Causal Attributions for Problematic Family Interactions: A Qualitative, Cultural Comparison of Western Samoa, American Samoa, and the United States

http://tcp.sagepub.com/The Counseling Psychologist

http://tcp.sagepub.com/content/28/1/32The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0011000000281003

2000 28: 32The Counseling PsychologistKris H. Poasa, Brent Mallinckrodt and Lisa A. Suzuki

Samoa, American Samoa, and the United StatesCausal Attributions for Problematic Family Interactions: A Qualitative, Cultural Comparison of Western

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Division of Counseling Psychology of the American Psychological Association

can be found at:The Counseling PsychologistAdditional services and information for

http://tcp.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://tcp.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://tcp.sagepub.com/content/28/1/32.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jan 1, 2000Version of Record >>

at TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi on April 26, 2014tcp.sagepub.comDownloaded from at TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi on April 26, 2014tcp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://tcp.sagepub.com/

http://tcp.sagepub.com/content/28/1/32

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.div17.org

http://tcp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://tcp.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://tcp.sagepub.com/content/28/1/32.refs.html

http://tcp.sagepub.com/content/28/1/32.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Causal Attributionsfor Problematic Family Interactions:

A Qualitative, Cultural Comparison of WesternSamoa, American Samoa, and the United States

Kris H. PoasaUniversity of Oregon

Brent MallinckrodtUniversity of Utah

Lisa A. SuzukiNew York University

A mixed quantitative and qualitative research design compared 23 U.S. college studentsto 25 students from Western Samoa and 25 from American Samoa, with regard to differ-ences in cultural beliefs and attributions. Survey responses suggested that Samoanstudents endorsed significantly more vertical, collective and vertical, individualisticcultural attitudes than U.S. students. Qualitative analysis of narrative responses to fourvignettes depicting family conflicts suggested cultural differences in patterns of attribu-tion of blame and responsibility for resolving the conflicts. U.S. students emphasized sta-ble, internal, global attributions to character flaws. Samoan students emphasized moreeasily changed, situation-specific attributions; nonlinear, multifaceted judgments ofblame; deference to hierarchy in group relationships; and context-oriented resolutionsthat avoid individual confrontation and emphasize preservation of relationships.

One of the most powerful cultural influences on development stems frombeing raised in individualistic or collectivistic societies (Markus & Kita-yama, 1991; Triandis, 1995). These cultural differences may lead to differingpatterns of attribution in beliefs about the causes of “deviant” behavior andthe locus of responsibility for changing that behavior. Research (Worthing-ton & Atkinson, 1996) and theoretical models (cf. Trevino, 1996) suggestthat cultural differences between clients’ and counselors’ beliefs about theetiology of presenting problems may be an important reason for prematuretermination. Thus, an examination of how differences in collectivistic andindividualistic cultures influence attributions about deviant behavior isimportant for an understanding of multicultural counseling. This understand-ing could provide the basis for more effective services to members of cultural

32

THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST / January 2000Poasa et al. / SOMOAN AND U.S. ATTRIBUTIONS

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kris Hallenburg Poasa, 3015Kincaid Street, Eugene, Oregon, 97405; e-mail: [email protected]

THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST, Vol. 28 No. 1, January 2000 32-60© 2000 by the Division of Counseling Psychology.

at TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi on April 26, 2014tcp.sagepub.comDownloaded from


minority groups whose views about deviant behavior and its causes differfrom that of their counselors.

COLLECTIVISTIC ANDINDIVIDUALISTIC CULTURAL DIFFERENCES

Persons who live in individualistic societies such as the dominant cultureof the United States tend to define their sense of self according to how theyare different from others. Traditional socialization, especially of males, inindividualistic cultures places value on autonomy, relying on others as littleas possible, and healthy development through differentiation (cf. Blos,1979). According to these views, development of the fully realized potentialof a person requires expression of his or her uniqueness. In the Western view,(a) the self consists of unique internal attributes such as preferences, traits,abilities, values, and rights, and (b) behavior is a consequence of these inter-nal attributes (Geertz, 1975; Markus & Kitayama, 1994). Thus, individualis-tic societies value being true to one’s internal convictions, values, and goalsacross situations and in different social environments.

Recently, this view has been criticized as a model of healthy functioningfrom at least two quarters. One set of challenges has been framed by feministtheorists (cf. Chodorow, 1989) who stress the development of “self in rela-tion” with others. A full treatment of this critique is beyond the scope of thisarticle. The second critique stems from the study of non-Western collectivis-tic societies. Persons who live in collectivistic cultures tend to base theirsense of self on how they fit into a group and are similar to others within thatgroup (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Members of collectivistic cultures areconscious of their place in the social fabric and continually accommodatetheir behavior to maintain these relationships. In contrast, others serve pri-marily as a basis for social comparison and appraisal for members of indi-vidualistic cultures.

The roots of the concept of the collectivistic self can be found in non-Western, monistic, philosophical traditions in which a person is thought to bepart of the whole of nature. These traditions emphasize the inseparability ofbasic elements, including the self from others and the person from the situa-tion. For example, according to Hamaguchi (cited in Markus & Kitayama,1991) the Japanese word for self,jibun, refers to one’s share of all shared lifespace. People are seen as parts of a whole and cannot be fully understoodwhen examined individually. This holistic view is in opposition to the West-ern, Cartesian, dualistic tradition, which concentrates on the self as separatefrom other people, objects, and the natural world. A collectivistic sense of

Poasa et al. / SOMOAN AND U.S. ATTRIBUTIONS 33



self is defined in relation to others, with emphasis on (a) external publicfeatures such as status, role, and relationships; (b) belonging and fitting in;(c) occupying one’s proper place and engaging in appropriate action; and(d) being indirect in communication (Singelis, 1994). Collectivistic personsfeel a strong demand to abide by group norms. Individuals need to be sensi-tive and responsive to the needs and expectations of significant others tomaintain connection and identity. Kitayama, Markus, Kurokawa, Tummala,and Kato (1991) found that students from India were adept at finding simi-larities between themselves and target others, but American students wererelatively deficient in this ability. Perceiving how one is similar to others aidsin anticipating the needs of others and maintaining one’s place in the socialnetwork.

ATTRIBUTION IN COLLECTIVISTICAND INDIVIDUALISTIC CULTURES

A robust finding in Western social psychology is that an observer, inexplaining another person’s behavior, tends to underestimate the impact ofthe situation and overestimate the other’s characteristic traits and attitudes.This “fundamental attribution error” (Ross, 1977) is closely related to a sec-ond pattern, that of the “self-serving bias.” In Western culture, people readilyaccept credit when told they have succeeded (attributing success to their abil-ity and effort) yet often attribute failure to such external factors as bad luck ordifficulty of the task (Zuckerman, 1979). However, Kashima and Triandis(1986) believe that self-serving bias is less likely to occur in collective socie-ties. In these societies, mutual support and effort toward group goals may bemore important than individual achievement. Two assumptions made inWestern studies of attribution may be erroneous when applied to collectivecultures: (a) All people have a strong need to judge themselves favorably, and(b) positive self-image and self-esteem are derived from attributions relatedto the individual self (Moghaddam, Taylor, & Wright, 1993).

Most of the few comparative cultural studies of attribution have examinedachievement attributions. For example, Chandler, Shama, Wolf, and Plan-chard (1981) found that university students from India, South Africa, theUnited States, and Yugoslavia—but not Japan—tended to take more respon-sibility for success than failure and attributed that success to their ownefforts. Japanese students made the most internal attributions for failure andthe fewest internal attributions for success. In general, cultural comparisonshave found that persons from collectivistic cultures tend to make more attri-

34 THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST / January 2000



bution to external factors for both positive and negative events (Betancourt &Weiner, 1982; Fry & Ghosh, 1980; Smith & Whitehead, 1984).

Studies of Asian subjects interacting with members of an opposing groupin a competitive situation suggest that attributional bias also operates on agroup level. Subjects who lose the competition tend to attribute the opposingactors’ success to causes internal to the opponent, whereas winning subjectsattributed their opponent’s failures to causes external to opponents (Smith,Whitehead, & Sussman, 1990; Yamauchi, 1988). In addition, winning Asiansubjects attribute their own success mostly to luck and least to ability,whereas, in losing, they attribute their failure mostly to ability and least toluck. This pattern is opposite to that found in the United States, in which thefailure of one’s vanquished foe is attributed to traits of the foe, whereas thesuccess of a winning opponent tends to be attributed to external factors. Asiansubjects’attribution patterns may stem from motivation to enhance an oppo-nent’s self-esteem in the case of success and protect an opponent’s self-esteem in the case of failure.

For members of collective cultures, personal opinions and attributes arelikely to be situation specific and are less likely to regulate behavior acrosssituations than for members of individualistic cultures, especially if thebehavior has an effect on significant others. In contrast to the values of self-expression and self-disclosure in individualistic culture, voluntary control ofself is the essence of what constitutes maturity in collective culture. In collec-tive cultures, self-assertion is not seen as being authentic, but rather as child-ish, attention seeking, and blameworthy (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).

We could locate only three studies that examined cultural differences rele-vant to attributions for deviant behavioral problems. Miller (1984) found thatadults in India, significantly more than American adults, attributed external,environmental, contextual factors as the cause of deviance. Americans, incontrast, cited internal, dispositional factors. Sanders and Hamilton (1987)studied Americans and Japanese observers’attributions of responsibility andjudgments about the appropriate punishment for guilty actors. Americanswere more influenced than Japanese by attributes of the actors and the deed,whereas Japanese subjects were more influenced by information about theactors’ role relationship to others in the scenario. In addition, Americanschose sanctions that isolated the individual. Japanese subjects were morelikely to choose sanctions that emphasize restitution and maintaining rela-tionship roles.

Morris and Peng (1994) studied two articles, reporting actual murders,from each of two newspapers, one serving American readers and one servingChinese readers. Content analysis of the articles revealed that American




reporters attributed both murders more to personal dispositions of the mur-derers than Chinese reporters who, for the same crimes, made more situa-tional attributions. Furthermore, American reporters made significantlymore internal attributions to the Chinese murderer (an out-group member)than to the American murderer (an in-group member), whereas the Chinesereporters used an equivalent ratio of internal to external attributions for eachmurderer. When Chinese and American graduate students evaluated thepotential causes of these murders, Americans gave greater weight to personaldispositions, whereas Chinese students gave the greatest weight to situationalfactors. Thus, it appears that Americans (both reporters and readers) aremore prone to the fundamental attribution error than Chinese reporters orreaders—with error in this case referring to the classic research definition(Ross, 1977) of a mistaken overemphasis on internal causes when makingattributions about the behavior of others.

Studies of cultural differences in attribution have been criticized for pre-senting forced-choice stimuli based on predetermined categories(Hayamizu, 1992) and for making unwarranted assumptions that the basicprocesses of assigning attributions are similar across cultures (Weiner,1986). For example, Hayamizu (1992) notes that in Japan, it is often consid-ered a virtue to leave the cause of distressing events vague because harmonyis preserved by not assigning blame. Use of standardized instruments hasalso been criticized because basic constructs such as luck have differentmeanings across cultures. Attributions to luck are considered external forWestern subjects. However, Little (1987) found that Sri Lankan children,who make more attributions for success to luck than American children,believe that luck is partially determined by internal factors such as virtuousbehavior. Ability, considered an internal attribute by Westerners, is believedby members of some Eastern cultures to be a divine gift resulting from exter-nal causes.

Difficulties of translation also limit the usefulness of standardized meas-ures. For example, in the Samoan language, the wordmusumeans a state orattitude of being resistant, uncooperative, or sullen. Musu is a sufficient rea-son to excuse people from responsibility. In a society where there are manylevels of authority and one is often obligated to many, musu allows a protestor respite whennowould not be tolerated. For the indigenous people of Tierradel Fuego,mamihlapinatapeimeans, essentially, “looking at each other hop-ing that the other will offer first to do something that both desire but each isunwilling to do” (Bond, 1988). Consider the difficulty of constructing a cul-turally appropriate attribution scale that incorporates these concepts.

To avoid the problems inherent in using standardized measures, includingpotential bias imposed by a Western understanding of attribution, we used an




exploratory and descriptive qualitative method in this study. Use of a free-response format allowed explorations of indigenous notions of the self andpatterns of attribution (or lack thereof). Our study used a mixed design with aquantitative initial phase and a qualitative follow-up that allowed triangula-tion of information gathered about the cultures. A combination of qualitativeand quantitative methods has been increasingly advocated in social scienceresearch for adding dependability and representativeness to the data (Mathi-son, 1988; Rossman & Wilson, 1985, 1994).

THE UNIQUE LABORATORYOF TWO SAMOAN CULTURES

The Samoan islands are located 1,600 miles northeast of New Zealand and2,300 miles southwest of Hawaii. Samoa has been inhabited by Polynesianpeoples since at least 600B.C.and has served as a center of Polynesian culturefor more than 2 millennia. Despite this long common history, after the mid-1800s, the culture of the western group of Samoan islands began to divergefrom the culture of the eastern islands. Germany claimed the western islandsas a colony but was expelled by New Zealand at the outbreak of World War I.During the same period, the United States claimed the group of Samoanislands 90 miles to the east, and they became known as American Samoa. In1962, the islands of Western Samoa regained independence from New Zea-land and became the first Polynesian nation of the modern era. In contrast,American Samoa remains a U.S. territory. From 1900 to 1977, the territorialgovernor was appointed by the U.S. Department of the Navy. Although thegovernor is now elected by the people of American Samoa, who are consid-ered U.S. nationals, the U.S. government still retains considerable control.For example, all justices of the highest territorial court are appointed by theU.S. Department of the Interior. (In 1997, the nation of Western Samoa offi-cially changed its name to Samoa, a move that upset many citizens of Ameri-can Samoa. To avoid confusion, we use the terms American Samoa and West-ern Samoa to refer to the two separate political and cultural entities, andSamoan to refer to the two cultures, collectively.)

Thus, history has provided a natural laboratory to study the influence ofculture. Overlaid on more than 2,500 years of shared Polynesian heritage isthe strong influence of Western colonial powers and Christian missionaries.Yet Western Samoa has retained a conservative sense of traditional culturalvalues and relative political independence, whereas American Samoa is cul-turally (as well as politically) more strongly influenced by the United States.Observers of both Samoan cultures have noted a strong collectivistic concept




of self (Freeman, 1983; Holmes, 1987; Mageo, 1989, 1991, 1995; Mead,1928, 1969; Shore, 1982). In fact, there appear to be no words in the Samoanlanguage to adequately describe the Western concepts of inner self, personal-ity, or character. A clue to the Samoan sense of identity is found in the popularsayingteu le va, “take care of the relationship.” Contrasted with the Greekdictum “know thyself,” these sayings suggest something of the differencebetween Western and Samoan traditions.

The purpose of this study was to compare the cultures of Western Samoa,American Samoa, and the mainland United States with regard to attributionsfor the causes of problematic family interactions and attributions aboutresponsibility for rectifying the problem situation. We chose the domain offamily conflict because it was likely to be highly salient, familiar, and fre-quently experienced in all three cultures. In addition, family is the core in-group identification for most collective cultures. We expected the U.S. main-land culture to be highly individualistic, Western Samoan culture to be verycollectivistic, and the culture of American Samoa to fall somewhere betweenthese two, representing, as it does, a blending of traditional Samoan culturewith U.S. cultural influence.

METHOD

Participants

Samples of community college students were solicited from (a) WesternSamoa, (b) American Samoa, and (c) the U.S. Pacific Northwest. For the ini-tial quantitative phase of the study, students were recruited from first-yearwriting or literature classes. Participation was voluntary in all three settings.Students were told that the information they provided would be used in acomparative cultural research project about how people explain problematicevents in their lives and that, of those who initially completed survey materi-als, a subset of participants would be randomly selected and contacted forfollow-up interviews, for which they would be paid the equivalent of $10. Toensure a relatively homogenous sample within each culture, the data camefrom students who were 18 to 25 years old, who identified themselves aseither native Samoan or Caucasian American, and who had lived the majorityof their lives in their respective cultures. The final sample contained 23 U.S.students, 25 American Samoan students, and 25 Western Samoan students.These 73 respondents included 46 women and 27 men. There were no signifi-cant differences in the proportion of men and women in the three samples,χ2




(2,n= 73) = 1.80,p= n.s. Mean age of the combined samples was 20.00 years(SD= 2.20, range 18-25).

Quantitative Measures

THE INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM SCALE

The Individualism-Collectivism Scale (INDCOL) is a self-report measuredesigned to assess individualistic and collectivistic cultural beliefs. The scaleuses a 9-point response format anchored only at the endpoints (1 =stronglydisagree, 9 = strongly agree). The measure contains 11 subscales, but datafrom only 4 subscales (eight items each) were used in this study. These 4subscales measure the constructs of individualism and collectivism in combi-nation with either a vertical or horizontal orientation to one’s culture.Verticalcultural beliefs involve general acceptance of inequality and differences inrank and privilege, whereashorizontalbeliefs emphasize equality in status.Persons who espousevertical individualismare achievement oriented andindependent and value being different from others.Horizontal individualismbeliefs also emphasize independence and uniqueness but eschew the idea thatthese differences should translate into large status differences. In contrast,vertical collectivistbeliefs emphasize acceptance of authority and status dif-ferences and view the self as interdependent, with strong obligations for serv-ice, duty, and sacrifice for the in-group.Horizontal collectivistbeliefsemphasize social cohesion, interdependence, and an egalitarian cooperativerelationship with members of one’s in-group.

Triandis (personal communication, April 18, 1994) encourages users toadapt the INDCOL appropriately to tap the experiences and values of the cul-ture being studied. Thus, the item “I like my privacy” was eliminated in thisstudy because we believed that the basic concept of privacy differs dramati-cally in the American and Samoan cultures. This reduced the horizontal indi-vidualism subscale from eight to seven items. Triandis (personal communi-cation, April 18, 1994) reported internal consistency (coefficient alpha)ranging from .68 to .74 for the four INDCOL scales used in this study. Weobtained coefficient alphas ranging from .59 (horizontal collectivism) to .77(vertical individualism).

Qualitative Materials and Methods

Attributional patterns in the various cultures were elicited by means of theQuestionnaire of Attribution and Culture (QAC), a structured protocol con-




sisting of stimulus vignettes followed by a fixed set of open-ended questionsthat we developed specifically for this study. Development of the vignettesfollowed these guidelines: (a) Scenarios should be equivalent in relevanceand salience for all three cultures, (b) scenarios should represent situationswith comparable frequency of occurrence for persons aged 18 through 25 inall three cultures, and (c) vignettes should present a degree of ambiguitylikely to elicit culturally influenced responses. Initially, seven vignettes weredeveloped by the first author, who is familiar with all three cultures. Eachvignette asked the reader to assume that he or she was part of the family in thevignette and went on to describe an event that involved a family member andresulted in a negative consequence. The attributions for the cause of these cir-cumstances could potentially be assigned to a number of actors described inthe vignette. Some were family members who were assumed to be in-groupmembers, and others were people likely to be thought of as out-group mem-bers in each of the three cultures. Open-ended questions to follow each sce-nario were developed according to these guidelines: (a) Avoid leading ques-tions that suggest attributions; (b) create an initial opportunity forspontaneous statements of attribution; and (c) begin with open-ended ques-tions, but follow with narrower prompts to elicit specifics of attributions.

A pilot version of the vignettes and questions was administered to 3American Samoan students, 1 Western Samoan student, 4 Micronesian stu-dents, and 8 U.S. students attending a university or a community college inthe Pacific Northwest. Pilot materials were presented in English. Pilot sub-jects reviewed the vignettes, responded to the questions, and were inter-viewed for 30 to 60 minutes to elaborate on their responses and provide feed-back about the materials. These suggestions and pilot study results were usedby a panel of four experts in psychology and anthropology to revise the QAC.For example, the question “Was anyone good or bad in this situation?” neces-sitated a judgment that some non-U.S. students did not feel comfortable mak-ing. This question was reworded to “Do you have any reaction to this situa-tion?” and “What do you think about this situation?” Because pilotparticipants required considerably more than 1 hour to finish, we decided toshorten the QAC to four vignettes. The four vignettes retained were thoserated by our panel of consultants as the most relevant, salient, and likely tooccur across all three cultures, as well as presenting the least ambiguity withregard to in-group/out-group status of the actors. The QAC was then trans-lated into Samoan by a faculty member expert in the Samoan language andthen back-translated (Brislin, 1970) from Samoan into English by a Samoanresearch assistant who was unaware of the original English version.Although the back-translation compared quite closely to the original version,some adjustments were made to the Samoan translation to further clarifyunderstanding and equivalence of the vignettes.




The final version of the QAC consists of the four vignettes presented inTable 1. Each vignette was followed by two general questions to solicit spon-taneous attributions. After writing narrative answers to these questions, stu-


TABLE 1: Questionnaire of Attribution and Culture (QAC) Stimulus Vignettes andQuestions

Vignettes

Vignette 1 (Car)Your father works for a boss who is known for his drinking. The boss has rea-son to celebrate one day and buys his employees unlimited liquor after workand throws a party. Your father drinks too much and on the way home wrecksthe family car by running into the back of a car that had stopped unexpectedlyin front of him. He arrives home with a wrecked car.

Vignette 2 (Babysitting)You ask your brother to look after your 3-year-old son for the weekend. Satur-day afternoon a number of his buddies come over with a case of beer. He tellsthem to leave, but they don’t. Your brother and his friends end up sittingaround in the afternoon, drinking, and watching sports. Your son wandersaround and trips over some of the friends’ bags and cuts his head. He is takento the hospital and has to have a few stitches on his head.

Vignette 3 (Camera)You are interested in photography and have saved up and bought a new cam-era. Your grandfather learns of this and asks to borrow it in order to take pic-tures of an important family occasion that he is attending. You allow him totake it, but he leaves it on a table for awhile and it is picked up by someoneand is gone.

Vignette 4 (Skip School)Your mother finds out that one of your sisters has been skipping class andhanging around with a bad group of friends. She is very angry since she hasgone out of her way to provide the best for this particular child. When yoursister comes home and is asked where she has been, she lies. Your mother isso mad that she hits her, causing a bruise. The next day at school the coun-selor sees the bruise and calls the children’s services division to investigate.

Questions Following Each Vignette Presentation

Questions 1 and 2 were presented immediately after the initial presentation of a vignette.1. Would you have a reaction to this situation? What?2. What do you think about this situation?

After Questions 1 and 2 were answered, the vignette was presented again and followed byQuestions 3 through 6.

3. Did anyone make a mistake in this situation? What?4. Would you blame anyone in this situation? Why?5. If you feel like someone is to blame, should there be any consequences for what they

did? If so, what?6. How would you resolve this situation?



dents were asked to read the vignette a second time and, only then, to openenvelopes containing Questions 3 through 6 (shown in Table 1). Studentsthen provided narrative answers to the remaining four questions.

Procedure

GAINING ENTRY

To be effective and ensure cooperation in Samoan culture, it is necessaryto have a recognized position of status and to have a significant relationshipwith participants. The first author accomplished this by being a member ofthe student services staff of American Samoa Community College during the3-month data collection period. She was introduced to the student body bythe president of the college and seen routinely around campus. In addition,she had lived in American Samoa previously for 7 years. Thus, many studentsand families already knew her. As a relative outsider in Western Samoa, thefirst author worked through channels of authority, thereby obtaining agovernment-approved research visa, gaining the cooperation of administra-tors in the community college, and working through two close friends whoheld administrative positions in the school system and department of educa-tion. The endorsement of these community leaders was crucial for gainingcooperation of participants in Western Samoa. Data collection at the U.S.community college was relatively more straightforward but was also facili-tated by long-standing relationships between key administrators and the firsttwo authors.

DATA COLLECTION

Survey packets containing the INDCOL, QAC, and demographic itemswere distributed in classes and returned to the researchers in sealed enve-lopes. Samoan students were offered their choice of either Samoan or Englishtranslations of the packets and were encouraged to write answers in theirpreference of Samoan or English to allow the most efficient expression oftheir thoughts. From each of the three samples, 5 respondents were selectedrandomly for in-depth interviews. Qualitative data were examined on anongoing basis as these 15 interviews were conducted. These data were usedto expand and modify the inquiry process throughout the study. Individualinterviews lasted from 45 to 90 minutes. Interviewees were asked to elabo-rate on the answers they had previously written and to provide a more com-plete recounting of the rationale for their survey responses. Thus, data collec-




tion resulted in 73 written, narrative survey responses and 15 in-depthelaboration interviews.

QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS

A consensual, qualitative research method was followed as described byHill, Thompson, and Williams (1997). Specifically, open-ended questionswere used to gather data, teams of coders included members of the Samoancommunities, and the process involved one of making decisions by consen-sus. The Samoan data analysis team consisted of the first author, togetherwith one male nursing student and one female nursing student from Ameri-can Samoa. Answers written in Samoan were translated independently by thetwo assistants to ensure translation equivalency and reliability. Discrepanciesin translation were resolved through consensus. The research assistants weregiven a basic understanding of attribution theory and the general purpose ofthe study. Preliminary attribution-coding categories for the written data weredeveloped by the first author. Research assistants suggested modifications toincrease accurate understanding of cultural connotations and completenessof coding categories. The 50 written responses to the QAC from Samoan stu-dents were coded by the three-member Samoan analysis team. The U.S. dataanalysis team consisted of three master’s level counseling psychology stu-dents and the first author. The procedure followed by the Samoan coders wasrepeated with the four-member U.S. data analysis team for the 23 responsesreceived from U.S. students.

Members of each data analysis team read survey responses to the QACvignettes, independently coded the attributions, and then met to compareattribution codes and resolve discrepancies. This basic level of analysis wasrelatively straightforward and involved determining, from written responsesto the QAC, which, if any, actor(s) in each vignette were (a) mentioned spon-taneously with an attribution in answer to the first two questions of the QAC(which did not probe for attributions), (b) believed to have made a mistake inbehavior, (c) believed to be the cause of the resulting misfortune, and (d)believed to be responsible for taking corrective action.

Analysis of the 15 in-depth interviews proceeded from complete tran-scripts made from the tape-recorded interviews. The transcribed interviewswere first reviewed by each of the respective data analysis teams to ensurethat cultural nuances were picked up and understood. In addition, the U.S.counseling psychology students read the Samoan interviews to offer theirimpressions of comparisons to the U.S. interviews they had completed. Sur-vey narrative responses and in-depth interviews contained a rich wealth of




detail elaborating respondents’ rationale for ascribing various attributions.Following the procedure suggested by Hill et al. (1997), team membersworked individually to assign domains to emerging patterns in the data basedon an initial “start list” of domains suggested by the first author. Team mem-bers then met to discuss these subsidiary patterns and abstract from them asmaller number of higher order “core ideas” and overarching categories thatreflect dominant themes in the data. In addition, each phase of the data analy-sis process was monitored and discussed, on an on-going basis, with a gradu-ate anthropology/archeology student from American Samoa. This peerdebriefing was continued throughout the final analysis of results to validateprimary themes and to check for cultural understanding. Finally, an audit trail(Denzin & Lincoln, 1994) was kept throughout the process. The audit trailconsisted of the raw data, the field notes and coding memos, notes on datareduction and analysis, selected audio tapes of data analyses team discus-sions, and peer debriefing notes.

RESULTS

Quantitative Findings

To test for differences in the three cultures with regard to collective andindividualistic attitudes, a one-way MANOVA was conducted using the foursubscales of the INDCOL as dependent variables. Results suggested that thethree groups were significantly different,F(8, 134) = 5.71,p< .001. Univari-ate analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed with Scheffé post hoc compari-sons, are presented in Table 2. Findings suggest that all three groups differedon measures of vertical individualism and vertical collectivism. Contrary toexpectations, the U.S. students scored significantly lower than either groupof Samoan students with regard to vertical individualistic attitudes.

Qualitative Findings

To summarize patterns that emerged in our qualitative analyses, a conven-tion suggested by Hill et al. (1997) was adopted. Overarching patterns in thedata are reported with the following descriptors: (a)general, for a patternapparent in all members of the group being considered; (b)typical, for pat-terns evident in more than one half of the members; or (c)variant, for a pat-tern evident in more than one quarter through just less than one half of themembers. Due to the relatively large number of respondents in each group,we modified Hill et al.’s general descriptor and applied it for patterns found




in 75% or more of the cases. Although we hypothesized that the AmericanSamoan sample would exhibit a pattern of responses intermediate betweenthose of the United States and Western Samoa, in the qualitative analyses, noconsistent pattern of differences emerged between American Samoan andWestern Samoan students. Thus, the general, typical, or variant descriptorswill be applied to the combined sample of 50 Samoan students. It is consid-ered best to present qualitative findings by providing narrative descriptions ofcommon themes that emerged from the data (Wolcott, 1990). Six themesemerged from our qualitative analyses.

LINEAR VERSUS NONLINEAR THINKING

U.S. students showed a general pattern of linear thinking in their approachto assigning blame and responsibility. In general, they made attributions toone actor, typically early in their responses to each vignette; the remainder oftheir responses reflected a linear progression of thought about whether blameand responsibility should also be assigned to this single actor. For the mostpart, after a cause was acknowledged, the only decision to be made waswhether that person should or should not be held responsible or whether thecause was accidental. In contrast, the typical pattern of Samoan students’responses included a variety of actors and causal factors considered in a non-linear fashion. The following response of a Western Samoan student toVignette 2 (Babysitting) exemplifies this typical pattern. The causal attribu-tion codes, explained in greater detail below, have been added in brackets:

I must take good time to teach my brother to be very strict and obey honestly allinstructions given him. When he understands clearly, there will be no accidents


TABLE 2: Collectivistic and Individualistic Cultural Differences (Individualism-Collectivism Scale [INDCOL] scores)

United American WesternStates (US) Samoa (AS) Samoa (WS) Scheffe

(n = 23) (n = 25) (n = 25) Post HocVariable M SD M SD M SD F(2, 63) Comparisons

Horizontal individualism 49.22 6.33 47.88 8.80 46.92 12.94 0.33Vertical individualism 29.61 9.36 45.40 11.49 49.48 13.60 19.16* US < AS < WSHorizontal collectivism 53.96 9.11 58.68 9.52 54.40 11.28 1.66Vertical collectivism 42.83 11.73 54.60 9.12 51.76 11.64 7.57* US < WS < AS

NOTE: MANOVA for this comparison,F(8, 134) = 5.71,p < .001.*p < .01.



[brother and self]. . . . I feel that mothers are the suitable people to stay homeand look after young children. They have a special gift of true love from God toprotect the young children and understand them [parents, third personvoice]. . . . The friends shouldn’t have come to the home and drink beer there.They should go to their own home [friends]. . . . I blame the brother for allowingboys to drink beer over there [brother]. . . . The friends should be punished fortrespassing [friends].Q: How would you resolve this situation?A: Teach parents to take good care of their children, try to be home often [parent,

third person voice].

It is evident that the respondent has considered the roles of many peopleinvolved in this situation, as well as the situational context (e.g., if alcoholhad not been available, the situation may have been different). As Samoanparticipants progressed through the questions, they typically showed morevariety in their attributions for the situation than did the American partici-pants, sometimes giving attributions of responsibility to four or more actorsor factors within a vignette. Thus, they tended to perceive a much more multi-faceted situation than did American students.

VOICE

The example above illustrates a second difference. A variant theme for theSamoan participants was to write their answers grammatically in the thirdperson. Samoan participants wrote in indirect and/or abstract terms, with avariant pattern, especially when placing blame on in-group members, of cit-ing proverbs, Bible verses, or laws, for example, “But in this case, a wise per-son should not open the door to a foolish person.” As the questions pro-gressed, Samoan respondents often continued to distance themselves bymaking statements in the third person, even though it was evident that theywere viewing this actor as their family member: “I think that adults shouldnever consume alcohol in the presence of children or anybody else thatdoesn’t drink, moreover, people should never drink in a public place,” or“Responsibilities should be taken up more seriously.” The father or grandfa-ther was often referred to as “that man.” Virtually no U.S. participants cited aBible verse or proverb. Instead, they generally phrased responses in the firstperson and used very direct statements. In fact, occasionally, U.S. partici-pants lapsed into direct address to an actor in the vignette, for example, in thisresponse to Vignette 1 (Car): “What the hell were you thinking? You said youwere going to quit drinking. I hate it when you get drunk! We all do! What areyou going to do about the car?” This pattern was never observed with Samoanparticipants.




DISPOSITIONAL VERSUS SITUATIONAL FACTORS

Although, in a given vignette, Samoan and U.S. students often placedblame on the same person, closer examination of their responses indicated anunderlying, fundamental difference. The typical pattern for U.S. students,after assigning blame, was to identify flaws in the target person’s character. Incontrast, the typical pattern for Samoan respondents, if assigning blame to aparticular actor, was to emphasize the actor’s behavior in the situational con-text and the emotional state of the actor at the time. For example, Samoanscited the actors being quite stressed or caught up in having fun as reasons fortheir actions.

A crucial distinction is evident in these patterns. For U.S. participants whoblamed the disposition or character of the actor, in the terminology of attribu-tion research (e.g., Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978), the attributionsare to stable, global, internal traits that are unlikely to change. For Samoanparticipants who considered an actor’s behavior a response to the situation,the locus of the attribution is more unstable (i.e., changeable), specific, andexternal. Samoan students view an actor as responding to the pressures of aparticular situation and handling it in socially prescribed ways (or failing todo so). Thus, even when attributions are made internal to the actor, they tendto be changeable and specific to the situation at hand.

Because the attributions of U.S. students were more internal to the actorsand stable, they tended to be more harsh in evaluating the actor than Samoanstudents, for example, in this response of a U.S. student to Vignette 1 (Car):

A: Maybe I wouldn’t trust him as much. I’d still love him, but wouldn’t be able totrust him the same way because, you know, lack of responsibility again. Itshows that he wasn’t as much of a man as maybe I thought he was.

Q: What does that mean, “not as much of a man”?A: Being able to be his own man, not, you know, going with the crowd, going and

drinking. Being responsible for himself and not caring what other peoplethink . . . That shows right there that he has a lack of character and self-esteem . . . He’s not as much of a man, he’s not his own person.

Compare the following responses from two Samoan students to the samevignette:

A: I believe that when you are overexcited, trouble will always follow, thereforewe should be well aware of these things and take into account that not every-body is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes and I believe we can’t always blameourselves or others for the wrong we do.

A: My father has done something very wrong. My father must regret drinking toomuch. It is a tragedy for father, unfortunate for him.




Although the Samoan students acknowledged wrongdoing of the actor, theirattributions typically expressed more empathy and, in considering situationalfactors, allowed for more possibility that the actor’s pattern of behaviorwould be different under different circumstances.

POWER, HIERARCHY, AND FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS

Results of the quantitative findings depicting Samoan society as verticallyorganized and hierarchical in nature are paralleled by the fourth theme thatemerged from the qualitative analysis. A typical pattern in Samoanresponses, which was very rare in U.S. responses, involved being highly con-scious of social position and acting according to one’s status. In the Samoanparticipants’ responses, this theme emerged in their emphasis on the specialroles and responsibilities of persons with high status. For example, inVignette 1 (Car), a variant response of U.S. participants was to cite the bossfor failing in his responsibility to keep people from leaving his party and driv-ing while drunk—seen as the responsibility of any host, not simply becauseof his position as boss. Although this pattern was also a variant response forSamoan respondents, a typical pattern for them involved attributing blame tothe father and boss for setting a bad example for their families or employees.For example, one respondent wrote,

The father shouldn’t act like that. He should try to give good relationships toothers. He should take care of his children and not set a bad example for them.The father is like a camera to the family. What they see him doing is a picture tothem, an example.

Blame was attributed to the boss because of his position and the paternal-istic responsibility for his subordinates that his position entails. His role asthe leader was emphasized in determining his responsibility in this situation.For example, a respondent wrote the following:

The boss should have known better. He’s the role model and he should havebeen setting a good example. He should have been the one to supervise every-thing without any alcohol.

Samoan students emphasized that being the boss, who is the person with thesocially prominent position in this vignette, gave him the power and theresponsibility to manage the employees and the situation. For Samoan stu-dents, but not for U.S. students, holding a subordinate role in the social statushierarchy, such as the employee/father in Vignette 1 (Car), tended to absolvean actor of responsibility.




The hierarchical structure of the Samoan society is also reflected in familyorganization. As with the boss in Vignette 1 (Car), positions of authority inSamoan families carry with them responsibility. An occasional pattern in theSamoan responses to Vignette 4 (Skip School) assigned blame to older chil-dren for not looking after a younger sibling. This pattern was unknown inU.S. responses. In the same vignette, typical Samoan responses held themother responsible for unequal treatment of her children (i.e., treating a childas her favorite) and for failure to instill good values in the child prior to theincident. Although U.S. respondents also blamed the mother, they generallydid so because of her poor parenting techniques: hitting and losing control.

A typical pattern in the Samoan participants’ responses evidenced a con-viction that powerful external social factors influenced the actors, as in thisresponse to Vignettes 1 (Car) and 2 (Babysitting):

It is always easy to be tempted by those things [beer] and by the peers of yours.So, no matter how hard you try to say no or refuse to do so, you’re there withthat person or beer. You have to drink.

The status of the boss in Vignette 1 (Car) was another strong external influ-ence: “No. My father did not have much freedom to act differently. It wouldhave been difficult to decline the boss’s beer.” Thus, submitting to the influ-ence of peer pressure had far fewer negative connotations in Samoanresponses than for U.S. students. Typical Samoan responses mentioned theneed to preserve social relationships, for example, “To us Samoans, it’s hardto say no to close relationships. So when they came to your house, you wel-come them.” Although U.S. respondents acknowledged the presence of peerpressure that the actor had to contend with in Vignettes 1 (Car) and 2(Babysitting), the blameworthy response in their view was, typically, that theactor had not shown sufficient strength of character and had acquiesced tothis pressure.

SIGNIFICANCE OF IN-GROUP MEMBERS’ ACTIONS

A typical pattern for Samoan respondents was to see an in-group mem-ber’s action as a reflection on themselves. This fifth theme lends support tothe assumption that Samoan students’sense of self is entwined with in-groupmembers. This theme was often evidenced in very strong terms, for example,in response to Vignette 1 (Car): “They would say, ‘her father’s an alcoholicand she’s just like him,’” and “If I did something wrong, I’m sure his friendswould think ‘like father, like son. Just like his father. He’ll probably have adrinking problem too when he grows up.’” Thus, the close link in identities




extends to students seeing the wrongdoing of family members as a reflectionon themselves. In contrast, no American interviewee felt that the actions offamily members reflected on who they were. The general theme is typified bythis U.S. student’s response referring to the father in Vignette 1 (Car): “No, ithas nothing to do with me. It is my choice as to what kind of character I makeof myself, the morals I instill in myself.”

RECTIFYING THE SITUATION

The final theme involved marked differences in respondents’ suggestionsfor how the portrayed situations should be resolved. A general pattern inSamoan responses was that problems described in the vignettes would nothappen if only people would follow socially prescribed guidelines andbehaviors. The wordshouldwas used to describe social expectations, obliga-tions, and notions of propriety. The U.S. data analysis team was struck by themuch higher frequency with which both groups of Samoan students used thewordshould, compared to U.S. respondents. An examination of written sur-vey responses and interview transcripts revealed that should was used a meanof 6.18 times by Western Samoan students, 5.27 times by American Samoanstudents, and only 2.81 times by U.S. students.

The responses of U.S. students typically emphasized the need for peopleto behave responsibly. Their suggested resolutions typically emphasizedactions that were designed to either increase the guilty actor’s internal con-trol, to punish the actor for a lack of such control, and/or to distance oneselffrom the relationship to minimize the likelihood of similar future interac-tions. U.S. students saw punishment as appropriate for a lapse in what couldbe termed the actors’ “strength of character.” Family members deservingpunishment were typically seen as separate from the context and viewed withdiminished respect as a result of their behavior. Note that these solutionsemphasize internal, individual, or dyadic interactions.

By contrast, rather than targeting solutions directly at the actor, Samoanrespondents suggested solutions aimed at managing situational variablesthat, in turn, might influence the actor’s behavior. These might be termed“systemic” solutions, some of which might strike Western readers as unor-thodox or extreme. For example, a response to Vignette 1 (Car) was, “Advisethe beer industries not to produce beer,” and a response to Vignette 3 (Cam-era) was, “Old people should not take photos anymore because they were tooold to remember things.” Samoan students suggested a variety of interven-tions at all levels of the social system. For example, at the highest level, somesuggested new laws or tighter enforcement of laws. It is interesting that morethan one half of Samoan students placed blame on higher social or politicalauthorities for not having made policies to address the problems depicted in




the vignettes. (This pattern was observed in only 1 U.S. student’s responses.)For example, in Vignettes 1 (Car) and 2 (Babysitting), Samoan respondentsfound the government to be at fault for not educating people about drunk driv-ing or the dangers of alcohol consumption. A variant response given bySamoan students was to invoke the higher authority of religious teachings,ministers, the Bible, or church laws—for example, “Teach parents to prayand fast so that the spirit of the Lord may work in their hearts to show truelove, teach the children to know the laws of God.” Legal strictures wereinvoked in a similar way. Thus, reference to the Bible or specific laws as abasis for assigning blame to an in-group member alleviates responsibility forpersonal judgment, which may be harmful to the relationship, and couchesthe intervention in socially sanctioned terms used for the good of allconcerned.

The theme of preserving relationships and restoring family harmony was astrong general pattern in solutions suggested by Samoan respondents. A vari-ant in Samoan responses was to suggest involving midlevel social authoritiesas conciliators, especially with actors who were high-status, in-group mem-bers. For example, ministers and, occasionally, counselors were suggested togive advice to the father in Vignette 1 (Car) or the mother in Vignette 4 (SkipSchool). The authority of the village chief (matai) was also occasionallyinvoked for setting local laws that would prevent these types of family con-flicts. Some respondents were ingenious and went to great lengths to findsolutions that preserved the relationship. For example, a variant response toVignette 3 (Camera) involved having someone go with grandfather or takingpictures for him. A suggested solution for Vignette 2 (Babysitting) was tohave the brother’s friends hold their party in the yard outside while he contin-ued babysitting in the house: “It will give them a chance to think that whatthey’re going to do is not right. What they’re asking to their friend is not reallygood. It would give them a chance to go over the problem.” In this example,the actor does not have to directly say no to the friends; given time and theright situational circumstances, it is hoped that the friends will realize thatwhat they are doing is not a correct, socially prescribed behavior.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to compare samples of college studentsfrom three cultures with regard to collective versus individualistic culturalbeliefs, attributions about the causes of problematic family interactions, andattributions about what should be done to rectify the problems. As expected,quantitative findings suggested that students from the two Samoan culturesendorse more collective beliefs then U.S. students, but, contrary to expecta-




tions, only with regard to vertical collective beliefs. Contrary to expectations,students in both Samoan cultures also endorsed more vertical individualisticbeliefs (e.g., achievement oriented, independent). Taken together, thesefindings suggest that the acceptance (or rejection) of the appropriateness oflarge differences in social status was the most salient dimension of culturaldifference—measured quantitatively. In general, Samoan students endorsedvertical beliefs, and U.S. students rejected them, regardless of an underlyingindividual or collective orientation. Samoan students tended to feel that thesestatus differences are justified both on the basis of achievement and individ-ual merit (vertical individualism) and on the basis of an obligation to duty andservice attached to strictly predetermined social roles (vertical collectivism).

Each of the six themes that emerged in our qualitative findings suggests agreater emphasis on collective beliefs in Samoan culture and individualisticbeliefs in U.S. culture. Our findings suggest that U.S. students (a) tend toblame internal, global, stable character traits of actors; (b) use a linearthought process to assign blame to a single actor or decide the situation was“nobody’s fault”; (c) generally disregard relative power or status differencesin assigning blame; (d) tend not to consider themselves personally tainted bythe potentially blameworthy actions of a family member; (e) use first-persongrammatical voice and sometimes quite confrontational direct expressions ofblame; and (f) suggest resolutions for the problems that involve punishmentof guilty actors and, if necessary, personal estrangement from therelationship.

By contrast, our findings suggest that (a) Samoan students tend to makeattributions of blame to more external, situation-specific, and relativelychangeable factors—when making an internal attribution, they emphasizeunstable, situation-based factors such as emotional arousal or lack of knowl-edge about how to behave; (b) Samoan students tend to distribute attributionsof blame in a nonlinear fashion and view family problems as having multiplecauses; (c) Samoan students’ responses emphasized the influence of socialstatus and power hierarchy differences—they used the wordshouldvery fre-quently and placed more blame on high-status actors who failed to conformto the social obligations of their role, whereas they tended to absolve low-status actors from blame; (d) in-group/out-group status was very important toSamoan students, in part because the actions of in-group members wereviewed as reflecting directly on themselves; (e) when Samoan students didvoice attributions of blame to an individual (especially to high-status, in-group actors), they used third-person grammatical constructions orabstracted references to general religious or legal proscriptions that tended toinsulate them from a direct, person-to-person expression of blame; (f)Samoan students suggested resolutions for problems targeted at external,situation-specific aspects and resolutions with the goal of preserving rela-




tionship harmony. Perhaps because their attributions tended to be less global,internal to the actors, and stable over time, Samoan students were generallymore optimistic about the chances an actor would not repeat the mistake inthe future.

These findings are consistent with other studies (Miller, 1984; Morris &Peng, 1994) that found that in making attributions, non-Western observerstend to emphasize context more and internal dispositions less than U.S.observers. Our findings are also consistent with a study conducted by Dweck,Hong, and Chui (1993), which led them to distinguish “entity theorists”—those prone to making dispositional attributions for behavior—from “incre-mental theorists”—those who tend to see behavior in context. They concludethat entity theorists are more prone to make sweeping judgments, see a nega-tive trait as more stable, see the person as more culpable, and recommendharsher punishments than incremental theorists. By contrast, incrementaltheorists tend to be more specific and provisional in their judgments and, innegative cases, more oriented toward potential change. Thus, counselingapproaches that emphasize change in character traits and insight into theinternal “whys” as to actors’behaving as they do may be best matched to theattribution patterns we observed in U.S. students.

Cultural differences might lead Samoan students who seek counseling tobe puzzled by a Western therapist’s efforts to identify targets for changeexclusively internal to the client, especially if these change targets are globalpersonality traits. Samoan students might expect a counselor to give themdirect advice about how to manage the multiple situational factors that thestudents believe contribute to the problem. Such students would be under-standably confused by a counselor’s refusal to provide direct advice abouthow to manage the situation and may believe that it would be a waste of timeto follow a therapist’s insistence that the work focus on changes internal tothe students. Counseling approaches that help clients manage the situationalcontext and/or take an educational approach seem best matched to the pat-terns we observed in Samoan students. Mokuau (1987) suggested that activeand directive cognitive-behavioral counseling approaches may be appropri-ate for clients from Pacific Island cultures because of the value placed onstructure and guidance.

Consistent with our findings, other comparative research has emphasizedthe importance of power distance, position, and role relationships in non-U.S. cultures (Hofstede & Bond, 1984; Sanders & Hamilton, 1987).Research has documented the reluctance of non-Western persons to expressanger in close relationships (Matsumoto, cited in Markus & Kitayama,1991), to prefer interventions that preserve relationships rather than isolatethe individual (Sanders & Hamilton, 1987), and to place a high priority onmaintaining good relations (Kashima & Triandis, 1986; Yamauchi, 1988).




Thus, counseling techniques that encourage direct negative expression offeelings may not be appropriate for Samoan clients. Counselors, as out-groupmembers, should be cautious about making statements critical of any mem-ber of a client’s family. Clients raised with a strong sense of in-group identifi-cation may feel an upwelling of shame in response to such a critical statementand may feel criticized themselves by the counselor. Ting-Toomey (1993)suggests communication and conflict management styles that focus on groupand relational harmony instead of confrontation and expression of negativefeelings when working with persons from collectivistic cultures.

Our findings suggest that it is important for therapists working withSamoan students to attend to issues of power and hierarchy, especially if fam-ily relationships are part of the presenting problem. Western models thatemphasize individuation of late adolescents from their families (e.g., Blos,1979) may be confusing to some clients from collectivistic cultures or evenbe seen as inappropriate and harmful to important core values. Family inter-dependence has a positive value in collectivistic cultures that should not bepathologized as enmeshment. A sense of belonging may contribute more topsychological well-being for Samoan students than the goal of self-differentiation or self-expression a Western therapist might hold for them.

The broad application of popular Western counseling interventions, suchas assertiveness training, may be inappropriate for many clients from collec-tivistic societies. However, as Wood and Mallinckrodt (1990) suggest, princi-ples of assertiveness training can be modified to fit a broad range of culturalvalues. The key for many clients is developing culturally appropriate strate-gies for meeting their needs by working within the power hierarchy and usingthe channels of influence available to persons of their status (Crittenden,1991; Wood & Mallinckrodt, 1990). As Crittenden’s (1991) study of Taiwan-ese women makes clear, for low-status persons in vertically oriented cultures,behaving “according to one’s place” may, seemingly paradoxically to West-erners, be the best means of increasing personal influence. The Samoan prov-erb “power through service” captures how persons with relatively low socialstanding, such as the students in our study, can attain influence and increasedstatus by contributing service while at the lower ranks.

Finally, the findings of this study suggest an important theoretical impli-cation and caution for future research. It appears that the fundamental attribu-tion error and self-serving bias are not so universal after all. Research sug-gests that these attribution patterns do not exist in collectivistic societies oronly appear under a limited set of circumstances (Miller, 1984; Morris &Peng, 1994; Smith et al., 1990; Yamauchi, 1988). Labeling any pattern ofattribution a fundamental error assumes there is a fundamentally correct wayto perceive social reality. Kruglanski (1979) has argued that attribution




research should focus on the logic people use in making attributions ratherthan the specific result of their decision process.

A number of methodological limitations must be acknowledged in con-sidering our findings. We expected that both Samoan samples would endorsemore collectivistic cultural attitudes whereas U.S. students would endorsemore individualistic attitudes. However, contrary to expectations, bothSamoan samples scored significantly higher on the vertical individualismINDCOL scale. This apparent discrepancy may have resulted because thevertical versus horizontal distinction in beliefs is quite strong in these cul-tures and perhaps confounds differences in individualistic versus collectivis-tic beliefs. Perhaps the status of students and the role of competition inSamoan cultures introduced this confound. Anthropologists have remarkedon the highly competitive nature of Samoan culture, especially with regard toeducational achievement (Holmes, 1987). However, the motivation for thiscompetition is to provide a positive reflection on the status of one’s in-grouprather than to achieve individual distinction (Holmes, 1987; Mageo, 1991).The INDCOL items referring to competition load on the individualistic beliefscales. However, for Samoan society, striving for competitive excellencemay have a strongly collective motivation. This confound may also explainour finding that American Samoa appears to be more collectivistic than West-ern Samoa. The college students from Western Samoa are in a particularlycritical stage of their lives, when competition to get into overseas schools inNew Zealand and Australia is intense. By contrast, American Samoans ofthis age have more opportunities because it is easier for them, as U.S. nation-als, to access higher education in the United States.

Other problems with generalizability stem from our samples being drawnentirely from college students younger than 25 years old. The Samoan sam-ples represent only a small section of the Samoan culture, rather low in thestatus hierarchy, and the U.S. sample, of course, should not be consideredcompletely representative of U.S. culture either. Furthermore, the twoSamoan community colleges were the most prestigious educational institu-tions in their respective cultures (although the most gifted students in eachculture study overseas). This was, of course, not true for the U.S. communitycollege. Other limitations concern generalizability from the four stimulusvignettes selected and the ability of survey respondents to project themselvesfully into the scenarios. Cultural differences in this ability could seriouslyconfound this study. Similar confounds might stem from differences betweenthe familiarity of Samoan students and U.S. students with psychologicalassessment, participation in experiments, and/or desire to please theresearcher—who represented an authority figure to both Samoan samples.




Samoan culture is similar in many ways to other Pacific Island culturesthat share a Polynesian tradition, but there are unique aspects of Samoan cul-ture that make generalizability to other Pacific Island cultures uncertain. Wehad hoped to show differences between the cultures of Western Samoa andAmerican Samoa due to the greater influence we supposed U.S. culture hason American Samoa. Although quantitative results pointed to some differ-ences, no consistent difference emerged in the qualitative analyses. It is pos-sible that assessing attributions for the cause of family problems taps culturalvalues that are among the most strongly held and resistant to outside influ-ences. If we had assessed less deeply rooted beliefs, perhaps more differ-ences between the cultures of Western and American Samoa would havebeen evident.

Our research design afforded the advantages of triangulating findingsthrough both quantitative and qualitative methods (Mathison, 1988) but alsocombined some of the disadvantages of both approaches. A sample size of 25students from each culture was small for empirical purposes. Furthermore,the need to collect a random sample for empirical study interfered with ourability to gather and analyze data on constant comparison basis in true quali-tative fashion. The modest internal reliabilities suggest further research isneeded to establish the psychometric properties of the INDCOL, especiallywith Pacific Island cultures. Finally, although the QAC vignettes were devel-oped with input from a number of experts in the cultures studied, furtherresearch is needed to establish the reliability and cultural relevance of thismeasure.

Context, Summary, and Conclusions

The findings of our study can be placed in the context of time-honoredmethods of healing in Pacific Island cultures. Mokuau (1987) has describedthe traditional Hawaiian practice ofho’oponuponu, long used in that culture,which has some parallels throughout Polynesian cultures of the Pacific suchas Samoa. Ho’oponuponu means “setting right” and is used to deal with prob-lems in the family and to restore good relationships. First, prayers are offeredas a means of strengthening spiritual and emotional commitment to theproblem-solving process. The general problem is then defined and proce-dures for the problem-solving sequence are set. Discussion among the familymembers then takes place, but only one problem or issue is dealt with at atime. All are allowed to speak, but confrontation and negative emotionalexpressions are discouraged. Following the discussion phase, the resolutionphase takes place. This consists of confessions of wrongdoing and seekingforgiveness from all concerned. If necessary, arrangements for restitution are




then made. Mokuau (1987) stresses that it is critical that mutual releasebetween the people involved takes place. Finally, the leader of the ho’oponu-ponu summarizes what has taken place, reaffirms the family’s strengths andcommitment to one another, and closes with a prayer. Food is then shared. Inho’oponuponu, acts of confession, apology, and forgiveness are ends untothemselves. This tradition does not examine individual motives or explorethe roots of dysfunction in relationships. It is expected and assumed that thepeople who have offended, through ho’oponuponu, have learned theaccepted way of behaving and that their behavior will be appropriate in thefuture. After confession, apology, and forgiveness, the previous offendingbehavior is not held against a person.

We believe that the six themes discovered in our qualitative findings arereflections of underlying cultural values, from which also flow views of heal-ing such as those embodied in ho’oponuponu. Clients tend to question thecredibility of their counselor if they believe he or she does not share theirbeliefs about the etiology of presenting problems and the process to be usedfor solving the problems (Worthington & Atkinson, 1996). Differences inworldviews may explain why some ethnic minority clients believe counsel-ing, as practiced according to typical Western models, is not helpful or rele-vant (Trevino, 1996). Thus, specific cultural knowledge should be incorpo-rated by therapists working with Samoan clients into a general framework ofmulticultural techniques.

Many experts (e.g., Ponterotto, Casas, Suzuki, & Alexander, 1995) rec-ommend a multicultural counseling process with three steps. The firstinvolves the therapist examining his or her frame of reference and gaininginsight into his or her own cultural beliefs. The second step involves a carefulassessment of the client’s constructed reality, especially about causes of thepresenting problem. The third step involves the therapist and client workingtogether to forge a working relationship based on a shared view of the pre-senting problem and necessary steps for change. If multicultural counselingis to be successful, this final step often involves considerable accommodationon the therapist’s part to view the presenting problem in terms acceptable tothe client and to formulate a plan for change consistent with the client’s cul-tural values.

Our findings suggest that as Western therapists work with Samoan clientsthrough these three steps, at least the following potential differences arelikely to be important: (a) individualist-collectivistic cultural values;(b) hierarchical-vertical cultural values, that is, the influence of beliefs aboutpower hierarchy and social status; (c) attributions to dispositional charactertraits versus external, situation-specific factors; (d) linear versus nonlinearways of thinking about the causes of problems; (e) differences in the value of




direct expression of negative feelings and assignment of blame; (f) the needto preserve relationships, especially family harmony; and (g) the interde-pendent view of self derived from connections with in-group members.

REFERENCES

Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M.E.P., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans:Critique and reformulation.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49-74.

Betancourt, H., & Weiner, B. (1982). Attributions for achievement-related events, expectancy,and sentiments: A study of success and failure in Chile and United States.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13, 362-374.

Blos, P. (1979).The adolescent passage. New York: International Universities Press.Bond, M. (1988).The cross-cultural challenge to social psychology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Brislin, R. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy-

chology, 1, 185-216.Chandler, T., Shama, D., Wolf, F., & Planchard, S. (1981). Multi-attributional causality for

achievement across five cross-national samples.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 11,342-363.

Chodorow, N. J. (1989).Feminism and psychoanalytic theory. New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress.

Crittenden, K. (1991). Asian self-effacement or feminine modesty?Gender and Society, 5,98-117.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994).Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Dweck, C. S., Hong, Y., & Chui, Y. (1993). Implicit theories.Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin,19, 644-656.Freeman, D. (1983).Margaret Mead and Samoa: The making and unmaking of an anthropologi-

cal myth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Fry, P. S., & Ghosh, R. (1980). Attributions of success and failure: Comparison of cultural differ-

ences between Asian and Caucasian children.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 11,342-363.

Geertz, C. (1975). On the nature of anthropological understanding.American Scientist,63,47-53.

Hayamizu, T. (1992). Spontaneous causal attributions: A cross-cultural study using the sentencecompletion test.Psychological Reports,71, 715-720.

Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Williams, E. N. (1997). A guide to conducting consensual quali-tative research.The Counseling Psychologist,25, 517-572.

Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. (1984). Hofstede’s cultural dimensions: An independent validationusing Rokeach’s value survey.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15, 417-433.

Holmes, L. D. (1987).Quest for the real Samoa: The Mead/Freeman controversy & beyond.South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

Kashima, Y., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). The self-serving bias in attributions as a coping strategy:A cross-cultural study.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17, 83-97.

Kitayama, S., Markus, H., Kurokawa, M., Tummala, P., & Kato, K. (1991).Self-other similarityjudgments depend on culture(Tech. Rep. No. 91-17). Eugene: University of Oregon, Insti-tute of Cognitive & Decision Sciences.

Kruglanski, A. W. (1979). Causal explanation, teleological explanation: On radical particular-ism in attribution theory.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1447-1457.




Little, A. (1987). Attributions in a cross-cultural context.Genetic, Social, and General Psychol-ogy Monographs,113, 61-79.

Mageo, J. (1989). Amio/aga and loto: Perspectives on the structure of the self in Samoan.Oceania,59, 181-199.

Mageo, J. (1991). Samoan moral discourse and the loto.American Anthropologist,93, 405-418.Mageo, J. (1995). The reconfiguring of self.American Anthropologist,97, 282-296.Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion,

and motivation.Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1994). A collective fear of the collective: Implications for selves

and theories of selves.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 568-579.Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate?Educational Researcher, 17, 13-17.Mead, M. (1928).Coming of age in Samoa. New York: William Morrow.Mead, M. (1969).Social organization of Manua. Honolulu, HI: Bishop Museum.Miller, J. G. (1984). Culture and the development of everyday social explanation.Journal of Per-

sonality and Social Psychology, 46, 961-978.Moghaddam, F., Taylor, D., & Wright, S. (1993).Social psychology in cross-cultural perspec-

tive. New York: Freeman.Mokuau, N. (1987). Counseling Pacific Islanders. In P. Pedersen (Ed.),Handbook of cross cul-

tural counseling and therapy(pp. 77-92). Westport, CT: Greenwood.Morris, M., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social

and physical events.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 949-971.Ponterotto, J. G., Casas, J. M., Suzuki, L. A., & Alexander, C. M. (Eds.) (1995).Handbook of

multicultural counseling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcoming: Distortions in the attribution

process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology(Vol. 5,pp. 75-98). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Rossman, G., & Wilson, B. (1985). Numbers and words: Combining quantitative and qualitativemethods in a single large-scale evaluation study.Evaluation Review, 9, 627-643.

Rossman, G., & Wilson, B. (1994). Numbers and words revisited: Being “shamelessly eclectic.”Quality & Quantity, 28, 315-327.

Sanders, J., & Hamilton, V. L. (1987). Is there a “common law” of responsibility?Law andHuman Behavior, 11, 277-295.

Shore, B. (1982).Sala’ilua: A Samoan mystery. New York: Columbia University Press.Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580-591.Smith, S., & Whitehead, G. (1984). Attributions for promotion and demotion in the United

States and India.Journal of Social Psychology, 124, 27-34.Smith, S., Whitehead, G., & Sussman, N. (1990). The positivity bias in attribution.Journal of

Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 283-301.Ting-Toomey, S. (1993). Communicative resourcefulness: An identity negotiation perspective.

In R. Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.),Intercultural communication competence(pp. 243-289).Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Trevino, J. G. (1996). Worldview and change in cross-cultural counseling.The Counseling Psy-chologist,24, 198-215.

Triandis, H. (1995).Individualism & collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.Weiner, B. (1986).An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-

Verlag.Wolcott, H. F. (1990).Writing up qualitative research: No. 20. Qualitative research methods

series. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.




Wood, P. S., & Mallinckrodt, B. (1990). Culturally sensitive assertiveness training for minorityclients.Professional Psychology Research and Practice, 21, 5-11.

Worthington, R. L., & Atkinson, D. R. (1996). Effects of perceived etiology attribution similar-ity on client ratings of counselor credibility.Journal of Counseling Psychology,43, 421-429.

Yamauchi, H. (1988). Effects of actors and observer’s roles in causal attribution by Japanese sub-jects for success and failure in competitive situations.Psychological Reports,63, 619-626.

Zuckerman, M. (1979). Attribution of success and failure revisited, or: The motivational bias isalive and well in attribution theory.Journal of Personality, 47, 245-287.




Documents

Causal Attributions for Problematic Family Interactions: A Qualitative, Cultural Comparison of Western Samoa, American Samoa, and the United States