writing

writing

For this week’s assignment, please take the time to read the article titled The Self and Social Behavior in Differing Cultural Contexts by Harry Triandis. While it was published a while ago, it provides a continuation of the conversation that we’ve started via the Values Exercise and the Discussion postings, but from a different angle than previously covered.

This article looks at identity as part of culture. Identify one concept in the article and reflect on it. How has culture/identity informed your view of the world and issues such as health and access to water? How has your identity changed or stayed the same based on your experience and education? Feel free to take this any direction—these are just suggestions.

Psychological Review Copyright | 989 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
1989, Vol. 96, No. 3,506-520 0033-295X/89/$00.75

The Self and Social Behavior in Differing Cultural Contexts

H a r r y C . T r i a n d i s
University o f Illinois, U r b a n a – C h a m p a i g n

Three aspects of the self(private, public, collective) with different probabilities in different kinds of
social environments were sampled. Three dimensions of cultural variation (individualism–collectiv-
ism, tightness-looseness, cultural complexity) are discussed in relation to the sampling of these three
aspects of the self. The more complex the culture, the more frequent the sampling of the public and
private self and the less frequent the sampling of the collective self. The more individualistic the
culture, the more frequent the sampling of the private self and the less frequent the sampling of the
collective self. Collectivism, external threat, competition with outgroups, and common fate increase
the sampling of the collective self. Cultural homogeneity results in tightness and in the sampling of
the collective self. The article outlines theoretical links among aspects of the environment, child-
rearing patterns, and cultural patterns, which are linked to differential sampling of aspects of the
self. Such sampling has implications for social behavior. Empirical investigations of some of these
links are reviewed.

The study o f the self has a long tradition in psychology (e.g.,
Allport, 1943, 1955; Baumeister, 1987; Gordon & Gergen,
1968; James, 1890/1950; Murphy, 1947; Schlenker, 1985;
Smith, 1980; Ziller, 1973), anthropology (e.g., Shweder & Le-
Vine, 1984), and sociology (e.g., Cooley, 1902; Mead, 1934; Ro-
senberg, 1979). There is a recognition in most o f these discus-
sions that the self is shaped, in part, through interaction with
groups. However, although there is evidence about variations o f
the self across cultures (Marsella, DeVos, & Hsu, 1985; Shweder
& Levine, 1984), the specification o f the way the self determines
aspects o f social behavior in different cultures is undeveloped.

This article will examine first, aspects o f the self; second, di-
mensions o f variation o f cultural contexts that have direct rele-
vance to the way the self is defined; and third, the link between
culture and self.

D e f i n i t i o n s

The S e l f

For purposes o f this article, the self consists o f all statements
made by a person, overtly or covertly, that include the words
” I ” “me,” “mine,” and ” m y s e l f ” (Cooley, 1902). This broad
definition indicates that all aspects o f social motivation are
linked to the self. Attitudes (e.g., I like X), beliefs (e.g., I think
that X results in Y), intentions (e.g., I plan to do X), n o r m s
(e.g., in my group, people should act this way), roles (e.g., in my
family, fathers act this way), and values (e.g., I think equality is
very important) are aspects o f the self.

The statements that people make, that constitute the self,

C. Harry Hui and J. B. P. Sinha made important suggestions that
helped in the development of the theoretical argument presented here.
Helpful comments on an earlier version of the article were made by R.
Bontempo, R. Brislin, J. Georgas, S. Lobel, G. Marin, and C. Scott.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Harry
C. Triandis, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, 603 East
Daniel Street, Champaign, Illinois 61820.

have implications for the way people sample information (sam-
piing information that is self-relevant more frequently than in-
formation that is not self-relevant), the way they process infor-
mation (sampling more quickly information that is self-relevant
than information that is not self-relevant), and the way they as-
sess information (assessing more positively information that
supports their current self-structure than information that
challenges their self-structure). Thus, for instance, a self-in-
struction such as ” I must do X ” is more likely to be evaluated
positively, and therefore accepted, if it maintains the current
self-structure than if it changes this structure. This has implica-
tions for behavior because such self-instructions are among the
several processes that lead to behavior (Triandis, 1977, 1980).

In other words, the self is an active agent that promotes
differential sampling, processing, and evaluation o f informa-
tion from the environment, and thus leads to differences in so-
cial behavior. Empirical evidence about the link o f measures o f
the self to behavior is too abundant to review here. A sample
will suffice: People whose self-concept was manipulated so that
they thought o f themselves (a) as “charitable” gave more to
charity (Kraut, 1973), (b) as “neat and tidy” threw less garbage
on the floor (Miller, Brickman, & Bolen, 1975), and (c) as “hon-
est” were more likely to return a pencil (Shotland & Berger,
1970). Self-definition results in behaviors consistent with that
definition (Wicklund & Gollwitzer, 1982). People who defined
themselves as doers o f a particular behavior were more likely to
do that behavior (Greenwald, Carnot, Beach, & Young, 1987).
Identity salience leads to behaviors consistent with that identity
(Stryker & Serpe (1982). Self-monitoring (Snyder, 1974) has
been linked to numerous behaviors (e.g., Snyder, 1987; Snyder,
Simpson, & Gangestad, 1986). The more an attitude (an aspect
o f the self) is accessible to memory, the more likely it is to deter-
mine behavior (Fazio & Williams, 1986). Those with high self-
esteem were found to be more likely to behave independently
o f group norms (Ziller, 1973).

As Snyder (1987) has shown, the differences between those
who do more sampling o f social situations (high self-monitors)
and those who do more sampling o f the self (low self-monitors)

506

THE SELF AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 5 0 7

have implications about the way people feel, what they believe,
and how their attitudes are linked to behavior. The pattern o f
differences described by Snyder has implications for every as-
pect o f social motivation.

To the extent such aspects are shared by people who speak a
c o m m o n language and who are able to interact because they
live in adjacent locations during the same historical period, we
can refer to all o f these elements as a cultural group’s subjective
culture (Triandis, 1972). This implies that people who speak
different languages (e.g., English and Chinese) or live in nonad-
jacent locations (e.g., England and Australia) or who have lived
in different time periods (e.g., 19th and 20th centuries) may
have different subjective cultures.

Some aspects o f the self may be universal. ” I a m h u n g r y ” may
well be an element with much the same meaning worldwide,
and across time. Other elements are extremely culture-specific.
For instance, they depend on the particular mythology-reli-
gion-world-view and language o f a culture. ” M y soul will be
reincarnated” is culture-specific. Some elements o f the self im-
ply action. For example, ” I should be a high achiever” implies
specific actions under conditions in which standards o f excel-
lence are present. Other elements do n o t imply action (e.g., I
a m tall).

Contradictions among elements o f the self are apparently
more tolerated in some cultures than in others. Bbarati (1985)
argued that in India the self contains m a n y contradictory ele-
ments, because all elements are seen as aspects o f unitary uni-
versal forces.

The self may be coterminous with the b o d y (e.g., a Western
view) or with a group such as the family or the tribe (an African
and Asian view, at least in some cases), and may be conceived
as independent o f groups or as a satelite o f groups (Centre Na-
tional de la Recherche Scientifique, 1973; Shweder & Bourne,
1982). Corresponding to a body-bounded self may be a name
(as in the West), or a person’s name may be a nonsense syllable
(Geertz, 1963) that is rarely used, and instead, people are re-
ferred to by teknonyms (e.g., mother o f X).

One major distinction among aspects o f the self is between
the private, public, and collective self (Baumeister, 1986b;
Greenwald & Pratkanis, 1984). Thus, we have the following: the
private se/f–cognitions that involve traits, states, or behaviors
o f the person (e.g., ” I a m introverted,” ” I a m honest,” ” I will
buy X”); thepublic self–cognitions concerning the generalized
other’s view o f the self, such as “People think I a m introverted”
or “People think I will b u y X ” ; and the collective self—cogni-
tions concerning a view o f the self that is found in some collec-
tive (e.g., family, coworkers, tribe, scientific society); for in-
stance, ” M y family thinks I a m introverted” or ” M y coworkers
believe I travel too much.”

The argument o f this article is that people sample these three
kinds o f selves with different probabilities, in different cultures,
and that has specific consequences for social behavior.

The private self is an assessment o f the self by the self. The
public self corresponds to an assessment o f the self by the gener-
alized other. The collective self corresponds to an assessment o f
the se If by a specific reference group. Taj tel’s ( 1978 ) notion o f a
social identity, “that part o f the individual’s self-concept which
derives from his (or her) knowledge o f h i s (her) membership in a
social group (or groups) together with the values and emotional
significance attached to that membership,” (p. 63) is part o f the

collective self. Tajfel’s theory is that people choose ingroups that
maximize their positive social identity. However, that notion re-
flects an individualistic emphasis, because in m a n y collectivist
cultures people do not have a choice o f ingroups. For instance,
even though the Indian constitution has banned castes, caste
is still an important aspect o f social identity in that culture.
Historical factors shape different identities (Baumeister,
1986a).

The notion o f sampling has two elements: a universe o f units
to be sampled and a probability o f choice o f a unit from that
universe. The universe can be more or less complex. By com-
plexity is meant that the n u m b e r o f distinguishable elements
might be few versus many, the differentiation within the ele-
ments may be small or large, and the integration o f the elements
may be small or large. The n u m b e r o f nonoverlapping elements
(e.g., I a m bold; I a m sensitive) is clearly relevant to complexity.
The differentiation o f the elements refer to the n u m b e r o f dis-
tinctions made within the element. For example, in the case o f
the social class element, a person may have a simple conception
with little differentiation (e.g., people who are unemployed vs.
working vs. leading the society) or a complex conception with
much differentiation (e.g., rich, with new money, well educated
vs. rich with new money, poorly educated). Integration refers to
the extent a change in one element changes few versus m a n y
elements. Self-structures in which changes in one element re-
sult in changes in m a n y elements are more complex than self-
structures in which such changes result in changes o f only a few
elements (Rokeach, 1960).

I n families in which children are urged to be themselves, in
which “finding yourself” is valued, or in which self-actualiza-
tion is emphasized, the private self is likely to be complex• In
cultures in which families emphasize ” w h a t other people will
think about y o u , ‘ the public self is likely to be complex. I n cul-
tures in which specific groups are emphasized during socializa-
tion (e.g., ” r e m e m b e r you are a m e m b e r o f this family;’ ” . . .
you are a Christian”), the collective self is likely to be complex,
and the norms, roles, and values o f that group acquire especially
great emotional significance.

The probability o f sampling refers to whether the element
that will be sampled is more likely to be an element o f the pri-
vate, public, or collective self. Thus, if the private self is com-
plex, there are more “private-self units” that can be sampled,
and thus the probability that the private self will be sampled
will be high; correspondingly with the other selves, if they are
complex they have a higher probability o f being sampled.

In addition t o differences in the complexity o f the private,
public, and collective self, the salience o f the units that consti-
tute these selves is likely to be different. Units o f a particular
self are likely to interact among themselves. Each time a unit is
activated, adjacent and similar units will increase in salience,
as the well-known phenomena o f stimulus and response gener-
alization suggest. Thus, the fact that a unit o f the private self
(e.g., I a m bold) is activated increases the chances that other
units o f the private self(e.g., ” I a m fearless;” even ” I a m confi-
dent”) will become more salient than they were. Salience o f a
unit increases its probability o f being sampled.

O n e o f m a n y methods that are available to study the self re-
quires writing 20 sentence completions that begin with ” I a m
• . .” ( K u h n & McPartland, 1954). The answers can be content-
analyzed to determine whether they correspond to the private,

5 0 8 HARRY C. TRIANDIS

public, or collective self. I f a social group is part o f the answer
(e.g., I a m a son = family; I a m a student = educational institu-
tion; I a m Roman Catholic = religion), one can classify the re-
sponse as part o f the collective self. I f the generalized other is
mentioned (e.g., I a m liked by most people), it is part o f the
public self. I f there is no reference to an entity outside the per-
son (e.g., I a m bold), it can be considered a part o f the private
self. Experience with this scoring method shows that coders can
reach interrater reliabilities in the .9+ range. The percentage o f
the collective responses varies from 0 to 100, with sample
means in Asian cultures in the 20 to 52% range and in European
and N o r t h American samples between 15 and 19%. Public-self
responses are relatively rare, so sample means o f private-self
responses (with student samples) are commonly in the 81 t o
85% range. In addition to such content analyses, one can exam-
ine the availability (how frequently a particular group, e.g., the
family, is mentioned) and the accessibility (when is a particular
group mentioned for the first time in the rank-order) o f re-
sponses (Higgins & King, 1981).

This method is useful because it provides an operational
definition o f the three kinds o f selves under discussion. Also,
salience is reflected directly in the measure o f accessibility, and
the complexity o f particular self is suggested by the availability
m e a s u r e .

Although this method has m a n y advantages, a multimethod
strategy for the study o f the self is highly recommended, because
every method has some limitations and convergence across
methods increases the validity o f our measurements. Further-
more, when methods are used in different cultures in which
people have different expectations about what can be observed,
asked, or analyzed, there is an interaction between culture and
method. But when methods converge similarly in different cul-
tures and when the antecedents and consequences o f the self-
construct in each culture are similar, one can have greater con-
fidence that the construct has similar or equivalent meanings
across cultures.

Other methods that can tap aspects o f the self have included
interviews (e.g., Lobel, 1984), Q-sorts o f potentially self-de-
scriptive attributes (e.g., Block, 1986), the Multistage Social
Identity Inquirer (Zavalloni, 1975; Zavalloni & Louis-Guerin,
1984), and reaction times when responding to whether a specific
attribute is self-descriptive (Rogers, 1981).

The utility o f the distinction among the various selves can be
seen in Hogan and Cheek (1983) and Breckler and Greenwald
(1986). The latter integrates m a n y social psychological phe-
n o m e n a using these distinctions. However, other distinctions
seem to be useful as well, such as the ideal versus actual self, the
desired versus undesired self(Ogilvie, 1987), and discrepancies
among various selves that correspond to distinct emotional
states (Higgins, 1987).

The self is dynamic (Markus & Wurf, 1987), so that different
elements o f the self will be sampled in different situations,
across time, moods (e.g., Szalay & Deese, 1978), and depending
on negotiations the person has had with others about the way
the situation is to be defined. Depending on which elements
are sampled and if the elements have action components, social
behavior will be influenced by the particular self. Sampling o f
both public and collective elements suggests an allocentric self;
sampling o f exclusively private elements suggests an idiocentric

self. O f course, in most cases the elements that are sampled are
o f all three (private, public, collective) kinds.

A n u m b e r o f social psychological literatures, such as those
dealing with self-monitoring (e.g., Snyder, 1974; Snyder &
Gangestad, 1986), self-consciousness (e.g., Carver & Scheier,
1985), and the complexity o f the self(e.g., Linville, 1985), can
be related to the distinctions made earlier. High self-monitors
sample the situation and sample the public self more than do
low self-monitors, who have a more stable (situation indepen-
dent) self and sample mostly the private self; the distinction be-
tween private and public self-consciousness is obviously related
to such differential sampling; highly complex selves should in-
clude more elements in all three domains o f the self, although
n o research on this seems to have been reported in the litera-
ture, as yet.

I have defined the self as one element o f subjective culture
(when it is shared by members o f a culture) and distinguished
the private, public, and collective selves, and indicated that the
complexity o f these selves will depend on cultural variables.
The more complex a particular self, the more probable it is that
it will be sampled. Sampling o f a particular self will increase
the probability that behaviors implicated in this aspect o f the
self will occur, when situations favor such occurrence. For ex-
ample, data suggest that people from East Asia sample their
collective self more frequently than do Europeans or North
Americans. This means that elements o f their reference groups,
such as group norms or group goals, will be more salient among
Asians than among Europeans or N o r t h Americans. In the next
section I will describe cultural variation along certain theoreti-
cal dimensions that are useful for organizing the information
about the sampling o f different selves, and hence can account
for differences in social behavior across cultures.

Cultural Patterns

There is evidence o f different selves across cultures (Marsella
et al., 1985). However, the evidence has not been linked system-
atically to particular dimensions o f cultural variation. This sec-
tion will define three o f these dimensions.

Cultural complexity. A major difference across cultures is in
cultural complexity. Consider the contrast between the h u m a n
bands that existed on earth up to about 15,000 years ago and
the life o f a major metropolitan city today. According to archae-
ological evidence, the bands rarely included more than 30 indi-
viduals. The n u m b e r o f relationships among 30 individuals is
relatively small; the n u m b e r o f relationships in a major metro-
politan area is potentially almost infinite. The number o f poten-
tial relationships is one measure o f cultural complexity. Stu-
dents o f this construct have used m a n y others. One can get reli-
able rank orders by using information about whether cultures
have writing and records, fixity o f residence, agriculture, urban
settlements, technical specialization, land transport other than
walking, money, high population densities, m a n y levels o f polit-
ical integration, and m a n y levels o f social stratification. Cul-
tures that have all o f these attributes (e.g., the Romans, the Chi-
nese o f the 5th century B.C., modern industrial cultures) are
quite complex. As one or more o f the aforementioned attributes
are missing, the cultures are more simple, the simplest includ-
ing the contemporary food gathering cultures (e.g., the nomads
o f the Kalahari desert).

THE SELF AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 509

Additional measures o f complexity can be obtained by exam-
ining various domains o f culture. Culture includes language,
technology, economic, political, and educational systems, reli-
gious and aesthetic patterns, social structures, and so on. One
can analyze each of these domains by considering the number
o f distinct elements that can be identified in it. For example, (a)
language can be examined by noting the number o f terms that
are available (e.g., 600 camel-related terms in Arabic; many
terms about automobiles in English), (b) economics by noting
the number o f occupations (the U.S. Employment and Training
Administration’s Dictionary of Occupational Titles contains
more than 250,000), and (c) religion by noting the number o f
different functions (e.g., 6,000 priests in one temple in Orissa,
India, each having a different function). The subject is left to
the specialists such as Carneiro (1970), Lomax and Berkowitz
(1972), and Murdock and Provost (1973), who do have reliable
ways o f measuring the construct.

One o f the consequences o f increased complexity is that indi-
viduals have more and more potential ingroups toward whom
they may or may not be loyal. As the number o f potential in-
groups increases, the loyalty o f individuals to any one ingroup
decreases. Individuals have the option o f giving priority to their
personal goals rather than to the goals of an ingroup. Also, the
greater the affluence o f a society, the more financial indepen-
dence can be turned into social and emotional independence,
with the individual giving priority to personal rather than in-
group goals. Thus, as societies become more complex and
affluent, they also can become more individualistic. However,
there are some moderator variables that modify this simple pic-
ture, that will be discussed later, after I examine more closely
the dimension o f individualism-collectivism.

Individualism-collectivism. Individualists give priority to
personal goals over the goals o f collectives; collectivists either
make no distinctions between personal and collective goals, or if
they do make such distinctions, they subordinate their personal
goals to the collective goals (Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal,
Asai, & Lucca, 1988). Closely related to this dimension, in the
work o f Hofstede (1980), is power distance (the tendency to see
a large difference between those with power and those without
power). Collectivists tend to be high in power distance.

Although the terms individualism and collectivism should be
used to characterize cultures and societies, the terms idiocentric
and allocentric should be used to characterize individuals. Tri-
andis, Leung, Villareal, and Clack (1985) have shown that
within culture (Illinois) there are individuals who differ on this
dimension, and the idiocentrics report that they are concerned
with achievement, but are lonely, whereas the allocentrics re-
port low alienation and receiving much social support. These
findings were replicated in Puerto Rico (Triandis et al., 1988).
The distinction o f terms at the cultural and individual levels o f
analysis is useful because it is convenient when discussing the
behavior o f allocentrics in individualist cultures and idiocen-
tries in collectivist cultures (e.g., Bontempo, Lobel, & Triandis,
1989).

In addition to subordinating personal to collective goals, col-
lectivists tend to be concerned about the results o f their actions
on members o f their ingroups, tend to share resources with in-
group members, feel interdependent with ingroup members,
and feel involved in the lives o f ingroup members (Hui & Tri-
andis, 1986). They emphasize the integrity o f ingroups over

time and de-emphasize their independence from ingroups (Tri-
andis et al., 1986).

Shweder’s data (see Shweder & LeVine, 1984) suggest that
collectivists perceive ingroup norms as universally valid (a form
o f ethnocentrism). A considerable literature suggests that col-
lectivists automatically obey ingroup authorities and are willing
to fight and die to maintain the integrity o f the ingronp, whereas
they distrust and are unwilling to cooperate with members o f
outgroups (Triandis, 1972). However, the definition o f the in-
group keeps shifting with the situation. Common fate, common
outside threat, and proximity (which is often linked to common
fate) appear to be important determinants o f the ingroup/out-
group boundary. Although the family is usually the most impor-
tant ingroup, tribe, coworkers, co-religionists, and members o f
the same political or social collective or the same aesthetic or
scientific persuasion can also function as important ingroups.
When the state is under threat, it becomes the ingroup.

Ingroups can also be defined on the basis o f similarity (in
demographic attributes, activities, preferences, or institutions)
and do influence social behavior to a greater extent when they
are stable and impermeable (difficult to gain membership or
difficult to leave). Social behavior is a function o f ingroup
norms to a greater extent in collectivist than individualist cul-
tures. (Davidson, Jaccard, Triandis, Morales, and Diaz-Guer-
rero, 1976).

In collectivist cultures, ingroups influence a wide range o f so-
cial situations (e.g., during the cultural revolution in China, the
state had what was perceived as “legitimate influence” on every
collective). In some cases, the influence is extreme (e.g., the Rev.
Jones’s People’s Temple influenced 911 members o f that collec-
tive to commit suicide in 1978).

In collectivist cultures, role relationships that include in-
group members are perceived as more nurturant, respectful,
and intimate than they are in individualistic cultures; those that
include outgroup members are perceived to be more manipula-
tive and exploitative in collectivist than in individualist cultures
(Sinha, 1982; Triandis, Vassiliou, & Nassiakou, 1968). In other
words, more ingroup social relationships are communal in the
collectivist and more exchange relationships can be found in the
individualist cultures. Outgroup relationships follow exchange
patterns everywhere.

The distinction between communal and exchange relations
(Mills & Clark, 1982) is useful. The attributes o f communal and
exchange relationships involve a number o f contrasts, such as
(a) lack o f clarity versus clarity about what is to be exchanged,
and when and where, (b) concern for the other person’s needs
versus concern for equity, (c) importance o f maintaining equal-
ity o f affect (if one is sad, the other is sad) as opposed to emo-
tional detachment, (d) inequality o f the benefits exchanged ver-
sus equality or equity bases of the benefits exchanged, and (e)
benefits are not comparable versus benefits are comparable.
Mills and Clark (I 982) gave many examples in which exchange
theory (e.g., Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) does not seem to provide
adequate accounts of social behavior, makes predictions about
the conditions under which exchange theory will be adequate,
and tests experimentally some of these predictions. We expect
that in collectivistic cultures the applicability of exchange theo-
ries will be more limited than in individualistic cultures.

As discussed earlier, over the course of cultural evolution
there has been a shift toward individualism (i.e., exchange rela-

510 HARRY C. TRIANDIS

tionships). Content analyses o f social behaviors recorded in
written texts (Adamopoulos & Bontempo, 1986) across histori-
cal periods show a shift from communal to exchange relation-
ships. Behaviors related to trading are characteristic o f individ-
ualistic cultures, and contracts emancipated individuals from
the bonds of tribalism (Pearson, 1977).

The distribution o f collectivism-individualism, according to
Hofstede’s (1980) data, contrasts most o f the Latin American,
Asian, and African cultures with most o f the North American
and Northern and Western European cultures. However, many
cultures are close to the middle o f the dimension, and other
variables are also relevant. Urban samples tend to be individu-
alistic, and traditional-rural samples tend toward collectivism
within the same culture (e.g., Greece in the work o f Dournanis,
1983; Georgas, 1989; and Katakis, 1984). Within the United
States one can find a good deal o f range on this variable, with
Hispanic samples much more collectivist than samples o f
Northern and Western European backgrounds (G. Marin & Tri-
andis, 1985).

The major antecedents o f individualism appear to be cultural
complexity and affluence. The more complex the culture, the
greater the number o f ingroups that one may have, so that a
person has the option o f joining ingroups or even forming new
ingroups. Affluence means that the individual can be indepen-
dent o f ingroups. I f the ingroup makes excessive demands, the
individual can leave it. Mobility is also important. As individu-
als move (migration, changes in social class) they join new in-
groups, and they have the opportunity to join ingroups whose
goals they find compatible with their own. Furthermore, the
more costly it is in a particular ecology for an ingronp to reject
ingroup members who behave according to their own goals
rather than according to ingroup goals, the more likely are peo-
ple to act in accordance with their personal goals, and thus the
more individualistic is the culture. Such costs are high when the
ecology is thinly populated. One can scarcely afford to reject
a neighbor if one has only one neighbor. Conversely, densely
populated ecologies are characterized by collectivism, not only
because those who behave inappropriately can be excluded, but
also because it is necessary to regulate behavior more strictly to
overcome problems o f crowding.

As rewards from ingroup membership increase, the more
likely it is that a person will use ingroup goals as guides for be-
havior. Thus, when ingroups provide many rewards (e.g., emo-
tional security, status, income, information, services, willing-
ness to spend time with the person) they tend to increase the
person’s commitment to the ingroup and to the culture’s collec-
tivism.

The size ofingroups tends to be different in the two kinds o f
cultures. In collectivist cultures, ingroups tend to be small (e.g.,
family), whereas in individualist cultures they can be large (e.g.,
people who agree with me on important attitudes).

Child-rearing patterns are different in collectivist and indi-
vidualist cultures. The primary concern o f parents in collectiv-
ist cultures is obedience, reliability, and proper behavior. The
primary concern o f parents in individualistic cultures is self-
reliance, independence, and creativity. Thus, we find that in
simple, agricultural societies, socialization is severe and confor-
mity is demanded and obtained (Berry, 1967, 1979). Similarly,
in working-class families in industrial societies, the socializa-
tion pattern leads to conformity (Kohn, 1969, 1987). In more

individualist cultures such as food gatherers (Berry, 1979) and
very individualistic cultures such as the United States, the child-
rearing pattern emphasizes self-reliance and independence;
children are allowed a good deal o f autonomy and are encour-
aged to explore their environment. Similarly, creativity and self-
actualization are more important traits and are emphasized in
child-rearing in the professional social classes (Kohn, 1987).

It is clear that conformity is functional in simple, agricultural
cultures (if one is to make an irrigation system, each person
should do part o f the job in a well-coordinated plan) and in
working-class jobs (the boss does not want subordinates who
do their own thing). Conversely, it is disfunctional in hunting
cultures, in which one must be ingenious, and in professional
jobs, in which one must be creative. The greater the cultural
complexity, the more is conformity to one ingroup disfunc-
tional, inasmuch as one cannot take advantage o f new opportu-
nities available in other parts o f the society.

The smaller the family size, the more the child is allowed to
do his or her own thing. In large families, rules must be im-
posed, otherwise chaos will occur. As societies become more
affluent (individualistic), they also reduce the size o f the family,
which increases the opportunity to raise children to be individ-
ualists. Autonomy in child-rearing also leads to individualism.
Exposure to other cultures (e.g., through travel or because o f
societal heterogeneity) also increases individualism, inasmuch
as the child becomes aware o f different norms and has to choose
his or her own standards o f behavior.

Although both collectivism and individualism have elements
that are characteristic o f all collectivist and all individualist cul-
tures (Triandis, 1978), there are also culture-specific collectivist
and culture-specific individualist elements. There is a large liter-
ature that described cultural patterns, that cannot be reviewed
here. Interested readers can find details about the culture-spe-
cific forms o f these cultural patterns in the following publica-
tions: for collectivism in Africa (Holzberg, 1981), Bali (Geertz,
1963), China (Deem & Salaman, 1985; Feather, 1986; Hsu,
1981; Hui, 1984; Wu, 1985; Yang, 1986), Egypt (Rugh, 1985),
Greece (Doumanis, 1983; Katakis, 1984; Triandis, 1972), India
(Sinha, 1982), Italy (Banfield, 1958; Strodtbeck, 1958), Japan
(Caudill & Sca~, 1962; Lebra, 1976; Mendenhall & Oddon,
1986), among U.S. Jews (Strodtbeck, 1958), Latin America (Di-
az-Guerrero, 1979; Holtzman, Diaz-Guerrero, & Swartz, 1975;
Marin & Triandis, 1985; Tallman, Marotz-Baden, & Pindas,
1983; Triandis, Marin, Hui, Lisansky, & Ottati, 1984; Triandis,
Matin, Lisansky, & Betancourt, 1984), Navaho tribes (Nor-
throp, 1949), Philippines (Church, 1987; Guthrie, 1961), Tur-
key (Basaran, 1986), the USSR (Kaiser, 1984), and in U.S. cor-
porations (Whyte, 1956). The contrasting pattern ofindividual-
ism is best described for the case o f the United States in such
publications as Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swindler, and Tipton
(1985), Kerlinger (1984), Wallach and Wallach (1983), and Wa-
terman (1984). Decision making differs in collectivist and indi-
vidualist cultures (Gaenslen, 1986). A summary o f the com-
mon elements that characterize the two cultural patterns can
be found in Triandis et al., (1988).

Tight versus loose cultures. In collectivist cultures, ingronps
demand that individuals conform to ingroup norms, role defi-
nitions, and values. When a society is relatively homogeneous,
the norms and values o f ingroups are similar. But heteroge-
neous societies have groups with dissimilar norms. I f an in-

THE SELF AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 511

group member deviates from ingroup norms, ingroup members
may have to make the painful decision o f excluding that individ-
ual from the ingroup. Because rejection o f i n g r o u p members is
emotionally draining, cultures develop tolerance for deviation
from group norms. As a result, homogeneous cultures are often
rigid in requiring that ingroup members behave according to
the ingroup norms. Such cultures are tight. Heterogeneous cul-
tures and cultures in marginal positions between two major cul-
tural patterns are flexible in dealing with ingroup members who
deviate from ingroup norms. For example, Japan is considered
tight, and it is relatively homogeneous. Thailand is considered
loose, and it is in a marginal position between the major cul-
tures o f India and China; people are pulled in different direc-
tions by sometimes contrasting norms, and hence they must be
more flexible in imposing their norms. In short, tight cultures
(Pelto, 1968) have clear n o r m s that are reliably imposed. Little
deviation from normative behavior is tolerated, and severe sanc-
tions are administered to those who deviate. Loose cultures ei-
ther have unclear n o r m s about most social situations or tolerate
deviance from the norms. For example, it is widely reported in
the press that Japanese children who return to Japan after a
period o f residence in the West, are criticized most severely by
teachers because their behavior is not “proper.” Japan is a tight
culture in which deviations that would be considered trivial in
the West (such as bringing Western food rather than Japanese
food for lunch) are noted and criticized. In loose cultures, devi-
ations from “proper” behavior are tolerated, and in m a n y cases
there are no standards o f “proper” behavior. Theocracies are
prototypical o f tight cultures, but some contemporary rela-
tively homogeneous cultures (e.g., the Greeks, the Japanese) are
also relatively tight. In a heterogeneous culture, such as the
United States, it is more difficult for people to agree on specific
norms, and even more difficult to impose severe sanctions. Geo-
graphic mobility allows people to leave the offended communi-
ties in ways that are n o t available in more stable cultures. Urban
environments are more loose than rural environments, in
which norms are clearer and sanctions can be imposed more
easily. Prototypical o f loose cultures are the Lapps and the
Thais. In very tight cultures, according to Pelto, one finds cor-
porate control o f property, corporate ownership o f stored food
and production power, religious figures as leaders, hereditary
recruitment into priesthood, and high levels o f taxation.

The latter list o f attributes suggests that collectivism and
tightness are related, but the two cultural patterns can be kept
distinct for analytical purposes. It is theoretically possible for a
group to be collectivist (give priority to ingroup goals) yet allow
considerable deviation from group norms before imposing
sanctions. For example, a group may have the n o r m that group
goals should be given priority over personal goals, but may do
nothing when individuals deviate substantially from that norm.
A case reported in the Chinese press (Peking Daily, May 1987)
is interesting: A student, whose behavior was bizarre, was as-
sumed to be an “individualist” and was not diagnosed as men-
tally ill until he killed a fellow student, at which point the au-
thorities took action. China is a collectivist, but “relatively”
loose culture.

The intolerance o f inappropriate behavior characteristic o f
tight cultures does not extend to all situations. In fact, tight cul-
tures are quite tolerant o f foreigners (they do not know better),
and o f drunk, and mentally ill persons. They may even have

rituals in which inappropriate behavior is expected. For exam-
ple, in a tight culture such as Japan one finds the office beer
party as a ritual institution, where one is expected to get d r u n k
and to tell the boss what one “really” thinks o f him (it is rarely
her). Similarly, in loose cultures, there are specific situations in
which deviance is not tolerated. For example, in Orissa (India),
a son who cuts his hair the day after his father dies is bound to
be severely criticized, although the culture is generally loose.

Relationships among dimensions o f cultural variation. Indi-
vidualism is related to complexity according to a curvilinear
function, because protoindividualism is found in nomadic
groups o f food gatherers. Such groups, although characterized
by intensive involvement with a family or band, allow individu-
als to have considerable freedom o f action outside the collective
because it is more effective to gather food in a dispersed rather
than in a collective manner. In agricultural societies one finds
high levels o f collectivism, and most theocracies have an agri-
cultural basis. In modern industrial settings one finds neoindi-
vidualism, in which, again, a small group, the family or the
work group, plays an important role in determining behavior,
but the individual has considerable freedom o f action outside
the group. Because complexity increases from food gathering,
to agricultural, to industrial societies, the relationship o f indi-
vidualism and complexity is curvilinear.

Child-rearing patterns also follow a curvilinear pattern with
complexity. Simple food gathering and hunting cultures tend to
socialize their children with emphasis on independence and
self-reliance; agricultural, more complex cultures, tend to em-
phasize obedience; very complex industrial cultures, particu-
larly among cognitive complex (professionals, upper class) sub-
samples, emphasize, again, independence and self reliance
(Berry, 1967, 1979; Kohn, 1969, 1987).

Cultural complexity and tightness are not related; it is possi-
ble to identify types o f cultures in the four quadrants defined
by these two variables: Boldt (1978) has described the loose/
complex quadrant as characteristic o f the industrial democra-
cies, the tight/complex quadrant as characteristic o f the totali-
tarian industrial states, the loose/simple quadrant as character-
istic o f hunters and gatherers, and the tight/simple quadrant as
characteristic o f the agricultural simple cultures.

Finally, the relationship between collectivism and tightness is
likely to be linear, but probably not very strong. Because the two
constructs have different antecedents (collectivism = c o m m o n
fate, limited resources that must be divided in order to survive;
tightness = cultural homogeneity, isolation from external cul-
tural influences), we can expect m a n y exceptions from the pat-
tern o f tightness and collectivism versus looseness and individu-
alism.

I have defined the dimensions o f cultural complexity, individ-
ualism, and tightness. In the next section I examine how these
dimensions influence the probability that the private, public, or
collective self will be sampled, and hence the patterns o f social
behavior that are most likely in different cultures.

C u l t u r e a n d S e l f

Culture is to society what m e m o r y is to the person. It specifies
designs for living that have proven effective in the past, ways o f
dealing with social situations, and ways to think about the self
and social behavior that have been reinforced in the past. It in-

5 1 2 HARRY C. TRIANDIS

eludes systems o f symbols that facilitate interaction (Geertz,
1973), rules o f the game o f life that have been shown to ” w o r k ”
in the past. When a person is socialized in a given culture, the
person can use custom as a substitute for thought, and save time.

The three dimensions o f cultural variation just described re-
fleet variations in culture that have emerged because o f different
ecologies, such as ways o f surviving. Specifically, in cultures that
survive through hunting or food gathering, in which people are
more likely to survive if they work alone or in small groups be-
cause game is dispersed, individualism emerges as a good design
for living. I n agricultural cultures, in which cooperation in the
building o f irrigation systems and food storage and distribution
facilities is reinforced, collectivists designs for living emerge. I n
complex, industrial cultures, in which loosely linked ingroups
produce the thousands o f parts o f modern machines (e.g., a 747
airplane), individuals often find themselves in situations in
which they have to choose ingroups or even form their own in-
groups (e.g., new corporation). Again, individualistic designs
for living become more functional. In homogeneous cultures,
one can insist on tight n o r m enforcement; in heterogeneous, or
fast changing, or marginal (e.g., confiuence o f two major cul-
tural traditions) cultures, the imposition o f tight norms is
difficult because it is unclear whose n o r m s are to be used. A
loose culture is more likely in such ecologies.

Over time, cultures become more complex, as new differen-
tiations prove effective. However, once complexity reaches very
high levels, moves toward simplification emerge as reactions to
too much complexity. For example, in art styles, the pendulum
has been swinging between the “less is m o r e ” view o f Oriental
art and the ” m o r e is better” view o f the Roccoco period in Eu-
rope. Similarly, excessive individualism may create a reaction
toward collectivism, and excessive collectivism, a reaction to-
ward individualism; or tightness may result from t o o much
looseness, and looseness from t o o much tightness. Thus, cul-
ture is dynamic, ever changing.

Similarly the self is dynamic, ever changing. It changes in
different environments (e.g., school vs. home, see McGuire,
McGuire, & Chcever, 1986), when the group climates are
different (e.g., Aronson, 1986), or when drugs are used (e.g.,
Hull, 1986).

The three dimensions o f cultural variation described earlier
are systematically linked t o different kinds o f self. I n this section
I provide hypotheses linking culture and self.

Individualism-Collectivism

Child-rearing patterns in individualistic cultures tend to em-
phasize self-reliance, independence, finding yourself, and self-
actualization. As discussed earlier, such child-rearing increases
the complexity o f the private self, and because there are more
elements o f the private self to be sampled, more are sampled.
Thus, the probability that the private rather than the other
selves will be sampled increases with individualism. Conversely,
in collectivist cultures, child-rearing emphasizes the impor-
tance o f the collective; the collective self is more complex and
more likely to be sampled.

The expected lower rates o f sampling o f the collective self in
individualistic cultures was obtained by Triandis in research to
be reported. University o f Hawaii students o f Northern Euro-
pean backgrounds were compared with University o f Hawaii

students o f Japanese, Chinese, or F’flipino backgrounds. The
mean percentages o f their responses that referred to a “social
category” (family, ethnicity, occupation, institution, religious
group, or gender), after completing 20 sentences that started
with ” I a m . . . ,” were 17 to 21 for students o f different Euro-
pean backgrounds and 19 to 29 for students o f Asian and Pacific
backgrounds. When a sample o f students from the University
o f Illinois (n = 159) was c o m p a r e d with another sample from
Hawaii (n = 64), the mean social category responses from Illi-
nois were 19% and from Hawaii 29%. Social psychology stu-
dents (n = 118) from the University o f Athens, Greece, who
were found to be quite individualistic by other measurements,
had a mean o f 15%; social psychology students from the Univer-
sity o f Hong Kong (n = 112), who are fast becoming individual-
istic but still have collectivist tendencies, had a mean o f 20%; ~
university graduates from the Peoples’ Republic o f China (PRC;
n = 34) attending a course taught by Triandis had a mean
o f 52%.

One can ask what social categories constituted these percent-
ages. A n Illinois sample o f 188 men and 202 women indicated
that family and educational institution were the most impor-
tant categories. Family was more important for the women (2.0
average availability vs. 1.4 for men, p < .001; average accessibil- ity o f 12 for women vs. 9 for men, p < .000), but athletic club was more important for men than for women (1.2 in availability vs. 0.5, p < .000; 8 in accessibility vs. 4, p < .000, respectively). Gender was more accessible to the women than to the men (11 vs. 8, p < .002, respectively). Similarly, family was most impor- tant for the P R C sample. Athletic club, religion, age, and race were categories used by Americans but n o t by the PRC, whereas work unit, Communist Party, and "mass clubs" (e.g., chess club) were used by the P R C but not by the American sam- ples. The Greek samples were like the U.S. sample; specifically, the Greek women were much like the U.S. women (e.g., gender was more important for them than it was for the Greek men).

O f course, samples o f students are unusual (Sears, 1986), and
from our theoretical perspective, they should be highly individ-
ualistic. It seems likely that nonliterate populations, with few
ingroups, will give a larger percentage o f their responses as so-
cial categories. Furthermore, keeping literacy levels constant,
one would expect a curvilinear relationship between the hunt-
ing/gathering-agricultural-industrial continuum and percent-
age social category, with a m a x i m u m to be obtained in agricul-
tural samples.

Social class should also moderate the sampling o f the collec-
tive self. One expects upper-middle- and upper-class individuals
to sample the collective selfless frequently than lower class indi-
viduals, although lower lower-class individuals may again sam-
ple more the private self. This expectation derives from reliable
differences in child-rearing patterns (Kohn, 1969, 1987), which
indicate that in many societies (Italy, Japan, Poland, the U.S.)
child-rearing emphasizes conformity to family n o r m s in the
lower classes and self-direction, creativity, and independence
from the ingroup in the upper social classes. The lower lower
class might be an exception, because the evidence (see Triandis,

I thank James C-eorgas of the University of Athens, and Harry Hui
of the University ofHong Kong, who collected this data from their social
psychology classes.

THE SELF AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 513

1976) is that, in that case, the social environment often appears
to them to be chaotic. It seems difficult to sample chaos.

The less people sample the collective self, the more confusing
should be their social identity. This is consistent with Tajfel’s
(1978) definition o f identity, Baumeister’s (1986a) discussion o f
the trivialization o f ascribed attributes between the 16th and
the 20th centuries, and Dragonas’s (1983) studies o f the self-
concepts o f 11- and 12-year-olds in small villages, transitional
cities, and a large city.

Factors that increase ethnocentrism (LeVine & Campbell,
1972), such as external threat, competition with outgroups, and
c o m m o n fate, should also increase the probability that the col-
lective self will be sampled.

Homogeneous relatively isolated cultures tend to be tight,
and they will sample the collective self more than heteroge-
neous, centrally located cultures. This follows from perceptual
mechanisms that are well-known. Quattrone (1986) reviewed
perceptual studies that indicate that people who have few expo-
sures to stimuli that have both c o m m o n and distinct features
tend to notice and remember the c o m m o n elements first and
the diverse elements only after m a n y exposures to the stimulus
set. Homogeneous, isolated cultures are primarily exposed to
their particular ingroups, and so are likely to sample the collec-
tive self.

As indicated earlier, collectivism is associated with child-
rearing patterns that emphasize conformity, obedience, and re-
liability. Such patterns are usually associated with rewards for
conformity to ingroup goals, which leads to internalization o f
the ingroup goals. Thus, people do what is expected o f them,
even if that is not enjoyable. Bontempo et al. (1989) randomly
assigned subjects from a collectivist (Brazil) and an individual-
ist (U.S.) culture to two conditions o f questionnaire administra-
tion: public and private. The questionnaire contained questions
about how the subject was likely to act when the ingroup ex-
pected a behavior that was costly to the individual (e.g., visit a
friend in the hospital, when this was time consuming). Both o f
the questions How should the person act? and How enjoyable
would it be to act? were measured. It was found that Brazilians
gave the same answers under both the anonymous and public
conditions. Under both conditions they indicated that they
would do what was expected o f them. The U.S. sample indi-
cated they would do what was expected o f them in the public
but not in the private condition. T h e U.S. group’s private an-
swers indicated that the subjects thought that doing the costly
behaviors was unlikely, and certainly not enjoyable. Under the
very same conditions the Brazilians indicated that they thought
the costly prosocial behaviors were likely and enjoyable. I n
short, the Brazilians had internalized the ingroup n o r m s so that
conformity to the ingroup appeared enjoyable to them.

When ingroups have resources that allow them to reward
those who conform with ingroup norms and provide sanctions
to those who do not conform, one expects individuals to sample
the collective self more than when ingroups do not have such
resources. This is derived directly from behavior theory. An-
thropological observations are also consistent with it. For exam-
ple, in the case o f extreme lack o f resources, such as was ob-
served among the Ik (Turnbull, 1972), basic family structures
and norms became irrelevant and did not regulate behavior.

The size o f ingroups has some relevance to the question o f
sampling o f the collective self. Very large ingroups (e.g., man-

kind) have very few (e.g., survival) and unclear goals and norms.
The very definition o f n o r m implies agreement. When the in-
group is large it is unlikely that monolithic conceptions o f cor-
rect behavior will be found. Also, small ingroups, such as the
nuclear family, can notice deviations from n o r m s more readily
and provide sanctions. Thus, we expect that the larger the size
o f the ingroup, the lower the probability that the collective self
will be sampled. The data from Hawaii and Illinois, mentioned
earlier, agree with this derivation. For example, the religious
group (e.g., I a m Roman Catholic) is dearly larger than the fam-
ily and was mentioned less frequently than an educational insti-
tution (e.g., I a m a student at the University o f Hawaii), occupa-
tion (e.g., I a m a computer programmer), ethnic group (e.g., I
a m a Japanese American), or the family. Very large ingroups (I
a m a citizen o f the world) were mentioned by only 2 individuals
out o f a sample o f 183.

Observations indicate that the extent to which an ingroup
makes demands on individuals in few or in m a n y areas shows
considerable variance. For example, in the United States, states
make very few demands (e.g., pay y o u r income tax), whereas
in China during the cultural revolution, the Communist Party
made demands in many areas (artistic expression, family life,
political behavior, civic action, education, athletics, work
groups, even location, such as where to live). It seems plausible
that the more areas o f one’s life that are affected by an ingroup,
the more likely the individual is to sample the collective self. We
do not yet have such data, but plan to collect them.

When individuals have few ingroups, they are more depen-
dent on them. It follows that they are more likely to sample the
collective self when they have fewer than when they have m a n y
ingroups. When many ingroups are salient, conflicting norms
lead individuals to turn inward to decide what t o do. Thus, they
are more likely to sample the private self. But the resources
available to the ingroups will moderate this tendency. A n in-
group with large resources (e.g., a rich family) can “control”
the individual even when other ingroups make conflicting de-
mands. As conflict among ingroups increases, the individual
will be more aware o f the ingroups in conflict and hence will be
more likely to sample the collective self.

Ingroups clearly vary in stability. A friendship group formed
at a Saturday night party will have an impact during the period
it is in existence, but will have little influence later. I f an individ-
ual has stable ingroups there is a greater probability that the
collective self will be sampled. Also, stable ingroups can reward
and punish over long time periods, and thus will have to be con-
sidered by individuals more often than unstable ingroups.

We expect people in the more complex, individualistic, and
loose cultures to sample the private self more than the public
self, because complexity, individualism, and looseness lead to a
more complex private self. Complexity means that if a person
is not accepted by an ingroup, there will be other ingroups to
which to turn; individualism means that the individual is not
so attached to the ingroup that conformity to the ingroup is
always essential; looseness means that if the person acts consis-
tently with the private self, the ingroup will tolerate the behav-
ior. Conversely, in collectivism, the opposite conditions are im-
portant; hence, there is more sampling o f the public self. This is
particularly the case if the culture is both collectivist and tight. I
discuss the sampling o f the private and public selves more ex-
tensively under cultural tightness.

514 HARRY C. TRIANDIS

Tight-Loose Cultures

Homogeneous, relatively isolated cultures tend to be tight,
and they will sample the collective self more than will heteroge-
neous, centrally located cultures. The more homogeneous the
culture, the more the norms will be clear and deviation from
normative behavior can be punished. Cultural heterogeneity in-
creases the confusion regarding what is correct and proper be-
havior. Also, cultural marginality tends to result in norm and
role conflict and pressures individuals toward adopting different
norms. Because rejection of the ingroup members who have
adopted norms of a different culture can be costly, individuals
moderate their need to make their ingroup members conform
to their ideas of proper behavior. So, the culture becomes loose
(i.e., tolerant of deviations from norms).

The looser the culture, the more the individual can choose
what self to sample. If several kinds of collective self are avail-
able, one may choose to avoid norm and role conflict by reject-
ing all of them and developing individual conceptions of proper
behavior. Thus, sampling of the private self is more likely in
loose cultures and sampling of the collective self is more likely
in tight cultures. Also, tight cultures tend to socialize their chil-
dren by emphasizing the expectations of the generalized other.
Hence, the public self will be complex and will be more likely
to be sampled. In other words, tight cultures tend to sample the
public and collective self, whereas loose cultures tend to sample
the private self.

When the culture is both collectivist and tight, then the public
self is extremely likely to be sampled. That means people act
“properly” as that is defined by society, and are extremely anx-
ious in case they do not act correctly. Their private self does
not matter. As a result, the private and public selves are often
different. Doi (1986) discussed this point extensively, compar-
ing the Japanese public self (tatemae) with the private self
(honne). He suggested that in the United States there is virtue
in keeping public and private consistent (not being a hypocrite).
In Japan, proper action matters. What you feel about such ac-
tion is irrelevant. Thus, the Japanese do not like to state their
personal opinions, but rather seek consensus.

Consistently with Doi’s (1986) arguments is Iwao’s (1988) re-
search. She presented scenarios to Japanese and Americans and
asked them to judge various actions that could be appropriate
responses to these situations. For example, one scenario
(daughter brings home person from another race) included as a
possible response “thought that he would never allow them to
marry but told them he was in favor of their marriage?’ This
response was endorsed as the best by 44% of the Japanese sam-
ple but by only 2% of the Americans; it was the worse in the
opinion of 48% of the Americans and 7% of the Japanese.

Although the private self may be complex, this does not mean
that it will be communicated to others if one can avoid such
communication. In fact, in tight cultures people avoid disclos-
ing much of the self, because by disclosing they may reveal some
aspect of the self that others might criticize. In other words, they
may be aware of the demands of the generalized other and avoid
being vulnerable to criticism by presenting little of this complex
self to others. Barlund (1975) reported studies of the self-disclo-
sure to same-sex friend, opposite-sex friend, mother, father,
stranger, and untrusted acquaintance in Japan and in the
United States. The pattern of self-disclosure was the s a m e – –

that is, more to same-sex friend, and progressively less to oppo-
site-sex friend, mother, father, stranger, and least to the un-
trusted acquaintance. However, the amount disclosed in each
relationship was about 50% more in the United States than in
Japan.

Cultural Complexity

The more complex the culture, the more confused is likely to
be the individual’s identity. Dragonas (1983) sampled the self-
concepts of 11- and 12-year-olds in Greek small villages (sim-
ple), traditional cities (medium), and large cities (complex) cul-
tures. She found that the more complex the culture, the more
confusing was the identity. Similarly, Katakis (1976, 1978,
1984) found that the children of farmers and fisherman, when
asked what they would be when they are old, unhesitatingly said
farmer or fisherman, whereas in the large cities the responses
frequently were of the “I will find myself” variety. Given the
large number of ingroups that are available in a complex envi-
ronment and following the logic presented here, individuals
may well opt for sampling their private self and neglect the pub-
lic or collective selves.

Content of Self in Different Cultures

The specific content of the self in particular cultures will re-
flect the language and availability of mythological constructs of
that culture. Myths often provide ideal types that are incorpo-
rated in the self forged in a given culture (Roland, 1984a). For
example, peace of mind and being free of worries have been
emphasized as aspects of the self in India (Roland, 1984b) and
reflect Indian values that are early recognizable in Hinduism
and Buddhism (which emerged in India). Mythological, cul-
ture-specific constructs become incorporated in the self (Sinha,
1982, 1987b). Roland (1984b) claimed that the private self is
more “organized around ‘we” ‘ o u r ‘ and ‘ u s ‘ . . . ” (p. 178) in
India than in the West. But particular life events may be linked
to more than one kind of self. For example, Sinha (1987b)
found that the important goals of Indian managers are their
own good health and the good health of their family (i.e., have
both private and collective self-elements).

Sinha (personal communication, November 1985) believes
the public self is different in collectivist and individualist cul-
tures. In individualistic cultures it is assumed that the general-
ized other will value autonomy, independence, and self-reli-
ance, and thus individuals will attempt to act in ways that will
impress others (i.e., indicate that they have these attributes).
To be distinct and different are highly valued, and people find
innumerable ways to show themselves to others as different (in
dress, possessions, speech patterns). By contrast, in collectivist
cultures, conformity to the other in public settings is valued.
Thus, in a restaurant, everyone orders the same food (in tradi-
tional restaurants, only the visible leader gets a menu and orders
for all). The small inconvenience of eating nonoptimal food is
more than compensated by the sense of solidarity that such ac-
tions generate. In collectivist cultures, being “nice” to ingroup
others is a high value, so that one expects in most situations
extreme politeness and a display of harmony (Triandis, Marin,
Lisansky, & Betancourt, 1984). Thus, in collectivist cultures,
the public self is an extension of the collective self. One must

THE SELF AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 515

make a good impression by means o f prosocial behaviors to-
ward ingroup members, acquaintances, and others who may be-
come ingroup members. At the same time, one can be quite
rude to outgroup members, and there is no concern about dis-
playing hostility, exploitation, or avoidance o f outgroup mem-
bers.

The collective self, in collectivist cultures, may be structured
in concentric circles (Hsu, 1985). Hsu distinguishes eight layers,
from the unconscious self to the self facing the “outer world”
o f strangers. Howev~, this much refinement o f concepts seems
difficult to test empirically.

The collective self in collectivist cultures includes elements
such as ” I am philotimos” (traditional Greece, meaning ” I
must act as is expected o f me by m y family and friends”; see
Triandis, 1972), ” I must sacrifice myself for m y ingroup,” ” I
feel good when I display affection toward m y ingroup;’ and ” I
must maintain harmony with m y ingroup even when that is
very disagreeable.” The person is less self-contained in collectiv-
ist than in individualistic cultures (Roland, 1984b, p. 176).

Identity is defined on the basis o f different elements in indi-
vidualistic and collectivist cultures. Individualistic cultures
tend to emphasize elements o f identity that reflect posses-
sions–what do I own, what experiences have I had, what are
m y accomplishments (for scientists, what is m y list o f publica-
tions). In collectivist cultures, identity is defined more in terms
ofrelationships—I a m the mother o f X, I am a member o f fam-
ily Y, and I am a resident o f Z. Furthermore, the qualities that
are most important in forming an identity can be quite differ-
ent. In Europe and North America, being logical, rational, bal-
anced, and fair are important attributes; in Africa, personal
style, ways o f moving the unique spontaneous self, sincere self-
expression, unpredictability, and emotional expression are
most valued. The contrast between classical music (e.g., Bach
or Mozart) and jazz reflects this difference musically.

Consequences o f Sampling the Private and
Collective Self

In the previous section I examined the relationship between
the three dimensions o f cultural variation and the probabilities
o f differential sampling o f the private, public, and collective
selves. In this section I review some o f the empirical literature
that is relevant to the theoretical ideas just presented.

An important consequence o f sampling the collective self is
that many o f the elements o f the collective become salient.
Norms, roles, and values (i.e., proper ways o f acting as defined
by the collective) become the “obviously” correct ways to act.
Behavioral intentions reflect such processes. Thus, the status o f
the other person in the social interaction–for example, is the
other an ingroup or an outgroup member–becomes quite sa-
lient. Consequently, in collectivist cultures, individuals pay
more attention to ingroups and outgroups and moderate their
behavior accordingly, than is the case in individualistic cultures
(Triandis, 1972).

Evidence in support o f this point has been provided by a
study o f Gudykunst, Yoon, and Nishida (1987), who had sub-
jects from Korea (very collectivist), Japan (somewhat collectiv-
ist), and the United States (very individualistic culture) interact
with ingroup members (classmates) and outgroup members
(strangers). After the interaction, the subjects rated several attri-

butes o f the interaction, such as the degree o f intimacy, depth,
breadth, coordination, and the difficulty they experienced dur-
ing the interaction. A LISREL analysis showed the same struc-
tures o f the rated attributes in the three cultures. The factors
were called personalization (intimate, deep, broad, flexible,
spontaneous, smooth, and satisfying interactions), synchroniza-
tion (effortless, well coordinated), and di~culty. As expected,
in collectivist cultures, interacting with ingroup members was
more personalized and synchronized and less difficult than in
individualistic cultures. The difference when interacting with
the ingroup and the outgroup was larger in the collectivist than
in the individualist cultures. The size o f t tests for the ingroup
versus the outgroup ratings o f the interaction is suggestive. Al-
though all o f them were significant at p < .00 l, their sizes were as follows: for personalization, United States, 5.9, Japan, 9.9, and Korea, 12.2; for synchronization, United States, 7. l, Japan, 8.9, and Korea, 9.2; and for difficulty, United States, 4.9, Japan, 7.7, and Korea, 10.9. Thus, the more collectivist the culture, the more o f a difference there is in the ingroup and outgroup interactions.

Who is placed in the ingroup is culture specific. For example,
ratings o f the “intimacy” o f relationships on a 9-point scale sug-
gest that in Japan there is more intimacy with acquaintances,
coworkers, colleagues, best friends, and close friends than in the
United States (Gudykunst & Nishida, 1986).

Atsumi (1980) argued that understanding Japanese social be-
havior requires distinguishing relationships with benefactors,
true friends, coworkers, acquaintances, and outsiders (strang-
ers). The determinants o f social behavior shift depending on this
classification. Behavior toward benefactors requires that the
person go out o f his way to benefit them. Behavior toward true
friends is largely determined by the extent the behavior is enjoy-
able in itself, and the presence o f these friends makes it enjoy-
able. Behavior toward coworkers is determined by both norms
and cost/benefit considerations. Finally, behavior toward out-
siders is totally determined by cost/benefit ratios.

Because individualistic cultures tend to be more complex (in-
dustrial, affluent), individuals can potentially be members o f
more ingroups (Verma, 1985). I f required behavior toward each
ingroup is somewhat distinct, individuals should be higher in
self-monitoring in individualistic than in collectivist cultures.
Support for this prediction was obtained by Gudykunst, Yan~
and Nishida (1987). They developed Korean and Japanese ver-
sions o f the self-monitoring scale and found that the U.S. mean
was higher than the Korean or Japanese means.

Forgas and Bond (1985) asked collectivist (Hong Kong) and
individualist (Australian) subjects to make multidimensional
scaling judgments involving 27 episodes (e.g., arrive very late
for a tutorial). They also used semantic differential scales to
interpret the dimensions that did underlie these judgments.
They found rather similar dimensions discriminating among
the 27 episodes in the two cultures. However, the most impor-
tant dimension (on the basis of variance accounted for) for the
Hong Kong sample was not found in Australia, and the most
important Australian dimension was not found in Hong Kong.
The Hong Kong culture-specific dimension reflected inequali-
ties of power, communal versus isolated episodes, and common-
place versus rare incidents. The semantic differential scales re-
lated to it were pleasant-unpleasant, communal-individualis-
tic, and unequal-equal. Another Chinese dimension, only

516 HARRY C. TRIANDIS

weakly present in Australia, included the intimate-noninti-
mate, involving-superficial, and pleasant-unpleasant scales.
These ideas are clearly linked to collectivism, where pleasant,
unequal, intimate, involving interactions are typical o f rela-
tionships within the ingroup.

The Australian culture-specific dimension that discriminated
the episodes reflected competitiveness: the scales, cooperation
versus competition, pleasant versus unpleasant, relaxed versus
anxious, and self-confident versus apprehensive. In a collectivist
culture, then, the episodes were discriminated in terms o f
whether they had qualifies found in ingroup or outgroup rela-
tionships, whereas in an individualistic culture they were dis-
criminated in terms o f cooperation versus competition.

Although the concepts ingroup-outgroup and cooperation-
competition are parallel, there is a difference. There is a rigidity,
inflexibility, difficulty o f moving from group to group in the
ingroup-outgroup distinction that is not present in the cooper-
ation-competition contrast. One can think o f athletic games
in which a player moves from team to team, switching from
cooperation to competition as a characteristic o f individualism,
whereas in collectivist cultures, mobility is less common.

The behavioral intentions o f persons in collectivist cultures
appear to be determined by cognitions that are related to the
survival and benefit o f their collective. In individualist cultures,
the concerns are personal. An example comes from a study o f
smoking. A coflectivist sample (Hispanics in the U.S.) showed
significantly more concern than an individualist sample (non-
Hispanics) about smoking affecting the health o f others, giving
a bad example to children, harming children, and bothering
others with the bad smell o f cigarettes, bad breath, and bad
smell on clothes and belongings, whereas the individualist sam-
ple was more concerned about the physiological symptoms they
might experience during withdrawal from cigarette smoking
(G. V. Marin, Matin, Otero-Sabogal, Sabogal, & Perez.Stable,
1987).

The emphasis on harmony within the ingroup, found more
strongly in collectivist than in individualist cultures, results in
the more positive evaluation o f group-serving partners (Bond,
Chiu, & Wan, 1984), the choice o f conflict resolution tech-
niques that minimize animosity (Lenng, 1985, 1987), the
greater giving o f social support (Triandis et al., 1985), and the
greater support ofingroup goals (Nadler, 1986). The emphasis
on harmony may be, in part, the explanation of the lower heart-
attack rates among unacculturated than among acculturated
Japanese-Americans (Marmot & Syme, 1976). Clearly, a soci-
ety in which confrontation is common is more likely to increase
the blood pressure o f those in such situations, and hence the
probability o f heart attacks; avoiding conflict and saving face
must be linked to lower probabilities that blood pressure will
become elevated. The probability o f receiving social support in
collectivist cultures may be another factor reducing the levels o f
stress produced by unpleasant life events and hence the proba-
bilities o f heart attacks (Triandis et al., 1988).

Although ideal ingroup relationships are expected to be
smoother, more intimate, and easier in collectivist cultures, out-
group relationships can be quite difficult. Because the ideal so-
cial behaviors often cannot be attained, one finds many splits
o f the ingronp in collectivist cultures. Avoidance relationships
are frequent and, in some cases, required by norms (e.g., moth-
er-in-law avoidance in some cultures). Fights over property are

common and result in redefinitions of the ingroup. However,
once the ingroup is defined, relationships tend to be very sup-
portive and intimate within the ingroup, whereas there is little
trust and often hostility toward outgroup members. Gabrenya
and Barba (1987) found that collectivists are not as effective in
meeting strangers as are individualists. Triandis (1967) found
unusually poor communication among members o f the same
corporation who were not ingroup members (close friends) in a
collectivist culture. Bureaucracies in collectivist cultures func-
tion especially badly because people hoard information (Kaiser,
1984). Manipulation and exploitation o f outgroups is common
(Pandey, 1986) in collectivist cultures. When competing with
outgronps, collectivists are more competitive than individual-
ists (Espinoza & Garza, 1985) even under conditions when
competitiveness is counterproductive.

In individualistic cultures, people exchange compliments
more frequently than in collectivist cultures (Barlund & Araki,
1985). They meet people easily and are able to cooperate with
them even if they do not know them weft (Gabrenya & Barba,
1987). Because individualists have more o f a choice concerning
ingroup memberships, they stay in those groups with whom
they can have relatively good relationships and leave groups
with whom they disagree too frequently (Verma, 1985).

Competition tends to be interpersonal in individualistic and
intergroup in collectivist cultures (Hsu, 1983; Triandis et al.,
1988). Conflict is frequently found in family relationships in
individualistic cultures and between families in collectivist cul-
tures (Katakis, 1978).

There is a substantial literature (e.g., Berman, Murphy-Bet-
man, Singh, 1985; Berman, Murphy-Berman, Singh, & Kumar,
1984; Hui, 1984; G. Marin, 1985; Triandis et al., 1985) indicat-
ing that individualists are more likely to use equity, and collec-
tivists to use equality or need, as the norms for the distribution
o f resources (Yang, 1981). This is consistent with the emphasis
on trading discussed earlier. By contrast, the emphasis on com-
munal relationships (Mills & Clark, 1982) found in collectivist
cultures leads to emphases on equality and need. The parallel
with gender differences, where men emphasize exchange and
women emphasize communal relationships (i.e., equity and
need; Major & Adams, 1983; Brockner & Adsit, 1986), respec-
tively, is quite striking. Private self-consciousness, also, tends
to result in the use of equity, whereas public self-consciousness
increases the probability that the equality norm will be used
(Carver & Scheier, 1985).

Situational Determinants of Emphases on
Different Selves

In addition to culture, the situation determines how the self
is sampled. Sampling o f the collective self is more likely and
more detailed (Lobel, 1986) when the ingroup is distinctive in
the particular situation (McGuire, McGuire, Child, and Fuji-
oka, 1978). In public situations, such as when the person is iden-
tiffed by name or has to “perform” in public, the public self is
more likely to be sampled. In private situations, as when the
individual is anonymous or deindividuated (e.g., Zimbardo,
1969), the public self may not be sampled at all. In situations
in which future interaction between the person and others is
expected, the public self is more likely to be sampled. Although
a camera is likely to engage the public self, a mirror is likely to

THE SELF AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 517

emphasize the private self (Scheier & Carver, 1980). In situa-
tions in which n o future interaction with another is expected,
the private self will be emphasized.

There is evidence that insecure (Bettelheim & Janowitz,
1950; Triandis & Triandis, 1960) and cognitively simple (Ro-
keach, 1960) individuals are more likely to c o n f o r m to ingroup
norms. It seems plausible that the same conditions will result
in greater sampling o f the collective self.

To the extent that ingroup membership is rewarding (e.g.,
confers high status), that there is competition with outgroups,
that the ingroup is frequently mentioned in childhood socializa-
tion (e.g., patriotic songs are frequently used in schools), and
that the ingroup has distinct n o r m s and values from other sa-
lient groups, we also expect that the collective self will be sam-
pied.

The greater an individual’s dependence on a collective, the
more likely it is that the individual will sample the collective
self.

In many nonliterate cultures, survival depends on resources
that are scarce and unpredictable. Social patterns are often
found that increase the probability o f survival by sharing re-
sources. For example (see Triandis, 1988, for a review), in m a n y
such cultures, after hunting, one is expected to divide the food
among ingroup members, or there is a strong preference for
food grown by another rather than oneself. Such patterns in-
crease interdependence. It seems plausible that they will be as-
sociated with greater sampling o f t b e collective and public self.

In simple, noncomplex cultures there are, by definition,
fewer potential ingroups. When there are few ingroups, an in-
group has a greater probability o f influencing its members;
hence, we expect greater sampling o f the collective self. Also, in
simple cultures, both groups and individuals have fewer goals
(often just the goal o f survival), and thus the probability o f over-
lap o f group/individual goals is higher. As cultural complexity
increases, so does the n u m b e r o f goals and so does the probabil-
ity that the goals will not overlap, and hence the greater the sam-
piing o f the private self.

Nail’s (1986) useful analysis o f social responses when the in-
dividual is under the influence o f others emphasizes eight types
o f responses to pressures from others. The analysis is focused
on the public and private self, but the very same analysis can
also be done with the collective and private selves.

C o n c l u s i o n s

Aspects o f the self (private, public, and collective) are differ-
entially sampled in different cultures, depending on the com-
plexity, level o f individualism, and looseness o f t b e culture. The
more complex, individualistic, and loose the culture, the more
likely it is that people will sample the private self and the less
likely it is that they will sample the collective self. When people
sample the collective self, they are more likely to be influenced
by the norms, role definitions, and values o f the particular col-
lective, than when they do n o t sample the collective self. When
they are so influenced by a collective, they are likely to behave
in ways considered appropriate by members o f that collective.
The more they sample the private self, the more their behavior
can be accounted for by exchange theory and can be described
as an exchange relationship. The more they sample the collec-
tive self, the-less their behavior can be accounted for by ex-

change theory; it can be described as a c o m m u n a l relationship.
However, social behavior is more likely to be c o m m u n a l when
the target o f that behavior is an ingroup member than when the
target is an outgroup member. Ingroups are defined by c o m m o n
goals, c o m m o n fate, the presence o f an external threat, and/or
the need to distribute resources to all ingroup members for the
optimal survival o f the ingroup. Outgroups consist o f people
with whom one is in competition or w h o m one does not trust.
The ingroup-outgroup distinction determines social behavior
more strongly in collectivist than in individualist cultures.
When the culture is both collectivist and tight, the public self is
particularly likely to be sampled. In short, a major determinant
o f social behavior is the kind o f self that operates in the particu-
lar culture.

R e f e r e n c e s

Adamopoulos, J., & Bontempo, R. N. (1986). Diachronic universals in
interpersonal structures. Journal o f Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17,
169-189.

Allport, G. W. (1943). The ego in contemporary psychology. Psycholog-
ical Review, 50, 451–478.

AUport, G. W. (1955). Becoming. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.

Aronson, E. ( 1986, April). Increasing and decreasing self-esteem in edu-
cational settings. Paper presented at the meeting of Polish and Ameri-
can social psychologists at the E~ducational Testing Service,
Princeton, New Jer~y.

Atsumi, R. (1980). Patterns of personal relationships: A key to under-
standing Japanese thought and behavior. Social Analysis, 6, 63-78.

Banfield, E. (1958). The moral basis o f a backward society. Glencoe, IL:
Free Press.

Barlund, D. C. (1975). Public and primte self in Japan and the United
States. Tokyo: Simul Press.

Badund, D. C., & Araki, S. (1985). Intercultural encounters: The man-
agement of compliments by Japanese and Americans. Journal o f
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16, 9-26.

Basaran, E (1986, July). University students” values in Turkey. Paper
presented at the International Congress oftbe International Associa-
tion of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Istanbul, Turkey.

Baumeister, R. E (1986a). Identity.” Cultural change and the struggle for
self. New York: Oxford University Press.

Baumeister, R. E (1986b). Public self and private self. New York:
Springer.

Baumeister, R. E (1987). How the self became a problem: A psychologi-
cal review of historical research. Journal o f Personality and Social
Psychology, 52, 163-176.

BeUah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swindler, A., & Tipton,
S. M. (1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in
American life. Berkeley: University of California 1~-~.

Berman, J. J., Murphy-Berman, V., & Singh, P. (1985). Cross-cultural
similarities and differences in perceptions of fairness. Journal o f
Cross Cultural Psychology, 16, 55-67.

Berman, J. J., Murohy-Berman, V., Singh, P., & Kumar, P. (1984, Sep-
tember). Cross-cultural similarities and differences in perceptions o f
fairness. Paper presented at the International Congress of Psychology,
in Acapulco, Mexico.

Berry, J. W. (1967). Independence and conformity in subsistence level
societies. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 415-418.

Berry, J. W. (1979). A cultural ecology of social behavior. In L. Berko-
witz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 12, pp.
177-207). New York: Academic Press.

Bettelbeim, B., & Janowitz, J. (! 950). Dynamics o f prejudice. New York:
Harper.

5 1 8 HARRY C. TRIANDIS

Bharati, A. (1985). The self in Hindu thought and action. In A. J.
Marsella, G. DeVos, & E L. K. Hsu, Culture and se/f(pp. 185-230).
New York: Tavistock Publications.

Block, J. (1986, March). Longitudinal studies of personality. Collo-
quium given at the University of Illinois, Psychology Department.

Boldt, E. D. (1978). Structural tightness and cross-cultural research.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 9, 151 – 165.

Bond, M. H., Chiu, C., & Wan, K. (1984). When modesty fails: The
social impact of group effacing attributions following success or fail-
ure. European Journal of Social Psychology,, 16, 111-127.

Bontempo, R., Lobel, S. A., & Triandis, H. C. (1989). Compliance and
value internalization among Brazilian and U.S. students. Manuscript
submitted for publication.

Breckler, S. J., & Greenwald, A. G. (1986). Motivational facets of the
self. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motiva-
tion and cognition (pp. 145-164). New York: Guilford.

Brockner, J., & Adsit, L. (1986). The moderating impact of sex on the
equity satisfaction relationship: A field study. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 71,585-590.

Carneiro, R. L. (1970). Scale analysis, evolutionary sequences, and the
ratings of cultures. In R. Naroll & R. Cohen (Eds.), ,4 handbook of
method in cultural anthropology (pp. 834-871). New York: Columbia
University Press.

Carver, C. S., & Seheier, M. E (1985). Aspects of self and the control of
behavior. In B. Sehlenker (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 146-174).
New York: McGraw-Hill.

Caudill, W., & Scarr, H. (1962). Japanese value orientations and cul-
tural change. Ethnology, 1, 53-91.

Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (1973). La notion de per-
sonne en Afrique noire [The idea of the person in black Africa]. Paris:
~litions du Centre Nationale de la Recherche Seientifique (No. 544).

Church, A. T (1987). Personality research in a non-Western culture:
The Philippines. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 272-292.

Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York:
Seribner.

Davidson, A. R., Jaecard, J. J., Triandis, H. C., Morales, M. L., & Diaz-
Guerrero, R. (1976). Cross-cultural model testing: Toward a solution
of the etic-emic dilemma. International Journal of Psychology, 11,
1-13.

Deem, R., & Salaman, G. (Eds.). (1985). Work, culture and society. Mil-
ton Keynes, England: Open University Library.

Diaz-Guerrero, R. (1979). The development of coping style. Human
Development, 22, 320-331.

Doumanis, M. (1983). Mothering in Greece: From collectivism to indi-
vidualism. New York: Academic Press.

Doi, T. (1986). The anatomy of conformity: The individual versus soci-
ety. Tokyo: Kodansha.

Dragonas, T. (1983). The self-concept of preadolescents in the Hellenic
context. Unpubfished doctoral dissertation, University of Ashton,
Birmingham, England.

Espinoza, J. A., & Garza, R. T. (1985). Social group salience and inter-
ethnic cooperation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,, 231,
380-392.

Fazio, R. H., & Williams, C. J. (1986). Attitude accessibility as a moder-
ator of the attitude-perception and attitude-behavior relations: An in-
vestigation of the 1984 presidential election. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology,, 51, 505-514.

Feather, N. T (1986). Value systems across cultures: Australia and
China. International Journal of Psychology, 21, 697-715.

Forgas, J. P., & Bond, M. H. (1985). Cultural influences on the percep-
tion of interaction episodes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulle-
tin, 11, 75-88.

Gabrenya, W. K., & Barba, L. (1987, March). Cultural differences in
social interaction during group problem solving. Paper presented at
the meetings of the Southeastern Psychological Association, Atlanta.

Gaenslen, E (1986). Culture and decision making in China, Japan, Rus-
sia and the United States. World Politics, 39, 78-103.

Geertz, C. (1963). Peddlers and princes: Social change and economic
moderanization in two Indonesian towns. Chicago: Chicago Univer-
sity Press.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic
Books.

Georgas, J. (I 989). Changing family values in Greece: From collectivist
to individualist. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 80-9 I.

Gordon, C., & Gergen, K. J. (I 968). (F_As.), The self in social interaction.
New York: Wiley.

Greenwald, A. G., Carnot, C. G., Beach, R., & Young, B. (1987). In-
creasing voting behavior by asking people if they expect to vote. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 71, 315-318.

Greenwald, A. G., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1984). The self. In R. S. Wyer &
T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 3, pp. 129-178).
Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, T. (1986). The influence of cultural vari-
ability on perceptions of communication behavior associated with
relationship terms. Human Communication Research, 13, 147-166.

Gudykunst, W. B., Yang, S., & Nishida, T. (1987). Cultural differences
in self-consciousness and self-monitoring. Communication Research,
14, 7-36.

Gudykunst, W., Yoon, Y. C., & Nishida, T. (1987). The influence of
individualism-collectivism on perceptions of communication in in-
group and outgroup relationships. Communication Monographs, 54,
295-306.

Guthrie, G. M. (1961). The Filipino child and Philippine society. Ma-
nila: Philippine Normal College Press.

Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self to effect.
Psychological Review, 94, 319-340.

Higgins, E. T , & King, G. (1981). Accessibility of social constructs:
Information-processing consequences of individual and contextual
variability. In N. Cantor & J. E Kihlstrom (Eds.), Personality, cogni-
tion and social interaction (pp. 69-121 ). Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.

Hofstede, G. (I 980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hogan, R. T., & Cheek, J. M. (1983). Identify, authenticity and matu-

rity. In T. R. Sarbin & K. E. Seheibe (Eds.), Studies in social identity
(pp. 339-357). New York: Praeger.

Holtzman, W. H., Diaz-Guerrero, R., & Swartz, J. D. (1975). Personal-
ity development in two cultures. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Holzberg, C. S. (1981). Anthropology and industry: Reappraisal and
new directions. Annual Review of Anthropology, 10, 317-360.

Hsu, E L. K. (1981). American and Chinese: Passage to differences.
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Hsu, E L. K. (1983). Rugged individualism reconsidered. Knoxville:
University of Tennessee Press.

Hsu, E L. K. (1985). The self in cross-cultural perspective. In A. J.
Marsella, G. DeVos & E L. K. Hsu (Eds.), Cultural and self (pp. 2 4 –
55). New York: Tavistock Publications.

Hui, C. H. (1984). Individualism-collectivism: Theory, measurement
and its relationship to reward allocation. Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Cham-
paign-Urbana.

Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: A
study of cross-cultural researchers. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychol-
ogy, 17, 225-248.

Hull, J. G. (1986, April). Self-awareness and alcohol use: An update.
Paper presented at a meeting of Pofish and American social psycholo-
gists at the Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey.

Iwao, S. ( 1988, August). Social psychology ” s models of man: Isn’t it time
for East to meet West? Invited address to the International Congress
ofseientific Psychology, Sydney, Australia.

James, W. (1950). The principles of psychology. New York: Dover. (Orig-
inal work published 1890)

T H E SELF A N D SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 5 1 9

Kaiser, R. G. (1984). Russia: The people and the power. New York:
Washington Square Press.

Katakis, C. D. (1976). An exploratory multilevel attempt to investigate
interpersonal and intrapersonal patterns o f 20 Athenian families.
Mental Health and Society, 3, 1-9.

Katakis, C. D. (1978). On the transaction o f social change processes and
the perception o f self in relation to others. MentalHealth and Society,
5, 275-283.

Katakis, C. D. (1984). Oi tris tautotites tis Ellinikis oikogenoias [The
three identities o f the Greek family]. Athens, Greece: Kedros.

Kerlinger, E (1984). Liberalism and conservatism: The nature and
structure o f social attitudes. Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.

Kohn, M. L. (1969). Class and conformity. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
Kohn, M. L. (1987). Cross-national research as an analytic strategy.

American Sociological Review,, 52, 713-731.
Kraut, R. E. (1973). Effects o f social labeling on giving to charity. Jour-

nal o f Experimental Social Psycholog£, 9, 551-562.
Kuhn, M. H., & McPartland, T. (1954). An empirical investigation o f

self-attitudes. American Sociological Review, 19, 68-76.
Lebra, T. S. (1976). Japanese patterns o f behavior. Honolulu, Hawaii:

East-West Center.
Leung, K. (1985). Cross-cultural study o f procedural fairness and dis-

puting behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department o f
Psychology, University o f Illinois, Champaign-Urbana.

Leung, K. (1987). Some determinants o f reactions to procedural
models for conflict resolution: A cross-national study. Journal o f Per-
sonality and Social Psychology. 53, 898-908.

LeVine, R., & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism. New York: Wi-
ley.

Linville, P. W. (1985). Self-complexity and affective extremity: Don’t
put all your eggs in one cognitive basket, Social Cognition, 3, 94-120.

Lobel, S. A. (1984). Effects o f sojourn to the United States. A SYMLOG
content analysis o f in-depth interviews. Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, Harvard University.

Lobel, S. A. (1986). Effects o f intercultural contact on variance o f stereo-
types. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Lomax, A., & Berkowitz, N. (1972). The evolutionary taxonomy o f cul-
tures. Science, 177, 228-239.

Major, B., & Adams, J. B. (1983). Role o f gender, interpersonal orienta-
tion, and self-presentation in distributive justice behavior. Journal o f
Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 598-608.

Marin, G. (1985). Validez transeultural del principio de equidad: El
colectivismo-individualismo como una variable moderatora [Trans-
cultural validity o f the principle o f equity: Collectivism-individual-
ism as a moderating variable]. Revista Interamericana de Psichologia
Occupational, 4, 7-20.

Marin, G., & Triandis, H. C. (1985). Allocentrism as an important char-
acteristic o f the behavior o f Latin Americans and Hispanics. In R.
Diaz-Guerrero (Ed.), Cross-cultural and national studies in social
psychology (69-80). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North Holland.

Marin, G. V., Matin, G., Otero-Sabogal, R., Sabogal, E, & Perez-Stable,
E. (1987). Cultural differences in attitudes toward smoking.” Develop-
ing messages using the theory o f reasoned action (Tech. Rep.). (Avail-
able from Box 0320, 400 Parnassus Ave., San Francisco, CA 94117)

Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept. A social
psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299-
337.

Marmot, M. G., & Syme, S. L. (1976). Acculturation and coronary
heart disease in Japanese Americans. American Journal o f Epidemi-
ology, 104, 225-247.

Marsella, A. J., DeVos, G., & Hsu, E L. K. (1985). Culture and self.
New York: Tavistock.

McGuire, W. J., McGuire, C. V., & Cheever, J. (1986). The self in soci-
ety: Effects o f social contexts on the sense o f self. British Journal o f
Social Psychology, 25, 259-270.

McGuire, W. J., McGuire, C. V., Child, P., & Fujioka, T. (1978). Sa-

lience o f ethnicity in the spontaneous self-concept as a function o f
one’s distinctiveness in the social environment. Journal o f Personality
and Social Psychology, 36, 511-520.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University o f Chi-
cago Press.

Mendenhall, M. E., & Oddou, G. (1986). The cognitive, psychological
and social context of Japanese management. Asia-Pacific Journal o f
Management, 4, 24-37.

Miller, R. L., Brickman, P., & Bolen, D. (1975). Attribution versus per-
suasion as a means o f modifying behavior. Journal o f Personality and
Social Psychology, 31, 430–44 I.

Mills, J., & Clark, E. S. (1982). Exchange and communal relationships.
In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review o f personality and social psychology (Vol.
3, pp. 121-144). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Murdock, G. P., & Provost, C. (1973). Measurement o f cultural com-
plexity. Ethnology, 12, 379-392.

Murphy, G. (1947). Personality. New York: Harper.
Nadler, A. (1986). Help seeking as a cultural phenomenon: Differences

between city and kibbutz dwellers. Journal o f Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 976-982.

Nail, P. R. (1986). Toward an integration o f some models and theories
o f social response. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 190-206.

Northrop, E S. C. (1949). Ideological differences and world order. New
Haven, CT.” Yale University Press.

Ogilvie, D. M. (1987). The undesired self.” A neglected variable in per-
sonality research. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 52,
379-385.

Pandey, J. (1986). Sociocultural perspectives on ingratiation. Progress
in Experimental Personality Research, 14, 205-229.

Pearson, H. W. (Ed.). (1977). The livelihood o f man: Karl Polanyi. New
York: Academic Press.

Pelto, P. J. (1968, April). The difference between “tight” and “loose”
societies. Transaction, 37-40.

Quattrone, G. A. (1986). On the perception o f a group’s variability. In
S. Worchelz & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology o f intergroup relations
(pp. 25–48). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Rogers, T. B. (1981). A model o f the self as an aspect o f the human
information processing system. In N. Cantor & J. E Kihlstrom
(Eds.), Personality, cognition and social interaction (pp. 193-214).
Hiflsdale, N J: Erlbaum.

Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books.
Roland, A. (1984a). Psychoanalysis in civilization perspective. Psycho

analytic Review, 7, 569-590.
Roland, A. (1984b). The self in India and America: Toward a psycho-

analysis o f social and cultural contexts. In V. Kovolis (Ed.), Designs
ofsel3’hood (pp. 123-130). New Jersey: Associated University Press.

Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.
Rugh, A. (1985). Family in contemporary Egypt. Cairo, Egypt: Ameri-

can University Press.
Scheier, M. E, & Carver, C. S. (1980). Private and public self-attention,

resistance to change, and dissonance reduction. Journal o f Personal-
ity and Social Psychology,, 39, 514- 521.

Schlenker, B. R. (1985). Introduction. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), Founda-
tions o f the self in social life (pp. 1-28). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influence
o f a narrow data base on social psychology’s view o f human nature.
Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 515- 530.

Shotland, R. L., & Berger, W. G. (1970). Behavioral validation o f several
values from the Rokeach value scale as an index o f honesty. Journal
o f Applied Psychology, 54, 433-435.

Shweder, R. A., & Bourne, E. J. (1982). Does the concept o f person vary
cross-culturally? In A. J. Marsella & G. M. White (Eds.), Cultural
conceptions o f mental health and therapy (pp. 97-137). London:
Reidel.

Shweder, R. A., & LeVine, R. A. (1984). Cultural theory.” Essays on
mind, self and emotion. New York: Cambridge University Press.

5 2 0 HARRY C. TRIANDIS

Sinha, J. B. E (1982). The Hindu (Indian) identity. Dynamische Psychi-
atric, 15, 148-160.

Sinha, J. B. P. (1987a). The structure of collectivism. In C. K._agitcibagi
(Ed.), Growth and progress in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 123-
130). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Sinha, J. B. P. (1987b). Work cultures in Indian Organizations (ICSSR
Report). New Delhi, India: Concept Publications House.

Smith, M. B. (1980). Attitudes, values and selfhood. In H. E. Howe &
M. M. Page (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1979 (pp.
305-358). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring and expressive behavior. Journal o f
Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526-537.

Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearances as private realities: The psychol-
ogy o f self-monitoring. New York: Freeman.

Snyder, M., & Gangestad, S. (1986). On the nature of self-monitoring:
Matters of assessment, matters of validity. Journal o f Personality and
Social Psychology, 51, 125-139.

Snyder, M., Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. (1986). Personality and
sexual relations. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 51,
181-190.

Strodtbeck, E L. (1958). Family interaction, values, and achievement.
In D. McClelland (Ed.), Talent and society (pp. 135-195). New York:
Van Nostand.

Stryker, S., & Serpc, R. 1″. (1982). Commitment, identity salience, and
role behavior: Theory and research example. In W. Ickes & E. S.
Knowles (Eds.), Personality, roles and social behavior (pp. 199-218).
New York: Springer.

Szalay, L. B., & Deese, J. (1978). Subjective meaning and culture: An
assessment through word association. HiUsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups. London: Aca-
demic Press.

Tallman, I., Marotz-Baden, R., & Pindas, P. (1983). Adolescent social-
ization in cross-cultural Perspective. New York: Academic Press.

Thibaut, J., & Kelley, H. (1959). The socialpsychology o f groups. New
York: Wiley.

Triandis, H. C. (1967). Interpersonal relations in international organiza-
tions. Journal o f Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
2, 26-55.

Triandis, H. C. (1972). The analysis o f subjective culture. New York:
Wiley.

Triandis, H. C. (1976). Variations in black and white perceptions o f the
social environment. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Triandis, H. C. (1977). Interpersonal behavior Monterey, CA: Brooks/
Cole.

Triandis, H. C. (1978). Some universals of social behavior. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 1-16.

Triandis, H. C. (1980). Values, attitudes, and interpersonal behavior. In
H. Howe & M. Page (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation,
1979 (pp. 195-260). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Betancourt, H., Bond, M., Leung, K.,
Brenes, A., Georgas, J., Hui, C. H., Matin, G., Setiadi, B., Sinha,
J. B. P., Verma, J., Spangenberg, J., Touzard, H., & de Montmollin,
G. (1986). The measurement ofetic aspects of individualism and col-
lectivism across cultures. Australian Journal o f Psychology (Special
issue on cross-cultural psychology), 38, 257-267.

Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N.

(1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives
on sclf-ingroup relationships. Journal o f Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 54, 323-338.

Triandis, H. C., L e u n g K., ViUareal, M. J., &Clack, E L. (1985). Allo-
centric versus idiocentric tendencies: Convergent and discriminant
validation. Journal o f Research in Personality, 19, 395-415.

Triandis, H. C., Marin, G., Hui, C. H., Lisansky, J., & Ottati, V. (1984).
Role perceptions of Hispanic young adults. Journal o f Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 15, 297-320.

Triandis, H. C., Matin, G., Lisansky, J., & Betancourt, H. (1984). Sim-
pat ia as a cultural script of Hispanics. Journal o f Personality and So-
cial Psychology, 47, 1363-1375.

Triandis, H. C., & Triandis, L. M. (1960). Race, social class, religion
and nationality as determinants of social distance. Journal o f Abnor-
real and Social Psychology, 61, 11 O- I 18.

Triandis, H. C., Vassiliou, V,, & Nassiakou, M. (1968). Three cross-
cultural studies of subjective culture. Journal o f Personality and So-
cialPsychology [Monograph suppl.], 8(4, pp. 1-42).

Turnbull, C. M. (1972). The mountain people. New York: Simon &
Schuster.

United States Employment and Training Administration. Dictionary o f
occupational titles. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Verma, J. (1985). The ingroup and its relevance to individualbehaviour:
A study of collectivism and individualism. Psychologia, 28, 173-181.

Wallach, M. A., & Wallach, L. (1983). Psychology’s sanction ofselzfish-
ness: The error o f egoism in theory and therapy, San Francisco, CA:
Freeman.

Waterman, A. S. (1984). The psychology o f individualism. New York:
Praeger.

Whyte, W. H., Jr. (1956). The organization man. New York: Simon &
Schuster.

Wicldund, R. A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1982). Symbolic self-completion.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wu, D. Y. H. (1985). Child rearing in Chinese culture. In D. Y. H. Wu
& W-S. Tseng (Eds.), Chinese culture and mental health (pp. 113-
134). New York: Academic Press.

Yang, K. S. (1981). Social orientation and individual modernity among
Chinese students in Taiwan. Journal o f Social Psychology, I13, 159-
170.

Yang, K. S. (1986). Chinese personality and its change. In M. H. Bond
(Ed.), The psychology o f the Chinese people (pp. 106-170). Hong
Kong, China: Oxford University Press.

Zavalloni, M. (I 975). Social identity and the receding of reality. Interna-
tional Journal o f Psychology, 1 O, 197-217.

Zavalloni, M., & Louis-Guerin, C. (1984). Identit$ sociale et conscience:
Introduction ~ l’~go-~cologie [Social identity and conscience: Intro-
duction to the ego ecology]. Montr~.al, Canada: Les presses de l’uni-
versit~ de Montreal.

Ziller, R. C. ( 1973). The social self. New York: Pergamon.
Zimbardo, P. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason and or-

der versus deindividuation, impulse and chaos. In W. J. Arnold & D.
Levine (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 16, pp. 237-
307). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Received M a r c h 2 I, 1988
R e v i s i o n received J u l y 14, 1988

Accepted F e b r u a r y 9, 1989 •