Sociocultural research has established independence and interdependence as two fundamental ways of thinking about oneself and the social world. Recent neuroscience studies further demonstrate that these orientations modulate brain activity in various self- and socially related tasks. In the current study, we explored whether the traits of independence and interdependence are reflected in anatomical variations in brain structure. We carried out structural brain imaging on a large sample of healthy participants (n = 265) who also completed self-report questionnaires of cultural orientations. Voxel-based morphometry analysis demonstrated that a relative focus of independence (vs. interdependence) was associated with increased gray-matter volume in a number of self-related regions, including ventromedial prefrontal cortex, right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, and right rostrolateral prefrontal cortex. These results provide novel insights into the biological basis of sociocultural orientations.
AshburnerJ. (2007). A fast diffeomorphic image registration algorithm. NeuroImage, 38, 95–113. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.07.007
2.
BrewerM. B.ChenY.-R. (2007). Where (who) are collectives in collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism. Psychological Review, 114, 133–151. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.114.1.133
3.
CarpenterS. (2000). Effects of cultural tightness and collectivism on self-concept and causal attributions. Cross-Cultural Research, 34, 38–56. doi:10.1177/106939710003400103
4.
CheeM. W. L.ZhengH.OonJ.GohS.ParkD.SuttonB. P. (2011). Brain structure in young and old East Asians and Westerners: Comparisons of structural volume and cortical thickness. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 1065–1079. doi:10.1162/jocn.2010.21513
5.
ChiaoJ. Y.BlizinskyK. D. (2010). Culture-gene coevolution of individualism-collectivism and the serotonin transporter gene. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 277, 529–537. doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.1650
6.
ChiaoJ. Y.HaradaT.KomedaH.LiZ.ManoY.SaitoD.. . . IidakaT. (2009). Neural basis of individualistic and collectivistic views of self. Human Brain Mapping, 30, 2813–2820. doi:10.1002/hbm.20707
7.
ChiaoJ. Y.HaradaT.KomedaH.LiZ.ManoY.SaitoD.. . . IidakaT. (2010). Dynamic cultural influences on neural representations of the self. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 1–11. doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21192
8.
ChristoffK.ReamJ. M.GeddesL. P. T.GabrieliJ. D. E. (2003). Evaluating self-generated information: Anterior prefrontal contributions to human cognition. Behavioral Neuroscience, 117, 1161–1168. doi:10.1037/0735-7044.117.6.1161
9.
CrossS. E.MadsonL. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–37.
10.
FinkG. R.MarshallJ. C.HalliganP. W.FrithC. D.DriverJ.FrackowiakR. S.DolanR. J. (1999). The neural consequences of conflict between intention and the senses. Brain, 122(Pt. 3), 497–512.
11.
GardnerW. L.GabrielS.LeeA. Y. (1999). “I” value freedom, but “we” value relationships: Self-construal priming mirrors cultural differences in judgment. Psychological Science, 10, 321–326. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00162
12.
GilbertS. J.SpenglerS.SimonsJ. S.SteeleJ. D.LawrieS. M.FrithC. D.BurgessP. W. (2006). Functional specialization within rostral prefrontal cortex (area 10): A meta-analysis. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 932–948. doi:10.1162/jocn.2006.18.6.932
13.
HayasakaS.PhanK. L.LiberzonI.WorsleyK. J.NicholsT. E. (2004). Nonstationary cluster-size inference with random field and permutation methods. NeuroImage, 22, 676–687. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.01.041
14.
HumphreysG. W.SuiJ. (2016). Attentional control and the self: The Self-Attention Network (SAN). Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 5–17. doi:10.1080/17588928.2015.1044427
15.
HuttonC.DraganskiB.AshburnerJ.WeiskopfN. (2009). A comparison between voxel-based cortical thickness and voxel-based morphometry in normal aging. NeuroImage, 48, 371–380. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.06.043
16.
KitayamaS.DuffyS.KawamuraT.LarsenJ. T. (2003). Perceiving an object and its context in different cultures: A cultural look at new look. Psychological Science, 14, 201–206. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.02432
17.
KitayamaS.KingA.YoonC.TompsonS.HuffS.LiberzonI. (2014). The dopamine D4 receptor gene (DRD4) moderates cultural difference in independent versus interdependent social orientation. Psychological Science, 25, 1169–1177. doi:10.1177/0956797614528338
18.
KitayamaS.ParkH.SevincerA. T.KarasawaM.UskulA. K. (2009). A cultural task analysis of implicit independence: Comparing North America, Western Europe, and East Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 236–255.
19.
KitayamaS.TompsonS. (2010). Envisioning the future of cultural neuroscience. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 92–101. doi:10.1111/j.1467-839X.2010.01304.x
20.
KitayamaS.UchidaY. (2005). Interdependent agency: An alternative system for action. In SorrentinoR. M.CohenD.OlsonJ. M.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), The Ontario Symposium: Vol. 10. Cultural and social behavior (pp. 137–164). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
21.
KochunovP.FoxP.LancasterJ.TanL. H.AmuntsK.ZillesK.. . . GaoJ. H. (2003). Localized morphological brain differences between English-speaking Caucasians and Chinese-speaking Asians: New evidence of anatomical plasticity. NeuroReport, 14, 961–964. doi:10.1097/01.wnr.0000075417.59944.00
22.
MaY.HanS. (2012). Functional dissociation of the left and right fusiform gyrus in self-face recognition. Human Brain Mapping, 33, 2255–2267.
23.
MaldjianJ. A.LaurientiP. J.KraftR. A.BurdetteJ. H. (2003). An automated method for neuroanatomic and cytoarchitectonic atlas-based interrogation of fMRI data sets. NeuroImage, 19, 1233–1239.
24.
MarkusH. R.KitayamaS. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
25.
MayA.GaserC. (2006). Magnetic resonance-based morphometry: A window into structural plasticity of the brain. Current Opinion in Neurology, 19, 407–411. doi:10.1097/01.wco.0000236622.91495.21
26.
NisbettR. E.PengK.ChoiI.NorenzayanA. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291–310.
27.
NorthoffG. (2016). Is the self a higher-order or fundamental function of the brain? The “basis model of self-specificity” and its encoding by the brain’s spontaneous activity. Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 203–222. doi:10.1080/17588928.2015.1111868
28.
NorthoffG.HeinzelA.de GreckM.BermpohlF.DobrowolnyH.PankseppJ. (2006). Self-referential processing in our brain—a meta-analysis of imaging studies on the self. NeuroImage, 31, 440–457. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.12.002
29.
OysermanD.CoonH. M.KemmelmeierM. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–72. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.3
30.
PhilippiC. L.DuffM. C.DenburgN. L.TranelD.RudraufD. (2012). Medial PFC damage abolishes the self-reference effect. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 475–481. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00138
31.
PruessmannK. P.WeigerM.ScheideggerM. B.BoesigerP. (1999). SENSE: Sensitivity encoding for fast MRI. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 42, 952–962.
32.
RayR. D.SheltonA. L.HollonN. G.MatsumotoD.FrankelC. B.GrossJ. J.GabrieliJ. D. E. (2009). Interdependent self-construal and neural representations of self and mother. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5, 318–323. doi:10.1093/scan/nsp039
33.
RidgwayG. R.OmarR.OurselinS.HillD. L. G.WarrenJ. D.FoxN. C. (2009). Issues with threshold masking in voxel-based morphometry of atrophied brains. NeuroImage, 44, 99–111. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.08.045
34.
SajonzB.KahntT.MarguliesD. S.ParkS. Q.WittmannA.StoyM.. . . BermpohlF. (2010). Delineating self-referential processing from episodic memory retrieval: Common and dissociable networks. NeuroImage, 50, 1606–1617. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.01.087
35.
SingelisT. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580–591. doi:10.1177/0146167294205014
36.
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. doi:10.1177/106939719502900302
37.
SuiJ. (2016). Self-reference acts as a golden thread in binding. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 482–483. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.04.005
38.
SuiJ.ChechlaczM.RotshteinP.HumphreysG. W. (2015). Lesion-symptom mapping of self-prioritization in explicit face categorization: Distinguishing hypo- and hyper-self-biases. Cerebral Cortex, 25, 374–383. doi:10.1093/cercor/bht233
39.
SuiJ.EnockF.RalphJ.HumphreysG. W. (2015). Dissociating hyper and hypoself biases to a core self-representation. Cortex, 70, 202–212. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2015.04.024
SuiJ.RotshteinP.HumphreysG. W. (2013). Coupling social attention to the self forms a network for personal significance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 110, 7607–7612. doi:10.1073/pnas.1221862110
42.
XiaM.WangJ.HeY. (2013). BrainNet Viewer: A network visualization tool for human brain connectomics. PLoS ONE, 8(7), Article e68910. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068910
43.
ZhuY.ZhangL.FanJ.HanS. (2007). Neural basis of cultural influence on self-representation. NeuroImage, 34, 1310–1316. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.08.047
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.
