The article by Van de Vliert is timely, addressing an important issue. However, the data Van de Vliert reports are ambiguous. In fact, they are more consistent with an alternative perspective that highlights the potential significance of frontier migration as a force that produces an ethos of independence.
Regarding his international analysis, it is apparent from Figure 2 in the target article that what Van de Vliert calls “demanding” climate appears mostly the result of severe winter rather than extremity in climate in general. More important, however, countries located in the upper right quadrant are almost always Western or Northern European (e.g., United Kingdom and Finland) or the countries derived from them (United States, Canada), whereas countries located in the lower right quadrant are in large part ex-Communist (e.g., Russia, Kazakhstan).
Countries in the northern hemisphere underwent massive historical changes over the last several hundred years, culminating in capitalist economy in Western Europe and communism in Eastern Europe. Eventually the capitalist system flourished, whereas the communist system eventually collapsed. Although the climato-economic theory suggests that the different paths were the result of the economic resources each system had at the very beginning, given the fact that Western Europe was a rather poor and backward region during medieval times (Kennedy Reference Kennedy1989), it is sensible to hypothesize that wealth is, for the most part, a product of any given sociocultural system.
We may suggest that cultures that prospered nearer to the equator expanded, over historical time, to colder regions with the advancements of living conditions (Diamond Reference Diamond1997). These colder regions were initially frontiers. Because people had no stable community to rely on, their frontier migration and eventual settlement are likely to have bred an independent mentality (Kitayama et al. Reference Kitayama, Ishii, Imada, Takemura and Ramaswamy2006; Reference Kitayama, Conway, Pietromonaco, Park and Plaut2010). Indeed, independent values including self-promotion and initiative, innovativeness and creativity, are likely to have been indispensable for survival. Independent ideas and practices, in turn, may prove highly successful in generating wealth (not vice versa) under certain conditions as in Western Europe. It may further be speculated that in regions where individualism was best suited for survival, following less individualistic practices (i.e., communism) was not suitable for wealth production and the system ultimately failed.
Van de Vliert's regional analysis also meets with some challenges. Chinese regions that Van de Vliert identifies as relatively lower in collectivism are in the temperate south, whereas the regions he identifies as higher in collectivism are in the colder north, as well as in the western territories. The southern regions are conducive to rice farming, having rich, fertile land and abundant rain (Talhelm et al. Reference Talhelm, Zhang, Oishi, Shimin, Duan, Lan and Kitayama2012). Because rice farming requires substantial social coordination, one may expect the southern regions to be more collectivistic (Uskul et al. Reference Uskul, Kitayama and Nisbett2008). In contrast, the northern, as well as far-western, regions of China are not suitable for rice farming. Much of the western region is desert and high-elevation plateaus, where herding is a more dominant mode of living. Even when farming is tried, the main crop is not rice but wheat, which requires much less social coordination (Talhelm et al. Reference Talhelm, Zhang, Oishi, Shimin, Duan, Lan and Kitayama2012). Given these reasons, one would expect regions in the northwest to be more individualistic, contradicting Van de Vliert's main claim. In fact, when we analyzed province-wise divorce rates (a face-valid indicator of individualism, taken from Talhelm et al. Reference Talhelm, Zhang, Oishi, Shimin, Duan, Lan and Kitayama2012) as a function of Van de Vliert's climatic demand index, we observed a strong positive correlation, r = .70, p = .005. Harsher climates were strongly related to individualism. We suggest the frontier-like regions of the northwest may have fostered individualism.
In his analysis of China, Van de Vliert relies exclusively on a self-report measure of collectivism.While such rating scales are excellent to assess individual differences within a group, they should be complemented by other measures when applied to between-group comparisons as there are some complex issues (Kitayama Reference Kitayama2002). For example, different groups might have very different interpretations of each item. Does “attending a weekly community meeting” make one a loyal member of the community? It depends. The southern, more collectivist regions might have more stringent criteria in defining what counts as “loyal.” If so, a southerner might judge himself as less collectivist on this item than a northerner might.
Now regarding the regional variation within the United States (Fig. 3 of the target article), one major problem is that Van de Vliert neglects settlement history of the United States, which likely had major impacts on the contemporary mentality of Americans (Kitayama et al. Reference Kitayama, Conway, Pietromonaco, Park and Plaut2010). To test whether settlement predicts collectivism, we analyzed cold climate demand (heat demand was not a significant predictor, thus excluded) and frontier settlement in relation to collectivism across the United States. We controlled for Hispanic and Asian births, as these groups can inflate collectivism scores (based on Vandello & Cohen Reference Vandello and Cohen1999), and excluded Hawaii because of its unique island nature. We found that young state age, a proxy for settlement, is a significant predictor of less collectivism (β = .32, p = .044). In addition, cold (but not hot) climate had a significantly negative (or positive) effect on collectivism (or individualism), β = −.44 (p = .004), consistent with the notion that migration to colder regions fosters an independent ethos.
To conclude, one common thread running across the three cases discussed in this commentary is the significance of migration to “frontiers” or rugged lands of cold winter and sparse population. We suggest that once properly analyzed and understood, the data are more consistent with the idea that settlement in the frontier encourages independent mentality and individualistic social institutions (Kitayama et al. Reference Kitayama, Conway, Pietromonaco, Park and Plaut2010). This cultural system can sometimes flourish, generating both wealth and power (Kennedy Reference Kennedy1989), but clearly not always. In our view, wealth is, for the most part, a measure of success of any given cultural group. Climate is important to the extent that it plays a role in creating rugged lands of frontier. Thus, it is not climatic demand in general, but cold winter that matters the most. Future work should examine under what circumstances individualistic ideas and social practices might “succeed,” producing both wealth and power for a given nation.
The article by Van de Vliert is timely, addressing an important issue. However, the data Van de Vliert reports are ambiguous. In fact, they are more consistent with an alternative perspective that highlights the potential significance of frontier migration as a force that produces an ethos of independence.
Regarding his international analysis, it is apparent from Figure 2 in the target article that what Van de Vliert calls “demanding” climate appears mostly the result of severe winter rather than extremity in climate in general. More important, however, countries located in the upper right quadrant are almost always Western or Northern European (e.g., United Kingdom and Finland) or the countries derived from them (United States, Canada), whereas countries located in the lower right quadrant are in large part ex-Communist (e.g., Russia, Kazakhstan).
Countries in the northern hemisphere underwent massive historical changes over the last several hundred years, culminating in capitalist economy in Western Europe and communism in Eastern Europe. Eventually the capitalist system flourished, whereas the communist system eventually collapsed. Although the climato-economic theory suggests that the different paths were the result of the economic resources each system had at the very beginning, given the fact that Western Europe was a rather poor and backward region during medieval times (Kennedy Reference Kennedy1989), it is sensible to hypothesize that wealth is, for the most part, a product of any given sociocultural system.
We may suggest that cultures that prospered nearer to the equator expanded, over historical time, to colder regions with the advancements of living conditions (Diamond Reference Diamond1997). These colder regions were initially frontiers. Because people had no stable community to rely on, their frontier migration and eventual settlement are likely to have bred an independent mentality (Kitayama et al. Reference Kitayama, Ishii, Imada, Takemura and Ramaswamy2006; Reference Kitayama, Conway, Pietromonaco, Park and Plaut2010). Indeed, independent values including self-promotion and initiative, innovativeness and creativity, are likely to have been indispensable for survival. Independent ideas and practices, in turn, may prove highly successful in generating wealth (not vice versa) under certain conditions as in Western Europe. It may further be speculated that in regions where individualism was best suited for survival, following less individualistic practices (i.e., communism) was not suitable for wealth production and the system ultimately failed.
Van de Vliert's regional analysis also meets with some challenges. Chinese regions that Van de Vliert identifies as relatively lower in collectivism are in the temperate south, whereas the regions he identifies as higher in collectivism are in the colder north, as well as in the western territories. The southern regions are conducive to rice farming, having rich, fertile land and abundant rain (Talhelm et al. Reference Talhelm, Zhang, Oishi, Shimin, Duan, Lan and Kitayama2012). Because rice farming requires substantial social coordination, one may expect the southern regions to be more collectivistic (Uskul et al. Reference Uskul, Kitayama and Nisbett2008). In contrast, the northern, as well as far-western, regions of China are not suitable for rice farming. Much of the western region is desert and high-elevation plateaus, where herding is a more dominant mode of living. Even when farming is tried, the main crop is not rice but wheat, which requires much less social coordination (Talhelm et al. Reference Talhelm, Zhang, Oishi, Shimin, Duan, Lan and Kitayama2012). Given these reasons, one would expect regions in the northwest to be more individualistic, contradicting Van de Vliert's main claim. In fact, when we analyzed province-wise divorce rates (a face-valid indicator of individualism, taken from Talhelm et al. Reference Talhelm, Zhang, Oishi, Shimin, Duan, Lan and Kitayama2012) as a function of Van de Vliert's climatic demand index, we observed a strong positive correlation, r = .70, p = .005. Harsher climates were strongly related to individualism. We suggest the frontier-like regions of the northwest may have fostered individualism.
In his analysis of China, Van de Vliert relies exclusively on a self-report measure of collectivism.While such rating scales are excellent to assess individual differences within a group, they should be complemented by other measures when applied to between-group comparisons as there are some complex issues (Kitayama Reference Kitayama2002). For example, different groups might have very different interpretations of each item. Does “attending a weekly community meeting” make one a loyal member of the community? It depends. The southern, more collectivist regions might have more stringent criteria in defining what counts as “loyal.” If so, a southerner might judge himself as less collectivist on this item than a northerner might.
Now regarding the regional variation within the United States (Fig. 3 of the target article), one major problem is that Van de Vliert neglects settlement history of the United States, which likely had major impacts on the contemporary mentality of Americans (Kitayama et al. Reference Kitayama, Conway, Pietromonaco, Park and Plaut2010). To test whether settlement predicts collectivism, we analyzed cold climate demand (heat demand was not a significant predictor, thus excluded) and frontier settlement in relation to collectivism across the United States. We controlled for Hispanic and Asian births, as these groups can inflate collectivism scores (based on Vandello & Cohen Reference Vandello and Cohen1999), and excluded Hawaii because of its unique island nature. We found that young state age, a proxy for settlement, is a significant predictor of less collectivism (β = .32, p = .044). In addition, cold (but not hot) climate had a significantly negative (or positive) effect on collectivism (or individualism), β = −.44 (p = .004), consistent with the notion that migration to colder regions fosters an independent ethos.
To conclude, one common thread running across the three cases discussed in this commentary is the significance of migration to “frontiers” or rugged lands of cold winter and sparse population. We suggest that once properly analyzed and understood, the data are more consistent with the idea that settlement in the frontier encourages independent mentality and individualistic social institutions (Kitayama et al. Reference Kitayama, Conway, Pietromonaco, Park and Plaut2010). This cultural system can sometimes flourish, generating both wealth and power (Kennedy Reference Kennedy1989), but clearly not always. In our view, wealth is, for the most part, a measure of success of any given cultural group. Climate is important to the extent that it plays a role in creating rugged lands of frontier. Thus, it is not climatic demand in general, but cold winter that matters the most. Future work should examine under what circumstances individualistic ideas and social practices might “succeed,” producing both wealth and power for a given nation.