Culture
Beth Lee
November, 18, 2003
Culture and the Self
(Markus & Kitayama, 1991)
• In Western cultures, the self is viewed
as an independent, autonomous,
separated being defined by a s unique
repertoire of attributes, abilities,
thoughts, and feelings
• In Eastern Cultures, the self is viewed
as interdependent with others and is
experienced as part of a social web
Culture and the Self - cont.
(Markus & Kitayama, 1991)
Independent Self
Mother
x x
x
Father
xx
X
xx
x
Friend
x
Self
x
x
x
xx
x
Co-worker
Sibling
xx
Culture and the Self - cont.
(Markus & Kitayama, 1991)
Interdependent Self
Mother
Father
x
x
x
x
x
Self
x
x
x
Friend
x
x
x x
x x
Co-worker
Sibling
Culture and Attribution
(Morris & Peng, 1994)
American articles
• Personality traits (e.g., “ very bad
temper”)
• Attitudes (e.g., “personal belief that
guns were an important means to
redress grievances”)
• Psychological problems (e.g. “darkly
disturbed man who drove himself to
success and destruction”)
Culture and Attribution - cont.
(Morris & Peng, 1994)
Chinese articles
• Relationships(e.g., “did not get along
with his advisor”)
• Pressures in Chinese society(e.g., “a
victim of the ‘Top Student’s Education
Policy”)
Culture and Motivation
(Heine, Takata, & Lehman, 2000)
Self-enhancement
• Canadians resisted the notion that they
had been outperformed by their peers
when given such feedback
• Canadians slowed down, needed more
information and were less confident
when receiving more negative (critical)
feedback
Culture and Motivation- cont.
(Heine,Takata, & Lehman, 2000)
Self-criticism
• Japanese resisted the notion that they
had outperformed their Japanese peers
• Japanese needed more information,
became more hesitant, and less
confident when given positive
(enhancing) feedback
Culture and Persuasion
Han & Shavitt (1994)
• Individualistic appeals focused on
independence, individual benefits,
preference, and personal success (e.g.,
“the art of being unique,” “make your way
through the crowd”)
• Collectivistic appeals focused on in-group
benefits, harmony, and family integrity(e.g.,
“we have a way of bring people closer
together,” “our family agrees with the
selection of home-furnishings”)
Han & Shavitt (1994)-cont.
• Individualistic appeals
American ads > Korean ads
• Collectivistic appeals
Korean ads > American ads
Culture and Persuasion
Lee, Fong & Zanna (2002)
• Content analysis of Korean and North
American magazine ads with respect to
regulatory focus theory
• Coding scheme covered the different
aspects of promotion and prevention
focus (needs, goals, emotions, decision
making strategies, and self-construals)
Regulatory Focus Theory
• Hedonic principle : people wish to
approach pleasure and to avoid pain
• Promotion focus : pursuit of gains and
aspiration toward ideals Independent
self
• Prevention focus : the avoidance of
losses and the fulfillment of obligations
 interdependent self
Percentage of Ads Using Promotion Focus Themes
Approaching
Accomplishment
Aspirations+
AspirationsUniqueness
Dejection
Cheerful
Eagerness
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Korean Ads
North American Ads
Percentage of Ads Using Prevention Focus Themes
Avoiding
Safety
Responsibility +
Responsibility Harmony
Agitation
Calm
Vigilance
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Korean Ads
North American Ads
Proportion of Regulatory Focus in Ads as a Function of Culture
%
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Promotion
Interaction F (1, 451) = 103.94, p < .001
Prevention
Korean Ad
NA Ad
Summary
• It was Korean ads that employed more
promotion appeals than North American
ads
• This surprising pattern of the results
was the same regardless of magazine
category (e.g. news, women’s) and
product category (e.g. personal,
technology)
Two Opposing Predictions
Are promotion focus themes REALLY more
persuasive to Koreans than to North
Americans?
• Koreans would like promotion focus themes
more than North Americans
vs.
• Koreans would like prevention focus themes
more than North Americans, whereas North
Americans would like promotion focus
themes more than Koreans
Evaluation by Culture by Country of Ad
0.4
Evaluation of Ads
0.3
0.2
0.1
Korean
Ads
NA
Ads
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
Canadians
Interaction F ( 1, 48) = 27.32, p < .01
Koreans
Evaluation by Culture by Regulatory Focus
Evaluation of Ad
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
PM
PV
Canadians
Interaction F ( 1, 48) = 3.89, p = .05
Koreans
Conclusions
• Individuals from Asian cultures, who are
likely to emphasize interdependence,
are also more likely to resonate to ads
with a prevention focus than individuals
from North America, who are likely to
emphasize independence