See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221790069
Culture and the Distinctiveness Motive: Constructing Identity in
Individualistic and Collectivistic Contexts
ArticleinJournal of Personality and Social Psychology · January 2012
DOI: 10.1037/a0026853·Source: PubMed
CITATIONS
60
READS
1,062
40 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Teachers' Efficacy beliefs, emotional intelligence, quality of life, and collective efficacy View project
Children with Disability Related Research View project
Maja Becker
Université Toulouse II - Jean Jaurès
39 PUBLICATIONS407 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Vivian L Vignoles
University of Sussex
83 PUBLICATIONS2,469 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Rupert Brown
University of Sussex
182 PUBLICATIONS14,932 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Peter B Smith
University of Sussex
184 PUBLICATIONS9,246 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Silvia H. Koller on 28 May 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Culture and the Distinctiveness Motive: Constructing Identity in
Individualistic and Collectivistic Contexts
Maja Becker, Vivian L. Vignoles, Ellinor Owe,
Rupert Brown, Peter B. Smith, and Matt Easterbrook
University of Sussex
Ginette Herman and Isabelle de Sauvage
Universite´ Catholique de Louvain
David Bourguignon
Paul Verlaine University–Metz
Ana Torres and Leoncio Camino
Federal University of Paraı´ba
Fla´via Cristina Silveira Lemos
Federal University of Para´
M. Cristina Ferreira
Salgado de Oliveira University
Silvia H. Koller
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul
Roberto Gonza´lez, Diego Carrasco,
Maria Paz Cadena, and Siugmin Lay
Pontificia Universidad Cato´lica de Chile
Qian Wang
Chinese University of Hong Kong
Michael Harris Bond
Polytechnic University of Hong Kong
Elvia Vargas Trujillo and Paola Balanta
Universidad de Los Andes
Aune Valk
Estonian Literary Museum
Kassahun Habtamu Mekonnen
University of Addis Ababa
George Nizharadze
Free University of Tbilisi
Marta Fu¨löp
Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Camillo Regalia, Claudia Manzi, and
Maria Brambilla
Catholic University of Milan
Charles Harb
American University of Beirut
Said Aldhafri
Sultan Qaboos University
Mariana Martin
University of Namibia
Ma. Elizabeth J. Macapagal
Ateneo de Manila University
Aneta Chybicka
University of Gdan´sk
Alin Gavreliuc
West University of Timisoara
Johanna Buitendach
University of KwaZulu Natal
Inge Schweiger Gallo
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Emre Özgen, U
¨
lku¨E.Gu¨ner, and Nil Yamakog˘lu
Bilkent University
The motive to attain a distinctive identity is sometimes thought to be stronger in, or even specific to, those
socialized into individualistic cultures. Using data from 4,751 participants in 21 cultural groups (18
nations and 3 regions), we tested this prediction against our alternative view that culture would moderate
the ways in which people achieve feelings of distinctiveness, rather than influence the strength of their
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology © 2012 American Psychological Association
2012, Vol. 102, No. 4, 833–855 0022-3514/12/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0026853
833
motivation to do so. We measured the distinctiveness motive using an indirect technique to avoid cultural
response biases. Analyses showed that the distinctiveness motive was not weaker—and, if anything, was
stronger—in more collectivistic nations. However, individualism–collectivism was found to moderate
the ways in which feelings of distinctiveness were constructed: Distinctiveness was associated more
closely with difference and separateness in more individualistic cultures and was associated more closely
with social position in more collectivistic cultures. Multilevel analysis confirmed that it is the prevailing
beliefs and values in an individual’s context, rather than the individual’s own beliefs and values, that
account for these differences.
Keywords: identity, motivation, culture, distinctiveness, self-concept
A common view in personality and social psychology is that
people strive to distinguish themselves from others and that they
have a basic motive to achieve distinctiveness. However, this view
has been challenged in cross-cultural psychology, where it is
sometimes asserted that the strength of this motive varies by
culture. In some cultures, it is claimed, people want to be distin-
guished as individuals, whereas in others, people want to be part of
larger entities and may even seek to avoid distinctiveness from
other members of those entities (Triandis, 1995; see also Kim &
Markus, 1999; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Nevertheless, until
now this assertion has not been tested appropriately. In this article,
we examine whether and how the motive for distinctiveness may
be moderated by culture.
Distinctiveness as a Core Psychological Motive
The concept of distinctiveness plays a central role in several
social psychological theories of self and identity processes. For
example, uniqueness theory (Snyder & Fromkin, 1980) posits that
people need to see themselves as unique and different from others
in the interpersonal domain. In intergroup contexts, social identity
theory proposes that people’s actions can often be understood as
attempts to maintain or restore distinctiveness for their ingroup in
relation to some outgroup(s) (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Brewer’s
(1991) optimal distinctiveness theory suggests that competing
needs for inclusion and distinctiveness underlie people’s choices
of, and satisfaction with, group memberships: People prefer groups
that are neither so large as to threaten people’s need to be distinct
nor so small as to frustrate their need to feel included.
Reflecting the commonality among these theories, the need for
distinctiveness is conceptualized here as an identity motive. Moti-
vated identity construction theory (MICT; Vignoles, 2011; Vi-
gnoles, Regalia, Manzi, Golledge, & Scabini, 2006) is based on the
idea that identity is constructed through a complex interplay of
cognitive, affective, and social interaction processes, all of which
This article was published Online First January 30, 2012.
Maja Becker, Vivian L. Vignoles, Ellinor Owe, Rupert Brown, Peter B.
Smith, and Matt Easterbrook, School of Psychology, University of Sussex,
Brighton, United Kingdom; Ginette Herman and Isabelle de Sauvage,
Unite´ de psychologie sociale et des organisations, Universite´ Catholique de
Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium; David Bourguignon, Laboratoire
INTERPSY-ETIC, Paul Verlaine University–Metz, Metz, France; Ana
Torres and Leoncio Camino, Department of Psychology, Federal Univer-
sity of Paraı´ba, Joa˜o Pessoa, Paraı´ba, Brazil; Fla´via Cristina Silveira
Lemos, Department of Psychology, Federal University of Para´, Bele´m,
Para´, Brazil; M. Cristina Ferreira, Department of Psychology, Salgado de
Oliveira University, Sao Goncalo, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Silvia H. Koller,
Department of Psychology, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto
Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil; Roberto Gonza´lez, Diego Carrasco,
Maria Paz Cadena, and Siugmin Lay, School of Psychology, Pontificia
Universidad Cato´lica de Chile, Santiago, Chile; Qian Wang, Department of
Psychology, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Special
Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China; Michael Harris
Bond, Department of Applied Social Sciences, Polytechnic University of
Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of the People’s
Republic of China; Elvia Vargas Trujillo and Paola Balanta, Department of
Psychology, Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota´, Colombia; Aune Valk,
Estonian Literary Museum, Tartu, Estonia; Kassahun Habtamu Mekonnen,
Department of Psychology, University of Addis Ababa, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia; George Nizharadze, Department of Social Sciences, Free Uni-
versity of Tbilisi, Tbilisi, Georgia; Marta Fu¨löp, Institute for Psychology,
Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary; Camillo Regalia,
Claudia Manzi, and Maria Brambilla, Centre for Family Studies and
Research, Catholic University of Milan, Milan, Italy; Charles Harb, De-
partment of Social and Behavioral Sciences, American University of Bei-
rut, Beirut, Lebanon; Said Aldhafri, Department of Psychology, Sultan
Qaboos University, Al Khoudh, Muscat, Oman; Mariana Martin, Depart-
ment of Human Sciences, University of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia; Ma.
Elizabeth J. Macapagal, Department of Psychology, Ateneo de Manila
University, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines; Aneta Chybicka,
Department of Cross-Cultural Psychology, University of Gdan´sk, Gdan´sk,
Poland; Alin Gavreliuc, Department of Psychology, West University of
Timisoara, Timisoara, Romania; Johanna Buitendach, School of Psychol-
ogy, University of KwaZulu Natal, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa; Inge
Schweiger Gallo, Department of Social Psychology, Universidad Com-
plutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain; Emre Özgen, U
¨
lku¨E.Gu¨ner, and Nil
Yamakog˘lu, Department of Psychology, Bilkent University, Ankara,
Turkey.
Preliminary analyses have been presented at the 4th African Region
Conference of the International Association of Cross-Cultural Psychology
(IACCP), Cameroon, Central Africa, 2009; the 20th Congress of the
IACCP, Australia, 2010; the British Psychological Society Social Psychol-
ogy Conference, Winchester, United Kingdom, 2010; and the Society for
Personality and Social Psychology Conference, San Antonio, Texas, 2011.
This work was funded by Economic and Social Research Council (United
Kingdom) Grant RES-062-23-1300 to Vivian L. Vignoles and Rupert
Brown.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Maja
Becker, who is now at the CLLE (CNRS, UTM, EPHE), “Cognition,
Langues, Langage et Ergonomie,” Maison de la recherche, 5 alle´es A.
Machado, 31058 Toulouse Cedex 9, France. E-mail: mbecker@univ-
tlse2.fr
834
BECKER ET AL.
occur within particular cultural and local meaning systems. These
processes are understood to be guided by particular motives or
“tendencies toward certain identity states and away from others”
(Vignoles, 2011, p. 405). According to MICT, the motive for
distinctiveness has a guiding influence on these processes of
identity construction, together with at least five other motives.
Specifically, the theory proposes that people are generally moti-
vated to achieve and maintain feelings of self-esteem, continuity,
distinctiveness, belonging, efficacy, and meaning within their
identities.
Regarding the distinctiveness motive, there is substantial evi-
dence of the many ways that people seek to construct and maintain
distinctiveness of both individual and group identities (for reviews,
see Lynn & Snyder, 2002; Vignoles, 2009). People typically
remember information better if it distinguishes the self from others
(Leyens, Yzerbyt, & Rogier, 1997), are most likely to mention
their more distinctive attributes when asked to describe themselves
(McGuire & Padawer-Singer, 1976), and consider their more dis-
tinctive attributes as especially self-defining (Turnbull, Miller, &
McFarland, 1990; Vignoles et al., 2006). People also maintain and
enhance distinctiveness of their group identities by ingroup ste-
reotyping (van Rijswijk, Haslam, & Ellemers, 2006), by derogat-
ing ingroup imposters and deviants (Jetten, Summerville, Hornsey,
& Mewse, 2005; Marques & Paez, 1994), and by discriminating
against outgroups (Jetten, Spears, & Postmes, 2004). When feel-
ings of distinctiveness are threatened or undermined, people typ-
ically report reduced psychological well-being, and they attempt in
various ways to restore distinctiveness (Fromkin, 1970, 1972;
Jetten et al., 2004; Markus & Kunda, 1986; Pickett, Silver, &
Brewer, 2002; Powell, 1974; Snyder & Endelman, 1979).
Vignoles et al. (2006) reported four studies among diverse
groups of participants in the United Kingdom and Italy that
showed the influence of the motive for distinctiveness on identity
construction even when controlling for the influence of five other
identity motives. Each participant freely listed 12 aspects of his/her
identity (e.g., “woman,” “friend,” “musician,” “ambitious”) and
then rated each identity aspect for its perceived centrality within
identity as well as the extent to which it satisfied each of the six
identity motives proposed in MICT. In all four studies, participants
typically perceived as more central and self-defining those aspects
of their identities that they felt distinguished them to a greater
extent from others. The effect of distinctiveness on perceived
centrality remained significant after accounting for the effects of
other identity motives (for self-esteem, continuity, belonging, ef-
ficacy, and meaning), and a longitudinal test of the model showed
that distinctiveness had a significant prospective effect on per-
ceived centrality, whereas the reverse causal direction was not
supported.
Distinctiveness and Culture
However, all of this evidence for distinctiveness-seeking comes
from European and North American research. Cross-cultural the-
orists have suggested that the motive for distinctiveness may be
culturally specific. Indeed, in his classic text on cultural individ-
ualism and collectivism, Triandis (1995) has proposed that the
motive for distinctiveness will be stronger in individualistic cul-
tures and weaker in collectivistic cultures. Underlying this predic-
tion is the assumption that identity motives are derived from
internalization of cultural values—that people who live in cultures
where distinctiveness is valued will come to internalize this value,
and it is for this reason that they will seek to construct distinctive
identities (see, e.g., Breakwell, 1987; Markus & Kitayama, 1991;
Snyder & Fromkin, 1980).
In contrast with this position, others have proposed that the need
for distinctiveness is a “universal human motive” (Brewer &
Pickett, 1999, p. 85). Vignoles and collaborators (Vignoles, 2009;
Vignoles, Chryssochoou, & Breakwell, 2000) have argued that
establishing some form of distinctiveness is a logical precondition
for the existence of a meaningful sense of identity in any cultural
meaning system. This suggests that people would be motivated to
seek distinctiveness, whether they are living in a collectivistic or
an individualistic culture. Brewer and Roccas (2001) have even
argued that distinctiveness strivings may be stronger in collectiv-
istic cultural settings, compared to individualistic ones, as the
motive will be more frustrated—and thus aroused—in the context
of a cultural system where distinctiveness is not valued or is even
discouraged (for a similar argument, see Lo, Helwig, Chen,
Ohashi, & Cheng, 2011).
However, even if the distinctiveness motive is culturally uni-
versal, Vignoles et al. (2000) suggested that cultural systems may
come to emphasize different forms of distinctiveness, and these
emphases should be reflected in the identities of cultural members.
They proposed that distinctiveness can be constructed in three
ways: through difference, separateness, or social position, as illus-
trated in Figure 1. The most common way of operationalizing
distinctiveness in psychology is as difference, that is, distinctive-
ness in qualities such as abilities, opinions, personality, and ap-
pearance. In contrast, social position refers to distinctiveness in
one’s place within social relationships, including kinship ties,
friendships, roles, and social status. Separateness refers to distinc-
tiveness in terms of boundedness or distance from others, includ-
ing physical and symbolic boundaries, and feelings of privacy,
independence, and isolation. Although they viewed the motive for
distinctiveness as universal, Vignoles et al. hypothesized that
cultural beliefs and values would moderate the ways in which this
motive is satisfied. In other words, the strength of the motive
would be similar across cultures, but people would find different
ways of satisfying the motive—ways that fit their own cultural
meaning systems.
More precisely, Vignoles et al. (2000; Vignoles, 2009) hypoth-
esized that difference and separateness would be emphasized and
valued more as sources of distinctiveness in individualistic cul-
tures, reflecting the Western concept of the person as unique and
bounded (Geertz, 1975). On the other hand, they hypothesized that
Figure 1. Sources of distinctiveness (adapted from Vignoles et al., 2002).
835
CULTURE AND THE DISTINCTIVENESS MOTIVE
social position would be emphasized and valued more in collec-
tivistic cultures, where the place of the individual within a network
of social relationships is a significant aspect of the concept of
personhood (e.g., Ho, 1993; Hsu, 1985).
Measuring Distinctiveness-Seeking Across Cultures
Evidence for cultural differences in the distinctiveness motive is
mostly limited to a small number of studies using explicit self-
report measures of need for uniqueness (NFU). Yamaguchi, Kuhl-
man, and Sugimori (1995) reported somewhat lower mean NFU
scores among Japanese and Korean undergraduates compared to
Americans, although statistical significance was not tested. Burns
and Brady (1992) found significantly lower mean NFU scores
among Malaysian than U.S. business students; however, this dif-
ference appeared only on the Lack of Concern for Others subscale,
suggesting a cultural difference in concern for social acceptance
rather than in the desire for uniqueness per se. Tafarodi, Marshall,
and Katsura (2004) found no difference between Japanese and
Canadian undergraduates in overall NFU scores, although Japa-
nese participants scored lower on items reflecting “desire to be
different.” These findings thus provide only limited evidence for
cultural variation in the distinctiveness motive.
Measuring Distinctiveness-Seeking
A concern with these studies is that the measurement of distinc-
tiveness motivation is based on participants’ self-reports in re-
sponse to direct questions about how much they want to be
different from others. As noted by Vignoles (2009), explicit NFU
scales may be measuring the subjective value placed on unique-
ness and difference rather than the respondent’s underlying psy-
chological motives. People are generally aware of their values,
whereas they may or may not be aware of their motives, and the
two do not necessarily coincide. For example, when research
participants in North America and Western Europe claim to value
being unique and different from others, this may be a way of
conforming with prevailing social norms—ironically, by saying
that they want to be different from others, these participants are
fitting in with their social environments rather than distinguishing
themselves from others (see Jetten, Postmes, & McAuliffe, 2002;
Salvatore & Prentice, 2011). Hence, it may be preferable to mea-
sure the distinctiveness motive using more indirect techniques—
perhaps especially when looking at cultural differences (for related
arguments, see Hofer & Bond, 2008; Kitayama, Park, Sevincer,
Karasawa, & Uskul, 2009).
Kim and Markus (1999, Study 3) tested the hypothesis of
cultural differences in preferences for uniqueness without asking
participants directly how much they wanted to be unique. They
asked travelers at an airport to complete a short survey, offering
them the choice of a pen in return. Participants were presented with
five pens that were identical except for their external color. The
ratio of uncommon (unique) to common (majority) colored pens
was 1:4 or 2:3. Participants were categorized as American or East
Asian (Korean or Chinese), and results indicated that Americans
were more likely to choose the uncommon pens than were East
Asians. This finding has been cited frequently as providing evi-
dence for a stronger preference for uniqueness among Westerners
(e.g., Heine, Lehman, Peng, & Greenholtz, 2002; Stephens,
Markus, & Townsend, 2007; Walsh & Smith, 2007).
However, the dependent measure of pen choice is open to
alternative interpretations. East Asian participants could have
viewed the unique pen as more desirable, just as the Americans
did, but had other reasons for not choosing it. Indeed, Yamagishi,
Hashimoto, and Schug (2008) have shown that, rather than cultural
differences in preference for uniqueness, these results are better
explained by cultural differences in the behavioral strategies that
individuals rely on in ambiguous situations: Compared to Ameri-
cans, East Asians are more likely to be concerned about how they
will be evaluated by other individuals, which makes them choose
the unique pen less frequently. Beyond this debate about the
interpretation of the findings, the different colored pen in this
paradigm only relates to one of the three sources of distinctiveness
identified by Vignoles et al. (2000). Therefore, even if Kim and
Markus (1999) are right in their interpretation, this only shows
cultural variation in striving for difference (as one possible source
of distinctiveness). It does not necessarily indicate variation in
striving for distinctiveness as such.
Vignoles and Moncaster (2007) devised an alternative way of
measuring individual differences in the strength of the distinctive-
ness motive (and other identity motives), also without asking
participants directly how much they wanted to be distinctive. As in
the studies of Vignoles et al. (2006) described earlier, participants
listed freely a number of aspects of their identities, and then they
rated each identity aspect for its perceived centrality within their
subjective identity structures—that is, the extent to which they
perceived it as important and self-defining—and for the degree to
which it provided feelings that would satisfy each of the motives
they were interested in—for example, the extent to which it made
them feel that they were distinguished in any sense from other
people (for satisfaction of the distinctiveness motive). As in the
earlier studies, the motive satisfaction ratings were used to predict
the relative priority given to different aspects of identity within
participants’ subjective identity structures, but Vignoles and Mon-
caster’s analyses focused on individual differences rather than
testing the overall strength of each motive across their sample.
They reasoned that people with a relatively strong motive for
distinctiveness should show a relatively strong tendency to prior-
itize those aspects of their identities that they considered to dis-
tinguish them most from others and to marginalize those aspects of
their identities that did not satisfy this motive (for an illustration,
see Figure 2: Participant A); in contrast, this tendency should be
weaker among those with a weaker motive for distinctiveness (see
Figure 2: Participant B). Thus, individual differences in the
strength of association between distinctiveness ratings of aspects
of identity and their perceived centrality within subjective identity
structures could be used as an indirect measure of individual
differences in the strength of the distinctiveness motive.
Scores on this indirect measure have been used successfully to
predict several theorized outcomes of the distinctiveness motive,
including individual differences in national favoritism (Vignoles &
Moncaster, 2007) and in the preference for more or less distinctive
relationship partners (Petavratzi, 2004). Yet, they are largely in-
dependent of explicit self-reports of NFU (Eriksson, Becker, &
Vignoles, 2011), indicating that they are not simply measuring
participants’ beliefs about how much they want to be distinctive, or
the subjective value they place on uniqueness. Although the mea-
836
BECKER ET AL.
