Expressions of the Self in Individualistic vs. Collective Cultures: a cross-cultural-perspective teaching module

Transcription

1 Psychology Learning and Teaching Volume 11 Number Expressions of the Self in Individualistic vs. Collective Cultures: a cross-cultural-perspective teaching module BERNARDO J. CARDUCCI Indiana University Southeast, New Albany, USA ABSTRACT To help instructors develop lecture material to introduce the cross-cultural perspective in psychology, the author describes a self-contained teaching module that includes a summary of information, along with supporting references, describing the importance of the cross-cultural perspective while introducing students to two fundamental concepts in the study of the cross-cultural perspective: individualistic and collectivistic cultures. A series of selected topics relating to the expressions of the self (e.g., feelings of happiness and shame/guilt and explanations of personal success and failure) is presented to illustrate these cultural differences. To supplement lecture material and facilitate in-class discussion of these cultural differences, each selected topic includes a brief summary of the major findings, illustrative examples, and supporting references. The nature of the information in this teaching module is appropriate for use by instructors teaching a variety of courses seeking a concise introduction to the topic of the cross-cultural perspective in psychology. In an attempt to promote an appreciation for diversity among individuals in general and within the study of psychology in particular, there is an established trend in the teaching of psychology for the inclusion of the cross-cultural perspective (e.g., Kitayama & Cohen, 2007). A particularly important lesson to communicate to students is the value of the cross-cultural perspective as both a research tool and a framework for achieving a greater understanding of the differences among people (Heine, 2012; Triandis, 2007). As a research tool, cross-cultural comparisons are important as a means of testing and verifying the generalizability of psychological processes, principles, and dynamics found in one culture to other cultures (Benet-Martínez, 2008). As a framework for achieving a greater understanding of the differences among people, the cross-cultural perspective makes visible the systems of meanings and practices the language, the collective representations, the metaphors, the social scripts, the social structures, the policies, the institutions, the artifacts within which people come to think and feel and act (Cross & Markus, 1999, p. 380). In support of this reasoning, the purpose of this article is to provide instructors with a self-contained teaching module for introducing a cross-cultural perspective. The teaching module includes supporting material that instructors can use to develop a brief lecture to illustrate the cross-cultural perspective by examining differences in expressions of the self by individuals in individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Procedures Instructors can start this teaching module by introducing students to two fundamental concepts in the study of the cross-cultural perspective: individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Such introductory remarks should include a brief definition of the individualistic and collectivistic cultures and examples of their characteristic features. The following information, along with the references that I provide, will help instructors begin to develop supplementary lecture material on 413

2 Bernardo J. Carducci individualistic and collectivistic cultures. The estimated time for presenting the lecture material and subsequent class discussion is 20 to 30 minutes. Individualistic Cultures: the squeaky wheel gets the grease Individualistic cultures, such as North American and Western European countries, are characterized by a cultural perspective that emphasizes the uniqueness of the individual s personal characteristics, needs, and motives as the focal point of predicting and understanding the individual s actions (Chiu, Kim, & Wan, 2008). In contrast to collectivistic cultures, individualistic cultures place more emphasis on the expression and satisfaction of the individual s needs than on conformity to public norms (Oyserman & Lee, 2007). These cultures are sometimes described as complex societies because people have considerable societal flexibility to join many different groups and exercise a wide range of choices in the expression of various social roles. For example, in American society, although parents might have certain expectations of their children to go to college, the children are relatively free to choose a major that reflects their personal needs and interests. Due to their emphasis on the expression of the needs and desires of the individual, such complex, individualistic cultures illustrate the proverb the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Collectivistic Cultures: the nail that stands out gets pounded down In contrast to individualistic cultures, collectivistic cultures such as Japan, India, and China tend to be characterized by a cultural perspective that places less emphasis on the uniqueness of the individual s personal characteristics as the focal point of predicting and understanding the individual s actions. Instead, such cultures place more of an emphasis on the person s identification with a group, such as family, country, occupation, or caste, and the expectations, duties, and roles associated with being a member of a group as the primary source for understanding the individual (Benet-Martínez & Oishi, 2008). These cultures appear as tight societies because of the high expectations they place on people to conform to societal values, roles, and norms. For example, even though she may not like studying economics, a young Japanese college student may pursue a career as an economist to fulfill the wishes of the elder members of her family. Due to their restrictive nature, such tight, collectivistic cultures illustrate the proverb the nail that stands out gets pounded down. These descriptions of individualistic and collectivistic cultures represent general patterns of thinking and behavior associated with certain cultural guidelines. As a point of clarification, within any given culture there will be personal expression by individuals who do not conform to such cultural guidelines. More specifically, even in tight, collectivistic cultures there will be those individuals whose actions reflect to a greater degree their personal needs, motives, and values. For example, even in highly repressive cultures, there will be those individuals who will pursue their academic interests (e.g., study forbidden texts), creative passions (e.g., play music), and/or political views (e.g., anti-government protesting) that are at odds with the cultural guidelines. Suggestions for Facilitating In-class Discussion: cultural differences in expression of the self The previous information is designed to introduce the cross-cultural concepts of individualistic vs. collectivistic cultures. Instructors can use the information on the following topics to supplement the lecture material from the previous section and facilitate in-class discussion on various aspects of self-expression by individuals living in individualistic and collectivistic cultures. For each topic, I present a brief summary of the research along with some illustrative examples that instructors can introduce to facilitate in-class discussion. Using these examples, instructors can ask students to provide additional examples based on their personal experiences (e.g., students visiting different cultures) or shared experiences (e.g., information provided by a friend or co-worker from a different culture) of these expression of the self as a means of stimulating in-class discussion. For those instructors who wish to develop additional material on a topic, I have included reference sources in parentheses within each entry. 414

3 Cross-cultural Perspective Teaching Model Feelings of Happiness In which culture would you expect a greater degree of happiness? In a survey of nations that included 75% of the world s population, the level of happiness was positively associated with the degree to which a country was rated as individualistic (Diener, Diener, & Diener, 1995). Feelings of independence and autonomy tend to contribute to a greater sense of life satisfaction for those individuals living in individualistic cultures (Lucas & Diener, 2008). Such individuals tend to be happier because their life choices reflect their personal needs and values to a greater degree than individuals whose choices reflect more the needs and values of others. For example, a young female who is allowed to marry someone she selects for herself after deciding to attend college is likely to feel more happy than a young female who marries the man selected by her parents and enters the family business instead of pursuing her desire to attend college. Feelings of Shame and Guilt Because of their emphasis on public aspects of the self, collective cultures promote greater feelings of shame and guilt than individualistic cultures (Buss, 2001; Carducci, 2009). For example, a young male feels guilty about the sense of shame he will bring to his family in their neighborhood by refusing an arranged marriage to a local woman whom he does not love. Explanations for Personal Success In western cultures, people assume personal responsibility for their success through selfenhancement (e.g., I worked really hard for my raise ; Carducci, 2009). People in eastern cultures, however, tend to perceive their success in a self-effacing manner and as being due to situational factors (e.g., I received my raise because my boss is a generous person ). This East-West difference in the pattern for promoting self-enhancement appears not just within individuals but also when they evaluate groups to which they belong. For example, individuals in western cultures often perceive others as more personally responsible for their success (e.g., She put in a lot of overtime ), whereas individuals in eastern cultures often perceive the success of others as being due to situational factors (e.g., He works for a company that provides lots of training for its employees ). Explanation for Personal Failures In western cultures, people are likely to downplay personal responsibility for their failures in a manner that protects their self-image (e.g., I did not get a raise because my boss dislikes me and is cheap ). In eastern cultures, however, people are likely to explain their failures by elevating others personal attributes (e.g., I did not get the raise because I did not work as hard as my co-workers ; Heine, Lehman, Markus, & Kitayama, 1999). In fact, this tendency for individuals from collective cultures to take less credit for success and more credit for failure may contribute to increased feelings of depression and loneliness (Anderson, 1999). Expression of Emotions In western cultures, people are likely to experience emotions related directly to a personal sense of self, such as pride (e.g., I did a great job ) or frustration (e.g., I was cheated out of a raise ), to a greater degree than people in Eastern cultures (Eid & Diener, 2001). People from collective cultures are more likely than people from individualistic cultures to base their emotional expression on assessments of social worth and shifts in relative social worth, which emphasizes the relatedness of the person to others (Mesquita, 2001). For example, individuals in collectivistic cultures may experience more pride when their efforts have positive consequences for others (e.g., I helped my teammates do well ) and more sadness when their efforts have negative consequences for others (e.g., My poor play cost our team the victory ). This pattern of emotional expression would intensify as the significance of the social relatedness increases. For example, the nature of the 415

4 Bernardo J. Carducci emotional expression would intensify more when the consequences affect immediate family members vs. co-workers or casual acquaintances. Summary This article provides a self-contained teaching module that includes information to assist instructors in the development of some basic lecture material to illustrate the cross-cultural perspective in psychology. Its principal focus is to illustrate how the concepts of individualistic and collectivistic cultures can serve as conceptual frameworks for understanding cultural differences among individuals. I have provided a series of selected topics relating to the expressions of the self to illustrate these cultural differences and serve a as a basis for facilitating in-class discussion of these differences. The content of the information is appropriate for use in such courses as introductory psychology, social psychology, personality psychology, and psychology of adjustment, as well as any other course featuring a discussion of the cross-cultural perspective in psychology. Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank the constructive comments provided by the two anonymous reviews of previous versions of this manuscript. Their comments did much to improve the overall quality of this article. References Anderson, C. A. (1999). Attributional style, depression, and loneliness: A cross-cultural comparison of American and Chinese students. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, Benet-Martínez, V. (2008). Cross-cultural personality research. In R. W. Robins, C. R. Fraley, & R. F. Krueger (Eds). Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp ). New York: Guilford Press. Benet-Martínez, V., & Oishi, S. (2008). Culture and personality. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp ). New York: Guilford Press. Buss, A. H. (2001). Psychological dimensions of the self. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage. Carducci, B. J. (2009). The psychology of personality: Viewpoints, research, and applications (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Chiu, C., Kim, Y., & Wan, W. W. N. (2008). Personality: Cross-cultural perspectives. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The Sage handbook of personality theory and assessment: Vol. 1. Personality theories and models (pp ). Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage. Cross, S. E., & Markus, H. R. (1999). The cultural constitution of personality. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp ). New York: Guilford Press. Diener, E., Diener, M., & Diener, C. (1995). Factors predicting the subjective well-being of nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2001). Norms for experiencing emotions in different cultures: Inter- and intranational differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, Heine, S. J. (2012). Cultural psychology (2nd ed.). New York: W. W. Norton. Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal need for positive selfregard? Psychological Review, 106, Kitayama, S., & Cohen, D. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of cultural psychology. New York: Guilford Press. Lucas, R. E., & Diener, E. (2008). Personality and subjective well-being. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp ). New York: Guilford Press. Mesquita, B. (2001). Emotions in collectivist and individualist contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, Oyserman, D. & Lee, S. W. (2007). Priming culture : Culture as situated cognition. In S. Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp ). New York: Guilford Press. 416

5 Cross-cultural Perspective Teaching Model Triandis, H. C. (2007). Culture and psychology: A history of the study of their relationship. In S. Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp ). New York: Guilford Press. BERNARDO J. CARDUCCI is professor of psychology and Director of the Shyness Research Institute at Indiana University Southeast; he is also a Fellow of Division 2: Society for the Teaching of Psychology and of Division 52: International Psychology of the American Psychological Association, and President of the Italian American Psychology Assembly. Work on this project was supported by instructional release time for research awarded to the author by the Office of Academic Affairs at Indiana University Southeast. This article is based on a presentation at the meeting of the 2003 American Psychological Association in Toronto. Correspondence: bcarducc@ius.edu Manuscript received 25 August 2011 Revision accepted for publication 4 April