In most parts of the world, globalization has become an unstoppable and potent force that impacts everyday life and international relations. The articles in this issue draw on theoretical insights from diverse perspectives (clinical psychology, consumer research, organizational behavior, political psychology, and cultural psychology) to offer nuanced understanding of individuals' psychological reactions to globalization in different parts of the world (). These articles address the questions of how people make sense of and respond to globalization and its sociocultural ramifications; how people defend the integrity of their heritage cultural identities against the "culturally erosive" effects of globaliza- tion, and how individuals harness creative insights from their interactions with global cultures. The new theoretical insights and revealing empirical analyses presented in this issue set the stage for an emergent interdisciplinary inquiry into the psychology of globalization.At the turn of the century, Albert Bandura (2001) noted that societies today are undergoing drastic social, informational, and technological changes, and that

In an international relations context, the mutual images held by actors affect their mutual expectations about the Other's behavior and guide the interpretation of the Other's actions.Here it is argued that the effect of these images is moderated by the degree of entitativity of the Other-that is, the extent to which it is perceived as a real entity. Two studies tested this hypothesis by manipulating the entitativity of the European Union (EU) among U.S. citizens whose images of the EU varied along the enemy/ally dimension. Results of these studies yielded converging evidence in support of the hypothesized moderating effect of entitativity. Specifically, entitativity showed a polarizing effect on the relationship between the image of the EU and judgments of harmfulness of actions carried out by the EU. KEY WORDS: entitativity, agency, polarization, image, intergroup relations, international relationsThe news media routinely inform us about foreign countries testing new ballistic missiles, developing new air defense systems, renovating their submarine fleets, or, more recently, developing biological weapons. Is this good or bad news? The answer to this question depends, of course, on the perceived quality of the relations between our own country and the foreign country in question. In other words, it depends on whether the other country is an ally or an enemy. If it is an enemy, chances are that one would feel threatened; if it is an ally, one would, on the contrary, feel safeguarded. To the extent that countries can be ordered along

What is the nature of Chinese patriotism and nationalism, how does it differ from American patriotism and nationalism, and what impact do they have on Chinese foreign policy attitudes? To explore the structure and consequences of Chinese national identity, three surveys were conducted in China and the US in the spring and summer of 2009. While patriotism and nationalism were empirically similar in the US, they were highly distinct in China, with patriotism aligning with a benign internationalism and nationalism with a more malign blind patriotism. Chinese patriotism/internationalism, furthermore, had no impact on perceived US threats or US policy preferences, while nationalism did. The role of nationalist historical beliefs in structures of Chinese national identity was also explored, as well as the consequences of historical beliefs for the perception of US military and humiliation threats.

No abstract

No abstract

This article argues that zero‐sum, forced‐choice approaches to measuring religious belief do not work well outside of the Abrahamic world. Positive‐sum approaches to measuring religious beliefs (in the plural) are better suited to the study of polytheistic societies. Using results from a nationally representative survey conducted in 2011 Taiwan, we demonstrate that in a polytheistic society like Taiwan, religious belief is not zero sum. We also contrast our results with those of the Taiwan Social Change Survey (TSCS), and seek to show that our positive‐sum approach to measuring religious beliefs can help us better understand the disparate causes and consequences of different religious beliefs in polytheistic societies. The challenge of Christocentrism in quantitative studies of religion is also discussed.

No abstract

plane collision over the South China Seas, China and the United States engaged in two weeks of intensive 'apology diplomacy'. What role did culture play in these events? Drawing on experimental ndings in social and cross-cultural psychology, we argue against the pundits that essentialized cultural difference-and against those who denied that culture matters. Instead, we maintain that both cultural differences and cultural commonalties played a signi cant role in Sino-American apology diplomacy.