Hosdefe

Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Collectivism:

Implications for Understanding Psychological Processes

Sharon Shavitt

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Carlos J. Torelli

University of Minnesota

Hila Riemer

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

Chapter to appear in Advances in Culture and Psychology. M. Gelfand, C-y Chiu, Y-y Hong (Eds.). Oxford University Press.

I. Introduction
The constructs of individualism (IND) and collectivism (COL) have dominated the discourse on the psychological impacts of culture over the last 20 years of cross-cultural research (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002). The conceptualizations of IND and COL have historically been broad and multidimensional, summarizing a host of differences in focus of attention, self-definitions, motivations, emotional connections to in-groups, as well as belief systems and behavioral patterns (Bond, 2002; Ho & Chiu, 1994; Hofstede, 1980; Oyserman et al., 2002; Triandis, 1995; Triandis et al., 1998; Triandis, Leung, Villareal, & Clack, 1985). Although the breadth and power of these constructs have profoundly advanced the field, critiques of their multifaceted nature and debates about the ‘core’ essence of IND and COL limit the insights afforded by these broad dimensions (Briley & Wyer, 2001; Oyserman et al., 2002; Maheswaran & Shavitt, 2000). In this chapter, we review evidence supporting the value of a horizontal (valuing equality) and vertical (emphasizing hierarchy) cultural distinction nested within the broader IND-COL classification. Together with our colleagues (Alokparna Basu Monga, Sergio Carvalho, Chi-yue Chiu, Timothy Johnson, Andrew Kaikati, Hean Tat Keh, Ashok Lalwani, Natalia Maehle, Aysegul Ozsomer, Jimmy Wong, and Jing Zhang), we have investigated this distinction and its implications for the understanding of cultural processes. Our findings underscore the value of the horizontal and vertical distinction for uncovering novel cultural patterns. This work and others’ highlights several sources of value for a vertical/horizontal distinction – as a predictor of new phenomena not anticipated by a broader focus on IND-COL, and as a basis for refining the understanding of existing phenomena linked to the IND-COL distinction. In this chapter, we describe the horizontal-vertical distinction and its measurement, and review several lines of research that show how it can contribute to predicting the role of culture in shaping perceptions, motives, values, and social relations. Our coverage is structured around a core set of questions: Who am I and what do I value? How should I present myself to others? How do I perceive the social environment? We close by discussing implications for understanding consumer psychology, and future directions for research on the horizontal-vertical distinction.

II. Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Collectivism

Describing a delineation of different “species” of individualism and collectivism, Triandis and his colleagues (Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, & Gelfand, 1995; Triandis, 1995; Triandis, Chen, & Chan, 1998; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998) noted that, nested within each IND-COL category, some societies are horizontal (valuing equality) whereas others are vertical (emphasizing hierarchy). The horizontal-vertical distinction emerges from the observation that American or British individualism differs from, say, Swedish or Danish individualism in much the same way that Korean or Japanese collectivism differs from the collectivism of the Israeli kibbutz.
In vertical-individualist societies or cultural contexts (VI; e.g., U.S., Great Britain, France), people tend to be concerned with improving their individual status and standing out – distinguishing themselves from others via competition, achievement, and power. In contrast, in horizontal-individualist societies or cultural contexts (HI; e.g., Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Australia), people prefer to view themselves as equal to others in status and eschew status differentiation (e.g., Feather, 1994; Nelson & Shavitt, 2002). Rather than standing out, the focus is on expressing one’s uniqueness and establishing one’s capability to be successfully self-reliant (Triandis & Singelis, 1998). In vertical-collectivist societies or cultural contexts (VC; e.g., Korea, Japan, India), people focus on complying with authorities and on enhancing the cohesion and status of their in-groups, even when that entails sacrificing their own personal goals. In horizontal-collectivist societies or cultural contexts (HC; exemplified historically by the Israeli kibbutz), the focus is on sociability and interdependence with others, within an egalitarian framework (see Erez & Earley, 1987). These distinct psychological characteristics are summarized in Table 1.
Thus, although individualist societies share a focus on self-reliance, independence, and hedonism, Scandinavians and Australians (societies characterized as HI) show aversion to conspicuously successful persons and to braggarts, emphasizing instead the virtues of modesty (e.g., Askgaard, 1992; Daun, 1991, 1992; Feather, 1994; Nelson & Shavitt, 2002; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). In contrast, people in the U.S. (VI) have been shown to aspire to distinction, achievement, success, and being or having “the best” (e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998; Weldon, 1984). In fact, in the U.S., “success is communicated, shared and displayed because it is natural to show off” (de Mooij, 1998, p. 195).
Similarly, although collectivists share an interdependent worldview, Koreans and other East Asians (VC) emphasize deference to authority and preservation of harmony in the context of hierarchical relations with others. Indeed, the status of one’s family and other key ingroups establishes one’s individual social standing in VC cultures. In contrast, in the Israeli kibbutz (HC), the emphasis is neither on harmony nor status. Instead, honesty, directness, and cooperation are valued, within a framework of assumed equality (Gannon, 2001; Kurman & Sriram, 2002; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998).
The horizontal-vertical distinction resembles the culture-level dimension of power distance (Hofstede, 1980, 2001), although there are important conceptual and structural distinctions (see Shavitt, Lalwani, Zhang, & Torelli, 2006). For instance, power distance is conceptualized in unipolar terms (high to low). The horizontal-vertical classification is nested within individualism and collectivism to yield four distinct categories.
This four-category typology fits with Fiske’s (1992) categories of sociality: communal sharing (corresponding to collectivism), market pricing (corresponding to individualism), equality matching (horizontal relationships), and authority ranking (vertical relationships; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). A recent study by Vodosek (2009) provides some support for these relations. In his study, members of chemistry research groups at U.S. universities completed a scale to assess the relational models they apply to their group members (Haslam and Fiske 1999; Haslam 1994, 1995) and a scale to assess cultural orientations of horizontal and vertical IND and COL (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). Results revealed associations between communal sharing and collectivism, between authority and vertical orientation, and between equality matching and horizontal collectivism (albeit not horizontal individualism). These results underscore the role of both IND-COL and horizontal-vertical cultural distinctions in explaining preferences for certain relational models of sociality.
The horizontal-vertical distinction is also conceptually linked to personal value categories such as power, achievement, and conformity values (vertical), as contrasted with self-direction, benevolence, and universalism values (horizontal; e.g., Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987, 1990).
Most cross-national comparisons in the psychology and consumer behavior literatures contrast people in the U.S. (VI) with those in East Asian countries (VC; see Oyserman et al., 2002; and Shavitt, Lee, & Torelli, 2009, for reviews). Therefore, established differences between IND and COL societies may be more reflective of vertical forms of these syndromes and may not generalize to comparisons between horizontal cultures. As one example, conformity in product choice, as studied by Kim and Markus (1999), may be a tendency specific to VC cultures, in which deference to authority figures and to ingroup wishes is stressed. Much lower levels of conformity may be observed in HC cultural contexts, which emphasize cooperation, solidarity, and sociability but not deference or hierarchy (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). Thus, observed differences in conformity in consumer choices between Korea (VC) and the U.S. (VI; Kim & Markus, 1999; see also Choi, Lee, & Kim, 2005) cannot be ascribed solely to the role of IND-COL because such conformity patterns might not be expected when comparing HI and HC societies.
Oyserman et al. (2002), in their comprehensive meta-analysis and review of the psychological implications of IND-COL, suggested that values of hierarchy and competition function independently of IND and COL. They found that when measures of IND and COL cultural orientation included items tapping hierarchy and competition themes, cross-national patterns in IND-COL orientation changed. For example, “when competition was included in the scale, the difference between Americans and Japanese in IND disappeared, suggesting that competitiveness is a construct unrelated to IND” (p.16). Such findings are consistent with a view of both the U.S. and Japan as vertical societies. According to this interpretation, when IND-COL cultural orientation scales emphasize themes relevant to vertical orientations, responses across these societies appear more similar. The findings also illustrate the aforementioned limitation in studying IND and COL primarily within vertical cultural contexts. It is difficult to determine which differences are associated with the broader IND-COL distinction and which reflect patterns of judgment or behavior mostly relevant to specific comparisons of VI versus VC contexts (rather than HI vs. HC contexts).
Before reviewing consequences associated with horizontal versus vertical cultural categories, we describe current methods for measuring horizontal and vertical individualistic and collectivistic orientations.

III. Measuring Horizontal and Vertical Forms of Individualism and Collectivism

Triandis and his colleagues have developed and refined a scale for measuring the HI, VI, HC, and VC cultural orientations within-culture (e.g., Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, & Gelfand, 1995; Triandis et al., 1998; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). People with a VI orientation are more likely to agree with such items as, “competition is the law of nature,” “winning is everything,” and “it is important that I do my job better than others,” whereas people with an HI orientation are more likely to agree that, “I often do ‘my own thing’,” “I’d rather depend on myself than others,” and “my personal identity, independent of others, is very important to me.” People with a VC orientation are more likely to agree with such items as, “parents and children must stay together as much as possible,” “it is my duty to take care of my family, even when I have to sacrifice what I want,” and “it is important to me that I respect the decisions made by my groups,” whereas people with a HC orientation are more likely to agree that, “I feel good when I cooperate with others,” “to me, pleasure is spending time with others,” and “the well-being of my coworkers is important to me” (Singelis et al., 1995; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998).
Several studies have explored the cross-cultural generality of these orientation categories and the dimensionality of the scale. Triandis and Gelfand (1998) provided evidence for the convergent and divergent validity of these four constructs and reported interrelations between their cultural-orientation measure and other measures that fit the conceptual definitions of these categories. They also showed that their 16-item cultural-orientation measure shares the same factor structure in Korea as was previously identified in the U.S. (see also Chiou, 2001; Gouveia, Clemente, & Espinosa, 2003; Robert, Lee, & Chan, 2006; Soh & Leong, 2002, for additional evidence for cross-national structural equivalence of various versions of these scales). However, comparability across published studies is limited by the fact that different subsets of items have been used across some of the studies to classify cultural orientation (e.g., Kurman & Sriram, 2002) More recently, Sivadas, Bruvold, and Nelson (2008) tested a 14-item reduced version of the scale in several countries and provided evidence that it outperforms the longer versions (e.g., Singelis, et al., 1995; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). Current work has also focused on measures of culture that capture inter-subjective norms (Zou, Tam, Morris, Lee, Lau, & Chiu, 2009), including horizontal and vertical categories (Shteynberg, Gelfand, & Kim, 2009), indicating that these categories can be represented as culturally consensual norms.
Next, we review key consequences associated with horizontal versus vertical cultural categories. As we shall show, our program of research and others’ have not only established that these distinctions are well replicated, but also that they have far-reaching implications for personal values, identities, self-presentational tendencies, and perceptions of the social environment. These implications go beyond those that would be anticipated by a focus on the broad IND and COL cultural categories.

IV. Who Am I and What Do I Value?
A. PERSONAL VALUES
Although most comparisons of cultural values contrast broader IND versus COL categories, a number of studies have pointed to differences in hierarchical or status oriented values within IND or COL categories. For instance, our cross-national research in the U.S. (viewed as a VI society) and Denmark (viewed as an HI society) showed clear differences in the importance that people place upon achievement, the display of success, and the gaining of influence (Nelson & Shavitt, 2002), even though both societies are Western and individualistic cultures (Hofstede, 1980). Denmark is characterized by benevolent social welfare policies designed to help the least fortunate in society, coupled with a ubiquitous social modesty code (the Janteloven) that frowns on showing off. In contrast, in the U.S. the notion of equality is “equal opportunity,” as opposed to equivalence of outcomes. Popular culture themes of rags-to-riches emphasize individual social mobility up the ladder of success, and these are reinforced by tax and social welfare policies that allow for relatively high income disparities within the society (Nelson & Shavitt, 2002; Triandis, 1995).
We reasoned that this would manifest in different values being articulated when people reflected on their goals and hopes for the future. Indeed, in open-ended interview responses, we found that Americans discussed the importance of achieving their goals as something that makes them happy, whereas Danes did not (58% vs. 0%, respectively). When Americans were asked about their future, their responses reflected career options first, often with an interest in entrepreneurship, a theme that was completely lacking from Danes (Nelson & Shavitt, 2002, Study 1). As one informant, a Danish attorney, explained, “There’s no incentive to achieve more or work harder here. My taxes are so high that it’s actually cheaper for me to take the afternoon off work and go golfing” (p. 445). The hierarchical nature of U.S. society rewards those who set goals and achieve them, whereas the same course of action is frowned upon in Denmark’s HI society.
Moreover, in another study (Nelson & Shavitt, 2002, Study 2), self-ratings showed a similar pattern indicating that the cultural orientations and values of Americans were more vertical and more achievement oriented than those of Danes – more oriented toward success, ambition, and gaining influence. In contrast, we found that the values of Danes were more universalistic than those of Americans—that is, more oriented toward social justice, nature, and equality (see Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987, 1990). Moreover, endorsement of achievement values was correlated with a VI cultural orientation in both countries.
Other research has also shown positive relationships between a VI cultural orientation and achievement and power values, as well as negative relationships between those values and an HC cultural orientation (Oishi, Schimmack, Diener, & Suh, 1998). Further, self-direction was positively correlated with HI orientation but negatively correlated with VI orientation. In contrast, a focus on social relationships correlated positively with HC orientation, but not VC orientation. Along similar lines, Triandis and Gelfand (1998) reported that an HC orientation was predicted by interdependence and sociability. Confirming this cross-nationally, our results showed in both the U.S. and Denmark that HC (but not VC) orientation correlated with sociable and benevolent values (Nelson & Shavitt, 2002). In line with this, Chen, Meindl, and Hunt (1997) found that, in China, those with an HC orientation preferred an egalitarian reward system, which fosters shared responsibility and interpersonal interdependence, whereas those with a VC orientation preferred a differential reward system, which fosters hierarchy. Soh and Leong (2002) reported in both the U.S. and Singapore that HC orientation was best predicted by benevolence values, VC by conformity values, VI by power values, and HI by self-direction values.
In sum, although the broad definition of COL has focused on interdependence and the maintenance of social relationships, several studies suggest that it is people with an HC orientation who are particularly oriented toward sociability and are motivated to maintain benevolent relationships. Similarly, although independence and a focus upon self-direction and uniqueness have been key to the definition of IND, it appears that it is those with an HI orientation who are especially motivated to maintain their self-image as being separate from others and are capable of self-reliance.

B. GENDER DIFFERENCES IN HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CULTURAL ORIENTATIONS
The relationship between gender and cultural orientation may also depend on whether VI or HI (or VC or HC) is considered. Males are generally seen as more IND or independent than females, whereas females are seen as more COL or interdependent than males (e.g., Cross & Madson, 1997; Gilligan, 1982, 1986; Kitayama, Markus, Matsumoto, & Norasakkunkit, 1997; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Wood & Eagly, 2002). Several studies have pointed to such gender differences, although the specific nature of these differences varies across studies (see Cross & Madson, 1997; Kashima et al., 1995). Some research has shown no differences on broad IND-COL indicators. For instance, Gabriel and Gardner (1999) reported that whereas women are more relational and less group-oriented than men in their patterns of interdependent judgments and behaviors, there were no gender differences on behaviors relating to independent ones (see also Baumeister & Sommer, 1997; Kashima et al., 1995).
Our findings suggest that taking the horizontal-vertical distinction into account sheds light on the nature of the gender differences to be expected. In studies conducted with U.S. participants (Lalwani & Shavitt, 2010), men scored consistently higher in VI than women (see also Chirkov et al., 2003; Nelson & Shavitt, 2002 for similar patterns replicated cross-nationally). The pattern for HI was much less consistent, with females sometimes scoring directionally higher than males (see also Kurman & Sriram, 2002, for cross-national evidence consistent with this). In other words, robust gender differences in IND only emerged in our results for the vertical form. The results also showed that women scored consistently higher in HC than men (see also Kurman & Sriram, 2002; Nelson & Shavitt, 2002). However, women are not broadly more collectivistic than men and did not score higher in VC (if anything, men scored higher in VC than women did, a pattern also observed by Chirkov, et al., 2003, and Kurman & Sriram, 2002). Thus, gender differences in COL were specific to HC.
In another study, when responding to a variety of behavioral scenarios (Triandis, Chen, & Chan, 1998), men were more likely than women to endorse choices that characterize vertical forms of individualism (e.g., splitting a restaurant bill according to how much each person makes) but not horizontal forms (e.g. splitting the bill according to what that person ordered). In contrast, women were more likely than men to endorse choices that characterize horizontal forms of collectivism (e.g., splitting a restaurant bill equally, without regard to who ordered what) but not vertical forms (e.g. having a group leader pay the bill or decide how to split it) (Lalwani & Shavitt, 2010).
Additional studies examined whether the links between gender and VI and HC that were observed reflect distinct masculine and feminine cultural value orientations (Lalwani & Shavitt, 2010). To address this, subjective measures of masculinity and femininity were included (Spence & Helmreich, 1978; Stern, Barak, & Gold, 1987). For instance, in one study, U.S. participants completed the scale of horizontal and vertical IND-COL (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998), as well as Spence and Helmreich’s (1978) Personal Attributes Questionnaire on which they rated themselves on a series of 5-point semantic differential items to measure masculinity and femininity. Feminine items included “Not at all emotional – Very emotional,” “Very rough – Very gentle,” and “Not at all kind – Very kind.” Masculine items included “Very passive - Very active,” “Gives up very easily -- Never gives up easily,” and “Goes to pieces under pressure - Stands up well under pressure.”
If a feminine focus is associated with a type of collectivism that emphasizes cooperation and social relationships (HC), and a masculine focus is associated with an individualism that emphasizes status, power, and prestige (VI), then one would expect a distinct pattern of correlations between VI and self-rated masculinity on the one hand, and HC and self-rated femininity on the other. This is the pattern that was observed across different subjective gender measures (Lalwani & Shavitt, 2010).
These patterns would not be anticipated in the broader literature on gender and cultural self-construal. For instance, whereas some have concluded that men and women do not differ in dimensions of self-construal relevant to IND (Baumeister & Sommer, 1997; Gabriel & Gardner, 1999), we found that males consistently score higher than females on one type of IND. That is, IND in males appears especially focused on status, power, and achievement through competition (VI). Traditional masculine social roles that emphasize achievement and power gained through work outside the home may contribute to the robust gender differences that were observed.
Results also shed light on the motivational underpinnings of gender differences that have been proposed and observed in other studies. Specifically, COL in females appears to emphasize benevolence, sociability, common goals, and cooperation (HC). This may parallel the relational interdependence identified in previous studies (Cross et al., 2000; Gabriel & Gardner, 1999; Kashima et al., 1995; see also Wang et al., 2000). However, women do not appear always to be higher in COL or interdependence. If anything, men report a somewhat greater emphasis on familial duties and obligations and on deference to authority (VC). That is, they are more likely to endorse the values of family integrity and of in-group deference.
In sum, our results and those of other researchers indicate that the horizontal-vertical distinction is useful in predicting or qualifying the nature of gender differences in cultural orientation, as well as in understanding the motivational underpinnings of the differences observed.
V. How Should I Present Myself?
A. SELF-PRESENTATION AND RESPONSE STYLES
These observations about the values associated with horizontal and vertical orientations have implications for understanding self-presentational patterns across cultures. Self-presentation pervades all aspects of human behavior. However, what constitutes desirable self-presentation may differ as a function of cultural variables. As a result, we have argued that distinct self-presentational patterns should emerge for people of different cultures (Lalwani, Shavitt, & Johnson, 2006). The foregoing discussion suggests that self-presentational tendencies of people with different cultural orientations or backgrounds should correspond to two response styles associated with socially desirable responding – Impression Management (IM) and Self-Deceptive Enhancement (SDE) (Gur & Sackeim, 1979; Paulhus, 1991; Sackeim & Gur, 1979). The Paulhus Deception Scales (Paulhus, 1984, 1991, 1998b) comprise two subscales measuring these dimensions of socially desirable responding. IM refers to an attempt to present one’s self-reported actions in the most positive manner to convey a favorable image (Paulhus, 1998a; Schlenker & Britt, 1999; Schlenker, Britt, & Pennington, 1996). It is an effort to control the images that one projects to others. This construct is often associated with dissimulation or deception (Mick, 1996), and is tapped by such items as, “I have never dropped litter on the street” and “I sometimes drive faster than the speed limit” (reverse scored; Paulhus, 1998a). SDE refers to the tendency to describe oneself in inflated and overconfident terms. It is a predisposition to see one’s skills in a positive light, and has been described as a form of “rigid overconfidence” (Paulhus, 1998a). SDE is assessed by agreement with such items as, “My first impressions of people usually turn out to be right” and “I am very confident of my judgments.”
We first review evidence on self-presentation as a function of the broad IND-COL distinction, as well as the related contextual distinction in independent versus interdependent salient self-construal. Then, we demonstrate how a consideration of horizontal-vertical distinction further enhances our understanding of the links between culture and self-presentation.
Our research has demonstrated that INDs, compared to COLs, scored higher in self-deceptive enhancement and lower in impression management (Lalwani et al., 2006). In line with this, we further argued that people may highlight different qualities in their self-presentations, and that what is considered desirable will vary from one culturally relevant context to another (Lalwani & Shavitt, 2009). Across several studies, we showed that when an independent versus interdependent cultural self-construal is made salient, distinct self-presentational goals are activated. Thus, when the independent self-construal is salient, people strive to present themselves as self reliant, confident, and skillful. However, when the interdependent self-construal is salient, people strive to present themselves as sensitive and socially appropriate (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Sackheim & Gur, 1979; Taylor & Brown, 1998; van Baaren et al., 2003). Indeed, in multiple studies, we showed that salient self-construal lead to an increased likelihood of choosing to perform tasks that could showcase culturally valued skills: participants with a salient interdependent self-construal were more likely to choose to take a test that could showcase their social sensitivity, whereas those with a salient independent self-construal were more likely to choose to take a test that would showcase their self-reliance (Lalwani & Shavitt, 2009). Moreover, participants proved to be more effective at showcasing culturally appropriate skills. Thus, as shown in Figure 1, people with a salient independent (vs. interdependent) self-construal actually scored higher on a test of general-knowledge trivia. In contrast, people with a salient interdependent (vs. independent) self-construal were more effective at portraying themselves in a socially sensitive manner, for instance by scoring higher on a test of etiquette. Importantly, these effects were not observed when participants were first given the opportunity to engage in self-affirmation (Steele & Liu, 1985; Stapel & Johnson, 2007) allowing them to fulfill their self-presentational goals before choosing or participating in tests (Lalwani & Shavitt, 2009).
Additional studies also supported the role of self-presentational goals underlying the effects of salient self-construal. For instance, when participants were led to doubt their upcoming performance on tests, by first trying to solve very difficult GRE test problems, the effects of salient self-construal on test choice were eliminated or reversed (Lalwani & Shavitt, 2009). Apparently, facing the possibility that they might fail a test of social appropriateness led people with a salient interdependent (vs. independent) self-construal to be less likely to choose that test. Taken together, these findings indicate that salient self-construal activated a readiness to pursue self-presentational goals, rather than the semantic activation of beliefs or concepts.
The findings just described demonstrated important IND and COL cultural differences in self-presentations. However, examination of horizontal versus vertical categories yielded more nuanced insights into the motives being served by these self-presentations. Indeed, when examined in U.S. participants as a function of cultural orientation, self-presentation patterns were contingent on the horizontal versus vertical orientation distinction (Lalwani, et al., 2006). As already noted, research on personal values indicates that people with an HI orientation are especially motivated to view themselves as separate from others, self-reliant, and unique. Similarly, people with an HC orientation are especially motivated to maintain strong and benevolent social relations and, therefore, to appear socially appropriate in their responses. Thus, we reasoned that an HI (but not a VI) orientation should foster a response style characterized by SDE because such responses help to establish a view of oneself as capable of being successfully self-reliant. However, an HC (but not a VC) orientation should foster a response style characterized by IM because such responses help to maintain cooperative social relationships through conveying a socially appropriate image. That is, SDE and IM responding addresses the distinct self-presentational motives associated with horizontal individualism or horizontal collectivism, respectively.
Indeed, in multiple studies with U.S. participants, we showed that the relations observed between cultural variables and self-presentational patterns were specific to HI and HC orientations (Lalwani et al., 2006). HI (but not VI) reliably predicted SDE, whereas HC (but not VC) reliably predicted IM on the Paulhus Deception Scales (Paulhus, 1991, 1998b). These distinctions also emerged for responses to specific behavioral scenarios relevant either to motives of self-reliance or motives of normative appropriateness. For instance, people high versus low in HI orientation expressed more confidence that they could make the right decision about whether to accept a future job, and were more likely to anticipate performing well on the job. People high versus low in HC orientation were more likely to deny that they would gossip about co-workers on a job, plagiarize a friend 's paper for a course, or damage someone 's furniture without telling them. We also found (Lalwani et al., 2006, Study 3) that high HC people were more likely to engage in deceptive responding, as assessed by Eysenck’s Lie Scale (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1964).
Overall, these findings underscore the value of the horizontal-vertical distinction for delineating self-presentation goals and for predicting cultural differences in the tendencies to pursue them. The studies converge on the conclusion that people with an HC cultural orientation, who emphasize sociability, benevolence, and normative appropriateness, are characterized by a tendency to engage in impression management, regardless of how this self-presentational response style is assessed. However, people with a VC orientation, who emphasize stature, duty, and conformity, are less likely to be concerned with impression management. One might speculate that the VC orientation would instead be more predictive of desirable self-presentations concerning one’s deference, sense of duty, and fulfillment of obligations. Our studies also establish that people with an HI orientation, who emphasize self-competence, self-direction, and independence, have a tendency to engage in SDE. On the other hand, those with a VI orientation, who put emphasis on status, power, and achievement, are less likely to exhibit SDE. Instead, one may speculate that the VI orientation would be more predictive of desirable self-presentations concerning one’s achievements and competitive success.

B. SELF-PRESENTATION MECHANISMS
In another line of work, we examined cultural differences in the mechanism by which self-presentation via impression management occurs (Riemer & Shavitt, 2009a). As previously described, collectivists are more motivated than individualists to engage in impression management (Lalwani, et al., 2006). Thus collectivists receive more frequent practice in adjusting to normative constraints in order to maintain harmonious relations with others (e.g., Lalwani, Shavitt, & Johnson 2006; Triandis & Suh 2002; van Hemert et al., 2002). According to research on automaticity, this frequent practice, in turn, should lead to more routinized, automated processes (Bargh 1994, 1997; Smith & Lerner, 1986), such that the process of adjusting to norms would require little or no deliberation. Combining research on automaticity with evidence about differences in the frequency with which collectivists and individualists engage in impression management, we proposed that collectivists ' adjustment to social norms in responding to attitude questions takes place through a relatively automatic process. Therefore, it does not require significant cognitive resources. In contrast, individualists ' adjustment to social norms is more effortful, and thus will take place only when cognitive resources are available (Riemer & Shavitt, 2009a).
Across a number of studies, we demonstrated that collectivists were able to adjust responses to the norm regardless of their cognitive busyness. Individualists, on the other hand, were able to do so only when they had the cognitive capacity to adjust or edit their responses. In these studies, we asked people to report their attitudes regarding social issues and led them to expect an upcoming discussion with other participants about their responses. This was done in order to motivate them to impression manage. Participants’ tendencies to engage in impression management were measured using a modified version of the IM subscale (Paulhus 1984, 1988), in which participants reported attitudes toward target behaviors instead of actual behaviors (e.g., "I think it is bad to damage a library book or store merchandise without reporting it" instead of "I have never damaged a library book or store merchandise without reporting it"). The expression of normatively appropriate attitudes should result in higher scores on this scale. In another study, we asked respondents about their attitude toward an environmental friendly but very expensive hybrid car. Respondents perceived that the normative attitude was to favor the car. Thus, we expected that impression management would be manifested in more favorable expressed attitudes.
In all of our studies, we examined differences in the degree to which, when motivated to impression manage, collectivists and individualists would differ in their ability to express normative attitudes effortlessly. To do so, we manipulated cognitive load. Reduction of impression management tendencies under cognitive load (vs. no load condition) would suggest the operation of effortful processes that require cognitive resources, whereas impression management tendencies under cognitive load would point to automatic processes that can be enacted with little or no effort. Cognitive load was manipulated either by high versus low time pressure or by asking half of the participants to memorize an eight digit number (e.g., Gilbert & Osborne, 1989).
Indeed, across our studies, cognitive load and cultural orientation or background interacted to influence impression management tendencies. Collectivists engaged in impression management to the same degree regardless of their cognitive busyness, suggesting a relatively effortless process. In contrast, individualists did so only when not cognitively busy, suggesting a relatively effortful process. These effects were consistent when assessing cultural orientation on individual bases, and when using nationality as an alternative operationalization of culture – with East Asian participants representing collectivists and U.S. participants representing individualists.
The predictions we proposed for cultural differences in impression management processes may be extended to consider horizontal and vertical categories of culture. One issue to consider is what motivates people to adjust their responses to the norm. As described earlier, in our studies all participants were induced to be motivated to impression manage using an anticipated discussion technique. Future research may examine whether there are cultural differences in the nature of anticipated interactions that would motivate such impression management, as we suggested earlier (Lalwani et al., 2006). Because in vertical cultures people value social status and hierarchy, people high in VC may be motivated to impression manage when their responses will be visible to people of higher status (e.g., their boss), but may be less concerned about self-presentation when their responses will be visible to their peers (e.g., their friends). The reverse may be true for people high in HC.
Second, the type of norms people would tend to adjust to would be related to their cultural orientation across both individualism-collectivism and horizontal-vertical categories. Because people high in VC tend to focus on complying with authority, they should tend to adjust to norms associated with people of higher status (e.g., respecting one’s teacher). People high in HC, on the other hand, focus on sociability with in-groups, and therefore may tend to adjust to norms associated with benevolent peer interactions (e.g., helping one’s classmate).
Finally, the process by which people engage in impression management may also vary with horizontal versus vertical cultural categories. Our studies have addressed the automaticity of adjusting to norms for collectivists versus individualists with a focus on the cognitive demands of the process (i.e., the extent to which the process takes place effortlessly; Riemer & Shavitt, 2009a). Other characteristics of the process may distinguish impression management processes for people with horizontal versus vertical orientations. For instance, the ability to control adjustment to norms may vary for horizontal and vertical collectivists. Consider the following common instruction on a survey: "Please answer candidly. There are no right or wrong answers; all we are interested in is your own opinion." Research reviewed earlier has suggested that an HC orientation is sometimes associated with honesty and directness, whereas a VC orientation is associated with a tendency to preserve harmony in the context of hierarchical relations with others (Gannon, 2001; Kurman & Sriram, 2002; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). Therefore, people high in HC may tend to answer honestly when it appears appropriate to do so. However, people high in VC may be reluctant to do so, due to their focus on maintaining harmony. Therefore, whereas horizontal collectivists may be able to control their tendency to shift their attitudinal self-reports in order to impression manage, vertical collectivists may be less able to do so.

VI. How Do I Perceive the Social Environment?

A. THE MEANING AND PURPOSE OF POWER
Thus far, our review indicates that horizontal and vertical cultural orientations pattern personal values and self-presentational goals. These ongoing motivational concerns should require continued mustering of resources toward goal fulfillment. Because power is instrumental for achieving culturally desirable goals, cultures foster normative standards for its legitimate use (Chiu & Hong, 2006). Because those goals differ for people with vertical versus horizontal orientations, views of power as a tool for achieving culturally specific goals should differ as well. Our research suggests that people with vertical and horizontal cultural orientations differ in their views about the meaning and purpose of power (Torelli & Shavitt, in press).
Building on past research pointing to individual differences in the way in which people use power (Chen et al., 2001; Howard et al., 2007), we linked people’s cultural orientations to their distinct associations with power. As reviewed earlier, people high in VI (but not HI) orientation tend to be concerned with improving their individual status and distinguishing themselves from others via competition and achievement (Nelson & Shavitt, 2002). In contrast, people high in HC tend to focus on sociability and interdependence with others within an egalitarian framework, whereas those high in VC emphasize duties and obligations to in-groups (Triandis, 1995). Accordingly, we reasoned that VI (and not HI), either measured as a chronic cultural orientation or inferred from ethnic group membership, is associated with tendencies to interpret power in personalized terms (i.e., power is for status and personal advancement, Winter, 1973), whereas HC (and not VC) is associated with tendencies to interpret power in socialized terms (i.e., power is for benefiting and helping others). Although individuals high in VC orientation may associate power with the well being of in-groups (as captured by scale items such as, "It is my duty to take care of my family, even when I have to sacrifice what I want," Triandis & Gelfand, 1998), a VC orientation can also predict high levels of prejudice and hostile treatment of out-groups (particularly among high-status VC individuals, Triandis, 1995). Because for people high in VC, power associations may depend on their place in the hierarchy and on other contextual factors, we did not expect them to exhibit the general associations between power and prosocial end-states anticipated among high HC individuals. Indeed, as shown in Table 2, across multiple studies we observed distinct and systematic power conceptualizations only for VI and HC cultural orientations, as reflected in self-reported beliefs about appropriate uses of power, episodic memories about power, attitudes in the service of power goals, and intentions to use power in particular ways (Torelli & Shavitt, in press).
Specifically, when studying distinct beliefs endorsing a personalized or a socialized view of power, we found support for the cultural patterning of power representations using both individuals’ cultural orientations and ethnic group as alternative operationalizations of culture (Torelli & Shavitt, in press). By sampling for ethnicities that tend to foster a given cultural orientation (e.g., VI orientation among European Americans, Triandis & Gelfand, 1998, compared to an HC orientation among Hispanics, Penaloza, 1994), we examined the independent contribution of individual and ethnic cultural variables on power associations (see Chiu & Hong, 2006; Lalwani, Shavitt, & Johnson, 2006; Lalwani, Shrum, & Chiu, 2009). As shown in Table 2, Panel A, a VI (and not an HI) orientation was associated with personalized power beliefs, including favoring the abuse of power for one’s own benefit (misuse of power, Lee-Chai et al., 2001) and believing in the inequalities of social groups and in the appropriateness of maintaining one’s high-status by dominating others (social dominance orientation, Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). At the same time, as shown in Table 2, Panel B, a VI orientation was uncorrelated with inclinations to exercise socialized power by helping others (helping power motivation, Frieze & Boneva, 2001). In contrast, an HC orientation was positively associated with a motivation to exercise socialized power by helping others. These effects also emerged at the group level when contrasting European Americans (high-VI group) and Hispanics (high-HC group). Furthermore, individual VI and HC cultural orientation scores mediated the differences in power beliefs between European American and Hispanic participants. Results across multiple studies also highlighted differences between individuals high in VC and HC. An HC (but not a VC) orientation was negatively correlated with tendencies to abuse power, with beliefs in the inequalities of social groups, and with a self-reported willingness to dominate others (see Table 2, Panel A). Thus, a consideration of the horizontal-vertical distinction significantly enhanced understanding of the relation between cultural variables and power beliefs.
Culturally patterned associations with power were also evident when studying memory for events associated with the pursuit of culturally relevant power goals. To the extent that ongoing personalized (socialized) power representations impact the encoding of experiences in memory and facilitate the accessibility of goal-relevant episodes, we hypothesized that a VI (HC) orientation would be associated with strong and vivid mental representations of personalized (socialized) power. We asked an ethnically-diverse sample of participants (e.g., Hispanics or European Americans) to think about situations in which one acquired status over others or in which one helped others. As expected, a VI (and not an HI) measured cultural orientation was positively related to the vivid recall of experiences in which one acquired status. In contrast, an HC (and not a VC) orientation was positively related to the vivid recall of experiences in which one helped others. Again, evidence for this cultural patterning of power representations was supported at both the individual and the cultural group levels. Hispanic (high-HC group) participants’ episodic recall was significantly more (less) vivid for socialized (personalized) power events than the recall of European American participants (high-VI group). Moreover, individual VI and HC cultural orientation scores mediated the differences in vividness ratings between the two ethnic groups.
In another set of studies, we extended the findings to attitudes toward brands that may assist in the pursuit of distinct power goals. In these studies (Torelli & Shavitt, in press; Torelli et al., 2009), cross-national samples of participants rated the extent to which they liked brands that symbolize personalized or socialized power concerns. As expected, a VI orientation was positively associated with liking for brands that symbolize personalized power concerns (e.g., sunglasses described as “an exceptional piece of adornment that conveys your status and signifies your exquisite taste”). In contrast, an HC orientation was positively associated with liking for brands that symbolize socialized power concerns (e.g., a shopping bag with which “you’re doing your part to save the environment”). These effects also emerged at the group level when contrasting Americans (high-VI group) and Brazilians (high-HC group). A mediation analysis further suggested that individual-level VI and HC cultural orientations mediated nation-level differences in liking for such brands (Torelli & Shavitt, in press).
Our studies also suggest that VI versus HC cultural orientation predicts less liking of brands associated with actions that are incongruent with one’s power concepts. Evidence for this comes from studies investigating attitudes toward status (prosocial) brands engaged in incongruent actions – that is, socially-responsible (high-status) actions (Torelli, Basu-Monga, & Kaikati, 2009). Our predictions were based on the distinctive associations with power demonstrated so far, as well as the opposition between status-oriented and prosocial-oriented end-states documented in past research (e.g., power and benevolence values, Schwartz, 1992) and revealed in some of the studies reported earlier. In short, we reasoned that high-VI versus low-VI people would evaluate less favorably status brands engaged in socially responsible actions (e.g., BMW engaged in prosocial efforts). We also expected that high-HC versus low-HC people would evaluate less favorably nurturing brands engaged in status-oriented actions. A series of studies provided support for these propositions. Moreover, as expected, the effects were driven by greater perceptions among high- versus low-VI’s (high- vs. low-HC’s) that the socially-responsible (status-oriented) actions negatively affected the status (nurturing) image of the brand (Torelli, Basu-Monga & Kaikati, 2009).
In another set of studies, we show how VI and HC cultural orientations can be used to predict behaviors in situations with different power affordances (Torelli & Shavitt, in press). We presented participants with situations that promote the attainment of personalized or socialized power objectives (e.g., behavioral scenarios or simulated negotiation tasks) and measured their behavior in such situations. Results indicated that a VI (HC) orientation, measured at the individual level, predicted greater exploitative (benevolent) behavior in a negotiation, and also greater intentions to behave in ways aimed at impressing (helping) others.
In combination, the findings just described shed light on the core elements of the horizontal and vertical versions of individualism and collectivism, and further our understanding of the ways in which these constructs influence basic psychological processes (see Brewer & Chen, 2007; Oyserman et al., 2002). Current theorizing has focused on the role of competition in characterizing vertical individualists. Our findings suggest that the understanding of VI may be advanced by expanding our definition beyond competition to encompass the different facets of personalized power, particularly the notion of power as status (see Triandis & Gelfand, 1998, for a similar suggestion). Although vertical individualists may be concerned with competing and winning out over others, they may do so mainly to achieve the status that satisfies their personalized power goals. The use of status symbols may fulfill the same goals. On the other hand, the core elements of individualism identified by Oyserman et al. (2002), independence and uniqueness, may specifically describe horizontal individualism. The lack of power concerns among people high in HI may be the key factor that distinguishes them from those high in VI. Thus, an HI (compared to VI) orientation may predict a distinct set of outcomes in which self-reliance is focal, as noted earlier (Lalwani, et al., 2006).
Current theorizing has defined horizontal collectivism in terms of interdependence and sociability. Our findings suggest that understanding HC requires acknowledging its multiple associations with power. People high in HC may have mental representations of both desirable prosocial goals and undesirable status-enhancing goals (see Winter, 1973, for a similar discussion about people high in fear of power), and may therefore have ambivalent feelings toward exercises of power. Thus, they do not submit easily to authority (Triandis, 1995) and they oppose social inequalities (Strunk & Chang, 1999, and Torelli & Shavitt, in press, study 1).
Although our findings to date do not speak directly to the power concerns of vertical collectivists, we speculate that vertical collectivists’ perceptions of personalized or socialized power are likely to be context-dependent. Vertical collectivists may share with vertical individualists a concern with personalized power in relation to out-groups, yet they may have prosocial concerns toward in-groups of a lower status. Indeed, the emphasis on duties and obligations toward lower status in-group members and the filial piety toward higher status ingroup members, which previous research has linked to collectivism (Oyserman et al., 2002) may specifically describe VC rather than collectivism more broadly.
In summary, our findings show that the horizontal-vertical distinction predicts systematic variations in the perceived meaning and purpose of power. These distinct tendencies to conceptualize power in personalized versus socialized terms by people high in VI versus HC should affect the way they perceive others and the world when power is salient. We turn to these issues next.

B. MINDSET ACTIVATION
1. Stereotyping and Individuating Processes
Horizontal and vertical cultural orientations should also be associated with distinct cognitive processes that facilitate the fulfillment of culturally relevant power goals. Previous research suggests that having power triggers inward-focused information processing. Briñol et al. (2007) showed that priming power concepts prior to processing a message about a topic leads people to try to validate their initial views and impressions on the topic, which results in reduced information processing. Rucker and Galinsky (2009) indicate that inducing a feeling of powerfulness (compared to powerlessness) creates an internal focus in processing product information that produces an emphasis on the utility that a product offers the individual. Fiske and colleagues (Fiske 1993, 2001; Goodwin, Gubin, Fiske, & Yzerbyt, 2000) further demonstrate the inward focus of powerful individuals who use their own stereotypes when evaluating low-status others. These individuals attend more to information congruent with their prior expectations about the other person (e.g., category-based information) and attend less to incongruent information (e.g., category-inconsistent information). Cognitive processes aimed at confirming prior expectations about low-status others facilitate defending one’s powerful status by reasserting control (Fiske,1993).
The stereotyping mindset just described seems more congruent with a personalized view of power for status and personal advancement than with a socialized view of power for benefitting and helping others. Thus, we reasoned that people high in VI, who view power in personalized terms, should more easily activate a stereotyping mindset for interpreting the environment than other people (Torelli & Shavitt, 2009). For such people, their frequent and consistent experience activating a stereotyping mindset in social situations would give rise to the routinizing of these processes (Bargh, 1984). Thus, for these high-VI individuals, cueing with power should trigger this mindset, even when processing information about non-social targets. In contrast, people high in HC, who view power in socialized terms, should process information via an outward-focused approach, rather than an inward-focused one, when cued with power. We advance this proposition based on the other-centered nature of socialized power. Indeed, findings suggest that power-holders induced to feel responsible for others evaluate low-status others by attending carefully to information that is incongruent with their prior expectations about the target (Goodwin, et al., 2000), presumably because such cognitive processes facilitate forming an accurate impression instrumental for helping the other person. By extension, we argued that cueing with power should trigger such an individuating mindset in people high in HC, even when processing information about non-social targets.
In a series of studies using products and brands as targets, we found that cueing with power leads people of different cultural orientations to process information via different mindsets (Torelli & Shavitt, 2009). People high in VI activate cognitive processes that facilitate defending their power, such as reasserting control by confirming prior expectations (stereotyping processes, Fiske, 1993). In contrast, people high in HC activate cognitive processes that facilitate helping others, such as forming accurate, careful impressions (individuating processes, Goodwin, et al., 2000). Specifically, cueing with personalized power led people high (vs. low) in a VI orientation to engage in more stereotyping. That is, they recognized better the product information that was congruent with their prior expectations relative to their recognition of the incongruent information. In contrast, activating socialized power goals led people high (vs. low) in an HC orientation to engage in more individuating processes, improving their recall and recognition of incongruent product information.
In a first study, we cued participants with either personalized or socialized power concepts by having them read initial information about one of two products. For one of the products, the initial information contained status features aimed at cueing personalized power (e.g., a prestigious and exclusive financial advisory company), whereas the information for the other product contained nurturing features aimed at cueing socialized power (e.g., pet food designed to light up your dog’s face). Participants were then presented with additional information congruent and incongruent with the initial product information. We assessed the use of stereotyping and individuating processing by measuring, in a subsequent task, participants’ recognition for the congruent and incongruent information. Congruent (incongruent) information was defined as arguments that were (not) congruent with the status or nurturing qualities of the product. Recognition results were consistent with past research suggesting more stereotyping when personalized power is made salient and more individuating when concerns for others are made salient (Goodwin et al., 2000). More importantly, we found evidence for culturally-patterned effects of the power cues on the use of information processing mindsets. High-VI (vs. low-VI) participants stereotyped more when cued with personalized power. That is, they recognized better the information congruent with the initial description of the status product, relative to their recognition of the incongruent information. In contrast, high-HC (vs. low-HC) participants cued with socialized power individuated more, as evidenced by their better recognition of information incongruent with the initial description of the nurturing product.
Another study examined stereotyping and individuated processing regarding a well-established brand (McDonald’s; Torelli & Shavitt, 2009, study 3). Stereotyping (individuating) was assessed based on the delayed recognition of congruent (incongruent) arguments. Personalized or socialized power cues, in the form of power words, were embedded in a separate task prior to the presentation of the product information. For instance, “wealth” or “ambitious” were paired with “power” to cue with personalized power, and “helpful” or “caring” were paired with “power” to cue with socialized power. Results confirmed our predictions that participants high (vs. low) in VI cued with personalized power stereotyped more. That is, they recognized better the information congruent with the McDonald’s stereotype of unhealthiness and convenience relative to their recognition of the incongruent information. In contrast, participants high (vs. low) in HC cued with socialized power individuated more. That is, they were more likely to recognize information incongruent with the McDonald’s stereotype.
In combination, these studies establish that the horizontal-vertical distinction predicts distinct information processing mindsets. People with a VI cultural orientation, who have an elaborated ‘power-as-status’ self-schema, readily activate a stereotyping mindset. In contrast, people with an HC orientation, who have an elaborated ‘power-as-helping’ self-schema, readily activate an individuating mindset in information processing. People with other cultural orientations did not exhibit these mindsets in response to power cues, supporting the value of the horizontal-vertical distinction in understanding the relation between culture and power-related processes. We speculate that, in general, the unelaborated power-as-status self-schema of people high in HI should make them unlikely to engage in stereotyping processes in response to power cues. However, we suggest that among people high in VC, either stereotyping or individuating in power situations may occur depending on the context. In situations involving out-groups, high-VC individuals cued with power may engage in stereotyping, whereas individuating processes may be more likely in an in-group situation.
2. Readiness to Perceive Power Threat and to Restore Power
More evidence that specific cultural identities can trigger the readiness to think and act consistently with cultural representations of power comes from our recent research on responses to power threats (Wong & Shavitt, 2009a, 2009b). These studies specifically examined the role of vertical individualism in the context of service encounters that implicate hierarchical relationships. Participants read scenarios in which they either imagined receiving rude service from a low-rank (e.g., hotel receptionist) or a high-rank (e.g., hotel vice president) service provider. We reasoned that being disrespected by another person should be interpreted differently depending on one’s culturally based power associations, as well as the power of the other. Specifically, for people with a VI cultural orientation, power is particularly likely to be associated with status and personal advancement. Thus, the rude receptionist’s behavior should be likely to be interpreted as a threat to their sense of status and power, triggering a readiness to act to restore one’s power. However, the rude vice president’s behavior poses less of a threat to one’s own power, and could instead trigger deferential responses to the high-ranking individual.
Indeed, in the low-rank (i.e., receptionist) condition, the higher one’s VI cultural orientation the greater the dissatisfaction and the more negative emotions one reported (Wong & Shavitt, 2009a). Other studies (Wong & Shavitt, 2009b) provided more direct evidence for the role of power motivation in these relations. For instance, one study showed that the VI level of participants who read the low-rank scenario predicted higher scores on projective measures assessing fear of power loss and hope for power gain (see Sokolowski, Schmalt, Langens, & Puca, 2000). In another study, higher VI participants who read the low-rank scenario indicated a greater willingness to pay for status products such as cuff links and expensive pens (this effect was not observed for non-status products such as sofas and minivans). This greater desire for status items presumably emerged because status products afford a method for restoring one’s sense of power when it is threatened (Rucker & Galinsky, 2008).
Importantly, a VI cultural orientation did not predict these responses when individuals had first been given an opportunity to engage in self-affirmation. This supports the role of motivational processes to restore power in driving these responses. Finally, the high-rank condition in which a hotel vice president provided rude service was not interpreted in terms of power threat. Instead, a VI orientation was sometimes associated with greater acceptance of rude treatment from a high-ranking person. These findings indicate that one’s specific cultural identity (VI) can shape mindsets and action tendencies in pursuit of relevant power goals.

C. CONTENT AND PERSUASIVENESS OF MESSAGE APPEALS
Further evidence that the vertical-horizontal distinction offers novel predictions about perceptions of the social environment comes from several lines of research on attitudes and persuasion. For instance, in a study about country-of-origin effects (i.e., the extent to which the country of manufacture affects the evaluation of a product), Gürhan-Canli and Maheswaran (2000) demonstrated that the tendency to favor products from one’s own country over foreign products emerged more strongly in Japan (a VC culture) than in the United States (a VI culture). Broadly speaking, this fits well with a conceptualization of collectivists as oriented toward their ingroup, perhaps even to the point of chauvinism in product evaluations. However, mediation analyses using consumers’ measured cultural orientations indicated that only the vertical aspect of COL and IND explained country-of-origin effects. For instance, the COL tendency to favor one’s own country’s products appeared to be driven by cultural values that emphasize deference to the ingroup, hierarchy, and status concerns (VC), and not by values that stress cooperation and sociability (HC).
In line with this, our research suggests that advertising messages with themes that emphasize status, prestige, and hierarchy may be more persuasive for those with a vertical cultural orientation, and may be inappropriate for those with a horizontal one. Shavitt, Zhang, and Johnson (2006) asked U.S. respondents to write advertisements that they personally would find persuasive. The extent to which the ad appeals they wrote emphasized status themes was positively (negatively) correlated with the degree to which they had a vertical (horizontal) cultural orientation.
Additional evidence for the horizontal-vertical cultural patterning of brand evaluations comes from our recent cross-national research on brand symbolism (Torelli et al., 2009). Based on the core motivations underlying HI, VI, HC, and VC orientations outlined earlier (e.g., self-direction for HI or power for VI), we predicted liking for brands that symbolize these core motivations from individuals’ cultural orientations. Participants from the U.S. and China evaluated brand messages for four different brands. The four messages were designed to distinctively position each of the brands on one of four different value domains: self-direction, power, universalism, and tradition. For instance, the ‘self-direction’ brand was described as a t-shirt for which you could “pick your color, pick your message, and pick your style.” The ‘power’ brand referred to sunglasses described as “an exceptional piece of adornment that conveys your status and signifies your exquisite taste.” The ‘universalism’ brand was described as a shopping bag with which “you’re doing your part to save the environment.” Finally, the ‘tradition’ brand referred to a “patriotic decoration company making flags since 1820” (In China, this was changed to a traditional restaurant dating to the Ming Dynasty). Participants also completed the 16-item cultural orientation scale (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). As predicted, the higher the HI orientation of participants, the more favorable the evaluations of a brand positioned on ‘self-direction’ values. Similarly, VI (HC, VC) positively predicted evaluations of a brand positioned on ‘power’ (‘universalism,’‘tradition’) values. These results were consistent across the two countries.
More extensive evidence for the horizontal-vertical patterning of persuasive appeals comes from a content analysis of 1211 magazine advertisements in five countries representing VI (U.S.), HI (Denmark), and VC (Korea, Russia, Poland) cultural contexts (Shavitt, Johnson, and Zhang, in press). This analysis revealed patterns in the benefits emphasized in the ads that supported expectations about the prevalence of appeals in vertical versus horizontal cultures. In particular, the observed emphasis on status in ad appeals – including depictions of luxury, or references to prestige, impressing others, prominence, membership in high status groups (e.g., ivy league graduates), endorsements by high status persons (e.g., celebrities), or other distinctions (e.g., “award-winning”) – corresponded to the cultural profiles of the countries. Ads in all three VC societies (Korea, Russia, Poland) and the VI society (the U.S.) evidenced a greater emphasis on status benefits than did ads in the HI society (Denmark). Indeed, status appeared to be a dominant ad theme in all of the vertical societies we examined (relative to appeals that emphasized pleasure, uniqueness, or relationships). In contrast, pleasure appeals dominated in the HI society.
Also as expected, the emphasis on uniqueness in ad appeals – including depictions of differentiation, self-expression, self-reliance, and novelty – was greater in HI versus VI (and VC) cultures (Shavitt, et al., in press). These types of appeals frame the product as a form of self-expression, appropriate in cultural contexts that emphasize being distinct and self-reliant (rather than better than others). Thus, although the U.S. and Denmark are both considered IND societies, their advertisements differed significantly in their emphasis on uniqueness and in their emphasis on status in ways that were consistent with their vertical versus horizontal cultural values. These patterns would not have been anticipated by analyses based on the broader IND-COL classification.
In addition to generating novel hypotheses, a consideration of vertical and horizontal cultural values offers refinements to predictions about the kinds of appeals that distinguish IND and COL cultures. For instance, past research suggests that U.S. appeals are more focused on being unique than are Korean appeals (Kim & Markus, 1999), but uniqueness was defined broadly in that research, incorporating themes of choice and freedom. Our analysis suggests that appeals that more specifically emphasize uniqueness and self-expression (e.g., being different, not better than others) may be especially relevant to an HI (but not a VI) cultural context. Thus, in our study, ads in VI versus VC societies did not differ in their focus on the specific uniqueness themes we examined (Shavitt, et al., in press). Future research could address whether, for instance, status appeals in VI societies such as the U.S. are more focused on “sticking out” and being admired, whereas those in VC societies such as Korea are more focused on fitting in or being included in successful groups. This would be congruent with findings indicating that in the U.S. (VI) celebrity endorsers are frequently identified by name or profession and their credentials are used to pitch the product directly to the audience, whereas in Korea (VC), celebrities are not often identified by name and they frequently play a character embodying a family or traditional role (Choi, Lee, & Kim, 2005).
In sum, although appeals promising to enhance a consumer’s status and impress others seem commonplace in our society, cultural factors should play a role in the degree to which such ads speak to consumers’ motivations. In this regard, a consideration of horizontal-vertical cultural distinctions stimulates predictions not anticipated by prior cross-cultural research on persuasive communication.

VII. Future Directions and Implication for Consumer Psychology

We have argued for the importance of the distinction between horizontal and vertical forms of individualism and collectivism for understanding the psychological effects of cultural differences. The review of the findings underscores the value of the horizontal-vertical distinction for uncovering novel cultural patterns, as described in table 1. We reviewed the impact of these distinct orientations on the values that people endorse, their self-presentation styles, their major motivational concerns and preferred means of attaining their goals, and their perceptions of their social environment.
Our review included many studies on consumer psychology, which allowed us to illustrate some of the substantive implications that emerge from the horizontal/vertical distinction. As marketing efforts become increasingly globalized, understanding cross-cultural consumer psychology has become a mainstream goal of consumer research. Our review indicates that brands that are advertised in a way that better reflects the major motivational concern associated with a given cultural orientation are more likely to resonate among consumers high in this orientation. To the extent that people in a particular market share this cultural orientation, such brands are likely to enjoy widespread acceptance and might even become cultural icons. For instance, brands such as Nike and Harley Davidson, commonly perceived as icons of the vertical individualistic American culture, have built their images around notions of power and status (Torelli, Chiu, Keh, & Amaral, 2009). Although these brands could successfully penetrate a foreign market with different cultural values (e.g., a horizontal collectivistic society), it might be difficult for them to reach an iconic status in such markets. Doing so may require a change in brand image to better reflect prevailing cultural values and norms.

A. ATTITUDE FUNCTIONS ACROSS CULTURES
Some of the cultural differences reviewed earlier in this chapter (e.g., in impression management and self-presentation patterns) may be linked to differences between INDs and COLs in the nature and functions of their attitudes, as we have proposed (Riemer & Shavitt, 2009b).
The traditional conceptualization of attitudes posits that an attitude is an enduring disposition toward an object that is stable, consistent, aids in making decisions, guides behavior, and may be used for self-expression. However, we suggest that the appropriateness of this conceptualization may depend on cultural variables. In contrast with the traditional view of attitudes and their functions, we have suggested that collectivists ' attitudes are less consistent and stable, and less likely to serve as guides to behavior, and as a means for self-expression (Riemer & Shavitt, 2009b).
Based on this research on cross-cultural differences in relation to contradictions, we argue that collectivists (i.e., easterners) would be more likely to form evaluatively ambivalent attitudes, compared to individualists (i.e., westerners) (Peng & Nisbett 1999; Wong, Rindfleisch, & Burroughs 2003; Nisbett et al., 2001; Choi & Choi 2002; Choi, Koo, & Choi 2007). Several lines of research support this reasoning. For instance, According to Peng & Nisbett (1999), the philosophies underlying eastern and western cultures are associated with distinct views on contradictions. Eastern philosophy is based on Confucian and Buddhist views that conceive of the world as complex and holistic, and stress that everything needs to be assessed within its context. This view encourages compromise and suggests that many beliefs can be both true and false. Western philosophy is based on Aristotelian logical thinking, which stresses that there can only be one truth. Hence, westerners are likely to regard contradictions as unacceptable, whereas easterners are relatively comfortable with them.
Studies on emotions provide further evidence that supports this notion. Bagozzi, Wong, and Yi (1999) show that westerners experience emotions in bipolar way such that they exhibit a strong negative correlation between reported negative and positive emotions. Easterners, on the other hand, exhibit weak correlations between reported negative and positive emotions. Williams and Aaker (2002) show that easterners ' propensity to accept mixed emotions leads them in turn to express more favorable attitudes towards appeals containing mixed emotions, compared to messages containing either purely happy or purely sad emotions. Westerners, on the other hand, express greater discomfort when exposed to appeals containing mixed emotions, compared to messages containing pure emotions. These cross-cultural differences may also apply to attitudes, such that one might expect more ambivalent attitudes among COLs (vs. INDs), and higher internal consistency in attitudes among INDs (vs. COLs).
These different dispositions toward contradiction imply not only that collectivists ' attitudes compared to individualists ' attitudes may be more ambivalent, but also that they may be less stable over time. Because collectivists pay more attention to the context, they may place greater importance on situational influences when evaluating targets of judgment. Indeed, research has shown that collectivists ' attributions, personality descriptions, and judgment tend to be context dependent, whereas individualists ' tend to be more context-general (Miller, 1984; Masuda et al., 2004; Masuda & Nisbet, 2001; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Morris & Peng, 1994; Knowles et al., 2001; Ji, Peng, & Nisbett, 2000; Norenzayan, Choi, & Nisbett, 2002; Rhee, Uleman, Lee, & Roman, 1995). The observed cultural differences in self-presentations in responding to attitude questions, reviewed earlier in this chapter, may be viewed as an instance of this tendency. That is, collectivists tend to report normative attitudes when motivated to impress. Thus, when the context requires adjustment to the norm, their attitude responses shift accordingly.
Fazio (2000) suggests that accessible attitudes assist individuals in coping with the multitude of objects they encounter in their daily lives (see also Smith, Bruner, & White, 1956; Katz, 1960). Having accessible attitudes serves as knowledge to guide one 's behavior and decision-making. However, this may be more the case for individualists, who make decisions based on their personal preferences, than for collectivists, who are motivated also to consider norms and others’ preferences. This is in accord with the findings of Savani, Markus, and Conner (2008), who suggested that preferences and choice have different functions for people from India compared with North Americans, and thus Indians take more time to choose, and exhibit weaker relationships between their personal preferences and choices (see also Savani, et al., 2010).
The horizontal versus vertical dimension may also predict cultural variations in the functions of attitudes. As noted earlier, people high in VC are particularly focused on maintaining harmony. Thus, people high in VC (compared to HC) may be more practiced at adjusting their attitude expressions to fit in, and be more likely to do so in deference to high-status others. In contrast, harmony is less of a concern for HCs. They are more likely to value cooperation in the context of honesty and direct self-expression. This may predict greater candor in their attitudinal responses in general. However, both an HC orientation has an emphasis on appropriateness and cooperation. Therefore, when behavioral norms that involve cooperation and interpersonal appropriateness are salient, people high in HC may adjust their behavior expressions to those norms. Indeed, Lalwani et al. (2006) found that the HC (vs. VC) orientation was more predictive of the appropriateness of self-reported behaviors.
In other words, the nature of the norm and the degree to which the context requires cooperation and appropriateness vs. harmony and deference may determine whether horizontal collectivists or vertical collectivists show greater tendency toward, and automaticity in, their normative adjustments.

VIII. Conclusions The constructs of individualism and collectivism have dominated the research discourse on the psychological impacts of culture for many years. Although the breadth and power of these constructs have profoundly advanced the field, we argue that future research should move beyond the broad IND and COL dichotomy. In particular, recent research supports the need to distinguish between horizontal and vertical forms of individualism and collectivism. In this chapter, we have reviewed several lines of work establishing the value of the horizontal and vertical cultural distinction nested within the broader IND-COL classification. Several lines of evidence indicate that these specific cultural orientations or categories are associated with distinct mental representations and trigger specific cognitive processes and action tendencies that facilitate the fulfillment of culturally relevant goals. Attending to the cultural patterning of hierarchy, status, and power motivations offers several important directions for future research to enhance cross-cultural theorizing.

References

Askgaard, H. (1992). As Denmark sees herself and is seen by others. In P. Himmelstrup, K. Hegelund, & H. Askgaard (Eds.) Discover Denmark-On Denmark and the Danes: Past, Present and Future Herning, Denmark: Danish Cultural Institute, Copenhagen and Systime Publishers.
Bagozzi, R. P., Wong, N., & Yi, Y. (1999). The role of culture and gender in the relationship between positive and negative affect. Cognition and Emotion, 13(6), 641-672.
Bargh, J. A. (1984). Automatic and conscious processing of social information. In R. S. J. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 3, pp. 1-43). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bargh, J. A. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity: awareness, intention, efficiency, and control in social cognition, ed. Robert S. Wyer Jr. and Thomas. K. Srull, Handbook of social cognition (pp. 1-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bargh, J. A. (1997). The automaticity of everyday life, ed. Robert S. Wyer, Advances in social cognition (Vol. 10, pp. 1-61). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baumeister, R. F., & Sommer, K. L. (1997). What do men want? Gender differences and two spheres of belongingness: Comment on Cross and Madson (1997). Psychological Bulletin, 122(1), 38-44.
Brewer, M. B., & Chen, Y.-R. (2007). Where (Who) are collectives in collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism. Psychological Review, 114(1), 133-151.
Brinol, P., Petty, R. E., Valle, C., Rucker, D. D., & Becerra, A. (2007). The effects of message recipients ' power before and after persuasion: A self-validation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 1040-1053.
Chen, C. C., Meindl, J. R., & Hunt, R. G. (1997). Testing the effects of vertical and horizontal collectivism: A study of reward allocation preferences in China. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(1), 44-70.
Chen, S., Lee-Chai, A. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). Relationship orientation as a moderator of the effects of social power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 173-187.
Chiou, J.-S. (2001). Horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism among college students in the United States, Taiwan, and Argentina. Journal of Social Psychology, 141(5), 667-678.
Chirkov, V., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy from individualism and independence: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization of cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 97-110.
Chiu, C.-y., & Hong, Y.-y. (2006). Social Psychology of Culture. New York: Psychology Press.
Choi, I., & Choi, Y. (2002). Culture and self-concept flexibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(11), 1508-1517.
Choi, I., Koo, M., & Choi, J. A. (2007). Individual differences in analytic versus holistic thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(5), 691-705.
Choi, S. M., Lee, W. N., & Kim, H. J. (2005). Lessons from the rich and famous a cross-cultural comparison of celebrity endorsement in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 34(2), 85-98.
Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. (2000). The relational-interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 791-808.
Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122(1), 5-37.
Daun, A. (1991). Individualism and collectivity among Swedes. Ethnos, 56(3-4), 165-172.
Daun, A. (1992). Modern and modest: Mentality and self-stereotypes among Swedes. In S. A. & L. Janson (Eds.) Culture and management (pp. 101-111). Stockholm, Sweden: Institution for International Business.
De Mooij, M. (1998). Masculinity/Femininity and consumer behavior.
Erez, M., & Earley, P. C. (1987). Comparative analysis of goal-setting strategies across cultures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(4), 658-665.
Eysenck, S. B. G., & Eysenck, H. J. (1964). An improved short questionnaire for the measurement of extraversion and neuroticism. Life Sciences, 3(10), 1103-1109.
Fazio, R. H. (2000). Accessible attitudes as tools for object appraisal: Their costs and benefits. In G. Maio & J. Olson (Eds.), Why we evaluate: Functions of attitudes (pp. 1-36). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Feather, N. T. (1994). Human values and their relation to justice.. Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 129-151.
Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99(4), 689-723.
Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48(6), 621-628.
Fiske, S. T. (2001). Effects of power on bias: Power explains and maintains individual, group, and societal disparities. In A. Y. Lee-Chai & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The use and abuse of power: Multiple perspectives on the causes of corruption (pp. 181-193). NY: Psychology Press.
Frieze, I. H., & Boneva, B. S. (2001). Power motivation and motivation to help others. In A. Y. Lee-Chai & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The use and abuse of power: Multiple perspectives on the causes of corruption (pp. 75-89). NY: Psychology Press.
Gabriel, S., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Are there "his" and "hers" types of interdependence? The implications of gender differences in collective versus relational interdependence for affect, behavior, and cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 642-655.
Gannon, M. J. (2001). Understanding global cultures: Metaphorical journeys through 23 nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gilbert, D. T., & Osborne, R. E. (1989). Thinking backward: some curable and incurable consequences of cognitive busyness. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 57(6), 940-950.
Gilligan, C. (1982). New maps of development: New visions of maturity. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52(2), 199-212.
Gilligan, C. (1986). On in a different voice: An interdisciplinary forum: Reply. Signs, 11(2), 324-333.
Goodwin, S. A., Gubin, A., Fiske, S. T., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2000). Power can bias impression processes: Stereotyping subordinates by default and by design. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3(3), 227-256.
Gouveia, V. V., Clemente, M., & Espinosa, P. (2003). The horizontal and vertical attributes of individualism and collectivism in a Spanish population. Journal of Social Psychology, 143(1), 43-63.
Gur, R. C., & Sackeim, H. A. (1979). Self-deception: A concept in search of a phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(2), 147-169.
Gurhan-Canli, Z., & Maheswaran, D. (2000). Cultural variations in country of origin Effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(3), 309-317.
Haslam, N. (1994a). Categories of social relationship. Cognition, 53, 59–90.
Haslam, N. (1995). Factor structure of social relationships: An examination of relational models and resource exchange theories. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 217–227.
Haslam, N., & Fiske, A. P. (1999). Relational models theory: A confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Personal Relationships, 6, 241–250.
Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture 's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Newbury Park: Sage.
Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture 's consequences : comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Howard, E. S., Gardner, W. L., & Thompson, L. (2007). The role of the self-concept and the social context in determining the behavior of power holders: Self-construal in intergroup versus dyadic dispute resolution negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 614-631.
Ji, L. J., Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (2000). Culture, control, and perception of relationships in the environment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 943-955.
Kashima, Y., Yamaguchi, S., Kim, U., Choi, S.-C., Gelfand, M. J., & Yuki, M. (1995). Culture, gender, and self: A perspective from individualism-collectivism research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 925-937.
Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach of the study of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24(2), 163-204.
Kim, H. S., & Markus, H. R. (1999). Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(4), 785-800.
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(6), 1245-1267.
Knowles, E. S., Butler, S., & Linn, J. A. (2001). Increasing compliance by reducing resistance. In J. Forgas & K. Williams (Eds.), Social influence: Direct and indirect processes. New York: Psychology Press.
Kurman, J., & Sriram, N. (2002). Interrelationships among vertical and horizontal collectivism, modesty, and self-enhancement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(1), 71-86.
Lalwani, A. K., & Shavitt, S. (2010). "Are men more individualistic and women more collectivistic?" Manuscript under review.
Lalwani, A. K., & Shavitt, S. (2009). The "Me" I claim to be: Cultural self-construal elicits self-presentational goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 88-102.
Lalwani, A. K., Shavitt, S., & Johnson, T. (2006). What is the relation between cultural orientation and socially desirable responding? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(1), 165-178.
Lalwani, A. K., Shrum, L. J., & Chiu, C. y. (2009). Motivated response styles: The role of cultural values, regulatory focus, and self-consciousness in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(4), 870-882.
Lee-Chai, A. Y., Chen, S., & Chartrand, T. L. (2001). From Moses to Marcos: Individual differences in the use and abuse of power. In A. Y. Lee-Chai & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The use and abuse of power: Multiple perspectives on the causes of corruption (pp. 57-74). NY: Psychology Press.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.
Masuda, T., Ellsworth, P. C., Mesquita, B., Leu, J., & van de Veerdonk, E. (2004). A face in the crowd or a crowd in the face: Japanese and American perceptions of others ' emotions. Unpublished manuscript, Hokkaido University.
Masuda, T., & Nisbett, R. E. (2001). Attending holistically versus analytically: Comparing the context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 81(5), 922-934.
Mick, D. G. (1996). Are studies of dark side variables confounded by socially desirable responding? The case of materialism. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(2), 106-119.
Miller, J. G. (1984). Culture and the development of everyday social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(5), 961-978.
Morris, M. W., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 949-971.
Nelson, M. R., & Shavitt, S. (2002). Horizontal and vertical individualism and achievement values: A multimethod examination of Denmark and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(5), 439-458.
Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291-310.
Norenzayan, A., Choi, I., & Nisbett, R. E. (2002). Cultural similarities and differences in social inference: Evidence from behavioral predictions and lay theories of behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(1), 109-120.
Oishi, S., Schimmack, U., Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (1998). The measurement of values and individualism-collectivism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(11), 1177-1189.
Oyserman, D. (2007). Social identity and self-regulation. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 432-453). NY, US:: Guilford Press.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3-72.
Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 598-609.
Paulhus, D. L. (1988). Assessing self-deception and impression management in self-reports: The balanced inventory of desirable responding, Unpublished manual, University of British Columbia,.
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17-59). San Diego: Academic Press, Inc.
Paulhus, D. L. (1998a). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement: A mixed blessing? Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 74(5), 1197-1208.
Paulhus, D. L. (1998b). Paulhus deception scales: User 's manual. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.
Penaloza, L. (1994). Atravesando fronteras/border crossings: A critical ethnographic exploration of the consumer acculturation of Mexican immigrants. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 32-54.
Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54(9), 741-754.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741-763.
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 & Social Psychology, 69(1), 142-152.
Riemer, H., & Shavitt, S. (2009a). Adjusting survey responses to social norms: easier for collectivists or individualists? Manuscript under review.
Riemer, H., & Shavitt, S. (2009b). Cultural differences in the characteristics of attitudes: conceptualization and implications for global marketing. Working paper, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.
Robert, C., Lee, W. C., & Chan, K. Y. (2006). An empirical analysis of measurement equivalence with the indcol measure of individualism and collectivism: Implications for valid cross-cultural inference. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 65-99.
Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Conspicuous consumption versus utilitarian ideals: How different levels of power shape consumption. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, forthcoming.
Sackeim, H. A., & Gur, R. C. (1979). Self-deception, other deception, and self reported psychopathology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47(1), 213-215.
Savani, K., Markus, H. R., & Conner, A. L. (2008). Let your preference be your guide? Preferences and choices are more tightly linked for North Americans than for Indians. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(4), 861-876.
Savani, K., Markus, H. R., Naidu, N. V. R., Kumar, S., & Berlia, N. (2010). What counts as a choice? U.S. Americans are more likely than Indians to construe actions as choices. Psychological Science.
Schlenker, B. R., & Britt, T. W. (1999). Beneficial impression management: Strategically controlling information to help friends. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(4), 559-573.
Schlenker, B. R., Britt, T. W., & Pennington, J. (1996). Impression regulation and management: Highlights of a theory of self-identification. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.) Handbook of motivation andcognition, Vol. 3: The interpersonal context (pp. 118-147). New York: Guilford.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 550-562.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 878-891.
Shavitt, S., Johnson, T. P., & Zhang, J. (in press). Horizontal and vertical cultural differences in the content of advertising appeals. Journal of International Consumer Marketing.
Shavitt, S., Lalwani, A. K., Zhang, J., & Torelli, C. J. (2006). The horizontal/vertical distinction in cross-cultural consumer research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 325-356.
Shavitt, S., Lee, A. Y., & Torelli, C. J. (2009). The social psychology of consumer behavior, a volume in the series, Frontiers of social psychology (Series Editors: A.W. Kruglanski & J.P. Forgas) (pp. 227-250). New York: Psychology Press.
Shavitt, S., Zhang, J., & Johnson, T. P. (2006). Horizontal and vertical cultural differences in advertising and consumer persuasion. Unpublished data, University of Illinois.
Shteynberg, G., Gelfand, M., Kim,K. (2009). Peering into the “Magnum Mysterium” of Culture: The Explanatory Power of Descriptive Norms. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40 (1), 46-69.
Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research: The Journal of Comparative Social Science, 29(3), 240-275.
Sivadas, E., Bruvold, N. T., & Nelson, M. R. (2008). A reduced version of the horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism scale: A four-country assessment. Journal of Business Research, 61(3), 201-210.
Smith, E. R., & Lerner, M. (1986). Development of automatism of social judgments. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 50(2), 257-267.
Smith, M., Bruner, J., & White, R. (1956). Opinions and personality. In J. Wiley (Ed.). New York.
Soh, S., & Leong, F. T. (2002). Validity of vertical and horizontal individualism and collectivism in Singapore: Relationships with values and interests. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(1), 3-15.
Sokolowski, K., Schmalt, H.-D., Langens, T. A., & Puca, R. M. (2000). Assessing achievement, affiliation, and power motives all at once: The Multi-Motive Grid (MMG). Journal of Personality Assessment, 74(1), 126-145.
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Msaculinity & femininity: their psychological dimensions, correlates, & antecedents: Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Stapel, D. A., & Johnson, C. S. (2007). When nothing compares to me: How defensive motivations and similarity shape social comparison effects. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(5), 824-838.
Steele, C. M., Critchlow, B., & Liu, T. J. (1985). Alcohol and social behavior II. The helpful drunkard. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(1), 35-46.
Stern, B. B., Barak, B., & Gould, S. J. (1987). Sexual identity scale: A new self-assessment measure. Sex Roles, 17(9-10), 503-519.
Strunk, D. R., & Chang, E. C. (1999). Distinguishing between fundamental dimensions of individualism-collectivism: Relations to sociopolitical attitudes and beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences, 27(4), 665-671.
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 193-210.
Torelli, C. J., Basu M., A., & Kaikati, A. (2009). Does it hurt to communicate the good deeds of a luxury brand? Power concerns and attitudes toward luxury brands positioned on social responsibility. Working paper, University of Minnesota
Torelli, C. J., Ozsomer, A., Carvalho, S., Keh, H. T., & Maehle, N. (2009). Consumer brand values: Cross-cultural implications for brand image management. Manuscript under review.
Torelli, C. J., & Shavitt, S. (in press). Culture and Concepts of Power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Torelli, C. J., & Shavitt, S. (2009). Personalized and socialized power goals: Consequences for information processing and persuasion. Working paper, University of Minnesota.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. CO: Westview Press.
Triandis, H. C., Chen, X. P., & Chan, D. K. (1998). Scenarios for the measurement of collectivism and individualism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(2), 275-289.
Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 118-128.
Triandis, H. C., & Singelis, T. M. (1998). Training to recognize individual differences in collectivism and individualism within culture. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(1), 35-47.
Triandis, H. C., & Suh, E. M. (2002). Cultural influences on personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 133-160.
Van Baaren, R. B., Maddux, W. W., Chartrand, T. L., De Bouter, C., & Van Knippenberg, A. (2003). It takes two to mimic: Behavioral consequences of self-construals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(5), 1093-1102.
Van Hemert, D. A., Van De Vijver, F. J. R., Poortinga, Y. H., & Georgas, J. (2002). Structural and functional equivalence of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire within and between countries. Personality and Individual Differences, 33(8), 1229-1249.
Vodosek, M. (2009). The relationship between relational models and individualism and collectivism: Evidence from culturally diverse work groups. International Journal of Psychology, 44(2), 120-128.
Wang, C. L., Bristol, T., Mowen, J. C., & Chakraborty, G. (2000). Alternative modes of self-construal: Dimensions of connectedness-separateness and advertising appeals to the cultural and gender-specific self. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(2), 107-115.
Weldon, E. (1984). Deindividualization, interpersonal affect, and productivity in laboratory task groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14(5), 469-485.
Williams, P., & Aaker, J. L. (2002). Can mixed emotions peacefully coexist? Journal of Consumer Research, 28(4), 636-649.
Winter, D. G. (1973). The Power Motive. New York, NY, US: Free Press.
Wong, J., & Shavitt, S. (2009a). The impact of cultural orientation on service experiences: When does the status of the service staff matter? Paper presented at the conference of the Society for Consumer Psychology, San Diego, CA.
Wong, J., & Shavitt, S. (2009b). Unpublished data, University of Illinois.
Wong, N., Rindfleisch, A., & Burroughs, J. E. (2003). Do reverse-worded items confound measures in cross-cultural consumer research? The case of the material value scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(June), 72-91.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128(5), 699-727.
Zou, X., Tam, K. P., Morris, M. W., Lee, S. L., Lau, Y. M., & Chiu, C. Y. (2009). Culture as common sense: Perceived consensus vs. personal beliefs as mechanisms of cultural influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 97 (4), 579-597.

Table 1. Psychological Characteristics of Each Cultural Orientation

Table 2. Summary of Relations Between Cultural Orientation and Power Concepts

Figure 1. The effects of salient self-construal on performance on general trivia knowledge and etiquette questions (from Lalwani & Shavitt, 2009; Studies 5 and 7)

References: Bagozzi, R. P., Wong, N., & Yi, Y. (1999). The role of culture and gender in the relationship between positive and negative affect. Cognition and Emotion, 13(6), 641-672. Bargh, J. A. (1984). Automatic and conscious processing of social information. In R. S. J. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 3, pp. 1-43). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bargh, J. A. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity: awareness, intention, efficiency, and control in social cognition, ed. Robert S. Wyer Jr. and Thomas. K. Srull, Handbook of social cognition (pp. 1-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bargh, J. A. (1997). The automaticity of everyday life, ed. Robert S. Wyer, Advances in social cognition (Vol. 10, pp. 1-61). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Baumeister, R. F., & Sommer, K. L. (1997). What do men want? Gender differences and two spheres of belongingness: Comment on Cross and Madson (1997). Psychological Bulletin, 122(1), 38-44. Brewer, M. B., & Chen, Y.-R. (2007). Where (Who) are collectives in collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism. Psychological Review, 114(1), 133-151. Brinol, P., Petty, R. E., Valle, C., Rucker, D. D., & Becerra, A. (2007). The effects of message recipients ' power before and after persuasion: A self-validation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 1040-1053. Chen, C. C., Meindl, J. R., & Hunt, R. G. (1997). Testing the effects of vertical and horizontal collectivism: A study of reward allocation preferences in China. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(1), 44-70. Chen, S., Lee-Chai, A. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). Relationship orientation as a moderator of the effects of social power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 173-187. Chiou, J.-S. (2001). Horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism among college students in the United States, Taiwan, and Argentina. Journal of Social Psychology, 141(5), 667-678. Chiu, C.-y., & Hong, Y.-y. (2006). Social Psychology of Culture. New York: Psychology Press. Choi, I., & Choi, Y. (2002). Culture and self-concept flexibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(11), 1508-1517. Choi, I., Koo, M., & Choi, J. A. (2007). Individual differences in analytic versus holistic thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(5), 691-705. Choi, S. M., Lee, W. N., & Kim, H. J. (2005). Lessons from the rich and famous a cross-cultural comparison of celebrity endorsement in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 34(2), 85-98. Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. (2000). The relational-interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 791-808. Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122(1), 5-37. Daun, A. (1991). Individualism and collectivity among Swedes. Ethnos, 56(3-4), 165-172. Daun, A. (1992). Modern and modest: Mentality and self-stereotypes among Swedes. In S. A. & L. Janson (Eds.) Culture and management (pp. 101-111). Stockholm, Sweden: Institution for International Business. De Mooij, M. (1998). Masculinity/Femininity and consumer behavior. Erez, M., & Earley, P. C. (1987). Comparative analysis of goal-setting strategies across cultures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(4), 658-665. Eysenck, S. B. G., & Eysenck, H. J. (1964). An improved short questionnaire for the measurement of extraversion and neuroticism. Life Sciences, 3(10), 1103-1109. Fazio, R. H. (2000). Accessible attitudes as tools for object appraisal: Their costs and benefits. In G. Maio & J. Olson (Eds.), Why we evaluate: Functions of attitudes (pp. 1-36). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Feather, N. T. (1994). Human values and their relation to justice.. Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 129-151. Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99(4), 689-723. Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48(6), 621-628. Frieze, I. H., & Boneva, B. S. (2001). Power motivation and motivation to help others. In A. Y. Lee-Chai & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The use and abuse of power: Multiple perspectives on the causes of corruption (pp. 75-89). NY: Psychology Press. Gannon, M. J. (2001). Understanding global cultures: Metaphorical journeys through 23 nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gilbert, D. T., & Osborne, R. E. (1989). Thinking backward: some curable and incurable consequences of cognitive busyness. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 57(6), 940-950. Gilligan, C. (1982). New maps of development: New visions of maturity. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52(2), 199-212. Gilligan, C. (1986). On in a different voice: An interdisciplinary forum: Reply. Signs, 11(2), 324-333. Goodwin, S. A., Gubin, A., Fiske, S. T., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2000). Power can bias impression processes: Stereotyping subordinates by default and by design. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3(3), 227-256. Gouveia, V. V., Clemente, M., & Espinosa, P. (2003). The horizontal and vertical attributes of individualism and collectivism in a Spanish population. Journal of Social Psychology, 143(1), 43-63. Gur, R. C., & Sackeim, H. A. (1979). Self-deception: A concept in search of a phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(2), 147-169. Gurhan-Canli, Z., & Maheswaran, D. (2000). Cultural variations in country of origin Effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(3), 309-317. Haslam, N. (1994a). Categories of social relationship. Cognition, 53, 59–90. Haslam, N. (1995). Factor structure of social relationships: An examination of relational models and resource exchange theories. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 217–227. Haslam, N., & Fiske, A. P. (1999). Relational models theory: A confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Personal Relationships, 6, 241–250. Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture 's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Newbury Park: Sage. Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture 's consequences : comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. Ji, L. J., Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (2000). Culture, control, and perception of relationships in the environment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 943-955. Kashima, Y., Yamaguchi, S., Kim, U., Choi, S.-C., Gelfand, M. J., & Yuki, M. (1995). Culture, gender, and self: A perspective from individualism-collectivism research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 925-937. Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach of the study of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24(2), 163-204. Kim, H. S., & Markus, H. R. (1999). Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(4), 785-800. Knowles, E. S., Butler, S., & Linn, J. A. (2001). Increasing compliance by reducing resistance. In J. Forgas & K. Williams (Eds.), Social influence: Direct and indirect processes. New York: Psychology Press. Kurman, J., & Sriram, N. (2002). Interrelationships among vertical and horizontal collectivism, modesty, and self-enhancement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(1), 71-86. Lalwani, A. K., & Shavitt, S. (2010). "Are men more individualistic and women more collectivistic?" Manuscript under review. Lalwani, A. K., & Shavitt, S. (2009). The "Me" I claim to be: Cultural self-construal elicits self-presentational goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 88-102. Lalwani, A. K., Shavitt, S., & Johnson, T. (2006). What is the relation between cultural orientation and socially desirable responding? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(1), 165-178. Lalwani, A. K., Shrum, L. J., & Chiu, C. y. (2009). Motivated response styles: The role of cultural values, regulatory focus, and self-consciousness in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(4), 870-882. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253. Masuda, T., Ellsworth, P. C., Mesquita, B., Leu, J., & van de Veerdonk, E. (2004). A face in the crowd or a crowd in the face: Japanese and American perceptions of others ' emotions. Unpublished manuscript, Hokkaido University. Masuda, T., & Nisbett, R. E. (2001). Attending holistically versus analytically: Comparing the context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 81(5), 922-934. Mick, D. G. (1996). Are studies of dark side variables confounded by socially desirable responding? The case of materialism. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(2), 106-119. Miller, J. G. (1984). Culture and the development of everyday social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(5), 961-978. Morris, M. W., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 949-971. Nelson, M. R., & Shavitt, S. (2002). Horizontal and vertical individualism and achievement values: A multimethod examination of Denmark and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(5), 439-458. Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291-310. Norenzayan, A., Choi, I., & Nisbett, R. E. (2002). Cultural similarities and differences in social inference: Evidence from behavioral predictions and lay theories of behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(1), 109-120. Oishi, S., Schimmack, U., Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (1998). The measurement of values and individualism-collectivism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(11), 1177-1189. Oyserman, D. (2007). Social identity and self-regulation. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 432-453). NY, US:: Guilford Press. Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3-72. Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 598-609. Paulhus, D. L. (1988). Assessing self-deception and impression management in self-reports: The balanced inventory of desirable responding, Unpublished manual, University of British Columbia,. Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17-59). San Diego: Academic Press, Inc. Paulhus, D. L. (1998a). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement: A mixed blessing? Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 74(5), 1197-1208. Paulhus, D. L. (1998b). Paulhus deception scales: User 's manual. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems. Penaloza, L. (1994). Atravesando fronteras/border crossings: A critical ethnographic exploration of the consumer acculturation of Mexican immigrants. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 32-54. Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54(9), 741-754. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741-763. 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 & Social Psychology, 69(1), 142-152. Riemer, H., & Shavitt, S. (2009a). Adjusting survey responses to social norms: easier for collectivists or individualists? Manuscript under review. Riemer, H., & Shavitt, S. (2009b). Cultural differences in the characteristics of attitudes: conceptualization and implications for global marketing. Working paper, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. Robert, C., Lee, W. C., & Chan, K. Y. (2006). An empirical analysis of measurement equivalence with the indcol measure of individualism and collectivism: Implications for valid cross-cultural inference. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 65-99. Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Conspicuous consumption versus utilitarian ideals: How different levels of power shape consumption. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, forthcoming. Sackeim, H. A., & Gur, R. C. (1979). Self-deception, other deception, and self reported psychopathology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47(1), 213-215. Savani, K., Markus, H. R., & Conner, A. L. (2008). Let your preference be your guide? Preferences and choices are more tightly linked for North Americans than for Indians. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(4), 861-876. Savani, K., Markus, H. R., Naidu, N. V. R., Kumar, S., & Berlia, N. (2010). What counts as a choice? U.S. Americans are more likely than Indians to construe actions as choices. Psychological Science. Schlenker, B. R., & Britt, T. W. (1999). Beneficial impression management: Strategically controlling information to help friends. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(4), 559-573. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 550-562. Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 878-891. Shavitt, S., Lalwani, A. K., Zhang, J., & Torelli, C. J. (2006). The horizontal/vertical distinction in cross-cultural consumer research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 325-356. Shavitt, S., Lee, A. Y., & Torelli, C. J. (2009). The social psychology of consumer behavior, a volume in the series, Frontiers of social psychology (Series Editors: A.W. Kruglanski & J.P. Forgas) (pp. 227-250). New York: Psychology Press. Shavitt, S., Zhang, J., & Johnson, T. P. (2006). Horizontal and vertical cultural differences in advertising and consumer persuasion. Unpublished data, University of Illinois. Shteynberg, G., Gelfand, M., Kim,K. (2009). Peering into the “Magnum Mysterium” of Culture: The Explanatory Power of Descriptive Norms. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40 (1), 46-69. Singelis, T Sivadas, E., Bruvold, N. T., & Nelson, M. R. (2008). A reduced version of the horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism scale: A four-country assessment. Journal of Business Research, 61(3), 201-210. Smith, E. R., & Lerner, M. (1986). Development of automatism of social judgments. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 50(2), 257-267.