Tag: research

Horizontal/Vertical Cultures & Advertising: Does Status, Pleasure, or Relationships Appeal to Your Culture?

Posted on by Leave a comment

The glossy page of an in-flight magazine shows an ad of a woman running while clutching a sleek new mobile phone.

Several passersby turn to watch her run past.

The ad reads “Turning heads with America’s Slimmest Phone!”

Does this ad appeal to you?

Would it appeal generally to the people of your culture?

While it’s not uncommon to encounter advertisements promising to elevate a consumer’s status and leave a lasting impression on others, the role of culture in shaping the resonance of such appeals cannot be understated. 

The degree to which such advertisements motivate consumers may vary depending on the cultural context.

This study set out to explore the influence of culture on the use of persuasive appeals highlighting the allure of status benefits and various other advantages.

The Study’s Hypotheses

The study’s hypotheses stem from a nuanced consideration of cultural distinctions, particularly the contrast between horizontal cultures, which value equality, and vertical cultures, which emphasize hierarchical structures. 

The researchers argued that this cultural distinction offers a unique lens through which to make predictions, revealing insights not traditionally associated with broader cross-cultural differentiations between individualism and collectivism.

The delineation between vertical cultures and horizontal cultures offers a fresh perspective on the prevalence and content of advertising appeals. 

The Study

Through a comprehensive content analysis encompassing 1,211 magazine advertisements across five diverse countries (Denmark, Korea, Poland, Russia, and the United States), researchers uncovered distinct patterns in ad content that underscore the significance of this cultural distinction.

In their in-depth examination, they delved into these ad content patterns and their implications. 

They undertook a comparative analysis, pitting the predictions derived from the vertical/horizontal cultural distinction against those derived from the broader individualism-collectivism framework, ultimately subjecting these predictions to empirical testing.

Notably, the analysis revealed variations in the emphasis on status benefits and uniqueness benefits within advertisements, mirroring the countries’ categorization as vertical or horizontal cultures.

The Results

The study’s comprehensive analysis of magazine advertisements spanned several countries, each representing distinct cultural orientations, including VI (United States), HI (Denmark), and VC (Korea, Russia, Poland).

Researchers noted a distinct emphasis on status-related benefits within advertising appeals in countries aligned with VC cultures, which includes Korea, Russia, and Poland, as well as the VI culture in the United States. 

This emphasis encompassed depictions of luxury, references to prestige, impressing others, prominence, affiliations with high-status groups (e.g., ivy league graduates), endorsements by high-status individuals (e.g., celebrities), and other forms of distinction (e.g., “award-winning”). 

This focus on status benefits corresponded with the cultural profiles of these countries. 

Notably, in all VC societies examined, status benefits emerged as a dominant theme in advertising, often overshadowing appeals emphasizing pleasure, uniqueness, or relationships. 

In stark contrast, the emphasis on pleasure appeals was preferred in the HI culture of Denmark.

Uniqueness-related appeals, which included elements of differentiation, self-expression, self-reliance, and novelty, were also more prominent in HI cultures compared to VI and VC cultures. 

These appeals portrayed the product as a means of self-expression, aligning with cultural contexts emphasizing individuality, distinctiveness, and self-reliance.

Notably, although both the United States and Denmark are categorized as individualistic societies, their advertisements significantly differed in their emphasis on uniqueness and status, reflecting the nuances of their vertical and horizontal cultural values. 

These patterns were not anticipated by conventional analyses based on the broader individualism-collectivism classification.

As expected, the prevalence of ads emphasizing pleasure benefits largely corresponded to the individualism-collectivism orientation of the society. 

These appeals, which cater to personal hedonic goals valued in individualistic cultures, were more prevalent in individualistic societies than in collectivistic ones, with the contrast between HI and VC cultures proving particularly significant.

However, no significant differences emerged across individualistic and collectivistic cultures in regard to relationship appeals, which focused on sociability, nurturing, warmth, and belongingness. 

Overall, the study found that the conventional individualism-collectivism framework falls short in predicting the prevalence of such appeals, making the horizontal/vertical cultural distinction a valuable addition to cross-cultural theory and research.

Contradiction, Categorization, and Change: Three Studies on Cultural Thinking Styles & How We View the World, Part II

Posted on by Leave a comment

Does the way we think determine how we categorize things in our minds?

Does it influence how we view change?

Last week, we discussed analytic and holistic/dialectical thinking and how each thinking style views contradiction.

This week, we’ll take a look at two more studies on the subject – this time regarding categorization and change.

Categorization

Analytic thinkers are more likely to follow rule-based logic than dialectical thinkers are.

This is apparent in the way both groups categorize objects.

Studies in the early 2000s looked at how European American participants and Chinese and Korean participants categorize objects (Ji, Zhang, & Nisbett, 2004; Norenzayan, Smith, Kim, & Nisbett, 2002).

For instance, how would you logically pair a chicken, a cow, and grass?

Which two go together?

Americans more often than not paired the animals together, as they are more insistent on rule-based categorization, whereas East Asians were more likely than Americans to pair the cow with grass, since cows eat grass.

Americans were also more accurate about applying complex rules of categorization when instructed to do so.

Change

As mentioned in the previous post, analytic thinkers are linear thinkers.

They think in states of stability, not in states of flux.

Any states of change follow a linear trend.

Dialectical thinkers think in perpetual change and variability.

This way of thinking is described as follows:

“At the deepest level of Chinese philosophical thinking, ‘to be or not to be’ is not the question, because life is a constant state of passing from one stage of being to another, so that to be is not to be, and not to be is to be” (Peng & Nisbett, 1999, p. 743).

These different styles of thinking lead to different predictions.

One study demonstrated that while Americans take into account previous predictors to indicate future results, Chinese participants do not (Ji, Nisbett, & Su, 2001).

When given the scenario of whether a three-year chess champion would likely lose the next game against his strongest opponent, Americans proposed a 29% chance, while Chinese respondents proposed a 53% chance.

This linear versus cyclical view of change was also illustrated in a study on stocks (Ji, Zhang, & Guo, 2008).

While Canadians were more likely to sell falling stocks and buy rising stocks, Chinese participants did the opposite, selling rising stocks and buying falling stocks.

This counter-normative instinct is seen in professional investors too, with Canadian investors twice as likely to sell falling stocks as Chinese investors.

Contradiction, Categorization & Change

These studies illustrate how opposing thinking styles can color your perspective in so many different ways.

When viewing contradiction, when categorizing objects and groups, and when dealing with change in various capacities, our decisions are based on our thinking styles.

Keep this in mind when working with or managing in other cultures: There is no “one way” to see the world.

Contradiction, Categorization, and Change: Three Studies on Cultural Thinking Styles & How We View the World, Part I

Posted on by Leave a comment

Many aspects of the field of psychology are not culture-neutral; instead, they often mirror a distinct Western analytical framework. 

This is called ethnocentricity – or cultural bias.

Within this framework, the world is envisioned as operating under discernible and unwavering rules, the existence of contradictions is perceived as a puzzle to be solved, and entities are generally regarded as relatively independent agents. 

Context and the intricate web of relationships between individuals and objects tend to be marginalized or, when examined, are often assumed to conform to simple and concise rules.

In contrast, dialectical or holistic thinking, which is more prevalent in East Asian societies, places a greater emphasis on context and the interplay of relationships. 

It embraces the notion of change rather than stability and readily accommodates contradictions. 

While analytical thinking undoubtedly has its merits, particularly in scientific inquiry and daily life, dialectical thinking at times leads to more precise conclusions or pragmatically advantageous decisions. 

Consequently, the authors of this paper advocate for the conscious adoption of both dialectical and analytical thinking as valuable tools in the cognitive toolkit, applicable to researchers and the general population alike.

They’ve also identified three ways in which each style of thinking differs: contradiction, categorization, and change.

But before we get to that, let’s take a look at each thinking style in a nutshell.

Analytic Thinking Style of the West

In general, Western cultures have an analytic thinking style, focused on individual objects and their specific attributes, independent of context.

Analytic thinkers are also linear thinkers: reasoning is rule-based.

They expect stasis, and any change is predicted.

Dialectical Thinking Style of the East

Eastern cultures have a dialectical or holistic thinking style, focused on context and relationships.

Objects are viewed in their context as part of the whole; everything is interconnected.

This type of thinking expects constant change with everything in flux. 

The interconnected parts are dynamic and nonlinear, and contradiction is seen as a fact of life and to be expected.

Let’s examine contradiction and these thinking styles perceive it.

Contradiction

In a study by Peng and Nisbett (1999), groups of American and Chinese participants were given contradictory statements.

Some participant groups were provided both statements to view, while others were given either the first or second statement, with one being more plausible than the other.

They were tasked with rating the plausibility of each statement.

When given the contradictory statements together, Americans rated the more plausible statement as much more plausible than when viewed by itself.

Chinese participants viewed the less plausible statement as more plausible when provided the contradictory statements together.

Neither rating change is logical, as a statement cannot be more or less true, simply because it is contradicted.

This study goes to show that Americans wish to eliminate contradiction altogether, while the Chinese prefer to increase the contradiction, giving credibility to both sides.

Next week, we’ll take a look at the other two aspects of these differing thinking styles in regard to categorization and change.

Self-Assertive Interdependence: The Paradox of Arab Culture

Posted on by Leave a comment

How does one become self-assertive in an interdependent culture?

It might seem like a paradox.

After all, interdependent cultures generally prioritize harmony over self.

Being bold or self-assertive might be seen as “rocking the boat.”

But Arab culture is the exception that proves the rule.

Although it’s a treasure trove of rich heritage, Arab culture is often overlooked in the realms of cultural psychology. 

This study explores a unique interdependence, infused with a self-assertiveness that sets Arabs apart.

How Landscape Shapes Culture

Picture a world shaped by harsh ecological and climatic environments, where survival hinges upon the protection and unity of tribal groups. 

Within the tapestry of Arabian cultures, a code of honor emerges, demanding respect and trustworthiness as integral traits of every individual. 

As this study’s hypothesis takes shape, the pieces align.

East Meets West

Study 1 reveals the captivating psychological profile of Arabs, bridging the gap between East and West. 

Like their Eastern counterparts, Arabs showcase interdependence and holism, embracing the profound connections that bind us. 

But, in a fascinating twist, they combine this interdependence with a self-assertiveness akin to Western cultures. 

These cultural intricacies defy simplistic categorizations.

Motives Behind Self-Assertiveness

Study 2 and Study 3 paint an even more vivid picture, illuminating the underlying motivations that drive self-assertiveness in Arabs and Westerners. 

For Arabs, their self-assertiveness serves the greater cause of interdependence, amplifying their sense of unity and communal strength. 

On the other hand, Westerners channel their self-assertiveness towards independence, valuing individual autonomy as a cornerstone of their cultural fabric.

Nuance is Everything

The authors’ work marks a significant milestone in the ever-evolving landscape of cultural psychology.

Beyond the conventional East versus West, interdependence versus independence paradigm, it uncovers the nuanced complexities of Arab culture. 

The study contributes to a deeper understanding of human diversity and the interplay between socioecological environments and cultural identities.

Cultural Mirrors: Behaviors and Self-Views Across Borders

Posted on by Leave a comment

What shapes us?

Self-construal theory (Markus and Kitayama, 1991) poses that our feelings, thoughts, and behaviors are shaped by the tapestry of cultural self-views. 

Two dimensions emerge: the independent and interdependent self-construals.

These construals are the basis for this cross-cultural comparison of behaviors of Japanese, Australian, and Canadian university students.

These three groups were asked to complete an independent and interdependent cultural self construal scale.

After a week, they rated their past behavior.

The findings reveal a compelling pattern.

Cultural Heritage

The interdependent behavior score exhibits a positive correlation with interdependent self-construal scores, while displaying a negative correlation with independent self-construal scores.

Japanese participants, true to their cultural heritage, report a greater inclination toward interdependent behaviors than their Canadian and European Australian counterparts. 

Yet, within the Canadian context, the plot thickens. 

Asian Canadians, with their unique fusion of cultural influences, exhibit a stronger tendency toward interdependence than their European Canadian peers. 

These revelations support Markus and Kitayama’s cultural self-construal hypothesis.

However, there’s a twist. 

The self-view measures, while expected to follow suit, defied the study’s hypothesis. 

European Canadians and European Australians, as anticipated, perceive themselves as more independent than their Japanese counterparts. 

Yet, surprisingly, Canadians lean toward interdependence more than their Japanese counterparts.

However, the study’s authors believe the divergence lies within the very structure of their questionnaires. 

Potential Flaw in the Study

The behavioral measure, rooted in tangible actions and future probabilities, stands as a reflection of actual performance. 

It requires no comparison against others, delivering a raw and authentic portrayal. 

Conversely, the self-construal measures ask participants to assess the extent to which they embody certain tendencies, lacking an objective reference point. 

To top it off, social comparison creeps in, complicating matters.

For instance, in a situation of conflict-avoidance: How can one respond without drawing upon the comparisons embedded within their own social fabric? 

A statement such as “I avoid having conflicts with members of my group” demands a comparison of one’s conflict-avoidance against others’. 

When the behaviors of others differ across cultures, biases infiltrate our cross-cultural means of self-rating scales. 

Such is the nature of the “reference group effect.”.

The Self

Still, the results pertaining to the self-construal scales may indeed reflect genuine perceptions of how the self is viewed in different cultures. 

Levine and colleagues discovered that Westerners showcased greater independence than their East Asian counterparts, though the level of interdependence did not follow the anticipated trajectory.

Japan in a national-level transition is a collision of individualism and collectivism, tradition and modernity. 

While the Japanese continue to behave in interdependent ways, their self-view rebels against the interdependence they embody. 

Assertive vs. Avoidance Tactics: How Does Culture Determine Approach to Conflict Resolution?

Posted on by Leave a comment

How do you approach conflict resolution?

Are you tactically assertive or avoidant?

And is your approach determined by personality or culture?

Over the coming weeks, I’ll discuss scientific studies dealing with the six cultural constructs, the first of which is individualism versus collectivism.

This paper by cognitive and cross-cultural psychologist, C. Dominik Guess, takes a look at conflict resolution in individualist and collectivist cultures.

Japan Collectivism vs. US Individualism

One of the studies in Guess’ paper explores how cultural background shapes the way conflict is handled – specifically, American individualism versus Japanese collectivism.

A group of researchers, led by Ohbuchi, Fukushima, and Tedeschi, gathered American and Japanese students and unleashed the power of conflict recall. 

They asked participants to dig deep into their memories and recall a conflict they had experienced.

These participants were then asked to share their conflict experience – what they did, what they wanted to achieve, etc. 

Using rating scales, they were asked to measure various aspects of the conflict, like goals and tactics. 

In the battlefield of conflict, four major tactics emerged, each with its own arsenal of sub-tactics: conciliation, assertion, third-party intervention, and avoidance.

The Four Tactics

Let’s better understand the four tactics identified.

Conciliation – this tactic involves finding common ground. It’s a way to indirectly communicate expectations and build bridges. 

Assertion – this tactic is a bold and assertive move, where you fiercely demand what you want.

Third-party intervention – this tactic involves calling in reinforcements in the form of seeking help or advice from an outsider. 

Avoidance – this tactic is the ultimate passivity, dodging confrontation like a pro.

Considering these differing approaches to conflict resolution, you can imagine the cultural clash that may result.

The Results: Assertive vs. Avoidant

As you may have guessed, the American students, with their individualistic spirit, generally used assertive tactics in their conflicts. 

On the flip side, the Japanese students, being the collectivist champions they are, took a more subtle approach overall. 

They opted for avoidance tactics, sidestepping confrontation and prioritizing harmony in their relationships.

This may be because each group’s main goal in these conflicts also differed.

The Japanese participants prioritized their relationships, while the American participants’ goal was more often geared toward achieving a sense of justice.

While the results confirm what most would have hypothesized, considering what we already know about individualist and collectivist cultures, the research could be adapted so that the type of conflict being discussed is more uniform. 

An individual’s approach (the tactics and goals) may vary based on the conflict.

As the students were allowed to choose whichever conflict they wanted to assess, their responses may have differed based upon the type they chose.

Regardless, this study may tell us something key about how individualists and collectivists approach conflict: individualists with justice in mind, and collectivists with harmony.

6 Basic Emotions & How They Are Viewed by Different Cultures

Posted on by Leave a comment

Happiness. Sadness. Fear. Anger. Surprise. Disgust.

According to this study, titled “Two Sides of Emotion: Exploring Positivity and Negativity in Six Basic Emotions across Cultures,” universal emotions can be perceived positively or negatively by different cultures.

The study tested the affective and cognitive components of these emotions on Korean, Chinese, American, and Canadian students.

What the study found was that each of these emotions contain both positivity and negativity but were viewed differently among cultures.

Study’s Findings

Canadians and Americans (Westerners) and Chinese and Koreans (Easterners) have different thinking styles.

As the study notes: 

“Easterners tend to be dialectical when thinking about a situation in a manner that balances the positives and negatives. When things are going well, Easterners might expect a change for the worse, and when things are going badly, they might expect things to get better.”

On the other hand, Westerners’ thinking style can lead to imbalance.

“Westerners tend to focus more on one pattern—things will tend to stay as they are, good or bad. This thinking style may lead Westerners to think that things are rather consistent, leading them to concentrate on one side of an issue.”

Let’s see how this affects each group’s perspective on these six basic emotions.

Sadness

Stronger positivity of sadness was reported by Easterners, and stronger negativity was reported by Westerners.

This complies with past studies’ findings that negative emotions have motivational and cognitive utility. 

Other studies have found that Westerners tend to feel they shouldn’t have to face sadness, while Easterners embrace the experience of sadness.

Happiness

All four countries rated happiness as positive, though Easterners reported stronger negativity of happiness, while Westerners reported stronger positivity.

Past studies have found that happiness may be experienced differently and mean different things across cultures.

The study suggests that while happiness may be a bright sunny day in the West, it may be balanced with the negativity of a drizzle in the East.

Anger

Anger was viewed more positively by Easterners than by Westerners. 

A 2013 study found that anger was expressed more by those with lower social status in the U.S., while it was expressed by those with higher social status in Japan, probably to demonstrate authority. 

This may be one reason why Easterners view anger more positively than Westerners.

Fear

Americans were the only group to report stronger cognitive fear than affective fear.

Their thoughts and conceptualization of fear were more negative, as fear was anticipated more and felt less, or maybe suppressed, while the other three groups felt fear as more negative.

Koreans reported a stronger positivity of fear, which may be due to their history. 

As a threatened nation, they may view fear as a norm that they must simply live with.

Disgust

Similarly to fear, Americans were the only group to report stronger cognitive disgust than affective disgust.

This means that others felt disgust more negatively, while Americans thought and conceptualized it more negatively. 

Easterners reported a stronger positivity of disgust, which might suggest their duality of thinking/feeling that even “bad” things can be beneficial.

Surprise

Surprise was reported by Easterners to be more negative, while by Westerners it was reported to be more positive.

Unexpected events are viewed as more negative by Easterners, and although they expect change more than Westerners, it’s not as welcome.

The Meaning of Well-Being: A Qualitative Cross-Cultural Study

Posted on by Leave a comment

What does “well-being” mean to you?

Back in 1984, the World Health Organization defined health and well-being as follows:

“Health is a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being.”

This universal definition of well-being differs from subjective well-being, which is how one evaluates one’s own quality of life, how one feels in it, and how one feels they function in it.

Research and literature surrounding subjective well-being focus on happiness, positive affect, and life satisfaction.

Social well-being is more in tune with social behaviors: how one interacts with social institutions and mores, how he/she interacts with others, and how others react to him/her.

Considering these differences, this study comparing well-being constructs between German and Chinese students looked at social support as an indicator of social well-being, and happiness and satisfaction with life as indicators of subjective well-being.

Well-Being Study

It can be assumed that the definitions of the above terms might differ between these two groups, based on their differing cultures, as might the objectives to accomplish each.

Via focus groups and questionnaires, the study assessed perceived social support through rated statements like:

  • “I experience a lot of understanding and security from others.”
  • “If necessary, I can easily borrow something I might need from neighbors or friends.”
  • “I have friends and family who will simply just hug me.”

Similarly, satisfaction was measured through statements like:

  • “The conditions of my life are excellent.”
  • “In most ways, my life is close to my ideal.” 
  • “I am satisfied with my life.”

And, lastly, happiness was measured via statements like:

  • “Some people are generally happy. They enjoy life regardless of what is going on, getting the most out of everything.”
  • “Some people are generally not very happy. Although they are not depressed, they never seem as happy as they might be.”

The Results

Happiness

Both groups defined happiness criteria as including social contacts, positive emotions, and quality of life. Where the two countries differed was in social contact.

Social contact was the most frequently mentioned aspect in China and the least in Germany.

Another interesting aspect of the way each group viewed happiness was in the angle they took. 

The Chinese groups saw happiness as pursuing a dream/goal and/or seeing it fulfilled, while the German groups saw two types of happiness: uncontrollable (which is designed by luck or fate, for instance) and controllable (as in achieving something). They also specified that happiness is subjective and brief.

Life Satisfaction

Both groups noted different kinds of satisfaction.

First, an individual realistic standard; second, an ideal standard that’s changeable. 

Lastly, they mentioned one’s perception of current satisfaction.

Quality of life was seen by both groups as a significant factor of life satisfaction, but the Chinese students focused on good living conditions (like high salary and economic conditions), while the German students focused on basic needs fulfillment (a home and food, etc.).

The researchers concluded that these differences may be based on the economic focuses of the two countries.

The Chinese groups saw contentment with one’s situation and a positive attitude about life as major contributing factors to life satisfaction, while the German students noted that satisfaction can come with comparing one’s current situation with the social norm or an individual standard.

Perceived Social Support

Chinese students focused on societal support, like charities, companies, and government policies, when discussing sources of perceived social support, while German students focused more on direct social networks.

German students mentioned financial and material support more frequently than their Chinese counterparts.

Both groups mentioned emotional support, while only the Chinese groups talked about “asking for help” indirectly, such as by posting on social media to gain empathy.

This study shows that though the themes of well-being may be universal, the contributing factors to well-being differ across cultures, often depending on cultural values, perspectives, and expectations.

Diary-Keeping & Language Learning: How Adults Learn Language

Posted on by Leave a comment

Did you know that analyzing your own language learning can significantly boost your results?

I’ve talked about how to learn a language with an old brain.

Recently, I’ve come across new research into tactics that can help adults learn language.

And it all has to do with how adults learn, which is explicitly, rather than implicitly.

Explain, Please…

Adults require a certain clarity when they’re learning, especially when it comes to the elements of a new language.

They tend to lean heavily on their native language to help them understand the mechanics of a foreign one.

Therefore, one useful technique to learning language is to keep a diary that enables the adult student to write down the connections they’ve made during their language lessons. 

Remembering and replaying these connections is what locks vocabulary, sentence structure, and one’s overall understanding of the language in the memory’s vault.

The Research

A study into this technique looked at a group of language students at a Scottish university studying Spanish as a foreign language.

Using their native language (English), they were asked to explain the new language they were learning, including its characteristics, their focus, and what links the language had to English.

Diaries were introduced to three classrooms of 38 students, and after each lesson, they were asked to write out what they’d learned in the lesson and what similarities and differences they’d noticed compared to English.

According to a focus group interview after a period of time, it was found that the analysis and reflection of each lesson’s substance boosted student performance and gave them confidence.

They were able to better recognize language errors, articulate how each language worked, and identify and understand the different grammatical rules and other distinctions between the languages.

Not only this, but the written accounts of each lesson helped students memorize what they’d learned.

Personalized Language Learning

Another interesting takeaway from the study was that the answer to the question, “What did you learn in today’s lesson?” differed widely amongst students.

Each lesson had specific learning objectives, so it was expected that there would be similar answers, but that wasn’t the case.

This goes to show that each student progresses at his or her own pace, and language learning is particularly personalized, with each student learning something different from any one lesson.