Psychologists are increasingly revealing the profound impact of geography and historical context on our fundamental ways of thinking, behaving, and perceiving ourselves. Just as the American West fostered a spirit of individualism, the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido presents a compelling case study in how frontier environments can shape cognitive profiles, creating intriguing parallels and contrasts when compared to various states in the US.
Vast landscapes of Hokkaido, Japan, reminiscent of the American frontier, have shaped a unique mindset among its inhabitants.
In 1871, when Horace Capron, an American advisor, first explored Hokkaido, he was struck by its untouched wilderness. He described a land of expansive prairies, dense forests, and imposing mountains, devoid of human presence, a stark contrast to the densely populated regions of Japan. This “stillness of death,” as he termed it, in a territory belonging to a nation with a long and rich history, underscored Hokkaido’s unique position as Japan’s frontier, akin to the American ‘Wild West’. Separated from Honshu by a turbulent sea and characterized by harsh winters, volcanic terrain, and untamed wildlife, Hokkaido was largely left to the indigenous Ainu people. They thrived through hunting and fishing, maintaining a lifestyle deeply connected to the land.
However, the mid-19th century marked a turning point. Driven by fears of Russian expansion, the Japanese government initiated a program to develop Hokkaido, encouraging settlement by former Samurai and other pioneers. This influx of settlers, coupled with guidance from American agricultural experts like Capron, rapidly transformed the island. Farms, ports, roads, and railways emerged, leading to a population boom from a few thousand to millions within decades. By the dawn of the new millennium, Hokkaido’s population approached six million.
The indigenous Ainu people of Hokkaido, who lived in harmony with the land before the major Japanese settlement, represent a unique cultural heritage.
Despite the modern development of Hokkaido, psychologists have discovered that the pioneering legacy continues to influence the mindset of its residents. Compared to people living in Honshu, just a short distance away, Hokkaido residents exhibit a stronger sense of individualism, greater pride in personal accomplishments, higher ambitions for self-growth, and weaker ties to their communities. Intriguingly, when cross-country comparisons are made, this cognitive profile aligns more closely with that of Americans than with the rest of Japan, highlighting a fascinating divergence within Japanese culture itself.
Hokkaido’s story is a compelling example within a growing body of research demonstrating how our social environments mold our cognitive frameworks. From broad East-West distinctions to subtle variations among US states, evidence is mounting that history, geography, and cultural norms exert a surprisingly profound influence on our thinking – even shaping our visual perception. It’s even suggested that the types of crops our ancestors cultivated and geographical features like rivers might demarcate boundaries between distinct cognitive styles. Understanding these forces offers valuable insights into the diverse tapestry of human thought across the globe.
The Predominance of “WEIRD” Psychology
Until recently, the field of psychology suffered from a significant blind spot: a lack of global perspective. A landmark 2010 study in Behavioral and Brain Sciences exposed the over-reliance on subjects from “Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic” (WEIRD) societies. Alarmingly, nearly 70% of study participants were American undergraduates, often incentivized by course credit or small payments.
This Western-centric approach implicitly assumed the universality of human psychology – that fundamental cognitive processes were consistent across all populations. However, the limited research that did include diverse cultures suggested otherwise. As Joseph Henrich of the University of British Columbia, a co-author of the “WEIRD” study, points out, “Westerners – and specifically Americans – were coming out at the far end of the distributions” in many psychological measures.
The rapid growth of Hokkaido’s population reflects its transformation from a frontier to a modern region, yet its frontier spirit endures.
One of the most prominent dimensions of cognitive variation lies in the concepts of “individualism” and “collectivism.” Individualistic cultures, prevalent in the West, emphasize personal independence and self-reliance, valuing individual goals and achievements. Collectivistic cultures, common in East Asian countries like Japan, China, and India, prioritize interdependence, group harmony, and the collective good over individual aspirations.
These differing orientations manifest in predictable ways. Individuals in Western societies tend to prioritize personal success over group accomplishments, fostering a greater need for self-esteem and the pursuit of personal happiness. This emphasis on self-validation can also lead to overconfidence. Studies have shown that WEIRD participants, particularly Americans, are prone to overestimate their abilities. For instance, a staggering 94% of American professors considered themselves “better than average,” a statistical impossibility and a clear indication of self-inflation.
Conversely, this self-enhancing bias is largely absent in East Asian cultures. In some cases, individuals from collectivist societies tend to underestimate their abilities, demonstrating a cultural modesty rather than self-promotion. Furthermore, personal choice and freedom are more highly valued in individualistic societies.
Eastern philosophies, emphasizing interconnectedness and context, contribute to holistic thinking styles prevalent in collectivist cultures.
This “social orientation” extends beyond attitudes and values, influencing fundamental reasoning processes. Collectivistic cultures tend to embrace “holistic” thinking, focusing on relationships, context, and the interconnectedness of elements within a situation. Individualistic cultures favor “analytic” thinking, emphasizing individual components, categorization, and viewing situations as fixed and independent of context.
Consider a scenario of a tall person intimidating a smaller one. An analytic thinker from a Western culture might immediately attribute the behavior to the tall person’s inherent disposition – “He’s probably a bully.” A holistic thinker, however, would consider contextual factors – “Maybe the tall person is the smaller person’s boss or father; there could be other dynamics at play.”
This cognitive divergence even affects visual perception. Eye-tracking studies reveal that East Asian participants tend to spend more time scanning the background of images, seeking context, while Americans focus more intently on the central object. This difference in attentional focus is evident even in children’s drawings from Japan and Canada, suggesting that these distinct ways of seeing develop early in life. This selective attention, in turn, shapes what we remember from a scene, implying that our cultural background subtly molds our subjective experience of reality. “If we are what we see, and we are attending to different stuff, then we are living in different worlds,” Henrich concludes.
Cultural exchange and migration blur the lines between distinct cognitive styles, leading to a more nuanced understanding of human thought.
While some have speculated about a genetic basis for social orientation, current evidence points to cultural learning as the primary driver. Research on British Bangladeshi families in East London shows that first-generation immigrant children begin to adopt more individualistic perspectives and less holistic cognitive styles, largely influenced by media consumption, even more so than schooling.
The origins of these distinct thinking styles are complex. One prominent explanation points to the influence of philosophical traditions. Western philosophy, from ancient Greece onwards, has emphasized individualism, freedom, and autonomy. Eastern traditions, such as Taoism and Confucianism, prioritize harmony, interdependence, and social obligations. Confucius, for example, stressed the importance of hierarchical relationships and duties within family and society. These deeply ingrained philosophical perspectives are reflected in cultural norms, education systems, and social institutions, shaping fundamental psychological processes over generations.
However, the subtle variations observed between countries and regions suggest that other, more nuanced factors are also at play.
Frontier Mentality: Hokkaido and the American West
The United States, often considered the most individualistic Western nation, offers a compelling parallel to Hokkaido. Historians like Frederick Jackson Turner have long argued that the westward expansion and frontier experience in America fostered a spirit of independence and self-reliance. The challenges of pioneering new territories, battling the wilderness, and establishing oneself in often harsh conditions, are believed to have shaped a uniquely individualistic American character. Supporting this “voluntary settlement theory,” psychological studies have shown that US states historically associated with the frontier, such as Montana, tend to score higher on measures of individualism.
Hokkaido provides a valuable cross-cultural case study to further examine this theory. While Japan is generally considered a collectivist society, the rapid settlement of Hokkaido in the 19th and 20th centuries mirrors the American westward expansion. The Japanese government actively recruited pioneers, and even sought agricultural expertise from the US, including Horace Capron, to cultivate the land. If the voluntary settlement theory holds true, Hokkaido’s pioneers should have developed a more individualistic outlook compared to the rest of Japan.
American agricultural advisors, like William S. Clark, played a crucial role in Hokkaido’s development, bringing with them a spirit of ambition and self-reliance.
Research by Shinobu Kitayama at the University of Michigan confirms this hypothesis. His studies reveal that people in Hokkaido place a significantly higher value on independence and personal achievement, and experience emotions like pride more strongly than their counterparts in mainland Japan. They also exhibit less concern about social harmony and the opinions of others. In social reasoning tests, such as evaluating a baseball player using performance-enhancing drugs, Hokkaido residents were more likely to attribute the behavior to individual character flaws, aligning with the individualistic tendency to emphasize personal responsibility. Mainland Japanese participants, in contrast, were more inclined to consider contextual factors, such as societal pressures, reflecting a more holistic perspective. These findings underscore the striking cognitive similarities between Hokkaido and individualistic cultures like that of the United States.
Alternative Theories: Germs and Agriculture
Beyond the frontier spirit, other intriguing theories attempt to explain the global variations in cognitive styles. One counterintuitive idea links collectivism to a historical need to combat infectious diseases. In 2008, Corey Fincher and colleagues demonstrated a correlation between a region’s historical disease prevalence and its degree of collectivism. Regions with higher rates of infectious diseases tended to exhibit more collectivist traits. The proposed mechanism is that collectivism, with its emphasis on conformity and adherence to social norms, may have evolved as a cultural adaptation to promote behaviors that minimize disease transmission. While direct causation is difficult to prove, lab experiments offer some support, showing that priming individuals with disease-related anxieties can lead to more collectivist tendencies, such as increased conformity.
Although modernized, Hokkaido retains a unique cultural identity shaped by its frontier past, demonstrating the lasting impact of historical context.
Perhaps the most surprising theory connects cognitive styles to agricultural practices. Thomas Talhelm’s research across 28 Chinese provinces revealed a correlation between regional agriculture and thinking orientation. He observed that northern Chinese regions, traditionally wheat-growing areas, exhibited more individualistic traits, while southern rice-growing regions were more collectivist. This geographical divide roughly follows the Yangtze River.
Rice cultivation is significantly more labor-intensive and requires extensive cooperation within communities to manage complex irrigation systems. Wheat farming, in contrast, is less dependent on irrigation and requires less communal effort, allowing farmers to focus on their individual plots. This difference in agricultural interdependence, Talhelm argues, may have fostered either collectivist or individualistic mindsets over generations.
Rice farming, requiring extensive cooperation and shared resources, may have fostered collectivist values in certain cultures.
In support of this, Talhelm’s studies found that individuals from wheat-growing regions in China scored higher on individualism measures and analytic thinking, while those from rice-growing regions displayed more collectivist and holistic tendencies. This pattern held even in adjacent counties with differing agricultural practices. Similar results were found in India, which also has distinct rice and wheat-growing regions. Importantly, these cognitive differences persist even in modern populations largely removed from farming, suggesting a lasting cultural legacy of historical agricultural practices. “There’s some inertia in the culture,” Talhelm notes.
A Cognitive Tapestry
It is crucial to remember that these are broad trends, and significant individual variation exists within any population. As anthropologist Delwar Hussain emphasizes, cultural boundaries are not rigid, and historical interactions between East and West, as well as factors like age and socioeconomic status, contribute to a complex and nuanced cognitive landscape.
Since Henrich’s “WEIRD psychology” paper, the field has seen a growing awareness of the need for greater cultural diversity in research. While progress has been made, expanding psychological research globally remains a challenge due to logistical and financial constraints. However, ongoing efforts, like Talhelm’s cross-cultural studies, are crucial for developing a more comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted nature of human cognition. By acknowledging and exploring the diverse ways of thinking across cultures, we can move beyond WEIRD-centric perspectives and appreciate the rich tapestry of human minds shaped by history, geography, and cultural experience.
