Although most democratic theories assume that political participation other than voting constitutes an essential input to the political process, little is known about the cultural universality of this assumption. Drawing on cultural psychology findings derived from the widely shared framework of collectivism versus individualism, the present study tests the hypothesis that political demonstrators in collectivistic countries are socially avoided because they are perceived to be a threat to harmonious interpersonal relationships. A cross-national experiment in eight countries (US, UK, France, Germany, Japan, China, South Korea, and India) and one region (Hong Kong) indicated that political demonstrators are socially avoided, and this tendency was significantly stronger in collectivistic countries. Moderated-mediation analyses suggested that the social avoidance of political demonstrators in collectivistic countries is mediated by the perception that they are a threat to harmonious interpersonal relationships. The cross-cultural validity of democratic theory is discussed.
AlmondG. A.VerbaS. (1963). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton University Press.
2.
AndersonC. A.SedikidesC. (1991). Thinking about people: Contributions of a typological alternative to associationistic and dimensional models of person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 203–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.203
3.
AndrainC. F.ApterD. E. (1995). Political protest and social change. New York University Press.
4.
BirchA. H. (2007). The concepts and theories of modern democracy (3rd ed.). Routledge.
5.
BomhoffE. J.GuM. M. L. (2012) East Asia remains different: A comment on the index of “self-expression values,” by Inglehart and Welzel. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(3), 373–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022111435096
6.
BrewerM. B. (1999). Multiple identities and identity transition: Implications for Hong Kong. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(2), 187–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(98)00034-0
7.
BryanM. L.JenkinsS. P. (2016). Multilevel modelling of country effects: A cautionary tale. European Sociological Review, 32(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcv059
EomK.KimH. S.ShermanD. K.IshiiK. (2016). Cultural variability in the link between environmental concern and support for environmental action. Psychological Science, 27(10), 1331–1339. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616660078
13.
FiskeA. P.KitayamaS.MarkusH. R.NisbettR. E. (1998). The cultural matrix of social psychology. In GillbertD.FiskeA. P.LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 915–981). McGraw-Hill.
14.
FlanaganS. C. (1978). The genesis of variant political cultures: Contemporary citizen orientations in Japan, America, Britain, and Italy. In VerbaS.PyeL. W. (Eds.), The citizen and politics: A comparative perspective (pp. 129–165). Greylock Publishers.
15.
GardnerW. L.GabrielS.LeeA. Y. (1999). “I” value freedom, but “we” value relationships: Self-construal priming mirrors cultural differences in judgment. Psychological Science, 10(4), 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00162
16.
GelfandM. J.BhawukD. P.NishiiL.BechtoldD. (2004). Individualism and collectivism. In HouseR. J.HangesP. J.JavidanM.DorfmanP.W.GuptaV. (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 cultures (pp. 437–512). Sage.
17.
GelfandM. J.RaverJ. L.NishiiL.LeslieL. M.LunJ.LimB. C.DuanL.AlmaliachA.AngS.ArnadottirJ.AycanZ.BoehnkeK.BoskiP.CabecinhasR.ChanD.ChhokarJ.D’AmatoA.FerrerM.FischlmayrI. C.. . . YamaguchiS. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332(6033), 1100–1104. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1197754
18.
HaS. E.KimS.JoS. H. (2013). Personality traits and political participation: Evidence from South Korea. Political Psychology, 34(4), 511–532. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12008
19.
HeisigJ. P.SchaefferM. (2019). Why you should always include a random slope for the lower-level variable involved in a cross-level interaction. European Sociological Review, 35(2), 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcy053
20.
HofstedeG. (1984). Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1(2), 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01733682
21.
HofstedeG.HofstedeG. J.MinkovM. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind : Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival (3rd ed). McGraw-Hill.
22.
HongY.MorrisM. W.ChiuC.Benet-MartínezV. (2000). Multicultural minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55(7), 709–720. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.7.709
IyengarS.SoodG.LelkesY. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038
26.
KashimaE. S.KashimaY. (1998). Culture and language: The case of cultural dimensions and personal pronoun use. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(3), 461–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022198293005
27.
LesterJ. P. (1997). Environmental politics and policy: theories and evidence. Duke University Press.
28.
LeungK. (1997). Negotiation and reward allocations across cultures. In EarleyP. C.ErezM. (Eds.), New perspectives on international industrial organizational psychology (pp. 640–675). New Lexington.
29.
LeungK.BrewF. P.ZhangZ.-X.ZhangY. (2011). Harmony and conflict: A cross-cultural investigation in China and Australia. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(5), 795–816. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022110363474
30.
MatuschekH.KlieglR.VasishthS.BaayenH.BatesD. (2017). Balancing Type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.001
31.
MansbridgeJ. J. (1983). Beyond adversary democracy. University of Chicago Press.
32.
MarkusH. R.KitayamaS. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
33.
MartinC. H.StronachB. (1992). Politics east and west: A comparison of Japanese and British political culture. Routledge.
34.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T.Jr.YikM. S. (1996). Universal aspects of Chinese personality structure. In BondM. H. (Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 189–207). Oxford University Press.
35.
MertigA.G.DunlapR.E. (1995). Public approval of environmental protection and other new social movement goals in Western Europe and the United States. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 7(2), 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/7.2.145
MilbrathL. W.GoelM. L. (1982). Political participation: How and why do people get involved in politics?University Press of America.
38.
MillerJ. G. (1999). Cultural psychology: Implications for basic psychological theory. Psychological Science, 10(2), 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00113
39.
MillerJ. G.BersoffD. M.HarwoodR. L. (1990). Perceptions of social responsibilities in India and in the United States: Moral imperatives or personal decisions?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.1.33
40.
MorrellM. E. (1999). Citizen’s evaluations of participatory democratic procedures: Normative theory meets empirical science. Political Research Quarterly, 52(2), 293–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299905200203
41.
MullerD.JuddC. M.YzerbytV. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 852–863. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.852
42.
MuthénB. (1997). Latent variable modeling of longitudinal and multilevel data. Sociological Methodology, 27(1), 453–480. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9531.271034
43.
NisbettR. E. (2004). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently . . . and why. Free Press.
44.
O’BrienL. T.CrandallC. S. (2005). Perceiving self-interest: Power, ideology, and maintenance of the status quo. Social Justice Research, 18(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-005-3368-4
45.
OhbuchiK.-I.TakahashiY. (1994). Cultural styles of conflict management in Japanese and Americans: Passivity, covertness, and effectiveness of strategies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(15), 1345–1366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb01553.x
46.
OppenheimerD. M.MeyvisT.DavidenkoN. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 867–872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009
47.
PatemanC. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge University Press.
RosenstoneS. J.HansenJ. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. Macmillan Publishing Company.
50.
SchmidtL. A.FoxN. A. (1995). Individual differences in young adults’ shyness and sociability: Personality and health correlates. Personality and Individual Differences, 19(4), 455–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(95)00083-I
51.
SivakumarK.NakataC. (2001). The stampede toward Hofstede’s framework: Avoiding the sample design pit in cross-cultural research. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3), 555–574. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490984
52.
SlaterD. H.O’DayR.UnoS.KindstrandL.TakanoC. (2015). SEALDs (Students Emergency Action for Liberal Democracy): Research note on contemporary youth politics in Japan. Asia-Pacific Journal-Japan Focus, 13(37).
53.
StamkouE.van KleefG. A.HomanA. C.GelfandM. J.van de VijverF. J.van EgmondM. C.BoerD.PhiriN.AyubN.KiniasZ.CantareroK. (2019). Cultural collectivism and tightness moderate responses to norm violators: Effects on power perception, moral emotions, and leader support. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(6), 947–964. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218802832
54.
StokesD. E. (1963). Spatial models of party competition. American Political Science Review, 57(2), 368–377. https://doi.org/10.2307/1952828
55.
StoverL. E. (1974). The cultural ecology of Chinese civilization. Pica Press.
56.
SuhE.DienerE.OishiS.TriandisH. C. (1998). The shifting basis of life satisfaction judgments across cultures: Emotions versus norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 482–493. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.482
57.
TakataT. (2003). Self-enhancement and self-criticism in Japanese culture: An experimental analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34(5), 542–551. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022103256477
Theiss-MorseE. (1993). Conceptualizations of good citizenship and political participation. Political Behavior, 15(4), 355–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992103
60.
ThompsonD. F. (1970). The democratic citizen: Social science and democratic theory in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge University Press.
61.
TriandisH. C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. Westview Press.
62.
TriandisH. C.BontempoR.VillarealM. J.AsaiM.LuccaN. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(2), 323–338. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.2.323
VerbaS.SchlozmanK. L.BradyH. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Harvard University Press.
65.
WeiM.SuJ. C.CarreraS.LinS.-P.YiF. (2013). Suppression and interpersonal harmony: A cross-cultural comparison between Chinese and European Americans. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(4), 625–633. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033413
66.
WelzelC. (2012). The myth of Asian exceptionalism: Response to Bomhoff and Gu. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(7), 1039–1054. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022112455458s
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.
