Psychology Learning and Teaching

Volume 11 Number 3 2012

www.wwwords.co.uk/PLAT

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 http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/plat.2012.11.3.413
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
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 self-
enhancement (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
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, 482-499.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167299025004007
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. 170-189). 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. 542-567). 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. 124-144). 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. 378-396). 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, 851-864. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.69.5.851
Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2001). Norms for experiencing emotions in different cultures: Inter- and intranational
differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 869-885.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.81.5.869
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 self-
regard? Psychological Review, 106, 766-794. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0033-295X.106.4.766
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. 795-814). New York: Guilford
Press.
Mesquita, B. (2001). Emotions in collectivist and individualist contexts. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80, 68-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.80.1.68
Oyserman, D. & Lee, S. W. (2007). Priming ‘culture’: Culture as situated cognition. In S. Kitayama &
D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 255-279). New York: Guilford Press.

416
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. 59-76). 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:
[email protected]

Manuscript received 25 August 2011

Revision accepted for publication 4 April 2012

417