Cited by 478Cultural Differences and ValuesSocial and Intergroup PsychologyIdentity, Memory, and Therapy

Cultural practices emphasize influence in the United States and adjustment in Japan

Morling, Beth, Kitayama, Shinobu, Miyamoto, Yuri·2002·Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

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

Crossref · 10.1177/0146167202286003

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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
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