Incheol Choi

Individual Differences in Analytic Versus Holistic Thinking

The authors constructed the Analysis-Holism Scale (AHS) to measure analytic versus holistic thinking tendency. In Study 1, using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, a 24-item scale was developed. In Study 2, convergent and discriminant validities were tested. In Studies 3 and 4, the known-group difference validity was examined by comparing scores on the AHS of Americans and Koreans (Study 3) and of Korean students of Oriental medicine and Korean students of non-Oriental medicine majors (Study 4). Results of Studies 3 and 4 show that Koreans and Korean students of Oriental medicine scored higher on the AHS than did Americans and Korean students of non-Oriental medicine majors, respectively. Studies 5 and 6 tested predictive validity by examining associations of the AHS with performances on two cognitive tasks (categorization and causal reasoning). Data analysis shows that those with high scores on the AHS displayed the holistic pattern of performances on each task more than did those with low scores.

Cultural Similarities and Differences in Social Inference: Evidence from Behavioral Predictions and Lay Theories of Behavior

The authors investigated social inference practices of Koreans and Americans in two novel domains: behavioral predictions and folk theories of behavior. When dispositional and situational inferences were disentangled, Koreans showed dispositional thinking to the same extent as Americans. This was the case for behavioral predictions based on individual difference information (Study 1) and for endorsements of a dispositionist theory of behavior (Studies 1 and 3). Consistent with previous research in the causal attribution and attitude attribution paradigms, Koreans made greater situational inferences in behavioral prediction as long as situational information was salient (Study 2) and endorsed a situationist theory of behavior more (Studies 1 and 3). Koreans also differed from Americans in believing personality to be more malleable (Study 3).

Cultural psychology of surprise: Holistic theories and recognition of contradiction

The authors tested the hypothesis that East Asians, because of their holistic reasoning, take contradiction and inconsistency for granted and consequently are less likely than Americans to experience surprise. Studies 1 and 2 showed that Korean participants displayed less surprise and greater hindsight bias than American participants did when a targets behavior contradicted their expectations. Studies 3 and 4 further demonstrated that even when contradiction was created in highly explicit ways, Korean participants experienced little surprise, whereas American participants reported substantial surprise. We discuss the implications of these findings for various issues, including the psychology of conviction, cognitive dissonance, and the development of science.

Culture and Self-Concept Flexibility

Past research has shown that East Asians are more tolerant of apparent contradiction and tend to accept contradictory beliefs more readily than Americans. The present research examined through three studies whether such a dialectical tendency among East Asians also would be found in beliefs about the self. The results showed that in all three studies, Koreans displayed inconsistent beliefs about the self across contexts more than Americans. Unlike Americans, Koreans considered themselves more extroverted when asked how extroverted they were than when asked how introverted they were (Study 1). Koreans also exhibited less consistent beliefs about their relative standings on various personality dimensions than did Americans (Study 2). For example, Koreans evaluated their relative honesty differently when asked how honest they were than when asked how dishonest they were compared to their peers. Koreans also exhibited greater fluctuations in value preferences than did Americans (Study 3). Some implications of the present findings are discussed.

Culture Matters When Designing a Successful Happiness-Increasing Activity: A Comparison of the United States and South Korea

Research shows that performing positive activities, such as expressing gratitude and doing acts of kindness, boosts happiness. But do specific positive activities work equally well across cultures? Our study examined the role of culture–activity fit by testing two positive activities across two cultures. Participants from the United States (n = 250) and South Korea (n = 270) were randomly assigned to express gratitude, perform kind acts, or engage in a neutral activity for the first half of a 6-week positive activity intervention. Multilevel growth modeling analyses revealed that the effect of practicing gratitude or kindness was moderated by culture: U.S. participants increased in well-being (WB) from both activities, γ11 = 0.19, SE = 0.06, t(511) = 3.04, p = .0006; γ12= 0.11, SE = 0.06, t(511) = 1.73, p = .03 (compared with the control group), but South Korean participants benefited significantly less from practicing gratitude than did U.S. participants, γ13 = −0.24, SE = 0.07, t(511) = −3.36, p = .002. South Korean participants, however, showed similar increases in WB as did U.S. participants when performing kind acts, γ14 = −0.06, SE = 0.07, t(511) = −0.82, ns. Finally, although greater self-reported effort yielded significantly larger increases in WB for U.S. participants, the effect of effort was not as strong for South Korean participants. We posit that, due to their dialectical philosophical tradition, South Koreans might have been more prone to feel mixed emotions (e.g., indebtedness and gratitude) while engaging in the gratitude letter activity than did U.S. participants.

The dynamics of daily events and well-being across cultures: when less is more.

The authors examined cultural and individual differences in the relation between daily events and daily satisfaction. In a preliminary study, they established cross-cultural equivalence of 50 daily events. In the main study, participants in the United States, Korea, and Japan completed daily surveys on the 50 events and daily satisfaction for 21 days. The multilevel random coefficient model analyses showed that (a) the within-person association between positive events and daily satisfaction was significantly stronger among Asian American, Korean, and Japanese participants than among European American participants and (b) the within-person association between positive events and daily satisfaction was significantly weaker among individuals high in global life satisfaction than among those low in global life satisfaction. The findings demonstrate a weaker effect of positive events on daily well-being among individuals and cultures high in global well-being.

Parasite stress and pathogen avoidance relate to distinct dimensions of political ideology across 30 nations

Significance Pathogens, and antipathogen behavioral strategies, affect myriad aspects of human behavior. Recent findings suggest that antipathogen strategies relate to political attitudes, with more ideologically conservative individuals reporting more disgust toward pathogen cues, and with higher parasite stress nations being, on average, more conservative. However, no research has yet adjudicated between two theoretical accounts proposed to explain these relationships between pathogens and politics. We find that national parasite stress and individual disgust sensitivity relate more strongly to adherence to traditional norms than they relate to support for barriers between social groups. These results suggest that the relationship between pathogens and politics reflects intragroup motivations more than intergroup motivations. People who are more avoidant of pathogens are more politically conservative, as are nations with greater parasite stress. In the current research, we test two prominent hypotheses that have been proposed as explanations for these relationships. The first, which is an intragroup account, holds that these relationships between pathogens and politics are based on motivations to adhere to local norms, which are sometimes shaped by cultural evolution to have pathogen-neutralizing properties. The second, which is an intergroup account, holds that these same relationships are based on motivations to avoid contact with outgroups, who might pose greater infectious disease threats than ingroup members. Results from a study surveying 11,501 participants across 30 nations are more consistent with the intragroup account than with the intergroup account. National parasite stress relates to traditionalism (an aspect of conservatism especially related to adherence to group norms) but not to social dominance orientation (SDO; an aspect of conservatism especially related to endorsements of intergroup barriers and negativity toward ethnic and racial outgroups). Further, individual differences in pathogen-avoidance motives (i.e., disgust sensitivity) relate more strongly to traditionalism than to SDO within the 30 nations.

Culture and First-Person Pronouns

Priming research has shown that repeated exposures to first-person singular pronouns (I, my, me, mine) activate an individualistic orientation, whereas first-person plural pronouns (we, our, us, ours) activate a collectivistic orientation. However, little research has been done to explore the opposite direction of influence such that one’s cultural orientation determines one’s choice between first-person singular versus plural pronouns. The authors conducted three studies to examine the effects of one’s cultural orientation on one’s use of first-person possessive pronouns. Results show that, compared to their individualistic counterparts, participants who have a collectivistic orientation, chronically or temporarily by priming, preferred to use first-person plural possessive pronouns.

Beyond Self-Protection Self-Affirmation Benefits Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being

Limited work has examined how self-affirmation might lead to positive outcomes beyond the maintenance of a favorable self-image. To address this gap in the literature, we conducted two studies in two cultures to establish the benefits of self-affirmation for psychological well-being. In Study 1, South Korean participants who affirmed their values for 2 weeks showed increased eudaimonic well-being (need satisfaction, meaning, and flow) relative to control participants. In Study 2, U.S. participants performed a self-affirmation activity for 4 weeks. Extending Study 1, after 2 weeks, self-affirmation led both to increased eudaimonic well-being and hedonic well-being (affect balance). By 4 weeks, however, these effects were non-linear, and the increases in affect balance were only present for vulnerable participants—those initially low in eudaimonic well-being. In sum, the benefits of self-affirmation appear to extend beyond self-protection to include two types of well-being.

‘It’s up to you’: Experimentally manipulated autonomy support for prosocial behavior improves well-being in two cultures over six weeks

Previous research has demonstrated a strong link between prosocial behavior – particularly autonomous prosocial behavior – and well-being. Little is known, however, about whether and how autonomy might be boosted in the context of everyday kindnesses. We tested the effect of supporting students’ autonomy on well-being gains from practicing acts of kindness in a six-week randomized experimental study in the United States and South Korea. As predicted, performing kind acts while receiving autonomy support led to greater improvements in well-being than performing kind acts without autonomy support or engaging in comparison activities (i.e. focusing on one’s academic work, with or without autonomy support). Notably, these well-being improvements were mediated by feelings of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The current study is one of the first to demonstrate the causal effect of autonomous prosocial behavior on well-being, as well as the psychological mechanism (i.e. need satisfaction) explaining this effect.