A THEORY OF UNCERTAINTY ORIENTATION Implications for the Study of Individual Differences Within and Across Cultures

PAUL A. SHUPER RICHARD M. SORRENTINO University of Western Ontario YASUNAO OTSUBO Fukuoka University of Education GORDON HODSON University of Wales, Swansea A. MARIE WALKER Gustavus Adolphus College

The present study investigates whether Canadian and Japanese university students differ in how they deal with uncertainty. In addition to examining individual differences in uncertainty orientation, Weinsteins measure of unrealistic optimism and Hofstedes measures of uncertainty avoidance and individualism-col- lectivism were examined. Participants were 535 Canadian and Japanese undergraduate men and women. In support of the main prediction, Canadian students were found to be more uncertainty oriented (UO) as com- pared to Japanese students, who were more certainty oriented (CO) (p< .001). It is interesting to note that sig- nificant Uncertainty Orientation Country interactions on the additional measures were also found. Whereas COs showed high levels of unrealistic optimism and uncertainty avoidance and low levels of individualism in Canada, UOs showed this pattern in Japan. These differences are consistent with the theory of uncertainty orientation in terms of whether cultural orientations toward uncertainty match or do not match ones self-reg- ulatory style Keywords: cross-cultural differences; culture; uncertainty; individualism; collectivism; optimism

The present study is an exploratory first step in testing the generalizability of the theory of uncertainty orientation (Sorrentino & Roney, 2000; Sorrentino, Smithson, Hodson, Roney, & Marie Walker, 2003) to the study of cross-cultural differences in social behavior. Although the theory has been primarily concerned with individual and group behavior within Western cultures, several connections to research on cross-cultural differences have been apparent through the years. After a brief introduction to the theory, we will examine these connections more closely.
THE THEORY OF UNCERTAINTY ORIENTATION

The theory of uncertainty orientation (Sorrentino & Roney, 2000; Sorrentino et al., 2003) is a formal theory of self-regulation that asserts that people differ in important ways in how they handle uncertainty. At opposite ends of a continuum are those who are considered uncertainty-oriented (UO) individuals and those who are considered certainty-oriented (CO) individuals. For UOs, the preferred method of handling uncertainty is to seek out infor- mation and to engage in activity that will directly resolve the uncertainty. These are the soJOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 35 No. 4, July 2004 460-480 DOI: 10.1177/0022022104266109 2004 Sage Publications

460

Shuper et al. / CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES

205

Uncertainty Orientation

Situational Uncertainty

Personal Relevance

Resultant Engagement

Affect

Uncertain Situation UncertaintyOriented Certain Situation

*R

Active Engagement (+)

(Matched situation)

Active Positive Or Negative

*R

Passive Disengagement (-)

(Mismatched situation)

Passive Positive Or Negative

Uncertain Situation CertaintyOriented Certain Situation

*R

Passive Disengagement (-)

(Mismatched situation)

Passive Positive Or Negative

*R

Active Engagement (+)

(Matched situation)

Active Positive Or Negative

Figure 1: A Multiplicative Model of Thought and Action SOURCE: Adapted from Sorrentino, R. M., Smithson, M. L. , Hodson, G., Roney, C. J. R., & Walker, M. A. A (2003). Theory of uncertainty orientation: A mathematical reformulation. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 47(2), 132-149.

called need-to-know types of people who try to understand and discover aspects of the self and the environment about which they are uncertain. COs, on the other hand, develop a self- regulatory style that circumvents uncertainty. Given the choice, COs will undertake activity that maintains clarity; when confronted with uncertainty, they will rely on others and/or on heuristic devices more than more direct methods of resolving uncertainty. Although the theory of uncertainty orientation incorporates both the interaction of uncer- tainty orientation with other motives such as achievement-related motives and the dynamical role of change in activity, for our purposes, it can be reduced to the basic statement illustrated in Figure 1.1 The formal model of uncertainty orientation states that when the situation is characterized as uncertain, UOs are actively engaged in the situation at both the cognitive and the behavioral level. When the situation can be characterized by certainty, however, UOs will react passively. COs, however, are just the opposite: They actively engage in situations of certainty and react passively to situations of uncertainty. These tendencies will increase as a function of the personal relevance of the situation to the individual. This leads to different emotional experiences for UOs and COs, such that they will experience active positive or active negative emotions (e.g., excited, happy, alarmed, afraid) in situations that match their uncertainty orientation and passive positive or passive negative emotions (e.g., calm,

relaxed, depressed, bored) in situations that do not match their uncertainty orientation (Sorrentino & Roney, 2000).
UNCERTAINTY ORIENTATION WITHIN AND ACROSS CULTURES

Beginning with Hofstedes (1980) seminal research on ecological differences between cultures, several theorists and researchers have espoused the view that Eastern and Western cultures should differ in how they handle uncertainty. In particular, Eastern cultures, such as Japan, should be more uncertainty avoidant than Western Cultures, such as Canada (e.g., Arrindell et al., 1997; Hofstede, 1980, Ryan, McFarland, Baron, & Page, 1999; Shane, Venkataraman, & MacMillan, 1995). In addition, whereas Eastern cultures should be more group oriented or collectivistic, Western cultures should be more self-oriented or individual- istic than Eastern cultures (e.g., Hui & Triandis, 1986; Kashima et al., 1995; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). Individualism should be higher in Western cultures and collectivism higher in Eastern cultures because, according to Hofstede (1991), individualist societies are ones in which the interests of individuals prevail over the interests of the group (p. 50). Low group cohe- sion, as well as a strong focus on the personal identity of the individual, characterizes societ- ies high in individualism. In contrast, collectivist societies place more emphasis on the inter- ests of the group than on the interests of the individual. Triandis (1989, 1990) elaborates on Hofstedes (1980) dimension of uncertainty avoid- ance through his discussion of loose and tight cultures. He explains that loose cultures encourage freedom and deviation from norms, whereas in tight cultures, norms are pro- moted and deviation from those norms is punished. Therefore, individuals in tight cultures prefer predictability, certainty, and security, and individuals from loose cultures prefer cre- ativity and diversity (Triandis, 1989, p. 50). To the extent that, compared to Western cultures, Eastern cultures have a preference for certainty as opposed to uncertainty, and if this preference contributes to greater collective as opposed to individualistic activity, then there is a direct link between these phenomena and research on uncertainty orientation. Research has shown a general tendency for UOs to pre- fer uncertain situations and COs to prefer situations of certainty (e.g., King & Sorrentino, 1982; Roney & Sorrentino; 1987; Sorrentino, Hewitt, & Raso-Knott, 1992; Sorrentino, Holmes, Hanna, & Sharp, 1995). In addition, much of the research has shown a tendency for UOs to be predominantly individualistic or self-oriented (see Brouwers & Sorrentino, 1993; Roney & Sorrentino, 1997; Sorrentino, Bobocel, Gitta, Olson & Hewitt, 1988; Sorrentino, Brouwers, Hanna, & Roney, 1996; Sorrentino & Hewitt, 1984; Sorrentino & Roney, 1986; Sorrentino, Short, & Raynor, 1984; Walker & Sorrentino, 2000). The tendency to be individ- ualistic or self-oriented in Western populations exists because UOs like to find out new infor- mation about the self; according to the model in Figure 1, the more personally relevant or uncertain the situation, the more UOs will be actively engaged in the situation. COs, how- ever, are deemed to be more group oriented, as the group provides a clear standard for norms and behavior, a standard that can be embraced by the CO. Evidence supporting these notions stems from research by Hanna and Sorrentino (in press), and Hodson and Sorrentino (1997, 2001). The clear prediction from this body of research is that people in Western societies should tend to be more UO because of their self-oriented and individualistic approaches to life than people in Eastern societies, who, in turn, should be more CO as a function of their heavy reliance on groups.

UNCERTAINTY ORIENTATION AND OTHER MEASURES STUDIED IN CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH

As well as testing for differences in uncertainty orientation, the present study examined differences in other measures argued to distinguish between people in different societies. Specifically, we examined unrealistic optimism (Heine & Lehman, 1995; Weinstein, 1980) in addition to the measures of uncertainty avoidance and individualism-collectivism (Hofstede, 1980) discussed above. Unrealistic optimism is a self-enhancing process reflect- ing the bias that ones chances in life are better than ones peers. As such, it should particu- larly affect those with a more independent construal of the self (i.e., UOs). Cultures charac- teristic of the independent construal of the self should show evidence of motivations, cognitions, and emotions that affirm the independence and autonomy of the self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). This pressure on self-affirmation leads to self-enhancing biases such as unrealistic optimism. According to Heine, Lehman, Markus, and Kitayama (1999),
The motivations of North Americans to enhance their self-evaluations can be understood within the context of cultural values. Self-serving biases augment aspects of the self (e.g. competency, adequacy) that are critical for individual North American selves to resonate with their respective self ways. Viewing oneself in overly positive terms subjectively narrows the discrepancy between reality and cultural ideals of self-contained individuality. (p. 779)

Thus, North Americans should be more likely than Easterners to show self-enhancing biases such as unrealistic optimism. According to Heine et al. (1999), enhancing ones own attrib- utes should not bring individuals any closer to cultural ideals of interpersonal harmony and a sense of belonging (p. 780). The theory of uncertainty orientation suggests that the relation of uncertainty orientation to the above measures is not as simple as it may look. One might expect a positive relation with uncertainty orientation and individualism and a negative one with uncertainty avoid- ance and unrealistic optimism. However, we consider both types of uncertainty orientation as informational; that is, they are self-regulatory styles relevant to the handling of uncertainty. Whereas the UO is motivated to engage actively in uncertain situations, the CO is motivated to engage actively in situations of certainty (see Figure 1). If, for example, a cul- ture values or emphasizes a UO-centric approach to handling uncertainty, and a particular individual in that culture is a UO, then his or her culture matches the persons self-regulatory style, and he or she is in a matched situation. Similarly, if a culture values a CO-centric approach to handling uncertainty, and an individual in that culture is a CO, then his or her culture matches the persons self-regulatory style, and he or she is in a matched situation. In matched situations, people should have a more stable sense of self, exhibit less unrealistic optimism, and have greater feelings of individualism in the workplace than when a culture does not match the persons self-regulatory style. It is also unclear what would happen with uncertainty avoidance, as neither UOs nor COs are assumed to avoid uncertainty; rather, they seek to resolve uncertainty or maintain certainty, respectively. Our view of the CO is more like Triandiss (1989) description of a preference for predictability, certainty, and security.
A NOTE OF CAUTION

Although the present study examines unrealistic optimism, uncertainty avoidance, and individualism for exploratory purposes, it must be pointed out the research on these measures is not unequivocal. For example, whereas Heine and Lehman (1995) report that the

Japanese individuals are less likely to show unrealistic levels of optimism than are Canadians, Chang, Asakawa, and Sanna (2001) found that these results were qualified by the fact that European Americans showed unrealistic optimism only for negative events (feeling that bad events were less likely to happen to them than to their peers), and the Japanese showed a pessimistic bias for positive events (feeling good events were less likely to happen to them than to their peers). As for Hofstedes (1980) measures, although they are assumed to be valid at the ecological level (i.e., between cultures), there is no evidence that they are valid at the individual level (Hofstede, Bond, & Luk, 1993). The failure to find evidence of validity at the individual level is somewhat surprising. For example, although Van de Vijver and Poortinga (2002) question whether measures with ecological validity have validity at the individual level, they argue that the measures used by Hofstede should indeed be valid at the individual level. This is because these measures are derived from individual-, not country-, level characteristics such as yearly precipitation rate and gross national product. Van de Vijver and Poortinga (2002) state, After all, they refer to values as individual psychological dispositions; in Hofstedes words (Hofstede, 1998, p. 5-6) values are mental programs shared by most members of a society (p. 145). Van de Vijver and Poortinga (p. 145) also point out that either the rigid refusal to apply any construct at both levels nor the uncritical application of a construct at different levels of aggregation will advance our knowledge in cross-cultural society. Following from this suggestion, we employed an analysis at the indi- vidual level, while being sensitive to concerns about this approach. Regardless of the validity of the Hofstede (1980) measures at the individual level, the debate regarding individualism and collectivism at the ecological level continues. Matsumoto (1999) conducted an extensive review of studies on individualism, finding only 1 of 17 studies showing higher individualism for a U.S. than a Japanese sample, and he found that study questionable. Matsumoto also examined a number of internal surveys, as well as a number of unpublished studies conducted in Japan. He concluded that there was no evidence supporting collectivism or individualism differences between the two cultures (see also Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002). Although the present study was concerned primarily with individual differences in uncer- tainty orientation between cultures, we believe the results may also shed some light on these other measures. How, in fact, do these measures relate to uncertainty orientation, and what might that relation tell us about these measures within and across cultures? These were some of the questions we also addressed in the present study.

METHOD
PARTICIPANTS

Five hundred thirty-five men and women participated in the study. The Canadian partici- pants consisted of 210 undergraduate psychology students (155 women, 55 men) from the University of Western Ontario (London, Ontario, Canada). These students participated as part of their introductory course requirement. The Japanese participants consisted of 325 (176 women, 149 men) undergraduate students, with 115 from Fukuoka University of Edu- cation, 138 from Kurume University, and 72 from Yamaguchi Prefectural University. Fukuoka University of Education and Kurume University are in Fukuoka Prefectural, and Yamaguchi Prefectural University is in Yamaguchi Prefectural. These students participated

at the request of their class instructor. The mean age of the Canadian sample was 19.90 (SD = 4.84), and the mean age of the Japanese sample was 18.95 (SD = 1.31).
MEASURES

Measures in the study included Sorrentino, Hanna, and Roneys (1992) resultant measure of uncertainty orientation, a version of Hofstedes (1980) Work-Related Values Question- naire (assessing uncertainty avoidance and individualism) that was modified for a student sample, and Weinsteins (1980) measure of unrealistic optimism. All measures were trans- lated into Japanese and back-translated to English successfully.2 Uncertainty orientation. Uncertainty orientation was assessed using the resultant measure of uncertainty orientation (Sorrentino, Hanna, et al., 1992). This measure consists of two independent components: uncertainty and authoritarianism. Uncertainty measures an individuals need to resolve uncertainty within the self and the environment, whereas author- itarianism assesses the individuals desire to maintain clarity. The rationale for assessing uncertainty orientation via two separate measures stems from research conducted by Atkinson and Feather (1966) on the development of approach and avoidant measures of per- sonality dimensions. This research clearly demonstrated that two uncorrelated measures have greater predictive validity when used together as opposed to using one single measure alone. Following this approach, Sorrentino and Short (1986) established that ones desire to resolve uncertainty is independent of the desire to maintain clarity. Hence, one could be simultaneously high or low on one or both of these dimensions. These researchers felt that a resultant measure of uncertainty orientationone that controls for both desires would offer a more precise assessment than any single measure. This assumption has been borne out in numerous studies (see Sorrentino, Roney, & Hanna, 1992, for a review). For instance, Hodson and Sorrentino (1999) found that both uncertainty and authoritarianism uniquely predicted variance in openness-to-experience scores. The scoring system for the resultant uncertainty measure is similar to that used by Atkinson (1958) to assess achievement. Interrater reliability above .90 has been demonstrated by expert scorers using the measure (Frederick & Sorrentino, 1977). In the present study, the scorers (one Japanese, for the Japa- nese sample, and one Canadian, for the Canadian sample) reached a reliability of more than .90 with the scoring manual (Sorrentino, Hanna, et al., 1992) and with a second expert scorer. Following the standardized procedure recommended by Atkinson (1958) and adapted by Sorrentino et al. (1984), uncertainty was assessed by having participants generate stories from a series of four sentence leads, presented one sentence at a time. The leads were as fol- lows: (a) Two people are in a laboratory working on a piece of equipment; (b) A person is sitting wondering about what may happen; (c) A young person is standing: Some kind of operation can be seen in the background; and (d) A person is thinking: An image of a cross- roads is in the persons mind. The sentences were followed by a series of prompt questions to facilitate story writing. Prompt questions included the following: (a) What is happening? Who is (are) the person(s)? (b) What has led up to the situation? That is, what has hap- pened in the past? (c) What is being thought? What is wanted? By Whom? (d) What will happen? What will be done? A composite score of uncertainty was calculated based on imagery scores obtained from the four stories. Stories were scored for uncertainty imagery if they contained reference to the goal of resolving or approaching uncertainty. If the stories met this criterion they were then scored on 10 subcategories. A range of scores between 1

(no uncertainty imagery) and 11 (highest possible amount of uncertainty imagery) were possible for each story. Scores for the four stories were summed together to come up with a total score for each individual. The component of authoritarianism was assessed based on Cherry and Byrnes (1977) acquiescence-free measure of authoritarianism. This measure can be used to infer certainty, given that those who score high on authoritarianism tend to orient toward familiar and cer- tain situations (Kirscht & Dillehay, 1967). The measure has 21 items, rated on 6-point scales ( = .33). Test-retest reliability above .90 has been demonstrated for both men and women (Sorrentino, 1977). Participants scores on the authoritarian measure were transformed to z scores and subtracted from uncertainty z scores to produce the resultant measure of uncertainty orientation (see Sorrentino, Hanna, et al., 1992). A tertile split then divided the sample into a UO group (those scoring in the highest third on the resultant measure), a CO group (those scoring in the lowest third), and moderates (those scoring in the middle third). Research conducted by Sorrentino and Short (1977) has indicated that individuals with moderate scores on a number of different motive measures (e.g., power, affiliation, achievement, test anxiety, fear of social rejection) tend to exhibit a pervasive inconsistency on a variety of behavioral measures. That is, moderate scorers tend to behave at a higher or lower level than individuals with high or low scores on the same motive measure. Similar results have been found with the resultant measure of uncertainty orientation (see Sorrentino, Roney, et al., 1992). More recently, com- puter simulations of the mathematical formulation of the theory support the notion that mod- erates on uncertainty orientation vacillate erratically (Sorrentino et al., 2003). Based on the evidence indicating that the inclusion of moderate scores may produce unreliable results, the present study will focus on individuals in the high and low groups (i.e., UOs and COs). 3 It is important to note that not only were the uncertainty protocols scored by Canadian and Japanese expert scorers for their participants, but the predictive validity of the resultant mea- sure of uncertainty orientation has been established for a Japanese sample. Yasunaga and Kouhara (1995) replicated one of the key studies of our research program, that by Sorrentino and Hewitt (1984). Both studies show that whereas UOs choose to take a test that will resolve uncertainty about a new and potentially important ability regardless of whether the outcome is likely to be good (the ascending condition) or bad (the descending condition), COs are more likely to choose a test that will not resolve the uncertainty, also regardless of outcome likelihood. Thus, the measures of uncertainty orientation used in Canada and Japan would appear to have cultural equivalence (see Kornadt, Eckensberger, & Emminghaus, 1980). Unrealistic optimism. The measures here are adaptations of the ones developed by Weinstein (1980) and recommended to us by S.J. Heine (personal communication, May 12, 1999) based on items used by Heine and Lehman (1995, Study 1). This questionnaire con- tained 12 negative future events (e.g., sometime in the future you will develop skin can- cer), and three positive events (e.g., you will enjoy your career; = .76). Participants were asked, Compared to other students at your university, same sex as you, what do you think your chances are that the following events will happen to you? For each event, respon- dents were presented with a 7-point rating scale with the following choices: 1 = much below average, 2 = below average, 3 = slightly below average, 4 = average, 5 = slightly above aver- age, 6 = above average, and 7 = much above average. Those responses were converted to a scale ranging from 3 to 3, respectively, for purposes of analysis. An optimism or pessimism bias was indicated whenever the

estimates for a particular event deviated significantly from 0

(i.e., average probability of occurrence). Participants were also questioned about the controllability of the event and the availability of stereotypes for the event. Keeping in line with unrealistic optimism, Heine and Lehman (1995) found Canadians to be higher on these mea- sures; they explain the results in terms of unrealistic optimism being more likely to be a means of coping with threat for Canadians than it is for Japanese. Because of the importance of these events, Canadians should want to have more control over them, and they should have better imagery of people who represent these events happening to them. On a scale ranging from 1 (not at all controllable) to 5 (very controllable), they were asked how controllable they felt each event was ( = .79), and they were asked to rate on a scale from 1 (no image at all) to 3 (very clear image), the extent to which they could imagine a typical person likely to experience each event ( = .75). Uncertainty avoidance. Because uncertainty avoidance and individualism are analyzed as individual difference measures and not ecological difference measures, both were assessed using different techniques than those used by Hofstede (1980). Whereas his weightings of uncertainty avoidance and individualism were based on factor scores from 40 countries, we used the items that determined Hofstedes factor scores to come up with our measures. Uncertainty avoidance here was assessed using the three items from Hofstedes (1980) Work-Related Values Questionnaire that loaded on his uncertainty avoidance factor. These three items were worded as follows:
1. Company rules should not be broken, even when the employee thinks it is the companys best interest (response choices range from 1 to 5, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). 2. After you graduate and find suitable employment, how long do you think that you will continue working for the company? (response choices were as follows: 2 years at the most, 2 to 5 years, more than 5 years [but I will probably leave before I retire], and until I retire). 3. How often do you feel nervous or tense at school? (response choices range from 1 to 5, where 1 = never and 5 = always; = .10).

It should be noted that Items 2 and 3 were altered so that they applied to a university undergraduate sample. Specifically, Item 2 was modified so that it included the phrase, After you graduate and find suitable employment, and Item 3 asked about feeling tense at school as opposed to feeling tense at work. Subsequent pilot testing on a similar sample of participants showed no differences on uncertainty avoidance scores using either at school or at work. Endorsing higher responses on all three items was indicative of higher levels of uncertainty avoidance. Scores from these three uncertainty avoidance items were averaged and standardized to yield a total uncertainty avoidance score for each participant. Individualism-collectivism. To assess individualism-collectivism, six items from the Work-Related Values Questionnaire (Hofstede, 1980) that load on the Individualismcollec- tivism collectivism factor were employed. Three of these items load positively on the factor, whereas the other three load negatively. For all six items, participants were asked to rate the importance of certain work-related issues on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 = no importance indicated that the item was of little importance and 5 = utmost importance indicated that the item was of utmost importance ( = .24). The three items positively related to individualism inquired about the need for challenging work, freedom in the workplace, and availability of personal time. In contrast, the three items related negatively to individualism involved the

150 125
Number of Individuals

UO CO

100 75 50 25 0 Canada Country Japan

Figure 2: Frequency of Uncertainty-Oriented (UO) and Certainty-Oriented (CO) Persons in Combined Japanese and Canadian Sample

importance of training opportunities, using ones skills, and having appropriate physical conditions in the workplace. Resultant individualism scores were calculated by subtracting the sum of scores of the items that loaded negatively on the individualism factor from the sum of scores of the items that loaded positively. Thus, higher scores represented higher levels of individualism, and lower scores represented lower individualism levels (or high collectivism).
PROCEDURE

Participants were tested in laboratory sessions that consisted of 5 to 20 individuals in the Canadian sample; participants were tested in the classroom for the Japanese sample. The participants first completed the resultant measure of uncertainty and were then asked to com- plete the questionnaires described previously. On completion of the measures, they were fully debriefed and thanked for their participation. RESULTS
UNCERTAINTY ORIENTATION

Using individuals resultant measure of uncertainty scores, Canadian participants were found to be significantly more UO (M = 1.010, SD = 1.65) than Japanese participants (M = 0.640, SD = 1.04; t[301] = 12.73, p < .001, 2 = .23), as predicted. This finding was further supported through a chi-square analysis comparing the number of COs and UOs found in each countrys sample. As can be seen in Figure 2, when the resultant uncertainty orientation scores were formed from the combined sample, the Japanese students consisted of more COs

(n = 143) than UOs (n = 51), whereas the Canadian students consisted of more UOs (n = 122) than COs (n = 33), 2 = 97.75, p < .001, ( 1)2 = .28. As discussed previously, the resultant measure of uncertainty consists of two compo- nents: uncertainty and authoritarianism. Two independent t tests were performed on these two components to assess cultural differences in these domains. Results showed that Cana- dian participants had significantly higher uncertainty scores (M = 0.720, SD = 0.39) than their Japanese counterparts (M = 2.080, SD = 2.02; t[282] = 9.61, p < .001, 2 = .15) and that Japanese participants scored significantly higher in authoritarianism (M = 80.76, SD = 9.61) than Canadian participants (M = 71.93, SD = 11.83), t[361]=8.94, p < .001; 2 = .13). There was also a small but significant negative correlation between authoritarianism scores and uncertainty scores (r[519] = .186, p < .001, r2 = .03).
UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM AND RELATED MEASURES

Results involving unrealistic optimism, control, and stereotype availability are based on the measures adapted from Heine and Lehman (1995, Study 1). In addition to uncertainty orientation (UO vs. CO), country (Canada vs. Japan), and sex (male vs. female) as between- subjects variables, event type (i.e., positive vs. negative) was included as a within-subjects factor. Unrealistic optimism. Several significant effects were found on this measure. A signifi- cant main effect for country was found, F(1, 322) = 42.43, p < .001, 2 = .12, with Japanese students having lower unrealistic optimism scores (M = 0.441, SD = 0.058) than Canadian students (M = 1.211, SD = 0.091). There was also a significant main effect for event, F(1, 322) = 74.45, p < .001, 2 = .19, with unrealistic optimism scores higher for negative items (M = 0.881, SD = .818) than positive items (M = 0.337, SD = 1.159). In addition, a marginally significant Country Event interaction, F(1, 322) = 3.65, p = .057, 2 = . 01, was found. Canadian students showed a greater optimism bias than Japanese students, with this differ- ence being greater for positive (M = 0.855, SD = 1.167 vs. M = 0.006, SD = 1.020) than neg- ative (M = 1.142, SD = 0.835 vs. M = 0.708, SD = 0.760) items, respectively. The results above are consistent with findings by Heine and Lehman (1995, Study 1). However, they are qualified by individual differences in uncertainty orientation. First, a sig- nificant Uncertainty Orientation Country interaction, F(1, 322) = 8.065, p < .01, 2 = .02, was found and is illustrated in Figure 3.4 Here, it can be seen that the pattern of interaction is such that whereas Canadian COs exhibited greater unrealistic optimism than Canadian UOs, the reverse occurred in Japan, with Japanese UOs having greater unrealistic optimism than Japanese COs. Second, there was a significant Uncertainty Orientation Country Event interaction, F(1, 322) = 4.631, p = .032, 2 = .01. These means are shown in Table 1. As with the two fac- tor interaction above, we see that whereas Canadian COs had greater levels of unrealistic optimism than Canadian UOs, Japanese UOs had greater levels of unrealistic optimism than Japanese COs, with these differences greater for negative than positive events. It is interest- ing to note that when tested against zero, there was no reliable evidence for a pessimism bias (feeling that good events were less likely to happen to them than to their peers) for Japanese students, as was found by Chang et al. (2001) but not Heine and Lehman (1995). In fact, Jap- anese UOs showed a significant optimism bias for positive events, as seen in Table 1.

Average deviation from zero

1.6
Unrealistic Optimism
UO CO

1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Canada Country Japan

Figure 3: Unrealistic Optimism Scores for Canada and Japan for Uncertainty-Oriented (UO) and CertaintyOriented (CO) Students

TABLE 1

Mean Uncertainty Orientation Unrealistic Optimism Scores for Negative and Positive Events
Japan Item Negative events Positive events Total UOs 1.071** 0.220* 0.838** COs 0.567** 0.096 0.363** UOs 1.029** 0.784** 0.906** Canada COs 1.625** 0.883** 1.463**

NOTE: UOs = uncertainty-oriented individuals; COs = certainty-oriented individuals. *p < .05. **p < .001.

Control. As with Heine and Lehman (1995, Study 1), analysis of variance with degree of perceived control as a dependent variable showed significant main effects for event, F(1, 324) = 11.96, p < .001, 2 = .04, and for country, F(1, 324) = 78.18, p < .001, 2 = .19. Partic- ipants felt they had more control over positive than negative events (M = 3.505, SD = 0.054 vs. M = 3.327, SD = 0.039), and Canadians felt they had more control over events than did Japanese students (M = 3.764, SD = 0.066 vs. M = 3.068, SD = 0.043). No significant interac- tion on event or country was found with uncertainty orientation. 5 Availability of stereotypes. Heine and Lehman (1995, Study 1) found that Canadians were better able to imagine stereotypical people for positive and negative events than were the Jap- anese. Similar results were found in the present study, with Canadians having significantly

2.7
Stereotype Availability

2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 UO-Japan CO-Japan UO-Canada CO-Canada

Negative Positive

Figure 4: Stereotype Availability Scores for Negative Versus Positive Events Uncertainty Oriented (UO) Versus Certainty Oriented (CO) Country

greater availability of stereotypes than Japanese (M = 2.17, SD = 0.05 vs. M = 1.87, SD = 0.03; F[1, 325] = 24.07, p < .001, 2 = .07) and positive stereotypes having greater availabil- ity than negative stereotypes (M = 2.17, SD = .05 vs. M = 1.87, SD = 0.03; F[1, 325] = 45.97, p < .001, 2 = .12). However, these results were subsumed by a significant interaction for Events Uncertainty Orientation Country, F(1, 325) = 4.28, p < .039, 2 = .13, which is illustrated in Figure 4. Here, we can see that, within the Canadian sample, it is the COs who reported that they were better able to imagine stereotypes for positive than negative stereo- types than UOs; but within the Japanese sample, the UOs showed a greater difference between positive and negative stereotypes than did COs.6
UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE

Analysis of variance revealed a significant main effect for country, showing that Japanese participants (M = 9.52, SD = 1.57) scored significantly higher on the uncertainty avoidance items than did Canadian participants (M = 8.83, SD = 1.65; F[1, 343] = 39.94, p < .001, 2 = .03). This finding, however, was qualified by a significant Uncertainty Orientation Country interaction, F(1, 343) = 6.32, p = .012, 2 = .02. As can be seen in Figure 5, the findings are similar to those for unrealistic optimism. Whereas Canadian COs (M = 9.29, SD = 1.74) scored higher in uncertainty avoidance than Canadian UOs (M = 8.71, SD = 1.62), Japanese UOs (M = 9.86, SD = 1.85) scored higher in uncertainty avoidance than Japanese COs (M = 9.39, SD = 1.45). We also calculated an Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI), according to procedures used by Hofstede (1980), for comparison purposes. The group values yielded through this method represent the overall level of uncertainty avoidance for a particular country, and higher val- ues indicate higher cultural avoidance of uncertainty. In the present study, the UAI value for the Canadian sample was 49.76, and this is similar to the UAI value of 48 that Hofstede found in his study. Furthermore, in the present study, a UAI value of 81.18 was found for the

9.9

Uncertainty Avoidance

9.7 9.5 9.3 9.1 8.9 8.7 8.5 Canada Country Japan

UO CO

Figure 5: Uncertainty Avoidance Scores for Canada and Japan for Uncertainty-Oriented (UO) and CertaintyOriented Students

Japanese sample, a value that is relatively close to the UAI value of 92 found by Hofstede. UAI values were also calculated for both UOs and COs within each country. In the Canadian sample, UOs (UAI = 42.25) had a lower UAI value than COs (UAI = 56.70). The opposite results occurred in the Japanese sample, in which UOs (UAI = 86.763) had a higher UAI value than COs (UAI = 82.97), supporting the notion that UOs and COs react differently to uncertainty across Canada and Japan.
INDIVIDUALISM

Unlike Hofstedes (1980) findings, but in keeping with recent findings by Matsumoto (1999), the main effect for country was not significant, F(1, 348) = 1.605, p > .20. However, as with unrealistic optimism and uncertainty avoidance, a significant Uncertainty Orientation Country interaction, F(1, 348) = 5.91, p = .016, 2 = .02, was found. As can be seen in Figure 6, Canadian UOs (M = 0.200, SD = 1.50) scored higher in individualism than Cana- dian COs (M = 0.410, SD = 1.54), whereas Japanese COs (M = 0.250, SD = 1.79) scored higher on individualism than Japanese UOs (M = 0.009, SD = 1.51). DISCUSSION As expected, when the resultant uncertainty orientation scores from both samples were compared, the Japanese students were more CO than UO, and Canadian students were more UO than CO. Perhaps more intriguing is the fact that uncertainty orientation significantly interacted with the results on three sets of measures that other investigators have used to dis- tinguish between cultures: unrealistic optimism, uncertainty avoidance, and individualism. In discussing these results, it is important to note the elaboration of the theory of uncertainty

0.30

UO CO

Resultant Individualism

0.15 0.00 -0.15 -0.15 -0.15

Canada Country

Japan

Figure 6: Resultant Individualism Scores for Canada and Japan for Uncertainty-Oriented (UO) and CertaintyOriented (CO) Students

orientation (Sorrentino & Roney, 2000; Sorrentino et al., 2003) mentioned earlier. Recall that in mismatched situationsthat is, in those where the individuals uncertainty orientation does not match situational, environmental, or cultural demandsthe individual may react passively (vs. actively) in his or her responses to that situation. Thus, in situations where the norms and values of ones society are CO-centric ones, UOs should not be expected to fit in with their culture, just as COs should not be expected to fit in a UOcentric culture. This could lead to unstable and/or less objective feelings about their status in a soci- ety for which their personality does not match. We believe this is the key to understanding the results of the present study, as discussed below.
CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN UNCERTAINTY ORIENTATION

As predicted, Canadian participants were higher in uncertainty orientation than Japanese participants. This finding gives preliminary support to notions suggested by Sorrentino and his colleagues (e.g., Huber & Sorrentino, 1996; Sorrentino & Roney, 2000). That is, Japan is more likely a CO-centric society that copes with uncertainty by maintaining clarity and adhering to what is already known, whereas Canada is more likely a UO-centric society that copes with uncertainty by attaining clarity and finding out new information about the self and the environment. This difference is further supported through analyses that focused on the two components of the uncertainty orientation measure (i.e., uncertainty and authoritari- anism). Canadians scored significantly higher on uncertainty and significantly lower on authoritarianism than their Japanese counterparts. Therefore, it appears that the Canadian participants in the present study possessed a greater desire to resolve uncertainty than did the Japanese participants, and the Japanese participants were more in favor of familiarity and lack of ambiguity or confusion than were Canadian participants.

Similar to Hofstedes (1980) notions of ecological validity, when we say UO centric or CO centric, we are referring to the norms and values that one society aspires to as compared to other societies. Not all individuals in that society conform to those norms and values. For example, as we move from university to lay populations within the United States and Can- ada, we find that these populations increase in their degree of certainty orientation (see Sorrentino, Roney, et al., 1992). Thus, we believe that because Western societies encourage self-focus and discovery, their societies tend to be more UO, whereas Eastern societies, which place less emphasis on the independent self and more emphasis on the interdependent self, tend to be CO.
CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM

Although lower order effects on the measures of control basically replicate the findings reported by Heine and Lehman (1995, Study 1), higher order interactions with uncertainty orientation and country indicate that some qualifications to the interpretation of these find- ings are in order. Compared to Japanese students, Canadian students were more likely involved with the self and therefore showed a greater selfenhancement bias than did Japa- nese students, as Heine and Lehman (1995) found. However, the tendency to show unrealistic optimism in both cultures was accentuated for those students who did not match the predominant cultural orientation of their peers. CO people at Canadian universities may be out of sync with their culture, resulting in a less stable or less realistic self-concept. CO students at Japanese universities, however, are more in sync with those around them and more stable and realistic about what may happen to them in the future; thus, they are less motivated to rely on self-enhancement strategies. The findings regarding stereotype availability are consistent with this interpretation of the results. To the extent that stereotype availability of positive outcomes is greater than that for negative outcomes, it is those who are less realistic about the self who may have a greater ten- dency to imagine this type of person. Negative stereotypes do not come as easily. Thus, UOs in Japan again showed this tendency more than COs, but it was the reverse in Canada. We suspect, therefore, that those who do not fit in with their culture are the most unrealistic and the most likely to think in terms of heuristics (such as imagining a stereotype).
CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE AND INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM

Although these measures have questionable validity at the individual level, they did produce reliable results. As with the Hofstede (1980) findings, the Japanese sample was found to be significantly higher in uncertainty avoidance than the Canadian sample. In addition, when we computed the UAI to be similar to Hofstedes index, the uncertainty avoidance scores nearly matched what Hofstede found in his comparisons for both Canadians and Japa- nese. The individualism-collectivism measure, however, did not produce a reliable main effect between countries, as would be expected from Hofstedes findings. It is possible that because Hofstedes sample consisted of business workers, his Japanese sample was much lower on individualism than university students. It is also possible that the measure of indi- vidualism does not replicate at the individual level. However, as discussed below, both mea- sures show reliable Uncertainty Orientation Country interactions that not only mimic the interaction on unrealistic optimism described above but can be explained in terms of the model shown in Figure 1.

Uncertainty avoidance. A significant pattern of interaction was found such that Canadian COs showed higher uncertainty avoidance scores than Canadian UOs, but Japanese UOs showed higher uncertainty avoidance scores than Japanese COs. It may not be readily appar- ent why uncertainty avoidance and uncertainty orientation interacted in such a manner. However, reconsidering the interaction while taking into account the nature of the items measuring uncertainty avoidance allows these findings to be better understood. The items used to assess this dimension appear to relate to discomfort or anxiety in the workplace or at school. One item directly inquired about stress the individual felt at school, whereas the other two items related to a sense of secure employment (i.e., anticipated length of time with the company) and stability in the workplace (i.e., importance of company rules). This rela- tionship between uncertainty avoidance and anxiety has also been addressed by Hofstede (1980, 1991, 1996). Hofstede (1996) suggests that individuals living in countries high in uncertainty avoidance demonstrate a high level of anxiety as well as greater nervousness, emotionality, and aggressiveness (p. 253). In contrast, individuals living in countries that are low in uncertainty avoidance experience relatively low levels of anxiety (Hofstede, 1991). Furthermore, Hofstede (1980) found that there was a strong, positive correlation between uncertainty avoidance and anxiety. Therefore, it may not be unreasonable to sug- gest that Hofstedes (1980) items measuring uncertainty avoidance are related to anxiety at school or in the workplace and not to uncertainty avoidance per se. Thus, in a relatively UO- centric country such as Canada, a UO individual would feel at ease at work or in the class- room, where resolving uncertainty is emphasized, whereas a CO person would feel tense or anxious. The opposite would be true in a relatively CO-centric society such as Japan. Here, a CO person would feel at ease in his or her relatively certain work or classroom environment, whereas a UO would feel relatively more tense or anxious in the CO atmosphere that does not fit with or match his or her personality. Individualism-collectivism. As with the uncertainty avoidance measure, a significant Uncertainty Orientation Country interaction was found, with opposite results for the Cana- dian and Japanese samples. This pattern of interaction revealed that Canadian UOs demon- strated higher individualism scores than Canadian COs, but Japanese COs demonstrated higher individualism scores than Japanese UOs. Using logic similar to the explanation for the above interaction on uncertainty avoidance, we can offer an interpretation for these results. In Hofstedes (1980) measure of individualism, the three items positively contribut- ing to individualism involve challenge, freedom in the workplace, and the opportunity for personal time, whereas the negative items generally involved instruction in the workplace (e.g., training and use of skills). It is possible that higher scores on the scale represented free- dom in the workplace rather than individualism in its true sense. Consistent with our notion regarding uncertainty avoidance, we suggest that in a relatively UO-centric society such as Canada, a UO would be able to enjoy a greater sense of freedom in a predominantly uncer- tain workplace than would a CO. In contrast, in a relatively CO-centric society such as Japan, it is the CO and not the UO who would feel greater freedom in the predominantly cer- tain workplace. This explanation of the Uncertainty Orientation Country interaction is consistent with other cross-cultural work that has suggested that individual differences in individualism and collectivism do in fact occur within cultures (see Triandis, Leung, Villareal, & Clark, 1985).

LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The validity of the results from the present study is limited by the sample of participants used. Specifically, both Canadian and Japanese samples were comprised solely of under- graduate university students. Sorrentino and his colleagues (Sorrentino et al., 1995; Sorrentino, Roney, et al., 1992) report a positive relation with educational status and uncer- tainty orientation both for Canadian and United States samples. Similarly, Leung and Iwawaki (1988) suggest that university students in Japan and Korea are more individualistic than older adults in those societies. They propose that this may be the result of their respec- tive countries becoming more individualistic or that it may be because of the fact that a uni- versity environment is conducive to the adoption of individualistic values (p. 46). In addi- tion, Arikawa and Templer (1998) suggest that Japanese students are encouraged to freely express themselves, and that at a university, an emphasis is placed on academic achievement through solitary effort (p. 578). However, given that the present study shows a significant difference between the two samples on uncertainty orientation as well as a significant Country Uncertainty Orienta- tion interaction on individualism, our results may take on even more meaning. The fact that it is the UO university students in Canada and the CO university students in Japan who show greater individualism scores suggests that Eastern societies are not changing as much as the above authors suggest. Rather, their society may somewhat counterintuitvely (from a West- ern point of view) reward freedom of expression for those who conform to the norms of their society. A second issue concerns the actual measures of uncertainty avoidance and individualism used in the present study. We do not feel that our modification of the uncertainty avoidance measure to accommodate a university sample significantly altered the results we obtained. In spite of the fact that the Hofstede (1980) measure of uncertainty avoidance has low internal consistency, our index matches what Hofstede reported for his Japanese and Canadian work sample quite closely. Also, in a pilot study, we found no differences if we altered the items to refer to the workplace instead of at school. With this in mind, and in terms of interpreting our results, we propose that Hofstedes (1980) uncertainty avoidance items and individualism- collectivism items are influenced by their relation to anxiety and freedom in the workplace, respectively. The measure of unrealistic optimism appears to support our argument that it is those who do not fit in with their societys values that show the greatest unrealistic outlook or most need to be unrealistically positive about their futures. A third issue is that although the estimates of effect sizes are strong for our principle pre- diction that the Japanese sample would differ from the Canadian sample on our measure of uncertainty orientation and its component measures of uncertainty and authoritarianism, effect sizes are small to medium for the interaction of uncertainty orientation and country on the other measures (see Cohen, 1988). Although it is possible that the smaller effect sizes are because of smaller cell sizes in these higher order interactions for unrealistic optimism, as well as because of the questionable validity of the measures of uncertainty avoidance and individualism, the reader should be cautioned that these are in fact small effect sizes in the present study. It is encouraging, however, that the patterns of interactions on these measures are reliable, consistent, and similar. Thus, future research may well bear considerably greater fruit.

CONCLUSIONS In addition to data suggestive of differences in uncertainty orientation in Canadian versus Japanese students in our sample, the significant interactions of uncertainty orientation with country on the measures of unrealistic optimism, uncertainty avoidance, and individualism can be readily interpreted in terms of the theory of uncertainty orientation. Future research testing the notion of the reactions of UOs and COs in UOcentric vs. CO-centric societies as a function of whether their personality matches that of their culture may not only offer fur- ther support for the uncertainty orientation theory but may lead to further understanding of the important dynamics within and between UO and CO cultures. Researchers may also wish to explore how people with particular personalities do or do not fit within their own cultural context. As Bond (in press) recently pointed out,
most extant cross-cultural research comparing Asians and Westerners uses personality variables as the construct of choice in attempting to unpackage differences in outcomes across these cul- tural groups. . . . Despite our frequent self-identification as social psychologists, cross- culturalists rarely manipulate social context when we measure internal processes. In conse- quence, we perpetuate the fundamental attribution error in the very design of our studies.

NOTES
1. For a complete mathematical formulation, see Sorrentino, Smithson, Hodson, Roney, and Marie Walker (2003). 2. Our thanks to Satoru Yasunaga and his colleagues for their help in back-translating the materials. 3. As a check, additional analyses were conducted with the present data. These analyses again revealed consider- able vacillation with moderate groups. This is also why the data are not amenable to treating uncertainty orientation as a continuous measure. 4. Several significant interactions with gender were also found. For unrealistic optimism, these included a signif- icant Uncertainty Orientation Sex interaction, F(1, 135) = 11.98, p < .001, and a significant Uncertainty Orienta- tion Country Sex interaction, F(1, 135) = 7.42, p < .007. The Uncertainty Orientation Sex interaction revealed that for uncertainty-oriented individuals (UOs), men have greater unrealistic optimism than women (M = 0.967, SD = 0.110 vs. M = 0.725, SD = 0.074), but for certainty-oriented individuals (COs), women have greater unrealistic optimism than men (M = 1.058, SD = 0.110 vs. M = .553, SD = 0.130). These two interactions are subsumed by the higher order three-factor interaction. Briefly, the greater unrealistic optimism scores for Canadians are greatest for CO women and least for UO women, whereas CO and UO men fall in between. On the other hand, little difference is seen for Japanese men and women, with both UO men and women having higher scores than CO men and women. 5. There is a significant interaction with uncertainty orientation and sex, F(1, 324) = 7.43, p < .007. Whereas UO men had higher perceived control than UO women (M = 3.52, SD = 0.08 vs. M = 3.29, SD = 0.05), CO men and women did not differ (M = 3.52, SD = 0.09 vs. M = 3.52, SD = 0.08). 6. Again, significant and borderline significant interactions with sex were found. These include significant inter- actions for Events Uncertainty Orientation Sex, F(1, 325) = 7.27, p < .007; Events Country Sex, F(1, 325) = 8.01, p < .005; and a marginally significant interaction for Events Uncertainty Orientation Country Sex, F(1, 325) = 2.79, p < .096. These are largely uninterpretable and too complex to be summarized here.

REFERENCES
Arikawa, H., & Templer, D. L. (1998). Comparison of Japanese and American college students on collectivism and social context decision making. Psychological Reports, 83, 577-578. Arrindell, W. A., Hatzichristou, C., Wensink, J., Rosenberg, E., van Twillert, B., Stedema, J., et al. (1997). Dimen- sions of national culture as predictors of cross-national differences in subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 37-53.

Atkinson, J. W. (1958). Motives in fantasy, action, and society. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Atkinson, J. W., & Feather, N. T. (1966). A theory of achievement motivation. New York: John Wiley Bond, M. H. (in press). A cultural-psychological model for explaining differences in social behavior: Positioning the belief construct. In R. M. Sorrentino, D. Cohen, M. Zanna, & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Culture and social behavior: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 10). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Brouwers, M. C., & Sorrentino, R. M. (1993). Uncertainty orientation and protection motivation theory: The role of individual differences in health compliance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 102-112. Chang, E. C., Asakawa, K., & Sanna, L. J. (2001). Cultural variations in optimistic and pessimistic bias: Do Eastern- ers really expect the worst and Westerners really expect the best when predicting future life events? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3), 476-491. Cherry, F., & Byrne, D. (1977). Authoritarianism. In T. Blass (Ed.), Personality variables in social behavior (pp. 109-133). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analyses for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Frederick, J. E., & Sorrentino, R. M. (1977). A scoring manual for the motive to master uncertainty (Research Bulletin No. 410). Canada: University of Western Ontario. Hanna, S. E., & Sorrentino, R. M. (in press). Uncertainty orientation and self categorization theory: Individual dif- ferences in perceptions of ingroup and outgroup homogeneity. Manuscript submitted for publication. Heine, S. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1995). Cultural variation in unrealistic optimism: Does the West feel more invulnera- ble than the East? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 595-607. Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal need for positive self-regard? Psychological Review, 106(4), 766-794. Hodson, G., & Sorrentino, R. M. (1997). Groupthink and uncertainty orientation: Personality differences in reactiv- ity to the group situation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1, 144-155. Hodson, G., & Sorrentino, R. M. (1999). Uncertainty orientation and the Big Five personality structure. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 253-261. Hodson, G., & Sorrentino, R. M. (2001). Just who favors the ingroup? Personality differences in reactions to uncer- tainty in the minimal group paradigm. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 2, 92-101. Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G. (1996). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. In J. Billsberry (Ed.), The effec- tive manager: Perspectives and illustrations (pp. 243-262). London: Sage. Hofstede, G., Bond, M. H., & Luk, C. (1993). Individual perceptions of organizational cultures: A methodological treatise on levels of analysis. Organization Studies, 14(4), 483-503. Huber, G. L., & Sorrentino, R. M. (1996). Uncertainty in interpersonal and intergroup relations: An individual dif- ference perspective. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), The handbook of motivation and cognition: The interpersonal context (Vol. 3, pp. 591-619). New York: Guilford. Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: A study of cross-cultural researchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17, 225-248. Kashima, Y., Yamaguchi, S., Kim, U., Choi, S., Gelfand, M. J., & Yuki, M. (1995). Culture, sex, and self: A perspec- tive from individualism-collectivism research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 925937. King, G. A., & Sorrentino, R. M. (1982). The psychological dimensions of goal-oriented interpersonal situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 140-162. Kirscht, J., & Dillehay, R. (1967). Dimensions of authoritarianism. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press. Kornadt, H. J., Eckensberger, L. H., & Emminghaus, W. B. (1980). Cross-cultural research on motivation and its contribution to a general theory of motivation. In H. C. Triandis, & W. Lonner (Eds.), Handbook of crosscultural psychology: Basic processes (Vol. 3, pp. 223-321). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Leung, K., & Iwawaki, S. (1988). Cultural collectivism and distributive behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 19, 35-49. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. Matsumoto, D. (1999). Culture and self: An empirical assessment of Markus and Kitayamas theory of independent and interdependent self-construals. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 289-310. Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-72. Roney, C. J. R., & Sorrentino, R. M. (1987). Uncertainty orientation and perception: Individual differences in social categorization. Social Cognition: A Journal of Social Personality, and Developmental Psychology, 5, 369382. Roney, C. J. R., & Sorrentino, R. M. (1997). Uncertainty orientation, the self, and others: Individual differences in values and social comparison. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 27, 157-170. Ryan, A. M., McFarland, L., Baron, H., & Page, R. (1999). An international look at selection practices: Nation and culture as explanations for variability in practice. Personnel Psychology, 52, 359-391. Shane, S., Venkataraman, S., & MacMillan, I. (1995). Cultural differences in innovation championing strategies. Journal of Management, 21, 931-952. Sorrentino, R. M. (1977). [Test-retest reliabilities of authoritarianism scores]. Unpublished raw data.

Sorrentino, R. M., Bobocel, C. R., Gitta, M. Z., Olson, J. M., & Hewitt, E. C. (1988). Uncertainty orientation and persuasion: Individual differences in the effects of personal relevance on social judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 357-371. Sorrentino, R. M., Brouwers, M. C., Hanna, S. E., & Roney, C. J. R. (1996). The nature of the test taking situation: Informational and affective influences on intelligence test performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 105-120. Sorrentino, R. M., Hanna, S. E., & Roney, C. J. R. (1992). A manual for scoring need for uncertainty. In C. P. Smith (Ed.), Motivation and personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis (pp. 428-439). UK: Cambridge Uni- versity Press. Sorrentino, R. M., & Hewitt, E. C. (1984). The uncertainty-reducing properties of achievement tasks revisited. Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 884-899. Sorrentino, R. M., Hewitt, E. C., & Raso-Knott, P. A. (1992). Risk-taking in games of chance and skill: Individual differences in affective and information value. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 522-533. Sorrentino, R. M., Holmes, J. G., Hanna, S. E., & Sharp, A. (1995). Uncertainty orientation and trust: Individual differences in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 314-327. Sorrentino, R. M., & Roney, C. J. R. (1986). Uncertainty orientation, achievement-related motives, and task diagnosticity as determinants of task performance. Social Cognition: A Journal of Social, Personality, and Developmental Psychology, 4, 420-436. Sorrentino, R. M., & Roney, C. J. R. (2000). The uncertain mind: Individual differences in facing the unknown. Phil- adelphia: Psychology Press. Sorrentino, R. M., Roney, C. J. R., & Hanna, S. (1992). Uncertainty orientation. In C. P. Smith, J. W. Atkinson, & D. C. McClelland (Eds.), The handbook of thematic analysis (pp. 419-427). New York: Cambridge University Press. Sorrentino, R. M., & Short, J. C. (1977). The case of the mysterious moderates: Why motives sometimes fail to pre- dict behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 478-484. Sorrentino, R. M., & Short, J. C. (1986). Uncertainty orientation, motivation, and cognition. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), The handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 379403). New York: Guilford. Sorrentino, R. M., Short, J. C., & Raynor, J. G. (1984). Uncertainty orientation: Implications for affective and cogni- tive views of achievement behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 189-206. Sorrentino, R. M., Smithson, M., Hodson, G., Roney, C. J. R., & Marie Walker, A. (2003). The theory of uncertainty orientation: A mathematical reformulation. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 47, 132-149. Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506520. Triandis, H. C. (1990). Theoretical concepts that are applicable to the analysis of ethnocentrism. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Applied cross-cultural psychology (pp. 34-55). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Triandis, H. C., Leung, K., Villareal, M. V., & Clark, F. L. (1985). Allocentric versus idiocentric tendencies: Conver- gent and discriminant validation. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 395-415. Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1006-1020. Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Poortinga, Y. H. (2002). Structural equivalence in multilevel research. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 33, 141-156. Walker, A. M., & Sorrentino, R. M. (2000). Information processing or avoidance motivation? Motivation for control in moderate and non-depressives as a function of uncertainty orientation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 436-447. Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 806-820. Yasunaga, S., & Kouhara, S. (1995). Uncertainty orientation: Its measurement and validity. Bulletin of Faculty of Lit- erature, Kurume University: Human Sciences, 5-6, 35-45.

Paul A. Shuper is a Ph.D. candidate in social psychology at the University of Western Ontario in London, Ontario, Canada. His research interests focus on social psychology and health, with a particular emphasis on sexual and reproductive health behavior. Richard M. Sorrentino received his Ph.D. in psychology from the State University of New York at Buffalo and is a professor at the University of Western Ontario. His research interests focus on testing his theory of self- regulation in a variety of fields, including the study of motivation and cognition, group dynamics, and cross- cultural behavior.

Yasunao Otsubo received his masters from Hiroshima University and is a professor of psychology at the Fukuoka University of Education. His research interests include social cognition and psychoeducation in public schools in Japan. Gordon Hodson received his Ph.D. at the University of Western Ontario and is a lecturer (assistant profes- sor) at the University of Wales, Swansea. His research interests involve stereotyping, prejudice, and discrim- ination, with a focus on individual differences, social identity, and perceived threat. A. Marie Walker received her Ph.D. from the University of Western Ontario and is an assistant professor at Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Peter, Minnesota. Her research interests include self-regulatory behavior in mental and physical health domains and the developmental antecedents and personality correlates of creativity.