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--collectivism, 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, childrearing 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 Self and Social Behavior in Differing Cultural Contexts

Meanwhile, the authors' antidote to the American sicknessa quest for democratic community that draws on our diverse civic and religious traditionshas contributed to a vigorous scholarly and popular debate. Attention has been focused on forms of social organization, be it civil society, democratic communitarianism, or associative democracy, that can humanize the market and the administrative state. In their new Introduction the authors relate the argument of their book both to the current realities of American society and to the growing debate about the country's future. With this new edition one of the most influential books of recent times takes on a new immediacy.\

Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life

Individualism and collectivism

Psychologists have worried about the distortions introduced into standardized personality measures by social desirability bias. Survey researchers have had similar concerns about the accuracy of survey reports about such topics as illicit drug use, abortion, and sexual behavior. The article reviews the research done by survey methodologists on reporting errors in surveys on sensitive topics, noting parallels and differences from the psychological literature on social desirability. The findings from the survey studies suggest that misreporting about sensitive topics is quite common and that it is largely situational. The extent of misreporting depends on whether the respondent has anything embarrassing to report and on design features of the survey. The survey evidence also indicates that misreporting on sensitive topics is a more or less motivated process in which respondents edit the information they report to avoid embarrassing themselves in the presence of an interviewer or to avoid repercussions from third parties.

https://www.learnlab.org/research/wiki/images/a/a8/Tourangeau_SensitiveQuestions.pdf

Sensitive questions in surveys.

Careful reading of the literature on the psychology of criminal conduct and of prior reviews of studies of treatment effects suggests that neither criminal sanctioning without provision of rehabilitative service nor servicing without reference to clinical principles of rehabilitation will succeed in reducing recidivism. What works, in our view, is the delivery of appropriate correctional service, and appropriate service reflects three psychological principles: (1) delivery of service to higher risk cases, (2) targeting of criminogenic needs, and (3) use of styles and modes of treatment (e.g., cognitive and behavioral) that are matched with client need and learning styles. These principles were applied to studies of juvenile and adult correctional treatment, which yielded 154 phi coefficients that summarized the magnitude and direction of the impact of treatment on recidivism. The effect of appropriate correctional service (mean phi = .30) was significantly (p <.05) greater than that of unspecified correctional service (.13), and both were more effective than inappropriate service (−.06) and non-service criminal sanctioning (−.07). Service was effective within juvenile and adult corrections, in studies published before and after 1980, in randomized and nonrandomized designs, and in diversionary, community, and residential programs (albeit, attenuated in residential settings). Clinical sensitivity and a psychologically informed perspective on crime may assist in the renewed service, research, and conceptual efforts that are strongly indicated by our review.

Does correctional treatment work? a clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis *

Indian and American respondents were presented vignettes that portrayed two target individuals, one meritorious and one financially needy. The respondents' task was to allocate a resource between the targets in the fairest way. In half of the vignettes the resource was positive (bonus money); in the other half it was negative (reduction in salary). Every combination of sex-of-target was used. Results showed significant positive and negative effects in both cultures, such that respondents gave preference to the needy target significantly more in the negative than in the positive situation. Indians, in general, gave preference to the needy over the meritorious more than did the Americans.

Cross-Cultural Similarities and Differences in Perceptions of Fairness

Respondents in Hong Kong and Indonesia rated a hypothetical allocator depicted as distributing resources based on merit or need in either a positive (reward) or negative (cutback) resource context. Hong Kong respondents perceived that the use of merit was fairer and more principled than the use of need, but they also perceived that the allocator who favored merit was less nice, more selfish, and acted less because of concern for others’welfare. Indonesian respondents saw the use of need as being fairer than the use of merit, and they perceived that the allocator who favored the needy was nicer and acted more out of concern for others. Cultural differences in respondents’ perceptions were greater for the use of merit than for the use of need. Respondents from both cultures tended to rate the allocator more positively when resources were being given out than when resources were being taken away.

Cross-Cultural Differences in Perceptions of Distributive Justice A Comparison of Hong Kong and Indonesia

Cross-Cultural Difference in Perspectives on the Self features the latest research in a dynamic area of inquiry and practice Considered in these pages are cross-cultural differences in the idea of the person and in models of balancing obligations to the self, family, and community Revisiting and questioning the concepts of self and self-worth, the authors investigate the extent to which factors traditionally associated with psychological effectiveness (intrinsic motivation; assuming personal responsibility for one's actions; and feeling in control, unique, hopeful, and optimistic) are culturally bound Hazel Markus and Shinobu Kitayama consider cultural differences in models of psychological agency; Joan Miller critiques the meaning of the term agency, analyzing the extent to which many popular theories in psychology rest on rather narrow Western models of behavior and effective functioning; Steven Heine calls into question the presumed universality of some forms of cognitive processing; Sheena Iyengar and Sanford DeVoe apply a cross-cultural perspective to better understand intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and the value of choice; Kuo-shu Yang questions the universality of the pervasive and popular "theory of self-actualization" formulated by Abraham Maslow; and finally, Ype Poortinga reexamines not only the cultural boundaries of theory but also the very meaning of the concept of culture itself

Cross-Cultural Differences in Perspectives on the Self

A distributive justice framework is used to examine how individuals make judgments about what is fair when making different types of health-care allocation decisions. The effects of 4 patient characteristics are assessed: (a) prognosis, (b) degree of responsibility for illness, (c) employment status, and (d) race. Results reveal that when the patient was defined as being more versus less responsible for his illness, respondents gave him a significantly lower priority score for obtaining health-care services, and they felt that he should be more responsible for paying for or soliciting funds to cover the costs of his health needs. Respondents also reacted with more negative emotion to the responsible patient and described him in more negative trait terms. Although patient's race produced no main effects, race did interact with employment status on several key variables. When the patient was described as being unemployed, the White patient compared to the Black patient was given a higher health-care priority score, he was resented less, and respondents were more willing to contribute money to pay for his health-care costs; but when the patient was described as being employed, the direction of differences between the races on these variables was reversed.

Factors Affecting Health‐Care Allocation Decisions: A Case of Aversive Racism?

Recently Nebraska changed its commitment law to include many procedural safeguards and require behaviorally manifested dangerousness as a criterion of commitment. An interrupted time-series design was used to determine what effects the new law had on admission characteristics and service utilization patterns of all those committed to Nebraska's three state hospitals. An immediate drop in involuntary admissions was found, but this decline was temporary. Several changes in the demographic characteristics of those committed were also found. Finally, the law apparently caused an increase in the number of those having to be readmitted. These results raise questions about the implementation of the law, the perception of dangerousness, and the need for more effective liaison between state hospitals and community-based treatment facilities.

John J. Berman

Papers

Cross-Cultural Similarities and Differences in Perceptions of Fairness

Cross-Cultural Differences in Perceptions of Distributive Justice A Comparison of Hong Kong and Indonesia

Cross-Cultural Differences in Perspectives on the Self

Factors Affecting Health‐Care Allocation Decisions: A Case of Aversive Racism?

Effects of a new commitment law on involuntary admissions and service utilization patterns