Research has established that altruistic behavior increases happiness. We examined this phenomenon across cultures, differentiating between individualistic and collectivist cultures. We propose that cultural variations in the notion of altruism lead to different effects of helping on the helper’s happiness. For individualists, altruism is linked to self-interest (“impure” altruism), and helping others results in increased happiness for the helper. For collectivists, altruism is focused on the recipient (“pure” altruism), and helping others is less likely to enhance the helper’s happiness. Four studies support our predictions. Study 1 measured the dispositions toward altruism among people with various cultural orientations. Consistent with our predictions, the findings showed that individualism (collectivism) was positively associated with tendencies reflecting more “impure” (“pure”) altruism. Two experimental studies then examined the moderating role of cultural orientation on the effect of spending money on oneself versus others (Study 2) or of doing a kind action (making tea for oneself versus others; Study 3). Both experimental studies demonstrated that altruistic behavior had a positive effect on happiness for individualists but not for collectivists. Finally, Study 4, which utilized data from the World Values Survey to examine the altruism–happiness link in various countries, displayed a stronger link between altruistic behavior and happiness in individualistic (vs. collectivist) cultures. Altogether, this research sheds light on cultural differences in the display of altruism, revealing different motivations for and consequences of altruistic behaviors.

Purpose Past marketing research has found that hedonic utility is more important for Western cultures, whereas social utility is more important for Eastern cultures, suggesting differential positioning in each culture. However, the research has so far focused on a single choice context of one brand. This paper aims to examine cultural differences in utility importance using two brand choice contexts: single choice and brand selection. Design/methodology/approach Four studies (n = 1268) were conducted. Study 1 focused on a single choice context by asking directly about utility importance when choosing a cellphone. Study 2 focused on a brand selection context using conjoint analysis for the same cellphone category used in Study 1. To validate the results of Studies 1 and 2 with the categories of perfume, sports shoes and computers, Study 3 analyzed single and selection contexts using latent regression methods. Finally, Study 4 explored the role of cognitive load in explaining the differences between the two choice contexts using the laptop category. Findings The analyses of the brand selection context, which simulates real-life choice, revealed that the importance ascribed to utilities was not idiosyncratic for each culture. In contrast, single-choice contexts demonstrated stereotypical cultural differences. Originality/value Positioning a specific utility message to fit the culture stereotype might not be necessary, as it does not always affect brand choice in a competitive environment.