the main concepts and variables, and
suggests their inter-­relationships (see Figure 1). This figure shows five kinds of acculturation and
intercultural relations phenomena: (1) the characteristics of the two or more cultural groups (A and
B) prior to contact; (ii) the nature of the contact between them; (iii) the cultural changes that are tak-
ing place in both groups (iv) the psychological changes experienced by individuals in both groups in
contact, and (v) the longer-­term adaptations that may be achieved.
At the cultural group level (on the left of Figure 1), we seek to understand crucial features of the
two (or more) original cultural groups prior to their major contact, the nature of their initial and con-
tinuing contact relationships, and the resulting dynamic cultural changes in the groups as they emerge
as ethnocultural groups during the process of acculturation. These cultural changes can range from
being rather easily accomplished (such as evolving a new economic base), through to being a source
of major cultural disruption (as a result of becoming colonised or enslaved).
At the individual level (in the middle), we consider the psychological acculturation that individuals
in all groups in contact undergo. Identifying these changes requires sampling a population and studying
individuals who are variably involved in the process of acculturation. The figure shows three kinds of
psychological changes resulting from contact: behavioural; stress; and strategies. Behavioural changes
can be a set of rather easily accomplished changes (e.g. in ways of speaking, dressing, and eating) or
they can be more difficult to accomplish (e.g. changes in identities, self-­concept and values). Second
are changes that are due to acculturation experiences that are challenging, even problematic, in which
acculturative stress becomes manifest. Third, individuals also develop and engage in acculturation
strategies and expectations (Berry, 1980) as their preferred way to acculturate and relate to each other.

FIGURE 1 General framework for the MIRIPS Project

1018 BERRY Et al.

Following these three kinds of psychological changes are some longer-­term outcomes, referred to
as adaptations (on the right). Three kinds of adaptations have been discerned: psychological, socio-
cultural and intercultural. Ward (1996) distinguished between psychological adaptation and socio-
cultural adaptation. The first refers to adaptations that are primarily internal or psychological (e.g.
sense of personal well-­being and self-­esteem, sometimes referred to as ‘feeling well’). The second are
sociocultural and are sometimes called ‘doing well’. This form of adaptation is manifested by com-
petence in carrying out the activities of daily intercultural living (such as in the community, at work
and in school). A third is intercultural adaptation (Berry, 2005), which refers to the extent to which
individuals are able to establish harmonious intercultural relations, with low levels of prejudice and
discrimination (‘relating well’).

Intercultural strategies and expectations

One concept that is central to, and underlies all aspects of acculturation and intercultural relations
phenomena is the way in which people seek to relate to each other in culturally plural societies. As
noted above, these are the strategies and expectations that all groups and their individual members
have and use, whether acknowledged explicitly or just implicitly, when they acculturate and engage
in intercultural relations. These strategies and expectations can be held by both the dominant and non-­
dominant individuals and groups that are in contact.
They are based on three underlying issues: (i) the degree to which there is a desire to maintain the
group's culture and identity; (ii) the degree to which there is a desire to engage in daily interactions with
other groups in the larger society, including both dominant and non-­dominant one(s); and (iii) the rela-
tive power of the groups in contact to choose their preferred way of engaging each other (Berry, 1980).
Four ways of living together have been derived from the first two issues facing all peoples living in
plural societies (see Figure 2). There are two sets of concepts, one for the strategies of non-­dominant
groups and their individual members (on the left); how do they wish to live interculturally? The other
is the expectations of dominant groups in the larger society and of their individual members (on the
right); how do they think that non-­dominant groups and individuals should live interculturally? The
power relations between these two sectors of the population in a plural society are present in the differ-
ences between these strategies and expectations. Typically, the dominant group has more power than
the non-­dominant group to decide on the policies and practices that are operating in the plural society.
This framework may be used to conceptualise and assess the various preferences of both the non-­
dominant and dominant groups with respect to how they want to live together. These two components
of the society may respond to these two issues by being positive through to being negative to them.
When combined, their responses give rise to four sectors, carrying different names for the two kinds
of groups. From the point of view of the non-­dominant ethnocultural groups, they can prefer one or
the other option (by seeking assimilation or separation), neither (marginalisation) or both (by integra-
tion). From the point of view of members of the dominant larger society, they can also seek one way
(melting pot or segregation), neither (by exclusion) or by seeking both (multiculturalism). Studies that
examine both kinds of groups at the same time, can observe the similarities and differences between
them. These strategies and expectations are not fixed, but change over time; individuals and groups
explore the most satisfactory way to live together, and develop programmes and policies by which to
pursue them.
However, in most studies, no assessment is made of the acculturation strategies of members of
dominant groups. To remedy this lack, recent work has gone beyond the study of the expectations that
members of dominant groups have about how they prefer non-­dominant group members to acculturate
VIRTUALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS 1019

FIGURE 2 Acculturation strategies and expectations among ethnocultural groups and the larger society

to examine their views about how they, themselves, prefer to acculturate in their increasingly diverse
societies (Haugen & Kunst, 2017; Kunst et al., 2021; Lefringhausen et al., 2021). The question in
these studies is the extent to which dominant group members wish to have contact with, and adopt
aspects of, the non-­dominant cultures. With this approach, comparisons can be made between the ac-
culturation strategies of the two groups in contact. Erten et al. (2018) have developed a dynamic model
based on a process analogous to genetic evolution to investigate the dynamics of cultural change that
result from migration. Considering the acculturation orientations that are present in the society, the
results of their dynamic modelling showed that a stable coexistence of multicultural societies is more
likely when their members establish interactions with the larger society, but host society members
simultaneously maintain their culture more strongly than immigrants do (see also Mesoudi, 2018).
Since these two kinds of groups in the plural society do not have equal power (Berry, 1980), the
third element of the framework considers the impact on intercultural relations of the similarities and
differences between their strategies and expectations. The expectations of the dominant group usually
constrain or promote the adoption of the strategies of the non-­dominant groups. This interaction be-
tween strategies and expectations gives rise to relationships that can vary from being harmonious to
conflictual between the various groups (Berry, 1990; Bourhis et al., 1997).
The development of these concepts and their measurement has taken place over the past 40 years
(starting with Berry [1974, 1980]). The terms used and the measurements employed have evolved,
such that there is now a vast research literature that seeks to expand the core issues in this research area
(e.g. van de Vijver et al., 2016; Ward & Kus, 2012). One important issue is that the national intercul-
tural policy needs to be taken into account when examining variations in both acculturation strategies
and expectations (Bourhis et al., 1997). Some other authors have raised questions about the domain
specificity of the concept, proposing that the preferred ways of acculturating may vary according to
the life domains (such as private/public, personal/institutional) being examined (e.g. Navas et al.,
2005; Salo & Birman, 2015; Snauwaert et al., 2003). There have also been criticisms of the psycho-
metric properties of the scales, particularly whether the four scales and two dimensions are indepen-
dent of each other (e.g. Birman & Trickett, 2001; Demes & Geeraert, 2014; Rudmin, 2009; Ryder
et al., 2000). However, given the degree to which researchers have paid attention to these concepts
(e.g. Sam & Berry, 2016), they can be seen as having substantial face validity and practical utility.
1020 BERRY Et al.

Hypotheses

Three hypotheses are evaluated in this project: the multiculturalism hypothesis; the contact hypoth-
esis; and the integration hypothesis. These hypotheses have been derived from the multiculturalism
policy advanced by the Federal Government of Canada (1971). This policy promotes both the (i)
maintenance of groups’ cultural heritages, as well as (ii) social interaction and cultural sharing among
all groups. These two planks of the policy resemble the first two issues in the strategies framework.
The multiculturalism hypothesis stems from a statement in the policy that asserts that when indi-
viduals are confident in their cultural identity and their place in society, this will lead to the acceptance
of others who differ from themselves. This confidence is rooted in the cultural maintenance plank of
the policy. That is, the maintenance of heritage culture and identity by individuals and groups serves
to provide a secure place from which to accept others in the larger society (Berry et al., 1977, p. 192),
and to achieve mutual accommodation to each other. In contrast, when the cultural place of a person or
group in society is challenged or threatened, then negative attitudes are likely to result (see intergroup
threat theory, Stephan & Stephan, 2018).
The concept of security has been expanded over the years, and now involves the three phenomena
of cultural, economic and personal security. The first concerns issues such as language and identity;
the second includes a person's status in society such as employment and income; the third examines
individuals’ sense of safety to move around in their neighbourhood and society.
In sum, the multiculturalism hypothesis proposes that having a sense of security is a necessary
basis for the acceptance of those of other backgrounds whom individuals encounter in the daily life
of their plural society.
The contact hypothesis is one of the most enduring ideas in the field of intergroup relations (Christ
& Kauff, 2019; Dovidio et al., 2017; Pauluck et al., 2019; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). This hypothesis
derives from the second link in the policy framework, which proposes that intercultural contact and
sharing will promote mutual acceptance.
The contact hypothesis was advanced by Allport (1954) who asserted that contact between mem-
bers of minority and majority groups would reduce prejudice between them. However, this was likely
to be the case only in some circumstances: when the groups are of social and economic equal status;
when contact is voluntary; and when there are norms in the society that promote intergroup contact.
Much research has been carried out over the years that provides support for the positive effects of
contact (see meta-­analysis by Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011).
In sum, the contact hypothesis proposes that under certain conditions, more intercultural contact
will be associated with more mutual acceptance. Specifically, more contact will predict higher multi-
cultural ideology and a preference for integration.
The integration hypothesis proposes that when individuals and groups seek integration (by being
doubly or multiply engaged in both their heritage cultures and with other groups in the larger society)
they will be more successful in achieving a higher level of adaptation than if they engage only one
or the other of the cultural groups. This hypothesis derives from the intersection between the two
planks of the policy (maintenance and participation). Much research has demonstrated that the inte-
gration strategy is usually associated with better psychological wellbeing (e.g. Berry & Hou, 2016;
Berry et al., 2006). Based on a review of numerous studies, Berry (1997) made the generalisation
that integration was the most successful strategy for both psychological wellbeing and sociocultural
adaptation. This generalisation has been examined in a meta-­analysis by Nguyen and Benet-­Martinez
(2013) who concluded that integration (‘biculturalism’ in their terms) was associated with the most
positive outcomes for migrants’ wellbeing; an updated meta-­analysis also supported the findings (see
Stogianni et al., 2021).
VIRTUALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS 1021

In sum, the integration hypothesis proposes that when individuals prefer the integration strategy
or have the multiculturalism expectation (i.e. when they are doubly or multiply engaged), they will
achieve higher scores on psychological and sociocultural adaptation.
To operationalise these three hypotheses, we selected the following core variables:
1. Multiculturalism Hypothesis. Security is positively associated with multicultural ideology
and tolerance; discrimination is negatively associated with multicultural ideology and tolerance. The
three kinds of feelings of security (cultural, economic and personal) are considered to constitute the
positive conditions under which individuals will be able to accept and interact with those of other
cultural backgrounds; in contrast, the experience of discrimination against ones group and oneself will
undermine this confidence and lead to the rejection of others.
2. Contact Hypothesis. Contact is positively associated with integration and multicultural ideol-
ogy. Having friends from other cultural groups, and experiencing frequent interactions with others,
will provide the social basis for seeking integration into the society and being positive with respect to
the value of cultural diversity for the society as a whole.
3. Integration Hypothesis. Integration strategy of non-­dominant groups/expectation of dominant
groups is positively associated with sociocultural adaptation (among non-­dominant groups) and psy-
chological (among both groups). The double intercultural strategy of integration (seeking to identify
with and participate in ones own cultural group and in the larger society) will serve as the basis for
ones positive adaptation in the culturally diverse society.

M ET H O D

Samples

The MIRIPS project was carried out in a wide range of plural societies in order to provide a basis for
possibly finding some universal principles of intercultural relations. 53 samples included societies that
were migrant-­receiving (both long-­standing and more recently), those with established ethnocultural
groups and with communities of returning co-­nationals, and those with national groups that have re-
sulted from their incorporation into larger nation states. The samples are also diverse, including adults
and school children, community groups, online forums, and both snowball and random samples. The
total numbers of participants were 6993 members in 25 samples of the dominant group in a society, and
7619 members in 28 samples of the various non-­dominant groups. The multiculturalism hypothesis
was tested on 20 societies (Azerbaijan, Canada, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hong
Kong, India, Italy, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Switzerland,
Tajikistan). The contact hypothesis was tested on 19 societies (Azerbaijan, Canada, Estonia, Finland,
Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Norway,
Portugal, Russia, Spain, Tajikistan). The integration hypothesis was tested on 18 societies (Azerbaijan,
Belgium, Canada, Estonia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia,
Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Tajikistan). See Table 1 for the sample details.

Variables

There are two categories of variables assessed in the study: Intercultural and Adaptation. Different
sets of items were used in some studies within the MIRIPS project. See MIRIPS project questionnaire
(Berry, 2017, and http://www.victo​ria.ac.nz/cacr/resea​rch/mirips):
1022 BERRY Et al.

TABLE 1 A list of bivariate correlations between focal variables for 21 societies (N = 14,612)

Hypothesis Authors Society Ethnicity r N Age Status Outcome Antecedent

Multiculturalism Lebedeva, Azerbaijan Ethnic Russians .84 307 46 Non- ­dominant Tolerance Security
Tatarko, et al.
.11 Multicultural ideology
(2017)
Azerbaijanis .40 300 47 Dominant Tolerance

.42 Multicultural ideology

Safdar et al. (2017) Canada Chinese −.37 57 26 Non- ­dominant Tolerance Discrimination
International
Students

Canadian Students .76 68 22 Dominant Multicultural ideology Security

.58 Tolerance

Canadian Long .08 138 49 Multicultural ideology Discrimination

Term Resident
−.09 Tolerance

.53 Multicultural ideology Security

.25

.41 Tolerance

.28

Chinese New −.41 96 33 Non- ­dominant Multicultural ideology Discrimination

Resident
−.45 Tolerance

.17 Multicultural ideology Security

.20

.11 Tolerance

.37

Latin American −.15 93 34 Non- ­dominant Multicultural ideology Discrimination

New Resident
−.09 Tolerance

.08 Multicultural ideology Security

−.01

.04 Tolerance

.04

Lebedeva (2020) Estonia Ethnic Russians .02 213 31 Non- ­dominant Multicultural ideology

.06 Tolerance

Estonians −.11 332 33 Dominant Multicultural ideology

−.06 Tolerance

Brylka et al. (2017) Finland Finnish-­speaking −.48 334 46 Multicultural ideology Discrimination
Finns born in
Finland

Berry et al. (2019) Georgia Ethnic Russians −.04 312 31 Non- ­dominant Multicultural ideology Security

.19 Tolerance

Georgians .23 298 34 Dominant Multicultural ideology

.03 Tolerance

Hanke et al. (2017) Germany Germans .35 603 28 Multicultural ideology

Bicultural sample .13 241 Non- ­dominant

Pavlopoulos and Greece Greeks .52 449 38 Dominant

Motti-­
Stefanidi
(2017)

Au et al. (2017) Hong Kong Mainland Chinese .24 182 42 Non- ­dominant
Immigrant

.17

(Continues)
VIRTUALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS 1023

TABLE 1 (Continued)
Hypothesis Authors Society Ethnicity r N Age Status Outcome Antecedent

−.27 Discrimination

−.25 Tolerance

.46 Security

.10

Hong Kong Chinese .19 181 45 Dominant

Residents
.20 Multicultural ideology

.08

.02 Tolerance

Mishra et al. India Muslims .04 107 34 Non- ­dominant Multicultural ideology
(2017)
.08

Hindu .16 107 Dominant

.19

Inguglia et al. Italy Italians .23 256 16

(2017)
.23 Tolerance

Lebedeva (2020) Kyrgyzstan Ethnic Russians −.09 300 36 Non- ­dominant Multicultural ideology

.07 Tolerance

Kyrgyz .33 300 Dominant Multicultural ideology

.08 Tolerance

Lebedeva, Latvia Ethnic Russians −.06 336 43 Non- ­dominant

Tatarko, et al.
.05 Multicultural ideology
(2017)
Latvians .32 363 Dominant Tolerance

.19 Multicultural ideology

Ryabichenko Lithuania Ethnic Russians .07 290 27 Non- ­dominant

(2017)
−.11 Tolerance

Sammut and Lauri Malta Ethnocultural −.03 250 38 Multicultural ideology

(2017) groups
.04 Tolerance

.07 Multicultural ideology

.01 Tolerance

Maltese .16 193 Dominant Multicultural ideology

.17 Tolerance

.04 Multicultural ideology

.11 Tolerance

Sam et al. (2017) Norway Russians .26 252 49 Non- ­dominant Multicultural ideology

.08

Discrimination

Norwegians −.24 500 52 Dominant

Security

.68

Neto and Neto Portugal Portuguese −.30 348 30 Tolerance Discrimination

(2017)
−.25 Multicultural ideology

Ethnic Minorities .04 1505 37 Non- ­dominant

−.14 Tolerance

Lebedeva, Russia Migrants from −.02 227 32 Security

Galyapina, Central Asia
et al. (2017)

.28 Multicultural ideology

(Continues)
1024 BERRY Et al.

TABLE 1 (Continued)
Hypothesis Authors Society Ethnicity r N Age Status Outcome Antecedent

Migrants from .11 274 34 Tolerance

South
.16 Multicultural ideology
Caucasus

Ethnic Russians −.02 261 36 Dominant Tolerance

.45 Multicultural ideology

Ethnic Russians .15 344 43 Non- ­dominant Tolerance

.39 Multicultural ideology

Ossetians .14 340 43 Dominant Tolerance

.33 Multicultural ideology

Ethnic Russians .21 335 41 Non- ­dominant Tolerance

.39 Multicultural ideology

Kabardians, .05 351 43 Dominant Tolerance

Balkars
.10 Multicultural ideology

Grad (2017) Spain Ecuadorean −.21 205 20–­50 Non- ­dominant Multicultural ideology Discrimination

−.21 Tolerance

−.23 Security

−.29 Multicultural ideology

Spanish −.50 200 Dominant Multicultural ideology Discrimination

−.49 Tolerance

.32 Multicultural ideology Security

.32 Tolerance

Haenni Hoti et al. Switzerland Swiss .07 364 14 Multicultural ideology

(2017)

Berry et al. (2019) Tajikistan Ethnic Russians .02 277 32 Non- ­dominant Tolerance

.18 Multicultural ideology

Tajiks .01 317 36 Dominant Tolerance

.01 Multicultural ideology

Contact Lebedeva, Azerbaijan Ethnic Russians .15 307 46 Non- ­dominant Integration strategy
Tatarko, et al.
.24 Multicultural ideology
(2017)
Azerbaijanis −.27 300 47 Dominant Integration expectation

Safdar et al. (2017) Canada Chinese .25 57 26 Non- ­dominant Integration strategy
International
Students

Canadian Students .15 68 22 Dominant Multicultural ideology

Lebedeva (2020) Estonia Ethnic Russians .01 213 31 Non- ­dominant Multicultural ideology

.30 Integration strategy

Estonians −.05 332 33 Dominant Multicultural ideology

.07 Integration expectation

Brylka et al. (2017) Finland Russian-­speaking .46 313 45 Non- ­dominant Multicultural ideology
immigrants
from the
former Soviet
Union or the
Russian

Berry et al. (2019) Georgia Ethnic Russians .06 312 31

.17 Integration strategy

Georgians .04 298 34 Dominant Multicultural ideology

−.01 Integration expectation

(Continues)
VIRTUALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS 1025

TABLE 1 (Continued)
Hypothesis Authors Society Ethnicity r N Age Status Outcome Antecedent

Hanke et al. (2017) Germany Bicultural sample .28 241 28 Non- ­dominant Multicultural ideology

Pavlopoulos and Greece Immigrants .01 147 36 Integration strategy

Motti-­
Greeks .03 449 38 Dominant Integration expectation
Stefanidi
(2017) .21 Multicultural ideology

Au et al. (2017) Hong Kong Mainland Chinese .16 182 42 Non- ­dominant Integration strategy
Immigrant
.17 Multicultural ideology

Hong Kong Chinese .20 181 45 Dominant Integration expectation

Residents
.16 Multicultural ideology

Mishra et al. India Muslims .28 107 34 Non- ­dominant Multicultural ideology
(2017)
.05 Integration strategy

Hindu .31 107 Dominant Multicultural ideology

.41 Integration expectation

Inguglia et al. Italy Tunisians .16 188 16 Non- ­dominant Integration strategy
(2017)
.23 127

.28 348

Italians .10 129 16 Dominant Multicultural ideology

.22 256

Lebedeva (2020) Kyrgyzstan Ethnic Russians −.03 300 36 Non- ­dominant

.15 Integration strategy

Kyrgyz .17 300 Dominant Multicultural ideology

.18 Integration expectation

Lebedeva, Latvia Ethnic Russians .25 336 43 Non- ­dominant Integration strategy
Tatarko, et al.
−.02 Multicultural ideology
(2017)
Latvians .06 363 Dominant Integration expectation

−.10 Multicultural ideology

Ryabichenko Lithuania Ethnic Russians .03 290 27 Non- ­dominant Multicultural ideology
(2017)
.23 Integration strategy

Sammut and Lauri Malta Ethnocultural −.16 250 38 Multicultural ideology

(2017) groups

Maltese .25 193 Dominant

Sam et al. (2017) Norway Russians .06 252 41 Non- ­dominant

Norwegians .15 500 52 Dominant

Neto and Neto Portugal Ethnic Minorities .18 1505 37 Non- ­dominant Integration strategy
(2017)
.16 Multicultural ideology

Portuguese .05 348 30 Dominant Integration expectation

.17 Multicultural ideology

Lebedeva, Russia Migrants from .09 227 32 Non- ­dominant

Galyapina, Central Asia
et al. (2017)

.17 Integration strategy

Migrants from .09 274 34 Multicultural ideology

South Caucasus
.06 Integration strategy

Ethnic Russians .01 261 36 Dominant Multicultural ideology

.19 Integration expectation

Ethnic Russians .37 344 43 Non- ­dominant Integration strategy

.38 Multicultural ideology

(Continues)
1026 BERRY Et al.

TABLE 1 (Continued)
Hypothesis Authors Society Ethnicity r N Age Status Outcome Antecedent

Ossetians .15 340 43 Dominant Integration expectation

.10 Multicultural ideology

Ethnic Russians −.04 335 41 Non- ­dominant Integration strategy

Kabardians, .14 351 43 Dominant Integration expectation

Balkars
−.03 Multicultural ideology

Tsydendambaeva Buryats .29 161 30 Non- ­dominant

and
.27 Integration strategy
Grigoryev
(2015)

Grad (2017) Spain Spanish −.04 200 20–­50 Dominant Integration expectation

−.18 Multicultural ideology

Ecuadorean .17 205 Non- ­dominant

.06 Integration strategy

Berry et al. (2019) Tajikistan Ethnic Russians .01 277 32

.02 Multicultural ideology

Tajiks .16 317 36 Dominant Integration expectation

.04 Multicultural ideology

Integration Lebedeva, Azerbaijan Ethnic Russians .13 307 46 Non- ­dominant Psychological
Tatarko, et al. adaptation
.16
(2017)
Azerbaijanis .27 300 47 Dominant

−.10

Grigoryev and Belgium Russian-­speaking .42 132 36 Non- ­dominant Sociocultural adaptation
Berry (2017) Immigrants

Safdar et al. (2017) Canada Chinese −.05 57 26 Psychological

International adaptation
.25
Students
.40 Sociocultural adaptation

Canadian Long .20 138 49 Dominant Psychological

Term Resident adaptation
.15

.05 Sociocultural adaptation

Chinese New .23 96 33 Non- ­dominant Psychological

Resident adaptation

.32

.27 Sociocultural adaptation

Latin American .23 93 34 Psychological

New Resident adaptation

.38

.13 Sociocultural adaptation

Lebedeva (2020) Estonia Ethnic Russians .20 213 31 Psychological

adaptation

.29

Estonians .12 332 33 Dominant

−.02

Berry et al. (2019) Georgia Ethnic Russians .22 312 31 Non- ­dominant

.21

Georgians −.03 298 34 Dominant

.09

(Continues)
VIRTUALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS 1027

TABLE 1 (Continued)
Hypothesis Authors Society Ethnicity r N Age Status Outcome Antecedent

Hanke et al. (2017) Germany Germans .10 603 28

.08

Bicultural sample .23 241 Non- ­dominant

.26

Pavlopoulos and Greece Immigrants .10 147 36

Motti-­
.23
Stefanidi
(2017) .21 Sociocultural adaptation

Greeks −.01 449 37 Dominant Psychological

adaptation

.04

Au et al. (2017) Hong Kong Mainland Chinese .44 182 42 Non- ­dominant
Immigrant
.23 Sociocultural adaptation

Hong Kong Chinese .23 181 45 Dominant Psychological

Residents adaptation

Mishra et al. India Muslims .22 107 34 Non- ­dominant

(2017)
.04

Hindu −.01 107 Dominant

−.09

Inguglia et al. Italy Italians .05 256 16

(2017)
.12

.24 129

.19

Tunisians .30 188 Non- ­dominant

.19

.22 127

.24

.20 Sociocultural adaptation

.17 348 Psychological

adaptation

.17 Sociocultural adaptation

Lebedeva (2020) Kyrgyzstan Ethnic Russians .09 300 36 Psychological

adaptation

.27

Kyrgyz .09 300 Dominant

.01

Lebedeva, Latvia Ethnic Russians .15 336 43 Non- ­dominant

Tatarko, et al.
−.04
(2017)
Latvians .18 363 Dominant

.01

Ryabichenko Lithuania Ethnic Russians .03 290 27 Non- ­dominant

(2017)
.19

Sammut and Lauri Malta Ethnocultural −.05 250 38

(2017) groups
.07

Maltese −.25 193 Dominant

.12

(Continues)
1028 BERRY Et al.

TABLE 1 (Continued)
Hypothesis Authors Society Ethnicity r N Age Status Outcome Antecedent

Neto and Neto Portugal Ethnic Minorities .11 1505 37 Non- ­dominant Sociocultural adaptation
(2017)
.22 Psychological
adaptation
.42

.16

Portuguese .08 348 30 Dominant

.20

.05

Lebedeva, Russia Migrants from −.01 227 32 Non- ­dominant

Galyapina, Central Asia
et al. (2017)
.20

−.06 Sociocultural adaptation

Migrants from .30 274 34 Psychological

South adaptation
.12
Caucasus
.28 Sociocultural adaptation

Ethnic Russians .16 261 36 Dominant Psychological

adaptation
.05

.27 344 43 Non- ­dominant

.17

.21 Sociocultural adaptation

Ossetians .30 340 43 Dominant Psychological

adaptation

.23

Ethnic Russians −.24 335 41 Non- ­dominant

.04

.25 Sociocultural adaptation

Kabardians, .09 351 43 Dominant Psychological

Balkars adaptation
.24

Lepshokova (2012) Ethnic Russians .31 121 30

.19

.55

Host society of .28 140 37

the North
.37
Caucasus
.31

.24

Grad (2017) Spain Ecuadorean .02 205 20–­50 Non- ­dominant

.02

.03 Sociocultural adaptation

Spanish −.03 200 Dominant Psychological

adaptation
−.03

Berry et al. (2019) Tajikistan Ethnic Russians .08 277 32 Non- ­dominant

.29

.14 Sociocultural adaptation

Tajiks .19 317 36 Dominant Psychological

adaptation
.25

Note: When analysing the relationship of Discrimination with Multicultural Ideology and Tolerance the sign of coefficients was
changed to the opposite.
VIRTUALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS 1029

Intercultural variables

Security (cultural, economic, personal) (Berry, 2006; Berry & Kalin, 1995)

This scale includes 13 items answered on a Likert-­type scale ranging from 1 = totally disagree to
5 = totally agree. An example item is ‘This country is prosperous and wealthy enough for everyone to
feel secure’. Cronbach's alpha coefficient ranged in MIRIPS studies from .47 to .63.

Discrimination (Berry et al., 2006)

The Perceived Discrimination scale includes 5 items on a Likert-­type scale ranging from 1 = strongly
disagree to 5 = strongly agree. An example item is ‘I have been threatened or attacked because of my
[ethnic/national] background’. Cronbach's alpha coefficient ranged in MIRIPS studies from .73 to .86.

Contact (Berry et al., 2006)

The Intercultural Contacts were measured by questions about the number of close interethnic friends
(‘How many close [co-­ethnic/national/other ethnic] friends do you have?’ from 1 = none to 5 = many) and
frequency of contacts to them (‘How often you meet with close [co-­ethnic/national/other ethnic] friends?’
from 1 = never to 5 = daily). Cronbach's alpha coefficient ranged in MIRIPS studies from .70 to .91.

Acculturation strategies/expectations (Berry et al., 1989)

The Integration Acculturation Strategy/Expectation scales includes 4 items on a Likert-­type scale

ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. An example of the Integration Acculturation
Strategy item is ‘I prefer social activities which involve both [national] members and [ethnic] mem-
bers’. An example of the Integration Acculturation Expectation item is ‘Immigrants/ethnics should
engage in social activities that involve both [national members] and their own group’. Cronbach's
alpha coefficient ranged in MIRIPS studies from .48 to .74.

Adaptation variables

Psychological adaptation

Self-­esteem (Rosenberg, 1965)

The Self-­esteem scale includes 10 items on a Likert-­type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to
5 = strongly agree. An example item is ‘On the whole, I am satisfied with myself’. Cronbach's alpha
coefficient ranged in MIRIPS studies from .57 to .85.

Life satisfaction (Diener et al., 1985)

The Life satisfaction scale includes 5 items on a Likert-­type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree
to 5 = strongly agree. An example item is ‘In most ways my life is close to my ideal’. Cronbach's
alpha coefficient ranged in MIRIPS studies from .74 to .90.
1030 BERRY Et al.

Psychological problems (Beiser & Flemming, 1986; Kinzie et al., 1982; Kovacs, 1981; Mollica
et al., 1987; Reynolds & Richmond, 1985; Robinson et al., 1991)
The Psychological problems scale from MIRIPS questionnaire includes 15 items on a Likert-­type
scale ranging from 1 = never to 5 = all the time. A sample item is ‘I feel tired’. Cronbach's alpha coef-
ficient ranged in MIRIPS studies from .84 to .93.

Sociocultural adaptation (Bendixen & Olweus, 1999; Olweus, 1989, 1994; Ward, 1999)
The Sociocultural Competence scale from MIRIPS questionnaire indicates how much difficulties
experienced person living in a new society in different areas and includes 20 items on a Likert-­type
scale ranging from 1 = no difficulty to 5 = extreme difficulty. A sample item is ‘Following rules and
regulations’. Cronbach's alpha coefficient ranged in MIRIPS studies from .81 to .97.

Intercultural adaptation

Multicultural ideology (Berry et al., 1977)

The Multicultural ideology scale includes 10 items on a Likert-­type scale ranging from 1 = totally
disagree to 5 = totally agree. A sample item is ‘We should recognize that cultural and racial diversity
is a fundamental characteristic of [national] society’. Cronbach's alpha coefficient ranged in MIRIPS
studies from .49 to .83.

Tolerance (Berry et al., 1977)

The Tolerance scale includes 11 items on a Likert-­type scale ranging from 1 = totally disagree to
5 = totally agree. A sample reverse item is ‘It makes me angry when I hear immigrants/ethnics
demanding the same rights as [national] citizens’ (reverse). Cronbach's alpha coefficient ranged in
MIRIPS studies from .52 to .71.

Data collection and analysis

Each MIRIPS team used the instrument, and chose to collect and analyses their data in a way that met
their particular requirements, by selecting and operationalising the variables and taking into account
their local research issues and the requirements of their funding sources. In some cases, simple mean
differences, and bivariate correlations were used to evaluate the three hypotheses. In other cases, mul-
tivariate statistics, such as factor analysis, profile analysis and path analyses were carried out. And in
some cases, a combination of these methods was used to gain multiple perspectives on the validity
of the three hypotheses. These analyses (see Berry, 2017, table 18.2) provided an overview of the
findings. Using the .05 probability criterion for evaluating the three hypotheses, support was found in
92%, 85% and 86% of these evaluations for the multiculturalism, contact and integration hypotheses,
respectively.
The main findings presented in this paper go beyond this earlier evaluation and are the result of
conducting an internal multilevel meta-­analysis to summarise the results within the MIRIPS project.
We used raw bivariate correlations between the focal variables, which allows for correlated sampling
errors and true effects. The three-­level meta-­analytic models (i.e. participants were ‘nested’ within
studies, while studies—­within societies) were estimated by metafor R package (Viechtbauer, 2010)
using REML estimation for the amount of heterogeneity and a random-­effects model is then auto-
matically fitted (Assink & Wibbelink, 2016). Thus, in a three-­level meta-­analysis, variance at three
VIRTUALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS 1031

different levels is analysed: (1) sample variance (Level 1), (2) variance between effect sizes within
studies (Level 2), and (3) variance among effect sizes between studies (Level 3). Hence, the multilevel
technique permits not only to estimate overall effect size but if a strong variance is present at Level 2
and/or Level 3, moderation by sample, methodological and/or study features can be explored. This is
a substantial enhancement because commonly used meta-­analytic methods suppose independency of
effect sizes, whereas this normally is not the case. The technique also permits the employ of multiple
effect sizes (within studies) from the same sample.

R ES U LTS

The studies were conducted between 2012 and 2020; the median year was 2013. The majority of the
studies were conducted in western societies, with only some studies in other types of society.
The present analyses use internal multilevel meta-­analysis to examine the relationships that were
predicted in the three MIRIPS hypotheses. The results for the three hypotheses are presented in Table 2
including the number of studies (k), the number of effect sizes, combined sample sizes, individual cor-
relations (r) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI; i.e. the error around these corrected mean
correlations), standard errors (SE) and 95% prediction intervals (95% PI; i.e. the variability in these
correlations across studies), and the I2 values (i.e. percentages of the total variability in outcomes
that is due to heterogeneity on the different levels). In general, all of the hypotheses were supported:
Multiculturalism hypothesis (k = 20), r = .18 [.13, .23]; Contact hypothesis (k = 19), r = .12 [.09, .16];
Integration hypothesis (k = 18), r = .15 [.11, .18].
However, the variation in the strength of the effects had a quite large variability. As mentioned, our
modelling had the sampling variation for each effect size (Level 1), variation within a society (Level

TABLE 2 Results of the internal meta-­analysis for the three hypotheses

Overall effect

Multiculturalism Contact Integration

hypothesis hypothesis hypothesis
N of studies 20 19 18
n of ESs 106 72 107
Total N of subjects 12,806 12,591 12,620
ES(r) [95% CI] .18 [.13, .23] .12 [.09, .16] .15 [.11, .18]
SE .026 .017 .019
* *
t 6.911 7.355 7.547*
95% PI [−.21, .57] [−.13, .37] [−.10, .39]
* *
Q (df) 2773.16 (105) 410.95 (71) 635.41 (106)*
σ 2Study (n) .01 (20) .01 (19) .01 (18)
σ 2Study/ES (n) .03 (106) .02 (72) .01 (107)
% of total variance—­Level 1 7.3 17.1 17.2
% of total variance—­Level 2 81.3 81.4 66.2
% of total variance—­Level 3 11.4 1.5 16.6
2
Total I 92.7 82.9 82.8
*p < .001.
1032 BERRY Et al.

2), and variation over societies (Level 3). Heterogeneity analyses showed significant Level 2 and Level
3 variance for all of the three hypotheses. These values mean that there is more variability in effect
sizes than may be expected based on sampling variance alone (i.e. on ‘participant’ level). The PIs
showed the expected range of true effects included negative effects as well for 95% of similar (ex-
changeable) studies that might be conducted in the future (i.e. values are possible on both sides of the
null). This means that there will be contexts where estimates based on these CIs will not hold. Indeed,
the MIRIPS data set also has some negative correlations that are opposite to our hypotheses (see
Table 1): (i) between Security and Multicultural Ideology/Tolerance among the non-­dominant group
in Spain (−.29/−.23) and in Lithuania (−.11; Tolerance) and among the dominant group in Estonia
(−.11; Multicultural Ideology); (ii) among the dominant groups between Contact and Multicultural
Ideology in Spain (−.18) and between Contact and Integration Expectation in Azerbaijan (−.27), and
among the non-­dominant group in Malta between Contact and Multicultural Ideology (−.16); (iii)
among the dominant groups between Integration and Psychological Adaptation in Malta (−.25) and
between Integration and Psychological Adaptation among the non-­dominant group in Russia (−.24).
Next, we tested several moderators to attempt to understand these patterns.
More than half of the total variance could be explained by within-­society differences in effect sizes
(Level 2 in Table 2) so type of the focal variables (e.g. Multicultural Ideology or Tolerance), dom-
inant/non-­dominant group status and their interaction were used as main moderators (see Table 3).
There was no evidence of the effects of the type of the focal variables and the interaction on the
estimated effect sizes. It means that these estimates can be considered for all the types of outcomes/
antecedents as the same. Only the dominant/non-­dominant group status showed significant effects for
the Multiculturalism hypothesis and marginal, non-­significant results for the other two hypotheses
(p = .063 and p = .077 for Contact and Integration, respectively); we will also discuss the tendencies
for the possible effects of this asymmetry in status in light of additional evidence from the literature
later.
The variance related to societies (Level 3 in Table 2) varied: 17% for Integration hypothesis, 11%
for Multiculturalism hypothesis, 2% for Contact hypothesis. This could indicate that integration pol-
icy and multicultural practices matter, but we could not test it directly because there are no relevant
indexes for most of the countries that could be used as moderators. Stogianni et al. (2021) reported
that they faced the same problem for testing country-­level moderators for the relationship between
biculturalism and adjustment; their attempts on a limited number of cases were unsuccessful. Their
findings revealed no evidence for moderation effects of MIPEX scores, Human Development Index,
and a rough indication of cultural distance on this relationship.

D I SC U S S IO N

A summary of evaluations provides general support for the three hypotheses when examined over
samples within the MIRIPS project. First, the earlier analyses (Berry, 2017) showed that the hy-
potheses were substantially supported using the conventional .05 probability criterion. The present
meta-­analysis provides further support. The estimated effect sizes obtained correspond to the median
effect size from pre-­registered psychological research, which is r = .16 (Schäfer & Schwarz, 2019).
The estimated effect sizes can also be compared with other similar meta-­analyses: between multicul-
tural ideology and prejudice, r = −.13 [−.16, −.10] (Whitley & Webster, 2018); between integration
and adaptation, r = .10 [.09, .12] (Nguyen & Benet-­Martinez, 2013) and r = .12 [.08, .16] (Stogianni
et al., 2021); and between contact and prejudice, r = −.20 [−.21, −.20] (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006) and
r = −.21 (Kende et al., 2017). On the basis of the pattern found in this study, we may suggest that there
VIRTUALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS 1033

TABLE 3 Results of the moderation analysis for the internal meta-­analysis for the three hypotheses

Moderator
Hypothesis variable B [95% CI] F (df1, df2) p ES(r) [95% CI] 95% PI
Multiculturalism
Group status .113 [.041, .185] 9.59 (1, 104) .003
Non-­dominant .12 [.06, .19] [−.26, .50]
Dominant .24 [.17, .30] [−.14, .61]
Outcome −.026 [−.103, .051] .44 (1, 104) .507
Multicultural .19 [.13, .25] [−.20, .58]
ideology
Tolerance .17 [.10, .23] [−.23, .56]
Antecedent .048 [−.057, .152] .81 (1, 104) .371
Security .17 [.12, .23] [−.22, .56]
Discrimination .22 [.12, .32] [−.18, .62]
Contact
Group status −.061 [−.124, .003] 3.56 (1, 70) .063
Non-­dominant .15 [.11, .20] [−.09, .40]
Dominant .09 [.04, .14] [−.15, .34]
Outcome .020 [−.045, .085] .38 (1, 70) .541
Multicultural .12 [.07, .16] [−.14, .37]
ideology
Integration .14 [.09, .18] [−.12, .39]
strategy/
expectation
Integration
Group status −.045 [−.095, .005] 3.20 (1, 105) .077
Non-­dominant .16 [.12, .21] [−.08, .41]
Dominant .12 [.07, .17] [−.13, .37]
Outcome −.027 [−.101, .047] .52 (1, 105) .472
Sociocultural .17 [.09, .24] [−.09, .43]
adaptation
Psychological .14 [.10, .18] [−.11, .39]
adaptation
Note: When analysing the relationship of Discrimination with Multicultural Ideology and Tolerance the sign of coefficients was
changed to the opposite. This means that the estimate of a true effect for Discrimination is r[95% CI; 95% PI] = −.22 [−.32, −.12;
−.62, .18].

is support for these hypotheses. However, is this level of support sufficient to advance them as bases
for developing policies and programmes that seek to promote more positive intercultural relations? To
answer this question, we need to consider a few issues.
First, and most important, is the degree of support for these hypotheses in both kinds of samples.
We found that there is substantial support for them, with very few contrary findings. In two societies
(Spain and Malta) there are some cases of no support; these societies have been experiencing substan-
tial difficulties due to migrant flows from Africa, which challenge the intercultural climate. In a few
1034 BERRY Et al.

other cases, there were also some contrary findings in post-­Soviet societies: these cases were found in
Azerbaijan, Estonia, Lithuania and Russia. Again, these are societies where there are continuing chal-
lenges in the relations between the dominant and non-­dominant groups (see Lebedeva et al., 2018).
Second is the question regarding similarity in the support in the results of the dominant and non-­
dominant samples. The results show that there is a generally common level of support in these two
types of samples across the countries in the study. This degree of agreement between dominant and
non-­dominant people living in the same society is not inevitable; it could have been otherwise. This
agreement may be taken as evidence for the presence of commonality in the consistency of inter-
cultural relations in most of these societies This is the core of the question of mutual intercultural
relations; is there support (or not) for the hypotheses in both dominant and non-­dominant groups
within a society? We found a level of mutuality that does not vary much across the three hypotheses,
supporting the mutuality of intercultural relations in these societies.
We found some evidence of the effects of the type of group as a moderator; hence it is important
to note what are the variations between the two kinds of samples. First, for the Multiculturalism
Hypothesis, the relationship between Security and Multicultural Ideology was stronger for dominant
groups. This hypothesis and these two scales were created for the situation in Canada in the 1970s
(Berry et al., 1977), and may be less appropriate for non-­dominant groups in other societies, and at the
present time. A revision of the Multicultural Ideology scale is currently underway to make it more rel-
evant to present-­day issues by adding the need for social inclusion to diversity and contact. In general,
future research needs to pay more attention to issues of measurement: reliability, and convergent and
discriminant validity. More focus towards a person-­oriented approach can be also considered prom-
ising (see Berry et al., 2006; Grigoryev & van de Vijver, 2018; Inguglia & Musso, 2015; Schwartz &
Zamboanga, 2008).
Second, there is a tendency for the relationship between Contact and Integration to be stronger for
non-­dominant groups than for dominant groups. This may be due to contact with the dominant group
being more important for the integration of non-­dominant people into the larger society than is contact
for members of the dominant society.
Third, there is a tendency for the relationships between the Integration Expectation and the
Adaptations to be lower among dominant groups than among non-­dominant groups. This could be
due to the limited knowledge available on the acculturation preferences of dominant groups on which
to base a prediction. As noted, this lack is currently being rectified (see Haugen & Kunst, 2017); this
ongoing research may provide some clarification to this issue.
On the basis of these findings, we believe that there is some possibility of developing policies and
programmes to improve intercultural relations in those societies. This is most likely to be successful
where there is both support for the hypotheses and mutual agreement between groups in their support.
However, in those societies where there is limited support for a hypothesis, there is still a possibility
of developing programmes to promote them by working with that sector of the society where such
limited support was found. In these cases, working directly with the cultural communities, as well as
with those in the immigrant and settlement service sectors, can provide information and motivation to
promote change in the direction of more positive intercultural relations.
In addition, we suggest that support for the hypotheses may depend on the different contexts in
which they are examined: national states (e.g. Germany, Denmark); immigrant/settler countries (e.g.
Canada, the US); conglomerate countries (e.g. Russia, Indonesia); newly independent states (e.g.
Azerbaijan, Georgia); or post-­colonial states (e.g. Republic of South African, Morocco). These con-
textual variations need to be taken into account in future research (see also van Oudenhoven & Ward,
2013; Ward & Geeraert, 2016).
VIRTUALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS 1035

Policy and programme implications of the findings

The evidence produced on the validity of these three hypotheses by the research teams working in
these 21 societies, while there is some variability, has provided a large degree of general support for
them. This pattern of findings raises three questions. First, do they qualify as universal principles
of intercultural relations? Second, does this level of support provide a basis for claiming that these
three hypotheses are likely to be global in their validity? And third, if so, can they provide a basis for
advancing policies and programmes that will improve the quality of intercultural relations elsewhere
in the world? In our view, the empirical findings do allow us to promote them as candidates for being
universal psychological principles of intercultural relations.
As noted above, we consider that psychological universality is a concept that incorporates both
pan-­human commonality in the underlying process, and variability in the development and expression
of the process under differing cultural conditions. Despite the variability in support for these three
hypotheses across the 21 societies in the MIRIPS study, we believe that the test for this concept of
universality has largely been met. This is because not only is there is widespread support for them,
there is very little support for their converse. In only three societies (Estonia, Lithuania, Spain) did
we find evidence that a lack of security or the presence of discrimination is associated with positive
intercultural relations. In only three societies (Azerbaijan, Malta, Spain) did we find that a low level
of contact was associated with positive intercultural adaptation. And in only two societies (Malta and
Russia) did we find that a preference for integration was associated with low psychological or socio-
cultural adaptation. All of these relationship anomalies may be explained by specific to these national
contexts. Future research should examine these variations systematically, and suggest mechanisms for
this contextual moderation.
If the claim for some universality is accepted, we can ask the fundamental question: is such univer-
sality sufficient to serve as a basis for promoting these three principles as a valid basis for developing
intercultural policy and programme in many societies? Although the three principles were drawn
from extant intercultural policy (in Canada, Australia and the European Union), and have been largely
supported by empirical research in Euroamerican psychology and in the present study in a variety of
societies, do they provide a relevant basis for policy development in other plural societies outside this
limited range of societies?
In some of the societies just mentioned, there have been a policy transition over the past decades
from attempts to assimilate non-­dominant (indigenous, ethnocultural and migrant) peoples into a ho-
mogeneous society, to one that is more integrationist and multicultural (Berry & Kalin, 2000). This
policy transition has moved towards the ways in which intercultural relations have been shown in
the present research to lead to more mutual acceptance: a more secure place for all, with limited dis-
crimination; more contact among groups, rather than exclusion; and more multiple identities, rather
than a single national identity. In contrast, although some societies appear to have transitioned away
from multiculturalism, the reality of this transition has been questioned (Banting & Kymlicka, 2013;
Kymlicka, 2010).
Is it possible to emulate this transition towards multiculturalism in other plural societies? The les-
son here is that change in intercultural policy and practice has taken place in some societies, showing
that it is possible. If this has been the case in these societies, what conditions may be required in other
societies in order to move toward this more pluralist vision?
One possible answer is that the kind of evidence provided by the MIRIPS project may be useful
to persuade other culturally diverse societies to move away from continuing to pursue assimilation
policies that are designed to achieve a culturally homogeneous society, or from policies that exclude
those that are culturally different, toward a more multicultural one. In our view, policies that are
1036 BERRY Et al.

evidence-­based are more likely to be successful than those based only on pre-­conceptions or political
expediency. However, evidence alone (such as that provided in this project) is unlikely to shift public
policy towards more pluralist ways of living together. Other factors are also important, particularly
public opinion, political ideology, and the availability of resources.
Public education to change public opinion is required in order to bring about any policy change
from assimilation (or exclusion) toward a multicultural way of living together. The benefits of the
multicultural vision need to be articulated and advocated widely in ways that the general public can
understand and accept. Particularly important is the claim that life for everyone is enriched culturally,
economically and personally in multicultural societies (Berry, 1998; Berry & Sam, 2013). Access to
politicians and policy makers is also required in order to ensure that the evidence is presented and
understood (and hopefully accepted) by them. Both private and public advocacy will be essential to
provide not only the evidence but also the motivation for social change.

Conclusions

In this project, we have followed a research path starting with some ideas proposed in public policy,
converted them to psychological and social concepts and measures, and then subjected them to empir-
ical evaluations. We have ended this journey by returning to the domain of public policy and practice
in order to improve mutual intercultural relations by using these findings.
By combining the approaches of cross-­cultural and intercultural psychology in this project, we
have been able to approach an answer to the core question of whether there are some universal prin-
ciples of how individuals of different backgrounds may relate to each other positively, and live to-
gether successfully, in plural societies. The first approach provides an understanding of variations in
behaviours in different cultures; the second approach provides a basis for examining how these differ-
ent behaviours may achieve some mutual accommodation when they come into contact. Using both
approaches, we are able to arrive at some understanding of the ways in which people may relate to
each other on the basis of three possibly universal or pan-­cultural principles of intercultural relations.
Despite the obvious difficulties that are present in many contemporary societies, the three psycholog-
ical principles of intercultural relations examined in this project would be a good place to start.
In a sense, the project is an example of extended replication. Current controversies about the repro-
ducibility of psychological findings, even within the same society, suggest that our knowledge base is
not as secure as previously thought (e.g. Lilienfeld & Strother, 2020). So, it will be useful to attempt
to repeat the empirical examination of the same three MIRIPS hypotheses in a number of different
societies, beyond these mainly Western ones, in order to broaden our knowledge base. In this project,
despite highly variable conditions (demographic, cultural, historical and policy), there has been a
modest degree of replication of psychological findings across contexts. However, more needs to be
done to expand the conceptual and empirical basis for appropriate policy development.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper stems from an international collaborative project ‘Mutual Intercultural Relations in Plural
Societies’ (MIRIPS). The authors thank all our colleagues for their contributions to this research.
Names and affiliations for the MIRIPS collaboration: Robert C. Annis, Brandon University, Canada;
Algae K. Y. Au, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong; Shabana Bano, Banaras Hindu
University, Varanasi, India; Klaus Boehnke, Jacobs University Bremen, Germany; Alois Buholzer,
University of Teacher Education, Lucerne, Switzerland; Asteria Brylka, University of Northampton,
UK; Sylvia Xiaohua Chen, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong; Justine Dandy, Edith
VIRTUALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS 1037

Cowan University, Australia; Kevin Dunn, Western Sydney University, Australia; Marieke Van
Egmond, University of Hagen, Germany; Victoria Galyapina, HSE University, Russian Federation;
Ryan Gibson, University of Guelph, Canada; Hector Grad, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid,
Spain; Yongxia Gui, Henan University of Economics and Law, China; Katja Hanke, GESIS-­Leibniz
Institute for the Social Sciences, and Jacobs University Bremen, Germany; Inga Jasinskaja-­Lahti,
University of Helsinki, Finland; Jüri Kruusvall, Tallinn University, Estonia; Andrea Haenni Hoti,
University of Teacher Education, Lucerne, Switzerland; Sybille Heinzmann, University of Teacher
Education, Lucerne, Switzerland; Bryant P. H. Hui, University of Cambridge, UK; Cristiano Inguglia,
Università degli Studi di Palermo, Italy; Jolanda Jetten, University of Queensland, Australia; Larissa
Kus-­Harbord, Tallinn University, Estonia; Roland Künzle, University of Teacher Education, Lucerne,
Switzerland; Mary Anne Lauri, University of Malta, Malta; Nadezhda Lebedeva, HSE University,
Russian Federation; Alida Lo Coco, Università degli Studi di Palermo, Italy; Marianna Makarova,
Tallinn University, Estonia; Ramesh C. Mishra, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India; Frosso
Motti-­Stefanidi, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece; Pasquale Musso, University
of Studies of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Italy; Félix Neto, Universidade do Porto, Portugal; Joana Neto,
Universidade do Porto, Portugal; Yin Paradies, Deakin University, Australia; Vassilis Pavlopoulos,
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece; Maaris Raudsepp, Tallinn University,
Estonia; Tuuli Anna Renvik, University of Helsinki, Finland; Lena Robinson, Central Queensland
University, Australia; Anette Rohmann, University of Hagen, Germany; Tatiana Ryabichenko, HSE
University, Russian Federation; Saba Safdar, University of Guelph, Canada; David L. Sam, University
of Bergen, Norway; Gordon Sammut, University of Malta, Malta; Alexander Tatarko, HSE University,
Russian Federation; R. C. Tripathi, University of Allahabad, India; Aune Valk, Tallinn University,
Estonia; Raivo Vetik, Tallinn University, Estonia; Tahereh Ziaian, University of South Australia,
Australia

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
JB initiated the project and coordinated all the stages. ZL dealt with data management and prepared
the dataset for the meta-­analysis. MC provided data for the meta-­analysis. DG conducted the meta-­
analysis. JB, DG and ZL were involved in the conceptualisation of the study, drafting of the manu-
script, and revised it critically.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

DATA AVAILABILIT Y STATEMENT

The dataset is available on request.

ETHICS STATEMENT
Data were collected in line with the guidelines of the Ethics Committee of our universities.

ORCID
John W. Berry https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2587-2879
Zarina Lepshokova https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3387-8242
Dmitry Grigoryev https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4511-7942

R E F E R E NC E S
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-­Wesley.
1038 BERRY Et al.

Assink, M., & Wibbelink, C. J. M. (2016). Fitting three-­level meta-­analytic models in R: A step-­by-­step tutorial. The
Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 12(3), 154–­174. https://doi.org/10.20982/​tqmp.12.3.p154
*Au, A. K. Y., Hui, B. P. H., & Chen, S. X. (2017). Intercultural relations in Hong Kong. In J. W. Berry (Ed.), Mutual
intercultural relations (pp. 311–­332). Cambridge University Press.
Banting, K., & Kymlicka, W. (2013). Is there really a retreat from multiculturalism policies? New evidence from the mul-
ticulturalism policy index. Comparative European Politics, 11(5), 577–­598. https://doi.org/10.1057/cep.2013.12
Beiser, M., & Fleming, J. A. (1986). Measuring psychiatric disorder among Southeast Asian refugees. Psychological
Medicine, 16(3), 627–­639. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033​29170​0010382
Bendixen, M., & Olweus, D. (1999). Measurement of antisocial behaviour in early adolescence and adolescence: psy-
chometric properties and substantive findings. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 9(4), 323–­354. https://doi.
org/10.1002/cbm.330
Berry, J. W. (1974). Psychological aspects of cultural pluralism. Topics in Culture Learning, 2, 17–­22.
Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, models and
some new findings (pp. 9–­25). Westview Press.
Berry, J. W. (1990). Psychology of acculturation. In J. Berman (Ed.), Cross-­cultural perspectives: Nebraska symposium
on motivation (Vol. 37, pp. 201–­234). University of Nebraska Press.
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 5–­68.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-­0597.1997.tb010​87.x
Berry, J. W. (1998). Social psychological costs and benefits of multiculturalism. Trames: Estonian Journal of Social
Sciences, 2, 209–­233.
Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
29, 697–­712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijint​rel.2005.07.013
Berry, J. W. (Ed.). (2017). Mutual intercultural relations. Cambridge University Press.
Berry, J. W. (2006). Attitudes towards immigrants and ethnocultural groups in Canada. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 30, 719–­734.
*Berry, J. W., Galyapina, V. N., Lebedeva, N., Lepshokova, Z., & Ryabichenko, T. (2019). Intercultural relations in Georgia
and Tajikistan: A post-­conflict model. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 16(2), 232–­249.
Berry, J. W., & Hou, F. (2016). Acculturation and wellbeing among immigrants to Canada. Canadian Psychology, 57,
254–­264.
Berry, J. W., & Kalin, R. (1995). Multicultural and ethnic attitudes in Canada: Overview of the 1991 survey. Canadian
Journal of Behavioural Science, 27, 301–­320.
Berry, J. W., & Kalin, R. (2000). Muliticultural policy and social psychology: The Canadian experience. In S. Renshon
& Duckitt, (Eds.), Political psychology: Cultural and cross-­cultural foundations (pp. 263–­284). MacMillan.
Berry, J. W., Kalin, R., & Taylor, D. (1977). Multiculturalism and ethnic attitudes in Canada. Ministry of Supply and
Services.
Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Power, S., Young, M., & Bujaki, M. (1989). Acculturation attitudes in plural societies. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 38(2), 185–­206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-­0597.1989.tb012​08.x
Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth: Acculturation, identity and adaptation.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55, 303–­332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-­0597.2006.00256.x
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Breugelmans, S. M., Chasiotis, A., & Sam, D. L. (2011). Cross-­cultural psychology:
Research and applications (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Berry, J. W., & Sam, D. L. (2013). Accommodating cultural diversity and achieving equity: Psychological dimensions of
multiculturalism. European Psychologist, 18(3), 151–­157. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-­9040/a000167
Birman, D., & Trickett, E. J. (2001). Cultural transitions in first-­generation immigrants. Journal of Cross-­Cultural
Psychology, 32(4), 456–­477. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220​22101​03200​4006
Bourhis, R. Y., Moise, L. C., Perreault, S., & Senecal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model: A so-
cial psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology, 32(6), 369–­386. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207​
59974​00629
*Brylka, A., Jasinskaja-­Lahti, I., & Renvik, T. A. (2017). Intercultural relations in Finland. In J. W. Berry (Ed.), Mutual
intercultural relations (pp. 81–­104). Cambridge University Press.
Carter, R. T., Johnson, V. E., Kirkinis, K., Roberson, K., Muchow, C., & Galgay, C. (2019). A meta-­analytic review of
racial discrimination: Relationships to health and culture. Race and Social Problems, 11(1), 15–­32. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s1255​2-­018-­9256-­y
VIRTUALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS 1039

Christ, O., & Kauff, M. (2019). Intergroup contact theory. In K. Sassenberg & M. Vliek (Eds.), Social psychology in
action (pp. 145–­161). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­13788​-­5_10
Demes, K. A., & Geeraert, N. (2014). Measures matter: Scales for adaptation, cultural distance, and acculturation
orientation revisited. Journal of Cross-­Cultural Psychology, 45(1), 91–­109. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220​22113​
487590
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 49(1), 71–­75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532​7752j​pa4901_13
Dovidio, J. F., Love, A., Schellhaas, F. M. H., & Hewstone, M. (2017). Reducing intergroup bias through intergroup
contact: Twenty years of progress and future directions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(5), 606–­620.
https://doi.org/10.1177/13684​30217​712052
Erten, E. Y., van den Berg, P., & Weissing, F. J. (2018). Acculturation orientations affect the evolution of a multicultural
society. Nature Communications, 9(1), 1–­8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s4146​7-­017-­02513​-­0
Government of Canada. (1971). Multicultural policy: Statement to House of Commons.
*Grad, H. (2017). Intercultural relations in Spain. In J. W. Berry (Ed.), Mutual intercultural relations (pp. 249–­267).
Cambridge University Press.
*Grigoryev, D., & Berry, J. W. (2017). Acculturation preferences, ethnic and religious identification and the socio-­
economic adaptation of Russian-­ speaking immigrants in Belgium. Journal of Intercultural Communication
Research, 46(6), 537–­557. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475​759.2017.1386122
Grigoryev, D., & van de Vijver, F. (2018). Acculturation expectation profiles of Russian majority group members and
their intergroup attitudes. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 64(3), 90–­99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijint​rel.2018.03.001
*Haenni Hoti, A., Heinzmann, S., Muller, M., Buholzer, A., & Kunzle, R. (2017). Intercultural relations in Switzerland.
In J. W. Berry (Ed.), Mutual intercultural relations (pp. 145–­166). Cambridge University Press.
*Hanke, K., vanEgmond, M., Rohmann, A., & Boehnke, K. (2017). Intercultural relations in Germany. In J. W. Berry
(Ed.), Mutual intercultural relations (pp. 145–­166). Cambridge University Press.
Haugen, I., & Kunst, J. R. (2017). A two-­way process? A qualitative and quantitative investigation of majority mem-
bers' acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 60, 67–­82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijint​
rel.2017.07.004
Inguglia, C., & Musso, P. (2015). Intercultural profiles and adaptation among immigrant and autochthonous adoles-
cents. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 11(1), 79–­99. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v11i1.872
*Inguglia, C., Musso, P., & Lo Coco, A. (2017). Intercultural relations in Italy. In J. W. Berry (Ed.), Mutual intercultural
relations (pp. 187–­209). Cambridge University Press.
Kende, J., Phalet, K., Van den Noortgate, W., Kara, A., & Fischer, R. (2017). Equality revisited: A cultural meta-­analysis
of intergroup contact and prejudice. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(8), 887–­895. https://doi.
org/10.1177/19485​50617​728993
Kinzie, J. D., Manson, S. M., Vinh, D. T., Tolan, N. T., Anh, B., & Pho, T. N. (1982). Development and validation of a
Vietnamese-­language depression rating scale. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 139(10), 1276–­1281. https://
doi.org/10.1176/ajp.139.10.1276
Kovacs, M. (1981). Rating scales to assess depression in school-­aged children. Acta Paedopsychiatry, 46, 305–­315.
Kunst, J. R., Lefringhausen, K., Skaar, S., & Obaidi, M. (2021). Who adopts the culture of ethnic minority groups?
A personality perspective on majority-­ group members' acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 81, 20–­28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijint​rel.2021.01.001
Kymlicka, W. (2010). The rise and fall of multiculturalism? New debates on inclusion and accommodation in diverse
societies. International Social Science Journal, 61, 97–­112. https://doi.org/10.1111/issj.12188
*Lebedeva, N. (Ed.). (2020). Interim Report of the Center for Sociocultural Research, National Research University
Higher School of Economics. Unpublished.
Lebedeva, N., Dimitrova, R., & Berry, J. W. (Eds.). (2018). Changing values and identities in the post-­communist world.
Springer.
*Lebedeva, N., Galyapina, V., Lepshokova, Z., & Ryabichenko, T. (2017). Intercultural relations in Russia. In J. W.
Berry (Ed.), Mutual intercultural relations (pp. 1–­33). Cambridge University Press.
*Lebedeva, N., Tatarko, A., & Galyapina, V. (2017). Intercultural relations in Latvia and Azerbaijan. In J. W. Berry
(Ed.), Mutual intercultural relations (pp. 34–­58). Cambridge University Press.
1040 BERRY Et al.

Lefringhausen, K., Ferenczi, N., Marshall, T. C., & Kunst, J. R. (2021). A new route towards more harmonious inter-
group relationships in England? Majority members' proximal-­acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 82, 56–­73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijint​rel.2021.03.006
*Lepshokova, Z. (2012). Adaptation strategies of migrants and their psychological well-­being: On the example of
Moscow and the North Caucasus. Grifon.
Lilienfeld, S., & Strother, A. (2020). Psychological measurement and the replication crisis. Canadian Psychology, 61,
281–­288.
Mesoudi, A. (2018). Migration, acculturation, and the maintenance of between-­group cultural variation. PLoS One,
13(10), e0205573. https://doi.org/10.1371/journ​al.pone.0205573
*Mishra, R. C., Bano, S. H., & Tripathi, R. C. (2017). Intercultural relations in India. In J. W. Berry (Ed.), Mutual inter-
cultural relations (pp. 268–­290). Cambridge University Press.
Mollica, R., Wyshak, G., DeMarneffe, D., Khuon, F., & Lavelle, J. (1987). Indochinese versions of the Hopkins Symptom
Checklist-­25: A screening instrument for the psychiatric care of refugees. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144,
497–­500.
Navas, M., García, M. C., Sánchez, J., Rojas, A. J., Pumares, P., & Fernandez, J. S. (2005). Relative acculturation ex-
tended model (RAEM). International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 21–­37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijint​
rel.2005.04.001
*Neto, F., & Neto, J. (2017). Intercultural relations in Portugal. In J. W. Berry (Ed.), Mutual intercultural relations (pp.
231–­248). Cambridge University Press.
Nguyen, A.-­M.-­D., & Benet-­Martinez, V. (2013). Biculturalism and adjustment: A meta-­analysis. Journal of Cross-­
cultural Psychology, 44, 122–­159. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220​22111​435097
Olweus, D. (1989). Prevalence and incidence in the study of antisocial behavior: Definitions and measurement. In M.
Klein (Ed.), Cross-­national research in self-­reported crime and delinquency (pp. 187–­201). Kluwer.
Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school. In L.R. Huesmann (Ed.), Aggressive behavior. The plenum series in social/clin-
ical psychology. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­1-­4757-­9116-­7_5
Paluck, E. L., Green, S. A., & Green, D. P. (2019). The contact hypothesis re-­evaluated. Behavioural Public Policy, 3(2),
129–­158. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.25
Paradies, Y. (2006). Ethnicity and health: A systematic review of empirical research on self-­reported racism and health.
International Journal of Epidemiology, 35, 888–­901. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyl056
Paradies, Y., Ben, J., Denson, N., Elias, A., Priest, N., Pieterse, A., Gupta, A., Kelaher, M., & Gee, G. (2015). Racism
as a determinant of health: A systematic review and meta-­analysis. PLoS ONE, 10(9), e0138511. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journ​al.pone.0138511
*Pavlopoulos, V., & Motti-­Stefanidi, F. (2017). Intercultural relations in Greece. In J. W. Berry (Ed.), Mutual intercul-
tural relations (pp. 167–­186). Cambridge University Press.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-­analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–­783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-­3514.90.5.751
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. M. (2011). When groups meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact. Psychology Press.
Reynolds, C. R., & Richmond, B. O. (1985). Revised Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS): Manual. Western
Psychological Services.
Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (Eds.). (1991). Measures of personality and social psychological
attitudes (Vol. 1). Academic Press.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-­image. Princeton University Press.
Rudmin, F. (2009). Constructs, measurements and models of acculturation and acculturative stress. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33, 106–­123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijint​rel.2008.12.001
*Ryabichenko, T. (2017). Russians in a Lithuanian context: Testing three hypotheses of intercultural relations. In N.
Lebedeva (Ed.), Intercultural relations in the post-­soviet space (pp. 324–­341). Menedjer.
Ryder, A., Alden, L., & Paulhus, D. (2000). Is acculturation unidimensional or bidimensional? Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 79, 49–­65.
*Safdar, S., Gui, Y., Annis, R. C., Gibson, R., & Berry, J. W. (2017). Intercultural relations in Canada. In J. W. Berry
(Ed.), Mutual intercultural relations (pp. 333–­352). Cambridge University Press.
Salo, C. D., & Birman, D. (2015). Acculturation and psychological adjustment of Vietnamese refugees: An ecological
acculturation framework. American Journal of Community Psychology, 56(3–­4), 395–­407. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s1046​4-­015-­9760-­9
VIRTUALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS 1041

Sam, D. L., & Berry, J. W. (Eds.). (2016). Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (2nd ed.). Cambridge
University Press.
*Sam, D., Vetik, R., Makarova, M., & Raudsepp, M. (2017). Intercultural relations in Norway. In J. W. Berry (Ed.),
Mutual intercultural relations (pp. 105–­124). Cambridge University Press.
*Sammut, G., & Lauri, M. A. (2017). Intercultural relations in Malta. In J. W. Berry (Ed.), Mutual intercultural relations
(pp. 210–­230). Cambridge University Press.
Schäfer, T., & Schwarz, M. A. (2019). The meaningfulness of effect sizes in psychological research: Differences between
sub-­disciplines and the impact of potential biases. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–­13. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2019.00813
Schwartz, S. J., & Zamboanga, B. L. (2008). Testing Berry's model of acculturation: A confirmatory latent class ap-
proach. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14(4), 275–­285. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012818
Snauwaert, B., Soenens, B., Vanbeselaere, N., & Boen, F. (2003). When integration does not necessarily imply integra-
tion: Different conceptualizations of acculturation orientations lead to different classifications. Journal of Cross-­
Cultural Psychology, 34(2), 231–­239. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220​22102​250250
Stephan, W., & Stephan, C. (2018). Intergroup threat theory. In Y. Y. Kim (Ed.), International encyclopedia of intercul-
tural communication (pp. 1–­12). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/97811​18783​665.ieicc​0162
Stogianni, M., Bender, M., Sleegers, W., Benet-­Martínez, V., & Nguyen, A.-­M. (2021). Sample characteristics and
country level indicators influencing the relationship between biculturalism and adjustment: An updated meta-­
analysis. Center for Open Science, 1–­45. https://doi.org/10.31234/​osf.io/8qymv
*Tsydendambaeva, E., & Grigoryev, D. (2015). Mutual acculturation of Buryats and Russians in Ulan-­Ude and in
Moscow. In V. Tishkov & A. Golovnev (Eds.), XI Congress of Anthropologists and Ethnologists of Russia, July
2–­5: Collection of Articles. Institute for Research and Development of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy
of Sciences.
van de Vijver, F., Celenk, O., & Berry, J. W. (2016). Research design and assessment of acculturation. In D. L. Sam &
J. W. Berry (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (2nd ed., pp. 71–­92). Cambridge University
Press.
van Oudenhoven, J. P., & Ward, C. (2013). Fading majority cultures: The implications of transnationalism and demo-
graphic changes for immigrant acculturation. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 23, 81–­97.
https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2132
Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-­analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software,
36(3), 1–­48. https://doi.org/10.18637/​jss.v036.i03
Ward, C. (1996). Acculturation. In D. Landis & R. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (2nd ed., pp. 124–­
147). Sage.
Ward, C., & Geeraert, N. (2016). Advancing acculturation theory and research: The acculturation process in its ecolog-
ical context. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8, 98–­104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.09.021
Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1999). The measurement of sociocultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 56, 1–­19. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147​-­1767(99)00014​-­0
Ward, C., & Kus, L. (2012). Back to and beyond Berry's basics: The conceptualization, operationalization and classifi-
cation of acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(4), 472–­485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijint​rel.2012.02.002
Ward, C., Szabo, A., & Stuart, J. (2017). Prejudice against immigrants in multicultural societies. In C. G. Sibley & F.
K. Barlow (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of prejudice (pp. 413–­437). Cambridge University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/97813​16161​579.018
Whitley, B. E., Jr., & Webster, G. D. (2018). The relationships of intergroup ideologies to ethnic prejudice: A meta-­
analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23(3), 207–­237. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888​68318​761423

How to cite this article: Berry, J. W., Lepshokova, Z., MIRIPS Collaboration, & Grigoryev,
D. (2022). How shall we all live together?: Meta-­analytical review of the mutual intercultural
relations in plural societies project. Applied Psychology, 71(3), 1014–1041. https://doi.org/10.1111/
apps.12332
Copyright of Applied Psychology: An International Review is the property of Wiley-
Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.