Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect

Culture and consumer behavior: the role of horizontal and vertical

We examine the influence of culture on consumer behavior with decisions are illuminated by research on cultural differ-
a particular focus on horizontal and vertical individualism and ences in power and hierarchy.
collectivism. Cultures vary in their propensity to emphasize
hierarchy, a distinction captured by examining horizontal/
Hierarchy and horizontal/vertical cultural
vertical cultural orientations or contexts. These cultural factors
orientations
pattern personal values and goals, power concepts, and
In this article, we examine culture and consumer behavior
normative expectations applied to the exercise of power. We
with a focus on horizontal and vertical individualism and
review implications for how consumers respond to brands in
collectivism. Cultures vary in their propensity to empha-
the marketplace, service providers, and each others’ needs.
size hierarchy. Although extensive research has addressed
Address individualism/collectivism, there is increasing attention
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA to cultural classifications that address how hierarchy and
power is patterned across societies, and their associated
Corresponding author: Shavitt, Sharon ([email protected])
privileges and obligations. Much of this work comes from
consumer psychology, an emphasis that is natural for a
Current Opinion in Psychology 2016, 8:149–154 domain that seeks to understand, for instance, the pursuit
This review comes from a themed issue on Culture of status and the appeal of luxury goods.
Edited by Michele J Gelfand and Yoshihisa Kashima
To address issues of hierarchy, recent research has pro-
For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial
ductively built upon a distinction within individualism and
Available online 12th December 2015 collectivism introduced by Triandis and colleagues
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.11.007 [14,15] — between cultural orientations that are horizon-
2352-250X/# 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. tal (valuing equality) and those that are vertical
(emphasizing hierarchy). In Vertical-Individualist (VI) so-
cieties, such as the U.S., Great Britain and France, the
emphasis is on gaining personal status through achieve-
ment, competition and surpassing others [14,15]. An
individualistic form of hierarchy is emphasized, where
Entering a shopping mall in Boston or Beijing, one may winning is linked to the individual self, and people seek
be struck by the similarity in retail spaces and offerings. opportunities to stand out and to impress others [16]. In
But do consumers in these marketplaces approach their contrast, in Horizontal-Individualist (HI) societies, such as
decisions in the same way? What roles do cultural factors Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Australia, people value
play? equality and focus on expressing uniqueness rather than
improving personal status. The emphasis is on self-reli-
Consumer behavior encompasses a broad range of phe- ance and self-expression, not on hierarchy [17,14]. In
nomena, and cultural factors have been shown to influ- Vertical-Collectivist (VC) societies, such as Korea, Japan
ence many of them. Culture shapes what general goals and India, people prioritize their in-group goals over
consumers have [1], and how they respond to prices personal goals, and emphasize compliance with authority
[2,3], brand images [4], and advertising elements [5]. figures. The emphasis is on fulfilling duties and obligations
Culture also influences the processing strategies and [15]. Finally, in Horizontal-Collectivist (HC) societies,
thinking styles of consumers (see [6,7] for reviews). such as Brazil and some other Latin American contexts,
These differences in cognitive processes influence people value interdependence and sociability within an
whether brands, prices, and other marketing elements egalitarian framework. The emphasis is on benevolence
are thought about in relation to one another [3,5,8,9], and sociability, not hierarchy [16].
and shape the role of feelings and personal preferences in
consumer decision-making [10,7]. However, consumer In addition to between-country differences, the horizon-
research is not limited to the understanding of acquisitive tal–vertical orientations of U.S. ethnic cultural groups also
processes. Increasingly, research on culture and consumer appear to differ, with Hispanic-Americans showing a
behavior has examined pro-social behaviors such as mak- greater tendency than European-Americans to be hori-
ing charitable donations [11,12,1] or choosing socially zontal collectivists and lesser tendency to be vertical
responsible brands [13]. These pro-social consumer individualists [16,18]. Robust gender differences have

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Psychology 2016, 8:149–154

Figure 1

Advertising Appeals,
Brand Concepts,
Values Product Evaluations,
Political Choices

Mental Concepts of Power,

Perceived Responsibility
Injunctive to Others,
Norms Expectations for Others,
Service Expectations

Current Opinion in Psychology

Differences between Horizontal and Vertical Cultures.

also been observed, with females being higher than males values; and VC by conformity values [21]. People with an
in HC and lower in VI [19,3,17]. HI cultural orientation value being distinct and self-
reliant. As a result, they score higher than others do on
Figure 1 outlines three broad ways in which horizontal Self-Deceptive Enhancement (SDE; [22]), the tendency
and vertical cultural contexts differ. First, they nurture to view oneself positively and to give an inflated assess-
distinct values that are reflected in cultural artifacts such ment of one’s skills and abilities. Indeed, whereas HI
as advertisements, and that predict consumers’ reactions scores predict SDE, VI scores and other cultural orienta-
to brands, products, and even political candidates. Sec- tions do not [23].
ond, horizontal and vertical cultural distinctions predict
how power concepts are mentally represented and how People who are high in VI value achievement and
consumers process information when power concepts are impressing others [17,24]. Accordingly, they have more
activated. Finally, injunctive norms — beliefs about what vivid and emotional representations of past experiences
behaviors are approved of or disapproved of by others in which they stood out and impressed others [16],
[20] — also vary across horizontal and vertical cultures. In reflecting the goal-relevance of these experiences.
particular, consumers show cultural differences in the
degree to which they feel responsible for others, and People with an HC cultural orientation value being
accordingly their expectations for others’ behavior toward sociable and benevolent [24,15]. As a result, they score
them, including the behavior of service providers. higher than others on Impression Management (IM; [22]),
the tendency to present one’s actions as appropriate and
Personal values, goals, and judgments in the normative. Indeed, whereas HC scores predict IM, VC
marketplace scores and other cultural orientations do not [23]. People
To capture horizontal/vertical cultural orientations at the who are high in HC value cooperation and helping others
individual level, Triandis and Gelfand [15] validated a [16]. Accordingly, they have more vivid and emotional
16-item scale that assesses each orientation with four representations of experiences in which they gave valued
attitudinal items, including: ‘‘I’d rather depend on myself help and support [16], reflecting the goal-relevance of
than others’’ (HI); ‘‘Winning is everything’’ (VI); ‘‘The these experiences.
well-being of my co-workers is important to me’’ (HC);
and ‘‘It is my duty to take care of my family, even when I Horizontal/vertical cultural values are reflected in the
have to sacrifice what I want’’ (VC). marketplace in various ways. Advertisements are cultural
artifacts that shed light on the goals and values of a society
Scores on the HI subscale are best predicted by self- (e.g. [25,26]), and evidence suggests that differences in
direction values; VI by power values; HC by benevolence horizontal/vertical cultural values are reflected in the ad

Current Opinion in Psychology 2016, 8:149–154 www.sciencedirect.com

content that is prevalent in a society. An analysis of over orientation measure (not HI or individualism more broad-
1200 magazine ads in five countries — Denmark, Korea, ly) specifically predicted voting for President Bush in the
Poland, Russia, and the U.S. — found that, in vertical 2004 election. This appears to be because Bush conveyed
cultures such as Korea and the U.S., compared to the values that resonated with a VI cultural orientation —
horizontal culture of Denmark, advertising appeals put values of power and achievement.
more emphasis on status, luxury, and prestige (e.g. using
endorsers identified as Ivy League graduates, labeling Relating to others: mental representations
brands as ‘‘award-winning’’) [27]. On the other hand, an and processes linked to power
emphasis on uniqueness and self-expression (e.g. Because power is instrumental in achieving desirable
highlighting how a product can reflect ‘‘your personality’’) goals, cultures foster normative standards for its legiti-
is more common in the horizontal-individualist culture of mate use [34]. Vertical and horizontal cultural orientations
Denmark than in the other countries studied. Although predict different views about the meaning and purpose of
Denmark and the U.S. are both individualistic cultures, power [16]. Vertical individualists tend to view power in
differences in their horizontal/vertical cultural values personalized terms [35]: Power is a tool to advance their
afford predictions that go beyond what would be antici- personal status and prestige. On the other hand, horizon-
pated by a broader focus on individualism/collectivism. tal collectivists tend to conceptualize power in socialized
terms: Power is a means to benefit and help others. Such
Paralleling these differences in ad content, consumers differences in power concepts are reflected in liking for
tend to favor brand concepts that are consistent with their brands. VI scores predict a preference for brands that
dominant cultural values. It is critical for marketers to symbolize personalized power values of status and pres-
consider local cultural orientation when managing multi- tige, whereas HC scores predict a preference for brands
national brands [28], because matching to consumers’ that symbolize socialized power values of concern for the
value priorities will enhance the success of brand posi- welfare of others [16].
tioning efforts [29,30]. For example, an HI orientation is
associated with a preference for brands that stand for Horizontal and vertical cultural orientations are also asso-
openness, not achievement and prestige (endorsing a ciated with distinct cognitive processes and mindsets that
slogan such as, ‘‘freedom to pursue your own goals in influence consumer judgments. Indeed, culturally distinct
exciting ways’’), whereas a VI orientation predicts a mindsets are triggered when different power concepts are
preference for brands that stand for achievement and cued, even when processing information about nonsocial
prestige rather than openness (endorsing a slogan such targets such as brands [36]. The distinct goals associated
as, ‘‘status and prestige to enhance your own personal with these power concepts, such as stereotyping others
outcomes and interests’’; [13,31]). versus learning the individual needs of others, are served
by different processing mindsets. When primed with
Further evidence that the vertical-horizontal distinction personalized power, people with a VI cultural orientation
affords novel predictions about consumer behavior have an increased tendency to stereotype brand informa-
comes from research on the propensity to endorse pro- tion, showing better recognition of information congruent
ducts from one’s own country over those from foreign versus incongruent with the McDonald’s stereotype of
countries (known as the country-of-origin effect; [32]). In unhealthiness and convenience. This is presumably be-
this study, Japanese participants evaluated a product cause a stereotyping mindset helps to defend one’s pow-
from their home country more favorably than a foreign erful status over others [37]. On the other hand, people
product regardless of its competitive superiority. On the with an HC cultural orientation when primed with social-
other hand, U.S. participants only favored their home- ized power have an increased tendency to individuate in
country product when it was superior to the foreign information processing, showing better recall and recog-
product. Although this difference is consistent with nition for information incongruent with the McDonald’s
the broad conceptualization of collectivism as prioritiz- stereotype. This is presumably because an individuating
ing in-group goals over personal goals, mediation analy- mindset allows one to form more accurate impressions of
ses using measured cultural orientations indicated that others in order to meet their individual needs [38,39].
only the vertical aspect of collectivism and individualism
explained country-of-origin effects. For instance, the Furthermore, injunctive norms applied to power holders
collectivistic tendency to favor one’s own country’s pro- vary by cultural orientation, and the application of these
ducts appeared to be driven by cultural values that norms predict consumer judgments in a range of business
emphasize deference to the ingroup, hierarchy, and and service settings [40,18]. European-Americans (i.e.
status concerns (VC), not by values that stress coopera- people high in VI) tend to conceptualize power in per-
tion and sociability (HC). sonalized terms [16]. However, self-centered power-
holders can harm others by maximizing personal gain
Horizontal/vertical orientations also predict political at others’ expense. Indeed, people high in VI are more
choices. Zhang et al. [33] found that scores on a VI cultural likely to endorse the misuse of power [16]. To mitigate

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Psychology 2016, 8:149–154

this, cultures in which a personalized view of power Research on a related construct to horizontal/vertical
dominates should cultivate injunctive norms of exercising orientation — power distance — offers additional insights
power with justice and equity [18]. In contrast, because on consumers’ pro-social behavior. Power distance reflects
Hispanics tend to conceptualize power in socialized the degree to which less powerful members of organiza-
terms, injunctive norms for exercising power incorporate tions in a society expect and accept inequalities in power
socio-emotional concerns with others’ wellbeing (see [44]. At the individual level, consumers with high versus
[41]). Thus, Hispanics apply injunctive norms of compas- low power distance belief (PDB; [45]) perceive they have
sion when judging power-holders. When power concepts less responsibility to others, resulting in decreased charita-
are activated, this cultural difference in injunctive norms ble giving [11]. High-PDB individuals accept inequality
applied to powerful people is reflected in the degree to and perceive that charity recipients are experiencing
which hypothetical negotiators who behave in just versus their appropriate social position. Thus, they feel less re-
compassionate ways elicit approval, or the degree to sponsible for reducing social disparities. However, when a
which powerful service providers in a consequential ser- charity addresses uncontrollable needs such as from natural
vice interaction (physicians in a clinic) elicit satisfaction disasters (versus needs perceived to be controllable such as
from their patients [18]. obesity), people engage in charitable giving regardless of
their PDB level [11].
Responses to receiving disrespectful service also reflect
culturally distinct power concepts and norms. For people Conclusions and future directions
who are high (versus low) in a VI cultural orientation, and Horizontal/vertical cultural orientations address how hi-
thus who have a personalized concept of power, receiving erarchy and power is conceptualized and afford novel
disrespectful service from a low-ranking person such as a predictions about consumer behavior that go beyond the
front-desk receptionist is more likely to be seen as a broader individualism/collectivism distinction. Horizon-
threat to one’s personal status and power. This experi- tal/vertical orientations predict distinct personal values
ence can therefore trigger negative affective responses as and goals, power concepts, and normative expectations.
well as efforts to restore one’s power through status Thus, they influence how consumers react to advertise-
consumption. However, receiving disrespectful service ments, brands and service providers in the marketplace,
from a high-ranking person (e.g. hotel vice-president) and how they respond to others and to their needs.
does not necessarily implicate one’s personal status and
could instead trigger deferential responses from people Future research could examine the processes of cultural
high in VI [40]. change that give rise to relatively horizontal or vertical
values, and the role of the marketplace in these processes.
Responding to others’ needs: normative For instance, economic shifts that impact consumers’
expectations for helping purchasing power may give rise to changes in hierarchy
Helping behaviors and their consequences vary by cul- and power values. So may frequent exposure to products
ture. For example, people with an HC cultural orientation and messages that activate such values (e.g. widespread
conceptualize power as a means to benefit others, so they exposure to luxury brands and appeals). Research should
are more likely to help when power is salient. In one also examine what types of appeals persuade those with
experiment [16], participants imagined they were a real- vertical versus horizontal orientations to help or donate to
estate developer in a powerful position negotiating pay- others, and to experience satisfaction in their interactions
ment to a contractor for unanticipated expenses. Fairness with service providers. Marketing messages aimed at
norms did not require paying anything. Accordingly, boosting such positive outcomes could be more effective
participants high (versus low) in VI were willing to pay if they took into consideration consumers’ horizontal/
less, presumably because they were focused on personal vertical orientations in addition to individualism/collec-
gain. However, participants high (versus low) in HC were tivism.
willing to pay more, presumably driven by concern for the
contractor’s welfare. This links to the finding that injunc-
Conflict of interest statement
tive norms of power vary by culture, influencing both
Nothing declared.
judgments of power-holders [18] as well as intentions for
how to exercise power [16].
References and recommended reading
Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review,
Across cultures, people tend to experience emotional have been highlighted as:
benefits from pro-social spending [42]. However, horizon-
 of special interest
tal/vertical orientation may moderate the affective con-  of outstanding interest
sequences of helping others [43]. People high in HC,
because they are less likely to perceive helping as a choice 1. Yang H, Stamatogiannakis A, Chattopadhyay A: Pursuing
 attainment versus maintenance goals: the interplay of self-
that reflects their personal character, appear less likely to construal and goal type on consumer motivation. J Consum
experience an affective boost from helping others. Res 2015, 42:93-108.

Current Opinion in Psychology 2016, 8:149–154 www.sciencedirect.com

This empirical paper establishes a fundamental link between independent 13. Torelli CJ, Monga AB, Kaikati AM: Doing poorly by doing good:
versus interdependent self-construal and goal type. Attainment (main- corporate social responsibility and brand concepts. J Consum
tenance) goals, such as those to reduce (maintain) one’s bodyweight, are Res 2012, 38:948-963.
more motivating for participants with a more independent (interdepen-
dent) self-construal. Differences are shown for primed self-construal as 14. Triandis HC: Individualism & Collectivism. Westview Press; 1995.
well as within and between cultures.
15. Triandis HC, Gelfand MJ: Converging measurement of
2. Bolton LE, Keh HT, Alba JW: How do price fairness perceptions  horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. J Pers
differ across culture? J Mark Res 2010, 47:564-576. Soc Psychol 1998, 74:118-128.
This important measurement paper defines the theoretical constructs of
3. Lalwani AK, Shavitt S: You get what you pay for? Self-construal horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Supporting prior
 influences price-quality judgments. J Consum Res 2013, research showing the importance of this cultural distinction in the United
40:255-267. States [46], the authors show that the structure also exists in South Korea,
This empirical paper shows that people with an interdependent (versus a collectivistic context. The research refines and validates a scale to
independent) cultural self-construal are more likely to perceive price measure these constructs, and establishes their convergent and diver-
information as linked to quality and to use price to infer the quality of gent validity. It then explores the nomological network of related con-
a product. This cultural difference is mediated by differences in holistic structs to show interrelations with existing measures of related
thinking. constructs.
4. Torelli CJ, Özsomer A, Carvalho SW, Keh HT, Maehle N: Brand 16. Torelli CJ, Shavitt S: Culture and concepts of power. J Pers Soc
 concepts as representations of human values: do cultural  Psychol 2010, 99:703-723.
congruity and compatibility between values matter? J Mark This empirical paper provides evidence that cultures nurture different
2012, 76:92-108. views of what is desirable and meaningful to do with power. Vertical
In this empirical paper, the authors develop a generalizable structure of individualism is associated with a personalized power concept (i.e. power
abstract brand concepts that represent human values, finding that brand is for advancing one’s personal status and prestige), whereas horizontal
meanings elicit favorable reactions from consumers to the extent that collectivism is associated with a socialized power concept (i.e. power is
they resonate with consumers’ cultural values. They also examine reac- for benefiting and helping others). The studies reported include samples
tions to brand repositioning attempts, and show that cultural orientations of participants from nine different cultures on four continents (North and
predict responses to new, abstract meanings for brands. South America, Europe, and Asia). Cultural differences in power concepts
are observed across a wide range of psychological domains known to be
5. Kwon M, Saluja G, Adaval R: Who said what: The effects of patterned by culture, including beliefs, attitudes, memories, and goals.
cultural mindsets on perceptions of endorser–message These differences are observed at both at the individual level and the
relatedness. J Consum Psychol 2015, 25:389-403. group level of analyses.
6. Briley DA, Wyer RS Jr, Li E: A dynamic view of cultural influence: 17. Nelson MR, Shavitt S: Horizontal and vertical individualism and
a review. J Consum Psychol 2014, 24:557-571. achievement values: a multimethod examination of Denmark
7. Riemer H, Shavitt S, Koo M, Markus HR: Preferences don’t have and the United States. J Cross-Cult Psychol 2002, 33:439-458.
 to be personal: expanding attitude theorizing with a cross- 18. Torelli CJ, Shavitt S, Cho YI, Holbrook AL, Johnson TP, Weiner S:
cultural perspective. Psychol Rev 2014, 121:619-648.  Justice or compassion? Cultural differences in power norms
This theoretical synthesis reviews decades of research and theorizing on affect consumer satisfaction with power-holders. Int Mark Rev
attitudes and persuasion to their basis in Western sociocultural assump- 2015, 32:279-306.
tions about the centrality of personal preferences and their stability and This empirical paper examines ethnic/cultural variations in the injunctive
consistency. It develops a new normative-contextual model of attitudes norms applied to powerful people, and the situations in which these
based on an extensive review of research insights from non-Western norms influence consumer judgments. It shows that White Americans
cultural contexts. This model shifts the focus to novel research questions (Hispanics) are predisposed to apply injunctive norms that stipulate
about the need to integrate others’ views into one’s attitudes, and about powerful people should treat others justly and equitably (compassio-
how attitude instability and inconsistency serve this purpose. nately). These cultural variations in injunctive norms of power are more
8. Monga AB, John DR: What makes brands elastic? The influence likely to be observed in business or service contexts (business negotia-
 of brand concept and styles of thinking on brand extension tors, doctors) in which power is made salient.
evaluation. J Mark 2010, 74:80-92.
19. Kurman J, Sriram N: Interrelationships among vertical and
This empirical paper addresses how cultural factors predict what hap-
horizontal collectivism, modesty, and self-enhancement.
pens when known brands (e.g. Kodak) introduce new product extensions
J Cross-Cult Psychol 2002, 33:71-86.
(e.g. file cabinets). The research shows that holistic thinkers (versus
analytic thinkers) are more favorable towards such distant brand exten- 20. Cialdini RB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA: A focus theory of normative
sions for functional brands because holistic thinkers are more likely to find conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in
symbolic relationships between disparate products. However, no such public places. J Pers Soc Psychol 1990:1015-1026.
difference was found for prestige brands where presumably symbolic
links are easy to find regardless of thinking style. 21. Soh S, Leong FT: Validity of vertical and horizontal
individualism and collectivism in Singapore: relationships with
9. Ahluwalia R: How far can a brand stretch? Understanding the values and interests. J Cross-Cult Psychol 2002, 33:3-15.
role of self-construal. J Mark Res 2008, 45:337-350.
22. Paulhus DL: Measurement and Control of Response Bias. Chicago;
10. Hong J, Chang HH: ‘‘I’’ follow my heart and ‘‘we’’ rely on 1991.
 reasons: the impact of self-construal on reliance on feelings
versus reasons in decision making. J Consum Res 2015, 23. Lalwani AK, Shavitt S, Johnson T: What is the relation between
41:1392-1411. cultural orientation and socially desirable responding? J Pers
People with independent self-construal (versus interdependent self-con- Soc Psychol 2006, 90:165-178.
strual) rely on their feelings (versus reasons) in making judgments and
decisions and prefer affectively superior options to cognitively superior 24. Oishi S, Schimmack U, Diener E, Suh EM: The measurement of
options. These effects are moderated when consumers were making values and individualism–collectivism. Pers Soc Psychol Bull
choices for others (versus self) and they had to justify their choices. 1998, 24:1177-1180.
11. Winterich KP, Zhang Y: Accepting inequality deters 25. Han SP, Shavitt S: Persuasion and culture: advertising appeals
 responsibility: how power distance decreases charitable in individualistic and collectivistic societies. J Exp Soc Psychol
behavior. J Consum Res 2014, 41:274-293. 1994, 30:326-350.
People with higher power distance belief perceive a weaker responsibility
to help others, which results in decreased charitable behavior. However, if 26. Kim H, Markus HR: Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or
a charity addresses the uncontrollable nature of needs, these differences conformity? A cultural analysis. J Pers Soc Psychol 1999,
are mitigated. 77:785-800.
12. Duclos R, Barasch A: Prosocial behavior in intergroup relations: 27. Shavitt S, Johnson TP, Zhang J: Horizontal and vertical cultural
how donor self-construal and recipient group-membership differences in the content of advertising appeals. J Int Consum
shape generosity. J Consum Res 2014, 41:93-108. Mark 2011, 23:297-310.

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Psychology 2016, 8:149–154

28. Hollis N: The Global Brand: How to Create and Develop Lasting and by design. Group Process Intergroup Relat 2000, 3:227-
Brand Value in the World Market. Macmillan; 2008. 256.
29. Shavitt S, Lalwani AK, Zhang J, Torelli CJ: The horizontal/vertical 39. Russell AM, Fiske ST: Power and social perception. In The
distinction in cross-cultural consumer research. J Consum Social Psychology of Power. Edited by Guinote A, Vescio TK. New
Psychol 2006, 16:325-342. York: The Guilford Press; 2010:231-250.
30. Shavitt S, Lee AY, Torelli CJ: New directions in cross-cultural 40. Shavitt S, Torelli CJ, Wong J: Identity-based motivation:
consumer psychology. In The Social Psychology of Consumer constraints and opportunities in consumer research.
Behavior. Edited by Wänke M. NY: Psychology Press; 2009:227-250. J Consum Psychol 2009, 19:261-266.
31. Torelli CJ: Globalization, Culture, and Branding: How to Leverage 41. Sanchez-Burks J, Nisbett RE, Ybarra O: Cultural styles,
Cultural Equity for Building Iconic Brands in the Era of relationship schemas, and prejudice against out-groups.
Globalization. Palgrave Macmillan; 2013. J Pers Soc Psychol 2000, 79:174-189.
32. Gürhan-Canli Z, Maheswaran D: Cultural variations in country of 42. Aknin LB, Barrington-Leigh CP, Dunn EW, Helliwell JF, Burns J,
origin effects. J Mark Res 2000, 37:309-317. Biswas-Diener R, Kemeza I, Nyende P, Ashton-James CE,
Norton MI: Prosocial spending and well-being: cross-cultural
33. Zhang J, Nelson MR, Mao E: Beyond de Tocqueville: the roles of
evidence for a psychological universal. J Pers Soc Psychol
vertical and horizontal individualism and conservatism in
2013, 104:635-652.
the 2004 US presidential election. J Consum Psychol 2009,
19:197-214. 43. Cho H, Shavitt S: Does helping help you feel good? The answer
34. Chiu CY, Hong YY: Social Psychology of Culture. New York, NY: depends on cultural orientation. In Advances in Consumer
Psychology Press; 2006. Research, vol 42. Edited by Cotte J, Wood S. Duluth, MN:
Association for Consumer Research; 2014:778.
35. Winter DG: The Power Motive. New York, NY: Free Press; 1973.
44. Hofstede GH: Culture’s consequences: International Differences in
36. Torelli CJ, Shavitt S: The impact of power on information Work-Related Values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1980.
processing depends on cultural orientation. J Exp Soc Psychol
2011, 47:959-967. 45. Zhang Y, Winterich KP, Mittal V: Power distance belief and
impulsive buying. J Mark Res 2010, 47:945-954.
37. Fiske ST: Controlling other people: the impact of power on
stereotyping. Am Psychol 1993, 48:621-628. 46. Singelis TM, Triandis HC, Bhawuk DP, Gelfand MJ: Horizontal
and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A
38. Goodwin SA, Gubin A, Fiske ST, Yzerbyt VY: Power can bias theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross Cult Res 1995,
impression processes: stereotyping subordinates by default 29:240-275.

Current Opinion in Psychology 2016, 8:149–154 www.sciencedirect.com