Preferences don’t have to be personal: Expanding attitude theorizing with a cross-cultural perspective.

Abstract

Attitudes, theorized as behavioral guides, have long been a central focus of research in the social sciences. However, this theorizing reflects primarily Western philosophical views and empirical findings emphasizing the centrality of personal preferences. As a result, the prevalent psychological model of attitudes is a person-centric one. We suggest that incorporating research insights from non-Western sociocultural contexts can significantly enhance attitude theorizing. To this end, we propose an additional model-a normative-contextual model of attitudes. The currently dominant person-centric model emphasizes the centrality of personal preferences, their stability and internal consistency, and their possible interaction with externally imposed norms. In contrast, the normative-contextual model emphasizes that attitudes are always context-contingent and incorporate the views of others and the norms of the situation. In this model, adjustment to norms does not involve an effortful struggle between the authentic self and exogenous forces. Rather, it is the ongoing and reassuring integration of others' views into one's attitudes. According to the normative-contextual model, likely to be a good fit in contexts that foster interdependence and holistic thinking, attitudes need not be personal or necessarily stable and internally consistent and are only functional to the extent that they help one to adjust automatically to different contexts. The fundamental shift in focus offered by the normative-contextual model generates novel hypotheses and highlights new measurement criteria for studying attitudes in non-Western sociocultural contexts. We discuss these theoretical and measurement implications as well as practical implications for health and well-being, habits and behavior change, and global marketing. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).

Is the Congruence Between Behavioral Intention, Attitude, Norm and Behavioral Control Normative?

“…This implies that a preference for congruence may not be considered as a simple bias but that it is constructed through social interaction, here in relation to the expectations and habits of others. This result agrees with the studies which highlight the fact that the expression of attitudes and their correlates is contingent on the context and systematically incorporates the point of view of others or the norms particular to the situation (Riemer, Shavitt, Koo, & Markus, 2014).…”

The influence of peer behavior as a function of social and cultural closeness: A meta-analysis of normative influence on adolescent smoking initiation and continuation.

“…Individuals from more collectivistic cultures also have more interdependent self-construal, demonstrate stronger identification with normative referents, and thus are more likely to conform to normative influence from their peers. Descriptive peer norms of smoking appear to exert a more powerful impact on behaviors within such populations (Bagozzi, Wong, Abe, & Bergami, 2000; Bond & Smith, 1996; Bongardt et al, 2014; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Park & Levine, 1999; Qiu et al, 2013; Riemer et al, 2014; Triandis, 1995). These findings also highlight the importance of considering cultural variables in theories of peer influence during adolescence; whereas interpersonal variables do not moderate the relationship between peer behavior and adolescents’ risk of smoking continuation, cultural influence still matters.…”

“…Individualistic groups view the self as a unique entity and value independence, whereas collectivistic groups view the self as embedded within a group and give precedence to harmony within groups (Hofstede, 1980; Schwartz, 1990; Triandis, 1995). Findings from cross-cultural studies of social conformity indicate that individualistic societies prioritize personal decisions independent of normative factors, whereas collectivist societies tend to reward conformity more (Bond & Smith, 1996; Bongardt, Reitz, Sandfort, & Deković, 2014; Qiu, Lin, & Leung, 2013; Riemer, Shavitt, Koo, & Markus, 2014; Triandis, 1995). …”

Stratification and segmentation: Social class in consumer behavior

“…As noted by Carey and Markus (2016, this issue), the literature in social and consumer psychology may characterize middle‐class consumers better than it does working‐class consumers. Viewing previous theoretical perspectives through the lens of social class differences allows us to consider new research questions (e.g., Riemer, Shavitt, Koo, & Markus, 2014). Therefore, building upon Carey and Markus's article, we revisit previous theories and findings on information processing, advertising, material versus experiential purchases, conspicuous and compensatory consumption, and market segmentation.…”