Reconsidering Culture and Self

Abstract

The interplay of culture and self has been one of the most active areas of research in self and identity. It has provided a number of theoretical concepts and research methodologies that have advanced the psychological understanding about self processes. This paper provides a concise review of the field's underlying assumptions, and points to its contemporary issues and future directions. In particular, we begin by reviewing the work of Triandis Psychological Review, 96, 506-520, (1989) and Markus and Kitayama Psychological Review, 98, 224-253, (1991), point to questions about the content and process surrounding culture and self, and end with a description of a new research program that expands on the current culture and self literature by posing a broader question of the cultural conception of what it means to be human and the interplay between humanness conception and self conception. The interplay of culture and self has been one of the most active areas of research in self and identity over the past two decades. Kicked off by the publication of two seminal papers in Psychological Review, Triandis (1989) and Markus and Kitayama (1991), the field has seen an explosive growth. At the 20 year anniversary of these publications, however, it is a time to take stock, celebrate the field's achievement, reflect on its shortcomings, and point to future directions in this vibrant and critical research area. Looking BackBetween the two papers, Triandis (1989) and Markus and Kitayama (1991) mapped out a standard theory of culture and self. On the one hand, Triandis primarily focused on the cultural antecedents of self. Macro-level cultural characteristics such as individualism and collectivism, cultural complexity, and cultural tightness influence the prevalence of different types of self-private, public, and collective selves. Private selves are self representations about the internal qualities of the individuals; public selves are concerned with the appearance of oneself to others; and collective selves are those aspects of oneself that are connected to one's ingroups. When we say prevalence, it is a combination of the extent to which a large number of self-related cultural representations are constructed in a society (availability) and the extent to which instances of cultural representations are acquired by individuals and come to their mind easily (accessibility). In particular, cultural individualism has a profound effect: individualism increases the prevalence of private selves, but decreases those of public and collective selves. Obviously, other cultural dimensions affect the prevalence of self-representations, but it was individualism that left the strongest mark in the field. Although Triandis suggested that the kind of self accessed at a given time in a specific context determines

Unpacking Cultural Variations in Social Anxiety and the Offensive-Type of Taijin Kyofusho Through the Indirect Effects of Intolerance of Uncertainty and Self-Construals

“…For instance, independent self-construal is often found to be related to less social anxiety (e.g., Dinnel et al, 2002;Hong & Woody, 2007;Okazaki et al, 2002). However, the local socio-cultural context where these psychological processes become salient or even pathological is also important because both cultural contexts and the self are constantly undergoing negotiation and reformation within these local socio-cultural contexts (Kashima et al, 2011). As a result, it is crucial to consider cultural variations in social anxiety, OTKS, and psychopathology in general as a process in a given context, not a static mean difference between groups across all situations and locations.…”

“…Self-construals (i.e., independent vs. interdependent self-construals) alone do not fully account for cultural variations in SA and TKS (e.g., Dinnel et al, 2002). Indeed, studies of cultural variation in independent vs. interdependent self-construals have often yielded mixed results (Kashima, Koval, & Kashima, 2011;Norasakkunkit et al, 2012;Matsumoto, 2002).…”

“…The relation between culture and the self is highly complex -not only do they have a relation of mutual constitution (Markus & Kitayama, 2010), they also change over time (Kashima et al, 2011). Individual people within a cultural context differ from one another, and they can endorse, partially endorse, reject, or subvert cultural meanings and practices in innumerable ways (Ryder, Ban, & Chentsova-Dutton, 2011).…”

More Human Than Others, but Not Always Better

“…Although a few studies suggest that East Asian cultures differ from each other in subtle ways (e.g., Kashima et al, 1995;Yamaguchi et al, 2007), systematic explanations for such differences are yet lacking. Promisingly, Kashima, Koval, and Kashima's (2011) recent analysis of culture and self considers cultural change and history as a potential factor for explaining cultural differences between Japan and other Asian countries.…”

Spontaneous Self-Concept Among Chinese Undergraduates in Hong Kong

“…Watkins, Yau, Dahlin, and Wondimu (1997) suggested that only the first 10 responses should be considered, and recommended use of the shorter (fewer items) and less abstract (better primed) versions of the TST. Kashima, Koval, and Kashima (2011) suggested dropping the pronoun "I" to minimize the impact of language structure and use in collectivist societies. Because our focus was on a group of bilingual ethnic Chinese in Hong Kong, we believed that asking respondents to complete 20 "Who am I?"…”