Although it is well documented that cultures influence basic cognitive processes such as attention, the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. We tested the hypothesis that self-concepts that characterize people from different cultures mediate the variation of visual attention. After being primed with self-construals that emphasize the Eastern interdependent self or the Western independent self, Chinese participants were asked to discriminate a central target letter flanked by compatible or incompatible stimuli (Experiment 1) or global/local letters in a compound stimulus (Experiment 2). Experiment 1 showed that, while responses were slower to the incompatible than to the compatible stimuli, this flanker compatibility effect was increased by the interdependent relative to the independent self-construal priming. Experiment 2 showed that the interdependent-self priming resulted in faster responses to the global than to the local targets in compound letters whereas a reverse pattern was observed in the independent-self priming condition. The results provide evidence for dynamics of the scope of visual attention as a function of self-construal priming that switches self-concept toward the interdependent or independent styles in Chinese.
BaumeisterR. F. (1998). The self.GilbertD. T.FiskeS. T.LindzeyG.Handbook of social psychology. (4).. New York: McGraw-Hill680–740.
2.
BrewerM. B.GarnerW. L. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self representation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology71, 83–93.
3.
CastielloU.UmiltàC. (1990). Size of the attention focus and efficiency of processing.Acta Psychology73, 195–209.
4.
DerryberryD.ReedM. A. (1998). Anxiety and attentional focusing: Trait, state and hemispheric influences.Personality and Individual Differences25, 745–761.
5.
EriksenB. A.EriksenC. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task.Perception & Psychophysics16, 143–149.
6.
EriksenC. W.St. JamesJ. D. (1986). Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model.Perception Psychophysics40, 225–240.
7.
EriksenC. W.YehY. Y. (1985). Allocation of attention in the visual field.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception Performance11, 583–597.
8.
GardnerW. L.GabrielS.LeeA. Y. (1999). “I” value freedom, but “we” value relationships: Self-construal priming mirrors cultural differences in judgment.Psychological Science10, 321–326.
9.
HanS.HumphreysG. W. (2002). Segmentation and selection contribute to local processing in hierarchical analysis.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology55A, 5–21.
10.
HanS.HumphreysG. W. (2005). Perceptual organization at attended and unattended locations.Science in China, Series C48, 106–116.
11.
HeddenT.KetayS.AronA.MarkusH. R.GabrieliD. E. (2008). Cultural influences on neural substrates of attentional control.Psychological Science19, 12–17.
12.
HongY.-I.MorrisM. W.ChiuC.-Y.Benet-MartinezV. (2000). Multi-cultural minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition.American Psychologist55, 709–720.
13.
JiL.PengK.NisbettR. E. (2000). Culture, control, and perception of relationships in the environment.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology78, 943–955.
14.
JohnstonW. A.DarkV. J. (1982). In defense of intraperceptual theories of attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance8, 407–421.
15.
KennedyS.ScheierJ.RogersA. (1984). The price of success: Our monocultural science.American Psychologist39, 996–997.
16.
KitayamaS.DuffyS.KawamuraT.LarsenJ. T. (2003). Perceiving an object and its context in different cultures: A cultural look at new look.Psychological Science14, 201–206.
17.
KühnenU.HannoverB.SchubertB. (2001). The semantic–procedural–interface model of the self: The role of self-knowledge for context-dependent versus context-independent modes of thinking.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology80, 397–409.
18.
KühnenU.OysermanD. (2002). Thinking about the self influences thinking in general: Cognitive consequences of salient self-concept.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology38, 492–499.
MarkusH. R.KitayamaS. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.Psychological Review98, 224–253.
21.
MasudaT.NisbettR. E. (2001). Attending holistically versus analytically: Comparing the context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology81, 922–934.
22.
MasudaT.NisbettR. E. (2006). Culture and change blindness.Cognitive Science30, 381–399.
23.
MillerJ. (1987). Priming is not necessary for selective-attention failures: Semantic effects of unattended, unprimed letters.Perception & Psychophysics41, 419–434.
24.
NavonD. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception.Cognitive Psychology9, 353–383.
25.
NisbettR. E.MasudaT.Culture and point of view. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences200310011163–11170.
26.
NisbettR. E.MiyamotoY. (2005). The influence of culture: Holistic versus analytic perception.Trends in Cognitive Sciences9, 467–473.
27.
NisbettR. E.PengK.ChoiI.NorenzayanA. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition.Psychological Review108, 291–310.
28.
NorenzayanA.HeineS. J. (2005). Psychological universals: What are they and how can we know?.Psychological Bulletin131, 763–784.
29.
OliversN. L.NiewenhuisS. (2006). The beneficial effects of additional task load, positive affect and instruction on the attentional blink.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance32, 364–379.
30.
OysermanD. (2001). Self-concept and identity.TesserA.ShwarzN.Blackwell handbook of social psychology. Malden, MA: Blackwell499–517.
31.
OysermanD.CoonH.HemmelmeierM. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses.Psychological Bulletin128, 3–72.
32.
OysermanD.LeeS. W. S. (2008). Does culture influence what and how we think? Effects of priming individualism and collectivism.Psychological Bulletin134, 311–342.
33.
RoweG.HirshJ. B.AndersonA. K.Positive affect increases the breadth of attentional selection. Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesUSA2007104383–388.
StapelD.KoomenW. (2001). I, we, and the effects of others on me: How self-construal level moderates social comparison effects.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology80, 766–781.
36.
StöfferT. H. (1994). Attentional zooming and the global-dominance phenomenon: Effects of level-specific cueing and abrupt visual onset.Psychological Research56, 83–98.
TrafimowD.TriandisH. C.GotoS. G. (1991). Some tests of the distinction between the private self and the collective self.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology60, 649–655.
39.
van BaarenR. B.MadduxW. W.ChartrandT. L.de BouterC.van KnippenbergA. (2003). It takes two to mimic: Behavioral consequences of self-construals.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology84, 1093–1102.
40.
WitkinH. A.OltmanP. K.RaskinE.KarpS. A. (1971). Manual for the Embedded Figures Test, Children's Embedded Figures Test, and Group Embedded Figures TestPalo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
