• Home

  • Documents

  • The Pleasures and Pains of Distinct Seif-Construals:...
13
burns] of Personality and Social Psychology 2000, Vol. 78, No. 6. 1122—1134 Copyright 2000 by the American Ptyclsologicsl Association, Inc. 0022-3514/00/55.00 DO!: 10.10371/0022-3514.78.6.l 122 The Pleasures and Pains of Distinct Seif-Construals: The Role of Interdependence in Regulatory Focus Angela Y. Lee Northwestern University Jennifer L. Aaker Stanford University Wench L. Gardner Northwestern University Regulatory focus theory distinguishes between self-regulatory processes that focus on promotion and prevention strategies for goal pursuit. Five studies provide support for the hypothesis that these strategies differ for individuals with distinct self-construals. Specifically, individuals with a dominant independent seif-consirual were predicted to place more emphasis on promotion-focused information, and those with a dominant interdependent seif-construal on prevention-focused information. Support for this hypothesis was obtained for participants who scored high versus low on the Self-Construal Scale, participants who were presented with an independent versus interdependent situation, and participants from a Western versus Eastern culture. The influence of interdependence on regulatory focus was observed in both importance ratings of information and affective responses consistent with promotion or prevention focus. An immigrant mother was overhead saying to another parent while waiting to pick up their children: My daughter thinks going to school here is just wonderful! In Hong Kong, if my daughter were to score 9 out of 10 in her dictation, her teacher would reprimand her for missing the one word. But here, the teacher compliments her on knowing the 9. The system here is so different—they focus on what you do well, not on what you don’t The above scenario illustrates a profound difference in regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997) as seen through the lens of cultural differ- ences. Regulatory focus refers to the extension of the basic hedonic principle of approach and avoidance to allow for distinct self- regulatory strategies and needs. Specifically, self-regulation to- ward any specific goal may be focused on promotion, the pursuit of gains and aspiration toward ideals, or alternatively may be Angela Y. Lee, Marketing Department, J. L. Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University; Jennifer L. Aaker, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University; Wendi L. Gardner, Department of Psychology, Northwestern University. This research was supported by funds from the Kraft Chair at North- western University, the Center for International Business Education Re- search atthe University of California, Los Angeles, and National Institutes of Health Grant I R03 MH60115-01. We thank Itamar Sinionson and Brian Sterntbal for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this article, and Chi-wa Yuen for his assistance with data collection in Hong Kong. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Angela Y. Lee, Marketing Department, J. L. Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University, 2001 Sheridan Road, Evanston, fllinois 60208-2001. Electronic mail may he sent to [email protected], [email protected], or [email protected]. focused on prevention, the avoidance of losses, and the fulfillment of obligations. A burgeoning literature has demonstrated the im- pact of these distinct motivational patterns on the cognitive pro- cesses (Crowe & Higgins, 1997), emotional responses (Higgins, Shah, & Friedman, 1997), and behavioral strategies (Higgins et al., 1994) involved in self-regulation. A smaller literature has explored the antecedents of these dis- tinct self-regulatory patterns. Chronic differences in promotion versus prevention focus have been associated with socialization processes that emphasize ideal- versus ought-selves as well as styles of child—caretaker iifleraction (Higgins & Loeb, in press). Additionally, these regulatory patterns can be made temporarily accessible in situations that emphasize gains achieved or losses avoided (Crowe & Higgins, 1997). The current studies explore an additional possible antecedent of regulatory focus: the relative independence or interdependence of an individual’s currently accessible self-construal. Independent self-construals, common to members of Western cultures such as North America, define the individual in terms of attributes that make him or her separate and unique from others. Interdependent self-construals, on the other hand, common to members of East Asian and Latin American cultures, focus on the individual in the context of relationships and group memberships, fundamentally embedding the individual within a larger social whole (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1989). These distinct self views impact a broad range of social and cognitive processes and have primarily been explored through cross-cultural comparison (see Markus, Kitayama, & Heiman, 1996, for a review). Recent research exam- ining the situational accessibility of a relatively independent versus interdependent self, however, has shown that these two ways of viewing the self appear to coexist within every individual regard- less of culture, and when activated, appear to alter social percep- tion and behavior in ways that are highly consistent with the 1122

The Pleasures and Pains of Distinct Seif-Construals: …php.scripts.psu.edu/faculty/n/x/nxy906/COMPS...The primary goal of the interdependent self, in con-trast, is to maintain harmony

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    1

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: The Pleasures and Pains of Distinct Seif-Construals: …php.scripts.psu.edu/faculty/n/x/nxy906/COMPS...The primary goal of the interdependent self, in con-trast, is to maintain harmony

burns] of Personality and SocialPsychology2000, Vol. 78,No.6. 1122—1134

Copyright 2000by theAmerican PtyclsologicslAssociation, Inc.0022-3514/00/55.00DO!: 10.10371/0022-3514.78.6.l122

ThePleasuresandPainsof Distinct Seif-Construals:TheRole of Interdependencein RegulatoryFocus

AngelaY. LeeNorthwesternUniversity

JenniferL. AakerStanfordUniversity

Wench L. GardnerNorthwesternUniversity

Regulatoryfocus theory distinguishesbetweenself-regulatoryprocessesthat focuson promotion andpreventionstrategiesfor goalpursuit.Five studiesprovidesupportfor thehypothesisthat thesestrategiesdiffer for individualswith distinctself-construals.Specifically,individualswith adominantindependentseif-consirualwerepredictedto placemoreemphasison promotion-focusedinformation,andthosewithadominantinterdependentseif-construalonprevention-focusedinformation. Supportfor this hypothesiswasobtainedfor participantswhoscoredhigh versuslow on theSelf-ConstrualScale,participantswhowere presentedwith an independentversusinterdependentsituation,and participantsfrom aWesternversusEasternculture. The influence of interdependenceon regulatoryfocus wasobservedin bothimportanceratingsof informationandaffectiveresponsesconsistentwith promotionorpreventionfocus.

An immigrant motherwasoverheadsayingto anotherparentwhile waiting to pick up their children:

My daughterthinks going to school hereis justwonderful! In HongKong, if my daughterwereto score9 out of 10 in herdictation,herteacherwould reprimandher for missingtheoneword. But here,theteachercomplimentsher on knowing the9. The systemhereis sodifferent—theyfocuson whatyou do well, not on whatyou don’t

The abovescenarioillustratesaprofounddifferencein regulatoryfocus (Higgins, 1997)as seenthroughthe lens of cultural differ-ences.Regulatoryfocusrefersto theextensionof thebasichedonicprinciple of approachand avoidanceto allow for distinct self-regulatory strategiesand needs.Specifically, self-regulationto-wardany specificgoal maybefocusedonpromotion,thepursuitof gains and aspirationtoward ideals, or alternativelymay be

AngelaY. Lee, MarketingDepartment,J. L. Kellogg GraduateSchoolof Management,NorthwesternUniversity; JenniferL. Aaker, GraduateSchoolofBusiness,StanfordUniversity;WendiL. Gardner,DepartmentofPsychology,NorthwesternUniversity.

This researchwas supportedby fundsfrom theKraft Chairat North-westernUniversity, the Centerfor InternationalBusinessEducationRe-searchattheUniversityof California,LosAngeles,andNationalInstitutesofHealthGrantI R03MH60115-01.We thankItamarSinionsonandBrianSterntbalfor their helpful commentson an earlierversion of this article,andChi-waYuenfor his assistancewith datacollectionin HongKong.

Correspondenceconcerningthis article shouldbe addressedto AngelaY. Lee, Marketing Department,J. L. Kellogg Graduate School ofManagement,NorthwesternUniversity, 2001 SheridanRoad, Evanston,fllinois 60208-2001.Electronic mail may he sent to [email protected],[email protected],[email protected].

focusedon prevention,theavoidanceof losses,andthefulfillmentof obligations.A burgeoningliteraturehasdemonstratedthe im-pactof thesedistinctmotivationalpatternson the cognitive pro-cesses(Crowe& Higgins, 1997), emotional responses(Higgins,Shah,& Friedman,1997),andbehavioralstrategies(Higginsetal.,1994)involved in self-regulation.

A smaller literaturehasexploredtheantecedentsof thesedis-tinct self-regulatorypatterns.Chronic differencesin promotionversuspreventionfocus havebeenassociatedwith socializationprocessesthat emphasizeideal- versusought-selvesas well asstylesof child—caretakeriifleraction (Higgins & Loeb, in press).Additionally, theseregulatorypatternscan be madetemporarilyaccessiblein situationsthat emphasizegains achievedor lossesavoided(Crowe& Higgins, 1997).

Thecurrentstudiesexploreanadditionalpossibleantecedentofregulatoryfocus: therelativeindependenceor interdependenceofan individual’s currently accessibleself-construal. Independentself-construals,common to membersof WesternculturessuchasNorth America, define the individual in terms of attributesthatmakehim or her separateanduniquefrom others.Interdependentself-construals,on the otherhand,commonto membersof EastAsianandLatin Americancultures,focus on the individualin thecontext of relationshipsandgroupmemberships,fundamentallyembeddingtheindividual within a largersocialwhole(Markus&Kitayama,1991; Triandis,1989).Thesedistinctselfviewsimpactabroadrangeof socialandcognitiveprocessesandhaveprimarilybeenexplored through cross-culturalcomparison(see Markus,Kitayama,& Heiman,1996,for areview). Recentresearchexam-iningthesituationalaccessibilityof arelativelyindependentversusinterdependentself, however,hasshownthatthesetwo ways ofviewingthe selfappearto coexistwithin everyindividual regard-lessof culture, andwhenactivated,appearto altersocialpercep-tion and behavior in ways that are highly consistentwith the

1122

Page 2: The Pleasures and Pains of Distinct Seif-Construals: …php.scripts.psu.edu/faculty/n/x/nxy906/COMPS...The primary goal of the interdependent self, in con-trast, is to maintain harmony

INTERDEPENDENCEAND REGULATORYFOCUS 1123

cultural findings (Aaker & Williams, 1998; Brewer & Gardner,1996; Gardner,Gabriel, & Lee, 1999; Traflmow, Triandis, &Goto, 1991).

Importantly, regardlessof whetherchronically or situation-ally activated,thesealternativeways of construingtheselfarethoughtto both reflect andunderlayvery differentpsycholog-ical goals.Specifically,theprimarygoalof theindependentselfis seenas distinguishing oneselffrom others in a positivemanner.The primary goal of the interdependentself, in con-trast, is to maintainharmonywith othersin thesocialsetting(Heine, Lehman, Markus, & Kitayama, 1999). It is in theservice of thesediscretegoals that we believe distinct self-regulatorystrategieswould emerge.

Although any specificgoal maybe pursuedwith eitherapro-motionor preventionfocus,somegoalsaremore consistentwithoneor theother self-regulatorypattern.The independentgoalofbeingpositively distinct, with its emphasison achievementandautonomy,maybe rnoreconsistentwith a promotionfocus.Theindividual attemptingto positivelydistinguishhim- orherselffromothersmayfocus on the positivefeaturesof the selfandpotentialgalnsin situations,preciselythepatternfoundin numerousstudiesof self-enhancementthat have comparedmembersof Westerncultureswith their Easterncounterparts(Holmberg,Markus,Her-zog, & Franks, 1997). For example,American individuals arelikely to praisethosewho complimentthemwhilederogatingthosewho criticize them, uncritically acceptthe credibility of positivefeedbackwhile critically reviewingnegativefeedback,andelabo-rateonpositiveinformationabouttheselfwhileignoringnegativeinformation(Frey & Stahlberg,1986).

In contrast,in cultureswherea dominant interdependentselftendsto beencouraged,thesepositivity biasestend to be attenu-ated or reversed(Heine & Lehman, 1997; Kitayama, Markus,Matsumoto,& Norasakkunkit,1997). The interdependentgoalofharmoniouslyfitting in with others,with its emphasisonfulfillingvarioussocialroles andmaintainingconnectionswith others,maybemoreconsistentwith preventionfocus.Theindividual attempt-ing to maintainconnectionswith othersmay focus on fulfillingobligationsandavoidingmistakesandmayevenfocus on poten-tially negativeaspectsof theselfand situationsin an attempt toavoid future social mishap. Indeed, cross-culturalcomparisonsrevealthatmembersof Asianculturesappearto behighly attentiveto negativeinformationabouttheself. This sensitivityhasbeenputforth asalearningmechanismusedto improveone’s actionsbypossiblyenablingtheselfto besmoothlyembeddedwithin asocialcontextandimprove interpersonalrelations(Heine & Lehman,1999).Thatis, on thebasisof theidentificationof what is lackingin the self, stepsaretakento improveon thesedeficits to becomeabetter,moreunified partofthe relevantsocialunit (Kitayamaetal., 1997), atendencythatappearsto grow overtime asnurturedby socializationprocesses(Falbo, Poston,Triscari, & Zhang,1997).

Researchalsosuggeststhatsocializationprocessesthatencour-agetheindividual to regulatetowardone’sown standardsor thoseof othersmay reflect differencesin self-construal.Child-rearingpracticesin Japan,for example,aresaidto fosteranawarenessandconcernfor the needsand desiresof others(Hamaguchi,1985;Heineet al., 1999). Even in culturesthatcelebrateindependence,suchastheUnitedStates,socialdevelopmentoftenincludesplac-ing the child in situationswherehe or sheis encouragedto be a

“team-player”(Coaldey,1996), andmostparentsreportinstillingboth the valuesof achievementandthoseof cooperationin theirchildren (Homer, 1993). Wheneverthe individual is focusedonothers’ standards,whetheras a chronicfocus (e.g., East Asiancultures)or in certainsituations(e.g.,when playing on ateam),living up to responsibilitiescomesinto thefore, andtheought-selfmay be more prominent.For example,when the interdependentself is primed,Gardner,Pennington,andBessenoff(1999)showthatindividualsregulateto others’standards(bothidealandought)to a greaterdegree,andthat actual—oughtdiscrepanciesbecomeparticularlydistressing.Given the strongassociationbetweentheought-selfandpreventionfocus (Higgins & Tykocinski, 1992), itseemsplausible that when individuals view the self as moreinterdependent,theymay bemorekeenlyattunedtowardpreven-tion than promotion.

In sum, this streamof researchsuggeststhatindividuals with adominant independentself prefer to focus on positive versusnegativeinformationregardingthemselves,whereasthe converseis truefor individualswith adominantinterdependentself. More-over, the combinedresultsof this researchmay beeasilyreinter-pretedto reflect amoregeneralpromotion-orprevention-focusedstrategyof self-regulation.If true,such amechanismsuggestsamore fundamentalshift in how information may be perceivedamongthosewith distinct selfviews.

In the current research,we examinedhow self-construalmayinfluenceregulatoryfocus in more generaldomains.In five stud-ies,we investigatedthepossibilitythat individualswith adominantindependentself tend to exhibit abias towardpromotionfocus,weighting gain-framedinformation as more important, whereasthosewith adominantinterdependentself tend to exhibit abiastowardpreventionfocus, weighting loss-framedinformation asmoreimportant.Totestthis bias,weusedaframemanipulation—framing identicalscenarios(a game show in Study I, a tennismatchin Studies2—5) in ways thateitheremphasizethe potentialgains(promotionfocus) or the potentiallosses(preventionfocus)within the situation.Higgins andcolleagues(Crowe& Higgins,1997; Higgins,Roney,Crowe, & Hymes, 1994)found that indi-viduals who differ in chronicpromotionor preventionfocus con-sistentlydiffer in their responsesto thesetypesof framemanipu-lations, suchthat thosewith promotionconcernsare sensitivetopotentialgains,whereasthosewith preventionconcernsaresen-sitive to potentiallosses.

To examinetheextentto whichone’sview of theselfcan actas a moderatorof regulatoryfocus, we operationalizedself-construalin multiple ways. In Study1, we measuredindividualdifferencesalongtheSelf-ConstrualScale(Singelis,1994)in aNorthAmericansample.In Study2, we examinedself-construalthrough a situational manipulation involving individual andteamevents.Finally, in Studies3—5, we examinedthe interac-tion of the situational manipulationsof event type with thechronicself-construalby comparingtheresponsesof membersof North American and East Asian cultures. By presentingconvergentevidenceacrossthe five studies,we eliminatepo-tential confoundingexplanationsthat may be associatedwithcultural differencesalone(Segall,Dasen,Berry, & Poortinga,1990), therebyproviding aclearer picture of the role of self-construalin regulatoryfocus.

Page 3: The Pleasures and Pains of Distinct Seif-Construals: …php.scripts.psu.edu/faculty/n/x/nxy906/COMPS...The primary goal of the interdependent self, in con-trast, is to maintain harmony

1124 LEE, AAKER, AND GARDNER

Study1

OverviewandDesign

In Study 1, we examinedtheevaluationsof scenariosportrayedin apromotionversuspreventionframe(Crowe& Higgins,1997).We measuredchronicdifferencesin self-construal(Singelis,1994)andpredictedan interactionbetweenself-construalandthepro-motion versuspreventionframe. Individuals with a dominantindependentself-consirualshould be biased toward promotionframing,regardingpromotion-framedinformationasmoreimpor-tant, whereasindividuals with adominantinterdependentview ofself should perceiveprevention-framedinformation as moreim-portant.Thus, a 2 (frame: promotionvs. prevention)X 2 (self-construal: independentvs. interdependent)between-subjectsde-sign wasused.

Method

Participants. Ninetyundergraduatestudents(meanage= 20.62years;51%women,49%men) ft-nmalargemidwesternuniversity in theUnitedStateswererecruitedfor the study.

Procedure. Participantswereaskedto imaginethefollowing: “linag-meyou areplayingin agameshowandso faryouhaveclaimed$1200inprizes.Youhavejustplayedthefourthroundandlost.Now thegameshowhost presentsyou with two options.” Half of theparticipantswerethenexposedto promotion-framedinformationemphasizingpotentialgains:

If youpick AlternativeA, you will keep$400 worthof theprizes.Ifyou pickAlternativeB, thereis a2/3 probabilitythatyouwill not winany of the$1200 worth of prizes anda1/3 probabilitythat you willwin all $1200worthof prizes.

The remaininghalf wereexposedto prevention-framedinformation em-phasizingpotential losses:

If you pick AlternativeA, you will haveto give up $800 worthofprizes.If you pick AlternativeB, thereis a 2/3 probability that youwill loseall $1200worthof prizes,anda1/3 probabilitythat youwillnot lose anyof the $1200worthof prizes.

All participantswerethenaskedto rate on 7-point scalesthe extenttowhichthescenariosdescribedwereimportant(1 = veryunimportant,7 =

veryimportant)andcritical (1 = not at all, 7 = very) intendedto assesssensitivity towardpotential gainsversuspotentiallosses.They alsowereaskedto ratehowbad—goodandunfavorable—favorablethescenarioswereon 7-point scales(1 = verybo4 unfavorable,7 = verygood, favorable).In addition, they completeda seriesof ancillary measuresthat includeddemographicinformationandtheSeIf-ConstrualScale.

ResultsandDiscussion

The datawere analyzed on the basis of a 2 (frame) )< 2(self-construal)between-subjectsanalysisof variance(ANOVA).iA mediansplit wasperformedon the Self-ConslrualScale suchthat half of the participantswere coded as havinga dominantindependentself (i.e., high independentandlow interdependentself-construal;M 5.43).Theremaininghalfwascodedashavinga dominant interdependentself (i.e., low independentandhighinterdependentself-construal;M = 4.63;F(l, 88) = 113.93,p <.00l),2

The key hypothesisconcerneddifferential perceptionsof theimportanceof thesituation asafunctionof both its frameandthe

self-construalof theperceiver.Importanceandcriticalitemswereaveragedto createan ImportanceIndex (r = .80) thatwasthenanalyzedwith a 2 (frame)X 2 (seif-construal)ANOVA. Neithermain effect was significant; the critical interactionemergedaspredicted,F(l, 86)= 9.T3,p< .005.Subsequentcontrastsshowedthat individuals with a dominant independentself perceivedpromotion-framedscenarios(M = 4.63)to bemoreimportantthanprevention-framedscenarios(M = 3.80),F(1, 86) = 3.98,p < .05.In contrast,thosewith .a dominantinterdependentselfperceivedprevention-focusedscenarios(M = 4.46) to be more importantthanpromotionfocusedscenarios(M = 3.45),F(l, 86) 5.90,p < .05.

To ensurethat the importancedifferenceswerenot driven byvariationsin perceivedfavorability (wherebythe promotion- vs.prevention-framedscenariosmaybeperceiveddifferentlyin termsof valenceby individualswith distinct self-views),we examinedthe favorability ratings (where good and favorableitems wereaveragedto createa Favorability Index; r = .72). A 2 )< 2ANOVA revealedonly a main effect for frame: The scenariopresentedin thepromotionframewasseenasmorefavorablethanthatpresentedin thepreventionframe(Ms = 4.58 vs. 3.74),F(l,86) = llA3,p < .001.Theseresultsindicatethatindependentandinterdependentself-viewsareaccompaniedby differencesin reg-ulatory focusthatshift theperceivedweightor importancegiventopotentialgains or lossesasafunction of theseself-views,ratherthanthepotential likelihood or favorabilityof the outcome.Thispatternis consistentwith thepredictionsof theroleof regulatoryfocusin ExpectancyX Valuemodelsof decisionmaking(Higgins,1997).That is, regulatoryfocus is thoughtto shift theimportanceor valueof anoutcome,withoutnecessarilyalteringtheperceivedexpectancy,or likelihood of success.

Sex was also enteredas a variablein all analyses.Thereis someevidencethatwomenmaybemoreinterdependentthanmen(e.g.,Cross&Madson,1997).However,recentworkhasshownthat menandwomenaremoreoftenequallyinterdependentbut expressit throughdifferentdomains.Specifically, womenhavebeenfound to focus more often on relationalaspectsof interdependencewhereasmenhavebeenfoundto focusmoreoften oncollectiveaspectsof interdependence(Gabriel& Gardner,1999).Most measuresof interdependencedo not distinguishbetweentheseas-pects.Consistentwith this, the effect of sex was not significant on theSelf-ConstrualScale(F K 1). Becausesmall groupssuchastheteamsthatwe usedin our scenariosmay bejudgedasopportunitiesto expresseithercommonbondsor largercollective identities(Prentice,Miller, & Light-dale, 1994), we would not expect largeor consistentsex differences.Indeed,althoughourdatain threeof thefive studiesshowedimportanceratings consistentwith the notion that malesaremore independentandfemalesare moreinterdependent,we did not observeany sex effects inStudy 4 and observeda reversal (e.g., men more interdependentthanwomen)in Study 1. In all casesthesexeffectsweresmall in sizeandonlyreachsignificancein Study 3.2Themediansplit of theSeIf-ConstrualScaledid not resultin genderdifferencesbetweenthe two groups, xNI, N = 90) = .18, p > .60.However,the two groupsdiffered in theaverageageof theparticipants(Ms = 20.8vs. 20.4),F(l, 88) 4.l9,p K .05. This differenceis dueto 2participants,age23 and27, in thehigh-independencegroupand 1 partic-ipant,age19, in thelow-independencegroup.Whenthesethreeoutiiers areexcludedfromtheanalysis,thetwogroupsareno longerdifferentin termsof age (Ms = 20.5 vs. 20.6), F(l, 85) = 1.92, p > .10, and all resultsremainedunchanged.

Page 4: The Pleasures and Pains of Distinct Seif-Construals: …php.scripts.psu.edu/faculty/n/x/nxy906/COMPS...The primary goal of the interdependent self, in con-trast, is to maintain harmony

Th~TERDEPENDENCEAND REGULATORY FOCUS 1125

Theresultsof Study 1 appearedpromising;as predicted,indi-viduals who differed on theSingelis (1994)Self-ConstrualScalealsodiffered in their importanceperceptionsof promotion-versusprevention-framedscenarios.In Study 2, we wishedto replicatethis effectby examiningthe independentandinterdependentselfnot asanindividual difference,but asamalleableconstructwithinthe individual in whichindependenceor interdependenceis mademoreaccessibleby a situationalmanipulation.If self-construalisindeed driving the differencesfound in Study 1, a significantinteractionbetweenpromotionor preventionframeandsituation-ally activatedself-construalshould occur. Further,we createdanew context in which to manipulatepromotion and preventionfocus,and includedmeasuresof self-focusedand other-focusedthoughts to determinewhethera shift in regulatoryfocus frompromotionto preventionis associatedwith anincreasein concernfor others.

Study 2

OverviewandDesign

To replicateandextendtheresultsof Study 1, we againexam-ined self-construalas amoderatorof regulatoryfocus,but hereself-construalwasmanipulated.Researchconductedby Trafimowet al. (1991), for example,showeda strikingly similar patternofresults when a priming task was used to operationalizeself-construalas when country status was used (see also Aaker &Williams, 1998; Gardner& Gabriel, 1999; Gardner,Gabriel, &Lee, 1999; Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martfnez,in press,forrelatedmanipulations).We thereforemanipulatedself-construalbypresentingparticipantseitherwith aneventthat involvedanindi-vidualworkingtowardanindividual goalor onethatinvolvedanindividualworkingtowardagroupgoal.In addition,eachof theseevents was presentedin a promotion-focusedor prevention-focusedframe. Thus, a 2 (frame:promotionvs. prevention)X 2(event type: individual vs. team) between-subjectsdesign wasused.

Method

Participants. Seventy-twoundergraduatestudents(meanage 19.45years;47% women,53% men) wererecntitedfrom a large Califomiauniversity to participatein a study that they were told concernedanadvertisingcampaignfor anewtennisracquet.

Procedure. Participantswereaskedto imagineaspecific scenarioandanswerasetof follow-up questions.Halfof theparticipantswereexposedto theindividualevent,“Someoneis playingin atenulstournamentandhasmade it to the finals. If they win this last match, they will win thechampionshiptitle aswell asahugetrophy.”Theotherhalfwereexposedto theinterdependentteamevent, “Someone’steamis playingin a tennistournamentandhasmadeit to thefinals. They arerepresentingtheir teamin thefinals. If they win this lastmatch,their teamwill win thechampi-onshiptitle aswell asahugetrophy.”

Promotionorpreventionfocuswasagainmanipulatedby languagethatemphasizedpotential gainsversuslosses,i.e., using the word “win~~ or“lose.” For example,participantsin the individual event prevention-focusedcondition read, “Someoneis playing in a tennis toumamentandhasmadeit to the finals. If they losethis lastmatch, they will losethechampionshiptitle aswell asahugetrophy,”while participantsin theteameventprevention-focusedcondition read, “Someone’steamis playingin atennistoumamentandhasmadeit to thefinals.They arerepresentingtheir

team in the finals. If they lose this lastmatch, their teamwill lose thechampionshiptitie as well as ahugetrophy.”

Participantswerethenaskedto describethesituationfrom theperspec-tive ofthepersoninvolved.As in Study 1,participantsratedtheimportance(2-item scale, r = .85) and favorability.(2-item scale, r = .95) of thescenarioon 7-point scales.They also completedmeasuresof focus ofattention: Participantswere askedto indicate, using 7-point scales,theextentto whichthe scenariomadeonethink of oneself(“Pleasedescribetheextentto which thesituationmakesthat personthink abouthimselforherself,” and “Pleasedescribethe extentto which someonemight thinkabouthimself or herself when faced with the situation”; Self ThoughtIndex, r = .78), andtheextentto whichthesituation madeonethink ofothers(“Pleasedescribetheextentto whichthesituationmakesthepersonthinkabouthis orherteammates,”and“Pleasedescribetheextentto whichthe personmight think abouthis or her teammateswhen facedwith thesituation”; OthersThoughtIndex,r = .89). Demographicinformationandratings on theSeif-ConstrualScalewerealso collected.

ResultsandDiscussion

Theresultsof a2 (frame: promotionvs. prevention)X 2 (eventtype: individual vs. team) ANOVA on the importancevariableyielded neitheramain effectof eventtype nor frame(Fs < 1).However,as predicted,the EventType X Frameinteractionwassignificant,F( 1,68) = 4.89,p < .05.Subsequentcontrastsshowedthat participants in the individual event rated the promotion-framed scenario(M = 6.62) to be more important than theprevention-framedscenario(M = 5.97),F(1, 68) = 3.88,p < .05.Furthermore,theprevention-framedscenariobecamemoreimpor-tantin the teamevent(M = 6.69) relativeto theindividual event(M = 5.90),F(l, 86) = 4.88,p < .05. However,this increaseinimportanceof the prevention-framedscenariodid not surpasstheimportanceweighting of the promotion-framedscenario in theteam event condition: Participantsrated the prevention-framedscenario(M = 6.69) just as important as thepromotion-framedscenario(M = 6.31),F(1, 68) = 1.32,p > .20 (seeFigure 1).

We nextexaminedfavorabilityratings.Asin Study1, framehada significanteffect on perceptionsof favorability: The promotion(M = 6.00)versusprevention(M = 4.21) scenariowasseenasmorefavorable,F(1, 68) = 40.03,p < .001. In addition,amaineffect for eventtypeemergedrevealingthat theindividual event(M = 5.53) was seenas more favorablethan the teamevent(M = 4.65),F(1, 68) = 10.44,p < .01. However,theinteractionwasnot significant, F(l, 68) = 1.03, p > .30. Thus, similar toStudy I findings, theshift in regulatoryfocuswasseenwithout acorrespondingshift in favorability ratings.

To provideinsight into theextentto whichthesedifferencesinregulatoryfocus may be associatedwith shifts in the amountofattention paid to one’s own or others’ standards,a 2 (frame:promotion vs. prevention) X 2 (event type: individual vs.team) )< 2 (thoughttype: selfvs. other)ANOVA, with thoughttypeas arepeatedmeasure,wasperformedon theattentiondata.TheANOVA revealedamaineffectfor thoughttype.Thepersondescribedin thescenariowasmore likely to bethinking abouttheself(M = 6.14) than aboutothers(M = 5.60),F(1, 68) = 7.93,p < .01, aneffect thatwasqualifiedby the anticipatedinteractionwith eventtype, F(l, 68) = 9.20,p < .005. Participantsindicatedthatwhile thepersondescribedwould think aboutthe self to thesame extent in both the individual (M = 6.07) and team(M = 6.21) events(F < 1), thepersonwould think aboutothers

Page 5: The Pleasures and Pains of Distinct Seif-Construals: …php.scripts.psu.edu/faculty/n/x/nxy906/COMPS...The primary goal of the interdependent self, in con-trast, is to maintain harmony

LEE, AAKER, AND GARDNER1126

U Prormtionfocused0Preventionfocused

6.8 -

6.6 -

6.4-U)

0)

l~ 6.2-

ci)0

~ 6.0-C0.2

5.8-

5.6

5.4

IndMdualEvent Teaa,~Event

Figure J. Study2: Importanceratingsasa functionof regniaturyframeandevent.

morein the teamevent(M = 6.11) than in the individual event(M 5.08),F(l, 68) = 15.65,p < .001 (seeFigure 2). Thesefindings provideevidencethat the interdependenteventmanipu-lation wassuccessfulin shifting attentiontowardothers.Thefactthatattentionto the self is high in both independentandinterde-pendentconditions is not particularly surprising. Indeed,AakerandWilliams (1998)found thatwhenAmericanindividuals wereencouragedto self-reference(e.g., using persuasionappealsthatfocusedon theword you),thenumberof self-focusedthoughtswasgreaterthan other-focusedthoughts.However,when individualswereencouragedto other-reference(e.g., using appealswith thewordsfamily or friends), the numberof other-focusedthoughtsroseto equalself-focusedthoughts.Relatedly,Gardner,Penning-ton,andBessenoff(1999)showedthatwhenaninterdependentselfwasprimed,others’ standardsincreasedin importanceto thelevelof one’s own standards.One’s own standards,on the otherhand,remainedequallyimportantregardlessof self-construal.Similarly,ratherthanencouragingparticipantsto focus on others(e.g., theirteammates)to the neglectof the self, theinterdependentevent inthecurrentstudy appearsto encouragethe participantto construethe self in thecontextof others;concernsfor othersthus gain inimportanceto rival, but not overpower,concernsfor theself.

Findings from Study 2 provide convergentevidencethat therelativeindependenceor interdependenceof theselfmayinfluenceregulatoryfocus.Thoseindividuals who were consideringan in-dependenteventjudgedthe scenariothat emphasizedpotentialgainsasmoreimportant.In contrast,prevention-focusedscenarioswerejudgedto bemoreir~portantin aninterdependentteamevent;theinstantiationof aninterdependentgoal thus appearedto make

loss avoidancemore critical. Finally, theevidencethat the inter-dependenteventalso increasedattentionto others’ thoughtsandconcernsimplies that thesedifferencesmay be due, in part, todifferentialregulationto one’sown or others’ standards.

The similarity of the patternof resultsin Studies 1 and 2providessupportfor the notion thatseif-construaldrivesthe reg-ulatory focuseffects,regardlessof whethertheconstrualis chron-ically or situationallyaccessible.However,althou~ghthesensitivitytowardapromotionfocusis influencedby atemporarilyaccessibleinterdependentself, the prevention-framedscenariowasnot per-ceivedto bemoreimportantthan thepromotion-framedscenario.Thus, to furtherexamineself-construal,aswell as to exploretheinterplay betweenchronic and situational self-construaldiffer-ences,we ran a setof studiesthat comparedparticipantswhosechronically accessibleself-construaldifferedbecauseof culturalsocialization.We examinedimportanceratingsto promotion-andprevention-framedindividual andteameventsby membersof bothNorth American and East Asian cultures. We expectedthatpromotion-framedscenarioswould be perceivedto be more im-portantthan prevention-framedscenariosby participantsin theNorthAmerican culturepresentedwith an independentsituation,andthe reversepatternwould be observedamongparticipantsinan EastAsianculturefacedwith aninterdependentsituation.

Study3

OverviewandDesign

Theobjectiveof Study3wasto further testtherobustnessof theresultsby examiningthe importanceperceptionsof individualswhosechronically accessibleselfmay beindependentor interde-pendent.In addition, we examinedthe malleability of the selfwithin the two cultures by presentingour participantswith a

U Pmmotion focused0 PreventIon focused

a

0

I-

0

ci,

u.J

Self Thoughts Other Thoughts Self Thoughts Other Thoughts

tndMdual Event Team Event

Figure 2. Study 2: Attentionfocusedon theselfandothersasafunctionof regulatoryframe and event.

7

Page 6: The Pleasures and Pains of Distinct Seif-Construals: …php.scripts.psu.edu/faculty/n/x/nxy906/COMPS...The primary goal of the interdependent self, in con-trast, is to maintain harmony

INTERDEPENDENCEAND REGULATORYFOCUS 1127

situation that is either consistentor inconsistentwith the chroni-cally accessibleself. Therefore,a2 (culture: NorthAmericanvs.EastAsian) X 2 (frame: promotionvs. prevention)X 2 (eventtype: Individual vs. team) between-subjectsdesign was ixsed.Frameandevent type were manipulatedas in Study 2, whereasculturewasoperationalizedquasi-experimentallythroughcountrystatus.The United StatesandChinawere selectedbecause,al-though they vary on the individualism—collectivism dimensionassociatedwith self-construaldifferences,participantswho pos-sesshigh levelsof Englishcomprehensionskills could be identi-fied in both countries, thereby minimizing potential problemsarisingfrom stimuli translation.To enhancethesimilarity of theparticipantprofile, participantswererecruitedfromundergraduateprogramsin major universities in the United StatesandHongKong (cf. Aaker& Maheswaran,1997).

Method

Pariczpants. Ninety.eightundergraduatestudentsfrom a largeCali-fornia university (meanage = 19.84years;41% women,59% men) andonehundredseventeenUniversityof HongKong undergraduatestudents(meanage = 19.26 years;56% women,44% men) participatedin thisstudy.3

Procedure. A similar coverstoryandprocedureasin Study 2wasusedwith oneminorchangein thestimuli:We increasedthepersonalrelevanceof the scenarioby askingparticipantsto imaginethemselvesin thesitua-tion. Specifically,participantswereaskedto imaginethatthey wereplay-ing in atennistoumamentandhadmadeit to thefinals.Forinstance,thosein an individual eventcondition read. “You areplaying in atennis tour-nament . Participantsthen answeredtheimportanceand favorabilityquestions,theself- andother-focusedthoughtmeasures,anddemographicinformation.

ResultsandDiscussion

The results of a 2 (culture) X 2 (frame) X 2 (event type)ANOVA on theImportanceIndex(r = .92) yieldedinsignificantmain effects for culture, F(l, 207) 1.55, p > .20, andframe

• (F < I). However,theeventtypemaineffectwassignificant,F(l,207) 22.14,p < .001; the teamevent(M = 5.84)wasconsid-eredto bemore important thanthe individual event (M = 4.94).More importantly, theEventType X Frameinteractionwassig-nificant, F(l, 207) = 10.72,p < .001, replicatingthe resultsinStudy2. As displayedin Figure 3, apromotion-focusedscenario(M = 5.19)wasratedasmoreimportantthanaprevention-focusedscenario(M 4.68),F(l, 207)= 3.48~p = .05, for anindividualevent.Forateamevent,in contrast,aprevention-focusedscenario(M = 6.15) was consideredto be more important than apromotion-focusedscenario (M = 5.47), F(l, 207) = 6.81,p < .01.

Finally, amarginalCulture X EventType X Frameinteractionwas observed,F(l, 207) = 3.13,p = .07. An examinationof theinteractionof event type and framewithin eachculturerevealedthefollowing: AmongthoseAmericanparticipantswhosechronicand situationalself-construalwere consistent(i.e., Americanpar-ticipantsin anindividual event),the scenariothatwaspromotionfocused(M = 5.52) wasindeeddeemedmoreimportantthanonethatwaspreventionfocused(M = 4.50),F(l, 94) = 4.39,p < .05.However,whentheAmericanparticipantswereexposedto ateamevent,the prevention-focusedscenariobecamemarginallymore

• Promotionfocused0 Prevention focused:

U)0)

a)C.)Cccit00~E

Individual Event Team Event Individual Event Team Event

American Participants Chinese Participants

Figure3. Study 3: Importanceratingsasafunction of regulatoryframeandeventacrosstwo cultures.

important (M = 6.45) than the promotion-focusedscenario(M = 5.55),F(l, 94) = 3.21,p = .07.ReplicatingourresultsinStudy2, the relativeimportancethat participantsplacedon poten-tial lossesversusgainsshiftedwhen theseparticipantswerefacedwith aninterdependentevent.Among theChineseparticipantsinthe construalconsistentcondition (i.e., Chineseparticipantsin ateamevent),the scenariothatwaspreventionfocused(M = 5.93)wasconsideredtobe moreimportantthanonethat waspromotionfocusedCM = 5.40), F(l, 113) = 4.51,p < .05. However, theimportanceof theprevention-focusedscenarioshifted whentheseparticipantswerefacedwith anindividual event(M = 4.85), F(l,113) = 8.19,p < .005.To Chineseparticipantsin anindependentsituation, whetherthe scenariowasportrayedwith a promotion(M = 4.89) or preventionframe(M = 4.85) did not make adifference(F < 1).

In sum, thedatasuggestthat theeffectof theselfthatis rootedin cultural norms andvalueson importanceweighting may be

~In Studies3—5, we rely on studentsin Hong Kongwho tend to beenculturatedinto Anglo-Americanforms of sociality (seeHonget al., inpress).Therefore, the chanceof finding predicteddifferencesmay beminimized.Toensurethat therewasenoughvarianceon theself-construaldimensionsandto feelmoreconfidentthatpotentialconfoundingvariablesassociatedwith countrystatuswerenot driving theresults,thescoresof theChineseversusAmericanindividuals on the31-itemSelf-ConstmalScalewas assessedin Studies3 and4. Theresults of a seriesof ANOVAsconsistentlyyieldedasignificantmaineffectof culture(ps < .01), whereAmerican participantswere more independentand less interdependent(averageM = 5.24) thantheirEastAsiancounterparts(averageM = 4.46),consistentwith pastfindings (e.g.,Aaker, 2000).

Page 7: The Pleasures and Pains of Distinct Seif-Construals: …php.scripts.psu.edu/faculty/n/x/nxy906/COMPS...The primary goal of the interdependent self, in con-trast, is to maintain harmony

1128 LEE, AAKER, AND GARDNER

moderatedby situationsthatmakethesecondarydimensionof theself more accessible.In the case of Chineseparticipants, thesituational activation of the seif-construaloppositeto that pro-motedin theculturehadthepowerto eliminatethe effect;andinthe caseof Americanparticipants,it reversedthe effect.

Next, we ran a 2 (culture) X 2 (frame) X 2 (event type)between-subjectsANOVA on the Favorability Index (r = .93).Replicatingthe findingsof Studies1 and2,amaineffectof framewasfound; thepromotion-focused(M = 5.25)versusprevention-focused(M = 4.31) scenariowas seenas more favorable,F(l,207) = 29.93,p <C .001. The only other significanteffect was amain effectof culture.Americansconsideredboth scenariosto bemore favorable (M = 5.12) than did their Chinesecounterparts(M = 4.57),F(1,207) = 9.81,p<C .005,aneffectthat is consistentwith researchfindings showing a pervasive optimistic bias inWesternculturesthatis attenuatedin EastAsiancultures(Heine&Lehman,1995).

Theresultsof Study2 impliedthattheshift in theimportanceofpromotion-orprevention-focusedinformationwasassociatedwithshifts in theamountof attentiontheindividual waspayingto ownor others’standards.To examinewhetherthiseffectwasreplicatedacrosscultures,a2 (culture) X 2 (frame) X 2 (event type) X 2(thought type)ANOVA, with thoughttypeas arepeatedmeasure,wasperformed.Similar to the findings of Study 2, a significantmain effectof thoughttype wasfound;thereweremore self- thanother-focusedthoughts(M = 5.00vs.4.70),F(1, 207)= 6.02,p <C.05. Onceagain,this main effectwasqualifiedby theinteractionwith event type, F(1, 207) 18.36,p <C .001. Although self-focusedthoughtsdid notdifferbetweentheindividual (M = 4.94)and teamevent (M = 5.01),F <C 1, participantsthoughtmoreaboutothersin theteamevent(M = 5.20)thanin theindividualeventcondition (M = 4.13),F(l, 207) = 37.18,p <C .001. Thistwo-wayinteractionmirrorstheresultsfoundin Study2, suggest-ing that the independenteventmanipulationindeedenhancestheextentto which attentionis paid to theselfrelativeto others.Incontrast,the interdependenteventmanipulationenhancestheex-tent to whichthe focusof attentionincludesothers.

In addition, the Culture X ThoughtTypeinteractionwasmar-ginally significant, F(1, 207) = 2.82,p .09. Americanpartici-pantshad more thoughts aboutthe self (M = 5.17) than aboutothers(M = 4.63),F(l, 94) = 6.53,p .01. However,Chineseparticipantsthoughtaboutothers(M 4.75)to thesameextentastheythoughtabouttheself(M 4.82),F <C 1, apatternthatnicelymirrors the eventtype results.

Finally, theThoughtType X EventType X Culture interactionwas also significant, F(1, 207) = 6.03, p <C .05. Subsequentanalysesshowedasignificanteffect of cultureon thoughtsaboutthe individual. American participantshad more self thoughts(M = 5.17) than Chinese participants (M = 4.82), F(1,207) = 3.20, p <C .05, an effect that was robustacross bothindividual andteameventconditions(F <C 1). However,Chineseparticipantshadmore thoughtsaboutothers(M = 4.47)thandidAmericanparticipants(M 3.78) only in the individual eventcondition,F(1,207) = 6.64,p <C .01. In theteameventcondition,Americanparticipantshadmorethoughtsaboutothers(M = 5.51)thandid their Chinesecounterparts(M = 4.97),F(1, 207) 4.40,p <C .05.

Thesedatadescribingtheextentto whichtheindividualis likelyto think of theselfrelativeto otherssuggestthat both theculture

and eventtype influenceaccessibleself-construals.In a contextthat involves only the individual, American participantsthinkabout the self more than they would think about others. Bycontrast,Chineseparticipantswho presumablythink aboutothersin a more chronically embeddedfashion, report thinking aboutothersto the sameextentas they would about the self in thiscontext. However, in situations in which othersare involved,Americanparticipants’ thoughtsaboutothersincrease.It is inter-estingto notethat this, wasnot the casewith the Chinesepartici-pants.It appearsthat for thosewith an Easterncultural back-ground,thethoughtsof othersareactivatedin tandemwith thoseaboutthe self. This interpretationis consistentwith the premisethatthe selfin Easternculturesis fundamentallyintertwinedwithothers(e.g., Aaker & Maheswaran,1997), andthus informationandthoughtsaboutothersmaybecomeactivatedas a functionofself-activation(e.g., Gardner,Gabriel,& Lee, 1999).

Takenin combination,theresultssuggestthatpromotionversuspreventionfocusis indeedinfluencedby self-construalthatmaybechronically accessibleor situationally activated. Potential gainswereseenasmore importantin comparisonto potentiallossesforindividuals with an independentview of the self, whereastheconversewastruefor thosewith aninterdependentview.Althoughtheseeffectswere strongestwhenthe chronicselfwasconsistentwith thesituationalself, it is importantto notethatashift in theeffects occurredwhen the culturally inconsistentself wasmadetemporarilyaccessible.Theseresultsprovide convergentevidencethat the relative importance of promotion- versus prevention-framedinformationhingesin parton how the self is construed.

Sofar, wehaveassumedthattheasymmetricimportanceratingsare a function of different motivations,where independentandinterdependentself-construalsvary in their foci for achievement:theneedto achievesuccess(for independents)or theneedto avoidfailure (for interdependents).4However, moredirect support forthis explanationwould be obtainedif independentsfind the sce-narioof successforegone(i.e., “not winning”) to be moreimpor-tant than a scenarioof failure avoidance(i.e., “not losing”),whereasinterdependentsfind afailure avoidancesituation to bemore important than one that describesforegone success.Byplacingtheoutcomesin termsof negation(i.e.,apotentialgainlostvs. a potential loss averted),in contrastto the prior studies,thematchbetweenself-construalandregulatoryfocus maybe testedmoredirectly. Additionally, as negatedinformation tendsto bemilder and more indirect than nonnegatedinformation (Yeh,1996),thedifferencein perceivedfavorabilitybetweenthenegated

4Thereis at leastone other potential explanationfor a shift towardpreventionfocusin interdependentcontexts:adecreasedconfidenceof asuccessfuloutcomewhenoneis involvedin agroupcontext,relativeto acontextwhereoneis alone.Thatis, thepresumedprobabilityof anegativeoutcome(e.g., failure)maybehigherin aninterdependentcontextrelativeto an independentcontext. To examinethis possibility, participantsinStudy 2 were askedto indicatewhatthe outcomeof the lastmatchwaslikely to be (1 = most likely will lose,7 = mostlikelywill win), aquestionthat followed the focusof attentionmeasures.A 2 X 2 X 2 ANOVAshowedthat theonly significanteffect wasamain effectof frame,wherethelikelihood of winning washigherin thepromotionframe(M = 5.51)relativeto thepreventionframe(M = 4.76),F(l, 68) = 6.68,p <C .05. Theabsenceof anyother significanteffect suggeststhat it is not amatterofpotentialfailurebeingmoreimminent,arguingagainstthis interpretation.

Page 8: The Pleasures and Pains of Distinct Seif-Construals: …php.scripts.psu.edu/faculty/n/x/nxy906/COMPS...The primary goal of the interdependent self, in con-trast, is to maintain harmony

INTERDEPENDENCEAND REGULATORYFOCUS 1129

negative (e.g., “not lose”) versusnegatedpositive information(e.g., “not win”) shouldbe muted.Therefore,greaterconfidencethattheresultsarenot associatedwith shifts in perceivedfavor-ability may be gained.

Study 4

Overviewand Design

Theobjective of Study 4 was to examinewhetheran explicitthreatof notwinning versusalureof avoidingfailure mayhaveadifferentimpacton theindependentselfversustheinterdependentself. If indeeda shift in regulatoryfocus occurs asa functionofself-construe],athreatof not winning shouldbe consideredmoreimportantthanavoidingfailure for thosewith anindependentself.Conversely,thenotion of not losing should havegreaterimpactthan athreatof not winning for thosewith aninterdependentself.Thesedifferencesshould beseparatefrom any differencesin theperceivedfavorability of the information. Using negationthusallowsthe differential importanceeffects(hypothesizedto resultfrom self-construalconsistentregulatoryfocus) and favorabilityeffects(hypothesizedto simply haveresultedfrom a framethatmade a loss more salient) to be further untangled.Thus, a 2(culture: North Americanvs. EastAsian) X 2 (frame: foregonesuccessvs.failureavoidance))< 2 (eventtype:individualvs. team)between-subjectsdesignwasused.

Method

Participants. A total of 65 undergraduatestudentsfrom alargeCall-fontiauniversity(meanage= 23.48 years;58% women,42% men)and83University of Hong Kong undergraduatestudents(meanage = 19.92years;60% women,40% men)participated.

Procedure. A similar procedureas in Study 3 was used, with onechangein the stimull wherethevalencedinformation wasnegated.Forexample,insteadof reading”... if youwin [lose]this lastmatch,youwillwin (lose]thechampionshiptitle ...,“ participantsin thisexperimentread..... if you don’t win (lose] this last match, you Won’t win (lose) thechampionshiptitle Thus,theforegonesuccessconditionswerecom-posedof thenegationof the positive information (“If you don’t win”),whereasthefailureavoidanceconditionswerecomposedof thenegationof

thenegativeinformation(“If youdon’tlose”).Thesamesetof changeswasmadefor theteameventconditions.After theimportanceandfavombilityratings,participantscompletedthoughttypemeasures,demographicinfor-mation, andtheSelf-ConstrualScale.

ResultsandDiscussion

Totestthehypotheses,a2 X 2 X 2between-subjectsANOVAon the ImportanceIndex (r = .85) wasrun. First,amain effectofculture emerged:American participantsrated the scenariosasmore important (M = 5.85) than did Chinese participants(M = 4.93),F(l, 140) = 24.33,p <C .001.Consistentwith Study3findings, theeffectof eventtypewasreplicated,with theinterde-pendentevent(M = 5.56)beingconsideredto bemore importantthantheindependentevent(M = 5.12),F(l, 140) = 3.9S,p<C .05.Moreover, a significantCulture X EventType interaction,F(l,140) = 9.91,p <C .005, revealedthatChineseparticipantsratedtheinterdependentevent (M = 5.45) as more important than theindependentevent(M = 4.45),F(l, 140) = 17.74,p <C .001, aneffect that did not occurfor the Americanparticipants(F <C 1).

Central to our hypotheses,theEventType >( Frameinteractionwas significant,FCI, 140) = 9.92, p <C .005. Participantsin theindependenteventratedthe success-foregonescenario(M = 5.40)asmoreimportantthanthefailure-avoidancescenario(M = 4.79),F(l, 140) = 6.27,p <C .01. In contrast,participantsin the inter-dependenteventratedthe failure-avoidancescenario(M = 5.78)asmoreimportantthanthesuccess-foregonescenario(M = 5.27),F(l, 140) = 3.86, p <C .05. A similar patternoccurredwith theCulture >< Frameinteraction,F(1, 140) = 3.92, p <C .05. TheAmericanparticipantsratedthesuccess-foregonescenarioasmar-ginally more important (M = 6.08) than the failure-avoidancescenario(M = 5.61),F(l, 140) = 3.07, p = .08, whereastheChineseparticipantsratedthefailure avoidancescenarioasmoreimportantthanthesuccess-foregonescenario(Ms= 5.11vs.4.73),althoughthis differencewasonly directional,F(1, 140) = 2.60,p = .11.

Importantly,we expectedthedifferencesin perceivedfavorabil-ity to diminishbecauseof presentingthe information in negatedterms. Indeed,theresults of a 2 X 2 )< 2 ANOVA yieldednosignificant effects, suggestingthat favorability ratings did notdiffer in the foregonesuccessrelativeto the failure avoidanceconditions(F <C 1). Thus,theshifts in theperceivedimportanceofthe scenarioswere reflective of the moderatingrole of self-construe]onregulatoryfocus thatis independentof any changeinfavorability ratings.5

In sum, the datafrom Study 4 strongly supportthe n6tion thatthe influence of self-construe]on the importanceweighting ofregulatory-framedinformation stemsfrom the desire to achievesuccessin theindependentselfandthedesireto avoidfailurein theinterdependentself. That is, the lure of failure avoidanceloomslarger than foregone successfor interdependentindividuals,whereasthethreatof foregonesuccesslooms largerthan failureavoidancefor independentindividuals.Theseresultsareconsistentwith findingsreportedby KitayamaandKarasawa(1995)showingthat the subjectivewell-being and physical healthof Japaneseindividuals aredirectly relatedto the extentto which they viewthemselvesasnothavingnegativequalities,aneffectthatdoesnotappearto occurfor Americanindividuals(Taylor& Brown, 1988).

The moderationof importance ratings of prevention- andpromotion-framedevents appearsto be driven by the relativeweighting of one’sown versusothers’standardsandis showntobe robust across various operationalizationsof self-construal.Whetherself-construe]is operationalizedasapersonalityvariable(Study1), situationalvariable(Study2), or culturalvariable(Stud-ies 3 and4), the effectson importanceratingsremainthe same.However,regulatoryfocusmayberevealedin waysotherthanthedirect measurementof what types of information participantsjudge to be important. Indeed, some of the most convincing

5Asin Studies2and 3, a2 X 2 X 2 X 2 repeatedmeasuresANOVAexaminingtheeffectsof culture,eventtype,andframeon thetwo typesofthoughtswasconducted.Forbrevity’s sake,theyarenotreportedin full. Itis important to note,however, that the results replicatedthosefound inStudy 3 exactly: Thought type, F(l, 140) = 6.24, p <C .05; Culture XThought type,F(l, 140) = 3.63, p <C .05; andEventType X ThoughtType,F(l, 140) = 6.88,p <C .01;ThoughtType X EventType )( Cultureinteraction,F(l, 140) = 4.33,p < .05. Only oneneweffectwasmarginallysignificant: Thought Type X Event Type X Frame interaction,F(1,140) = 2.74, p = .10.

Page 9: The Pleasures and Pains of Distinct Seif-Construals: …php.scripts.psu.edu/faculty/n/x/nxy906/COMPS...The primary goal of the interdependent self, in con-trast, is to maintain harmony

1130 LEE, AAKER, AND GARDNER

researchexaminingthedistinctionbetweenpromotionandpreven-tion focus hasconcernedthe affectiveresponseseachengenders,showinga strongrelationshipbetweenregulatoryfocus and thetypesandintensitiesof theemotionsexperiencedin gain andlosssituations(see,e.g., Higgins et aL, 1997). Specifically, becausepreventionfocusis intimately tied to theability or failure to meetobligationsor responsibilities,it leads to greatershifts alongtheagitation dimension(i.e., relaxed,anxious). In contrast,becausepromotionfocus is associatedwith the ability or failure to attaingoalsor ideals, it tendsto leadto greatershiftsalongthedejectiondimension(i.e., cheerful,unhappy).For example,StraumanandHiggins(1988)showedasignificantrelationshipbetweenchronicpromotionfocusandthe intensityof dejection-relatedresponding,as well as onebetweenchronicpreventionfocusandtheintensityof agitation-relatedresponding.

Thecleardistinctionbetweenthe typeof affect facilitatedby apromotion or preventionfocus thusprovidesan additional testofour hypothesis.If interdependence,as we believe,causesan in-creasein prevention-focusedself-regulation,theneitherchronicorsituationalinterdependenceshouldlead to the increasedexperi-ence of agitation-relatedemotions in comparisonto dejection-relatedemotions.In addition, by examiningaffectiveresponses,we may further test the motivational mechanismpresumedtounderliethe shift towardpreventionfocus for thosewith a domi-nant interdependentself-construe]. That is, if the heightenedawarenessof preventionis associatedwith the needto .avoidfailure, one reasonthis effect may be largerfor interdependentsthan independentsis a potentinily greaterdisutility for negativeoutcomes.In other words, anegativeoutcomeinvolving othersmayindeedbe moredisconcertingor threatening,relativeto situ-ations whereonly the individual is involved (e.g., Singelis &Sharkey, 1995).Becausethosewith amore interdependentself-construe]areconcernedwith the impact their behavior has onothersmore thando thosewith amoreindependentself-construe](Markus & Kitayama, 1991), interdependentsmay be driven toavoid apotential loss becauseof the accompaniedlevels of in-creasedanxiety. In this light, Study 5 wascondut~tednot only toextend the results of Studies 1—4 into the realm of affectiveresponses,but also to garneradditional support for themotiva-tional mechanismunderlyingthe patternof importanceresultsfound in eachof the previousstudies.

Study 5

Overviewand Design

In Study 5, we further explored the hypothesis that self-construe]moderatesregulatoryfocus by examiningthe affectiveresponsesto gainsachievedandlossesavoided.If interdependenceencouragesa preventionfocus, more anxiety-relatedemotionsshould beobservedin comparisonto dejection-relatedemotions.Moreover, theseaffective responsesshould be found for bothchronic (e.g., country status)and situational (e.g., event type)determinantsof interdependence.To this end,we examinedindi-viduals who differed in their chronic and situational self-construals,asdid participantsin Study3. In addition,we includedoutcomeinformation andthen measuredaffective responses,de-scribedbelow.Thus,Study 5 wasa2 (culture:NorthAmericanvs.EastAsian) X 2 (frame: promotion vs. prevention)X 2 (event

type: individual vs. team)X 2 (outcome:gainvs. loss) between-subjectsdesign,andusedaffecttype (dejectionvs. anxiety) andaffectvalence(positivevs. negative)as within-subjectsvariables.

Method

Participants. TwohundredfifteenparticipantsfromalargeCaliforniauniversity (meanage = 21.71 years; 40% women, 60% men) and312participantsfrom theUniversityof HongKong(meanage = 19.50years,41% women,59% men) participated.

Procedure. Thecoverstory andproceduresweresimilar to thoseusedin Study 3 with two important additions:Participantsweretold theout-comeof thetennismatchandthenwere askedto fill out an affectscale.Specifically,participantsfirst imaginedthemselvesin scenariosframedintenusof promotion orpreventionand individual or teamevents.Onthefollowing page,halftheparticipantsweretold thattheywonthematch,andthe other half, that they lost the match. Next, participantswere told tocompletea modified PositiveandNegativeAffect Schedule(PANAS;Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), an affect scalecontaining 26 mooditemsthat theywereaskedto endorseon 7-pointscales(with theendpoints

= definitelydo notfeel this way and 7 = definitelyfeelthis way).6

Participantsthenfilled outthedemographicitems.

ResultsandDiscussion

A factoranalysisof the affective ratingswasperformedusingprincipal-axisfactors anda varimax rotation. Four factors thatappearedto representthepositiveandnegativeemotionsrelatedtothe agitationanddejectiondimensionswereextracted,accountingfor 59% of thevariance.Itemsloadingon.eachof thefourfactorswere thencombinedinto four affect indices. The two agitationrelatedindiceswerelabeledAnxiety(worried, uptight, tense,ner-vous, fearful; a = .82) andRelaxation(relaxed,peaceful,calm,comfortable;a = .76),whereasthe two dejectionrelatedindiceswere labeledDejection(disappointed,shameful,guilty; a = .86)andHappiness(happy,cheerful,honored,proud;a = .93)7Thefour affect indices were then enteredinto a 2 (culture) X 2(frame) X 2 (outcome))( 2 (affect type) X 2 (affect valence)ANOVA, with affecttype andaffectvalenceenteredas repeatedmeasures.

We predicted that the affect measureswould reveal a biastowardprevention-focusedas comparedwith promotion-focusedaffect for interdependentindividuals and events.Indeed,thehy-pothesizedAffectType)( Cultureinteractionwassignificant,F(l,511) = 52.29,p <C .001. Follow-up paired t testsrevealedthatAmerican participantsexpressedmore of the happinessand/ordejectionemotionsthat areassociatedwith promotionfocus (Mhappinessanddejectionindices= 3.72)thantherelaxationand/oragitationemotionsthat are associatedwith preventionfocus (Mrelaxationandagitationindices 3.44),t(214)= 4.50,p <C .001.

6 Sincethe PANAS tendsto beweightedmoretowardtheprevention-

focusedemotions(relaxation—agitation),we addedsixpromotion-focusedemotions(happiness—dejection)to the PANAS (happy, honored,guilty,shameful,disappointed,andproud).

~‘ A total of 10 items (uneasy,distressed,lively, bothered,pleasant,jittery,contented,active,alert, andenergetic)didnotload clearlyonto anyof the factors (i.e., loadedon more than one factor and/orhadfactorloadingsbelow .4 on anysingle factor)andthus werenotincludedin theindices.

Page 10: The Pleasures and Pains of Distinct Seif-Construals: …php.scripts.psu.edu/faculty/n/x/nxy906/COMPS...The primary goal of the interdependent self, in con-trast, is to maintain harmony

INTERDEPENDENCEAND REGULATORYFOCUS 1131

In contrast,Chineseparticipantsshowedthe reversebias in affec-tive experience(M happinessand/or dejection = 3.73 vs. Mrelaxationand/oragitation= 3.99),t(311)= —5.26,p<C .001 (seeFigure4). This wasfurtherqualifiedby anAffect Type X AffectValenceX Culture interaction,F(l, 511) = 4.52,p <C .05, reveal-ing that the greaterpropensityto expresspromotion- versusprevention-relatedemotionsby the Americanswascarriedby thepositive emotions (i.e., differencebetweenM happiness= 4.31andM relaxation = 3.50), t(214) = 5.30, p <C .001, with thenegativeemotions not differing significantiy. For Chinesepartic-ipants,however,the propensityto expressgreaterpreventionthanpromotionrelatedemotionswascarriedby thenegativeemotions(M dejection= 3.24 vs. M anxiety 3.76), t(311)= 5.96,p <C.001, with the positive emotionsnot differing significantly. Thislatter interactionis consistentwith theassertionthatindependentindividuals focus on positive information that assists in self-enhancement,whereasinterdependentindividuals focus more onnegativeinformation that assistsin self-improvement(Heine &Lehman,1995, 1999).

Similarly, an Affect Type X Event Type interaction,F(1,511) = 4.45,p <C .05, showedthat thedifferencebetweenteamandindividual eventswasin themagnitudeof theendorsementofthe prevention-focusedemotions (relaxationand anxiety) ratherthanin thepromotion-focusedemotions(happinessanddejection).This wasfurther qualified by the Affect Type X EventType XAffect Valence interaction,F(l, 511) = 4.23, p <C .05, whichshowedthat this differencewasdrivenby thenegativeprevention-focusedemotions—participantsin theteameventscoringhigheron theanxietyscale(M 3.79) thanthosein theindividual event(M = 3.42), t(525) = 3.02,p <C .001.

U Proention-fncusedAffect ElP~venflon-foojsedAffect

4.0 -

3.8-

C0~ 3.6.E

U.,0

C’,C 34.0C

3.2.

3.0

An~ricanParticipants OhinesePartitipants

The prior analysesconcerningthe affective statesrelating topromotionversuspreventionfocuswerecentralto ourhypothesis.Other significanteffectswere presentaswell. An affect valencemain effect, F(1, 511) = 66.71,p <C .001, wasqualified by anOutcomeX Affect Valenceinteraction,F(1, 511) = 656.50,p <C.001, as well as by anEventType X Affect Valenceinteraction,F(l, 511) = 13.41,p <C .001. The Affect Valence X Outcomeinteractionrevealedthat, not surprisingly,greaterpositive emo-tions were expressedafter gains, and greaternegativity afterlosses.TheEventType X AffectValenceinteractionrevealedthatgreaterpositiveemotionswereexperiencedin theindividualcom-paredwith the teamevent, andgreaternegativeemotions wereexperiencedin the team comparedwith the individual event.Finally, a significantAffect Valence X EventType >( Outcomeinteraction,F(1, 511) = 2O.26,p<C .001, revealedthatthis patternof greaternegativity after teameventswasmore apparentin thelossthan in the gainconditions.

Takenin combination,thecurrentresultsaddstrongsupporttothe hypothesisthat therelativeindependenceor interdependenceof the self shifts regulatory focus. Our American participantsshowedabias towardpromotion-focusedemotions(particularlyhappiness)thatwasmirrored in thebias thatChineseparticipantsshowedtowardprevention-focusedemotions (particularly, anxi-ety).Similarly,teameventsincreasedprevention-focusedrespond-ing, and this was particularly true for the negativeprevention-focusedemotions.Theevidencethataloss in ateameventevokedgreaternegativity in generalaswell asmore anxietyin particularwas consistentwith the motivation explanationsuggestingthatlossesinvolving othersaresimply more painful. In concert withthefindingsthatourchronicinterdependentindividualsrespondedwith greaterprevention-focusednegativityregardlessof event,thispatternaddsto theassertionputforth by manyculturalresearchersthat, in culturesthatfosterinterdependence,any.activity maybeconstruedto affectothers(MarkusetaL, 1996).This perceptionbyinterdependentsthat their actionsaffect othersmayhelp explainwhy failure avoidance,and thus preventionfocus, becomessoimportant.

GeneralDiscussion

We have arguedthat regulatoryfocus differs as afunction ofself-construe]patternsthat encouragedifferent perspectivesongoal pursuit. We hypothesizedthat individuals with a dominantindependentselfwouldbe attunedtowardpromotionfocus,seeingpotentialgains as important andrespondingto eventswith rela-tively greaterhappinessor dejection,whereasindividuals with adominantinterdependentselfwould beattunedtowardpreventionfocus,seeingpotentiallossesasmoreimportant andrespondingto.eventswith relatively greaterrelaxationor anxiety.The relation-ship betweenself-construe]andregulatoryfocusreceivedrobustsupport acrossfive studies and various operationalizationsofselfconstrual.

In Studies 1 and 2, we found that those with a dominantindependentself(chronically accessibleorsituationallyactivated)perceivedpromotion-focusedinformation asmoreimportantthanprevention-focusedinformation, whereasthe oppositeheld forthosewith adominant interdependentself. Datain Studies3, 4,and5 replicatedandextendedtheseeffectsby further examiningthe interactionof the chronicallyaccessibleself (relying on mdi-

Figure4. Study5: Intensityof emotionsasafunctionofregulatoryframeacrosstwocultures.

Page 11: The Pleasures and Pains of Distinct Seif-Construals: …php.scripts.psu.edu/faculty/n/x/nxy906/COMPS...The primary goal of the interdependent self, in con-trast, is to maintain harmony

1132 LEE, AAKER, AND GARDNER

viduals in the United States and China) with the temporarilyaccessibleself (induced through the situational variable). Theresultssuggestthatwhenthe chronically accessibleself is consis-tentwith the situation(e.g.,Americansin anindependentsituationor Chinesein an interdependentsituation), the patternin whichpromotion-focusedinformationcarriesmoreweight amonginde-pendentswhereasprevention-focusedinformation carriesmoreweight among interdependentsis clear. However, in situationswherethechronicallyinaccessibleself is madetemporarilyacces-sible, thedatasuggestthattheeffectof thechronically accessibleselfon importanceweightingis moderated(in thecaseof Chinesefacedwith anindependentevent)or evenreversed(in thecaseofAmericansfacedwith an interdependentevent).Theseresultsareconsistentwith theargumentthattheextentto whichtheindepen-dentor interdependentselfis moredominantvariesnotonly acrossdifferent peoplewithin aparticularculture,but varieswithin anindividual dependingon which view of the self is mademoreaccessible.Finally, theresultsof Study5 provide furthersupportfor the overall frameworkby showingthat differencesin regula-tory focus dueto self-construe]were reflectedin affectiveexpe-riencein addition to importanceratings. Interdependenceof theself resultedin greaterprevention-focusedemotional responses,particularly alongthe anxiety dimension,and this wasapparentboth for culturalandeventbaseddifferences.

Thefinding that the self influencesregulatoryfocus fits wellwith anumberof recentstudies documentingEast—Westdiffer-encesin the basesof self-esteem(e.g., Diener & Diener, 1995;Kitayamaet al., 1997). For example,researchby Kitayamaandcolleagues(1997)demonstratedthatAmericanindividualschoseagreaternumberof successversusfailure situationsasrelevanttotheir self-esteem;they also judgedthat their self-esteemwouldincreasemore in successsituationsthan it would decreaseinfailure situations,whereasthe oppositepatternoccurredfor Japa-neseindividuals. The resultsof the currentresearchsuggestthatthesedifferencesmay be derivedfrom differencesin regulatoryfocus more generally.For example,the finding that Americansbelievethatsuccesshasthemostimpactonself-esteemmayreflecta generalpromotion focus of the independentself, whereasthefinding that Japaneseindividuals believethat failure has moreimpact on self-esteemmayreflectthegreaterpreventionfocus ofthe interdependentself.

This interpretationis also consistentwith recentfindingsshow-ingthatAmericanandJapaneseindividualshavedifferenttenden-ciesto definesituationsaseitherself-enhancingor self-improving.For example,situationalattributionsfound in the Americancul-tural contexttend to be more conducive to self-enhancementwhereasthe situational attributionscomposingtheJapanesecul-turalcontextaremoreconduciveto self-criticism(Kitayamaetal.,1997). As Heine andLehman(1997, 1999)pointed out, the ten-dencytowardself-criticismin interdependentculturesis probablydueto their greatermotivation to avoid failure in the future—aclearlyprevention-focusedmotivation.

In addition to helping explain cultural differences in self-enhancementand self-improvementtendencies,the perspectivethat regulatoryfocus is moderatedby one’s self view may alsoilluminatecultural differencesin positivity biases.For example,someof the cultural differencesseenin the positivity and nega-tivity of self-descriptorsmay be reinterpretedwithin aregulatoryfocus perspective.Researchby Holmberget al. (1997)demon-

stratedthatupto fivetimes asmanypositiveattributesexistin theself-conceptsofAmericanindividualsrelativeto negativeones,aneffect that is not foundin EastAsian cultural contexts.Indeed,Kitayamaet al. (1997)documentedareversedeffectamongJap-aneseindividuals who seemedto focus more on negativeversuspositive selfinformation. Suchreversalsof a positivity biasmayalso be seenin light of self-construe]differencesin regulaturyfocus.Becauseinterdependentsaremotivatedto avoidfailure,theymay ruminatemore on their negativefeaturesin an attempt toeradicatethem(Heine& Lehman,1999).Thismay beparticularlytrueto theextentthatpossessionof anegativetrait disruptssocialfunctioning. Somesupport for this interpretationcan be seeninYeh’s (1996) analysisof Japaneseself-statements.Yeh (1996)foundthatevenwhen positivestatementsabouttheselfaremade,theytend to focuson the absenceof negativetraits (e.g., “I’m notlazy”), rather than the presenceof positive traits (e.g., “I amintelligent”). NorthAmericans,in contrast,describethemselvesinterms of their positive traits, ratherthanthe absenceof negativetraits (HolmbergetaL, 1997). Fromourperspective,it is possibleto interpretthesefindings as further reflectionsof differencesinregulatoryfocus,wherethosewith achronicallyaccessibleinter-dependentselfaresensitiveto thepresenceor absenceof negativefeatures(preventionfocus),whereasthosewith a chronically ac-cessibleindependentself aresensitiveto the presenceor absenceof positivefeatures(promotionfocus).

Likewise, robustculturaldifferencesin optimismandpessimismmay also be seenwithin the broaderframe of regulatoryfocusdifferences.Heine andLehman(1995), for example,showedthatthebeliefthatpositiveeventsaremorelikely to happento oneself(relativeto one’s peers)wassignificantly reducedfor Japaneseindividuals relative to Canadianindividuals. Similarly, Chang(1996)found that acrossmultiple measures,Chineseindividualswere more pessimisticthan were their Americanpeers.Higgins(1997)proposedthatdistinctpatternsof regulatoryfocusmight beassociatedwith types of optimism and pessimism.Specifically,defensivepessimismhasoften beenassociatedwith anxiety, aswell asavigilanceagainstnegativeoutcomesin theenvironment,suggestingthat this typeof pessimismmaybedrivenby apreven-tion focus.Thecurrentfindings, illustrating abiastowardpreven-tion focus when the interdependentself is activated,may helptofurther illuminate the cultural findings that membersof Easternculturesappearto beconsiderablymorepessimisticthanmembersof Westerncultures—somuchso that Chang(1996)referredtopessimisticthinldng as anintegral componentof Asianthinking.

Thus,theresultsof thecurrentstudiesmayofferaparsimoniousframework for viewing the pervasive differencesin positivitybiases,self-enhancement,andpessimismthathavebeenfoundincomparisonsbetweenAsian andNorth Americancultures.How-ever,therelationshipbetweenself-construe]andregulatoryfocusproposedhereshouldonly be appliedcautiouslyto otherculturalcomparisons.Triandisandhis colleagues(Triandis, 1995;Triandis& Gelfand, 1998)proposedthat culturesdiffer not only in theirlevelsof individualismandcollectivism,butin theextentto whichthey arevertical (emphasizinghierarchy)andhorizontal(empha-sizing openness).It is possiblethatconstrua.l-inducedshifts inregulatory focus may be limited to cultures thatarevertical instructure.For example,Triandisand Gelfand(1998) notedthatself-servingbiasesmaybemoreprevalentin verticalindividualistcultures suchas the United Statesbecauseof the importanceof

Page 12: The Pleasures and Pains of Distinct Seif-Construals: …php.scripts.psu.edu/faculty/n/x/nxy906/COMPS...The primary goal of the interdependent self, in con-trast, is to maintain harmony

INTERDEPENDENCEAND REGULATORY FOCUS 1133

distinguishingtheselfthroughcompetitionwith others.Horizontalindividualist cultures such as Norway that stress self-reliancewithoutemphasizingcompetitionmaynotshowthesebiasesto thesameextent.Likewise, verticalcollectivist culturessuchas manyAsian nationsmay bemore likely to showprevention-focusandself-improvementtendenciesbecauseof theemphasisonliving upto theresponsibilitiesthatcomewith social ties.In contrast,thesebiasesmay not occur in horizontal collectivist cultures suchasLatin America, wheresocial ties arestressedwithout anextremeemphasison duty andauthority. Indeed,consistentwith this hy-pothesis,comparisonsof Asian andLatin Americancollectivistcultureshaveshownhigherpositivity andwell-beingin theLatinAmericancultures(Diener & Diener, 1995; Oishi, Diener,Lucas,& Sub, 1999).Moreresearchis thusneededto investigatewhetherthe findings presentedheremay be equally appliedto horizontalandvertical differencesin individualismandcollectivism, aswellas how thesefindings may generalizeacrossother measuresofinterest(e.g., behavior,responsetimes, interpersonaljudgments).

Theresultsof the currentstudiesalso provide insight into theself-regulation strategiesof individuals within North Americanculturealone.Pastresearchconcerningregulatoryfocus hadcon-sistently shownthatthesamegoalmight beviewedthrougheitherthelensof promotionorprevention,dependingon thedispositionsof the individual and/or the framing of the goal. The currentresearch, emphasizingthe important role of situational self-construe],offers additional predictive power. When Americanindividuals areplacedin situationsthatmaketheconsequencesoftheir behavioron otherssalient(e.g.,teamevents),they shift fromapromotionto apreventionfocus.Lossesto be avoidedbecomemore importantthangainsthatmight be achieved,andagitation-relatedemotionscometo the fore. Thus, the currentresearchnotouly addsto the knowledgebaseconcerningwhattypes of indi-vidualsmaybe promotionor preventionfocused(e.g.,membersofNorth American vs. East Asian cultures, American individualswith independentvs. interdependentselves)but alsorevealswhattypes of situationsmay encourageoneor theother style of self-regulation.When one’sbehaviorimpactstheoutcomesof others,it appearsthat lossesloom largerthangains.

ConcludingRemarks

Taken together, the five studies presentedhere indicate thatself-construe]maybeanimportantmoderatorof regulatoryfocus;shifts in a promotionfocus andpreventionfocus appearto occurbetweenthose with an independentversus interdependentselfview. Moreover,theyaddto agrowingbodyof workthatbuilds oncross-culturalresearch,wherecultureis conceptualizedasa rela-tively abstract,context-generalvariablebasedon whichcompari-sonsof attitudes,perceptions,or behaviorsbetweenpeoplefromtwo or more countriesare made (for example,Segall, Dasen,Berry,& Poortinga,1990).Indeed,while supportfor cross-culturaldifferencesin importanceweightingwasfoundin Studies3—5, thisfinding is complementedby asetof resultsshowingthatculture]tendenciescan be replicatedwithin the individual. That is, thecultural-levelconstructsthatappearto guidetheeffectsfound inthis researchcan be activatedthroughsituationalvariables(e.g.,Study2—4),asby referencingtasks(see,e.g.,AakerandWilliams,1998) or cognitive priming tasks (e.g., Hong et al., in press).Throughthis convergence,not only can the causalrole of self-

construe]bedemonstrated,but thepotentialto understandimplicitcultural theoriesmayalsobeenhanced.

References

Asker, J. (2000). Accessibility or diagnosticity?Disentanglingtheinflu-enceof cultureon persuasionprocessesand attitudes.Journalof Con-sumerResearch.26, 340—357.

Aaker, J.,& Mabeswaran,D. (1997).The effect of cultural orientationonpersuasion.Journal of ConsumerResearch,24, 315—328.

Asker, J., & Williams, P. (1998).Empathyversuspride: Theinfluenceofemotionalappealsacrosscultures.Journalof ConsumerResearch.25,241—261.

Brewer, M. B., & Gardner,W. L. (1996). Who is this ‘we’? Levels ofcollective identity andselfpresentations.Journal of PersonalityandSocial Psychology,71, 83—93.

Chang,E.C. (1996).Evidencefor theculturalspecificity of pessimisminAsiansand Caucasians:A test of the generalnegativity hypothesis.Personalityand IndividualDgferences,21, 819—822.

Coaldey,1. (1996). Socializationthroughsports. In 0. Bar-Ol (Ed.), Thechild andadolescentathlete(pp. 353—363). London:Blackwell.

Cross,S.E., & Madson,L. (1997).Modelsof theself: SeIf-construalsandgender.PsychologicalBulletin, 122, 5—37.

Crowe,B., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatoryfocus andstrategicincli-nations:Promotionandpreventionin decisionmaking. OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses,69, 117—132.

Diener,E., & Diener,M. (1995). Cross-culturalcorrelatesof life satisfac-tion andself-esteem.JournalofPersonalityandSocial Psychology,68,653—663.

Falbo, T., Poston,D. L., Jr., Triscari, R. S., & Zhang,X. (1997). Self-enhancingillusions amongChineseschoolchildren.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,28, 172—191.

Frey,D., & Stahlberg,D. (1986).Selectionof informationafterreceivingmoreor lessreliableself-threateninginformation.Personality& SocialPsychologyBulletin, 12, 434—441.

Gabriel,S., & Gardner,W. L. (1999).Are there“his” and“hers” typesofinterdependence?The implications of genderdifferencesin collectiveversusrelational interdependencefor affect, behavior,and cognition.Journalof Personalityand SocialPsychology,75, 642—655.

Gardner,W. L.,& Gabriel,S. (1999)~ Bicultural selves:Theflexibility ofself-construalamongAsian-Americans.Manuscriptsubmittedfor pub-lication.

Gardner,W. L., Gabriel, S., & Lee, A. Y. (1999). “r’ valuefreedom,but“we” valuerelationships:Seif-construalpriming mirrorsculturaldiffer-encesin judgment.PsychologicalScience,4, 321—326.

Gardner,W. L., Pennington,G., & Bessenoff,G. (1999). Regulatingtoothers’ standards:The role of the interdependentself Unpublishedmanuscript,NorthwesternUniversity.

Hamaguchi,B. (1985). A contextualmodel of the Japanese:Towardamethodologicalinnovationin Japanstudies.Journalof JapaneseStud-ies,11, 289—321.

Heine,S.,& Lehman,D. (1995).Culturalvariationin unrealisticoptimism:Docs theWest feelmore invulnerablethan theEast?Journalof Per-sonality andSocial Psychology,68, 603—618.

Heine,S.,& Lehman,D. (1997).Thecultural constructionofself-enhance-ment: An examinationof group-servingbiases.Journalof Personalityand Social Psychology,66, 209—219.

Heine, S., & Lehman,D. (1999). Culture, self-discrepancies,and self-satisfaction.Personatity& Social PsychologyBulletin, 25, 915—925.

Heine, S.,Lehman,D., Markus,H. R., & Kitayama,S. (1999). Is thereauniversal need for positive self-regard?PsychologicalReview, 106,766—794.

Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasureand pain. American Psycholo-gist, 52, 1280—1300.

Page 13: The Pleasures and Pains of Distinct Seif-Construals: …php.scripts.psu.edu/faculty/n/x/nxy906/COMPS...The primary goal of the interdependent self, in con-trast, is to maintain harmony

1134 LEE, AAKER, AND GARDNER

Higgins, E. T., & Loeb, I. (in press).Developmentof regulatoryfocus:Promotion.andpreventionaswaysof living. In J. Heckhausen& C. S.Dweck (Eds.),Motivation andself-regulationacrossthel(fespan.NewYork: CambridgeUniversityPress.

Higgins,E. T., Roney,C., Crowe, E., & Hymes,C. (1994).Ideal versusoughtpredilectionsfor approachandavoidance:Distinctself-regulatorysystema.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,66, 276—286.

Higgins,E. T., Shah, I., & Friedman,R. (1997).Emotional responsestogoal attainment:Strengthof regulatoryfocusasamoderator.JournalofPersonalityand Social Psychology,72, 515—525.

Higgins,E. T., & Tykocinski, 0. (1992).Self-discrepanciesandbiograph-ice]memory:Personalityandcognitionatthelevel of thepsychologicalsituation.Personalityand SocialPsychologyBulletin, 18, 181—192.

Holmberg,D., Markus, H., Herzog,A. R., & Franks,M. (1997). Self-making in American adults: Content, structureandffinction. Unpub-lishedmanuscript,University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Homer, P. M. (1993). Transmissionof humanvalues:A cross-culturalinvestigationof generalizationandreciprocalinfluenceeffects.Genetic,Social, & GeneralPsychologyMonographs,119, 343—367.

Hong, Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C., & V. Benet-Martfnez(in press).Multicultural minds:A dynamic constructivistapproachto cultureandcognition. AmericanPsychologist.

Kitaynma, S., & Karasawa,M. (1995). Self: A cultural psychologicalperspective.JapaneseJournalofExperimentalSocial Psychology,35,133—163.

Kitaynma,S.,Markus,H. R., Matsumoto,H., & Norasakkunkit,V. (1997).Individual and collective processesin the constructionof the self:Self-enhancementin theUnitedStatesandself-criticismin Japan.Jour-nal ofPersonalityandSocial Psychology,72, 1245—1267.

Markus,H., & Kitayama, 5. (1991),Culture andtheself: Implicationsforcognition, emotion andinvolvement.PsychologicalReview,98, 224—253.

Markus,H. R., Kitayama, S., & Heinian,R. 1. (1996). Culture and basicpsychologicalprinciples.In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (lids.),Socialpsychology:Handbookofbasicprinciples.New York: TheGull-ford Press.

Oishi, S., Diener,E. F., Lucas,R. E., & Suh,li. M. (1999).Cross-culturalvariationsin predictorsof life-satisfaction:Perspectivesfromneedsandvalues.PersonalityandSocial PsychologyBulletin, 8, 980—990.

Prentice,D. A., Miller, D. T., & Lightdale,J. R. (1994). Asymmetriesinattachmentsto groupsandto their members:Distinguishingbetweencommon-identityand common-bondgroups. Personality and SocialPsychologyBulletin, 20, 484—493.

Segall, M. H., Dasen,P. R., Berry, J. W., & Poortinga.Y. H. (1990).Humanbehaviorin globalperspective:An introductionto cross-culturalpsychology.New York: PergamonPress.

Singells,T.M. (1994). The measurementof independentandinterdepen-dentself-construals.Personality& SocialPsychologyBulletin, 20, 580—591.

Singelis, T. M., & Sharkey,W. F. (1995). Culture, self-construal,andembarrassability.Journalof Cross-CulturalPsychology,26, 622—644.

Strauman,T. J.,& Higgins,E. T. (1988).Self-discrepanciesas predictorsof vulnerability to distinct syndromesof chronic emotional distress.Journal ofPersonality,56, 685—707.

Taylor, S., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusions and well-being: A socialpsychologicalperspectiveonmentalhealth.PsychologicalBulletin, 103,193—210.

Trafimow, D., Triandis, H. C., & Goto, S. G. (1991).Some testsof thedistinctionbetweentheprivate self and thecollective self. Journal ofPersonalityand SocialPsychology,60, 649—655.

Triandis,H. C. (1989).The selfandbehaviorin differingculturalcontexts.PsychologicalReview,96, 506—520.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO:WestviewPress.

Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurementofhorizontal andverticalindividualism andcollectivism.Journal ofPer-sonalityand Social Psychology,74, 118—128.

Watson,D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen,A. (1988). Developmentandvali-dation of brief measuresof positive andnegative affect: The PANASscales.JournalofPersonalityand Social Psychology,54, 1063—1070.

Yeh, C. (1996).A cultural perspectiveon interdependencein self andmorality: A Japan-U.S.comparison.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,StanfordUniversity.

ReceivedAugust2, 1999RevisionreceivedNovember12, 1999

AcceptedDecember6, 1999 3


Abstract - php.scripts.psu.edu

Abstract - php.scripts.psu.edu

Documents
Rosa Vallejos* and Hunter L. Brown Locative construals

Rosa Vallejos* and Hunter L. Brown Locative construals

Documents
Matching Advertising Appeals to Culture: The Influence of ...php.scripts.psu.edu/users/n/x/nxy906/COMPS/indivdualismandcollect… · Matching Advertising Appeals to Culture: The Influence

Matching Advertising Appeals to Culture: The Influence of ...php.scripts.psu.edu/users/n/x/nxy906/COMPS/indivdualismandcollect… · Matching Advertising Appeals to Culture: The Influence

Documents
A Dynamic Constructivist Approach to Culture and …test.scripts.psu.edu/users/n/x/nxy906/COMPS...SCIENCE WATCH Multicultural Minds A Dynamic Constructivist Approach to Culture and

A Dynamic Constructivist Approach to Culture and …test.scripts.psu.edu/users/n/x/nxy906/COMPS...SCIENCE WATCH Multicultural Minds A Dynamic Constructivist Approach to Culture and

Documents
Alternate Construals - Wyższa Szkoła Filologiczna WSF... · 2013-02-01 · retical and applied cognitivism. The three subsequent articles, written by Laura Suchostawska, Aleksandra

Alternate Construals - Wyższa Szkoła Filologiczna WSF... · 2013-02-01 · retical and applied cognitivism. The three subsequent articles, written by Laura Suchostawska, Aleksandra

Documents
Bob Jessop Recovered Imaginaries Imagines Recoveries a Cultural Political Economy of Crisis Construals Crisis Management in the North Atlantic Financial Crisis 549KB

Bob Jessop Recovered Imaginaries Imagines Recoveries a Cultural Political Economy of Crisis Construals Crisis Management in the North Atlantic Financial Crisis 549KB

Documents
Deviance or Uniqueness, Harmony or Conformity? A …php.scripts.psu.edu/users/n/x/nxy906/COMPS... · Deviance or Uniqueness, Harmony or Conformity? ... OO22-3514/99/.S3.OO 785. 786

Deviance or Uniqueness, Harmony or Conformity? A …php.scripts.psu.edu/users/n/x/nxy906/COMPS... · Deviance or Uniqueness, Harmony or Conformity? ... OO22-3514/99/.S3.OO 785. 786

Documents
Additivity versus Attenuation: The Role of Culture in the ...php.scripts.psu.edu/users/n/x/nxy906/COMPS... · the attenuation strategy, whereas individuals in an East Asian culture

Additivity versus Attenuation: The Role of Culture in the ...php.scripts.psu.edu/users/n/x/nxy906/COMPS... · the attenuation strategy, whereas individuals in an East Asian culture

Documents
1st Newsletter - construit.orgconstruit.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/newsletter-issue1.pdfThe exploratory activities focused on two principal themes: how construals might be used

1st Newsletter - construit.orgconstruit.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/newsletter-issue1.pdfThe exploratory activities focused on two principal themes: how construals might be used

Documents
Making Construals as a Vehicle for Interactive Collaborative ......Themes in CONSTRUIT! “Making construals as a new digital skill for creating interactive open educational resources”

Making Construals as a Vehicle for Interactive Collaborative ......Themes in CONSTRUIT! “Making construals as a new digital skill for creating interactive open educational resources”

Documents
Construals of iconicity: experimental approaches to … · andbstrdcs sfi rfl. 2 1. Introduction Speculations on iconicity – the resemblance-based mapping of form and meaning –

Construals of iconicity: experimental approaches to … · andbstrdcs sfi rfl. 2 1. Introduction Speculations on iconicity – the resemblance-based mapping of form and meaning –

Documents
Mindstorms Revisited: Making New Construals of Seymour Papert… · 2016. 12. 7. · Mindstorms Revisited: Making New Construals of Seymour Papert's Legacy Meurig Beynon Computer

Mindstorms Revisited: Making New Construals of Seymour Papert… · 2016. 12. 7. · Mindstorms Revisited: Making New Construals of Seymour Papert's Legacy Meurig Beynon Computer

Documents
Work In Progress Deep History: Using Archaeology and ...php.scripts.psu.edu/dept/liberalarts/sites/kennett/pdf/AlternateRoute… · Deep History: Using Archaeology and Historical

Work In Progress Deep History: Using Archaeology and ...php.scripts.psu.edu/dept/liberalarts/sites/kennett/pdf/AlternateRoute… · Deep History: Using Archaeology and Historical

Documents
EDSGN 100: INTRODUCTION TO ENGINEERING …php.scripts.psu.edu/users/c/b/cbl5289/edsgn100_su16_section2016...EDSGN 100: INTRODUCTION TO ENGINEERING DESIGN ... reverse. 10 Engineering

EDSGN 100: INTRODUCTION TO ENGINEERING …php.scripts.psu.edu/users/c/b/cbl5289/edsgn100_su16_section2016...EDSGN 100: INTRODUCTION TO ENGINEERING DESIGN ... reverse. 10 Engineering

Documents
Examination and Reconstruction of Three Ancient …php.scripts.psu.edu/dept/hafenstein/pdfs/Virology...rently circulating parvoviruses. By expressing the capsid proteins of different

Examination and Reconstruction of Three Ancient …php.scripts.psu.edu/dept/hafenstein/pdfs/Virology...rently circulating parvoviruses. By expressing the capsid proteins of different

Documents
Thinking behind the environment for Making Construals (MCE)

Thinking behind the environment for Making Construals (MCE)

Documents
The Effects of Message Framing and Ethnic Targeting on ...php.scripts.psu.edu/users/n/x/nxy906/COMPS...mography (Banks et al., 1995). Because these previous interven-tions were directed

The Effects of Message Framing and Ethnic Targeting on ...php.scripts.psu.edu/users/n/x/nxy906/COMPS...mography (Banks et al., 1995). Because these previous interven-tions were directed

Documents
Aymara Language and Gesture in the Crosslinguistic Comparison of Spatial Construals of Time

Aymara Language and Gesture in the Crosslinguistic Comparison of Spatial Construals of Time

Documents
A Dynamic Constructivist Approach to Culture and Cognitionphp.scripts.psu.edu › users › n › x › nxy906 › COMPS... · Michael W. Morris Photo by S. Gladfelter likely it is

A Dynamic Constructivist Approach to Culture and Cognitionphp.scripts.psu.edu › users › n › x › nxy906 › COMPS... · Michael W. Morris Photo by S. Gladfelter likely it is

Documents
Tatyana Sitnikova, Andrey Rzhetsky, and Masatoshi …php.scripts.psu.edu/nxm2/1995 Publications/1995-sitnikova-rzhetsky...Interior-Branch and Bootstrap Tests of Phylogenetic Trees

Tatyana Sitnikova, Andrey Rzhetsky, and Masatoshi …php.scripts.psu.edu/nxm2/1995 Publications/1995-sitnikova-rzhetsky...Interior-Branch and Bootstrap Tests of Phylogenetic Trees

Documents
Dana L Alden, Wayne D. Hoyer, & Choi Lee Identifying Global and …php.scripts.psu.edu/faculty/n/x/nxy906/COMPS... · 2008-03-05 · Dana L Alden, Wayne D. Hoyer, & Choi Lee Identifying

Dana L Alden, Wayne D. Hoyer, & Choi Lee Identifying Global and …php.scripts.psu.edu/faculty/n/x/nxy906/COMPS... · 2008-03-05 · Dana L Alden, Wayne D. Hoyer, & Choi Lee Identifying

Documents
Construals for Computational Reasoning · Goal of Computational Models “to facilitate computing work in other disciplines” (Guzdial, 2016, p 40) “Computational thinking involves

Construals for Computational Reasoning · Goal of Computational Models “to facilitate computing work in other disciplines” (Guzdial, 2016, p 40) “Computational thinking involves

Documents
ZEM TURAN MAY 2007 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MATERIALISM … · The questionnaire consisted of eight scales that were used to measure materialism, self-construals, ... materialism, and

ZEM TURAN MAY 2007 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MATERIALISM … · The questionnaire consisted of eight scales that were used to measure materialism, self-construals, ... materialism, and

Documents
Independent and Interdependent Self-construals and Socio-cultural

Independent and Interdependent Self-construals and Socio-cultural

Documents
Making construals as a new digital skill: dissolving the program - and the programmer – interface (Meurig Beynon)

Making construals as a new digital skill: dissolving the program - and the programmer – interface (Meurig Beynon)

Education
TRAIT AND BEHAVIORAL THEORIES OF …php.scripts.psu.edu/faculty/s/e/seh25/DeRueNahrgangWellmanHumphrey...TRAIT AND BEHAVIORAL THEORIES OF LEADERSHIP: AN ... University of Michigan,

TRAIT AND BEHAVIORAL THEORIES OF …php.scripts.psu.edu/faculty/s/e/seh25/DeRueNahrgangWellmanHumphrey...TRAIT AND BEHAVIORAL THEORIES OF LEADERSHIP: AN ... University of Michigan,

Documents
Religious Freedom Index - php.scripts.psu.edu

Religious Freedom Index - php.scripts.psu.edu

Documents
The ReaxFF reactive force-field: development, applications …php.scripts.psu.edu/mmi122/doc/Nature_ReaxFF.pdfThe ReaxFF reactive force-field: development, applications and future

The ReaxFF reactive force-field: development, applications …php.scripts.psu.edu/mmi122/doc/Nature_ReaxFF.pdfThe ReaxFF reactive force-field: development, applications and future

Documents
Psychological Distance: The Relation Between Construals

Psychological Distance: The Relation Between Construals

Documents
Deviance or Uniqueness, Harmony or Conformity? A Cultural …php.scripts.psu.edu/faculty/n/x/nxy906/COMPS... · 2008-03-05 · Deviance or Uniqueness, Harmony or Conformity? A Cultural

Deviance or Uniqueness, Harmony or Conformity? A Cultural …php.scripts.psu.edu/faculty/n/x/nxy906/COMPS... · 2008-03-05 · Deviance or Uniqueness, Harmony or Conformity? A Cultural

Documents