9 Culture, Self-Construal, and Regulatory Focus

CTaylor&FrancisGroup,LLCCopyright󰀂

ISSN:1047-840Xprint/1532-7965onlineDOI:10.1080/1047840X.2010.502095

Culture,Self-Construal,andRegulatoryFocus:HowandWhatto

PromoteorPrevent?

UlrichK¨uhnen

SchoolofHumanitiesandSocialSciences,JacobsUniversity,Bremen,Germany

BettinaHannover

DepartmentofEducationandPsychology,FreieUniversit¨at,Berlin,Germany

“Likewideneckties,[cognitive]stylesmaycome

andgo,buttheyneverwillgocompletelyoutofstyle”(Sternberg&Grigorenko,1997,p.710).Althoughlo-calversusglobalprocessinghavebeenstudiedforquitealongtime(Navon,1977),thefar-reachingimplica-tionsofthesewaysofinformationprocessingandtheirexactfunctionsinthecognitivesystemhavenotbeenidentifieduntilrecently,whichmaybepartlyresponsi-blefortheir“comingandgoing.”Forinstance,Stern-bergandGrigorenkoconcluded,“Inrecentyears,re-searchonstyleshasbeenrelatively‘out’withregardtomainstreampsychologicalresearch”(p.709).F¨orsterandDannenberg(thisissue)nowprovideatheoreticalframeworkthatfillsthisgap.ItisnothardtopredictthatGLOMOsyswillkeepthetwoprocessingstylesinthecenterofattentionofmanysocialcognitionresearchersinthefuture.TheexplanatorypowerofGLOMOsysisenormous,andthemanyyet-to-be-testedsuggestionsthatcanbederivedfromitcallformanymorestudies.OneofthemostintriguingsuggestionsbyGLOMOsysistheassumptionthatperceptualpro-cessingstylesarerelatedtoconceptualones.Thefindingsthatpurelyprocedurallypriminglocalver-susglobalprocessing(bymeansoftheNavon-letter-task)affectscreativity(Friedman,Fishbach,F¨orster,&Werth,2003),temporaldistanceestimates(Liberman&F¨orster,2009),ortheidentificationofsimilaritiesordifferencesofobjects(suchasTVshows;F¨orster,2009),tonamejustafewresults,arenotonlyfasci-natingandtosomeextentcounterintuitive.Thesefind-ingsmakeimportanttheoreticalcontributions.First,theyshowthatglobalandlocalprocessingcanbein-duced.Theyarenotcognitivestylesinthesensethattheydescribeaperson’sstablewayofthinking—anas-sumptionthatisoftenassociatedwithcognitivestylessuchasfield-dependence,asalreadythetitleoftheclassicbookPsychologicalDifferentiationbyWitkin,Dyk,andFaterson(1962)suggests.Peoplecanengageineitherwayofthinkingwithimportantconsequencesforconceptualprocessing.

Second,thefindingsshowthattheclassicdistinc-tionofsemanticandproceduralprimingasifthetwoweredisconnected(whichrestsonthedistinctionbe-233

tweendeclarativeandproceduralknowledge)istosomeextentinsufficient(foradetaileddiscussionofvariousprimingeffectsandhowtodistinguishthem,seeF¨orster,Liberman,&Friedman,2007).Procedu-ralprimingcanaffectthesubsequentprocessingofsemanticallymeaningfulconstructs,andviceversa.Thissuggestionistheoreticallyimportant,becauseitcallsthesharpdistinctionofthe“How”and“What”ofthinkingintoquestion—adistinctionthathasfre-quentlybeenappliedinthecontextofculturaldiffer-encesinthinking(fordetaileddiscussions,seeBuchtel&Norenzaya,2009;Nisbett,Peng,Choi,&Norenza-yan,2001;Schaller,Norenzayan,Heine,Yamagishi,&Kameda,2010).Althoughthetraditionalargumenthasbeenthatculturecanaffectthemattersorcontentsofthinkingonly(i.e.,the“What”),butnottheunderlyingprocesses,researchofthelastdecadehasaccumulatedabundantevidencethatculturesalsovarysubstantiallyinthewaytheirmembersthink(i.e.,withregardtothe“How”ofthinking).

ThesetwoverybasicimplicationsofGLOMOsysareinlinewithbasicassumptionsofourownpreviousworkontheconsequencesofindependentandinterde-pendentself-construalsforcognitivefunctioning(seeHannover&K¨uhnen,2004,2009).Yet,asnoticedbyF¨orsterandDannenberg,thereisanaspectofourfind-ingsthatatfirstglanceseemscontradictorytosugges-tionsbyGLOMOsys.Inthefollowingwefirstbrieflysummarizeourownmodelandreportthefindingsthatsupportit,thenillustrateinwhatrespectthesefindingsarecontradictorytotheonesreportedbyF¨orsterandDannenberg,andfinallypresentafewpreliminarysug-gestionsforhowtoresolvethisseemingcontradiction.Theconstrualoftheselfhasbeenconsideredoneofthecentralconstructsinexplainingculturaldifferencesinavarietyofdomains,includingthinking,feeling,andaction(e.g.,Kitayama,Duffy,&Uchida,2007;Markus&Kitayama,1991).Thewayinwhichidentityisdefinedandconstruedisnotjustonevariablelikemanyothersthatissubjecttoculturalvariation.Rather,itseemsthatthemembersofindividualistandcollectivistculturesthink,feel,andactdifferentlybecausetheyconstruetheirselveseitherprimarilyin

COMMENTARIES

termsofindependenceorinterdependence,respec-tively.Buthowdoesthisinfluenceoftheself-construalcomeabout?TomodeltheseconsequenceswehaveproposedtheSemantic-Procedural-Interface(SPI)modeloftheself(e.g.,Hannover&K¨uhnen,2004;Hannover,P¨ohlmann,Springer,&Roeder,2005;K¨uhnen,Hannover,&Schubert,2001).Themodelrestsontheempiricallywell-establishedassumptionthattheself-conceptsofvirtuallyallpeopleincludeaspectsstressingtheindependenceofothers(suchasone’sinternalattributesliketraits,abilities,attitudes,etc.)aswellastheinterdependencewiththem(suchasone’ssocialroles,relationships,andgroupmem-berships).Furthermore,weassumethattheentiretyofself-knowledgethatpeopleacquireoverthelifecourseexceedsthementalcapacitiesinthesensethatinanygivenmomentonlyasubsetofthisprincipallyavailableself-knowledgecanberetrieved.Ourmodelisthenconcernedwithhowthisactivatedsubsetofeitherprimarilyindependentorinterdependentself-knowledgeaffectsinformationprocessing.

Tomodeltheseconsequences,wedistinguishtwomechanisms:Thesemanticapplicationmechanismreferstothefactthatthecontentsofretrievedself-knowledgeserveasaninterpretativeframeforthepro-cessingofinformation.Hence,duetoprimingofse-manticconcepts(e.g.,Higgins&Bargh,1987)subse-quentinformationisassimilatedtowardautonomousorsocialcontentstotheextentthatindependentorinterdependentself-knowledgeiscurrentlyacti-vated.Accordingly,consistentevidenceshowsthatjudgmentsareassimilatedtoautonomouscontentsifindependentself-knowledgehadbeenprimedbuttosocialcontentsifinterdependentself-knowledgehadbeenactivated(e.g.,Gardner,Gabriel,&Lee,1999;Haberstroh,Oyserman,Schwarz,K¨uhnen,&Ji,2002;K¨uhnen&Haberstroh,2004;K¨uhnen&Han-nover,2000;P¨ohlmann&Hannover,2006;Trafimow,Triandis,&Goto,1991).

However,weproposethattheconsequencesofac-tivatedindependentorinterdependentself-knowledgeoninformationprocessingareinsufficientlydescribedbythemechanismofsemanticpriming.Wesuggestasecond,proceduralapplicationmechanism.Accessingindependentversusinterdependentself-knowledgeco-incideswithdifferentmodesofthinking,whichwecallcontext-independentversuscontext-dependent.Thispredictionrestsonthefactthatbothtypesofself-knowledgedonotdifferonlywithrespecttotheirse-manticcontentbutalsowithrespecttotheirdegreeofabstractnessorcontext-dependency.Independentself-knowledgereferstoaspectsoftheselfthatdescribesthepersonirrespectiveofanyqualifyingcontextualcir-cumstances.Thementalrepresentationofthiskindofself-knowledgeisoftentraitlikeanddoesnotrefertoanyparticularsocialcontext(e.g.,“Iamyielding”).Incontrast,interdependentrepresentationsoftheselfare234

oftenmentallystoredbeneaththerepresentationofpar-ticularsocialcontextsorparticularotherpersons.Suchcontext-dependentself-knowledgedescribesthepersonaspartofaparticularsocialcontext(e.g.,“Iamyield-ingtowardsmychildren,butIamdemandingtowardsmycoworkers”).Therefore,itmakessensetoassumethattheindependentandinterdependentconstrualoftheselfhavebeenacquiredbymeansofdifferentwaysofthinking:Generatingindependentself-knowledgerequiresidentifyingfeaturesthatdescribetheselfirre-spectiveofanycontextandintegratingthosefeaturesintoabstractconcepts.Thegenerationofinterdepen-dentself-knowledgeispossibleonlyifonerelatestheselftootherswhoareencounteredinspecificsocialcontexts.Hence,itrequiresrealizingthatone’sownidentitydependspartlyonwhooneiswith—itrequiresthinkingabouttheselfincontext-dependentterms.Weassumethataccessingthedifferentkindsofself-aspectstriggerscognitiveresidualsofthewaysofthinkingbywhichbothkindsofself-knowledgehavebeenacquired:Theactivationofautonomousself-knowledgecoincideswithacontext-independentprocessingmodeinwhichinformationisgenerally(i.e.,notonlyifitpertainstotheself)processedbypayingattentiontoobjectsirrespectiveoftheirsur-roundingcontexts.Incontrast,theactivationofsocialself-knowledgeisexpectedtoinduceageneralcontext-dependentmodeofthinkingwithinwhichrelationsbetweenobjectsandtheircontextareattendedto.Ourmodel’snameisattributedtothecentralnotionofa“mentalinterface”thatlinksbothappli-cationmechanismstooneanother.Thisimpliesthatbothmechanismscanaffectinformationprocessingsimultaneously,yetindependentlyofeachother.Furthermore,thenotionofalinkinginterfacesuggeststhatsemanticallyprimingautonomousorsocialself-knowledgeinducesthecoincidingprocessingmodebeingeithercontext-independentorcontext-dependent.Inourownstudieswetestthisassumptionbysemanticallyprimingeitherindependentorin-terdependentself-knowledgeandthenprovidingourparticipantswithpurelyprocedural(i.e.,non-social)tasksthatrequireeithercontext-independentorcontext-dependentthinking.Inanumberofstudies,forinstance,wehaveusedtheprimingproceduredevelopedbyGardneretal.(1999).Participantsreadalittletextandareinstructedtocircleallpersonalpronounsthatappearinit.Byvaryingwhichpronounstheparagraphincludes(e.g.,either“I,”“me,”“mine”or“we,”“us,”“our,”etc.)eitherindependent(intheformercase)orinterdependent(inthelatterone)self-knowledgecanbeactivated.Subsequently,wehadourparticipantsworkoncognitivetasksthatwerefreeofanysemanticcontentbutrequiredeithercontext-independentorcontext-dependentprocessing.Resultsshowedthatafterbeingprimedforindependentself-knowledgeparticipantsoutperformedthosein

COMMENTARIES

theinterdependentself-knowledgeprimingconditionontasksthatrequirecontext-independentprocessing,suchasforinstancedetachinggeometricalfiguresfromcomplexbackgrounds(K¨uhnenetal.,2001).Ontasksthatrequirecontext-dependentprocessing,however,suchasmemorizingincidentallyencodedcontextualinformation,theoppositepatternwasfound(e.g.,K¨uhnen&Oyserman,2002).Followingthislogic,inoneofourstudies(K¨uhnen&Oyserman,2002)wehaveusedtheNavon-letter-taskbecauseweassumethatidentifyingthesmalllettersrequiresdetachingthemfromthecontextinwhichtheyareembedded(i.e.,context-independentprocessing),whereasthebigletterscanonlybeidentifiediftheelementarylettersarerelatedtooneanother(i.e.,requiringcontext-dependentprocessing).AspredictedbySPI,onlyafterhavingcircledpronounssuchasI,me,andmine,participantswereabletoidentifythesmalllettersfasterthanthebigones,withthisdifferencebeing(slightly)reversedafterhavingcircledpronounssuchaswe,us,orourselves,andsoon.AlthoughthesestudiesincludedWesternparticipantsonly,Oyserman,Sorensen,Reber,andChen(2009)conceptuallyreplicatedtheseprimingeffectsineightstudieswithparticipantsfromdifferentpartsoftheworld,includ-ingAmericans,Chinese,Norwegians,andAfricans.Inasubsequentmeta-analysistheseauthorsdemonstratedthattheprimingeffectswerehomoge-nousacrossgeographicplace.Recentbrainresearchusingself-construalprimingandtheNavon-lettertaskapprovesthattheneuralactivityintheextrastriatecortexunderlyingglobal/localperceptionofcom-poundstimulicanbemodulatedbyself-construalprimingthatshiftsself-construaltowardstheEasterninterdependentorWesternindependentselfinChineseparticipants(Lin,Lin,&Han,2007).

Cross-culturalstudieshaveprovidedevidenceforaccordingdifferencesinprocessingmodesbetweenmembersofindividualistversuscollectivistcultures(e.g.,K¨uhnenetal.,2001;seeOyserman&Lee,2008,forareview).Togetherthesestudiesconfirmthepre-dictionthatprimingoftheconceptsofindependenceversusinterdependencedoesnotonlyincreasetheac-cessibilityofautonomousorsocialself-knowledgebutalsoadditionallyfosterseithercontext-independentorcontext-dependentprocessingmodesaspredictedbyourSPImodel.

Ourmodelandtheconfirmingevidencethatwere-portedsharesomebasicassumptionswithGLOMOsysbecausetheyalsoshowthatthewayofprocess-ing(global/context-dependentandlocal/context-independent)isnotfixedbutcanbeinduced.Furthermore,bothGLOMOsysandSPIworkontheassumptionthatsemanticandproceduralsaspectsofknowledgeactivationarelinkedtooneanother.YetthereisanaspectofourfindingsthatistosomeextentincompatiblewithF¨orsterandDanneberg’sreasoning.Astheyreport,Lee,Aaker,andGardner(2000)linked

self-construaltoregulatoryfocus:Interdependenceseemstoberelatedtoastrongeremphasisonpreven-tion(ratherthanpromotion),whereastheoppositeistrueforindependenceoftheself.Furthermore,F¨orsterandHiggins(2005)linkedregulatoryfocusandpro-cessingstyle:Preventionfocusisassociatedwithlocalandpromotionfocuswithglobalprocessing(seealsoFriedman&F¨orster,2001).Togetherthesefindingssuggestthatindependenceoftheself(viapromotionfocus)shouldberelatedtoglobalprocessing,andinterdependent(throughpreventionfocus)withlocalprocessing.Althoughbeinglogicallyquiteconsistent,thispredictionisinsharpcontrastwiththefindingsjustreported(K¨uhnen&Oyserman,2002;Linetal.,2007;Oyserman,etal.,2009).Howcanthisconflictberesolved?

Inthisarticle,wewanttoputforwardasugges-tionthatisadmittedlystillspeculativeandneedstobetestedinthefuture.Wearguethatdependingontheself-construal,promotionandpreventionfocusmaybedirectedtowarddifferentgoals(i.e.,the“What”topromoteorprevent),whicharelikelytobeachievedthroughdifferentwaysofthinking(i.e.,the“How”topromoteorprevent).Ifpeoplewithindependentself-construalfeelthatthesituationtheyareinisprob-lematic(i.e.,ifpreventionfocushasbeeninduced),theymayfearthattheirownpersonalgoalsorwhishesarebeingthreatenedandremainunfulfilled.There-fore,theymaynarrowdowntheirattentionandfocusonthemselvesandtheirpersonalneedsandgoals.Onaprocedurallevelthisnarrowattentionfocusmaybereflectedinlocalratherthanglobalprocessing.Forpeoplewithchronicaccessibleinterdependentself-knowledge,however,thispredictionmaynothold.Iftheyrecognizethatsomethingiswrongaboutthecur-rentsituation,theymayinsteadwidentheirscopeandattendtoothersinthesocialcontexttoidentifytheirexpectations,fulfillthem,andthusmaintainharmo-niousrelationswiththem.Procedurallyspeakingthismayleadtoglobalratherthanlocalprocessing.

Notethatthevastmajorityof(ifnotall)studiesonGLOMOsyshavebeencarriedoutwithwhatHeinrich,Heine,andNorenzayan(2010)recentlycalledWEIRDpeople(p.702):Western,educated,industrialized,rich,anddemocraticindividuals(inotherwordsWest-erncollegestudents).Thisnotioncallsforcarewhengeneralizingtheresultsandclaiminguniversality.Thereisatleastsomepreliminaryevidencethatspeaksintothedirectionofourargument.Inare-centcorrelationalstudyLeikas,L¨onnqvist,Verkasalo,andLindeman(2009)investigatedconnectionsbe-tweenregulatoryfoci(measuredbymeansoftheReg-ulatoryFocusQuestionnaire;Higginsetal.,2001),personalvalues(investigatedwiththePortraitValueQuestionnaire;Schwartzetal.,2001),andself-construal(assessedwithself-construalscaledeveloped

235

COMMENTARIES

byGudykunstetal.,1996).Overandabovesomein-terestingdirectrelationsofregulatoryfociandvalues(e.g.,showingthatpreventionfocusispositivelyasso-ciatedwithsecurityvalues),theresultsalsorevealedthatself-construalmoderatedtheassociationbetweenpreventionfocusandseveralvalues.Ofparticularinter-estforthecurrentargumentarethefollowingfindings:preventionfocuswaspositivelyassociatedwithbenev-olence,butonlyforpeoplewithhigh(ratherthanlow)interdependentself-construal.Notethatbenevolenceisdefinedastheconcernforthewelfareofothers,whichinotherwordsrequiresdirectingattentiontothem.Bycontrast,preventionfocuswasnegativelyas-sociatedwiththeimportanceofpowervalues(definedastheconcernforcontrolanddominanceoveroth-ers),butagainonlyforthosewithhighinterdependentself-construal.Achievingcontrolanddominanceoverothersmayrequirefirstastrongerfocusonone’sownneedsandcapabilities,thuscoincidingwitharathernarrowattentionfocus.Togetherthesefindingscanbeinterpretedasevidencefortheassumptionthatdepend-ingonthelevelofinterdependenceoftheself-construaldifferentsubjectivegoalsbecomerelevantwhenbeinginprevention(ratherthanpromotion)focus(i.e.,the“What”toprevent).

Ofcourse,theassumptionthatendorsingbenevo-lenceorpowervaluescoincideswithdifferentatten-tionalfociandmaybeevenmoregeneralmodesofprocessingisspeculative.Togetclosertoprocedu-ral(“How”)consequencesofinducedpromotionver-suspreventionfocus,we(K¨uhnen,2010)recentlyranastudyinwhichwemeasuredthechronicselfbymeansofthesameself-construalscale(Gudykunstetal.,1996)basedonwhichwecategorizedpartici-pantsintothosewithaprimarilyindependentversusinterdependentself-construal.Inaddition,weorthogo-nallymanipulatedregulatoryfocusbymeansofamazeprimingdevelopedbyFriedmanandF¨orster(2001).Participantsworkedonacartoonmazeinwhichtheyhadtofindthewayoutforamousewhichwastrappedinthecenterofit.Inthepromotionfocuscondition,apieceofSwizzcheesewasdepictedaslyingout-sidethemaze,suchthatfindingthewayoutforthemousemeant“seekingnurturance.”Inthepreventionfocusconditionthecheesewasreplacedbyanowlfromwhichthemousehadtoescape,suchthatfindingthewayoutinthisconditionwassupposedtobeasso-ciatedwith“seekingsecurity.”Totestourhypothesisthatsolvingthesemazeswouldinduceself-regulatoryfociandhenceresultinoppositeconsequencesforthedegreeofcontext-dependencyamongthetwoself-construalgroups,participantssubsequentlyworkedonHorn’s(1962)versionoftheEmbeddedFiguresTest(Witkin,1950).Inthistestparticipantshavetodetachsimplegeometricalfiguresfrommorecomplexpat-ternsdesignedtohidetheembeddedfigure.Thistestisdoneasaspeedtest:Themoreembeddedfigurespar-236

ticipantsareabletoidentifywithinthegiventime,thelesscontext-dependentistheirprocessingmode.Aspredicted,wefoundasignificantinteractionofself-construalandregulatoryfocus.Independentpartici-pantswereabletoidentifymoreembeddedfiguresaf-terworkingontheowlascomparedtothecheesemaze.Thatistosaythatafteraninductionofpreventionfo-cus,participantsprocessedtheembeddedfiguresmate-rialmorecontext-independently(i.e.,locallyintermsofGLOMOsys),thusconceptuallyreplicatingprevi-ousfindingsfromWesternindividuals(F¨orster&Hig-gins,2005).Ofinterest,thepatternwassignificantlyreversedforparticipantswithprimarilyinterdependentself-construal.Theywereabletoidentifyfewerem-beddedfiguresinthepreventionascomparedtothepromotionfocuscondition.Apparently,thepreventionfocuspriminginducedamorecontext-dependentorglobalmodeofprocessingamongtheseindividuals.Togetherthestudiesreportedinthelastsectionsug-gestthatdependingontheself-construalbeingeitherratherindependentorinterdependent,promotionandpreventionfocusmayrenderdifferentgoalssubjec-tivelyrelevant(i.e.,the“What”topromoteorpre-vent;Leikasetal.,2009)whichmaytriggerdiffer-entproceduralmodesofthinking(i.e.,the“How”topromoteorprevent;K¨uhnen,2010).Thissuggestionallowsintegratingtheabovereportedfindings:Peo-plewithanindependentself-construalmaygenerallybemorepromotionfocused(e.g.,asshownbyLeeetal.,2000)andinducingapreventionfocusmaymaketheirthinkingmorelocal(F¨orster&Higgins,2005).Atthesametime,peoplewithprimarilyinterdependentself-construal(suchasAsians)myprocessnewinfor-mationgenerallyspeakingmorecontext-dependently/globally(forareviewseeHannover&K¨uhnen,2004),andthismaybyparticularlythecaseafterbeingprimedforprevention.

Ofcoursethefindingssupportingthisnotionarepreliminaryandobviouslylimited.Thesuggestionthatweputforwardhereneedstobetestedmoreconvinc-inglyinthefuture.Irrespectiveofwhethertheconcretelineofargumentationoutlinedherecanbeconfirmed,webelievethatthecombinationofcross-culturalstud-ies,ononehand,andcontrolledprimingexperiments,ontheotherhand,maybeagenerallyusefulresearchstrategyforthefurtherdevelopmentofGLOMOsys.WethinkthatresearchcouldbenefitfromsuchanapproachbecausesomeofthecentralvariablesGLOMOsysisdealingwith(suchaslocalversusglobalprocessingorpromotionvs.preventionfocus)havealreadybeenshowntobeculturallygrounded.Atthesametime,culturalpsychologymayalsobenefitfromsuchanap-proach.Asthiscommenttriedtoconvey,GLOMOsysstimulateshighlyinterestingfuturestudiesoncul-turaldifferencesinthinking.Further,itprovidesapowerfultheoreticaltoolforintegratingvariousseem-inglydisconnectedfindings,or—putdifferentlyand

COMMENTARIES

paraphrasingF¨orsterandDannenberg—GLOMOsysmayhelptoidentifythe“psychologicalglue”fortheimpactofcultureoncognition.Forallthesereasons,weareconvincedthatF¨orsterandDannenberg’sthe-orymakesanextremelyvaluablecontributionthatwillkeepthetwoprocessingstylesinstyleforalongtime.

Note

AddresscorrespondencetoUlrichK¨uhnen,SchoolofHumanitiesandSocialSciences,JacobsUniver-sityBremen,CampusRing1,ResearchIV,Room39,28759Bremen,Germany.E-mail:u.kuehnen@jacobs-university.de

References

Buchtel,E.E.,&Norenzayan,A.(2009).Thinkingacrosscultures:

Implicationsfordualprocesses.InJ.Evans&K.Frankish,(Eds.),Intwominds:Dualprocessesandbeyond(pp.217–238).Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress.F¨orster,J.(2009).Relationsbetweenperceptualandconceptual

scope:Howglobalversuslocalprocessingfitsafocusonsimi-larityversusdissimilarity.JournalofExperimentalPsychology:General,138,88–111.F¨orster,J.,&Higgins,E.T.(2005).Howglobalversuslocal

perceptionfitsregulatoryfocus.PsychologicalScience,16,631–636.F¨orster,J.,Liberman,N.,&Friedman,R.S.(2007).Sevenprinciples

ofgoalactivation:Asystematicapproachtodistinguishinggoalprimingfromprimingofnon-goalconstructs.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyReview,11,211–233.Friedman,R.S.,Fishbach,A.,F¨orster,J.,&Werth,L.(2003).Atten-tionalprimingeffectsoncreativity.CreativityResearchJour-nal,15,277–286.Friedman,R.S.,&F¨orster,J.(2001).Theeffectsofpromotionand

preventioncuesoncreativity.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,81,1001–1013.

Gardner,W.,Gabriel,S.H.,&Lee,A.(1999).“I”valuefreedom

but“we”valuerelationships:Self-construalprimingmirrorsculturaldifferencesinjudgment.PsychologicalScience,10,321–326.

Gudykunst,W.B.,Matsumoto,Y.,Ting-Toomey,S.,Nishida,T.,

Kim,K.,&Heyman,S.(1996).Theinfluenceofculturalindividualism-collectivism,selfconstruals,andindividualval-uesoncommunicationstylesacrosscultures.HumanCommu-nicationResearch,22,510–3.

Haberstroh,S.,Oyserman,D.,Schwarz,N.,K¨uhnen,U.,&Ji,L.

(2002).Istheinterdependentselfabettercommunicatorthantheindependentself?Self-construalandtheobservationofcon-versationalnorms.JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,38,323–329.Hannover,B.,&K¨uhnen,U.(2004).Culture,context,andcognition:

TheSemanticProceduralInterfacemodeloftheself.EuropeanReviewofSocialPsychology,15,297–333.Hannover,B.,&K¨uhnen,U.(2009).Cultureandsocialcognitionin

humaninteraction.InJ.Forgas&A.Kruglanski(SeriesEds.),F.Strack&J.F¨orster(Vol.Eds.),Frontiersofsocialpsychology:Vol.7.Socialcognition(pp.291–309).NewYork:Erlbaum.Hannover,B.,P¨ohlmann,C.,Springer,A.,&Roeder,U.(2005).Im-plicationsofindependentversusinterdependentself-knowledge

formotivatedsocialcognition:TheSemanticProceduralInter-faceModeloftheSelf.SelfandIdentity,5,159–175.

Henrich,J.,Heine,S.J.,&Norenzayan,A.(2010).Theweirdest

peopleintheworld?BehavioralandBrainSciences,33,61–63.

Higgins,E.T.&Bargh,J.A.(1987).Socialcognitionandsocial

perception.AnnualReviewofPsychology,38,369–425.

Higgins,E.T.,Friedman,R.S.,Harlow,R.E.,Idson,L.C.,Ayduk,

O.N.,&Taylor,A.(2001).Achievementorientationsfromsub-jectivehistoriesofsuccess:Promotionprideversuspreventionpride.EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology,31,3–23.Horn,W.(1962).Leistungspruefsystem,L-P-S:Handanweisungf¨ur

dieDurchf¨uhrung,AuswertungundInterpretation[Aperfor-mancetestingsystem:Manualforadministration,scoring,andinterpretatio].G¨ottingen,Germany:VerlagHogrefe.

Kitayama,S.,Duffy,S.,&Uchida,Y.(2007).Selfasculturalmode

ofbeing.InS.Kitayama&D.Cohen(Eds.),Handbookofculturalpsychology(pp.136–174).NewYork:Guilford.K¨uhnen,U.(2010).Ontherealtionself-construal,self-regulatoryfo-cusandinformationprocessing.Unpublishedrawdata,Jacobs

University,Bremen.K¨uhnen,U.,&Haberstroh,S.(2004).Self-construalactivationand

focusofcomparisonasdeterminantsofassimilationandcon-trastinsocialcomparisons.CahiersdePsychologieCognitive,22,2–310.K¨uhnen,U.,&Hannover,B.(2000).Assimilationandcontrastin

socialcomparisonasaconsequenceofself-construalactivation.EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology,30,799–811.K¨uhnen,U.,Hannover,B.,Roeder,U.,Schubert,B.,Shah,A.,Up-meyer,A.,etal.(2001).Cross-culturalvariationsinidentifying

embeddedfigures:ComparisonsfromtheUS,Germany,Rus-sia,andMalaysia.JournalofCrossCulturalPsychology,32,365–371.K¨uhnen,U.,Hannover,B.,&Schubert,B.(2001).Thesemantic-proceduralinterfacemodeloftheself.Theroleofself-knowledgeforcontext-dependentversuscontext-independent

modesofthinking.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychol-ogy,80,397–409.K¨uhnen,U.,&Oyserman,D.(2002).Thinkingabouttheselfin-fluencesthinkingingeneral:Proceduralconsequencesofself-construalactivation.JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychol-ogy,38,492–499.

Lee,A.Y.,Aaker,J.L.,&Gardner,W.L.(2000).Thepleasuresand

painsofdistinctself-construals:Theroleofinterdependenceinregulatoryfocus.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,78,1122–1134.Leikas,S.,l¨onnqvist,J.E.,Verkasalo,M.,&Lindeman,M.(2009).

Regulatoryfocussystemsandpersonalvalues.EuropeanJour-nalofSocialPsychology,39,415–429.Liberman,N.,&F¨orster,J.(2009).Distancingfromexperienced

self:Howglobalversuslocalperceptionaffectsestimationofpsychologicaldistance.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsy-chology,97,203–216.

Lin,Z.,Lin,Y.,&Han,S.(2007).Self-construalprimingmodulates

visualactivityunderlyingglobal/localperception.BiologicalPsychology,77,93–97.

Markus,H.R.,&Kitayama,S.(1991).Cultureandtheself:Impli-cationsforcognition,emotion,andmotivation.PsychologicalReview,98,224–253.

Navon,D.(1997).Forestbeforetrees:Theprecedenceofglobal

featuresinvisualperception.CognitivePsychology,9,353–383.

Nisbett,R.E.,Peng,K.,Choi,I.,&Norenzayan,A.(2001).

Cultureandsystemsofthought.PsychologicalReview,108,291–310.

Oyserman,D.,&Lee,S.W.S.(2008).Doescultureinfluencewhat

andhowwethink?Effectsofprimingindividualismandcol-lectivism.PsychologicalBulletin,134,311–342.

Oyserman,D.,Sorensen,N.,Reber,R.,&Chen,S.X.(2009).

Connectingandseparating:Asituatedcognitionmodelto

237

COMMENTARIES

understandeffectsofprimingindividualismandcollectivism.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,97,217–235.P¨ohlmann,C.,&Hannover,B.(2006).Whoshapestheselfofinde-pendentsandinterdependents?Explicitandimplicitmeasures

oftheself’srelatednesstofamily,friends,andpartner.Euro-peanJournalofPersonality,20,524–7.

Schaller,M.,Norenzayan,A.,Heine,S.J.,Yamagishi,T.,&Kameda,

T.(2010).Evolution,culture,andthehumanmind.NewYork:PsychologyPress.

Schwartz,S.H.,Melech,G.,Lehmann,A.,Burgess,S.,Harris,M.,

&Owens,V.(2001).Extendingthecross-culturalvalidityofthetheoryofbasichumanvalueswithadifferentmethodof

measurement.JournalofCross-CulturalPsychology,32,519–2.

Sternberg,R.,&Grigorenko,E.(1997).Arecognitivestylesstillin

style?AmericanPsychologist,52,700–712

Trafimow,D.,Triandis,H.C.,&Goto,S.G.(1991).Sometests

ofthedistinctionbetweentheprivateselfandthecollec-tiveself.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,60,9–655.

Witkin,H.A.(1950).Individualdifferencesinthecaseofperception

ofembeddedfigures.JournalofPersonality,19,1–15.

Witkin,H.A.,Dyk,R.B.,&Faterson,H.F.(1962).Psychological

differentiation:Studiesofdevelopment.NewYork:Wiley.

238

Copyright of Psychological Inquiry is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied oremailed 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.