Research has demonstrated differences in social and cognitive processes between East Asians and European Americans. Whereas East Asians have been characterized as being more sensitive to situational context and attending more to the perceptual field, European Americans have been characterized as being more focused on the object and being more field independent. The goal of the present experiment was to investigate differences in neural responses to target objects and stimulus context between East Asian Americans and European Americans using a three-stimulus novelty P3 event-related potential design. As hypothesized, European Americans displayed relatively greater target P3 amplitudes, indexing attention to target events, whereas East Asian Americans displayed relatively greater novelty P3 amplitudes, indexing attention to contextually deviant events. Furthermore, the authors found that interdependent self-construal mediated the relationship between culture and the novelty P3. These findings identify a specific pattern of neural activity associated with established cultural differences in contextual sensitivity.
Abel, T.M., & Hsu, F.I. (1949). Some aspects of personality of Chinese as revealed by the Rorschach Test. Journal of Projective Techniques, 13, 285-301.
2.
Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
3.
Brocke, B., Tasche, K.G., & Beauducel, A. (1996). Biopsychological foundations of extraversion: Differential effort reactivity and the differential P300 effect. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 727-738.
4.
Brody, N., & Crowley, M.J. (1995). Environmental (and genetic) influences on personality and intelligence. In D. H. Saklofske & M. Zeidner (Eds.), International handbook of personality and intelligence (pp. 59-80). New York: Plenum.
5.
Cahill, J.M., & Polich, J. (1992). P300, probability, and introverted/extroverted personality types. Biological Psychology, 33, 23-35.
6.
Chua, H.F., Boland, J.E., & Nisbett, R.E. (2005). Cultural variation in eye movements during scene perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science , 205, 12629-12633.
7.
Clark, V.P., Fannon, S., Lai, S., Benson, R., & Bauer, L. (2000). Responses to rare visual target and distractor stimuli using event-related fMRI. Journal of Neurophysiology , 83, 3133-3139.
8.
Courchesne, E., Courchesne, R.Y., & Hillyard, S.A. (1978). The effect of stimulus deviation on P3 waves to easily recognized stimuli. Neuropsychologia , 16, 189-199.
9.
Cycowicz, Y.M., & Friedman, D. (1998). Effect of sound familiarity on the event-related pontentials elicited by novel environmental sounds. Brain and Cognition, 36, 30-51.
10.
Daffner, K.R., Mesulam, M.M., Scinto, L.F.M., Calvo, V., Faust, R., & Holcomb, P.J. (2000). An electrophysiological index of stimulus unfamiliarity . Psychophysiology, 37, 737-747.
11.
Daffner, K.R., Scinto, L.F.M., Weitzman, A.M., Faust, R., Rentz, D.M., & Holcomb, P.J. (2003). Frontal and parietal components of a cerebral network mediating voluntary attention to novel events. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 294-313.
12.
Daruna, J.H., Karrer, R., & Rosen, A.J. (1985). Introversion, attention and the lat positive component of event-related potentials. Biological Psychology, 20, 249-259.
13.
Debener, S., Makeig, S., Delorme, A., & Engel, A.K. (2005). What is novel in the novelty P3 event-related potential as revealed by independent component analysis. Cognitive Brain Research, 22, 309-321.
14.
Dien, J., Spencer, K.M., & Donchin, E. (2003). Localization of the event-related potential novelty response as defined by principal components analysis. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 637-650.
15.
Ditraglia, G.M., & Polich, J. (1991). P300 and introverted/extraverted personality types . Psychophysiology, 28, 177-184.
16.
Duffy, S., & Kitayama, S. (2007). Mnemonic context effect in two cultures: Attention to memory representations? Cognitive Science, 31, 1009-1020.
Fiske, A.P., Kitayama, S., Markus, H.R., & Nisbett, R.E. (1998). The cultural matrix of social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 915-981). New York: McGraw-Hill.
19.
Friedman, D., Cycowicz, Y.M. & Gaeta, H. (2001). The novelty P3: An event-related brain potential (ERP) sign of the brain's evaluation of novelty. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Review, 25, 355-373.
20.
Gratton, G., Coles, M.G.H., & Donchin, E. (1983). A new method for off-line removal of ocular artifact . Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 55, 468-484.
21.
Gutchess, A.H., Welsh, R.C., Boduroglu, A., & Park, D.C. (2006). Cultural differences in neural function associated with object processing. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 6, 102-109.
22.
Herrmann, C.S., & Knight, R.T. (2001). Mechanisms of human attention: Event-related potentials and oscillations. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 25, 465-476.
23.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage .
24.
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, 943-955.
25.
Johnson, R., Jr. (1988). The amplitude of the P300 component of the event-related potential. Review and synthesis. Advances in Psychophysiology , 3, 69-137.
26.
Katayama, J., & Polich, J. (1998). Stimulus context determines P3a and P3b. Psychophysiology, 35, 23-33.
27.
Kim, H.S. (2002). We talk, therefore we think? A cultural analysis of the effect of talking on thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 828-842.
28.
Kim, H., & Markus, H.R. (1999). Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 77, 785-800.
29.
Kitayama, S., & Duffy, S. (2004). Cultural competence-Tacit, yet fundamental: Self, social relations, and cognition in the U.S. and Japan. In R. Sternberg & E. Grigorenko (Eds.), Culture and competence: Contexts of Life Success (pp. 55-87). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association .
30.
Kitayama, S., Duffy, S., Kawamura, T., & Larsen, J. (2003). Perceiving an object and its context in different cultures: A cultural look at new look. Psychological Science , 14, 201-206.
31.
Leung, K., & Bond, M.H. (1984). The impact of cultural collectivism on reward allocation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 793-804.
32.
Lucas, R.E., Diener, E., Grob, A., Suh, E.M., & Shao, L. (2000). Cross-cultural evidence for the fundamental features of extraversion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 79, 452-468.
33.
Markus, H.R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
34.
Masuda, T., & Nisbett, R.E. (2001). Attending holistically versus analytically: Comparing the context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 922-934.
35.
Matsumoto, D. (1989). Cultural influences on the perception of emotion . Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 92-105.
36.
Morris, M.W., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attribution of physical and social events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 949-971.
37.
Nisbett, R.E., & Masuda, T. (2003). Culture and point of view. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 100, 11163-11170.
38.
Nisbett, R.E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Cultures and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291-310.
39.
Opitz, B., Mecklinger, A., Friederici, A.D., & von Cramon, D.Y. (1999). The functional neuroanatomy of novelty processing: Integrating erp and fmri results. Cerebral Cortex, 9, 379-391.
40.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H.M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analysis . Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-72.
41.
Polich, J., & Comerchero, M.D. (2003). P3a from visual stimuli: Typicality, task, and topography. Brain Topography, 15, 141-152.
42.
Polich, J., & Martin, S. (1992). P300, cognitive capability, and personality: A correlational study of university undergraduates. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 533-543.
43.
Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717-731.
44.
Pritchard, W.S. (1989). P300 and EPQ/STPI personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 15-24.
45.
Ranganath, C., & Rainer, G. (2003). Neural mechanisms for detecting and remembering novel events. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 193-2002.
46.
Singelis, T.M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 20, 580-591.
47.
Soltani, M., & Knight, R.T. (2003). Neural origins of the P300. Critical Reviews in Neurobiology, 14, 199-224.
48.
Spencer, K., Dien, J., & Donchin, E. (2001). Spatiotemporal analysis of the late ERP responses to deviant stimuli. Psychophysiology, 38, 343-358.
49.
Stelmack, R.M., & Houlihan, M. (1995). Event-related potentials, personality, and intelligence: Concepts, issues, and evidence. In D. H. Saklofske & M. Zeidner (Eds.), International handbook of personality and intelligence (pp. 349-365). New York: Plenum.
50.
Triandis, H.C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.
51.
Triandis, H.C., & Suh, E.M. (2002). Cultural influences on personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 133-160.
52.
Vasey, M.W., & Thayer, J.F. (1987). The continuing problem of false positives in repeated measures ANOVA in psychophysiology: A multivariate solution. Psychophysiology, 24, 479-486.
53.
Wilson, M.A., & Languis, M.L. (1990). A topographic study of differences in the P3 between introverts and extraverts. Brain Topography, 2, 269-274.
