Cultural practices emphasize influence in the United States and adjustment in Japan
Abstract
People have the capacity both to influence their environment and to adjust to it, but the United States and Japan are said to emphasize these processes differently. The authors suggest that Americans and Japanese develop distinct psychological characteristics, which are attuned to social practices that emphasize influence (in the United States) and adjustment (in Japan). American participants could remember more, and more recent, situations that involve influence, and Japanese respondents could remember more, and more recent, situations that involve adjustment. Second, American-made influence situations evoked stronger feelings of efficacy, whereas Japanese-made adjustment situations evoked stronger feelings of relatedness. Third, Americans reported more efficacy than Japanese, especially when responding to influence situations. Japanese felt more interpersonally close than Americans, especially when responding to adjustment situations. Surprisingly, U.S. influence situations also made people feel close to others, perhaps because they involved influencing other people.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Individuals from European cultures tend to use suppression rigidly, whereas individuals from Asian cultures are more sensitive to social context and environmental demands, which enables them to use suppression more flexibly.
“individuals from European cultures tend to use suppression rigidly, whereas individuals from Asian cultures are more sensitive to social context and environmental demands, which enables them to use suppression more flexibly (Butler et al., 2007; Morling, Kitayama, & Miyamoto, 2002)”
From The conditional process model of mindfulness and emotion regulation: An empirical test (2017) · cites this paper as Morling, Kitayama, & Miyamoto, 2002
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 36 · Cited by 478
- Authors
- Morling, B., Kitayama, S., & Miyamoto, Y.
- Affiliations
- Muhlenberg College (US)
- Kyoto University (JP)
- Corresponding author
- Kitayama, Shinobu
- Venue
- Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2002-03
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 311-323
- ISSN
- 0146-1672 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7433
- OpenAlex
- W2131290678
- Cited by
- 478
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 79 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 27
- FWCI
- 11.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Identity, Memory, and Therapy
- Keywords
- cultural differences, social practices, self-efficacy, relatedness, relationship closeness, United States, Japan, cross-cultural personality
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review