Culture as perceived context: An exploration of the distinction between dignity, face and honor cultures

(1)

University of Groningen

Culture as perceived context: An exploration of the distinction between dignity, face and

honor cultures

Smith, Peter B.; Easterbrook, Matthew J.; Blount, James; Koc, Yasin; Harb, Charles; Torres,

Claudio; Ahmad, Abd Halim; Ping, Hu; Celikkol, Goksu Cagil; Diaz Loving, Rolando

Published in:

Acta de Investigación Psicológica

DOI:

10.1016/j.aipprr.2017.03.001

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.

Document Version

Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date: 2017

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):

Smith, P. B., Easterbrook, M. J., Blount, J., Koc, Y., Harb, C., Torres, C., Ahmad, A. H., Ping, H., Celikkol, G. C., Diaz Loving, R., & Rizwan, M. (2017). Culture as perceived context: An exploration of the distinction between dignity, face and honor cultures. Acta de Investigación Psicológica, 7(1), 2568-2576.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aipprr.2017.03.001

Copyright

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Take-down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

(2)

Availableonlineatwww.sciencedirect.com

Acta

de

Investigación

Psicológica

PsychologicalResearchRecords ActadeInvestigaciónPsicológica7(2017)2568–2576

www.psicologia.unam.mx/acta-de-investigacion-psicologica/

Original

Culture

as

perceived

context:

An

exploration

of

the

distinction

between

dignity,

face

and

honor

cultures

La

cultura

como

contexto

percibido:

explorando

la

esencia

de

las

culturas

de

honor,

dignidad

y

autopresentación

Peter

B. Smith

a,∗

,

Matthew

J. Easterbrook

a

,

James

Blount

a

,

Yasin

Koc

a

,

Charles

Harb

b

,

Claudio

Torres

c

,

Abd

Halim

Ahmad

d

,

Hu

Ping

e

,

Goksu

Cagil

Celikkol

f

,

Rolando

Diaz

Loving

g

,

Muhammad

Rizwan

h

a_University_of_Sussex,_Brighton,_UK b_American_University_of_Beirut,_Lebanon

c_University_of_Brasilia,_Brazil d_University_of_North_Malaysia,_Sintok,_Malaysia

e_Renmin_University,_Beijing,_China f_Helsinki_University,_Finland

g_National_University_of_Mexico,_Mexico_City,_Mexico h_University_of_Karachi,_Pakistan

Received2March2017;accepted8March2017 Availableonline29April2017

Abstract

Researchersaremakingincreasinguseofthedistinctionbetweenculturallogicsemphasizingdignity,face,andhonor.Students fromeightnationsincludingtwofromLatinAmericarateditemstappingtheextenttowhichtheybelievedthatmostpersonsin theirnationendorsedthesetypesofmindset.Theirratingsdidnotaccordwithpriorbeliefsastowhichculturesexemplifydignity, face,andhonor.However,thepredictionsthatanalyticcognitionwouldbemoreprevalentindignityculturesandcontrastingtypes ofholisticcognitionwouldbemoreprevalentinfaceandhonorculturesweresupported.Thebeliefthatthelogicofdignitywas prevalentwithinone’snationwassignificantlyassociatedwithhigherlifesatisfaction.

Keywords:Facecultures;Honorcultures;Dignitycultures;Depression;Lifesatisfaction

Resumen

Las investigaciones se están centrando cada vez con mayor énfasis en el uso de la distinción entre lógicas culturales, haciendomáshincapiéen ladignidad, elmantenimiento del statusquo estructuralde una sociedad(face) y elhonor. Estu-diantesde8países, incluyendo2deAmérica Latina,clasificaronelementossobre cuán importantepara laaceptaciónsocial es la dignidad o el honor para la mayoría de las personas en su nación. Las calificaciones obtenidas no concuerdan con creencias previasen cuanto a cuáles culturaspromueven más la dignidad y/o el honor como guías de su comportamiento.

∗_{Corresponding}_author._School_of_Psychology,_University_of_Sussex,_Falmer,_Brighton_BN1_9QG,_UK._Tel.:₊₄₄₁₃₂₃_811311.

E-mailaddress:psmith@sussex.ac.uk(P.B.Smith).

PeerReviewundertheresponsibilityofUniversidadNacionalAutónomadeMéxico.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aipprr.2017.03.001

(3)

P.B.Smithetal./ActadeInvestigaciónPsicológica7(2017)2568–2576 2569 Sinembargo,lasprediccionesdequelospatronesdecogniciónanalíticaseríanmásfrecuentesenculturasquesecentranenla dignidad,yquelospatronesdecogniciónholísticaseríanmásfrecuentesenculturasquesecentranenlahonrafueronapoyadas. Adicionalmente,lacreenciadequelalógicadeladignidaderafrecuentedentrodecadanaciónseasociósignificativamentecon unamayorsatisfaccióndevida.

Palabrasclave: Culturasdestatusquoestructural;Culturasdehonor;Culturasdedignidad;Autopresentación;Depresión;Bienestarsubjetivo

The identification of cultural dimensions that was initiatedbyHofstede(1980)hasprovidedasubstantial basisforinterpretingnation-leveldifferencesinabroad range of social behaviors. However, the mechanism wherebynation-levelcontextcouldinfluence individual-levelbehaviorshascomeunderincreasingscrutiny.The measuresofvalues,beliefsandnormsthataretypically usedtodefineandconstructnation-leveldimensionsare foundtoshow muchgreater variabilitywithin nations thanbetweennations(Fischer&Schwartz,2011).This renders less plausible the assumption that individual behaviorswithinanationareguidedbyanimplicitor explicitawarenessofthevalues,beliefsandnormsthat aremosttypicallyendorsedwithintheirnation.

Whileitremainsverylikelythatconformityto pre-vailing norms is a frequent occurrence within more specificsubculturalgroupswithinanation(Gelfand& Harrington,2015),welackanadequateexplanationof themechanismsthroughwhichnation-leveldifferences arise.Nation-leveleffectscouldforinstancebe consid-ered as an aggregationof relevant subcultural effects. Alternatively,theymightbeaccomplishedthrough the impactovertimeofthesocialnormsandinstitutionsthat ariseasadaptationstosalientenvironmentalconstraints. Relevantadaptationscanincludebothbehaviorsandthe waysofthinkingaboutone’ssocialcontextthatfacilitate particularbehaviors.

One way to addressthese ambiguities is to obtain directmeasuresofintersubjectiveperceptionsofthe val-ues, beliefs, and norms that prevail within a nation.

Fischer (2006) asked students in ten nations to rate thevaluesthattheypersonallyendorsedmoststrongly and also to rate the values that were most strongly endorsedbypersonsintheirnation.Thetwosetsof val-uescorrelatedonaverageatonly.28.Inafurtherstudy conducted onlyin New Zealand, the students’ subse-quentlyreportedbehaviorsweremorestronglypredicted bytheperceivednationalnormthanbytheirownvalues. Inalaterstudy,Fischeretal.(2009)foundthat across

samplesfromelevennations,personalvaluesandnorms for ‘what most people believe’ concerning aspects of individualismandcollectivismwerecumulatively pre-dictive of subsequent reported behaviors.Shteynberg, GelfandandKim(2009)foundperceivednationalnorms tobemorestronglypredictiveofblameattributionsthan personalattitudesinKoreaandtheUnitedStates.The presentstudyextendsthisincreasing focusonthe pre-dictive powerof subjective norms by applying it toa characterization of cultural differences based on con-trastsbetweenhonor,faceanddignitythatisbecoming increasinglyinfluential,butforwhichnoovertmeasures haveyetbeenestablished.

Asecondwaytoexploretheimpactofsocialnormsis toexaminevariationsinsocialcognition.Wehave sub-stantialevidencethatrespondentsintheinterdependent culturesofEastAsiaengagemorefrequentlyin holis-ticmodesofcognition,whilethoseinmoreindependent culturesmoreoftenemployanalyticmodesofcognition (Nisbett,Peng,Choi,&Norenzayan,2000;Norenzayan, Choi,& Peng,2007).Whilethe initial studiesinthis areabyNisbettandhiscolleaguesfocusedoncontrasts betweenEastAsiaandNorthAmerica,morerecent stud-ies indicate that variations in analytic versus holistic cognitioncanbefoundwithinsamplesfrommanyparts oftheworld(Varnum,Grossmann,Kitayama&Nisbett, 2011).Furthermore, experimental priming can induce shiftsincognitivestyle(Oyserman&Lee,2008). Cul-tural differences insuch styles are thereforeprobably bestconsideredashabitsinducedbybothproximaland distal circumstances, whether these circumstances be predominantlynormativeorpersonal(Muramoto,2013). Incontextscharacterizedbystrongnorms,itcanbeof valuetoscanallaspectsofone’senvironmentinorderto beawareofeveryaspectaffectingone’srelationswith others. Wherenorms areweaker, therecan begreater possibilitiesfordistinguishingdifferentaspectsofone’s contextandmakingchoicesthataremorecontingenton personalpreference.

(4)

Dignity,face,andhonor

Leung andCohen (2011) haveproposed a distinc-tion between three ‘cultural logics’ of dignity, face, and honor. In dignity cultures, individuals are con-strued as relatively equal, with each having a stable andinternalsenseofworth.Faceculturesarerelatively morehierarchical, with greater emphasis on in-group harmony and modesty. The distinction between dig-nityandfaceculturesparallelsHofstede’s(1980)much studiedcontrastbetweentheindividualismof Western European and North American nations and the col-lectivism of East Asian nations. Honor cultures give greater emphasis to the need to establish and defend the virtueand honorof oneself and one’sgroup.The cultural logic of honor is seen as exemplified within Mediterranean,Latin American andSouth Asian cul-tures. Understandings of honor have been compared betweenMediterraneanhonorandNorthAmericanand NorthEuropeandignitycultures(RodriguezMosquera, Manstead, & Fischer, 2002; Gelfand & Harrington, 2015;Günsoy,Cross,Uskul,Adams,&Gercek-Swing, 2015;Mosquera,Fischer,Manstead,&Zaalberg,2008; Uskul,Cross,Sunbay,Gercek-Swing,&Ataca,2012), and between Mediterranean honor cultures and East Asianfacecultures(Güngör,Karasawa,Boiger,Dincer, &Mesquita,2014).Empiricalcomparisonsbetween dig-nity culturesand LatinAmericanhonor cultures have been much less frequent, and have included Brazil (Vandello&Cohen,2003)andChile(Vandello,Cohen, Grandon&Franiuk,2009),butnotMexico.Some stud-ieshavenowsimultaneouslycontrastedallthreetypesof culture(Leung&Cohen,2011;Severanceetal.,2013; Uskul,Oyserman,Schwarz,Lee,&Xu,2013).However innone of these studieshas any directmeasure been employedtotestthevalidityoftheresearchers’ postu-lationthattheirsamplesdoexemplifythehypothesized culturalcontrastsinvolved.

Theperspectiveofthepresentstudyisthatmembers ofagivennation mayhavediverseperceptionsof the cultureofthatnation,giventheexistenceofsub-cultural groupingswithinanynation, aswellas thevariability of individual personal lifeexperiences. Consequently, respondentsfromallsamplednationsmayidentify val-ues,beliefs,andbehaviorsthattheybelievetobetypical of dignity or face or honor cultures within their own nation. Comparisons of mean scores for nations may therefore be at risk of invalidity not just on account oflackof measurementequivalence,butalsofromthe extent to which samples fully represent the range of variationinperspectives.However,wemayexpectthat whatevervalues,beliefsandbehaviorsareperceivedto

bepresentwithineachsamplewillbeconstruedinways thatarecharacteristicofthecognitivestylethatis preva-lentwithinthattypeofculture.Thus,thecognitivestyle canprovideamoredirectindicationofmindsetthanthe contentofwhatisperceived.Wenextconsiderinturnthe basisforpredictingsucheffectsineachtypeofculture.

Hypotheses

Withindignitycultures,analyticmodesofcognition are most prevalent(Nisbett etal., 2000). Members of individualistic cultureshavebeen shownfrequentlyto thinkanalyticallyandtodistinguishbetweenbehavior patterns seenas inconsistentwithoneanother. Conse-quently,theycanbeexpectedtodifferentiatebetween allthreealternativewaysofcharacterizingaculture.

H1. In dignitysamples, respondents willdistinguish betweendignity,honor,andfacevalues.Thosewho per-ceive their nation to be based on dignity values will perceiveitnottobecharacterizedbyrelianceoneither facevaluesorhonorvalues.

Conversely,membersofthefaceculturesofEastAsia morefrequentlythinkholistically(Nisbettetal.,2000). Given their major preference for preservation of har-mony and face, they are likely to see all values and behaviorsthatcouldgenerateharmonyratherthan con-flictascontributingtowardthecreationandmaintenance of a faceculture. Asdignity values emphasize equal-ity,theycanprovideabasisforinterpersonalharmony. In contrast, honor values implyassertion anddefense againstthreat,whichareunlikelytobeseenas contribut-ingtowardharmony.

H2. Infacesamples,respondentswillcontrastdignity andfacevalueswithhonorvalues.Thosewhoperceive theirnationtobebasedonfacevalueswillalsoperceive relianceondignityvaluesascontributingtoface.

Thepreferredcognitivestylesofmembersofhonor cultureshavebeenlessfullyexplored.Uskul,Kitayama, andNisbett(2008)foundcontrastingpatternsofholistic andanalytic cognitionwithin distinctiveTurkish sam-ples. Knight and Nisbett (2007) found more holistic cognitionamongSouthernItalians(whoaresaidtomore strongly endorse honor values) than among northern Italians.Thenation-leveldimensionof Monumentalism-FlexumilityhasbeenidentifiedbyMinkov(2011)from analysesofitemswithintheWorldValuesSurvey. Mem-bersof nationsscoringhighonMonumentalismscore highonnationalprideanddistinguishsharplybetween

(5)

P.B.Smithetal./ActadeInvestigaciónPsicológica7(2017)2568–2576 2571

evaluationsofwhatisapprovedandwhatisdisapproved (Smith, 2011). The highest scores on this dimension arefoundpredominantlyinArabandAfricansamples. NationsscoringhighonFlexumilityscoremoderately, andarefoundinEastAsia.Itappearsthatthis dimen-sionmaydifferentiatehonorculturesfromfacecultures. Givenamajorpreferenceforthepreservationofhonor, relianceonfaceanddignityvalueswouldberejectedas unabletoupholdhonor.

H3. Inhonorsamples,respondentswillcontrastdignity andfacevalueswithhonorvalues.Thosewhoperceive theirnationtobebasedonhonorvalueswillperceiveit nottobebasedondignityorfacevalues.

While theremay be considerablevariability in the way that individuals perceive their own national cul-ture, it could be argued that those whoperceive it in awaythatisconcordant withthemajorityperspective willachieveamorepositiveadaptationtotheir circum-stances.However,thiswouldonlybethecasewherethe majority culture is infact positively evaluated, which maynotalways bethecase. Bearingthisinmind, we cancautiouslytestwhetheroutcomesaremorepositive forthosewhosereadingoftheircontextconcurswiththe regionsoftheworldthathavebeencharacterizedbyprior theorizingandresearchrespectivelyasfavoringdignity, face,orhonorvalues.Indicesareavailablefordepression andfor lifesatisfaction.Therearecertainly numerous othermoreproximalfactorsinvolvedinwhetheroneis depressedorsatisfiedwithlife,sothereisnoreasonto expectthatthepredictedeffectswillbestrong.

H4. Depressionwillbelowerandlifesatisfactionwill be higher among respondents who characterize their nation intheway thatis consistentwithprior charac-terizationsof thenationswhoseculturesfavordignity, face,andhonor,respectively.

Method Sample

Respondents were students enrolled in universities inthenationsshowninTable1.Responses from non-nationals and those born outside the country were discarded.TheBraziliansamplecomprised42percent whites,41percentPardo(i.e.,mixed-race)and12 per-centAfricans.TheMalaysamplecomprised55percent Malays,36percentChineseand6percentIndians.No other sample contained ethnicminoritiesin excess of 10 percent. Data were collected online in Beijing,

Table1

Detailsofsamples.

Sample N Meanage %Male

Brazil 290 26.7 51.4 China–Beijing 236 19.5 27.1 China–Chengdu 101 20.1 47.5 Finland 182 26.7 10.4 Lebanon 143 19.0 50.7 Malaysia 186 22.2 38.2 Mexico 210 21.8 47.8 Turkey 161 21.3 32.3 UK 137 20.0 15.3

Finland,Turkey,theUKandinoneofthetwo univer-sitiessampledinBrazil.Datawerecollectedonpaper inChengdu,Lebanon,Malaysiaandtheothersampled universityinBrazil.Thequestionnairewasconstructed in English and then translated into the language of instructionineachoftheuniversitiessampled.Lebanese respondentsthereforeusedtheEnglishlanguageversion. Back-translation was employed to ensure translation accuracy.

Measures Culturalclusters

Datawerecollectedfromaminimumoftwonations within each of the postulated culture types. UK and Finlandwere deemed to beexemplars of dignity cul-tures, since they score in the top third of Hofstede’s (1980)sample onhis measureofindividualism.China andMalaysiawere selected as exemplarsof face cul-tures,astheyscoreinthetopthirdofHofstede’smeasure for collectivism. Four nations were selectedas exem-plarsofhonorcultures,separatingMediterraneanhonor culturesfromLatinAmericanhonorcultures.Asnoted above,almostallstudiesofhonorcultureshavesampled Mediterraneannations, andwe havelittle information astotheirsimilarityordifferencefromLatinAmerican honorcultures.

Measurementequivalence

Inordertotestthehypothesesvalidly,metric equiv-alence is desirable for the measures used to test within-samplerelationships,namelydepression,life sat-isfactionandperceived culture. Foreachscale,model fitwasassessedusingtheComparativeFitIndex(CFI), RootMeanSquareErrorofApproximation(RMSEA), and Standard Root Mean Squared Residual (SRMR). ValuesofSRMR<.08(or<.10),RMSEA<.06(or<.08), andCFI>.95(or>.90)havebeenproposedascriteriafor “good”(or“acceptable”)fit(Hu&Bentler,1999).Metric orscalarinvariancewereconsideredtobesupportedifa

(6)

modelthatassumesthatlevelofinvarianceshowed ade-quatefit.AnalyseswereconductedinMplusVersion6 (Muthén&Muthén,2010).

Perceivedculture

Perceivedculture wasmeasured throughthe useof 18 survey items tapping the values perceived to be endorsed in one’s nation. This measure was origi-nally constructed on the basis of theoretical analyses andresearchintoaggressionandnegotiationbehaviors (Severanceetal.,2013).Foreachculturetype,sixitems each asked‘towhat extentdo most[nationality] peo-plebelievethat....’.Sampleitemsare‘...howmucha personrespectshimselfisfarmoreimportantthanhow muchothersrespecthim’(dignity);‘....peopleshould minimize conflict in social relationships at all costs’ (face);and‘...youmustpunishpeoplewhoinsultyou’ (honor).ThefullsurveyisprovidedasanAppendixA.

Toinvestigatewhethertheproposedthreefactor solu-tionwasabetterfittothedatathancollapsinganytwoof thescalesintoatwofactorsolution,wefirstconducted pan-culturalanalysesinvestigatingthefitofathreefactor modelagainstseveraltwofactormodels,oneforeachof thepossiblesubscalepairings.Thethreefactorsolution wasindeedabetter fittothedatathananyof thetwo factorsolutions(CFIall>0.14).

Next,weconductedmultiple-groupconfirmatory fac-toranalyses toinvestigate measurement invariance of thethreefactorperceivedculturescales.Afterremoving twodignityitems,twohonoritems,addingone covari-anceacrossallnationalgroups,andfivenation-specific covariances, partial metric invariance was supported;

χ2₍₇₃₈₎₌_1216.037,_p_<_.001,_CFI₌_.90,_RMSEA₌_.06

andSRMR=.087. Thuswe mayvalidlyexamine cor-relations between factor scores, but cannot rely on comparisonsofmeans.

Depression

Depressionwasmeasured withthe 20-item version of the Centrefor Epidemiological StudiesDepression scale(CES-D)(Radloff,1977).Theseitemshave4-point responsescaleskeyedintermsoffrequencyofsymptom occurrence.Fouritemsdescribingpositivesymptomsare reversekeyed.Thedepressionfactorwasscaledby fix-ing oneitem loading to1. After removing five items (including all the reversed items), adding two cova-riances betweenitems across all national groups, and 13 covariances between items for specific nations, a multi-group CFA supported partial metric invariance: ␹2₍₈₉₁₎₌_1791.973,_p_<_.001,_CFI₌_.90,_RMSEA₌_.074

and SRMR=.088. Factor scores standardized within nationsweresavedfromthismodelforuseinanalyses.

Lifesatisfaction

Satisfactionwithlifewasmeasuredwiththefive-item scaledevelopedbyDiener,Emmons,Larsen,andGriffin (1985).Asampleitemis‘Iamsatisfiedwithlife’.These itemshave7-pointresponsescaleskeyedfrom‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. There are no reversed items. Theaverageof Cronbach alphasbynation was 0.82 with the lowest score being 0.72. A multiple-group CFA with one covariance across all national groupssupportedfullmetricinvariance,withgoodfit:

χ2₍₆₈₎₌_142.693,_p_<_.001,_CFI₌_.978,_RMSEA₌_.078,

SRMR=.077.Factorscoresweresavedfromthismodel foruseinanalyses.

Results

Although it was argued that there is no basis for expectingthat perceived valueswill accordwithprior characterizations of dignity, face, and honor cultures, mean scores standardized relative to Brazil for the present samples are of interest and are provided in

Table 2.Brazilwas arbitrarilychosen as thebasis for comparison since its name come first alphabetically. The table shows that among the nine samples, Brazil scored sixthon dignity,sixth onface, and seventhon honor.Thusthe Brazilianrespondents didnotsee any ofthethreedimensionsasdescribingtheirculturevery strongly. Mexicanrespondents scored joint second on dignity,eighthonface,andfifthonhonor,sothatthey saw their culture as approximating most closely to a dignityculture.

Table2alsoshowsthestandardizedscoresfor depres-sionandlifesatisfaction.Brazilscoredsecondloweston depressionandfifthhighestonlifesatisfaction,whereas Mexicoscoredlowestondepressionandhighestonlife satisfaction.

Hypotheses1–3weretestedbythecorrelationsshown inTable3.AspredictedbyHypothesis 1,respondents inUKandFinlanddifferentiatedbetweentheextentto whichtheyperceivedtheircultureasemphasizing dig-nity,face,andhonorvalues.Fiveofthesixcorrelation coefficients were significantly negative. As predicted by Hypothesis 2, respondents in Chinaand Malaysia did not differentiate their perceptions of dignity and facevalues,although themagnitudeofthe association between thetwo measuresdid vary betweensamples. Perceptions of honor values in these samples did not consistentlycorrelatewithperceptionsofdignityorface values.AspredictedbyHypothesis3,the respondents

(7)

P.B.Smithetal./ActadeInvestigaciónPsicológica7(2017)2568–2576 2573 Table2

Standardizedfactormeansforperceivedbeliefs.

Sample Dignity Face Honor Depression Lifesatisfaction

Brazil .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 China–Beijing −.25 .16 .59 .36 −.56 China–Chengdu .08 −.14 .61 .38 −.26 Finland −.06 .17 −.95 .06 .44 Lebanon −.44 −.40 .65 .10 −.31 Malaysia .40 .61 .14 .48 .26 Mexico .40 −.23 .27 −.12 .90 Turkey .54 .41 −.12 .40 −.34 UK .04 .45 .29 .21 .02 Table3

Correlationsbetweenperceivedculturebynationandbyculturetype.

Sample Dignity–Face Dignity–Honor Face–Honor

Finland −.28** −.38** −.17* UK −.27** −.40** .02 Dignitysamples −.28** −.38** −.09 China–Beijing .22** .10 .16* China–Chengdu .43** −.17 .08 Malaysia .82** .18* −.14* Facesamples .41** .08 .01 Lebanon .71** −.72** −.63** Turkey .90** −.27** −.02

MediterraneanHonorsamples .81** −.44** −.23**

Brazil .81** −.63** −.68**

Mexico .96* −.76** −.71**

LatinAmericanHonorsamples .89** −.70** −.70**

Note:*p<.05;**p<.01.

from Lebanon, Turkey, Brazil and Mexico perceived honor values as contrary to dignity and face values, withsevenofeightcorrelationcoefficientsstronglyand significantlynegative.Furthermore,perceptionsofface anddignityvaluesinthesesampleswerestronglyand positivelycorrelated.

Hypothesis4wastestedbythecorrelationcoefficients showninTable4.Evidenceinsupportofthehypothesis is found only in the data from the UK, and the Bei-jing Chinese sample. UK respondents who perceived theirnationascharacterizedbydignityvalueswereless depressedandmoresatisfiedwithlife.Furthermore,UK respondentswhosawtheirnationasemphasizinghonor valuesweremoredepressedandlesssatisfiedwithlife. IntheBeijingsample,thosewhoperceivedtheirnation asfavoringfacevalueswerelessdepressedandmore sat-isfiedwithlife.TherewasalsoaneffectintheBeijing datalinkingsatisfactionwithlifeandemphasison dig-nityvalues,butasnotedaboveperceptionsoffaceand ofdignityvalueswereassociatedinthissample.Inthe remainingsevensamples,therewasonlyonesignificant effect:contrary toprediction, respondents inLebanon

weremoresatisfiedwithlifewhentheyperceivedtheir nationasfavoringdignityvalues.Thetablealsoindicates asignificantpan-culturalcorrelationbetweenperception that one’snation favorsdignity valuesandhigher sat-isfaction withlife. Consistent withthisoverall effect, Mexicanrespondentsreportedthesecondlowestmean scorefordepressionandthehighestmeanscoreforlife satisfaction.Asnotedearlier,theyalsoperceived Mexi-cancultureasfavoringdignityratherthanfaceorhonor values.

Discussion

Thisstudyhasexploredthewayinwhichmembersof distinctivetypesofculturalgroupsperceivethevaluesof thosearoundthem.Consistentwiththeresultsofearlier studiesshowingvariabilityofvaluesandbeliefswithin nations(Fischer,2006;Fischer&Schwartz,2011),we havemadenoassumptionthattheperceptionsof mem-bersofaculturalgroupwillnecessarilyconcurwithone anotherintheirestimatesofprevailingvaluesorbeliefs. Anaveragingoftheirperceptionsconsequentlymayor

(8)

Table4

Correlationsofperceivedculturewithdepressionandlifesatisfaction.

Sample Dignity Face Honor

CESD LS CESD LS CESD LS

Finland −.07 −.03 .05 .07 .02 .07 UK −.22* .21* −.04 .03 .25** −.18* DignitySamples −.14** .09 .01 .05 .11* −.02 China–Beijing −.09 .15* −.13* .18** −.05 −.01 China–Chengdu −.01 .14 .03 .12 −.14 .13 Malaysia .05 −.11 −.04 −.07 .13 .00 Facesamples −.03 .07 −.07 .06 .00 .01 Lebanon −.16 .16 .00 −.04 .11 −.09 Turkey −.05 .18* −.03 .11 .07 −.08

MediterraneanHonorsamples −.10 .17** −.01 .05 .08 −.08

Brazil .01 .06 .09 .03 .07 −.02

Mexico .04 .01 .07 −.01 −.01 −.03

LatinAmericanHonorsamples .03 .03 .08 .01 −.03 −.02

Totalsample −.04 .07** .01 .04 .04 −.03

Note:CESD=depression;LS=lifesatisfaction. *p<.05;**p<.01.

maynotprovideavalidestimateof prevailingculture. Some respondents are likely tobe better informed or moreinfluentialthanothers,andtheymayalsodifferin thereferencepointsagainstwhichtheychoosetoanchor theirjudgments(Heine,Lehmann,Peng,&Greenholz, 2002).Theestimatesofvaluesprovidedbythepresent studentsamplesmayhavebeendrawnmorefrom knowl-edgeofsharedcampusvaluesthanfromknowledgeof theirnationalculturesasawhole.AsTable2showed, therewasinfactverylittleconcordancebetweenmean perceivedvaluesandpriorcharacterizationsof culture types.Thismayalsobepartlyduetothefactthatthe val-uesmeasuresdidnotachievefullstructuralmeasurement equivalence.

Our emphasis here has been on the structure of respondents’perceptionsasanindirectindicatorof cul-tural priorities, and the problems identified above do notaffectwithin-subjectdataanalyses.Thesubstantial divergencefoundbetweentheratingsmadeby respon-dentsfromdignity, faceandhonor cultures does lend supportto the contrast made betweenthem by previ-ousresearchers. Cultures are known to differin their propensityforacquiescentresponding(Smith,2011),but thepresentcorrelationalresultscannotbeattributedto aglobaltendencytowardacquiescencebecause respon-dentsfromallsamplesdidmakedistinctionsbetweenat leastsomeoftheirratings.

Littleevidencewasfoundforthepredictedof associa-tionbetweenthepredominanceofeachtypeofperceived valuesandtheindicesofdepressionandlifesatisfaction.

Rather than reflecting a differential response to each culture type, theresults suggestanoverall association betweenthedignity dimensionandpositiveoutcomes. ParticularlyintheUK,Turkey,LebanonandChina,the perceptionthatone’snationischaracterizedbyhigh dig-nityvaluesandlowhonorvaluesisassociatedwithlow depression andhighlife satisfaction.Inthe sample as awhole,onlytheassociationof perceiveddignityand highlifesatisfactionachievessignificance.Whilethisis anindividual-levelassociation,it isreminiscentof the nation-levelfindingthatmeanlifesatisfactionishigher in dignity cultures (Diener, Diener, & Diener, 1995). However, the variance explained by the present asso-ciationismodest,asmightbeexpectedgiventhegreater salienceofmoreproximalcausalfactorsfordepression andlifesatisfaction.

Conclusion

The use of a perceived values measure has pro-vided evidenceconfirmingthe presenceof contrasting cognitive stylesamongrespondents inculturalgroups assumedtoexemplifydignity,face,andhonorcultures. However,atleastamongthepresentsamplesof respon-dents,themeasuredoesnotitselfprovideadefensible basis for distinguishing directly between these three typesofculturalgroups.Fullerinvestigation of appro-priatesurveyitemsandthecontextstowhichtheseitems referwillberequiredinorderthattherequiredcontrasts canbemoreadequatelyoperationalized.

(9)

P.B.Smithetal./ActadeInvestigaciónPsicológica7(2017)2568–2576 2575 Funding

Nofinancialsupportwasprovided.

Conﬂictofinterest

Sincetheeditorisaco-authorofthispaper,thereview processand decisiontoaccept itfor publication were handled bySofiaRivera-Aragón.Theauthorshaveno otherconflictsofinteresttodeclare.

AppendixA. Surveyitems A.1. Dignityitems

*1.Howmuchapersonrespectshimselfisfarmore importantthanhowmuchothersrespecthim.

2.PeopleshouldNOTcarewhatothersaroundthem think.

3.Peopleshouldspeaktheirmind.

4.Peopleshouldmakedecisionsbasedontheirown opinionsandnotbasedonwhatothersthink.

*5.Peopleshouldstandupforwhattheybelievein evenwhenothersdisagree.

6.Peopleshouldbetruetothemselvesregardlessof whatothersthink.

A.2. Faceitems

1.Peopleshouldminimizeconflictinsocial relation-shipsatallcosts.

2.Itisimportanttomaintain harmonywithinone’s group.

3. Peopleshouldbevery humbletomaintain good relationships.

4. People should control their behavior in front of others.

5.Peopleshouldbeextremelycarefulnotto embar-rassotherpeople.

6.Peopleshouldnevercriticizeothersinpublic.

A.3. Honoritems

*1.Peoplemustalwaysbereadytodefendtheirhonor. 2.Itisimportanttopromoteoneselftoothers. 3.Peoplealwaysneedtoshowofftheirpowerinfront oftheircompetitors.

*4.Menneedtoprotecttheirwomen’sreputationat allcosts.

5.Youmustpunishpeoplewhoinsultyou.

6.Ifapersongetsinsultedandtheydon’trespond,he orshewilllookweak.

*Asteriskeditemswerediscardedinordertoachieve adequatestructuralmeasurementequivalence.

References

Diener,E.,Diener,M.,&Diener,C.(1995).Factorspredictingthe subjectivewell-beingofnations.JournalofPersonalityandSocial Psychology,69,851–864.

Diener,E.,Emmons,R.A.,Larsen,R.J.,&Griffin,S.(1985).The satisfactionwithlifescale.JournalofPersonalityAssessment,49,

71–75.

Fischer,R.(2006).Congruenceandfunctionofpersonalandcultural values:Domyvaluesreflectmyculture’svalues?Personalityand SocialPsychologyBulletin,32,1419–1431.

Fischer, R., Ferreira, M. C., Assmar, E., Redford, P., Harb, C., Glaser,S.,...,&Achoui,M.(2009).Individualism-collectivismas descriptivenorms:Developmentofasubjectivenormapproachto culturemeasurement.JournalofCross-CulturalPsychology,40,

187–213.

Fischer,R.,&Schwartz,S.H.(2011).Whencedifferencesinvalue priorities?Individual,culturalorartefactualsources.Journalof Cross-CulturalPsychology,42,1127–1144.

Gelfand,M.J.,&Harrington,J.(2015).Themotivationalforceof descriptivenorms:Forwhomandwhenaredescriptivenormsmost predictiveofbehavior?JournalofCross-CulturalPsychology,46,

1273–1278.

Güngör,D.,Karasawa,M.,Boiger,M.,Dincer,D.,&Mesquita,B. (2014).Fittinginorstickingtogether:Theprevalenceand adaptiv-ityofconformity,relatednessandautonomyinJapanandTurkey.

JournalofCross-CulturalPsychology,45,1374–1389.

Günsoy,C.,Cross,S.,Uskul,A.,Adams,G.,&Gercek-Swing,B. (2015).Avoidorfightback?Culturaldifferencesinresponsesto conflictandtheroleofcollectivism,honorandenemyperception.

JournalofCross-CulturalPsychology,46,1081–1102.

Heine,S.J.,Lehmann,D.R.,Peng,K.P.,&Greenholz,J.(2002).

What’swrongwithcross-culturalcomparisonsofsubjective Lik-ertscales?Thereferencegroupeffect.JournalofPersonalityand SocialPsychology,82,903–918.

Hofstede,G.(1980).Culture’sconsequences:Internationaldifferences inwork-relatedvalues.BeverlyHills,CA:Sage.

Hu,L.,& Bentler,P.M.(1999).Cutoffcriteriafor fitindexesin covariancestructureanalysis:Conventionalcriteriaversus new alternatives.StructuralEquationModeling,6,1–55.

Knight, N., & Nisbett, R. (2007). Culture, class and cognition: Evidence from Italy. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 7,

283–291.

Leung,A.K.Y.,&Cohen,D.(2011).Within-andbetween-culture vari-ation:Individualdifferencesandtheculturallogicsofhonor,face anddignitycultures.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology, 100,507–526.

Minkov,M.(2011).Culturaldifferencesinaglobalizingworld. Bing-ley,UK:Emerald.

Muramoto,Y.(2013).Cultureandanalyticversusholisticcognition: Towardmultilevelanalysesofculturalinfluences.Advancesin ExperimentalSocialPsychology,47,131–188.

Muthén,L.K.,&Muthén,B.O.(2010).Mplususer’sguide(6thed.). LosAngeles,CA:Muthén&Muthén.

Nisbett,R.E.,Peng,K.P.,Choi,I.,&Norenzayan,A.(2000). Cul-tureandsystemsofthought:Holisticversusanalyticcognition.

(10)

Norenzayan,A.,Choi,I.,&Peng,K.P.(2007).Perceptionand cog-nition.InS.Kitayama,&D.Cohen(Eds.),Handbookofcultural psychology(pp.569–594).NewYork:GuilfordPress.

Oyserman,D.,&Lee,S.(2008).Doescultureaffectwhatandhowwe think?Effectsofprimingindividualismandcollectivism. Psycho-logicalBulletin,134,313–342.

Radloff,L.S.(1977).TheCES-Dscale:Aself-reportdepressionscale forresearchinthegeneralpopulation.AppliedPsychological Mea-surement,1,385–401.

RodriguezMosquera,P.M.,Fischer,A.H.,Manstead,A.S.R.,& Zaalberg,R.(2008).Attack,disapproval,orwithdrawal?Therole ofhonorinangerandshameresponsestobeinginsulted.Cognition andEmotion,22,1471–1498.

RodriguezMosquera,P.M.,Manstead,A.S.R.,&Fischer,A.H. (2002).HonorintheMediterraneanandNorthernEurope.Journal ofCross-CulturalPsychology,33,16–36.

Severance,L.,Bui-Wrzosinska,L.,Gelfand,M.,Lyons,S.,Nowak,A., Borkowski,W.,...,&Yamaguchi,S.(2013).Thepsychological natureofaggressionacrosscultures.JournalofOrganizational Behavior,34,835–865.

Shteynberg,G.,Gelfand,M.,&Kim,K.(2009).Peeringintothe ‘mag-nummysterium’ofculture:Theexplanatorypowerofdescriptive norms.JournalofCross-CulturalPsychology,40,46–69.

Smith,P.B.(2011).Communicationstylesasdimensionsofnational culture.JournalofCross-CulturalPsychology,42,216–233.

Uskul,A.,Cross,S.,Sunbay,Z.,Gercek-Swing,B.,&Ataca,B.(2012).

Honor-bound:TheculturalconstructionofhonorinTurkeyandthe NorthernUnitedStates.JournalofCross-CulturalPsychology,43,

1131–1151.

Uskul, A., Kitayama, S., & Nisbett, R. (2008). Ecological basis of cognition: Farmers and fishermen are more holistic than herders. In Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences

(pp.8552–8556).

Uskul,A.K.,Oyserman,D.,Schwarz,N.,Lee,S.W.,&Xu,A.J. (2013).How successfulyouhave beeninlife dependsonthe responsescaleused:Theroleofculturalmindsetsinpragmatic inferences drawn from questionformat. Social Cognition,31,

222–236.

Vandello,J.A.,&Cohen,D.(2003).Malehonorandfemale infi-delity:Implicitscriptsthatperpetuatedomesticviolence.Journal ofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,84,997–1010.

Vandello,J.A.,Cohen,D.,Grandon,R.,&Franiuk,R.(2009).Stand byyourman:Indirectprescriptionsforhonorableviolenceand feminineloyaltyinCanada,ChileandtheUnitedStates.Journal ofCross-CulturalPsychology,40,81–104.

Varnum,M.,Grossmann,I.,Kitayama,S.,&Nisbett,R.(2011).The originsofculturaldifferencesincognition:Thesocialorientation hypothesis.CurrentDirectionsinPsychologicalScience,19(1),