Emerging Trends in The Social and Behavioral Sciences

Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes

Media

Part of Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes

Title

Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes

extracted text

Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting
Culture, Brain, and Genes
SHINOBU KITAYAMA and SARAH HUFF

Abstract
Cultural neuroscience emerged during the past decade at the intersection of cultural
psychology, several subfields of human neuroscience, genetics, and epigenetics. In
the present essay, we define the field, provide a selective review of its empirical
accomplishment, and discuss its future directions. Cultural neuroscience conceptualizes the human mind as biologically prepared and grounded and, at the same time,
as socially and culturally shaped and completed. This young field initially started
as an effort to expand preceding behavioral work in cultural psychology with novel
brain imaging methods. Increasingly, however, the field is poised to address the interplay between biology, environment, and behavior, as shown in our review of recent
empirical work on (i) culture and the self, (ii) culture and genes, and (iii) multicultural
identity. The future of the field hinges on several key initiatives including the use of
brain stimulation methods, expansion of its database to cultures other than North
America and Asia, and a more comprehensive analysis of gene–culture coevolution.
In conclusion, we observe that further investigation of culture, brain, and genes may
lead to an important insight that to study cultural diversity is no less to affirm the
unity of humans as a common biological species.

INTRODUCTION
Cultural neuroscience has recently emerged as an important and highly
promising area of investigation. The goal of the current essay is to introduce
the rising field of cultural neuroscience, take stock of its progress, and then
look over to its future. First, we discuss a general theoretical framework of
cultural neuroscience. Second, we examine some select findings from the
recent literature, with a focus on culture and the self, culture and genes,
and multiculturalism. Third, we finish this essay by noting a few promising
future directions for the field.

Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

CULTURAL NEUROSCIENCE: WHAT IS IT?
This section illustrates the overarching aim of the field of cultural neuroscience. It has been primarily defined in terms of the effort to expand the
cultural psychological work with novel brain imaging methods. Increasingly,
however, the field is poised to integrate evolutionary theory into the analysis
of culture.
IS CULTURE “EMBRAINED”?
Cultural neuroscience initially emerged as an effort to test whether cultural
differences demonstrated in the preceding cultural psychological research
(Kitayama, Duffy, & Uchida, 2007) could also be observed with novel
brain measures such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and
electroencephalogram (EEG). For example, drawing on earlier behavioral
evidence, Denise Park and colleagues have tested whether Asians are more
holistic in visual attention than European Americans by using fMRI. In one
study, researchers used fMRI and tested neural activity of the perceptual
processing pathways devoted to an object versus its context (Gutchess,
ˆ
Welsh, Boduroglu,
& Park, 2006). Researchers have focused on various
components of EEG that are contingent on either stimulus onset or response
execution (called event-related potentials or ERPs). They have then used
the ERPs to examine cultural variations in holistic attention (Goto, Ando,
Huang, Yee, & Lewis, 2010), self-evaluative threat (Park & Kitayama, 2012),
and emotion suppression (Murata, Moser, & Kitayama, 2013). These initial
efforts are informed by concurrent developments in various subdisciplines
of neuroscience including cognitive, affective, and social neuroscience.
Simultaneously, there has been a resurgence of interest in neuroplasticity
over the past decade (Maguire et al., 2000). Researchers began documenting how malleable brain connectivity can be when individuals are trained
in specific tasks such as juggling, spatial navigation, and meditation among
many others. One seminal piece of evidence was reported by a group of
researchers in the United Kingdom. They documented enlarged hippocampi
(which serve a significant role in spatial navigation) among cab drivers in
London (Maguire et al., 2000). Crucially, the increased size of hippocampi
was more pronounced for more experienced (and thus older) cabdrivers. The
experience effect is remarkable because typically these brain regions steadily
shrink in size as a function of age. This evidence thus suggests a causal influence of cab driving on the structural change of the brain.
As a whole, this newly reemerging work on neuroplasticity has provided
an important theoretical rationale for the hypothesis that different aspects
of the environment including cultural tools, practices, and tasks can change
brain connectivity and possibly even structure. It may be hypothesized that

Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes

3

through repeated active engagement in culturally prescribed tasks, the brain
is often plastically changed over time. As a result, brain functions may eventually become closely attuned to the relevant tasks of a given cultural context
(Kitayama & Uskul, 2011).
GROUNDING CULTURE IN BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION
So far, much of the field of cultural neuroscience has been devoted to the
effort to document cultural variations in brain functions (and structures).
Some new findings with fMRI or EEG have gone far beyond what can be
learned from behavioral indices alone. Now that much has been accomplished on this front, integrating both behavioral and neuroscience methods,
the field appears poised to move on. Most importantly, the theoretical focus
of cultural neuroscientists on the brain (a preeminently biological entity)
in the analysis of culture has led them to novel questions regarding the
possible links between culture and biological evolution (Chiao & Blizinsky,
2010; Kim & Sasaki, 2013; Kitayama et al., 2014). This work has begun to add
important insights to the existing body of research in the area (Richerson &
Boyd, 2008).
The currently reemerging interest in culture and evolution is reinforced by
new evidence in population genetics. This evidence suggests that culture and
genes must have coevolved ever since the advent of sedentary, increasingly
non-kin-based forms of living over the past 10,000 years (Hawks, Wang,
Cochran, Harpending, & Moyzis, 2007). One commonly cited example
of culture or ecology influencing genes is the correspondence between
geographic regions that support milk production and populations that carry
genetic polymorphisms that afford more efficient lactose processing and,
thus, tolerance of lactose during adulthood (Durham, 1991). The genetic
changes that support lactose tolerance appear to be motivated by the
adaptive need of pastoral people to process the milk and a variety of milk
products. The case of lactose tolerance, however, is most likely to be only
one example. The “10,000 year explosion” of genetic change in the recent
human evolutionary history strongly suggests that there must be numerous
other cases.
To account for the “10,000 year explosion,” one must take into account
many potentially relevant factors. For example, domestication of animals
must have fostered strong selection of mutations that would protect humans
against germs carried by the domesticated animals (Diamond, 1997). Likewise, invention of tools could make strong muscles obsolete, making it more
advantageous to relocate biophysiological resources to other capacities, say,
to dexterity in motor and cognitive functions. Furthermore, at the advent
of larger social and cultural organizations, various genetic mutations that

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

led to language processing, interpersonal empathy, or trust, and theory of
mind capacities among many others, must have been strongly favored (Iriki
& Taoka, 2011). Such large-scale social and cultural change must have taken
place, at least in some parts of the world, approximately 9000 years ago
(Diamond, 1997).
It would then follow that culture, as we know it today must have coevolved with a great variety of polymorphic genetic changes. That is to say,
the genetic makeup of the protohumans was sufficient to give an initial
impetus to certain rudimentary forms of culture. Once established, such
cultural forms must have provided a new evolutionary context or adaptive
niche in which further genetic change was fostered. This additional genetic
change in turn must have helped humans elaborate their cultural forms
and social structures. This mutual, recursive interaction between culture
and genes must have accelerated over the past 10,000 years to produce the
basis for the current, cultural form of human adaptation. While much of
this analysis is theoretical at this point, there is a growing effort to test some
aspects of this analysis by using a variety of methods including neuroimaging, genetics, and epigenetics and comparison with nonhuman primate
species (Kim & Sasaki, 2013). Accordingly, there is increasing ground to
argue that culture is not a mere overlay that should be set aside as noise in
the investigation of the human mind/brain. To the contrary, it is likely to
be the primary shaper of the human mind/brain over the past 10,000 years
and, therefore, culture is a necessary element to take into account in the
investigation of all aspects of the human mind/brain.
The interest in the coevolution of culture and genes is accompanied
by another line of work on epigenetics, which examines environmental
influences on gene expression (Cole, 2009). At the cellular level, DNAs are
transcribed into RNAs, which in turn are translated into the production
of relevant proteins. It is these proteins that eventually produce a variety
of effects on neurophysiological, psychological, and behavioral responses.
It has become increasingly clear that multiple processes are involved in
the regulation of DNA transcription. While many of these processes are
robust with respect to environmental variations, some are quite malleable,
operating very differently depending on relevant environmental inputs.
So far, much of this work is limited to effects of adverse environmental
conditions (e.g., trauma, stress, and childhood abuse) on both the upregulation of inflammation-related genes and the downregulation of genes
linked to immune-system responses (Cole, 2009). Extrapolating from this
emerging work it is reasonable to hypothesize that other parameters of
cultural environment may also regulate expression of relevant genes. These
additional dimensions of culture include prevalence of competition versus
cooperation, hierarchy (vs egalitarianism), and tightness (vs looseness) of

Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes

5

cultural rules. The patterns of gene expression may become the part and
parcel of the cultural system that is characterized by these parameters.
CULTURAL NEUROSCIENCE DEFINED
In sum, cultural neuroscience is emerging at the intersection of cultural psychology, several subfields of human neuroscience, genetics, and epigenetics.
It conceptualizes the human mind as biologically prepared and grounded
and, at the same time, as socially and culturally shaped, modified, and completed. The field is young. As noted earlier, it is only several years since the
publication of the first paper bearing this name (Chiao & Ambady, 2007).
The growth of the field is rapid, however. Now there is a substantial body of
empirical work highlighting its promise and potential.
CURRENT EVIDENCE: A SELECTIVE REVIEW
In this section, we discuss the emerging empirical base of the field. Owing
to space limitation, our literature review is selective, with a focus on three
issues: (i) culture and the self, (ii) culture and genes, and (iii) multicultural
identity.
CULTURE AND THE SELF
Throughout the past two decades, cultural psychological work has drawn on
global, macroscopic cross-cultural comparisons (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).
The central assumption in this literature is that European Americans tend
to be independently oriented. Thus, they are more eager to pursue personal
(vs social) goals, focus on goal-relevant objects, and seek to maintain and
enhance positive evaluations of their personal self. They are, therefore, motivated to increase self-esteem and self-efficacy, while valuing expression of
these positive aspects of the self. In contrast, Asians tend to be interdependently oriented. Thus, they are more eager to pursue social (vs personal)
goals, holistically attentive to norms and expectations of others, and seek to
maintain and enhance in-group harmony, while inhibiting personal feelings
and desires of the self. In the recent years, this behavioral work has been
expanded with novel neuroscience methods (Kitayama & Uskul, 2011).
To begin with, the assumption that cultures vary on the social orientation
dimension of independence and interdependence has received increasing
support in recent cultural neuroscience research. In one early study, Zhu and
colleagues (Zhu, Zhang, Fan, & Han, 2007) tested brain activity involved
in the processing of the self and close others. Earlier social neuroscience
evidence showed that the processing of information about the self (e.g., Am

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

I smart?) implicates the midline structure of the brain including the medial
prefrontal cortex (mPFC), as well as, at least under certain conditions, the
posterior cingulate cortex (PCC) (Kelley et al., 2002). Zhu and colleagues
found that the mPFC is recruited during the processing of the self regardless
of culture. However, the same region is also recruited during the processing
of information about close others (e.g., Is my mother smart?) for Chinese. The
pattern is consistent with the hypothesis that Chinese selves are inclusive of
close others such as their mothers (i.e., they are more interdependent), but
the selves of the Westerners are not (i.e., they are independent).
Another way in which the self may be interdependent hinges on the degree
to which perspectives of others are incorporated into the representation of the
self. While independent selves may be defined primarily in terms of what
they think of themselves, interdependent selves may incorporate judgments
about the self from the perspective of relevant others (e.g., What do they think
of me?). Consistent with this possibility, existing behavioral evidence shows
that public aspects of the self are more important for Asians than for European Americans (Cohen, Hoshino-Browne, & Leung, 2007).
In a recent cross-cultural neuroimaging study, researchers asked both
Danish adults in Denmark and Chinese adults in China to make judgments
about physical, psychological, or social attributes of either the self or a
public figure (Ma et al., 2012). Regardless of culture and specific attributes
at issue, the mPFC was consistently activated more in the self-judgment
than in the judgment about the public figure. Importantly, in addition to
the mPFC, Chinese showed a reliable activation of temporoparietal function
(TPJ) when judging social aspects of the self (e.g., Am I a college student?).
The TPJ is implicated in perspective taking (Decety & Lamm, 2007). Thus,
one interpretation of the TPJ activity observed only for Chinese is that
for Chinese self-processing simultaneously involves both direct appraisals
(appraisals made from the first-person perspective, recruiting the mPFC)
and indirect appraisals (appraisal made from third-person perspectives,
recruiting the TPJ).
Intriguingly, as shown in, a functional connectivity analysis established that
functional neural connections between mPFC and bilateral TPJ were much
stronger for Chinese than for Danes during the judgment of social attributes
of the self. We may infer from this result that the Chinese self is constituted
by a more integrated, or holistic, representation of both direct and indirect
appraisals. In comparison, the Western self appears more one-dimensional in
the sense that it is defined largely on the basis of the first-person perspective
alone.
Are independent selves more self-centric? Conversely, are interdependent
selves more prosocial, ready to act on behalf of close others? Another recent
cultural neuroscience study (Kitayama & Park, 2013) examined this question

Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes

7

by taking advantage of a component of ERPs called error-related negativity
(ERN). ERN is a negative-going deflection of electrocortical response that
is contingent on error response in a simple cognitive task. Both European
American and Asian participants were asked to perform a flanker task,
wherein they were shown a series of five letters and asked to identify the
center letter. When an error is made in the task, ERN is observed nearly
simultaneously with the error response itself. Prior work suggests that ERN
is caused by the detection of a mismatch between the executive response
and the correct response. Importantly, ERN increases in magnitude as a
function of the motivational significance of the cognitive task at hand. On
the basis of this evidence, Kitayama and Park (2013) used the magnitude
of ERN and tested whether the cognitive task may become motivationally
more significant when performed for the self versus close friends.
The results were consistent with the expectation that independent selves are
more self-centric than interdependent selves. As shown in Figure 1, ERN was
significantly greater when European Americans performed the flanker task
to earn points for themselves than when they did so to earn points on behalf
of their friends. In contrast, Asians showed an equally strong ERN when they
performed the task to earn points on behalf of their friends as when they did
so to earn points for themselves. Importantly, the self-centric motivation as
revealed in the ERN pattern became weaker as a function of interdependent
self-construal. It thus appears that European Americans show the self-centric
effect (while Asians do not) primarily because European Americans do not
endorse the interdependent self-construal as strongly as Asians do.

ERN-CRN amplitude (µV)

−13

Self

Friend

−12
−11
−10
−9
−8
−7
−6
European Americans

Asians

Figure 1 Magnitude of error-related negativity (ERN) shown by European
Americans and Asians who performed a flanker task in order to earn reward points
for either the self or their close friends. Source: Taken from Kitayama & Park, 2013,
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

CULTURE AND GENES
Although the evidence is clear that Asians are relatively more interdependent while European Americans are relatively more independent, this by
no means implies that each cultural group is homogeneous. One important
consideration that may shed new light on within-culture variation is potentially significant genetic differences across individuals. Traditionally, genes
are seen as an alternative source of explanation for cultural differences. Such
genetic explanations are seen as antagonistic to explanations in terms of experience. However, a recent discovery of plasticity genetic alleles has suggested
that the conceptual juxtaposition of genes and experience may be misguided.
Instead, allelic variations of certain genes may magnify the effects of experience (Belsky & Pluess, 2009). These alleles (called plasticity alleles) may magnify the effects of cultural experience (Kim & Sasaki, 2013).
One intriguing possibility suggests itself. We may start with the assumption that culture is learned, at least in part, through reinforcement learning. Not particularly controversial or novel by itself, this assumption can
lead to an intriguing prediction once it is realized that individuals may vary
in terms of genetic endowment that predisposes them to increased responsiveness to social rewards. We may expect that those who are genetically
responsive to social rewards are more likely to acquire cultural norms and
internalize them, as compared to those who are genetically less responsive
to social rewards. Responsiveness to social rewards is strongly influenced
by reward processing in the brain, which is regulated by a neurotransmitter, dopamine. One well-studied gene that regulates the signaling capacity
of dopamine in the central nervous system is the dopamine D4 receptor gene
(DRD4).
DRD4 is unique in two important respects. First, in one polymorphic
region of the gene there are numerous variants that are defined by repetition
of a particular genetic segment. The repetition can be as few as 2, but it can
also be as many as 11. The most frequent variants are 2-repeat, 4-repeat, and
7-repeat. As it turns out, relative to 4-repeat carriers, carriers of 2- or 7-repeat
variants show an increased capacity of dopamine signaling (Nikolova,
Ferrell, Manuck, & Hariri, 2011). Correspondingly, the 2-repeat or 7-repeat
carriers are likely to show enhanced sensitivity to rewards in general and to
social rewards in particular. Second, a recent DNA-sequencing study that
uses linkage-disequilibrium haplotype as a measure of the “genetic age”
has shown that the 4-repeat variant is the most ancient form, from which
the 7-repeat variant emerged around 40,000–50,000 years ago. Moreover, the
2-repeat variant is much more recent, emerging approximately 10,000 years
ago. It is apparent then that these variants of DRD4 emerged in the relatively
recent past of the human evolution, when various cultural forms, as well as

Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes

9

increasingly complex social structures and organizations that support them,
were concurrently emerging. Accordingly, it is sensible to hypothesize that
the allelic variations of DRD4 have coevolved with culture over the past
50,000 years (Chen, Burton, Greenberger, & Dmitrieva, 1999).
Will cultural norms be acquired to varying extents depending on genetically influenced responsiveness of each person to social rewards? In a recent
study (Kitayama et al., 2014), approximately 400 undergraduates at the
University of Michigan were genotyped for DRD4. About half were North
Americans of European descent, while the remaining were Asians who had
been born and raised in Asia. Replicating numerous previous studies, the
researchers observed that European Americans are relatively more independent, whereas Asian-born Asians are relatively more interdependent.
Importantly, as expected, this cultural difference was more pronounced for
carriers of the 2- or 7-repeat variant of DRD4, relative to noncarriers. Indeed,
among the noncarriers, the cultural difference was negligible. This finding
is illustrated in Figure 2. Analogous moderation of cultural differences by

0.8

Noncarrier

Carrier

Composite index of social orientation

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
−0.2
−0.4
−0.6
−0.8

European Americans

Asian-born Asians

Figure 2 Culture × DRD4 interaction effect on independent versus interdependent social orientation, as assessed by a difference between independence
factor score and interdependence factor score. European Americans are more
independent, while Asian-born Asians are more interdependent, but this is the
case only for those who carry either 2- or 7-repeat variant of the DRD4 gene.
Among noncarriers there is no reliable cultural difference in social orientation.
Source: Taken from Kitayama et al. (2014), Psychological Science.

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

oxytocin genes has also been reported, with new insights into how genes
might interact with culture (Kim et al., 2010).
MULTICULTURAL IDENTITY
In the current, increasingly globalizing world, people are likely to hold multicultural identities. Another strand of cultural neuroscience work has investigated individuals with multiple cultural identities—individuals who are
familiar with and knowledgeable about multiple cultural meaning systems.
The guiding hypothesis is that multicultural individuals are able to access
different cultural meaning systems depending on the contextual cues (Hong,
Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martinez, 2000). For example, an Asian American may
endorse more independent self-construal after exposure to American cultural icons, whereas the same individual may endorse more interdependent
self-construal following exposure to Asian cultural icons.
Evidence suggests that cultural priming is equally effective in modulating
brain responses in a theoretically predictable manner. Previous behavioral
work suggests that as compared to Asians, European Americans tend to
define themselves in terms of general personal attributes (e.g., I am smart).
In contrast, Asians tend to define themselves in a more context-dependent
manner (e.g., I am smart at work for the most part) (Cousins, 1989). A
recent fMRI study has shown that Asian Americans show both of these two
response patterns depending on which cultural frame is made cognitively
salient (i.e., primed). After being primed with independence, the Asian
Americans exhibited a pattern that may be predicted for Westerners. That
is, there was a reliably stronger activity in the midline cortical region of
the brain (the areas noted earlier including the mPFC and the PCC that are
recruited in self-processing) while judging themselves in context-general (vs
context-dependent) terms. In contrast, after being primed with interdependence, they exhibited a pattern that may be predicted for Asians. That is,
there was stronger activity in the same region in the context-dependent (vs
context-general) judgment condition. We noted earlier that whereas Chinese
show reliable mPFC activity when judging both the self and their mother,
Westerners show this activity only when judging the self (Zhu et al., 2007).
Recent evidence shows that bicultural Asians in Hong Kong show both of
these patterns depending on cultural priming (Ng, Han, Mao, & Lai, 2010).
Similar cultural frame switching has been observed with an ERP indicator
of processing of the self versus friend (Sui, Liu, & Han, 2009).
In all likelihood, further work along this line is likely to reveal a more
nuanced picture of how multicultural experiences might shape the brain.
For example, a recent study examining Asian Americans in the United States
(Huff, Yoon, Lee, Mandadi, & Gutchess, 2013) finds, as in the Zhu et al.

Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes

11

(2007) study discussed above, that the mPFC is recruited by processing of
both the self and mother. Unlike the Zhu et al. (2007), however, this study
observed the mPFC activity to be greater in the mother processing than in
the self-processing.
CONCLUSIONS
The ultimate aim of cultural neuroscience is to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of how biology and culture might make each other up in
constituting the human mind. Recent empirical work illustrates the considerable promise of the field by underscoring the power of neuroscience methods
such as fMRI and EEG to uncover cultural influences on the brain. Further,
the initial evidence for gene × culture interaction effects highlights the possibility that the human mind has significantly been shaped, genetically, over
the past 10,000 years through its engagement with cultural environment. Cultural neuroscience started several years ago with a single-minded curiosity
to see if behavioral cultural differences might replicate with neuroscience
methods such as fMRI and EEG. The field has grown quite quickly. Indeed,
so much so that it is now poised to address the interplay between biology,
environment, and behavior.
The future of cultural neuroscience hinges on several key initiatives. First,
as in other fields of neuroscience, neural data are often correlational, limiting
the researcher’s ability to make causal inferences. Creative use of brain stimulation methods such as transcranial magnetic stimulation is much needed
(Obhi, Hogeveen, & Pascual-Leone, 2011). Second, cultures other than North
America and Asia must be covered, along with important within-culture
variations (Kitayama, Ishii, Imada, Takemura, & Ramaswamy, 2006; Talhelm
et al., 2014). Third, markers of genetic ancestry (called ancestry-informative
markers) may be utilized to explore another thorny issue (Pennisi, 2007),
namely, the question of whether observed cultural differences are truly
cultural (mediated by acculturation) or at least in part genetic (mediated by
genetic proximity to certain ethnic ancestries). Fourth, it is likely that, in the
near future, there will be a more comprehensive analysis of genetics and
epigenetics in the context of cultural neuroscience (Cole, 2009). This work
may prove to be instrumental in testing the hypothesized gene × culture
coevolution.
Last, but not least, cultural neuroscience may offer a new insight into how
we as a society may think about the relationship between cultural diversity
and human unity. As noted earlier, evidence is already growing that human
cultural diversity is an important consequence of the human mode of biological adaptation over the past 10,000 years. Accordingly, the ensuing investigation into culture, brain, and genes may lead to an important conclusion

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

that to study cultural diversity is no less to affirm the unity of humans as a
common biological species.
REFERENCES
Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2009). Beyond diathesis stress: Differential susceptibility
to environmental influences. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 885–908. doi:10.1037/
a0017376
Chen, C., Burton, M., Greenberger, E., & Dmitrieva, J. (1999). Population migration and the variation of dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) allele frequencies around
the globe. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20(5), 309–324. doi:10.1016/S10905138(99)00015-X
Chiao, J. Y., & Ambady, N. (2007). Cultural neuroscience: Parsing universality and
diversity across levels of analysis. In S. Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of
cultural psychology. NewYork, NY: Guilford Press.
Chiao, J. Y., & Blizinsky, K. D. (2010). Culture-gene coevolution of individualismcollectivism and the serotonin transporter gene. Proceedings of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences, 277(1681), 529–537. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.0714
Cohen, D., Hoshino-Browne, E., & Leung, A. K. (2007). Culture and the structure of
personal experience: Insider and outsider phenomenologies of the self and social
world. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 1–67.
Cole, S. W. (2009). Social regulation of human gene expression. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 18(3), 132–137.
Cousins, S. D. (1989). Culture and self-perception in Japan and the United states (Vol. 56,
pp. 124–131). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Decety, J., & Lamm, C. (2007). The role of the right temporoparietal junction in social
interaction: How low-level computational processes contribute to meta-cognition.
The Neuroscientist, 13, 580–593.
Diamond, J. M. (1997). Guns, germs, and steel. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Durham, W. H. (1991). Coevolution: Genes, culture, and human diversity. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Pess.
Goto, S. G., Ando, Y., Huang, C., Yee, A., & Lewis, R. S. (2010). Cultural differences
in the visual processing of meaning: Detecting incongruities between background
and foreground objects using the N400. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,
5, 242–253.
ˆ
Gutchess, A. H., Welsh, R. C., Boduroglu,
A., & Park, D. C. (2006). Cultural differences in neural function associated with object processing. Cognitive, Affective, &
Behavioral Neuroscience, 6(2), 102–109. doi:10.3758/CABN.6.2.102
Hawks, J., Wang, E. T., Cochran, G. M., Harpending, H. C., & Moyzis, R. K.
(2007). Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 104(52), 20753–20758.
Hong, Y.-Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C.-Y., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Multicultural
minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55(7), 709–720. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.7.709

Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes

13

Huff, S., Yoon, C., Lee, F., Mandadi, A., & Gutchess, A. H. (2013). Self-referential
processing and encoding in bicultural individuals. Culture and Brain, 1(1), 16–33.
doi:10.1007/s40167-013-0005-1
Iriki, A., & Taoka, M. (2011). Triadic (ecological, neural, cognitive) niche construction:
a scenario of human brain evolution extrapolating tool use and language from the
control of reaching actions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological
Sciences, 367(1585), 10–23.
Kelley, W. M., Macrae, C. N., Wyland, C. L., Caglar, S., Inati, S., & Heatherton, T. F.
(2002). Finding the self? An event-related fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(5), 785–794. doi:10.1162/08989290260138672
Kim, H. S., & Sasaki, J. Y. (2013). Cultural neuroscience: Biology of the mind in cultural contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1), 130919205320001. doi:10.1146/
annurev-psych-010213-115040
Kim, H. S., Sherman, D. K., Sasaki, J. Y., Xu, J., Chu, T. Q., Ryu, C., et al. (2010). Culture, distress, and oxytocin receptor polymorphism (OXTR) interact to influence
emotional support seeking. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(36),
15717–15721. doi:10.1073/pnas.1010830107
Kitayama, S., & Park, J. (2013). Error-related brain activity reveals self-centric motivation: Culture matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. doi:10.1037/
a0031696
Kitayama, S., & Uskul, A. K. (2011). Culture, mind, and the brain: Current evidence
and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 419–449. doi:10.1146/
annurev-psych-120709-145357
Kitayama, S., Duffy, S., & Uchida, Y. (2007). Self as cultural mode of being. In S.
Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 136–174). New
York: Guilford.
Kitayama, S., Ishii, K., Imada, T., Takemura, K., & Ramaswamy, J. (2006). Voluntary
settlement and the spirit of independence: Evidence from Japan’s ‘northern frontier.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(3), 369–384.
Kitayama, S., King, A., Yoon, C., Tompson, S., Huff, S., & Liberzon, I. (2014). The
dopamine D4 receptor gene (DRD4) moderates cultural difference in independent versus interdependent social orientation. Psychological Science. doi:10.1177/
0956797614528338
Ma, Y., Bang, D., Wang, C., Allen, M., Frith, C., Roepstorff, A., & Han, S. (2012).
Sociocultural patterning of neural activity during self-reflection. Social Cognitive
and Affective Neuroscience. doi:10.1093/scan/nss103
Maguire, E. A., Gadian, D. G., Johnsrude, I. S., Good, C. D., Ashburner, J., Frackowiak, R. S. J., & Frith, C. D. (2000). Navigation-related structural change in the
hippocampi of taxi drivers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97,
4398–4403.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. doi:10.1037/
0033-295X.98.2.224

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Murata, A., Moser, J. S., & Kitayama, S. (2013). Culture shapes electrocortical
responses during emotion suppression. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience
Retrieved from http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/5/595.short.
Ng, S. H., Han, S., Mao, L., & Lai, J. C. L. (2010). Dynamic bicultural brains:
fMRI study of their flexible neural representation of self and significant others in response to culture primes. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 13(2), 83–91.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-839X.2010.01303.x
Nikolova, Y. S., Ferrell, R. E., Manuck, S. B., & Hariri, A. R. (2011). Multilocus
genetic profile for dopamine signaling predicts ventral striatum reactivity. Neuropsychopharmacology, 36(9), 1940–1947. doi:10.1038/npp.2011.82
Obhi, S. S., Hogeveen, J., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2011). Resonating with others: The
effects of self-construal type on motor cortical output. Journal of Neuroscience,
31(41), 14531–14535.
Park, J., & Kitayama, S. (2012). Interdependent selves show face-induced facilitation
of error processing: cultural neuroscience of self-threat. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. doi:10.1093/scan/nss125
Pennisi, E. (2007). Human genetic variation. Science, 318(5858), 1842–1843.
doi:10.1126/science.318.5858.1842
Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2008). Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human
evolution. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Sui, J., Liu, C. H., & Han, S. (2009). Cultural difference in neural mechanisms of
self-recognition. Social Neuroscience, 4(5), 402–411.
Talhelm, T., Zhang, X., Oishi, S., Shimin, C., Duan, D., Lan, X., & Kitayama, S. (2014).
Large-scale psychological differences within China explained by rice versus wheat
agriculture. Science, 344, 603–608.
Zhu, Y., Zhang, L., Fan, J., & Han, S. (2007). Neural basis of cultural influence on
self-representation. NeuroImage, 34, 1310–1316.

SHINOBU KITAYAMA SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Shinobu Kitayama received his PhD from the University of Michigan, where
he is currently Robert B. Zajonc Collegiate Professor of Psychology and the
Director of the Center for Culture, Mind, and the Brain. He also directs the
Culture and Cognition Program. His research focuses on cultural variations
in cognition, emotion, and motivation. In the recent years, he has used neuroscience measures such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)
and electroencephalogram (EEG) to investigate the nature of dynamic, recursive interaction between culture and the brain. He has also investigated how
social orientations and other psychological characteristics might be acquired
as a joint function of both genetic endowment and cultural experience. Before
Michigan, he also taught at the University of Oregon, Kyoto University, and
the University of Chicago. He was elected to be a Fellow at the Center for
Advanced Studies in Behavioral Sciences twice (1995–1996, 2007–2008). He

Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes

15

was a recent recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship (2010–2011). He is an
elected member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

SARAH HUFF SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Sarah Huff is a PhD student in Psychology at the University of Michigan.
Before arriving at Michigan she received her Master’s Degree from Brandeis University and Bachelor’s Degree from The Colorado College, both in
Psychology. Her research focuses on self, identity, and culture. She is currently working on projects using neuroimaging (fMRI) to investigate how
culture and genetic variations influence thinking about the self, emotion regulation, and making choices for the self and others. Sarah is also interested
in how individuals manage multiply identities, especially different cultural
identities. She is very excited to be spending this summer in Singapore as a
National Science Foundation East Asia and Pacific Summer Institutes fellow
studying multicultural identity and cultural adaptation.
RELATED ESSAYS
The impact of Bilingualism on Cognition (Psychology), Ellen Bialystok
Language, Perspective, and Memory (Psychology), Rachel A. Ryskin et al.
Emerging Trends: Asset Pricing (Economics), John Y. Campbell
Cultural Differences in Emotions (Psychology), Jozefien De Leersnyder et al.
Understanding the Adaptive Functions of Morality from a Cognitive Psychological Perspective (Psychology), James Dungan and Liane Young
State of the Art in Competition Research (Psychology), Márta Fülöp and Gábor
Orosz
Economics and Culture (Economics), Gérard Roland
Language and Thought (Psychology), Susan Goldin-Meadow
Genetics and Social Behavior (Anthropology), Henry Harpending and Gregory Cochran
An Evolutionary Perspective on Developmental Plasticity (Psychology), Sarah
Hartman and Jay Belsky
Biology and Culture (Psychology), Robert Peter Hobson
Group Identity and Political Cohesion (Political Science), Leonie Huddy
The Development of Social Trust (Psychology), Vikram K. Jaswal and Marissa
B. Drell
Genetic Foundations of Attitude Formation (Political Science), Christian Kandler et al.
Resource Limitations in Visual Cognition (Psychology), Brandon M. Liverence
and Steven L. Franconeri

16

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Evolutionary Perspectives on Animal and Human Personality (Anthropology), Joseph H. Manson and Lynn A. Fairbanks
Emerging Trends in Culture and Concepts (Psychology), Bethany Ojalehto and
Douglas Medin
Neural and Cognitive Plasticity (Psychology), Eduardo Mercado III
A Bio-Social-Cultural Approach to Early Cognitive Development: Entering
the Community of Minds (Psychology), Katherine Nelson
Culture as Situated Cognition (Psychology), Daphna Oyserman
Darwinism as a Decryption Key for the Human Mind (Psychology), Csaba
Pléh and Ottilia Boross
Attention and Perception (Psychology), Ronald A. Rensink
The Role of Cultural, Social, and Psychological Factors in Disease and Illness
(Sociology), Robert A. Scott
Social Neuroendocrine Approaches to Relationships (Anthropology), Sari M.
van Anders and Peter B. Gray
The Intrinsic Dynamics of Development (Psychology), Paul van Geert and
Marijn van Dijk
How Form Constrains Function in the Human Brain (Psychology), Timothy
D. Verstynen
Speech Perception (Psychology), Athena Vouloumanos
Theory of Mind (Psychology), Henry Wellman
Behavioral Heterochrony (Anthropology), Victoria Wobber and Brian Hare



Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting
Culture, Brain, and Genes
SHINOBU KITAYAMA and SARAH HUFF

Abstract
Cultural neuroscience emerged during the past decade at the intersection of cultural
psychology, several subfields of human neuroscience, genetics, and epigenetics. In
the present essay, we define the field, provide a selective review of its empirical
accomplishment, and discuss its future directions. Cultural neuroscience conceptualizes the human mind as biologically prepared and grounded and, at the same time,
as socially and culturally shaped and completed. This young field initially started
as an effort to expand preceding behavioral work in cultural psychology with novel
brain imaging methods. Increasingly, however, the field is poised to address the interplay between biology, environment, and behavior, as shown in our review of recent
empirical work on (i) culture and the self, (ii) culture and genes, and (iii) multicultural
identity. The future of the field hinges on several key initiatives including the use of
brain stimulation methods, expansion of its database to cultures other than North
America and Asia, and a more comprehensive analysis of gene–culture coevolution.
In conclusion, we observe that further investigation of culture, brain, and genes may
lead to an important insight that to study cultural diversity is no less to affirm the
unity of humans as a common biological species.

INTRODUCTION
Cultural neuroscience has recently emerged as an important and highly
promising area of investigation. The goal of the current essay is to introduce
the rising field of cultural neuroscience, take stock of its progress, and then
look over to its future. First, we discuss a general theoretical framework of
cultural neuroscience. Second, we examine some select findings from the
recent literature, with a focus on culture and the self, culture and genes,
and multiculturalism. Third, we finish this essay by noting a few promising
future directions for the field.

Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

CULTURAL NEUROSCIENCE: WHAT IS IT?
This section illustrates the overarching aim of the field of cultural neuroscience. It has been primarily defined in terms of the effort to expand the
cultural psychological work with novel brain imaging methods. Increasingly,
however, the field is poised to integrate evolutionary theory into the analysis
of culture.
IS CULTURE “EMBRAINED”?
Cultural neuroscience initially emerged as an effort to test whether cultural
differences demonstrated in the preceding cultural psychological research
(Kitayama, Duffy, & Uchida, 2007) could also be observed with novel
brain measures such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and
electroencephalogram (EEG). For example, drawing on earlier behavioral
evidence, Denise Park and colleagues have tested whether Asians are more
holistic in visual attention than European Americans by using fMRI. In one
study, researchers used fMRI and tested neural activity of the perceptual
processing pathways devoted to an object versus its context (Gutchess,
Welsh, Boduroĝlu, & Park, 2006). Researchers have focused on various
components of EEG that are contingent on either stimulus onset or response
execution (called event-related potentials or ERPs). They have then used
the ERPs to examine cultural variations in holistic attention (Goto, Ando,
Huang, Yee, & Lewis, 2010), self-evaluative threat (Park & Kitayama, 2012),
and emotion suppression (Murata, Moser, & Kitayama, 2013). These initial
efforts are informed by concurrent developments in various subdisciplines
of neuroscience including cognitive, affective, and social neuroscience.
Simultaneously, there has been a resurgence of interest in neuroplasticity
over the past decade (Maguire et al., 2000). Researchers began documenting how malleable brain connectivity can be when individuals are trained
in specific tasks such as juggling, spatial navigation, and meditation among
many others. One seminal piece of evidence was reported by a group of
researchers in the United Kingdom. They documented enlarged hippocampi
(which serve a significant role in spatial navigation) among cab drivers in
London (Maguire et al., 2000). Crucially, the increased size of hippocampi
was more pronounced for more experienced (and thus older) cabdrivers. The
experience effect is remarkable because typically these brain regions steadily
shrink in size as a function of age. This evidence thus suggests a causal influence of cab driving on the structural change of the brain.
As a whole, this newly reemerging work on neuroplasticity has provided
an important theoretical rationale for the hypothesis that different aspects
of the environment including cultural tools, practices, and tasks can change
brain connectivity and possibly even structure. It may be hypothesized that

Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes

3

through repeated active engagement in culturally prescribed tasks, the brain
is often plastically changed over time. As a result, brain functions may eventually become closely attuned to the relevant tasks of a given cultural context
(Kitayama & Uskul, 2011).
GROUNDING CULTURE IN BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION
So far, much of the field of cultural neuroscience has been devoted to the
effort to document cultural variations in brain functions (and structures).
Some new findings with fMRI or EEG have gone far beyond what can be
learned from behavioral indices alone. Now that much has been accomplished on this front, integrating both behavioral and neuroscience methods,
the field appears poised to move on. Most importantly, the theoretical focus
of cultural neuroscientists on the brain (a preeminently biological entity)
in the analysis of culture has led them to novel questions regarding the
possible links between culture and biological evolution (Chiao & Blizinsky,
2010; Kim & Sasaki, 2013; Kitayama et al., 2014). This work has begun to add
important insights to the existing body of research in the area (Richerson &
Boyd, 2008).
The currently reemerging interest in culture and evolution is reinforced by
new evidence in population genetics. This evidence suggests that culture and
genes must have coevolved ever since the advent of sedentary, increasingly
non-kin-based forms of living over the past 10,000 years (Hawks, Wang,
Cochran, Harpending, & Moyzis, 2007). One commonly cited example
of culture or ecology influencing genes is the correspondence between
geographic regions that support milk production and populations that carry
genetic polymorphisms that afford more efficient lactose processing and,
thus, tolerance of lactose during adulthood (Durham, 1991). The genetic
changes that support lactose tolerance appear to be motivated by the
adaptive need of pastoral people to process the milk and a variety of milk
products. The case of lactose tolerance, however, is most likely to be only
one example. The “10,000 year explosion” of genetic change in the recent
human evolutionary history strongly suggests that there must be numerous
other cases.
To account for the “10,000 year explosion,” one must take into account
many potentially relevant factors. For example, domestication of animals
must have fostered strong selection of mutations that would protect humans
against germs carried by the domesticated animals (Diamond, 1997). Likewise, invention of tools could make strong muscles obsolete, making it more
advantageous to relocate biophysiological resources to other capacities, say,
to dexterity in motor and cognitive functions. Furthermore, at the advent
of larger social and cultural organizations, various genetic mutations that

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

led to language processing, interpersonal empathy, or trust, and theory of
mind capacities among many others, must have been strongly favored (Iriki
& Taoka, 2011). Such large-scale social and cultural change must have taken
place, at least in some parts of the world, approximately 9000 years ago
(Diamond, 1997).
It would then follow that culture, as we know it today must have coevolved with a great variety of polymorphic genetic changes. That is to say,
the genetic makeup of the protohumans was sufficient to give an initial
impetus to certain rudimentary forms of culture. Once established, such
cultural forms must have provided a new evolutionary context or adaptive
niche in which further genetic change was fostered. This additional genetic
change in turn must have helped humans elaborate their cultural forms
and social structures. This mutual, recursive interaction between culture
and genes must have accelerated over the past 10,000 years to produce the
basis for the current, cultural form of human adaptation. While much of
this analysis is theoretical at this point, there is a growing effort to test some
aspects of this analysis by using a variety of methods including neuroimaging, genetics, and epigenetics and comparison with nonhuman primate
species (Kim & Sasaki, 2013). Accordingly, there is increasing ground to
argue that culture is not a mere overlay that should be set aside as noise in
the investigation of the human mind/brain. To the contrary, it is likely to
be the primary shaper of the human mind/brain over the past 10,000 years
and, therefore, culture is a necessary element to take into account in the
investigation of all aspects of the human mind/brain.
The interest in the coevolution of culture and genes is accompanied
by another line of work on epigenetics, which examines environmental
influences on gene expression (Cole, 2009). At the cellular level, DNAs are
transcribed into RNAs, which in turn are translated into the production
of relevant proteins. It is these proteins that eventually produce a variety
of effects on neurophysiological, psychological, and behavioral responses.
It has become increasingly clear that multiple processes are involved in
the regulation of DNA transcription. While many of these processes are
robust with respect to environmental variations, some are quite malleable,
operating very differently depending on relevant environmental inputs.
So far, much of this work is limited to effects of adverse environmental
conditions (e.g., trauma, stress, and childhood abuse) on both the upregulation of inflammation-related genes and the downregulation of genes
linked to immune-system responses (Cole, 2009). Extrapolating from this
emerging work it is reasonable to hypothesize that other parameters of
cultural environment may also regulate expression of relevant genes. These
additional dimensions of culture include prevalence of competition versus
cooperation, hierarchy (vs egalitarianism), and tightness (vs looseness) of

Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes

5

cultural rules. The patterns of gene expression may become the part and
parcel of the cultural system that is characterized by these parameters.
CULTURAL NEUROSCIENCE DEFINED
In sum, cultural neuroscience is emerging at the intersection of cultural psychology, several subfields of human neuroscience, genetics, and epigenetics.
It conceptualizes the human mind as biologically prepared and grounded
and, at the same time, as socially and culturally shaped, modified, and completed. The field is young. As noted earlier, it is only several years since the
publication of the first paper bearing this name (Chiao & Ambady, 2007).
The growth of the field is rapid, however. Now there is a substantial body of
empirical work highlighting its promise and potential.
CURRENT EVIDENCE: A SELECTIVE REVIEW
In this section, we discuss the emerging empirical base of the field. Owing
to space limitation, our literature review is selective, with a focus on three
issues: (i) culture and the self, (ii) culture and genes, and (iii) multicultural
identity.
CULTURE AND THE SELF
Throughout the past two decades, cultural psychological work has drawn on
global, macroscopic cross-cultural comparisons (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).
The central assumption in this literature is that European Americans tend
to be independently oriented. Thus, they are more eager to pursue personal
(vs social) goals, focus on goal-relevant objects, and seek to maintain and
enhance positive evaluations of their personal self. They are, therefore, motivated to increase self-esteem and self-efficacy, while valuing expression of
these positive aspects of the self. In contrast, Asians tend to be interdependently oriented. Thus, they are more eager to pursue social (vs personal)
goals, holistically attentive to norms and expectations of others, and seek to
maintain and enhance in-group harmony, while inhibiting personal feelings
and desires of the self. In the recent years, this behavioral work has been
expanded with novel neuroscience methods (Kitayama & Uskul, 2011).
To begin with, the assumption that cultures vary on the social orientation
dimension of independence and interdependence has received increasing
support in recent cultural neuroscience research. In one early study, Zhu and
colleagues (Zhu, Zhang, Fan, & Han, 2007) tested brain activity involved
in the processing of the self and close others. Earlier social neuroscience
evidence showed that the processing of information about the self (e.g., Am

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

I smart?) implicates the midline structure of the brain including the medial
prefrontal cortex (mPFC), as well as, at least under certain conditions, the
posterior cingulate cortex (PCC) (Kelley et al., 2002). Zhu and colleagues
found that the mPFC is recruited during the processing of the self regardless
of culture. However, the same region is also recruited during the processing
of information about close others (e.g., Is my mother smart?) for Chinese. The
pattern is consistent with the hypothesis that Chinese selves are inclusive of
close others such as their mothers (i.e., they are more interdependent), but
the selves of the Westerners are not (i.e., they are independent).
Another way in which the self may be interdependent hinges on the degree
to which perspectives of others are incorporated into the representation of the
self. While independent selves may be defined primarily in terms of what
they think of themselves, interdependent selves may incorporate judgments
about the self from the perspective of relevant others (e.g., What do they think
of me?). Consistent with this possibility, existing behavioral evidence shows
that public aspects of the self are more important for Asians than for European Americans (Cohen, Hoshino-Browne, & Leung, 2007).
In a recent cross-cultural neuroimaging study, researchers asked both
Danish adults in Denmark and Chinese adults in China to make judgments
about physical, psychological, or social attributes of either the self or a
public figure (Ma et al., 2012). Regardless of culture and specific attributes
at issue, the mPFC was consistently activated more in the self-judgment
than in the judgment about the public figure. Importantly, in addition to
the mPFC, Chinese showed a reliable activation of temporoparietal function
(TPJ) when judging social aspects of the self (e.g., Am I a college student?).
The TPJ is implicated in perspective taking (Decety & Lamm, 2007). Thus,
one interpretation of the TPJ activity observed only for Chinese is that
for Chinese self-processing simultaneously involves both direct appraisals
(appraisals made from the first-person perspective, recruiting the mPFC)
and indirect appraisals (appraisal made from third-person perspectives,
recruiting the TPJ).
Intriguingly, as shown in, a functional connectivity analysis established that
functional neural connections between mPFC and bilateral TPJ were much
stronger for Chinese than for Danes during the judgment of social attributes
of the self. We may infer from this result that the Chinese self is constituted
by a more integrated, or holistic, representation of both direct and indirect
appraisals. In comparison, the Western self appears more one-dimensional in
the sense that it is defined largely on the basis of the first-person perspective
alone.
Are independent selves more self-centric? Conversely, are interdependent
selves more prosocial, ready to act on behalf of close others? Another recent
cultural neuroscience study (Kitayama & Park, 2013) examined this question

Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes

7

by taking advantage of a component of ERPs called error-related negativity
(ERN). ERN is a negative-going deflection of electrocortical response that
is contingent on error response in a simple cognitive task. Both European
American and Asian participants were asked to perform a flanker task,
wherein they were shown a series of five letters and asked to identify the
center letter. When an error is made in the task, ERN is observed nearly
simultaneously with the error response itself. Prior work suggests that ERN
is caused by the detection of a mismatch between the executive response
and the correct response. Importantly, ERN increases in magnitude as a
function of the motivational significance of the cognitive task at hand. On
the basis of this evidence, Kitayama and Park (2013) used the magnitude
of ERN and tested whether the cognitive task may become motivationally
more significant when performed for the self versus close friends.
The results were consistent with the expectation that independent selves are
more self-centric than interdependent selves. As shown in Figure 1, ERN was
significantly greater when European Americans performed the flanker task
to earn points for themselves than when they did so to earn points on behalf
of their friends. In contrast, Asians showed an equally strong ERN when they
performed the task to earn points on behalf of their friends as when they did
so to earn points for themselves. Importantly, the self-centric motivation as
revealed in the ERN pattern became weaker as a function of interdependent
self-construal. It thus appears that European Americans show the self-centric
effect (while Asians do not) primarily because European Americans do not
endorse the interdependent self-construal as strongly as Asians do.

ERN-CRN amplitude (µV)

−13

Self

Friend

−12
−11
−10
−9
−8
−7
−6
European Americans

Asians

Figure 1 Magnitude of error-related negativity (ERN) shown by European
Americans and Asians who performed a flanker task in order to earn reward points
for either the self or their close friends. Source: Taken from Kitayama & Park, 2013,
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

CULTURE AND GENES
Although the evidence is clear that Asians are relatively more interdependent while European Americans are relatively more independent, this by
no means implies that each cultural group is homogeneous. One important
consideration that may shed new light on within-culture variation is potentially significant genetic differences across individuals. Traditionally, genes
are seen as an alternative source of explanation for cultural differences. Such
genetic explanations are seen as antagonistic to explanations in terms of experience. However, a recent discovery of plasticity genetic alleles has suggested
that the conceptual juxtaposition of genes and experience may be misguided.
Instead, allelic variations of certain genes may magnify the effects of experience (Belsky & Pluess, 2009). These alleles (called plasticity alleles) may magnify the effects of cultural experience (Kim & Sasaki, 2013).
One intriguing possibility suggests itself. We may start with the assumption that culture is learned, at least in part, through reinforcement learning. Not particularly controversial or novel by itself, this assumption can
lead to an intriguing prediction once it is realized that individuals may vary
in terms of genetic endowment that predisposes them to increased responsiveness to social rewards. We may expect that those who are genetically
responsive to social rewards are more likely to acquire cultural norms and
internalize them, as compared to those who are genetically less responsive
to social rewards. Responsiveness to social rewards is strongly influenced
by reward processing in the brain, which is regulated by a neurotransmitter, dopamine. One well-studied gene that regulates the signaling capacity
of dopamine in the central nervous system is the dopamine D4 receptor gene
(DRD4).
DRD4 is unique in two important respects. First, in one polymorphic
region of the gene there are numerous variants that are defined by repetition
of a particular genetic segment. The repetition can be as few as 2, but it can
also be as many as 11. The most frequent variants are 2-repeat, 4-repeat, and
7-repeat. As it turns out, relative to 4-repeat carriers, carriers of 2- or 7-repeat
variants show an increased capacity of dopamine signaling (Nikolova,
Ferrell, Manuck, & Hariri, 2011). Correspondingly, the 2-repeat or 7-repeat
carriers are likely to show enhanced sensitivity to rewards in general and to
social rewards in particular. Second, a recent DNA-sequencing study that
uses linkage-disequilibrium haplotype as a measure of the “genetic age”
has shown that the 4-repeat variant is the most ancient form, from which
the 7-repeat variant emerged around 40,000–50,000 years ago. Moreover, the
2-repeat variant is much more recent, emerging approximately 10,000 years
ago. It is apparent then that these variants of DRD4 emerged in the relatively
recent past of the human evolution, when various cultural forms, as well as

Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes

9

increasingly complex social structures and organizations that support them,
were concurrently emerging. Accordingly, it is sensible to hypothesize that
the allelic variations of DRD4 have coevolved with culture over the past
50,000 years (Chen, Burton, Greenberger, & Dmitrieva, 1999).
Will cultural norms be acquired to varying extents depending on genetically influenced responsiveness of each person to social rewards? In a recent
study (Kitayama et al., 2014), approximately 400 undergraduates at the
University of Michigan were genotyped for DRD4. About half were North
Americans of European descent, while the remaining were Asians who had
been born and raised in Asia. Replicating numerous previous studies, the
researchers observed that European Americans are relatively more independent, whereas Asian-born Asians are relatively more interdependent.
Importantly, as expected, this cultural difference was more pronounced for
carriers of the 2- or 7-repeat variant of DRD4, relative to noncarriers. Indeed,
among the noncarriers, the cultural difference was negligible. This finding
is illustrated in Figure 2. Analogous moderation of cultural differences by

0.8

Noncarrier

Carrier

Composite index of social orientation

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
−0.2
−0.4
−0.6
−0.8

European Americans

Asian-born Asians

Figure 2 Culture × DRD4 interaction effect on independent versus interdependent social orientation, as assessed by a difference between independence
factor score and interdependence factor score. European Americans are more
independent, while Asian-born Asians are more interdependent, but this is the
case only for those who carry either 2- or 7-repeat variant of the DRD4 gene.
Among noncarriers there is no reliable cultural difference in social orientation.
Source: Taken from Kitayama et al. (2014), Psychological Science.

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

oxytocin genes has also been reported, with new insights into how genes
might interact with culture (Kim et al., 2010).
MULTICULTURAL IDENTITY
In the current, increasingly globalizing world, people are likely to hold multicultural identities. Another strand of cultural neuroscience work has investigated individuals with multiple cultural identities—individuals who are
familiar with and knowledgeable about multiple cultural meaning systems.
The guiding hypothesis is that multicultural individuals are able to access
different cultural meaning systems depending on the contextual cues (Hong,
Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martinez, 2000). For example, an Asian American may
endorse more independent self-construal after exposure to American cultural icons, whereas the same individual may endorse more interdependent
self-construal following exposure to Asian cultural icons.
Evidence suggests that cultural priming is equally effective in modulating
brain responses in a theoretically predictable manner. Previous behavioral
work suggests that as compared to Asians, European Americans tend to
define themselves in terms of general personal attributes (e.g., I am smart).
In contrast, Asians tend to define themselves in a more context-dependent
manner (e.g., I am smart at work for the most part) (Cousins, 1989). A
recent fMRI study has shown that Asian Americans show both of these two
response patterns depending on which cultural frame is made cognitively
salient (i.e., primed). After being primed with independence, the Asian
Americans exhibited a pattern that may be predicted for Westerners. That
is, there was a reliably stronger activity in the midline cortical region of
the brain (the areas noted earlier including the mPFC and the PCC that are
recruited in self-processing) while judging themselves in context-general (vs
context-dependent) terms. In contrast, after being primed with interdependence, they exhibited a pattern that may be predicted for Asians. That is,
there was stronger activity in the same region in the context-dependent (vs
context-general) judgment condition. We noted earlier that whereas Chinese
show reliable mPFC activity when judging both the self and their mother,
Westerners show this activity only when judging the self (Zhu et al., 2007).
Recent evidence shows that bicultural Asians in Hong Kong show both of
these patterns depending on cultural priming (Ng, Han, Mao, & Lai, 2010).
Similar cultural frame switching has been observed with an ERP indicator
of processing of the self versus friend (Sui, Liu, & Han, 2009).
In all likelihood, further work along this line is likely to reveal a more
nuanced picture of how multicultural experiences might shape the brain.
For example, a recent study examining Asian Americans in the United States
(Huff, Yoon, Lee, Mandadi, & Gutchess, 2013) finds, as in the Zhu et al.

Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes

11

(2007) study discussed above, that the mPFC is recruited by processing of
both the self and mother. Unlike the Zhu et al. (2007), however, this study
observed the mPFC activity to be greater in the mother processing than in
the self-processing.
CONCLUSIONS
The ultimate aim of cultural neuroscience is to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of how biology and culture might make each other up in
constituting the human mind. Recent empirical work illustrates the considerable promise of the field by underscoring the power of neuroscience methods
such as fMRI and EEG to uncover cultural influences on the brain. Further,
the initial evidence for gene × culture interaction effects highlights the possibility that the human mind has significantly been shaped, genetically, over
the past 10,000 years through its engagement with cultural environment. Cultural neuroscience started several years ago with a single-minded curiosity
to see if behavioral cultural differences might replicate with neuroscience
methods such as fMRI and EEG. The field has grown quite quickly. Indeed,
so much so that it is now poised to address the interplay between biology,
environment, and behavior.
The future of cultural neuroscience hinges on several key initiatives. First,
as in other fields of neuroscience, neural data are often correlational, limiting
the researcher’s ability to make causal inferences. Creative use of brain stimulation methods such as transcranial magnetic stimulation is much needed
(Obhi, Hogeveen, & Pascual-Leone, 2011). Second, cultures other than North
America and Asia must be covered, along with important within-culture
variations (Kitayama, Ishii, Imada, Takemura, & Ramaswamy, 2006; Talhelm
et al., 2014). Third, markers of genetic ancestry (called ancestry-informative
markers) may be utilized to explore another thorny issue (Pennisi, 2007),
namely, the question of whether observed cultural differences are truly
cultural (mediated by acculturation) or at least in part genetic (mediated by
genetic proximity to certain ethnic ancestries). Fourth, it is likely that, in the
near future, there will be a more comprehensive analysis of genetics and
epigenetics in the context of cultural neuroscience (Cole, 2009). This work
may prove to be instrumental in testing the hypothesized gene × culture
coevolution.
Last, but not least, cultural neuroscience may offer a new insight into how
we as a society may think about the relationship between cultural diversity
and human unity. As noted earlier, evidence is already growing that human
cultural diversity is an important consequence of the human mode of biological adaptation over the past 10,000 years. Accordingly, the ensuing investigation into culture, brain, and genes may lead to an important conclusion

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

that to study cultural diversity is no less to affirm the unity of humans as a
common biological species.
REFERENCES
Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2009). Beyond diathesis stress: Differential susceptibility
to environmental influences. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 885–908. doi:10.1037/
a0017376
Chen, C., Burton, M., Greenberger, E., & Dmitrieva, J. (1999). Population migration and the variation of dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) allele frequencies around
the globe. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20(5), 309–324. doi:10.1016/S10905138(99)00015-X
Chiao, J. Y., & Ambady, N. (2007). Cultural neuroscience: Parsing universality and
diversity across levels of analysis. In S. Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of
cultural psychology. NewYork, NY: Guilford Press.
Chiao, J. Y., & Blizinsky, K. D. (2010). Culture-gene coevolution of individualismcollectivism and the serotonin transporter gene. Proceedings of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences, 277(1681), 529–537. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.0714
Cohen, D., Hoshino-Browne, E., & Leung, A. K. (2007). Culture and the structure of
personal experience: Insider and outsider phenomenologies of the self and social
world. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 1–67.
Cole, S. W. (2009). Social regulation of human gene expression. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 18(3), 132–137.
Cousins, S. D. (1989). Culture and self-perception in Japan and the United states (Vol. 56,
pp. 124–131). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Decety, J., & Lamm, C. (2007). The role of the right temporoparietal junction in social
interaction: How low-level computational processes contribute to meta-cognition.
The Neuroscientist, 13, 580–593.
Diamond, J. M. (1997). Guns, germs, and steel. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Durham, W. H. (1991). Coevolution: Genes, culture, and human diversity. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Pess.
Goto, S. G., Ando, Y., Huang, C., Yee, A., & Lewis, R. S. (2010). Cultural differences
in the visual processing of meaning: Detecting incongruities between background
and foreground objects using the N400. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,
5, 242–253.
Gutchess, A. H., Welsh, R. C., Boduroĝlu, A., & Park, D. C. (2006). Cultural differences in neural function associated with object processing. Cognitive, Affective, &
Behavioral Neuroscience, 6(2), 102–109. doi:10.3758/CABN.6.2.102
Hawks, J., Wang, E. T., Cochran, G. M., Harpending, H. C., & Moyzis, R. K.
(2007). Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 104(52), 20753–20758.
Hong, Y.-Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C.-Y., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Multicultural
minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55(7), 709–720. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.7.709

Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes

13

Huff, S., Yoon, C., Lee, F., Mandadi, A., & Gutchess, A. H. (2013). Self-referential
processing and encoding in bicultural individuals. Culture and Brain, 1(1), 16–33.
doi:10.1007/s40167-013-0005-1
Iriki, A., & Taoka, M. (2011). Triadic (ecological, neural, cognitive) niche construction:
a scenario of human brain evolution extrapolating tool use and language from the
control of reaching actions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological
Sciences, 367(1585), 10–23.
Kelley, W. M., Macrae, C. N., Wyland, C. L., Caglar, S., Inati, S., & Heatherton, T. F.
(2002). Finding the self? An event-related fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(5), 785–794. doi:10.1162/08989290260138672
Kim, H. S., & Sasaki, J. Y. (2013). Cultural neuroscience: Biology of the mind in cultural contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1), 130919205320001. doi:10.1146/
annurev-psych-010213-115040
Kim, H. S., Sherman, D. K., Sasaki, J. Y., Xu, J., Chu, T. Q., Ryu, C., et al. (2010). Culture, distress, and oxytocin receptor polymorphism (OXTR) interact to influence
emotional support seeking. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(36),
15717–15721. doi:10.1073/pnas.1010830107
Kitayama, S., & Park, J. (2013). Error-related brain activity reveals self-centric motivation: Culture matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. doi:10.1037/
a0031696
Kitayama, S., & Uskul, A. K. (2011). Culture, mind, and the brain: Current evidence
and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 419–449. doi:10.1146/
annurev-psych-120709-145357
Kitayama, S., Duffy, S., & Uchida, Y. (2007). Self as cultural mode of being. In S.
Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 136–174). New
York: Guilford.
Kitayama, S., Ishii, K., Imada, T., Takemura, K., & Ramaswamy, J. (2006). Voluntary
settlement and the spirit of independence: Evidence from Japan’s ‘northern frontier.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(3), 369–384.
Kitayama, S., King, A., Yoon, C., Tompson, S., Huff, S., & Liberzon, I. (2014). The
dopamine D4 receptor gene (DRD4) moderates cultural difference in independent versus interdependent social orientation. Psychological Science. doi:10.1177/
0956797614528338
Ma, Y., Bang, D., Wang, C., Allen, M., Frith, C., Roepstorff, A., & Han, S. (2012).
Sociocultural patterning of neural activity during self-reflection. Social Cognitive
and Affective Neuroscience. doi:10.1093/scan/nss103
Maguire, E. A., Gadian, D. G., Johnsrude, I. S., Good, C. D., Ashburner, J., Frackowiak, R. S. J., & Frith, C. D. (2000). Navigation-related structural change in the
hippocampi of taxi drivers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97,
4398–4403.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. doi:10.1037/
0033-295X.98.2.224

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Murata, A., Moser, J. S., & Kitayama, S. (2013). Culture shapes electrocortical
responses during emotion suppression. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience
Retrieved from http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/5/595.short.
Ng, S. H., Han, S., Mao, L., & Lai, J. C. L. (2010). Dynamic bicultural brains:
fMRI study of their flexible neural representation of self and significant others in response to culture primes. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 13(2), 83–91.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-839X.2010.01303.x
Nikolova, Y. S., Ferrell, R. E., Manuck, S. B., & Hariri, A. R. (2011). Multilocus
genetic profile for dopamine signaling predicts ventral striatum reactivity. Neuropsychopharmacology, 36(9), 1940–1947. doi:10.1038/npp.2011.82
Obhi, S. S., Hogeveen, J., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2011). Resonating with others: The
effects of self-construal type on motor cortical output. Journal of Neuroscience,
31(41), 14531–14535.
Park, J., & Kitayama, S. (2012). Interdependent selves show face-induced facilitation
of error processing: cultural neuroscience of self-threat. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. doi:10.1093/scan/nss125
Pennisi, E. (2007). Human genetic variation. Science, 318(5858), 1842–1843.
doi:10.1126/science.318.5858.1842
Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2008). Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human
evolution. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Sui, J., Liu, C. H., & Han, S. (2009). Cultural difference in neural mechanisms of
self-recognition. Social Neuroscience, 4(5), 402–411.
Talhelm, T., Zhang, X., Oishi, S., Shimin, C., Duan, D., Lan, X., & Kitayama, S. (2014).
Large-scale psychological differences within China explained by rice versus wheat
agriculture. Science, 344, 603–608.
Zhu, Y., Zhang, L., Fan, J., & Han, S. (2007). Neural basis of cultural influence on
self-representation. NeuroImage, 34, 1310–1316.

SHINOBU KITAYAMA SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Shinobu Kitayama received his PhD from the University of Michigan, where
he is currently Robert B. Zajonc Collegiate Professor of Psychology and the
Director of the Center for Culture, Mind, and the Brain. He also directs the
Culture and Cognition Program. His research focuses on cultural variations
in cognition, emotion, and motivation. In the recent years, he has used neuroscience measures such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)
and electroencephalogram (EEG) to investigate the nature of dynamic, recursive interaction between culture and the brain. He has also investigated how
social orientations and other psychological characteristics might be acquired
as a joint function of both genetic endowment and cultural experience. Before
Michigan, he also taught at the University of Oregon, Kyoto University, and
the University of Chicago. He was elected to be a Fellow at the Center for
Advanced Studies in Behavioral Sciences twice (1995–1996, 2007–2008). He

Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes

15

was a recent recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship (2010–2011). He is an
elected member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

SARAH HUFF SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Sarah Huff is a PhD student in Psychology at the University of Michigan.
Before arriving at Michigan she received her Master’s Degree from Brandeis University and Bachelor’s Degree from The Colorado College, both in
Psychology. Her research focuses on self, identity, and culture. She is currently working on projects using neuroimaging (fMRI) to investigate how
culture and genetic variations influence thinking about the self, emotion regulation, and making choices for the self and others. Sarah is also interested
in how individuals manage multiply identities, especially different cultural
identities. She is very excited to be spending this summer in Singapore as a
National Science Foundation East Asia and Pacific Summer Institutes fellow
studying multicultural identity and cultural adaptation.
RELATED ESSAYS
The impact of Bilingualism on Cognition (Psychology), Ellen Bialystok
Language, Perspective, and Memory (Psychology), Rachel A. Ryskin et al.
Emerging Trends: Asset Pricing (Economics), John Y. Campbell
Cultural Differences in Emotions (Psychology), Jozefien De Leersnyder et al.
Understanding the Adaptive Functions of Morality from a Cognitive Psychological Perspective (Psychology), James Dungan and Liane Young
State of the Art in Competition Research (Psychology), Márta Fülöp and Gábor
Orosz
Economics and Culture (Economics), Gérard Roland
Language and Thought (Psychology), Susan Goldin-Meadow
Genetics and Social Behavior (Anthropology), Henry Harpending and Gregory Cochran
An Evolutionary Perspective on Developmental Plasticity (Psychology), Sarah
Hartman and Jay Belsky
Biology and Culture (Psychology), Robert Peter Hobson
Group Identity and Political Cohesion (Political Science), Leonie Huddy
The Development of Social Trust (Psychology), Vikram K. Jaswal and Marissa
B. Drell
Genetic Foundations of Attitude Formation (Political Science), Christian Kandler et al.
Resource Limitations in Visual Cognition (Psychology), Brandon M. Liverence
and Steven L. Franconeri

16

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Evolutionary Perspectives on Animal and Human Personality (Anthropology), Joseph H. Manson and Lynn A. Fairbanks
Emerging Trends in Culture and Concepts (Psychology), Bethany Ojalehto and
Douglas Medin
Neural and Cognitive Plasticity (Psychology), Eduardo Mercado III
A Bio-Social-Cultural Approach to Early Cognitive Development: Entering
the Community of Minds (Psychology), Katherine Nelson
Culture as Situated Cognition (Psychology), Daphna Oyserman
Darwinism as a Decryption Key for the Human Mind (Psychology), Csaba
Pléh and Ottilia Boross
Attention and Perception (Psychology), Ronald A. Rensink
The Role of Cultural, Social, and Psychological Factors in Disease and Illness
(Sociology), Robert A. Scott
Social Neuroendocrine Approaches to Relationships (Anthropology), Sari M.
van Anders and Peter B. Gray
The Intrinsic Dynamics of Development (Psychology), Paul van Geert and
Marijn van Dijk
How Form Constrains Function in the Human Brain (Psychology), Timothy
D. Verstynen
Speech Perception (Psychology), Athena Vouloumanos
Theory of Mind (Psychology), Henry Wellman
Behavioral Heterochrony (Anthropology), Victoria Wobber and Brian Hare