PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN Norenzayan et al. / CULTURAL SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES Cultural Similarities and Differences in Social Inference: Evidence From Behavioral Predictions and Lay Theories of Behavior Ara Norenzayan University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Incheol Choi Seoul National University, Korea Richard E. Nisbett University of Michigan The authors investigated social inference practices of Koreans (Kitayama & Masuda, 2000) and Australians with Japa- and Americans in two novel domains: behavioral predictions nese (Kashima, Siegel, Tanaka, & Kashima, 1992). Choi and folk theories of behavior. When dispositional and situa- et al. (1999) recently reviewed the evidence for cultural tional inferences were disentangled, Koreans showed dispo- differences in situational attributions. sitional thinking to the same extent as Americans. This was the Predicting Behavior case for behavioral predictions based on individual difference information (Study 1) and for endorsements of a dispositionist Everyday social judgment involves predicting the theory of behavior (Studies 1 and 3). Consistent with previous behavior of other people as much as it involves explain- research in the causal attribution and attitude attribution para- ing their behavior or attitudes. In fact, attribution theo- digms, Koreans made greater situational inferences in behav- rists have always believed that people engage in causal ioral prediction as long as situational information was salient explanations of social events primarily to predict similar (Study 2) and endorsed a situationist theory of behavior more events in the future (Heider, 1958; Jones, 1979). This is (Studies 1 and 3). Koreans also differed from Americans in apparent when, for example, one wonders if a friend will believing personality to be more malleable (Study 3). like the movie recommended to her or when a military leader trusts that an ally will support him in an upcoming battle. Past research has shown that lay dispositionism is Lay dispositionism (Ross & Nisbett, 1991) is a coherent as prevalent in prediction as it is in explanation. Ameri- and powerful folk theory that promotes the attribution can participants overestimate the predictive power of of social behavior to enduring dispositions. Although this folk theory is widespread in Western cultures, many Authors’ Note: This research was supported by the Russell Sage Foun- ethnographers, cross-cultural researchers, and cultural dation and the Office of the Vice President for Research of the Univer- psychologists have observed that in contrast to Western sity of Michigan. Part of this research was conducted while the first author was a National Science Foundation Predoctoral Fellow and the cultures, the East Asian cultural area favors a situationist second author was a fellow of the Korean Foundation for Advanced folk psychology (e.g., Fiske, Kitayama, Markus, & Studies. We thank Andrea Patalano, Kaiping Peng, Jeffrey Sanchez- Nisbett, 1998). A growing body of research has revealed Burks, and Norbert Schwarz for their helpful comments on an earlier that people in East and South Asia indeed explain behav- version of this article. We also thank Geung-Ho Cho, Jinnam Choi, Ja- ior more situationally than Americans do, in naturalistic son Drwal, Beom Jun Kim, Carolyn Nguyen, Kaiping Peng, and Mehyun Song for their assistance in conducting this research. Address as well as experimental studies contrasting Americans correspondence to Ara Norenzayan, Department of Psychology, 603 E. with Indians, Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese (Choi, Daniel Street, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL 61821; e-mail: Nisbett, & Norenzayan, 1999). Differences also have [email protected]. been found in attitude attributions, comparing Ameri- PSPB, Vol. 28 No. 1, January 2002 109-120 cans with Koreans (Choi & Nisbett, 1998) and Japanese © 2002 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc. 109 Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN on June 29, 2012 110 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN dispositions just as they overattribute behavior to them personality structure can be taken as evidence for mak- (Dunning, Griffin, Milojkovic, & Ross, 1990; Kunda & ing dispositional inferences. Nisbett, 1986; Newman, 1996; Ross & Nisbett, 1991). More direct social psychological evidence has Surprisingly, however, most of the previous cross-cul- recently emerged that bolsters the argument that East- tural work in social inference—as extensive as it is—has erners and Westerners sometimes make dispositional focused primarily on explanations of behaviors and atti- inferences in much the same way. Experimental work by tudes. There has been little research examining behav- several researchers suggests that when situational con- ioral predictions across cultures. Given the centrality of straints are not salient, East Asians, including Chinese, behavioral prediction in everyday life, an important Korean, and Japanese, show the correspondence bias at question is whether the cultural difference also is found least in one paradigm—the Jones and Harris (1967) atti- for predictions of behavior. More important, comparing tude attribution experiments (Choi & Nisbett, 1998; behavioral prediction across cultures provides one way Kitayama & Masuda, 2000; Krull et al., 1999). Of impor- to specify the exact psychological source of the cultural tance, some of these studies have found that the corre- difference in social inference—whether it lies in spondence bias for East Asians is reduced, or even elimi- dispositional inference, situational inference, or in nated entirely, when the situational constraints are both. In past cross-cultural work, it has been implicitly salient. These same situational salience manipulations assumed that social inference is a unitary process. Evi- have no effect on the correspondence bias shown by dence for strong situational attribution has been taken Americans, suggesting that the cultural difference in to indicate weak dispositional attributions as well. But social inference may reflect primarily differences in situ- the social inference process consists of at least two dis- ational inference. However, these studies were con- tinct cognitive operations: dispositional inference and ducted within a single paradigm—attitude attribution— situational inference (Gilbert & Malone, 1995; Krull, and therefore the question remains as to what extent 1993). Dispositional inference is attributing behavior to their findings would generalize to other social inference internal and enduring qualities of the individual, for practices, such as behavioral predictions and lay theories example, personality and temperament. Situational of behavior. inference is attributing behavior to external factors impinging on the individual, such as situations, roles, or Prediction Versus Explanation the larger social context. To the extent that Eastern and Western cultures are Specifying the Attributional Origins equally willing to infer dispositions from behavior but of the Cultural Difference differ in the degree to which they apply situational theo- ries to behavior, different implications follow for cultural There are two possibilities concerning how Western variation in explanation versus prediction of behavior. and Eastern cultures might differ in behavioral predic- In prediction, the outcome of an actor’s behavior is not tions. If Eastern cultures have weak beliefs in disposi- known. As a result, using situational information to pre- tions, then their predictions about behavior should show dict the behavior of a single individual is difficult low levels of cross-situational consistency. The ethno- because it is unclear to an observer whether the situa- graphic and cross-cultural literature certainly provides tional influence under consideration applies to that par- some basis for this possibility. Anthropologists have occa- ticular individual. Will Tom act aggressively when pro- sionally noted that dispositional thinking is rare, absent, voked by an adversary? Even if one believes that or unimportant in non-Western societies (Hirschfeld, provocation is a powerful trigger of violent behavior, not 1995). everyone lashes out when provoked, and it is hard to pre- There is growing evidence, however, that even mem- dict in advance if Tom is the sort of person who reacts to bers of Eastern cultures make robust dispositional infer- provocation. Thus, to the extent that individual differ- ences (Choi et al., 1999). The second possibility for cul- ences are perceived in the same situation, the tendency tural variation in behavioral prediction, then, is that to use situational information is diminished (Ross & Eastern and Western cultures make dispositional infer- Nisbett, 1991). ences in much the same way but differ in the degree to The uncertainty characteristic of prediction, how- which they make situational inferences. For example, ever, is greatly reduced in the case of explanation cross-cultural studies suggest that East Asians organize because knowledge of the behavioral outcome provides personality information in remarkably similar ways as clues as to whether the situational information applies to Westerners, both with imported as well as indigenous the given individual, thus diminishing concerns about instruments (e.g., McCrae, Costa, & Yik, 1996; see Choi individual differences in the same situation. People then et al., 1999). This evidence supports the case for East can easily apply situational information to the extent Asian