Rethinking Individualism and Collectivism:Self-Construal, Cognition, and Communication
Daphna OysermanThe University of Michigan
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.
Distal CultureHistory, Traditions (Linguistic, Philosophical, Religious)
Internalized Cultural ValuesSocial ScriptsSocial norms
Cognitive, affective, behavioral consequences
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?
Distal CultureHistory, Traditions (Linguistic, Philosophical, Religious)
Internalized Cultural ValuesSocial ScriptsSocial norms
Cognitive, affective, behavioral consequences
Evolution, Natural & Sexual Selection & Adaptation
Individual and Collective
Distal CultureHistory, Traditions (Linguistic, Philosophical, Religious)
Internalized Cultural ValuesSocial ScriptsSocial norms
Cognitive, affective, behavioral consequences
Evolution, Natural & Sexual Selection & Adaptation
Individual and collective
Situated Culture Social Situations
Distal CultureHistory, Traditions (Linguistic, Philosophical, Religious)
Internalized Cultural ValuesSocial ScriptsSocial norms
Cognitive, affective, behavioral consequences
Evolution, Natural & Sexual Selection & Adaptation
Individual and Collective
Situated Culture Social Situations
Distal CultureHistory, Traditions (Linguistic, Philosophical, Religious)
Internalized Cultural ValuesSocial ScriptsSocial norms
Cognitive, affective, behavioral consequences
Evolution, Natural & Sexual Selection & Adaptation
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
• Primed– COL (“we”) vs. IND (“I”)
• 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
“Relational” vs. “Pop-Out”Processing
• U.S. students– N = 30
• Primed– COL (“we”) vs. IND (“I”)
• 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
“Relational” vs. “Pop-Out”Processing
• Korean students– N = 31, between subjects
• Primed– COL (“we”) vs. IND (“I”)
• 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
• Primed– COL (“we”) vs. IND (“I”)
• 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?
Culture and Conversational Conduct
• 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
Culture and Conversational Conduct
• 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
• Haberstroh, Oyserman et al., JESP, 2002
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
• Haberstroh, Oyserman et al., JESP, 2002
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.