Previous studies have found cross-cultural variation in field dependence. In this study, cross-cultural differences were expected depending on the degree of individualism or collectivism of the respective cultures. Samples were taken from two prototypically individualist cultures, the United States and Germany, and two collectivist cultures, Russia and Malaysia. As predicted, field dependence did not differ between those samples that represented the same type of culture, either collectivist or individualist. However, a clear difference could be found between the two types of cultures; that is, U.S. and German participants were more field independent than were Russian and Malaysian participants.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arrindell, W. A. , Hatzichristou, C., Wensink, J., Rosenberg, E., van Twillert, B., Stedema, J., & Meijer, D. (1997). Dimensions of national culture as predictors of cross-national differences in subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 23(1), 37-53.
2.
Bagley, C. (1995). Field independence in children in group-oriented cultures: Comparisons from China, Japan, and North America. Journal of Social Psychology, 135(4), 523-525.
3.
Bagley, C. , Iwawaki, S., & Young, L. (1983). Japanese children: Group-oriented but not field-dependent? In C. Bagley & G. Verma (Eds.), Multi-cultural childhood: Education, ethnicity and cognitive styles (pp. 27-37). Aldershot, UK: Gower Press.
4.
Berry, J. W. (1991). Cultural variations in field dependence-independence. In S. Wapner & J. Demick (Eds.), Field dependence-independence, cognitive style across the life span (pp. 289-308). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
Berry, J. W. (1994). Ecology of individualism and collectivism. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
Choi, I. , Nisbett, R. E., & Norenzayan, A. (1999). Causal attribution across cultures: Variation and universality. Psychological Bulletin, 125(1), 47-63.
7.
Hofstede, G. (1983). Dimensions of national cultures in fifty countries and three regions. In J. Deregowski, S. Dzuirawiec, & R. Annis (Eds.), Explications in cross-cultural psychology. Lisse, Switzerland: Swets and Zeitlinger.
8.
Horn, W. (1962). Leistungspruefsystem, L-P-S: Handanweisung fuer die Durchfuehrung, Auswertung und Interpretation [A performance testing system: Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation]. Goettingen, Germany: Verlag Hogrefe.
9.
Ji, L. J. , Peng, K., & Nisbett. R. E. (in press). Culture, control, and the perception of relationships in the environment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
10.
Jones, E. E , & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219-266). New York: Academic Press.
11.
Kim, H. & Markus, H. R. (1999). Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 785-800.
12.
Kühnen, U. , Hannover, B., & Schubert, B. (2000). A semantic-procedural interface model of the self: the role of self-knowledge for context-dependent versus context-independent modes of thinking. Manuscript submitted for publication, University of Michigan.
13.
Markus, H. , & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
14.
Miller, J. G. (1984). Culture and the development of everyday social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 961-978.
15.
Nisbett, R. E. , Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (1999). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Manuscript submitted for publication, University of Michigan.
16.
Roeder, U. R. (2000). Kontextabhängigkeit—Konstruktion und Validierung eines Messinstruments[Context dependency—Construction and validation of a new scale]. In H. Metz-Goeckel, B. Hannover, & S. Leffelsend (Eds.), Selbst, Motivation und Emotion. Dokumentation des 4. Dortmunder Symposions fuer Paedagogische Psychologie 2000. Berlin, Germany: Logos.
17.
Searl-White, J. (1996). Personal boundaries among Russians and Americans: A Vygotskian approach. Cross- Cultural Research, 30, 184-208.
18.
Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580-591.
19.
Smith, P. B. , & Bond, M. H. (1994). Social psychology across cultures: Analysis and perspectives. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
20.
Smith, P. B. , Trompenaars, F., & Dugan, S. (1995). The Rotter Locus of Control Scale in 43 countries: A test of cultural relativity. International Journal of Psychology, 30, 377-400.
21.
Sternberg, R. J. , & Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style?American Psychologist, 52, 700-712.
22.
Tower, R. K. , Kelly, C., & Richards, A. (1997). Individualism, collectivism and reward allocation: A cross-cultural study in Russia and Britain. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36(3), 331-345.
23.
Triandis, H. C. (1999). Cross-cultural psychology. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2(1), 127-143.
24.
Voyer, D. , Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex-differences in spatial abilities-A metaanalysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 250-270.
25.
Witkin, H. A. (1950). Individual differences in the case of perception of embedded figures. Journal of Personality, 19, 1-15.
26.
Witkin, H. A. , & Berry, J. (1975). Psychological differentiation in cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 6, 4-87.
