RESEARCH ARTICLES dicted that people from rice areas would be less tions than rice provinces.This difference per- which grow rice without irrigation.Studies can likely to punish their friends than people from sisted through the 2000 statistics but not the 2010 also explore how rice differences persist in the wheat areas statistics. modern world.whether through values,institu- We computed loyalty/nepotism as the amount This study shows that China's wheat and rice tions,or other mechanisms. they rewarded their friend minus the amount regions have different cultures.China's rice re- There is also the question of how long rice they punished their friend.People from rice prov- gions have several markers of East Asian culture: culture will persist after the majority of people stop inces were more likely to show loyalty/nepotism: more holistic thought,more interdependent self- farming rice.There is evidence that U.S.regions Y(25)=2.45,P=0.04,r=0.49.In their treatment construals.and lower divorce rates.The wheat- settled by Scottish and Irish herders have higher of strangers,people from rice and wheat provinces growing north looked more culturally similar to rates of violence,even though most locals stopped did not differ:Y(24)=-0.09,P=0.90,r=0. the West,with more analytic thought,indi- herding long ago(24).This is one example of how Pathogen prevalence was not related to vidualism,and divorce.Furthermore.Table 4 subsistence style can shape culture long after loyalty/nepotism:y(19)=-0.13,P=0.84,r= presents an instrumental variable regression people have stopped relying on that subsistence -0.08.GDP per capita did not predict loyalty/ showing that climatic suitability for rice signif- style.In the case of China,only time will tell. nepotism:y(25)=1.66,P=0.36,r=0.33. icantly predicts all of the cultural variables in this Psychologists.economists,and anthropolo- In short,the results consistently showed that study,which suggests that reverse causality is gists have studied the effects of subsistence style participants from rice provinces are more holistic- unlikely. and irrigation (I,4.25,26).This study extends thinking,interdependent,and loyal/nepotistic than How large are these differences compared with that work by using psychological measures to test participants from the wheat provinces.However, East-West differences?We compared results on differences resulting from rice and wheat agri- one weakness of these studies is that the partic- our main task (cultural thought style)in our China culture.The rice theory provides a theoretical frame- ipants were all college students.To test whether sample to a prior U.S.sample.An East-West work that might explain why East Asia is so much the cultural differences extend beyond college categorical variable had an effect of B=0.78.In less individualistic than it"should be"based on students,we gathered provincial statistics on the China data,a categorical rice-wheat variable its wealth.Finally,the rice theory can explain the variables that have been linked to collectivism had an effect of B=0.38 (table S2).This suggests large cultural differences within China,advanc- and analytic thought:divorce rates and patents that rice versus wheat can explain a portion of the ing a more nuanced picture of East Asian cultural for new inventions. variance in thought style between East and West diversity A prior study showed that individualistic coun- but not all of it.It should also be noted that psy- tries have higher divorce rates,even controlling chologists have found holistic thought in parts of References and Notes for gross national product per capita (20).Rice the world beyond East Asia,which suggests holistic 1.R.E.Nisbett,K.Peng.I.Choi,A.Norenzayan,Psychol. culture's emphasis on avoiding conflict and pre- thought is not just an East-West difference (23). ReY108.291-310(2001). 2.H.R.Markus,S.Kitayama,Psychol.Rev.98,224-253 serving relationships may make people from rice Modernization predicted divorce and patents (1991). cultures less willing to get divorced.We collected but why did it fail to predict the other differences? 3.H.C.Triandis,Individualism and Collectivism (Westview, divorce statistics from the same statistical year- In China,modernization seems to have changed Boulder,CO,1995). book as the farming statistics,1996.We also customs such as divorce,but perhaps the parts of 4.]W.Berry,I.Pers.Soc.PsychoL 7.415-418 (1967). collected statistics from the 2000 and the 2010 5.P.M.Greenfield,Dev.Psychol.45,401-418 (2009). culture and thought style we measured are more 6.C.L.Fincher,R.Thornhill,D.R.Murray,M.Schaller, yearbooks to track the differences over the past resistant to change.Or perhaps modernization Pr0c.Biol.Sci.275,1279-1285(2008). 15 years. simply takes more generations to change cultural 7.R.Inglehart,Wash.0.23,215-228(2000) In China,modemization did predict divorce: interdependence and thought style.However. 8.V.Guernier,M.E.Hochberg,].-F.Guegan,PLOS BioL 2 e141(2004. wealthier provinces had more divorce:B(26)= most of our participants were bom after China's 9.).L.Buck,Land Utilization in China (Univ.Chicago Press, 0.10.P=0.01.B=0.48.Adding rice to the model reform and opening,which started in 1978.Fur- Chicago,IL,1935). explained even more variation in divorce rates, thermore,Japan,South Korea,and Hong Kong 10.M.Elvin,in The Chinese Agricultural Economy,R.Barker, with rice provinces having lower divorce rates: moderized much earlier than China,but they still R.Sinha,B.Rose,Eds.(Westview,Boulder,CO,1982), B(25=-0.11.P=0.005,B=-0.49.Pathogen score less individualistic on intemational studies of pp.13-35. 11.F.Xiaotong,Earthbound China:A Study of Rural prevalence did not predict divorce:B(20)=-0.01. culture than their wealth would predict(fig.S2). Economy in Yunnan (Univ.Chicago Press,Chicago,IL, P=0.80,B=-0.07 (controlling for GDP).In 1996. The rice theory can explain wealthy East Asia's 1945). wheat provinces had a 50%higher divorce rate strangely persistent interdependence.China 12.F.Bray,The Rice Economies:Technology and Development than rice provinces.Although divorce rates has a rice-wheat split,but Japan and South Korea in Asian Soceties (Blackwell,New York,1986). 13.State Statistical Bureau of the People's Republic of China, have almost doubled in the past 15 years,the raw are complete rice cultures.Most of China's wheat China Statistical Yearbook (1996 and 2005). divorce rate gap between the wheat and rice provinces devote less than 20%of farmland to 14.Materials and methods are available on Science Online. provinces remained the same in the 2000 and 2010 rice paddies.None of Japan's 9 regions or South 15.C.]unshi,T.C.Campbell,]Li,R.Peto,Diet,Life-Style, statistics. Korea's 16 regions has that little rice (except and Mortality in China:A Study of the Characteristics of 65 Chinese Counties (Oxford Univ.Press,Oxford,1990). We also analyzed the number of successful for two outlying islands).Japan and Korea's 16.K.Peng.R.E.Nisbett,N.Y.C.Wong,Psychol.Methods patents for new inventions in each province be- rice legacies could explain why they are still 2.329-344(1997). cause research has shown that analytic thinkers much less individualistic than similarly wealthy 17.L.]Ji,Z.Zhang.R.E.Nisbett,Pers.Soc.Psychol.87, are better at measures of creativity and thinking countries. 57-65(2004). of novel uses for ordinary objects (21).Within the This study focuses on East Asia.but the rice 18.S.Kitayama,H.Park,A.T.Sevincer,M.Karasawa, A.K.Uskul J.Pers.Soc.Psychol 97,236-255 (2009). United States,immigrants from individualistic theory also makes predictions about other parts 19.C.S.Wang,A.K.-Y.Leung,Y.H.M.See,X.Y.Gao,J.Exp. cultures hold more patents for inventions (22). of the world.For example,India has a large rice- Psychol..47,1295-1299(2011). We controlled for GDP per capita because wheat split.Indonesia and parts of West Africa 20.D.Lester,Psychol.Rep.76,258 (1995). wealthier provinces had more patents:B(26)= have also traditionally farmed rice.If the rice 21.H.A.Witkin,C.A.Moore,D.R.Goodenough,P.W.Cox, Rem.Educ.Rs47,1-64(1977). 2.22,P<0.001,B=0.73.Rice provinces had theory is correct,we should find similar cultural 22.S.A.Shane,J.Bus.Venturing 7,29-46 (1992). fewer successful patents for new inventions than differences there. 23.J.Henrich,S.]Heine,A.Norenzayan,Behov.Broin Sci. wheat provinces:B(25)=-1.27,P=0.003,B= There are still unresolved questions with the 33,61-83,discussion83-135(2010). -0.39.Pathogen prevalence did not predict pat- rice theory.For example,studies can test whether 24.D.Cohen,R.E.Nisbett,Culture of Honor (Westview Boulder,CO,1997). ents:B19)=-034,P=0.29,B=-0.22.Wheat irrigation is central to the effect of rice by com- 25.M.Harris,Cannibals and Kings (Random House, provinces had 30%more patents for inven- paring paddy rice with dryland rice cultures New York,1977). www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 344 9 MAY 2014 607dicted that people from rice areas would be less likely to punish their friends than people from wheat areas. We computed loyalty/nepotism as the amount they rewarded their friend minus the amount they punished their friend. People from rice prov￾inces were more likely to show loyalty/nepotism: g(25) = 2.45, P= 0.04,r = 0.49. In their treatment of strangers, people from rice and wheat provinces did not differ: g(24) = –0.09, P = 0.90, r = 0. Pathogen prevalence was not related to loyalty/nepotism: g(19) = –0.13, P = 0.84, r = –0.08. GDP per capita did not predict loyalty/ nepotism: g(25) = 1.66, P = 0.36, r = 0.33. In short, the results consistently showed that participants from rice provinces are more holistic￾thinking, interdependent, and loyal/nepotistic than participants from the wheat provinces. However, one weakness of these studies is that the partic￾ipants were all college students. To test whether the cultural differences extend beyond college students, we gathered provincial statistics on variables that have been linked to collectivism and analytic thought: divorce rates and patents for new inventions. A prior study showed that individualistic coun￾tries have higher divorce rates, even controlling for gross national product per capita (20). Rice culture’s emphasis on avoiding conflict and pre￾serving relationships may make people from rice cultures less willing to get divorced. We collected divorce statistics from the same statistical year￾book as the farming statistics, 1996. We also collected statistics from the 2000 and the 2010 yearbooks to track the differences over the past 15 years. In China, modernization did predict divorce: wealthier provinces had more divorce: B(26) = 0.10, P= 0.01, b = 0.48. Adding rice to the model explained even more variation in divorce rates, with rice provinces having lower divorce rates: B(25) = –0.11, P = 0.005, b = –0.49. Pathogen prevalence did not predict divorce: B(20) = –0.01, P= 0.80, b = –0.07 (controlling for GDP). In 1996, wheat provinces had a 50% higher divorce rate than rice provinces. Although divorce rates have almost doubled in the past 15 years, the raw divorce rate gap between the wheat and rice provinces remained the same in the 2000 and 2010 statistics. We also analyzed the number of successful patents for new inventions in each province be￾cause research has shown that analytic thinkers are better at measures of creativity and thinking of novel uses for ordinary objects (21). Within the United States, immigrants from individualistic cultures hold more patents for inventions (22). We controlled for GDP per capita because wealthier provinces had more patents: B(26) = 2.22, P < 0.001, b = 0.73. Rice provinces had fewer successful patents for new inventions than wheat provinces: B(25) = –1.27, P = 0.003, b = –0.39. Pathogen prevalence did not predict pat￾ents: B(19) = –0.34, P = 0.29, b = –0.22. Wheat provinces had 30% more patents for inven￾tions than rice provinces. This difference per￾sisted through the 2000 statistics but not the 2010 statistics. This study shows that China’s wheat and rice regions have different cultures. China’s rice re￾gions have several markers of East Asian culture: more holistic thought, more interdependent self￾construals, and lower divorce rates. The wheat￾growing north looked more culturally similar to the West, with more analytic thought, indi￾vidualism, and divorce. Furthermore, Table 4 presents an instrumental variable regression showing that climatic suitability for rice signif￾icantly predicts all of the cultural variables in this study, which suggests that reverse causality is unlikely. How large are these differences compared with East-West differences? We compared results on our main task (cultural thought style) in our China sample to a prior U.S. sample. An East-West categorical variable had an effect of B = 0.78. In the China data, a categorical rice-wheat variable had an effect of B = 0.38 (table S2). This suggests that rice versus wheat can explain a portion of the variance in thought style between East and West but not all of it. It should also be noted that psy￾chologists have found holistic thought in parts of the world beyond East Asia, which suggests holistic thought is not just an East-West difference (23). Modernization predicted divorce and patents, but why did it fail to predict the other differences? In China, modernization seems to have changed customs such as divorce, but perhaps the parts of culture and thought style we measured are more resistant to change. Or perhaps modernization simply takes more generations to change cultural interdependence and thought style. However, most of our participants were born after China’s reform and opening, which started in 1978. Fur￾thermore, Japan, South Korea, and Hong Kong modernized much earlier than China, but they still score less individualistic on international studies of culture than their wealth would predict (fig. S2). The rice theory can explain wealthy East Asia’s strangely persistent interdependence. China has a rice-wheat split, but Japan and South Korea are complete rice cultures. Most of China’s wheat provinces devote less than 20% of farmland to rice paddies. None of Japan’s 9 regions or South Korea’s 16 regions has that little rice (except for two outlying islands). Japan and Korea’s rice legacies could explain why they are still much less individualistic than similarly wealthy countries. This study focuses on East Asia, but the rice theory also makes predictions about other parts of the world. For example, India has a large rice￾wheat split. Indonesia and parts of West Africa have also traditionally farmed rice. If the rice theory is correct, we should find similar cultural differences there. There are still unresolved questions with the rice theory. For example, studies can test whether irrigation is central to the effect of rice by com￾paring paddy rice with dryland rice cultures, which grow rice without irrigation. Studies can also explore how rice differences persist in the modern world, whether through values, institu￾tions, or other mechanisms. There is also the question of how long rice culture will persist after the majority of people stop farming rice. There is evidence that U.S. regions settled by Scottish and Irish herders have higher rates of violence, even though most locals stopped herding long ago (24). This is one example of how subsistence style can shape culture long after people have stopped relying on that subsistence style. In the case of China, only time will tell. Psychologists, economists, and anthropolo￾gists have studied the effects of subsistence style and irrigation (1, 4, 25, 26). This study extends that work by using psychological measures to test differences resulting from rice and wheat agri￾culture. The rice theory provides a theoretical frame￾work that might explain why East Asia is so much less individualistic than it “should be” based on its wealth. Finally, the rice theory can explain the large cultural differences within China, advanc￾ing a more nuanced picture of East Asian cultural diversity. References and Notes 1. R. E. Nisbett, K. Peng, I. Choi, A. Norenzayan, Psychol. Rev. 108, 291–310 (2001). 2. H. R. Markus, S. Kitayama, Psychol. Rev. 98, 224–253 (1991). 3. H. C. Triandis, Individualism and Collectivism (Westview, Boulder, CO, 1995). 4. J. W. Berry, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 7, 415–418 (1967). 5. P. M. Greenfield, Dev. Psychol. 45, 401–418 (2009). 6. C. L. Fincher, R. Thornhill, D. R. Murray, M. Schaller, Proc. Biol. Sci. 275, 1279–1285 (2008). 7. R. Inglehart, Wash. Q. 23, 215–228 (2000). 8. V. Guernier, M. E. Hochberg, J.-F. Guégan, PLOS Biol. 2, e141 (2004). 9. J. L. Buck, Land Utilization in China (Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1935). 10. M. Elvin, in The Chinese Agricultural Economy, R. Barker, R. Sinha, B. Rose, Eds. (Westview, Boulder, CO, 1982), pp. 13–35. 11. F. Xiaotong, Earthbound China: A Study of Rural Economy in Yunnan (Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1945). 12. F. Bray, The Rice Economies: Technology and Development in Asian Societies (Blackwell, New York, 1986). 13. State Statistical Bureau of the People’s Republic of China, China Statistical Yearbook (1996 and 2005). 14. Materials and methods are available on Science Online. 15. C. Junshi, T. C. Campbell, J. Li, R. Peto, Diet, Life-Style, and Mortality in China: A Study of the Characteristics of 65 Chinese Counties (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1990). 16. K. Peng, R. E. Nisbett, N. Y. C. Wong, Psychol. Methods 2, 329–344 (1997). 17. L. J. Ji, Z. Zhang, R. E. Nisbett, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 87, 57–65 (2004). 18. S. Kitayama, H. Park, A. T. Sevincer, M. Karasawa, A. K. Uskul, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 97, 236–255 (2009). 19. C. S. Wang, A. K.-Y. Leung, Y. H. M. See, X. Y. Gao, J. Exp. Psychol. 47, 1295–1299 (2011). 20. D. Lester, Psychol. Rep. 76, 258 (1995). 21. H. A. Witkin, C. A. Moore, D. R. Goodenough, P. W. Cox, Rev. Educ. Res. 47, 1–64 (1977). 22. S. A. Shane, J. Bus. Venturing 7, 29–46 (1992). 23. J. Henrich, S. J. Heine, A. Norenzayan, Behav. Brain Sci. 33, 61–83, discussion 83–135 (2010). 24. D. Cohen, R. E. Nisbett, Culture of Honor (Westview, Boulder, CO, 1997). 25. M. Harris, Cannibals and Kings (Random House, New York, 1977). www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 344 9 MAY 2014 607 RESEARCH ARTICLES