rethinking individualism and collectivism: self … individualism and collectivism: self-construal,...

Rethinking Individualism and Collectivism:Self-Construal, Cognition, and Communication

Daphna OysermanThe University of Michigan

[email protected]

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/daphna.oyserman

Seth Foundation/Sudman Symposium on Cross-Cultural Survey Research, U of Illinois, Sept 30-Oct 2, 2004

Distal CultureHistory, Traditions (Linguistic, Philosophical, Religious)

Cognitive, affective, behavioral consequences

A Truism

• Western cultures – emphasize an independent perspective on the self– see the self as distinct from others

• Other cultures– emphasize an interdependent perspective on the self– see the self as interconnected with others

• This is more often asserted than tested.


Internalized Cultural ValuesSocial ScriptsSocial norms


individual collective

A Meta-Analysis

• Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, (2002). Rethinking Individualism and Collectivism: Evaluation of Theoretical Assumptions and Meta-Analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-73.

• Included – 83 different studies that assessed IND and COL– 170 studies that addressed psychological implications

of IND and COL

Effect Size Individualism

.7.6.5.4.3.2.10.0-.1

Effe

ct S

ize

Col

lect

ivis

m

.2

0.0

-.2

-.4

-.6

-.8

Latin/South America

Middle East

Africa

Other Asia

East AsiaCentral Europe

Western Europe

English speaking

Effect Size Individualism

1.51.0.50.0-.5

Effe

ct S

ize

Col

lect

ivis

m

1.0

.5

0.0

-.5

-1.0

-1.5

-2.0

ZIM

VIE

VEN

TUR

TAN

TAI

ESP

RSASLO

SIN

PTR PRC

POR

PL

PER

PAK

NOR

NIG

NZ

NEP

MEX

LIT

KOR

JP

ITA

INDO

INDIA

HUN

HK

GUAGRE

GHA

GER FRAFIN

EST

EGY

DEN

CTR

COL

CHI

BUL

BRA

BAH

AUT

AUS

ARG

1.35

.02

-.22

-.43

.42.40

-.04

.47

.01

-.02

.10

.29

.53

-.41

.23

-.01

.70

.48

.16

.09

-.08

.65

.25

.39.46

.24

.82

.67

.04

.29

.09

.28

.15

.55

.03

.83

.55.52

-.03

-.25

.34

-.31

-.21

.50 .52

-.40

-.31

.58

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

Central Europe

Zimbabw

eTanzaniaN

igeriaG

hana

PakistanN

epalIndonesiaIndiaG

uam

English-speaking Western Europe Latin/South AmericaMiddle East AfricaOther AsiaEast Asia

Effect size d Individualism

Vietnam

Taiwan

SingaporePR

China

Korea

JapanH

ong Kong

SloveniaR

ussiaPolandLithuaniaH

ungaryG

reeceEstoniaB

ulgaria

Venezuela

Puerto Rico

PeruM

exicoC

osta Rica

Colom

biaC

hileB

razilA

rgentina

TurkeyEgyptB

ahrain

SpainPortugalN

orway

ItalyG

ermany

FranceFinlandD

enmark

Austria

South Africa

New

ZealandA

ustralia

-1.17-1.12

-1.06

-1.47

-1.02

-1.21

.05

.04

-.43

-.03

-.28

-.02

.03

.07

-.07

-.65

-.06

-.09

-.42-.36

-.24

-.07

-.81

-.36

-.19

.01

.00

-.68

.09

-.19

-.39

-.56

-.30

-.80

-.05

-.96

.28

-1.00

-.88

.72

-.66

-.74

-.60

-.45

-.81

.26

-.57

-1.83

-.65

.39

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

Vietnam

Taiwan

SingaporePR

China

Korea

JapanH

ong Kong

SloveniaR

ussiaPolandLithuaniaH

ungaryG

reeceEstoniaB

ulgaria

English-speaking

Western Europe Central Europe East Asia Other Asia Africa MiddleEast

Latin/South America

Effect size d CollectivismV

enezuelaPuerto R

icoPeruM

exicoC

osta Rica

Colom

biaC

hileB

razilA

rgentina

TurkeyIsraelEgyptB

ahrain

Zimbabw

eTanzaniaN

igeriaG

hana

PhilippinesPakistanN

epalIndonesiaIndiaG

uam

SpainPortugalN

orway

ItalyG

ermany

FranceFinlandD

enmark

Austria

South Africa

New

ZealandA

ustralia

INDIVIDUALISM BY REGION

0.05

0.23

0.12

0.42

0.18

0.39

0.61

0.00

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

English-speaking

Western Europe

Central Europe East Asia Other Asia Africa Middle

EastLatin/South

America

Effe

ct s

ize

d

-.06

-.40

-.22

-.21

-.39

-1.02

-.25

-.47

-1

-0.9

-0.8

-0.7

-0.6

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

Effect size d

Collectivism by region of the world

Note: Israel was not included in this analysis.

English-speaking

Western Europe

Central Europe East Asia Other Asia Africa

MiddleEast

Latin/SouthAmerica

Country Differences• European Americans are:

– More individualistic than Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Indians• Effect sizes for Japan, Korea, India are small, large only for

Chinese heritage groups– More collectivist than Chinese, Indians

• Not less collectivistic than Japanese or Koreans

• Chinese fit the truism:– They are both less individualistic and more collectivistic than

European Americans and most Europeans. – Effect sizes moderate to large, stable across scale content– For Japanese and Koreans, effects are small and not stable

across scale content.

• Understudied areas – Middle East, Africa, Latin America may hold more promise for showing large differences

Consequences of IND/COL

• Review identifies reliable cross-national differences with regard to

– Self-concept, – Well-being, – Relationality (ways of engaging with others)– Cognitive style

• But can we safely attribute these differences to differences in IND/COL?




Evolution, Natural & Sexual Selection & Adaptation

Individual and Collective





Individual and collective

Situated Culture Social Situations





Individual and Collective

Situated Culture Social Situations





Individual and Collective Situated Culture Social Situations

Subjective construal of the situation

Isolating IND/COL

• To test the assumed causal role of IND/COL we can use priming procedures that make one or the other social orientation temporarily available.

• Assumes that all people possess the relevant knowledge and routines

– After all, all societies that have no way of eliciting a sense of connection, obligation, and loyalty will not last long, and all individuals sometimes ”doing your own thing.”

• Cultures differ primarily in whether one set is chronically more accessible than the other.

Preview

• Report on priming experiments that temporarily induce independent vs. interdependent self-construals

– Perception– Memory– Cognition & communication

• Highlight methodological implications

• Implications for the conceptualization of cultural differences

Basic Perceptual ProcessesSeparating target and context

Culture & Perception

• Our systematic review suggests collectivism is related to

– incorporating the social into self- descriptions – using context to describe the self – using contextual information in making decisions,

particularly if reminded of context

• Does how we think about ourselves and our social world influence perception more generally?

Priming Task

• Independence PrimeI go to the city often. My anticipation fills me as I see the skyscrapers come into view. I allow myself to explore every corner, never letting an attraction escape me….

• Interdependence PrimeWe go to the city often. Our anticipation fills us as wesee the skyscrapers come into view. We allow ourselves to explore every corner, never letting an attraction escape us...

Stroop Task

• Does the higher attention to context under COL interfere with the separation of target and context features?

• Stroop task – red red– requires separating or pulling apart word from color, – should be impeded by interdependence prime.

Stroop Task

1251

1163

1100

11201140

11601180

1200

12201240

1260

mean speed mlsec

COL

IND

• U.S. students

• Primed– COL (“we”) vs. IND (“I”)

• DV– color Stroop task (red

red)

• Oyserman, Sorensen, Cha, Schwarz (2004)

Stroop Task

929.25

843.23

800

820

840

860

880

900

920

940

mean speed mlsec

COL

IND

• Korean female students


• DV– color Stroop task (red

red)

• Oyserman, Sorensen, Cha, Schwarz (2004)

F FF FF FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF FF FF F

1 2H F

What Do You See?

“Relational” vs. “Pop-Out”Processing

• Picture shows a large H, made up of small F’s.

• Participants asked to find either– the large letter (relational processing) – the little letter (pop-out processing)

• Hypotheses– relational processing faster under COL– Pop-out processing faster under IND– Both within subjects

2.95

2.89

2.912.9

2.86

2.87

2.88

2.89

2.9

2.91

2.92

2.93

2.94

2.95

2.96

IND COL

big lettersmall letter


• U.S. students– N = 30


• Task– Identify big vs. small

letter

• DV– Time (log ml sec)

• Kuhnen & Oyserman, 2002

801.7

788.96

785.38

789.19

775

780

785

790

795

800

805

IND COL

big lettersmall letter


• Korean students– N = 31, between subjects


• Task– Identify big letter (small

letter)

• DV– Time ml sec

• Cha, Oyserman, Schwarz, 2004

MemoryMemory for objects and context

Memory for Objects and Context

• Does COL facilitate memory for the context in which objects are presented?

• If interdependent ss spontaneously process stimuli as contextually situated, they should perform better at a situated memory task than independent ss

• Material adapted from Chalfonte and Johnson (1996).

Memory Task

Memory for Objects & Context

8.71

6.35

0123456789

10

number correctlylocated

COLIND

• U.S. students– N = 34


• Task– View display 90 seconds– Told is a memory task– Recall items and place on

grid

• DV– Items correctly placed (+/-

one space)

• Kuhnen & Oyserman, 2002

Korean Replication

13.614.9

11.7

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

number correctlylocated

COLControlIND

• Korean students– N = 66

• Primed– COL (“we”) vs. IND (“I”); no-

prime Control• Task

– View display 90 seconds– Told is a memory task– Recall items and place on

grid• DV

– Items correctly placed (+/-one space)

• Cha, 2004

Cognition & Communication•Interdependence cultures put a premium on

–Connection, fitting in, attending to one’s own obligations–and the relational obligations of others.

•Taking the common ground into account•This requires monitoring of the social context.

• Interdependence calls for maintaining relationships.

• Reading “between the lines” is more highly valued than direct expression.

– If the speaker needs to be very explicit, the listener has failed!

Culture and Conversational Conduct

• To “read between the lines” listeners need – to monitor the common ground– to take the context into account

• Does culture influence sensitivity to common ground, in the example of possibly redundant questions and effort to provide new information?


• Students; Heidelberg, Germany & Beijing, China

• Life - Academic vs. Academic - Life

• Redundancy:– L-A: not redundant– A-L: redundant– No lead-in

• Haberstroh, Oyserman et al., JESP, 2002

0.53

0.78

0.5

0.36

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

Life-Academic Academic-ife

Germany China

Life-Satisfaction and Academic Satisfaction


• Different substantive conclusions:– Academic satisfaction contributes equally to life-

satisfaction in both countries (life-academic)– Academic satisfaction contributes more in Germany

(academic-life)– Latter apparently confirms that individual achievement is

more important in individualistic cultures….

• All due to respondents’ sensitivity to conversational context??

Turning Germans Into Chinese

• If the key difference is sensitivity to conversational context, Germans should respond like Chinese when put into an interdependent frame of mind.

• Independence/interdependence priming– Read paragraph about trip to city– Circle pronouns (I vs. we)– Adapted from Brewer & Gardner, 1996

• Students; Heidelberg, Germany

• I vs. we primed

• Redundant only: Academic -Life

• Comparison: Germans vs. Chinese, no prime


0.78 0.78

0.34 0.36

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

Primed Country

Independent Interdependent

Turning Germans Into Chinese

• Students; Hong Kong

• English, Chinese languag

• Redundant: Academic - Life

• Non-redundant: Life-Academic

• Chen, Chang, Oyserman, Schwarz, 2004

0.410.5

0.22

0.41

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Redundant Non-redundant

English Chinese

Turning Chinese into Americans (lite)

• German students

• I-primed vs. we-primed

• Happiness & Satisfaction– Not redundant: last & first

questions in 2 different Q.– Redundant: Last 2

questions in same Q.; nojoint lead-in


0.890.97

0.83

0.55

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

"I" "We'

2 Quest 1 Quest

Happiness and Satisfaction:Impact of Interdependence

Conclusions

• Interpersonal orientation influences conversational conduct:

– Chronically (Chinese) or temporarily (we-primed) interdependent individuals pay more attention to the common ground

– than chronically (Germans) or temporarily (I-primed) independent individuals.

Conclusions

• The resulting differences in question interpretation – are pragmatic (speaker meaning)– not semantic (meaning of words)

• Pragmatic differences – are not captured by translation and backtranslation– may be captured by cognitive pretests in both cultures– provided context is maintained

Take Home Points

• Differences in the obtained reports may be due to– actual differences in attitudes or behavior– difference in response process– unknown mix of both

• Unless we understand these processes, cross-cultural studies will face many “surprises.”

Source articles

• PROCESS MODEL of HOW CULTURE INFLUENCES BEHAVIOR– Oyserman, D., Kemmelmeier, M. & Coon, H. (2002). Cultural Psychology, A New

Look. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 110-117.

• META-ANALYSES, DISCUSSION OF LIMITATIONS OF VARIOUS MEASUREMENT METHODS, SUMMARY OF WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF CULTURE

– Oyserman, D., Coon, H., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking Individualism and Collectivism: Evaluation of Theoretical Assumptions and Meta-Analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-73.

• PRIMING STUDIES SHOWING THAT CULTURE INFLUENCES WHAT WE PERCEIVE AND REMEMBER

– Kuhnen, U., & Oyserman, D. (2002) Thinking about the self influences thinking in general: Cognitive consequences of salient self-concept. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 492-499.

• PRIMING STUDIES SHOWING THAT CULTURE INFLUENCES SENSITIVITY TO THE COMMUNICATIVE CONTEXT

– Haberstroh, S., Oyserman, D., Schwarz, N., Kuhnen, U., & Ji, L. (2002). Is the interdependent self more sensitive to question context than the independent self? Self-construal and the observation of conversational norms. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 323-329.

rethinking individualism and collectivism: self … individualism and collectivism: self-construal,...

Documents