Prior research demonstrated that an experimentally primed collectivist orientation increased repressive suffering construal (RSC): interpretation of suffering as being caused by deviance and having the purpose of maintaining social order. Furthermore, the effect of collectivism on RSC was mediated by social morality: the belief that society dictates morality. The current research provides the first cross-cultural empirical evidence for the links between RSC, collectivism, and social morality. In an investigation of religious subcultures, collectivist Mennonites endorsed RSC to a greater degree than individualist Unitarian Universalists and undergraduates, and this difference was mediated by collectivism. Examining the RSC construct in greater detail, two additional studies compared participants from China and the United States. Chinese participants scored higher on RSC’s teleological component—the belief that suffering upholds society—but not its causal component—the belief that suffering is caused by deviance. This difference was mediated by social morality endorsement.
AdamsG.PlautV. C. (2003). The cultural grounding of personal relationship: Friendship in North American and West African worlds. Personal Relationships, 10, 333-347.
2.
AdlerN. E.EpelE. S.CastellazzoG.IckovicsJ. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy white women. Health Psychology, 19, 586-592.
3.
AlmondG. A.ApplebyR. S.SivanE. (2003). Strong religion: The rise of fundamentalisms around the world. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
4.
ArthurL. B. (1998). Deviance, agency, and the social control of women’s bodies in a Mennonite community. NWSA Journal, 10, 75-99.
5.
BarclayH. B. (1967). The plain people of Oregon. Review of Religious Research, 8, 140-165.
6.
BellahR. N. (1998, June). Unitarian Universalism in societal perspective. Lecture given to the Unitarian Universalist Association General Assembly, Rochester, NY. Retrieved from http://www.robertbellah.com/lectures_7.htm
7.
BondR.SmithP. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 111-137.
8.
BraithwaiteJ. (1989). Crime, shame, and reintegration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9.
BrauerM.ChaurandN. (2010). Descriptive norms, prescriptive norms, and social control: An intercultural comparison of people’s reactions to uncivil behaviors. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 490-499.
10.
BuehrensJ. A.ChurchF. (1998). A chosen faith: An introduction to Unitarian Universalism. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
11.
CohenA. B.HillP. C. (2007). Religion as culture: Religious individualism and collectivism among American Catholics, Jews, and Protestants. Journal of Personality, 75, 709-742.
12.
CrossS. E.HardinE. E.Gercek-SwingB. (2011). The what, how, why, and where of self-construal. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 142-179.
13.
FischerR. (2009). Where is culture in cross-cultural research? An outline of a multilevel research process for measuring culture as a shared meaning system. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 9, 25-49.
14.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.NosekB. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029-1046.
15.
GreenwoodA.HarrisM. W. (2011). An introduction to the Unitarian and Universalist traditions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16.
HallowellA. I. (1976). Contributions to anthropology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
17.
HamamuraT.XuY. (2015). Changes in Chinese culture as examined through changes in personal pronoun usage. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46, 930-941.
18.
HenrichJ.HeineS. J.NorenzayanA. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61-135.
19.
HiebertC. (1973). The Holdeman people: Church of God in Christ, Mennonite, 1859-1969. South Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library.
20.
Janoff-BulmanR. (1992). Shattered assumptions: Towards a new psychology of trauma. New York, NY: Free Press.
21.
JiangS.LambertE.WangJ. (2007). Correlates of formal and informal social/crime control in China: An exploratory study. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 261-271.
22.
KennyD. A.KaniskanB.McCoachD. B. (2015). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Research, 44, 486-507.
23.
KitayamaS.ImadaT. (2010). Implicit independence and interdependence: A cultural task analysis. In Feldman BarrettL.SmithE.MesquitaB. (Eds.), The mind in context (pp. 174-200). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
24.
KleinmanA. M.KleinmanJ. (1997). Moral transformations of health and suffering in Chinese society. In BrandtA.RozinP. (Eds.), Morality and health (pp. 101-118). New York, NY: Routledge.
25.
LauY. L.CameronC. A.ChiehK. M.O’LearyJ.FuG.LeeK. (2013). Cultural differences in moral justifications enhance understanding of Chinese and Canadian children’s moral decisions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 461-477.
26.
LernerM. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
27.
LeungK.BondM. H. (2004). Social axioms: A model for social beliefs in multicultural perspective. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 119-197.
28.
LinK. (1981). Traditional Chinese medical beliefs and their relevance for mental illness and psychiatry. In KleinmanA.LinT. (Eds.), Normal and abnormal behavior in Chinese culture (pp. 95-111). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel.
29.
LittleT. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
MilfontT. L.FischerR. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3, 111-130.
32.
NisbettR. E.PengK.ChoiI.NorenzayanA. (2001). Culture and systems of thought. Psychological Review, 108, 291-310.
33.
NorenzayanA.LeeA. (2010). It was meant to happen: Explaining cultural variations in fate attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 702-720.
34.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.
35.
RasorP. (2008). Theological and political liberalisms. Journal of Law and Religion, 24, 433-462.
36.
RicoeurP. (1967). The symbolism of evil (BuchananE., Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
37.
SaucierG.KennerJ.IurinoK.MalhamP. B.ChenZ.ThalmayerA. G.. . . MastorK. A. (2015). Cross-cultural differences in a global “Survey of World Views.”Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46, 53-70.
38.
SavaniK.StephensN. M.MarkusH. R. (2011). The unanticipated interpersonal and societal consequences of choice: Victim blaming and reduced support for the public good. Psychological Science, 22, 795-802.
39.
ShavittS.TorelliC. J.RiemerH. (2010). Horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism: Implications for understanding psychological processes. Advances in Culture & Psychology, 1, 309-350.
40.
ShwederR. A.MuchN. C.MahapatraM.ParkL. (1997). The “Big Three” of morality (autonomy, community, and divinity), and the “Big Three” explanations of suffering. In BrandtA.RozinP. (Eds.), Morality and health (pp. 119-169). New York, NY: Routledge.
41.
SidaniusJ.MitchellM.HaleyH.NavarreteC. D. (2006). Support for harsh criminal sanctions and criminal justice beliefs: A social dominance perspective. Social Justice Research, 19, 433-449.
42.
SingelisT. M.TriandisH. C.BhawukD. P. S.GelfandM. J. (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29, 240-275.
43.
SullivanD. (2016). Cultural-existential psychology: The role of culture in suffering and threat. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
44.
SullivanD.LandauM. J.KayA. C.RothschildZ. K. (2012). Collectivism and the meaning of suffering. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 1023-1039.
45.
TweedR. G.LehmanD. R. (2002). Learning considered within a cultural context: Confucian and Socratic approaches. American Psychologist, 57, 89-99.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
