social influence 7
Social psychology across cultures
What this chapter will teach you
• What is social cognition?
• What is social identity theory?
• Is self-serving attribution bias culturally universal?
• Is there global support for mainstream theories of prejudice?
• Is romantic love culturally universal?
• Do classic obedience and conformity studies replicate globally?
• Is independent behaviour spreading worldwide?
• Are loafing and striving global phenomena?
Does culture change the way we see ourselves – and others?
I am a middle-aged Scottish newspaper vendor.
I am an eight-year-old Icelandic schoolboy.
I am a retired diplomat from Angola.
How would you describe yourself in a sentence, beginning with I am . . .? As with these anonymous quotes, you might mention the various groups you belong to (age, national or occupational). It is common for people to construe (perceive) themselves in this way, perhaps because much of our sense of identity derives from our perceptions about the in-groups (various groups such as the family, nation, age cohort with whom we share certain values) we belong to and the out-groups (groups whose values we don’t share) we don’t belong to. Furthermore, defining ourselves in terms of in-groups has implications for how we relate to the people around us.
Liu et al. (2003) point out that our interpersonal relationships are affected by whether or not we perceive others as belonging to our in-groups. Another way of putting this is to say that our inter-group relations influence our interpersonal relations. We’re likely to treat someone differently after finding out they are ‘one of us’ (Oh, you’re a Quaker too, how nice to meet you).
The idea that our perception of ourselves and others is affected by group affiliations has been around for a while in social psychology (Tajfel, 1970), especially in the field of social cognition. This blend of cognitive and social psychology, which looks at our attitudes and our perceptions of those around us, also suggests that these attitudes and perceptions are culturally influenced. In short, where we come from may affect how much influence group affiliation has on how we regard ourselves – and others.
Culture and self-construal
Am I me first, or am I one of us first?
Answering a question like this requires me to consider whether I con- strue (define or regard) myself primarily as an independent person or as an interdependent affiliate of one or more social group (Markus &
Kityama, 1991a), perhaps occupational, sporting, familial or religious (see Table 7.1). In some cultural settings personal identity may be KEY TERM
Social cognition.
Blend of cognitive and social psychology that looks at our attitudes and our perceptions of those around us.
construed more from individual traits, while elsewhere it arises from the social networks to which we belong (Rhee et al., 1995). Research suggests that people from more individualistic cultural settings (US, Western Europe) are more likely to subscribe to an independent style of self-construal, with collectivist cultures fostering interdependent self- construal (see Chapter 1 for more on the individualism–collectivism dimension). Harrison et al. (1995) investigated this by comparing self- construal tendencies in Zimbabwean and US adolescents. Participants were asked to rate the contributions of their social relationships to their individual sense of worth. Zimbabweans showed firmer commitments to a wider social network than Americans did. They also relied more heavily on a wider group of social affiliates for intimacy and support than Americans did, and showed a greater tendency towards out-group denigration. The idea that we derive our sense of who we are from affiliation with social groups borrows heavily from Tajfel’s (1981) social identity theory, which asserts that we categorise ourselves according to which social groups we find attractive, and seek out those who belong to the same group as ourselves. According to this theory it would make sense for someone with an interdependent style of self- construal not only to gain their identity from group affiliation, but also to habitually denigrate out-group members, as Harrison et al. (1995) found in their Zimbabwean condition.
Another self-construal study required participants from cultures normally regarded as individualist or collectivist to complete the phrase I am . . . twenty times (Bochner, 1994). Individualists mainly confined their answers to their own personality traits (I am honest, I am laid- back) while collectivists were more likely to invoke the roles they played in society (I am a good parent, I am a conscientious student). In similar vein Tafarodi et al. (2004) found Canadians to be more likely to judge their inner self as consistent across situations than were Chinese or Japanese participants, who saw contextual factors as influencing
TABLE 7.1
Independent and interdependent self-construal styles: how do I see myself?
Independent self-construal Interdependent self-construal
•Individual is seen as an autonomous free agent, relatively unaffected by social context
•Self is perceived as interconnected with physical and social context
•Person aims to preserve harmony with
•Behaviour likely to remain consistent across situations due to core personality traits
physical and social world
•Behaviour seen as not necessarily consistent across situations, but affected
•Associated with ‘western’ notions of self, common in US and Western Europe
by situational factors
KEY TERM
Social identity theory. Asserts that we categorise ourselves according to which social groups we find attractive, and seek out those who belong to the same group as ourselves.
their behaviour. Furthermore, when asked what made them angry, participants from collectivist cultures such as China and Japan were found to be more likely to cite incidents that happen to other people rather than themselves (Stipek et al., 1989), compared with US respondents.
This selection of findings supports a link between independent–
interdependent self-construal and individualism–collectivism (Triandis et al., 1988). It suggests that collectivist cultures encourage in their members a deeper commitment to a few all-pervading (familial or religious) groups, requiring a greater level of commitment than do the more numerous (sports, church or music) social groups that make up more individualistic cultures (Matsumoto & Juang, 2004). Inter- dependent self-construal encourages a heightened sense of the self as part of a wider social network, rather than as an autonomous entity.
Further consequences of interdependence may include a willingness to denigrate out-groups in collectivist culture and reluctance to break social taboos, such as discussing sexual fantasies (Goodwin & Lee, 1994).
Limitations of the independent–interdependent self-construal theory
1 Independence and individualism are not synonymous
The link between individualism and independent self-construal is not universally supported. In some research, participants from the US employ more interdependent self-construal than do those from what might be regarded as less individualistic European nations (Gudykunst & Lee, 2003).
2 Self-construal varies within the same individual
Independent–interdependent self-construal has been shown to vary within the same person according to whether they are at home or at work (Smith & Bond, 1998). Consequently, it seems questionable to assert that participants from certain cultures construe themselves according to a distinct, consistent style.
By and large, though, much of the evidence invites the conclusion that individualistic cultures are prone to more independent self-construal, while collectivist cultures foster more interdependence. So if our cultural background does influence how we see ourselves, we might logically ask how it affects our attitudes to others, especially those who lie beyond the limits of our in-groups.
Culture and attribution bias
We make attributions to explain the behaviour of ourselves and of those around us (He did that because . . .). Attributions are inferences we make to explain behaviour. Psychological research and everyday experience both suggest that we are not always entirely fair when making them. Indeed, the phrase one rule for one, one for another springs to mind. Our attributions often betray our most personal biases.
These are never more obvious than when we make what are termed internal and external attributions. Internal attributions explain behaviours in terms of dispositions or personality traits (He did it because he is kind). External attributions invoke situational, contextual causes (She did it because the weather was inclement). Our self- centred, self-serving bias might dictate that our own negative or unsuc- cessful behaviours tend to be externally attributed (I was unlucky), while similar behaviours by others receive internal attributions (He’s just incompetent). Such attribution bias is an example of what is known as the fundamental attribution error (Miller, 1984), which reflects our biased tendency to explain the actions of others using internal causes, so ignoring the effect that situational factors have on their behaviour.
Is self-serving attribution bias culturally universal?
A popular method of investigating this question is to see how people from different cultures explain their successes and failures, for instance in school work. Some cultural differences have emerged, indicating that styles of attribution do depend on where you come from. Kashima and Triandis (1986) found that when asked to explain their own success Japanese participants were more likely to invoke external attributions (I was lucky). US participants favoured internal explanations (I was skilful). A so-called self-effacing bias, displayed here in the Japanese condition, has also been observed in China, where participants were more likely to put their own successes down to external causes than were US participants (Lee & Seligman, 1997). Crittenden (1991) supports this notion by reporting Taiwanese students’ tendencies towards modestly attributing their own academic success to external factors, compared with US participants’ preferences for internal attributions. Modest self-effacement is perhaps part and parcel of a style of social cognition that favours explaining behaviour in terms of contexts for action, also known as allocentrism (Smith & Bond, 1998). This contextual style of social cognition is consistent with
Fundamental attribution error.
Tendency to explain the actions of others using internal causes.
KEY TERM
Allocentrism. Style of social cognition that favours explaining behaviour in terms of contexts for action.
KEY TERMS
Attributions.
Inferences we make to explain behaviour.
interdependent self-construal (discussed in the previous section).
Arguably, allocentrism is a socialised characteristic of less individual- istic cultures, rooted in parental practices that are particular to those regions (Bornstein et al., 1998).
Another ingenious demonstration of cultural differences in attribu- tion style involved a comparison of US and Chinese newspaper reports of homicides. Chinese journalists favoured situational explanations (He did it because he comes from a rough district). Americans tended to highlight dispositional factors (He has a criminal personality) (Morris &
Peng, 1994).
All of this suggests that people from Asia are socialised towards seeing themselves as less separable from the social fabric into which they are embedded (interdependent), thus tending to attribute their own success to contextual factors. Comparatively, individualistic cul- tures foster a more autonomous view of the self, fostering a greater tendency towards invoking internal explanations. So, as to the cultural universality of attribution bias, it appears that the practice of praising oneself for success is not universally widespread, as in some cultures self-effacement is more the norm.
Limitations of attribution bias research
1 Anyone can make any type of attribution
We should be wary of making a hard and fast link between collectiv- ism, allocentrism and self-effacing attributions for fear of descend- ing into the use of stereotypes (see key concept). After all, it has also been shown that the same person can display both self- serving and self-effacing biases in differing contexts (Kagitcibasi, 1996).
2 Attributions are influenced by unique cultural contexts
The likelihood of making self-serving or self-effacing attributions can depend on cultural and contextual factors that override the individualism–collectivism dimen- sion. For instance, within what are often represented as a collectivist cul- tures, self-serving and self-effacing attribution styles can coexist (Hew- stone & Ward, 1985) and therefore have to be interpreted according to their unique social context. This is illustrated by the key study shown on p. 140.