Cultural and Historical Variations in Selfhood 343impression but fears that he or she will fail to do so. As Leary
and Kowalski (1995) describe it, social anxiety is essentially
a concern about controlling public impressions. Making a
particular impression is important for gaining the acceptance
of others and for achieving status (two important interper-
sonal goals). Given the importance of being perceived
positively by others, it is hardly surprising that some people
become extremely concerned and anxious during social
situations.
Disclosing Emotion and Personal Information
So far, we have discussed the interpersonal roots of emotion.
In what way do interpersonal situations, however, affect the
expression of these emotions? Clark, Pataki, and Carver
(1995) found that people are careful about how much happi-
ness they express when they are concerned about the impres-
sion they are making on others. As an influential review
showed, people are concerned that their success will create
feelings of jealousy and dislike (Exline & Lobel, 1999).
Clark et al. (1995) also found that people express anger in an
attempt to get their own way. Sadness, too, can be used as an
interpersonal lever; people show sadness when they want
others to see them as dependent in order to gain their help.
These strategies correspond to the self-presentational tactics
of ingratiation, intimidation, and supplication (E. E. Jones &
Pittman, 1982). A more general statement was provided by
DePaulo (1992): People can either exaggerate or downplay
their emotional reactions in order to meet their self-presenta-
tional goals. That is, sometimes it is best to pretend to be hav-
ing a strong emotional reaction, and other times it is
advantageous to conceal one’s emotions.
Levels of self-disclosure are also affected by self-control.
When one’s self-control is depleted by a self-regulatory task,
one is less able to maintain an appropriate level of self-
disclosure. People with an avoidant attachment style with-
draw too much during interactions after being depleted,
whereas those with an anxious attachment style disclose too
much (Vohs, Ciarocco, & Baumeister, 2002). Because a mod-
erate amount of self-disclosure is best for smooth interaction,
self-regulatory depletion affects the quality of interactions
through disrupting self-disclosure.
CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL VARIATIONS
IN SELFHOOD
Most of the research presented so far has studied North
American college students at specific points in time (usually
between 1975 and 2000). Although this research is informa-
tive, it does not capture the variations in selfhood across the
cultures of the world and the decades of the century. Given
that the self is an inherently social construct, there should be
considerable cultural and historical variation.Culture and SocietyThe past 15 years have brought much interest in the cultural
determinants of selfhood. By way of summary, it is useful
to draw from an influential review article by Triandis (1989).
This review identified several key features of selfhood that
vary across different cultures. First, cultures vary in concep-
tions of the private self,or how people understand them-
selves (e.g., self-regard, self-esteem, introspection, and
individual decision making). Second, the public selfrefers to
how the individual is perceived by other people, thus includ-
ing issues such as reputation, specific expectations of others,
and impression management. Third, the collective self
involves memberships in various social groups, from the
family to an employing organization or ethnic group. Trian-
dis argues that individualistic societies such as that in much
of the United States emphasize the private and public selves
and downplay the collective self, whereas other (e.g., Asian)
societies tend to emphasize the collective self while down-
playing the private self. Variation in these conceptions may
also occur within a society. For example, some authors have
argued that African-Americans show more collectivistic
tendencies compared to White Americans (e.g., Baldwin &
Hopkins, 1990).
Triandis (1989) also proposed several important cultural
dimensions that have important implications for the self.
One dimension is individualism versus collectivism.Individ-
ualistic societies support diversity, self-expression, and the
rights of individuals, whereas collectivistic societies promote
conformity and a sense of obligation to the group. As a
general rule, Western societies such as the United States are
more individualistic, whereas Asian and African societies are
more collectivistic. In general, relationships are closer in col-
lectivistic societies. The concept of an independent, individ-
ual self is not as common; rather, a person sees his or her self
as overlapping with the selves of close others.
Another dimension that varies between societies is tight-
ness,or the amount of social pressure on individuals. Tight
societies demand that individuals conform to the group’s
values, role definitions, and norms. In contrast, loose soci-
eties allow people more freedom to do what they want. (For
that reason, tight societies tend to promote the public and col-
lective selves, whereas loose ones allow more scope for the
private self to flourish.)
A third dimension of cultural variation proposed by Trian-
dis (1989) is societal complexity.In a complex society, an
individual tends to belong to many different groups; thus it is