Dans cet article, les auteurs s'intéressent au rôle que joue la conception de soi sur les préférences esthétiques pour les formes anguleuses ou rondes. Les recherches antérieures ont montré qu'une conception de soi indépendante est associée à une approche d'affrontement, alors qu'une conception de soi interdépendante est associée au compromis. De plus, les recherches empiriques sur l'esthétique suggèrent que les formes anguleuses tendent à engendrer des associations d'affrontement, et les formes rondes tendent à générer des associations de compromis. Par conséquent, les auteurs proposent que les individus aux conceptions de soi indépendantes doivent préférer les formes anguleuses, alors que ceux avec des conceptions de soi interdépendantes devraient préférer les formes rondes. Cet effet de la conception de soi devrait être plus prononcé lorsque les gens s'attendent à ce que leurs préférences soient évaluées par d'autres, puisque les réponses culturellement conformes sont plus accessibles dans cette situation. Ces hypothèses ont largement été validées par une étude sur le terrain, dans laquelle on demande de classer des logos de différents pays, et par deux expériences où on procède à un amorçage de la conception de soi.
AakerJ.L.WilliamsP. (1998), Empathy versus pride: The influence of emotional appeals across cultures, Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 241–261.
2.
ArnheimR. (1974), Art and visual perception: a psychology of the creative eye, Berkeley: University of California.
3.
AronoffJ.WoikeB.A.HymanL.M. (1992), Which are the stimuli in facial displays of anger and happiness? Configurational bases of emotion recognition, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 1050–1066.
4.
BaronR.M.KennyD.A. (1986), The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
5.
BerlyneD.E. (1960), Conflict, arousal and curiosity, New York: McGraw-Hill.
6.
BerlyneD.E. (1976), Psychological aesthetics, International Journal of Psychology, 11, 43–55.
7.
BrewerM.B.GardnerW. (1996), Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self representations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83–93.
8.
BrileyD.A.WyerR.S. (2002), The effect of group membership salience on the avoidance of negative outcomes: Implications for social and consumer decisions, Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 400–415.
9.
Business Week (juillet 2002), Winners 2002: The best product designs of the year, Business Week, 82.
10.
GardnerW.L.GabrielS.HochschildL. (2002), When you and I are “we”, you are not threatening: The role of self-expansion in social comparison, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 239–251.
11.
GardnerW.L.GabrielS.LeeA.Y. (1999), “I” value freedom, but “we” value relationships: Self-construal priming mirrors cultural differences in judgment, Psychological Science, 10, 321–326.
12.
GraeffT.R. (1996), Image congruence effects on product evaluations: The role of self-monitoring and public/private consumption, Psychology & Marketing, 13, 481–499.
13.
HanS.P.ShavittS. (1994), Persuasion and culture: Advertising appeals in individualistic and collectivistic societies, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 326–350.
14.
HendersonP.W.CoteJ.A.LeongS.M.SchmittB. (2003), Building strong brands in Asia: Selecting the visual components of image to maximize brand strength, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20, 297–313.
15.
HofstedeG.H. (2001), Culture's consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.
16.
HoggJ. (1969), Psychology and the visual arts: selected readings, Maryland: Penguin Books.
17.
HongY.Y.MorrisM.W.ChiuC.Y.Benand-MartinezV. (2000), Multicultural minds, American Psychologist, 55, 709–720.
18.
IgarashiT. (1987), World trademarks and logotypes II, Tokyo: Graphic-sha Publishing Company.
19.
IgarashiT. (1991), World trademarks and logotypes III, Tokyo: Graphic-sha Publishing Company.
20.
JiL.J.SchwarzN.NisbandtR.E. (2000), Culture, autobiographical memory, and behavioral frequency reports: Measurement issues in cross-cultural studies, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 585–593.
MarkusH.R.KitayamaS. (1991), Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation, Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
23.
MorrisM.W.WilliamsK.Y.LeungK.LarrickR.MendozaM.T.BhatnagarD.LiJ.KondoM.LuoJ.HuJ. (1998), Conflict management style: Accounting for cross-national differences, Journal of International Business Studies, 29, 729–748.
24.
NisbettR.E.PengK.ChoiI.NorenzayanA. (2001), Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition, Psychological Review, 108, 291–310.
25.
NisbandtR.E. (2003), The geography of thought: how Asians and Westerners think differently … and why, New York: Free Press.
26.
OysermanD.CoonH.M.KemmelmeierM. (2002), Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses, Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–72.
27.
PengK.NisbandtR.E. (1999), Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction, American Psychologist, 54, 741–754.
28.
RatnerR.K.KahnB.E. (2002), The impact of private versus public consumption on variety-seeking behavior, Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 246–257.
29.
SchimmackU. (2005), Attentional interference effects of emotional pictures: Threat, negativity, or arousal?, Emotion, 5, 55–66.
30.
SingelisT.M. (1994), The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580–591.
31.
SmithH. (1988), The power game: how Washington works, New York: Random House.
32.
StapelD.A.KoomenW. (2001), I, we, and the effects of others on me: How self-construal level moderates social comparison effects, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 766–781.
Ting-ToomeyS.OetzelJ.G.Yee-JungK. (2001), Self-construal types and conflict management styles, Communication Reports, 14, 87–104.
35.
TrafimowD.TriandisH.C.GotoS.G. (1991), Some tests of the distinction between the private self and the collective self, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 649–655.
36.
TriandisH.C. (1995), Individualism and collectivism, Boulder: Westview Press.
37.
van BaarenR.B.MadduxW.M.ChartrandT.L.De BouterC.van KnippenbergA. (2003), It takes two to mimic: Behavioral consequences of self-construals, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1093–1102.
38.
YbarraO.TrafimowD. (1998), How priming the private self or collective self affects the relative weights of attitudes and subjective norms, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 362–370.
39.
YzerbytV.Y.MullerD.JuddC.M. (2004), Adjusting researchers' approach to adjustment: On the use of covariates when testing interactions, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 424–431.
