Ly, 5 = Agree Strongly) the extent of their agreement with each of the items, with higher scores representing higher levels of cultural distance and conflict.for the following features: similarities to Octapressin others and/or expectations that others might have of the Relebactam participant (interdependent self-construal), description of uniqueness or distinctiveness of self and/or self-expectations (independent self-construal), or no mention of either (neither/neutral). Inter-rater agreement, = 0.90, [CI: 0.85, 0.94], was near perfect (Landis and Koch, 1977). The coders, still blind to condition, then discussed those cases where there had been a discrepancy and came to an agreement, which formed the combined coder score. The agreement between the combined coder score and the actual condition that participants had been assigned to was also 
near perfect, = 0.85, [CI: 0.82, 0.88]. Buttressing the results for the manipulation check item, then, these findings suggest that the primes were successful in activating independent, interdependent, or neutral schemata.SELF-CONSTRUAL AND INTRAGROUP MARGINALIZATIONRESULTSMANIPULATION CHECKWe conducted a one-way ANOVA on the manipulation check item, but it was not significant, F(2,274) = 1.53, p = 0.22. However, post hoc tests revealed that the difference between responses to the independent (M: 3.70, SD: 0.95) and interdependent (M: 3.95, SD: 0.92) primes approached significance, t(173) = 1.75, p = 0.08, and was in the predicted direction. Responses to the neutral prime lay between the two other groups (M: 3.83, SD: 0.94). In addition, two coders blind to condition assessed participants’ open-ended responses to the priming tasks. They codedTable 1 | Mean, standard deviation, and Pearson correlation for variables. Variable (1) Age (2) Family IGM (3) Friend IGM (4) SWB (5) Flourishing (6) Bicultural distance (7) Bicultural conflict Grand mean 
(SD) Neutral condition mean (SD) Interdependent condition mean (SD) Independent condition mean (SD)*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.Pearson's correlation coefficient, mean, and standard deviation are reported in Table 1. We tested the effect of self-construal priming on family and friend intragroup marginalization with two hierarchical regression models. All continuous variables were centered on the grand mean. The following variables were entered in the first step: age; individualism of the participant's heritage culture, based on Hofstede's (2001) ratings of individualism at the national level (effect coded as ? for a culture high in individualism and 1 for a heritage culture low in individualism); and generational status (effect coded as ? for a second-generation+/bicultural individual, and 1 for a first-generation migrant). Priming condition was included in the second step. Two contrasts were created: one which contrasted the interdependent condition with the control condition (? = control; 1 = interdependent; 0 = independent) and is referred to as the interdependent condition variable, and another which compared the independent condition to the control condition (? = control; 1 = independent; 0 = interdependent) and is referred to as the independent condition variable. There were significant main effects of both contrasts on family but not friend intragroup marginalization (Table 2).?.15* ?.13* 0.02 0.10 ?.14* ?.03 28.49 (8.48) 28.93 (8.55) 28.22 (8.64) 28.22 (8.40) 0.69** ?.19** ?.30** 0.22** 0.44** 36.36 (12.15) 36.16 (13.04) 34.44 (12.04) 38.77 (10.82) ?.01 ?.21** 0.21** 0.37** 47 (18.Ly, 5 = Agree Strongly) the extent of their agreement with each of the items, with higher scores representing higher levels of cultural distance and conflict.for the following features: similarities to others and/or expectations that others might have of the participant (interdependent self-construal), description of uniqueness or distinctiveness of self and/or self-expectations (independent self-construal), or no mention of either (neither/neutral). Inter-rater agreement, = 0.90, [CI: 0.85, 0.94], was near perfect (Landis and Koch, 1977). The coders, still blind to condition, then discussed those cases where there had been a discrepancy and came to an agreement, which formed the combined coder score. The agreement between the combined coder score and the actual condition that participants had been assigned to was also near perfect, = 0.85, [CI: 0.82, 0.88]. Buttressing the results for the manipulation check item, then, these findings suggest that the primes were successful in activating independent, interdependent, or neutral schemata.SELF-CONSTRUAL AND INTRAGROUP MARGINALIZATIONRESULTSMANIPULATION CHECKWe conducted a one-way ANOVA on the manipulation check item, but it was not significant, F(2,274) = 1.53, p = 0.22. However, post hoc tests revealed that the difference between responses to the independent (M: 3.70, SD: 0.95) and interdependent (M: 3.95, SD: 0.92) primes approached significance, t(173) = 1.75, p = 0.08, and was in the predicted direction. Responses to the neutral prime lay between the two other groups (M: 3.83, SD: 0.94). In addition, two coders blind to condition assessed participants' open-ended responses to the priming tasks. They codedTable 1 | Mean, standard deviation, and Pearson correlation for variables. Variable (1) Age (2) Family IGM (3) Friend IGM (4) SWB (5) Flourishing (6) Bicultural distance (7) Bicultural conflict Grand mean (SD) Neutral condition mean (SD) Interdependent condition mean (SD) Independent condition mean (SD)*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.Pearson's correlation coefficient, mean, and standard deviation are reported in Table 1. We tested the effect of self-construal priming on family and friend intragroup marginalization with two hierarchical regression models. All continuous variables were centered on the grand mean. The following variables were entered in the first step: age; individualism of the participant's heritage culture, based on Hofstede's (2001) ratings of individualism at the national level (effect coded as ? for a culture high in individualism and 1 for a heritage culture low in individualism); and generational status (effect coded as ? for a second-generation+/bicultural individual, and 1 for a first-generation migrant). Priming condition was included in the second step. Two contrasts were created: one which contrasted the interdependent condition with the control condition (? = control; 1 = interdependent; 0 = independent) and is referred to as the interdependent condition variable, and another which compared the independent condition to the control condition (? = control; 1 = independent; 0 = interdependent) and is referred to as the independent condition variable. There were significant main effects of both contrasts on family but not friend intragroup marginalization (Table 2).?.15* ?.13* 0.02 0.10 ?.14* ?.03 28.49 (8.48) 28.93 (8.55) 28.22 (8.64) 28.22 (8.40) 0.69** ?.19** ?.30** 0.22** 0.44** 36.36 (12.15) 36.16 (13.04) 34.44 (12.04) 38.77 (10.82) ?.01 ?.21** 0.21** 0.37** 47 (18.