Culture Beth Lee November, 18, 2003

Culture and the Self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991) In Western cultures, the self is viewed as an independent, autonomous, separated being defined by a s unique repertoire of attributes, abilities, thoughts, and feelings In Eastern Cultures, the self is viewed as interdependent with others and is experienced as part of a social web

Culture and the Self - cont. (Markus & Kitayama, 1991) Independent Self Mother Father x x x x x X Self x x x x Sibling x x x x x Friend x x x Co-worker

Culture and the Self - cont. (Markus & Kitayama, 1991) Interdependent Self Mother Father x Self x x x x x Sibling x x x x x Friend Co-worker

Culture and Attribution (Morris & Peng, 1994) American articles Personality traits (e.g., “ very bad temper”) Attitudes (e.g., “personal belief that guns were an important means to redress grievances”) Psychological problems (e.g. “darkly disturbed man who drove himself to success and destruction”)

Culture and Attribution - cont. (Morris & Peng, 1994) Chinese articles Relationships(e.g., “did not get along with his advisor”) Pressures in Chinese society(e.g., “a victim of the ‘Top Student’s Education Policy”)

Culture and Motivation (Heine, Takata, & Lehman, 2000) Self-enhancement Canadians resisted the notion that they had been outperformed by their peers when given such feedback Canadians slowed down, needed more information and were less confident when receiving more negative (critical) feedback

Culture and Motivation- cont. (Heine,Takata, & Lehman, 2000) Self-criticism Japanese resisted the notion that they had outperformed their Japanese peers Japanese needed more information, became more hesitant, and less confident when given positive (enhancing) feedback

Culture and Persuasion Han & Shavitt (1994) Individualistic appeals focused on independence, individual benefits, preference, and personal success (e.g., “the art of being unique,” “make your way through the crowd”) Collectivistic appeals focused on in-group benefits, harmony, and family integrity(e.g., “we have a way of bring people closer together,” “our family agrees with the selection of home-furnishings”)

Han & Shavitt (1994)-cont. Individualistic appeals American ads > Korean ads Collectivistic appeals Korean ads > American ads

Culture and Persuasion Lee, Fong & Zanna (2002) Content analysis of Korean and North American magazine ads with respect to regulatory focus theory Coding scheme covered the different aspects of promotion and prevention focus (needs, goals, emotions, decision making strategies, and self-construals)

Regulatory Focus Theory Hedonic principle : people wish to approach pleasure and to avoid pain Promotion focus : pursuit of gains and aspiration toward ideals Independent self Prevention focus : the avoidance of losses and the fulfillment of obligations  interdependent self

Percentage of Ads Using Promotion Focus Themes

Percentage of Ads Using Prevention Focus Themes

Proportion of Regulatory Focus in Ads as a Function of Culture Interaction F (1, 451) = 103.94, p < .001

Summary It was Korean ads that employed more promotion appeals than North American ads This surprising pattern of the results was the same regardless of magazine category (e.g. news, women’s) and product category (e.g. personal, technology)

Two Opposing Predictions Are promotion focus themes REALLY more persuasive to Koreans than to North Americans? Koreans would like promotion focus themes more than North Americans vs. Koreans would like prevention focus themes more than North Americans, whereas North Americans would like promotion focus themes more than Koreans

Evaluation by Culture by Country of Ad Koreans Canadians Interaction F ( 1, 48) = 27.32, p < .01

Evaluation by Culture by Regulatory Focus Koreans Canadians Interaction F ( 1, 48) = 3.89, p = .05

Conclusions Individuals from Asian cultures, who are likely to emphasize interdependence, are also more likely to resonate to ads with a prevention focus than individuals from North America, who are likely to emphasize independence