Psychological Reports: Sociocultural Issues in Psychology 2014, 115, 1, 326-338. © Psychological Reports 2014
INDEPENDENT AND INTERDEPENDENT SELF-CONSTRUALS DO NOT PREDICT ANALYTIC OR HOLISTIC REASONING1 ROBERT C. MARQUEZ AND JOEL ELLWANGER California State University, Los Angeles Summary.—Independent self-construals in Western cultures may promote analytic information processing and low field dependence, while interdependent selfconstruals in Eastern cultures may foster holistic information processing and high field dependence. To examine these ideas, the social orientation and cognitive style of 254 introductory psychology students were measured. Multiple regression analyses indicated a non-significant relationship between the participants' social orientation and cognitive style (R2s ranged from .00 to .01, 95% confidence intervals for R2 ranged from .00 to .05). These findings indicate that the hypothesis that collectivism and individualism are associated with differences in information processing between individuals needs further scrutiny. The possible reasons for the lack of association between social orientation and cognitive style are discussed.
Differences in information processing have been reported between individuals from Eastern and Western cultural backgrounds (Nisbett & Masuda, 2003). Nisbett (2003) has proposed that these differences are due to the fact that collectivism is promoted in Eastern cultures (e.g., China, Japan, etc.) while individualism is promoted in Western cultures (e.g., USA and Europe). Furthermore, the emphasis on individualism in the West is believed to foster independent self-construals (viewing the self as independent of others). These independent self-construals are then believed to promote analytic forms of information processing (emphasis on central point of information and categorical organization) and low field dependence (ignoring global-level information) in individuals. In contrast, collectivism in the East is believed to foster interdependent self-construals (viewing the self as interdependent with others), which in turn are believed to promote holistic forms of information processing (emphasis on the surrounding context and the relationships between pieces of information) and high field dependence (processing information at a global level; see Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001, for a review). However, the hypothesis that independent/interdependent self-construals lead to the observed differences in information processing between members of Western and Eastern cultures has not been sufficiently tested. For example, most previous studies measuring the cognitive performance of groups from Eastern and Western cultures have surmised that any sigAddress correspondence to Joel Ellwanger, 5151 State University Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90032 or e-mail ([email protected]). 1
DOI 10.2466/17.07.PR0.115c16z8
25-PR_Marquez_140059.indd 326
ISSN 0033-2941
08/08/14 5:22 PM
SELF-CONSTRUALS AND REASONING
327
nificant differences in cognitive performance are due to participants' differing levels of independent and interdependent self-construals, without actually measuring their samples' independent and interdependent orientations. The goal of the present study is to examine this important hypothesis. Previous Research The relevant literature addressing the question of whether cultural self-construals are related to measures of information processing at the level of the individual is limited. Konrath, Bushman, and Grove (2009) measured independent and interdependent self-construals with the Singelis Self-Construal Scale (Singelis, 1994) and found, consistent with Nisbett's (2003) hypothesis, that high independence was associated with less holistic processing (low field dependence) in two out of three correlational analyses, and that high interdependence was associated with greater holistic processing in one out of three analyses. The second study to examine the association between self-construals and cognitive performance was conducted by Kitayama, Park, Servincer, Karasawa, and Uskul (2009). Similar to Konrath, et al. (2009), they used the Singelis Self-Construal Scale to measure individuals' independence and interdependence; however, they combined the two subscales by subtracting the interdependence score from the independence score. Kitayama, et al. (2009) examined the relationship of this self-construal score to cognitive performance on the framed line task with participants from the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan. They conducted four separate correlations, one for each national sample, and found a significant relationship in only the Japanese sample. In their Japanese sample, consistent with the findings of Konrath, et al. (2009), they found that greater independence was associated with better performance (lower field dependence). However, this relationship was small, and when considered in the overall pattern of their results, they interpreted their findings as reflecting no relationship between explicit self-construals and cognitive measures. In addition to the research that has examined the relationship between independent/interdependent self-construals and cognitive performance of individuals, there is a large literature examining the effect of priming self-construct on various outcome measures, including cognitive measures (see Oyserman & Lee, 2008, for a review). In these priming studies, participants are typically assigned to one of two groups, given a task designed to prime either independent social orientation (such as circling first-person pronouns in a passage, or imagining oneself doing a task alone) or interdependent social orientation (such as circling plural pronouns in a passage, or imagining oneself doing a task as part of a group). Following the priming task, participants' performance on analytic or holistic cognitive
25-PR_Marquez_140059.indd 327
08/08/14 5:22 PM
328
R. C. MARQUEZ & J. ELLWANGER
tasks is measured. In a meta-analysis of this literature, Oyserman and Lee (2008) reported moderate effect sizes such that primed independent selfconcept typically increases performance on analytic cognitive tasks and primed interdependent self-concept increases performance on measures of holistic processing. This literature is sometimes interpreted as demonstrating a direct causal link between self-concept and cognition (e.g., Oyserman & Lee, 2008). Although the causal inference that having participants perform the priming task influences their performance on cognitive measures appears sound, the idea that the causal mechanism necessarily involves the priming of a cultural construct such as individualism/collectivism or independence/interdependence is not (see Kashima, 2009). There appears to be no study that has sought to examine whether individual differences in the extent to which independent or interdependent self-concept is primed allows one to predict analytic or holistic cognitive performance of an individual. Therefore, on the basis of priming studies alone, the model that self-construals cause changes in cognition has not been firmly established. Alternative approaches for testing this hypothesis are warranted. Current Study The results of previous research reporting on the relationship between independent and interdependent self-construals and cognitive style have provided mixed support for the hypothesis that higher independent or interdependent self-construals will produce more analytic or holistic types of information processing, respectively. Therefore, the primary purpose of the present study is to test the hypothesis that independent and interdependent self-construals are associated with cognitive performance. Hypothesis 1. Independent self-construals are positively associated with analytic forms of information processing and negatively associated with field-dependence. Hypothesis 2. Interdependent self-construals are positively associated with holistic forms of information processing and positively associated with field-dependence. As a secondary goal, the differences in social orientation and cognitive style between Asian/Asian-Americans and the participants from other ethnic groups were examined. Congruent with the cross-cultural literature comparing Easterners and Westerners, Hypothesis 3. Asian/Asian-Americans, compared to other groups, have (a) lower independent self-construals, (b) higher interdependent self-construals, and (c) a more holistic (less analytic) information processing style.
25-PR_Marquez_140059.indd 328
08/08/14 5:22 PM
SELF-CONSTRUALS AND REASONING
329
As a tertiary goal, the correlation between cognitive measures was examined to test the hypothesis that measures of cognition, characterized as holistic vs analytic, will form a coherent construct. In previous research, Na, Grossmann, Varnum, Kitayama, Gonzalez, and Nisbett (2010) examined the coherence of 10 measures of cognitive style that were chosen because group-level differences between Easterners and Westerners had been found using them. They reported negligible correlations between performances on these cognitive measures. In the present study, the cognitive measures used and the participants examined are substantially different from those examined by Na, et al. (2010). Hypothesis 4. Cognitive measures that putatively indicate holistic processing based on cross-cultural research correlate positively with other such measures, and negatively with measures of analytic processing. The present study adds to the existing literature by examining the hypothesis that different self-construals (i.e., independent or interdependent) lead to different information processing styles (i.e., analytic vs holistic reasoning) and levels of field dependence. The hypotheses are tested utilizing several measures of cognitive performance chosen to reflect different areas of cognition (categorization, attention, and memory), which have demonstrated the ability to distinguish between Easterners and Westerners in previous research. In addition, the self-construal measure used in the present study (Lu & Gilmour, 2007) was chosen to address some of the psychometric limitations of the Singelis Self-Construal scale (i.e., poor reliability and lack of support for the two-factor structure) which has been used in previous research. Finally, a large sample of ethnically diverse, primarily Latino, participants was recruited. The majority of the participants were immigrants or the children of immigrants and were bilingual. The sample was chosen to increase statistical power compared to previous research and examine a population that would demonstrate robust variability in its independent and interdependent self-construals. METHOD Participants Undergraduate students (N = 254; 191 women, 63 men) participated in the study. Participants were recruited from a psychology department participant pool and received course credit for their participation. The mean age of the sample was 20.1 yr. (SD = 4.5). The majority of the sample was Hispanic (54.3%). The rest of the sample identified as Asian American (21.3%), African American (10.6%), White (5.9%), and Other (7.9%). A minority of the participants were born outside of the United States (15.7%);
25-PR_Marquez_140059.indd 329
08/08/14 5:22 PM
330
R. C. MARQUEZ & J. ELLWANGER
however, most reported that their father was born outside of the United States (73.7%), and the rate of foreign-born mothers was similar (70.1%). Most participants reported speaking a second language in addition to English (76.4%). Materials and Procedure Self-construal.—First, participants' independence and interdependence was assessed using Lu and Gilmour's (2007) Independent and Interdependent Self Scale (IISS). The scale, which consists of 42 Likert-type items (anchored by 1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly agree), is composed of two subscales with 21 items each, which measure independence and interdependence. Some of the items in the independence subscale include: “I believe that family and friends should not influence my important life decisions” and “For myself, I believe that others should not influence my self-identity.” Examples of the items in the interdependence subscale are: “I believe that the group should come first when it is in conflict with the individual” and “Once you become a member of the group, you should try hard to adjust to the group's demands.” Because the scale was composed of two subscales, participants received an independence score (derived from the sum of the independent items) and an interdependent score (derived from the sum of the interdependent items). The possible scores for each of the subscales ranged from a minimum of 21 to a maximum of 147, with higher scores indicative of more independence or interdependence. The IISS measure developed by Lu and Gilmour (2007) has been shown to have sound psychometric properties. For example, in addition to having high face validity, the IISS demonstrated concurrent validity with Triandis and Gelfand's (1998) Individualism and Collectivism measure. The measure's construct validity was demonstrated by examining the scores on independent and interdependent self within Chinese and British participants. Furthermore, the measure was also shown to have high reliability with Cronbach's α ranging from .83 to .86 for the independent subscale and .82 to .89 for the interdependent subscale. As previously mentioned, it is because of the IISS's sound psychometric properties that the measure was included in the present study as opposed to the more widely used Singelis (1994) measure of Independent and Interdependent Self-Construal. Field dependence in perception.—Following completion of the IISS measure, the effect of field dependence on the participants' perception was assessed using a portion of Horn's (1962) self-administered version of the Embedded Figures Test. Participants were allotted 3 min. to complete the Embedded Figures Test, which consists of 40 items and measures field dependence by having participants locate a target figure embedded within a complex figure. Each test item contains only one correct response for a
25-PR_Marquez_140059.indd 330
08/08/14 5:22 PM
SELF-CONSTRUALS AND REASONING
331
total score of 40 possible points. Higher scores (i.e., larger number of target figures located) are indicative of low field dependence. Field dependence in memory.—A modified version of Kühnen and Oyserman's (2002) memory test was utilized to measure the effect of participants' field dependence on memory. The test materials consisted of a PowerPoint slide depicting 28 items (e.g., an apple, a flower, and a shoe) presented at various positions of the screen for 90 sec. and a test grid (printed on a sheet of paper) with 49 cells measuring 14 × 20 cm. Following the 90-sec. slide presentation, participants were allotted 3 min. to record the name of the items presented on the screen on the analogous location in the answer grid. Possible scores ranged from 0 to 28 with higher scores, i.e., being able to correctly recall a high number of items in their proper location, being indicative of having high field dependence. Analytic vs holistic reasoning.—Finally, the participants' analytic and holistic processing styles were assessed using Ji, Zhang, and Nisbett's (2004) word categorization list. The task, composed of 18 three-word sets (e.g., letter-stamp-telegraph; beer-water-fish), required that participants circle the two words from each word set that are believed to be most closely associated. Words could be paired in either a categorical/analytic (e.g., letter and telegraph or beer and water) or relational/holistic (e.g., letter and stamp or water and fish) manner. Of the 18 three-word sets, 10 were fillers meaning that the words in those sets could not be paired in a categorical or holistic manner (e.g., morning-evening-afternoon). The participants' reasoning style was derived by tallying the total number of categorical and relational word pairings made. After completion of the word categorization task, the participants were debriefed and thanked for their participation. RESULTS Relationship of Self-construals and Cognitive Measures The mean (SD) for the independent and interdependent subscales were 117.01 (11.92) and 102.70 (14.02), respectively. The subscales demonstrated good reliability, with Cronbach's α of .83 for the independence subscale and .78 for the interdependence subscale in this sample. The subscales also demonstrated relative independence, with only a modest positive correlation between them (r = .23). Importantly, the variability of scores observed in the present sample was similar to the variability reported in the original validation study for this scale (Lu & Gilmour, 2007). In that study, which used samples of English and Chinese individuals, the reported means (SDs) for the independent scale ranged from 97.72–114.78 (13.00–15.78), and for the interdependent scale from 101.40–110.40 (12.97–13.76). In order to examine whether participants' independent and interdependent self-construals were associated with analytic or holistic modes
25-PR_Marquez_140059.indd 331
08/08/14 5:22 PM
332
R. C. MARQUEZ & J. ELLWANGER
of information processing, several multiple regressions were conducted. These regressions are described below and in Table 1. The first regression examined whether participants' self-reported independent/interdependent self-construals were related to performance on Horn's (1962) Embedded Figures Test. Results indicated that neither of the two measures were related to performance in Horn's (1962) Embedded Figures Test (R = .12, F2, 251 = 1.70, p = .18). Similarly, the second regression indicated that independent and interdependent self-construals were not related to performance in Kühnen and Oyserman's (2002) memory test (R = .09, F2, 251 = 0.93, p = .40). TABLE 1 MULTIPLE REGRESSION OF SELF-CONSTRUAL SCALE SCORES ON DEPENDENT MEASURES B
β
Independent scale total
−0.07
−0.11
.01
.00, .05
Interdependent scale total
−0.01
−0.02
.00
.00, .03
Predictors
sr2
CI for R2
Embedded Figures Test
R = .12, R2 = .01, Adjusted R2 = .01 Memory performance Independent scale total
0.00
0.01
.00
.00, .01
−0.03
−0.09
.01
.00, .04
Independent scale total
−0.01
−0.05
.00
.00, .03
Interdependent scale total
−0.00
−0.02
.00
.00, .02
Interdependent scale total R = .09, R2 = .01, Adjusted R2 = .00 Categorical associations
R = .06, R2 = .00, Adjusted R2 = –.00 Relational associations Independent scale total
0.02
0.09
.01
.00, .05
Interdependent scale total
0.00
0.02
.00
.00, .03
R = .10, R2 = .01, Adjusted R2 = .00
The third and fourth multiple regressions indicated that self-reported independent and interdependent self-construals were not good predictors of the amount of categorical or relational word pairings made by participants. Specifically, R was not shown to be significantly different from zero (R = .06, F2, 251 = 0.49, p = .61) for the multiple regression designed to examine whether self-construals were good predictors of the amount of categorical word pairings made by participants. Similarly, R was also not shown to be significantly different from zero (R = .10, F2, 251 = 1.31, p = .27) for the multiple regression designed to examine whether self-construals
25-PR_Marquez_140059.indd 332
08/08/14 5:22 PM
SELF-CONSTRUALS AND REASONING
333
were good predictors of the amount of relational word pairings made by participants. In order to examine the range of R2 values for the associations between social orientation and cognitive performance that would be likely across different samples, and estimate the population association values, the 95% confidence intervals for R2 were calculated (see Table 1). The values for R2 ranged from .00 to .05, indicating that the likely population values for the association between independent and interdependent self-construals and measures of cognition are extremely small. Ethnic Group Analyses Because a majority of studies examining the association between cultural background and cognitive style have looked at differences between individuals from the East (e.g., Japan and China) and West (e.g., United States and Western Europe), the differences in social orientation and cognitive style between the Asian/Asian-American participants (n = 54) and the rest of the sample (n = 200) were examined. Consistent with hypotheses, Asian/Asian-American participants reported significantly lower levels of independence on the IISS compared to the rest of the sample (t252 = 3.47, p = .001; d = 0.53, 95%CI = 0.23, 0.84). Furthermore, Asian/AsianAmerican participants also reported higher interdependence on the IISS compared to the rest of the sample, although this difference was not significant (t252 = −1.62, p = .11; d = −0.25, 95%CI = −0.55, 0.05). For the analyses examining the differences between Asian/AsianAmerican participants and the rest of the sample on the cognitive measures, only one significant finding was observed. Contrary to hypotheses, the results indicated that the Asian/Asian-American participants scored significantly higher on the Embedded Figures Test compared to the rest of the sample, therefore showing lower field dependence (t252 = −3.12, p = .002; d = −0.48, 95%CI = −0.78, −0.18). The ethnic group comparisons for memory performance (t252 = 0.48, p = .63; d = 0.07, 95%CI = −0.23, 0.37), number of categorical word pairings (t252 = −1.23, p = .22; d = −0.19, 95%CI = −0.49, 0.11), and number of relational word pairings (t252 = 1.06, p = .29; d = 0.16, 95%CI = −0.14, 0.46) were not statistically significant. Correlations Between Cognitive Measures Correlations between the cognitive measures are presented in Table 2. This analysis was conducted to examine whether there was coherence between the measures with respect to their putative status indexing the constructs of holistic or analytic processing. Contrary to hypotheses, performance on the Embedded Figures Test, a measure indicating greater analytic processing, was significantly and positively correlated with performance on the spatial memory test and the number of relational word pairings selected, both measures that indicate holistic processing.
25-PR_Marquez_140059.indd 333
08/08/14 5:22 PM
334
R. C. MARQUEZ & J. ELLWANGER TABLE 2 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS AND DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR COGNITIVE STYLE VARIABLES Measure 1. Embedded figures
M
SD
24.36
7.46
2. Memory performance
8.39
4.55
3. Categorical pairings
2.57
2.00
4. Relational pairings †p < .01.
4.95
2.20
Correlation 1
2 .21†
3
4
−.08
.22†
−.05
.06 −.73†
DISCUSSION Contrary to the hypotheses, no statistically significant relationships were found between the participants' independent and interdependent self-construal scores and cognitive performances in the primary analyses. The lack of association between these variables is surprising, given that many studies have reported cognitive style differences between participants from Eastern and Western cultures. The results of the ethnic group comparison similarly failed to support the hypotheses. Indeed, although the Asian/Asian-American participants differed from the rest of the sample as predicted in terms of self-construals, showing lower independence and marginally more interdependence, contrary to the hypotheses, they exhibited greater performance on the Embedded Figures Test, indicative of less field dependence. Lastly, statistically significant correlations were found between performances on the cognitive measures thought to reflect holistic/analytic processing, but these correlations were also in the opposite direction from those hypothesized. Taken together, the results are not consistent with the original hypotheses. Additionally, the primary results also contrast with the findings of Konrath, et al. (2009), who reported results that were supportive of the same hypotheses. The results of the current study are more consistent with those of Kitayama, et al. (2009), who interpreted their results as indicating a lack of association between selfconstruals and cognitive style in cross-national samples. The current study replicates the findings of Kitayama, et al. (2009) and extends the previous research on this question in the following important ways. First, the present sample was considerably larger (about two to three times as large) than the samples examined in Kitayama, et al. (2009) and Konrath, et al. (2009). Second, independence and interdependence were measured using the scale developed by Lu and Gilmour (2007), which demonstrated considerably better reliability than the Singelis Scale (1994) used in previous research. These two differences help to rule out the possibility that the lack of association observed in the current
25-PR_Marquez_140059.indd 334
08/08/14 5:22 PM
SELF-CONSTRUALS AND REASONING
335
study between self-construals and cognition could be explained by either inadequate power or low reliability of the self-construal scale. In addition to power and reliability, it is important to consider other factors that could contribute to the finding of null results in the primary analyses. One of the most important is the possibility that a lack of association could be explained by a restriction of range in the variables assessed. First, the variability observed in independent and interdependent scale scores in the present study was very similar to that observed in the original cross-cultural validation study conducted by Lu and Gilmour (2007). Similarly, the variability observed in the present sample on the Embedded Figures Test and Kühnen and Oyserman's memory test (see Table 2) was as large as has been reported in previous research (Kühnen, Hannover, Roeder, Shah, Schubert, Upmeyer, et al., 2001, Kühnen & Oyserman, 2002).2 Therefore, it is unlikely that the lack of associations in the present study were simply due to a lack of variability within the sample for the constructs examined. Given that the results of the present study did not support the hypothesis that the observed differences in cognitive style between members of Eastern and Western cultures are due to differences in the amount that individualism and collectivism is promoted within each culture, what are some possible alternative interpretations? First, the possibility that a variable other than individualism and collectivism might play a role in determining cognitive style differences between Eastern and Western cultures must not be overlooked. For example, socioeconomic status, educational practices, or occupation might also contribute to whether a person will exhibit analytic or holistic forms of information processing. Second, it is possible that the hypothesis is correct, but the causal model is more complex than assumed and therefore was not tested adequately in the present experiment. For instance, Kitayama, et al. (2009) developed a model they called the Cultural Task Analysis. It emphasizes that self-construals are developed implicitly due to the tasks that are emphasized in different cultures. From this perspective, the use of an explicit measure of self-construal, as used in the present study, would not necessarily capture the causal relationship. Furthermore, their model suggests that although collectivism and individualism at the level of a cultural group still have a causal connection to independent and interdependent self-construals at the individual levels, the relationship is complicated, and at the individual levels there will be an idiosyncratic adoption of the specific tasks that are approved in a culture. Therefore, according to this view, It was not possible to examine restriction of range for the present sample in the same way on the measure of categorical vs. relational word pairings. Ji, et al. (2004) did not report measures of variability in their original report for this measure that would allow comparison. 2
25-PR_Marquez_140059.indd 335
08/08/14 5:22 PM
336
R. C. MARQUEZ & J. ELLWANGER
one may not expect individual-level associations between independent/ interdependent self-construals and cognitive style, even though there are coherent cultural group-level differences (for a similar discussion see Na, et al., 2010). This model is consistent both with results that support the current hypothesis (i.e., Konrath, et al., 2009) and results that don't (i.e., Kitayama, et al., 2009; the current study). Finally, Kashima's (2009) Semiotic model provides a third alternative for interpreting the current study's findings. This model suggests that concepts that apply at the level of cultural groups, such as individualism/collectivism, are not causally related to psychological processes such as cognitive performance, but rather, they are interpretive constructs that are used to describe cultural differences in psychological processes. Of importance, because it does not posit a causal relationship between culture and cognition, the model can potentially account for results that run counter to cultural causation hypotheses, such as the ethnic group results reported in the current study. The correlation analysis of the cognitive measures was also interesting. To the extent that there were significant correlations, they ran counter to expectations. Better performance on the Embedded Figures Task, a measure interpreted as indicating greater analytic processing (lower field dependence), was associated with better spatial memory performance and a greater number of relational word pairings, two measures that are indicative of greater holistic processing (higher field dependence). Although the question of measure coherence is separable from the question of causation, it is notable that the current study produced findings that were statistically significant but counter to the hypotheses with respect to both questions. One potential interpretation of these findings results from the observation that performance on cognitive measures, such as the timed Embedded Figures Test, may be determined by multiple factors. Although culture may be one factor that influences performance on such tests, there are certainly many others, such as general intelligence, perceptual speed and accuracy, conscientiousness, level of education, experience with timed tests, etc. Therefore, it is not necessarily surprising to find circumstances where the correlations between such measures do not appear to primarily reflect the influence of culture. For instance, the positive correlation that was observed in the present study between performance on the Embedded Figures Test and performance on the spatial memory test could reflect the influence of general intelligence on both measures. Indeed, what could be considered surprising is the extent to which the cross-cultural and culture-priming literature appears to be so orderly with respect to the influence of culture (inferred or primed) on cognitive measures of analytic/holistic processing (e.g., Nisbett, et al., 2001; Oyserman & Lee, 2008).
25-PR_Marquez_140059.indd 336
08/08/14 5:22 PM
SELF-CONSTRUALS AND REASONING
337
A notable limitation of the present study had to do with the composition of the sample. The majority of the sample was female and Hispanic. The present sample was also more ethnically diverse than many previous studies and comprised of individuals who had a history of recent family immigration to the United States. Most of these characteristics of the sample probably were beneficial to the present study. However, a limitation associated with the sample is that the results may not be straightforwardly comparable to those of prior studies that typically have included very few Hispanic participants. Also of concern is the fact that the sample was 75% female. Since previous studies have shown sex differences in interdependence, future studies would benefit from having a more balanced number of women and men. In summary, the current study failed to support the hypothesis that individual differences in independent or interdependent self-construals promote more analytic or holistic cognitive processing styles, respectively. This hypothesis derives from the dominant interpretation of cross-cultural differences in cognitive style between Easterners and Westerners. The current study is one of only a few to have addressed this important hypothesis, and the sample used was by far the largest. Given the statistical power of the study, the lack of support for the hypothesis suggests that there are at least some populations and/or measures to which it does not meaningfully apply. REFERENCES
HORN, W. (1962) Leistungsprüfsystem, L-P-S: Handanweisung für die Durchführung, Auswertung und Interpretation [A performance testing system: manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe-Verlag. JI, L., ZHANG, Z., & NISBETT, R. E. (2004) Is it culture or is it language? Examination of language effects in cross-cultural research on categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 57-65. KASHIMA, Y. (2009) Culture comparison and culture priming: a critical analysis. In R. S. Wyer, C. Chiu, & Y. Hong (Eds.), Understanding culture: theory, research, and application. New York: Psychology Press. Pp. 53-77. KITAYAMA, S., PARK, H., SERVINCER, A. T., KARASAWA, M., & USKUL, A. K. (2009) A cultural task analysis of implicit independence: comparing North America, Western Europe, and East Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 236-255. KONRATH, S., BUSHMAN, B. J., & GROVE, T. (2009) Seeing my world in a million little pieces: narcissism, self-construal, and cognitive-perceptual style. Journal of Personality, 77, 1197-1228. KÜHNEN, U., HANNOVER, B., ROEDER, U., SHAH, A., SCHUBERT, B., UPMEYER, A., & ZAKARIA, S. (2001) Cross-cultural variations in identifying embedded figures: comparisons from the United States, Germany, Russia, and Malaysia. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(3), 365-371. KÜHNEN, U., & OYSERMAN, D. (2002) Thinking about the self influences thinking in general: cognitive consequences of salient self-concept. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 492-499.
25-PR_Marquez_140059.indd 337
08/08/14 5:22 PM
338
R. C. MARQUEZ & J. ELLWANGER
LU, L., & GILMOUR, R. (2007) Developing a new measure of independent and interdependent views of the self. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 249-257. NA, J., GROSSMANN, I., VARNUM, M. E. W., KITAYAMA, S., GONZALEZ, R., & NISBETT, R. E. (2010) Cultural differences are not always reducible to individual differences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 107, 6192-6197. NISBETT, R. E. (2003) The geography of thought: how Asians and Westerners think differently … and why. New York: Free Press. NISBETT, R. E., & MASUDA, T. (2003) Culture and point of view. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 100, 11163-11170. NISBETT, R. E., PENG, K., CHOI, I., & NORENZAYAN, A. (2001) Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291-310. OYSERMAN, D., & LEE, S. S. (2008) Does culture influence what and how we think? Effects of priming individualism and collectivism. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 311-342. SINGELIS, T. M. (1994) The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 581-591. TRIANDIS, H. C., & GELFAND, M. J. (1998) Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 118-128. Accepted June 30, 2014.
25-PR_Marquez_140059.indd 338
08/08/14 5:22 PM
Copyright of Psychological Reports is the property of Ammons Scientific, Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
INDEPENDENT AND INTERDEPENDENT SELF-CONSTRUALS DO NOT PREDICT ANALYTIC OR HOLISTIC REASONING1 ROBERT C. MARQUEZ AND JOEL ELLWANGER California State University, Los Angeles Summary.—Independent self-construals in Western cultures may promote analytic information processing and low field dependence, while interdependent selfconstruals in Eastern cultures may foster holistic information processing and high field dependence. To examine these ideas, the social orientation and cognitive style of 254 introductory psychology students were measured. Multiple regression analyses indicated a non-significant relationship between the participants' social orientation and cognitive style (R2s ranged from .00 to .01, 95% confidence intervals for R2 ranged from .00 to .05). These findings indicate that the hypothesis that collectivism and individualism are associated with differences in information processing between individuals needs further scrutiny. The possible reasons for the lack of association between social orientation and cognitive style are discussed.
Differences in information processing have been reported between individuals from Eastern and Western cultural backgrounds (Nisbett & Masuda, 2003). Nisbett (2003) has proposed that these differences are due to the fact that collectivism is promoted in Eastern cultures (e.g., China, Japan, etc.) while individualism is promoted in Western cultures (e.g., USA and Europe). Furthermore, the emphasis on individualism in the West is believed to foster independent self-construals (viewing the self as independent of others). These independent self-construals are then believed to promote analytic forms of information processing (emphasis on central point of information and categorical organization) and low field dependence (ignoring global-level information) in individuals. In contrast, collectivism in the East is believed to foster interdependent self-construals (viewing the self as interdependent with others), which in turn are believed to promote holistic forms of information processing (emphasis on the surrounding context and the relationships between pieces of information) and high field dependence (processing information at a global level; see Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001, for a review). However, the hypothesis that independent/interdependent self-construals lead to the observed differences in information processing between members of Western and Eastern cultures has not been sufficiently tested. For example, most previous studies measuring the cognitive performance of groups from Eastern and Western cultures have surmised that any sigAddress correspondence to Joel Ellwanger, 5151 State University Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90032 or e-mail ([email protected]). 1
DOI 10.2466/17.07.PR0.115c16z8
25-PR_Marquez_140059.indd 326
ISSN 0033-2941
08/08/14 5:22 PM
SELF-CONSTRUALS AND REASONING
327
nificant differences in cognitive performance are due to participants' differing levels of independent and interdependent self-construals, without actually measuring their samples' independent and interdependent orientations. The goal of the present study is to examine this important hypothesis. Previous Research The relevant literature addressing the question of whether cultural self-construals are related to measures of information processing at the level of the individual is limited. Konrath, Bushman, and Grove (2009) measured independent and interdependent self-construals with the Singelis Self-Construal Scale (Singelis, 1994) and found, consistent with Nisbett's (2003) hypothesis, that high independence was associated with less holistic processing (low field dependence) in two out of three correlational analyses, and that high interdependence was associated with greater holistic processing in one out of three analyses. The second study to examine the association between self-construals and cognitive performance was conducted by Kitayama, Park, Servincer, Karasawa, and Uskul (2009). Similar to Konrath, et al. (2009), they used the Singelis Self-Construal Scale to measure individuals' independence and interdependence; however, they combined the two subscales by subtracting the interdependence score from the independence score. Kitayama, et al. (2009) examined the relationship of this self-construal score to cognitive performance on the framed line task with participants from the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan. They conducted four separate correlations, one for each national sample, and found a significant relationship in only the Japanese sample. In their Japanese sample, consistent with the findings of Konrath, et al. (2009), they found that greater independence was associated with better performance (lower field dependence). However, this relationship was small, and when considered in the overall pattern of their results, they interpreted their findings as reflecting no relationship between explicit self-construals and cognitive measures. In addition to the research that has examined the relationship between independent/interdependent self-construals and cognitive performance of individuals, there is a large literature examining the effect of priming self-construct on various outcome measures, including cognitive measures (see Oyserman & Lee, 2008, for a review). In these priming studies, participants are typically assigned to one of two groups, given a task designed to prime either independent social orientation (such as circling first-person pronouns in a passage, or imagining oneself doing a task alone) or interdependent social orientation (such as circling plural pronouns in a passage, or imagining oneself doing a task as part of a group). Following the priming task, participants' performance on analytic or holistic cognitive
25-PR_Marquez_140059.indd 327
08/08/14 5:22 PM
328
R. C. MARQUEZ & J. ELLWANGER
tasks is measured. In a meta-analysis of this literature, Oyserman and Lee (2008) reported moderate effect sizes such that primed independent selfconcept typically increases performance on analytic cognitive tasks and primed interdependent self-concept increases performance on measures of holistic processing. This literature is sometimes interpreted as demonstrating a direct causal link between self-concept and cognition (e.g., Oyserman & Lee, 2008). Although the causal inference that having participants perform the priming task influences their performance on cognitive measures appears sound, the idea that the causal mechanism necessarily involves the priming of a cultural construct such as individualism/collectivism or independence/interdependence is not (see Kashima, 2009). There appears to be no study that has sought to examine whether individual differences in the extent to which independent or interdependent self-concept is primed allows one to predict analytic or holistic cognitive performance of an individual. Therefore, on the basis of priming studies alone, the model that self-construals cause changes in cognition has not been firmly established. Alternative approaches for testing this hypothesis are warranted. Current Study The results of previous research reporting on the relationship between independent and interdependent self-construals and cognitive style have provided mixed support for the hypothesis that higher independent or interdependent self-construals will produce more analytic or holistic types of information processing, respectively. Therefore, the primary purpose of the present study is to test the hypothesis that independent and interdependent self-construals are associated with cognitive performance. Hypothesis 1. Independent self-construals are positively associated with analytic forms of information processing and negatively associated with field-dependence. Hypothesis 2. Interdependent self-construals are positively associated with holistic forms of information processing and positively associated with field-dependence. As a secondary goal, the differences in social orientation and cognitive style between Asian/Asian-Americans and the participants from other ethnic groups were examined. Congruent with the cross-cultural literature comparing Easterners and Westerners, Hypothesis 3. Asian/Asian-Americans, compared to other groups, have (a) lower independent self-construals, (b) higher interdependent self-construals, and (c) a more holistic (less analytic) information processing style.
25-PR_Marquez_140059.indd 328
08/08/14 5:22 PM
SELF-CONSTRUALS AND REASONING
329
As a tertiary goal, the correlation between cognitive measures was examined to test the hypothesis that measures of cognition, characterized as holistic vs analytic, will form a coherent construct. In previous research, Na, Grossmann, Varnum, Kitayama, Gonzalez, and Nisbett (2010) examined the coherence of 10 measures of cognitive style that were chosen because group-level differences between Easterners and Westerners had been found using them. They reported negligible correlations between performances on these cognitive measures. In the present study, the cognitive measures used and the participants examined are substantially different from those examined by Na, et al. (2010). Hypothesis 4. Cognitive measures that putatively indicate holistic processing based on cross-cultural research correlate positively with other such measures, and negatively with measures of analytic processing. The present study adds to the existing literature by examining the hypothesis that different self-construals (i.e., independent or interdependent) lead to different information processing styles (i.e., analytic vs holistic reasoning) and levels of field dependence. The hypotheses are tested utilizing several measures of cognitive performance chosen to reflect different areas of cognition (categorization, attention, and memory), which have demonstrated the ability to distinguish between Easterners and Westerners in previous research. In addition, the self-construal measure used in the present study (Lu & Gilmour, 2007) was chosen to address some of the psychometric limitations of the Singelis Self-Construal scale (i.e., poor reliability and lack of support for the two-factor structure) which has been used in previous research. Finally, a large sample of ethnically diverse, primarily Latino, participants was recruited. The majority of the participants were immigrants or the children of immigrants and were bilingual. The sample was chosen to increase statistical power compared to previous research and examine a population that would demonstrate robust variability in its independent and interdependent self-construals. METHOD Participants Undergraduate students (N = 254; 191 women, 63 men) participated in the study. Participants were recruited from a psychology department participant pool and received course credit for their participation. The mean age of the sample was 20.1 yr. (SD = 4.5). The majority of the sample was Hispanic (54.3%). The rest of the sample identified as Asian American (21.3%), African American (10.6%), White (5.9%), and Other (7.9%). A minority of the participants were born outside of the United States (15.7%);
25-PR_Marquez_140059.indd 329
08/08/14 5:22 PM
330
R. C. MARQUEZ & J. ELLWANGER
however, most reported that their father was born outside of the United States (73.7%), and the rate of foreign-born mothers was similar (70.1%). Most participants reported speaking a second language in addition to English (76.4%). Materials and Procedure Self-construal.—First, participants' independence and interdependence was assessed using Lu and Gilmour's (2007) Independent and Interdependent Self Scale (IISS). The scale, which consists of 42 Likert-type items (anchored by 1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly agree), is composed of two subscales with 21 items each, which measure independence and interdependence. Some of the items in the independence subscale include: “I believe that family and friends should not influence my important life decisions” and “For myself, I believe that others should not influence my self-identity.” Examples of the items in the interdependence subscale are: “I believe that the group should come first when it is in conflict with the individual” and “Once you become a member of the group, you should try hard to adjust to the group's demands.” Because the scale was composed of two subscales, participants received an independence score (derived from the sum of the independent items) and an interdependent score (derived from the sum of the interdependent items). The possible scores for each of the subscales ranged from a minimum of 21 to a maximum of 147, with higher scores indicative of more independence or interdependence. The IISS measure developed by Lu and Gilmour (2007) has been shown to have sound psychometric properties. For example, in addition to having high face validity, the IISS demonstrated concurrent validity with Triandis and Gelfand's (1998) Individualism and Collectivism measure. The measure's construct validity was demonstrated by examining the scores on independent and interdependent self within Chinese and British participants. Furthermore, the measure was also shown to have high reliability with Cronbach's α ranging from .83 to .86 for the independent subscale and .82 to .89 for the interdependent subscale. As previously mentioned, it is because of the IISS's sound psychometric properties that the measure was included in the present study as opposed to the more widely used Singelis (1994) measure of Independent and Interdependent Self-Construal. Field dependence in perception.—Following completion of the IISS measure, the effect of field dependence on the participants' perception was assessed using a portion of Horn's (1962) self-administered version of the Embedded Figures Test. Participants were allotted 3 min. to complete the Embedded Figures Test, which consists of 40 items and measures field dependence by having participants locate a target figure embedded within a complex figure. Each test item contains only one correct response for a
25-PR_Marquez_140059.indd 330
08/08/14 5:22 PM
SELF-CONSTRUALS AND REASONING
331
total score of 40 possible points. Higher scores (i.e., larger number of target figures located) are indicative of low field dependence. Field dependence in memory.—A modified version of Kühnen and Oyserman's (2002) memory test was utilized to measure the effect of participants' field dependence on memory. The test materials consisted of a PowerPoint slide depicting 28 items (e.g., an apple, a flower, and a shoe) presented at various positions of the screen for 90 sec. and a test grid (printed on a sheet of paper) with 49 cells measuring 14 × 20 cm. Following the 90-sec. slide presentation, participants were allotted 3 min. to record the name of the items presented on the screen on the analogous location in the answer grid. Possible scores ranged from 0 to 28 with higher scores, i.e., being able to correctly recall a high number of items in their proper location, being indicative of having high field dependence. Analytic vs holistic reasoning.—Finally, the participants' analytic and holistic processing styles were assessed using Ji, Zhang, and Nisbett's (2004) word categorization list. The task, composed of 18 three-word sets (e.g., letter-stamp-telegraph; beer-water-fish), required that participants circle the two words from each word set that are believed to be most closely associated. Words could be paired in either a categorical/analytic (e.g., letter and telegraph or beer and water) or relational/holistic (e.g., letter and stamp or water and fish) manner. Of the 18 three-word sets, 10 were fillers meaning that the words in those sets could not be paired in a categorical or holistic manner (e.g., morning-evening-afternoon). The participants' reasoning style was derived by tallying the total number of categorical and relational word pairings made. After completion of the word categorization task, the participants were debriefed and thanked for their participation. RESULTS Relationship of Self-construals and Cognitive Measures The mean (SD) for the independent and interdependent subscales were 117.01 (11.92) and 102.70 (14.02), respectively. The subscales demonstrated good reliability, with Cronbach's α of .83 for the independence subscale and .78 for the interdependence subscale in this sample. The subscales also demonstrated relative independence, with only a modest positive correlation between them (r = .23). Importantly, the variability of scores observed in the present sample was similar to the variability reported in the original validation study for this scale (Lu & Gilmour, 2007). In that study, which used samples of English and Chinese individuals, the reported means (SDs) for the independent scale ranged from 97.72–114.78 (13.00–15.78), and for the interdependent scale from 101.40–110.40 (12.97–13.76). In order to examine whether participants' independent and interdependent self-construals were associated with analytic or holistic modes
25-PR_Marquez_140059.indd 331
08/08/14 5:22 PM
332
R. C. MARQUEZ & J. ELLWANGER
of information processing, several multiple regressions were conducted. These regressions are described below and in Table 1. The first regression examined whether participants' self-reported independent/interdependent self-construals were related to performance on Horn's (1962) Embedded Figures Test. Results indicated that neither of the two measures were related to performance in Horn's (1962) Embedded Figures Test (R = .12, F2, 251 = 1.70, p = .18). Similarly, the second regression indicated that independent and interdependent self-construals were not related to performance in Kühnen and Oyserman's (2002) memory test (R = .09, F2, 251 = 0.93, p = .40). TABLE 1 MULTIPLE REGRESSION OF SELF-CONSTRUAL SCALE SCORES ON DEPENDENT MEASURES B
β
Independent scale total
−0.07
−0.11
.01
.00, .05
Interdependent scale total
−0.01
−0.02
.00
.00, .03
Predictors
sr2
CI for R2
Embedded Figures Test
R = .12, R2 = .01, Adjusted R2 = .01 Memory performance Independent scale total
0.00
0.01
.00
.00, .01
−0.03
−0.09
.01
.00, .04
Independent scale total
−0.01
−0.05
.00
.00, .03
Interdependent scale total
−0.00
−0.02
.00
.00, .02
Interdependent scale total R = .09, R2 = .01, Adjusted R2 = .00 Categorical associations
R = .06, R2 = .00, Adjusted R2 = –.00 Relational associations Independent scale total
0.02
0.09
.01
.00, .05
Interdependent scale total
0.00
0.02
.00
.00, .03
R = .10, R2 = .01, Adjusted R2 = .00
The third and fourth multiple regressions indicated that self-reported independent and interdependent self-construals were not good predictors of the amount of categorical or relational word pairings made by participants. Specifically, R was not shown to be significantly different from zero (R = .06, F2, 251 = 0.49, p = .61) for the multiple regression designed to examine whether self-construals were good predictors of the amount of categorical word pairings made by participants. Similarly, R was also not shown to be significantly different from zero (R = .10, F2, 251 = 1.31, p = .27) for the multiple regression designed to examine whether self-construals
25-PR_Marquez_140059.indd 332
08/08/14 5:22 PM
SELF-CONSTRUALS AND REASONING
333
were good predictors of the amount of relational word pairings made by participants. In order to examine the range of R2 values for the associations between social orientation and cognitive performance that would be likely across different samples, and estimate the population association values, the 95% confidence intervals for R2 were calculated (see Table 1). The values for R2 ranged from .00 to .05, indicating that the likely population values for the association between independent and interdependent self-construals and measures of cognition are extremely small. Ethnic Group Analyses Because a majority of studies examining the association between cultural background and cognitive style have looked at differences between individuals from the East (e.g., Japan and China) and West (e.g., United States and Western Europe), the differences in social orientation and cognitive style between the Asian/Asian-American participants (n = 54) and the rest of the sample (n = 200) were examined. Consistent with hypotheses, Asian/Asian-American participants reported significantly lower levels of independence on the IISS compared to the rest of the sample (t252 = 3.47, p = .001; d = 0.53, 95%CI = 0.23, 0.84). Furthermore, Asian/AsianAmerican participants also reported higher interdependence on the IISS compared to the rest of the sample, although this difference was not significant (t252 = −1.62, p = .11; d = −0.25, 95%CI = −0.55, 0.05). For the analyses examining the differences between Asian/AsianAmerican participants and the rest of the sample on the cognitive measures, only one significant finding was observed. Contrary to hypotheses, the results indicated that the Asian/Asian-American participants scored significantly higher on the Embedded Figures Test compared to the rest of the sample, therefore showing lower field dependence (t252 = −3.12, p = .002; d = −0.48, 95%CI = −0.78, −0.18). The ethnic group comparisons for memory performance (t252 = 0.48, p = .63; d = 0.07, 95%CI = −0.23, 0.37), number of categorical word pairings (t252 = −1.23, p = .22; d = −0.19, 95%CI = −0.49, 0.11), and number of relational word pairings (t252 = 1.06, p = .29; d = 0.16, 95%CI = −0.14, 0.46) were not statistically significant. Correlations Between Cognitive Measures Correlations between the cognitive measures are presented in Table 2. This analysis was conducted to examine whether there was coherence between the measures with respect to their putative status indexing the constructs of holistic or analytic processing. Contrary to hypotheses, performance on the Embedded Figures Test, a measure indicating greater analytic processing, was significantly and positively correlated with performance on the spatial memory test and the number of relational word pairings selected, both measures that indicate holistic processing.
25-PR_Marquez_140059.indd 333
08/08/14 5:22 PM
334
R. C. MARQUEZ & J. ELLWANGER TABLE 2 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS AND DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR COGNITIVE STYLE VARIABLES Measure 1. Embedded figures
M
SD
24.36
7.46
2. Memory performance
8.39
4.55
3. Categorical pairings
2.57
2.00
4. Relational pairings †p < .01.
4.95
2.20
Correlation 1
2 .21†
3
4
−.08
.22†
−.05
.06 −.73†
DISCUSSION Contrary to the hypotheses, no statistically significant relationships were found between the participants' independent and interdependent self-construal scores and cognitive performances in the primary analyses. The lack of association between these variables is surprising, given that many studies have reported cognitive style differences between participants from Eastern and Western cultures. The results of the ethnic group comparison similarly failed to support the hypotheses. Indeed, although the Asian/Asian-American participants differed from the rest of the sample as predicted in terms of self-construals, showing lower independence and marginally more interdependence, contrary to the hypotheses, they exhibited greater performance on the Embedded Figures Test, indicative of less field dependence. Lastly, statistically significant correlations were found between performances on the cognitive measures thought to reflect holistic/analytic processing, but these correlations were also in the opposite direction from those hypothesized. Taken together, the results are not consistent with the original hypotheses. Additionally, the primary results also contrast with the findings of Konrath, et al. (2009), who reported results that were supportive of the same hypotheses. The results of the current study are more consistent with those of Kitayama, et al. (2009), who interpreted their results as indicating a lack of association between selfconstruals and cognitive style in cross-national samples. The current study replicates the findings of Kitayama, et al. (2009) and extends the previous research on this question in the following important ways. First, the present sample was considerably larger (about two to three times as large) than the samples examined in Kitayama, et al. (2009) and Konrath, et al. (2009). Second, independence and interdependence were measured using the scale developed by Lu and Gilmour (2007), which demonstrated considerably better reliability than the Singelis Scale (1994) used in previous research. These two differences help to rule out the possibility that the lack of association observed in the current
25-PR_Marquez_140059.indd 334
08/08/14 5:22 PM
SELF-CONSTRUALS AND REASONING
335
study between self-construals and cognition could be explained by either inadequate power or low reliability of the self-construal scale. In addition to power and reliability, it is important to consider other factors that could contribute to the finding of null results in the primary analyses. One of the most important is the possibility that a lack of association could be explained by a restriction of range in the variables assessed. First, the variability observed in independent and interdependent scale scores in the present study was very similar to that observed in the original cross-cultural validation study conducted by Lu and Gilmour (2007). Similarly, the variability observed in the present sample on the Embedded Figures Test and Kühnen and Oyserman's memory test (see Table 2) was as large as has been reported in previous research (Kühnen, Hannover, Roeder, Shah, Schubert, Upmeyer, et al., 2001, Kühnen & Oyserman, 2002).2 Therefore, it is unlikely that the lack of associations in the present study were simply due to a lack of variability within the sample for the constructs examined. Given that the results of the present study did not support the hypothesis that the observed differences in cognitive style between members of Eastern and Western cultures are due to differences in the amount that individualism and collectivism is promoted within each culture, what are some possible alternative interpretations? First, the possibility that a variable other than individualism and collectivism might play a role in determining cognitive style differences between Eastern and Western cultures must not be overlooked. For example, socioeconomic status, educational practices, or occupation might also contribute to whether a person will exhibit analytic or holistic forms of information processing. Second, it is possible that the hypothesis is correct, but the causal model is more complex than assumed and therefore was not tested adequately in the present experiment. For instance, Kitayama, et al. (2009) developed a model they called the Cultural Task Analysis. It emphasizes that self-construals are developed implicitly due to the tasks that are emphasized in different cultures. From this perspective, the use of an explicit measure of self-construal, as used in the present study, would not necessarily capture the causal relationship. Furthermore, their model suggests that although collectivism and individualism at the level of a cultural group still have a causal connection to independent and interdependent self-construals at the individual levels, the relationship is complicated, and at the individual levels there will be an idiosyncratic adoption of the specific tasks that are approved in a culture. Therefore, according to this view, It was not possible to examine restriction of range for the present sample in the same way on the measure of categorical vs. relational word pairings. Ji, et al. (2004) did not report measures of variability in their original report for this measure that would allow comparison. 2
25-PR_Marquez_140059.indd 335
08/08/14 5:22 PM
336
R. C. MARQUEZ & J. ELLWANGER
one may not expect individual-level associations between independent/ interdependent self-construals and cognitive style, even though there are coherent cultural group-level differences (for a similar discussion see Na, et al., 2010). This model is consistent both with results that support the current hypothesis (i.e., Konrath, et al., 2009) and results that don't (i.e., Kitayama, et al., 2009; the current study). Finally, Kashima's (2009) Semiotic model provides a third alternative for interpreting the current study's findings. This model suggests that concepts that apply at the level of cultural groups, such as individualism/collectivism, are not causally related to psychological processes such as cognitive performance, but rather, they are interpretive constructs that are used to describe cultural differences in psychological processes. Of importance, because it does not posit a causal relationship between culture and cognition, the model can potentially account for results that run counter to cultural causation hypotheses, such as the ethnic group results reported in the current study. The correlation analysis of the cognitive measures was also interesting. To the extent that there were significant correlations, they ran counter to expectations. Better performance on the Embedded Figures Task, a measure interpreted as indicating greater analytic processing (lower field dependence), was associated with better spatial memory performance and a greater number of relational word pairings, two measures that are indicative of greater holistic processing (higher field dependence). Although the question of measure coherence is separable from the question of causation, it is notable that the current study produced findings that were statistically significant but counter to the hypotheses with respect to both questions. One potential interpretation of these findings results from the observation that performance on cognitive measures, such as the timed Embedded Figures Test, may be determined by multiple factors. Although culture may be one factor that influences performance on such tests, there are certainly many others, such as general intelligence, perceptual speed and accuracy, conscientiousness, level of education, experience with timed tests, etc. Therefore, it is not necessarily surprising to find circumstances where the correlations between such measures do not appear to primarily reflect the influence of culture. For instance, the positive correlation that was observed in the present study between performance on the Embedded Figures Test and performance on the spatial memory test could reflect the influence of general intelligence on both measures. Indeed, what could be considered surprising is the extent to which the cross-cultural and culture-priming literature appears to be so orderly with respect to the influence of culture (inferred or primed) on cognitive measures of analytic/holistic processing (e.g., Nisbett, et al., 2001; Oyserman & Lee, 2008).
25-PR_Marquez_140059.indd 336
08/08/14 5:22 PM
SELF-CONSTRUALS AND REASONING
337
A notable limitation of the present study had to do with the composition of the sample. The majority of the sample was female and Hispanic. The present sample was also more ethnically diverse than many previous studies and comprised of individuals who had a history of recent family immigration to the United States. Most of these characteristics of the sample probably were beneficial to the present study. However, a limitation associated with the sample is that the results may not be straightforwardly comparable to those of prior studies that typically have included very few Hispanic participants. Also of concern is the fact that the sample was 75% female. Since previous studies have shown sex differences in interdependence, future studies would benefit from having a more balanced number of women and men. In summary, the current study failed to support the hypothesis that individual differences in independent or interdependent self-construals promote more analytic or holistic cognitive processing styles, respectively. This hypothesis derives from the dominant interpretation of cross-cultural differences in cognitive style between Easterners and Westerners. The current study is one of only a few to have addressed this important hypothesis, and the sample used was by far the largest. Given the statistical power of the study, the lack of support for the hypothesis suggests that there are at least some populations and/or measures to which it does not meaningfully apply. REFERENCES
HORN, W. (1962) Leistungsprüfsystem, L-P-S: Handanweisung für die Durchführung, Auswertung und Interpretation [A performance testing system: manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe-Verlag. JI, L., ZHANG, Z., & NISBETT, R. E. (2004) Is it culture or is it language? Examination of language effects in cross-cultural research on categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 57-65. KASHIMA, Y. (2009) Culture comparison and culture priming: a critical analysis. In R. S. Wyer, C. Chiu, & Y. Hong (Eds.), Understanding culture: theory, research, and application. New York: Psychology Press. Pp. 53-77. KITAYAMA, S., PARK, H., SERVINCER, A. T., KARASAWA, M., & USKUL, A. K. (2009) A cultural task analysis of implicit independence: comparing North America, Western Europe, and East Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 236-255. KONRATH, S., BUSHMAN, B. J., & GROVE, T. (2009) Seeing my world in a million little pieces: narcissism, self-construal, and cognitive-perceptual style. Journal of Personality, 77, 1197-1228. KÜHNEN, U., HANNOVER, B., ROEDER, U., SHAH, A., SCHUBERT, B., UPMEYER, A., & ZAKARIA, S. (2001) Cross-cultural variations in identifying embedded figures: comparisons from the United States, Germany, Russia, and Malaysia. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(3), 365-371. KÜHNEN, U., & OYSERMAN, D. (2002) Thinking about the self influences thinking in general: cognitive consequences of salient self-concept. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 492-499.
25-PR_Marquez_140059.indd 337
08/08/14 5:22 PM
338
R. C. MARQUEZ & J. ELLWANGER
LU, L., & GILMOUR, R. (2007) Developing a new measure of independent and interdependent views of the self. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 249-257. NA, J., GROSSMANN, I., VARNUM, M. E. W., KITAYAMA, S., GONZALEZ, R., & NISBETT, R. E. (2010) Cultural differences are not always reducible to individual differences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 107, 6192-6197. NISBETT, R. E. (2003) The geography of thought: how Asians and Westerners think differently … and why. New York: Free Press. NISBETT, R. E., & MASUDA, T. (2003) Culture and point of view. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 100, 11163-11170. NISBETT, R. E., PENG, K., CHOI, I., & NORENZAYAN, A. (2001) Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291-310. OYSERMAN, D., & LEE, S. S. (2008) Does culture influence what and how we think? Effects of priming individualism and collectivism. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 311-342. SINGELIS, T. M. (1994) The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 581-591. TRIANDIS, H. C., & GELFAND, M. J. (1998) Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 118-128. Accepted June 30, 2014.
25-PR_Marquez_140059.indd 338
08/08/14 5:22 PM
Copyright of Psychological Reports is the property of Ammons Scientific, Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
