CULTURED MINDS

FURTHER RESEARCH

 

It follows that a pertinent topic for further investigation is the influence of situational factors on cultural orientation: priming. What primes work to induce cultural orientations? Are there instances when priming does not work (to override one’s underlying dominant cultural orientation)? How long do priming effects last? These questions are crucial for applying cross-cultural knowledge. Priming should be treated more methodically, as a real phenomenon to be studied in itself rather than a tool to observe other effects. See (Oyserman & Lee, 2008) for a preliminary meta-analysis.

 

 

A Caveat

An impressive recent study (Vignoles et.al, 2015) involving 3541 students in 16 nations (study 1) and 8184 adults from 63 cultural groups in 35 nations (study 2) also suggested priming as an area for further research. But the main thrust of the paper proposed a larger caveat. In the authors’ own words:

 

“A simple contrast between independence and interdependence does not adequately capture the diverse models of selfhood that prevail in different world regions. Cultural groups combine different ways of being both independent and interdependent, depending on individualism-collectivism, national economic development, and religious heritage.”

 

The 7 dimensions observed in their research are as follows. As they say, each dimension reflects different ways of being collectivist or individualist most of which are compatible with each other. 

 

 

1. self reliance/dependence on others

2. self-containment/connection to others

3. unique/fit in

4. commitment to others/self-interest

5. consistency/flexibility of self across situations

6. self-direction/influence by others

7. self-expression/maintain harmony

 

 

So the famous dimensions of interdependence/independence collectivism/individualism are not adequate ways to classify culture. In a way this is unsurprising given that culture is messy; few claimed it fit properly into any dimension. Yet by explicitly pointing out shortcomings of current cultural dimensions the study serves as a welcome reminder of how easy it is to overlook the limits of our knowledge. The authors put forward a 7-factor model which is undoubtedly more precise than previous categorisation, but to what end? The real question for practitioners is ‘does it matter?’ Where to draw the line between useful information and academic debate will depend on the circumstances - in some cases perhaps the old, rough categorisation (collectivism/individualism or power distance etc.) will be enough. But for other cases where it won’t, I refer you to (Vignoles et.al, 2015) and the future studies that will undoubtedly build on their excellent framework.

 

 

Religion, Response Bias, Anchoring, Transaction Utility...

In light of their findings, the authors also direct new avenues for research. Their work indicates that religion plays an important role in shaping cultural orientations and certain religious traditions such as Catholic or Muslim have distinct behavioural/decision making profiles. So we join them in encouraging more research on this topic. There is also potential from further investigation into the tight & loose cultural dimensions and many nuances in response bias are not well understood (for further reading see (Smith, Vignoles, et al., 2015). In addition, the relative strength of anchoring effects and receptivity to select versus name-a-price (Chernev, 2003) have not been tested cross culturally. Finally, investigating transaction utility (Thaler, 1983) may also be of interest. For example, holistic thinkers may value transaction utility to a greater extent because they have a heightened awareness of contextual factors and value adapting to situations.