Cultural Differences 2 Flashcards

1
Q

Collectivism and individualism:

A
  • “Collectivism and individualism are ‘cultural syndromes’. They reflect shared attitudes, beliefs, categorizations, norms, roles, and values organized around a central theme, that are found among individuals who speak a particular language, and live in a specific geographic region, during a specific historical period.” (Triandis, Chan, Bhawuk, Iwao, & Sinha, 1995, p. 462)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Some key questions:

A
  • How shared are elements of subjective culture?
    • Schwartz values 6% to 26% country-level variance (Fischer & Schwartz, 2011)
    • How strongly do they covary?
    • Individual-level vs. ecological-level relationships
    • What makes them covary?
    • What is the “common theme”?
    • Just a pattern or a cultural system?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

A classic paper:

A

· Markus & Kitayama (1991)
- Review paper which defines area
- Over 33,000 citations in Google Scholar!
· Central idea
- ‘Western’ and ‘non-Western’ cultures differ in relative prevalence of independent and interdependent self-construals

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Self-construal theory:

A

· “People in different cultures have strikingly different construals of the self, of others, and of the interdependence of the two.
· “These construals can influence, and in many cases determine, the very nature of individual experience, including cognition, emotion, and motivation.” (Markus & Kitayama, 1991, p. 224).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Ways of being independent - Markus and Kitayama, 1991:

A

· Separate from social context
· Structure - bounded, unitary, stable
· Important features - internal, private
· Tasks - be unique, express self, promote own goals
· Role of others - social comparison, reflected appraisal
· Basis of self-esteem - ability to express self, validate internal attributes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Ways of being interdependent - Markus and Kitayama, 1991:

A

· Connected with social context
· Structure - flexible, variable
· Important features - external, public
· Tasks - belong, fit-in, promote others’ goals
· Role of others - relationships with others in specific contexts define self
· Basis of self-esteem - ability to adjust, restrain self, maintain harmony

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Implications for cognition:

A

· Compared to Americans, South-East Asian participants typically show:
- more interpersonal knowledge
- more context-specific knowledge of self and other
- more attention to interpersonal context in basic cognition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Implications for emotion:

A

· Ego-focused emotions
- anger, frustration, pride
- predicted to be more important in US
· Other-focused emotions
- sympathy, feelings of interpersonal communion, shame
- predicted to be more important in Japan

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Implications for motivation:

A

· Cultural differences in self-construal predicted to foster:
- Self-expression or self-restraint
- Individual or collective bases of achievement
- Self-enhancement or modesty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Markus and Kitayama’s evidence:

A

· Country -> cognition
· Country -> emotion
· Country -> motivation
· Matsumoto (1999)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Markus and Kitayama’s theory:

A

· National culture -> self-construals -> cognition, emotion, and motivation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Early measurements of self construals:

A

· Twenty Statements Test (TST)
- “I am …” x 20
- Coding for ‘interdependence’, ‘sociality’, etc.
· Likert measures (e.g., Singelis, 1994)
- e.g., “I enjoy being unique and different from others in many respects” / “My happiness depends on the happiness of those around me”
- 2 orthogonal factors: independence, interdependence
- But no control for acquiescent responding

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

“unpackaging” studies:

A

· Group membership -> cultural orientation -> outcome variable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Self-construal and embarrassability:

A

· Study by Singelis and Sharkey (1995)
· Participants
- 86 Euro-American and 417 Asian-American (Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean) university students
· Questionnaire measures
- Self-construal scale (Singelis, 1994)
- Embarrassability scale (Modigliani, 1968)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Self-construal and embarrassability 2:

A

· Group differences in embarrassability
- (p < .001, R2 = 4.5%)
- Asian-Americans on average more susceptible to embarrassment than Euro-Americans
· Significant group differences in independent and interdependent self-construals
- (ind: p < .001, R2 = 6.7%) (int: p < .01, R2 = 3.4%)
- Asian-Americans on average reported less independent and more interdependent self-construals than did Euro-Americans

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Self-construal and embarrassability 3:

A

· Independent and interdependent self-construals significantly predicted embarrassability
- (p < .001, R2 = 19%)
· After controlling for self-construals, group membership did not predict embarrassability
- (p > .05, partial R2 = 0.7%)
· Intepreted as evidence for mediation:
- Culture -> self-construal -> embarrassability

17
Q

A problem:

A

· In most studies using self-report measures of independence and interdependence, “Western” and “Eastern” cultures do not differ as expected.
- (e.g., Kitayama et al., 2009; review by Cross et al., 2011; meta-analysis by Levine et al., 2003)
· Some possible explanations:
- Inadequate sampling?
- Inadequate measures?
- Need for implicit measures?
- The theory is wrong?

18
Q

Sampling individuals:

A

· Can nation-level scores be used reliably to characterise particular samples?
- Many studies rely on student samples
- Unrepresentative of nations from which drawn
- Misrepresent some nations more than others
· Representative sampling unrealistic
- Need for “comparable” samples?
- Measure cultural orientation at individual level
- Problem of “reference-group effects”

19
Q

Sampling cultural groups:

A

· Not representative or theory-driven
· Opportunistic national comparisons
- USA treated as prototypical “individualist” nation
- Japan treated as prototypical “collectivist” nation
· Hofstede rankings for individualism (out of 53)
- USA: 1st
- Japan: 22nd
- Guatemala: 53rd

20
Q

USA vs Japan reconsidered:

A

· Takano and Osaka (1999) argued that Japanese culture is not collectivist
- Detailed review of empirical studies
- Explained by social psychological processes
- Threat (e.g., WW2)  conformity and self-sacrifice
- Western observers make FAE  stereotype
- Japanese commentators echo  self-stereotype
· Still contentious question
- See update by Takano and Osaka (2018) with commentaries and response

21
Q

Reconsidering measurement of self-construal (Vignoles and 72 co-authors, 2016):

A

· Study 1: Exploratory factor analysis
- 2924 high-school students in 16 nations
- 62 Likert-type items (existing scales, new)
- Ipsatisation to control for acquiescence
· Study 2: Confirmatory factor analysis
- 7279 adults from 55 cultural groups in 33 nations
- New scale: 38 items → 22 items
- Method factor to control for acquiescence
- Testing for measurement invariance

22
Q

Ways of being independent (Vignoles, 2016):

A

· Defining the self - difference
· Experiencing the self - self-containment
· Making decisions - self-direction
· Looking after oneself - self-reliance
· Moving between contexts - consistency
· Communicating with others - self-expression
· Dealing with conflicting interests - self-interest

23
Q

Ways of being interdependent (Vignoles, 2016):

A

· Defining the self - similarity
· Experiencing the self - connection to others
· Making decisions - receptiveness to influence
· Looking after oneself - dependence on others
· Moving between contexts - variability
· Communicating with others - harmony
· Dealing with conflicting interests - commitment to others

24
Q

Why self-construals?:

A

· “People in different cultures have strikingly different construals of the self, of others, and of the interdependence of the two” (Markus & Kitayama, 1991, p. 224, italics added)
- But theoretical focus is largely on self
- Is self the key construct?
· One alternative: Thinking about others

25
Other construals:
· People in Western cultures attribute ambiguous behaviour to dispositions rather than situation - Correspondence bias (fundamental attribution error) - Assumed to be universal human nature (Ross, 1977) · Bias reduced/absent in East Asian participants - Attribution to situation/context, rather than individual dispositions (Miller, 1984; Morris & Peng, 1994) - Not-so-fundamental attribution error!
26
Possible explanations:
· Little cultural difference in dispositionism · Situationism (Choi, Nisbett, & Norenzayan, 1999) - Perhaps relates to Confucian culture – focus on social positions and cardinal relationships · Implicit theories of group agency (Menon, Morris, Chiu, & Hong, 1999; also Kashima et al., 2004) - Greater attribution to agency of group in Hong Kong newspaper articles and participants than in USA
27
Cognitive styles:
· East Asians: holistic thinking - “attending to the entire field and assigning causality to it, making relatively little use of categories and formal logic, and relying on ‘dialectical’ reasoning” · Westerners: analytic thinking - “paying attention primarily to the object and the categories to which it belongs and using rules, including formal logic, to understand its behavior” (Nisbett et al., 2001)
28
Frame switching studies:
· Research in bi-cultural Hong Kong context - “Two unrelated studies” paradigm 1. Priming with Western or Chinese images 2. Measure attributions - Western primes  dispositional inferences - Chinese primes  situational inference (Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martinez, 2000) · Many subsequent studies into “culture priming” - Review by Oyserman and Lee (2008)
29
Culture as "situated cognition":
· Culture more flexible than previously imagined - Attributed to activation of implicit theories - Differences in behaviour depend on accessibility rather than availability of cultural knowledge - Brings culture under experimental control! - What are the benefits and drawbacks? - Can we all switch between meaning systems? - Role of symbols in cultural maintenance?