The authors propose that there is a systematic impact of a person's activated self-construal (interdependent vs. independent) on the evaluation of enriched and impoverished options. This hypothesis is tested using a cross-country comparison of participants from China and the United States (Study 1) and by priming self-construal (Study 2) and regulatory focus (Study 3). Results show that people with an independent self-construal and a promotion focus perceive enriched options as more attractive than impoverished options. Conversely, people with an interdependent self-construal and a prevention focus perceive enriched options as less attractive than impoverished options. Mediation analyses show that the effect of cultural orientation operates through self-construal. In turn, self-construal operates through activated regulatory focus. Analysis of cognitive responses shows that the effect of regulatory focus is mediated by positive/negative thoughts about option attributes.
Aaker, J.L., & Lee, A.Y. (2001). “I” seek pleasures and “we” avoid pains: The role of self-regulatory goals in information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 33-49.
2.
Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
3.
Chen, C., Lee, S., & Stevenson, H.W. (1995). Response style and cross-cultural comparisons of rating scale among East Asian and North American students. Psychological Science, 6, 170-175.
4.
Chuang, P. (2000). The creative strategy approach in political spot advertising: A cross-cultural comparison of the 1996 presidential campaigns in Taiwan and the United States. Unpublished manuscript, Wayne State University.
5.
Crowe, E., & Higgins, E.T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 117-132.
6.
Dhar, R. (1997). Consumer preference for a no-choice option. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 215-231.
7.
Dhar, R., Nowlis, S.M., & Sherman, S.J. (1999). Comparison effects on preference construction . Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 293-306.
8.
Friedman, R.S., & Forster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1001-1013.
9.
Ganzach, Y. (1995). Attribute scatter and decision outcome: Judgment versus choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 113-122.
10.
Gardner, W.L., Gabriel, S., & Lee, A.Y. (1999). “I” value freedom, but “we” value relationships: Self-construal priming mirrors cultural differences in judgment. Psychological Science, 10, 321-326.
11.
Hamilton, R.W., & Biehal, G.J. (2005). Achieving your goals or protecting their future? The effects of self-view on goals and choices. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 277-283.
12.
Heine, S.J., Lehman, D.R., Markus, H.R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal need for positive self-regard ? Psychological Review, 106, 766-794.
13.
Kim, H., & Markus, H.R. (1999). Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 77, 785-800.
14.
Kitayama, S., Markus, H.R., Matsumoto, H., & Norasakkunkit, V. (1997). Individual and collective processes in the construction of the self: Self-enhancement in the United States and self-criticism in Japan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1245-1267.
15.
Lee, A.Y., Aaker, J.L., & Gardner, W. (2000). The pleasures and pains of distinct self-construals: The role of interdependence in regulatory focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1122-1134.
16.
Lockwood, P., Jordan, C.H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 854-864.
17.
Mandel, N. (2003). Shifting selves and decision making: The effects of self-construal priming on consumer risk-taking. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 30-40.
18.
Markus, H.R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
19.
Rhee, E., Uleman, J.S., Lee, H.K., & Roman, R.J. (1995). Spontaneous self-descriptions and ethnic identities in individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 142-152.
20.
Shafir, E. (1993). Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others. Memory & Cognition , 21, 546-556.
21.
Shafir, E., Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1993). Reason-based choice. Special issue: Reasoning and decision making. Cognition, 49,11-36.
22.
Simonson, I., & Nowlis, S.M. (2000). The role of explanations and need for uniqueness in consumer decision making: Unconventional choices based on reasons. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 49-68.
23.
Singelis, T.M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 20, 580-591.
24.
Trafimow, D., Triandis, H.C., & Goto, S.G. (1991). Some tests of the distinction between the private self and the collective self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 649-655.
25.
Wedell, D.H. (1997). Another look at reasons for choosing and rejecting . Memory & Cognition, 25, 873-887.
26.
Zhang, Y., & Mittal, V. (2005). Decision difficulty: Effects of procedural and outcome accountability. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 465-472.
