Previous research suggests that in collectivistic cultures, people tend to suppress their emotions more than in individualistic cultures. Little research, however, has explored cross-cultural differences in emotion regulation in everyday interactions. Using a daily social interaction method, we examined whether people from collectivistic backgrounds (Chinese exchange students and immigrants from the Moluccas, Indonesia) living in the Netherlands differed from those from individualistic backgrounds (Dutch natives) in emotion suppression during everyday interactions. We also examined whether this depended on their relationship with the interaction partner(s). We found that Chinese participants suppressed positive and negative emotions more than Dutch and Moluccan participants and that this was related to differences in interdependent and independent self-construal across the samples. We also found that Chinese participants suppressed positive emotions less in interactions with close others, whereas Dutch participants suppressed negative emotions more with non-close others. No such differences were found for Moluccans. Our findings support the idea that people from collectivistic cultures suppress emotions more than those from individualistic cultures, but they also suggest that this depends on who the interaction partner is. Furthermore, they suggest that emotion suppression may change when people with collectivistic backgrounds have been raised in individualistic cultures.

R ecently, researchers have begun to explore people's motives to forgive those who have offended them. Using a recall method, we examined whether such motives (relationship-, offender-or self-focused) differ between and within cultures that are more collectivistic (Moluccan Islands in Indonesia) or more individualistic (the Netherlands) and whether this depends on people's relationship with the offender. More specifically, we examined the idea that other-focused motives should be more important in cultures that are more collectivistic and that self-focused motives should prevail in more individualistic cultures. We found that Moluccan participants indeed endorsed relationship-and offender-focused motives more than Dutch participants. Moluccan and Dutch participants did not, however, differ in the extent to which they endorsed self-focused motives. Furthermore, Dutch participants were more likely to endorse relationship motives (especially in close relations) than self-focused motives. For Moluccan participants, relationship-, offender-and self-focused motives were equally important and also did not depend on how close they were with the offender. Differences between the samples could not be explained by the extent to which people defined themselves as more independent or interdependent. The implications of these findings for future research on forgiveness motives are discussed.

This study examines people's motives to (not) forgive group members who violate an important group norm. More specifically, we attempt to determine what is the primary focus in such a situation (the group, the offender, the relationship, or the self), and whether this depends on how important the group is and on the cultural context (more individualist or more collectivist). Our sample includes Moluccans living in Indonesia (more collectivist) and Moluccans in the Netherlands (more individualist). Participants were asked to evaluate a scenario in which a group member (close or nonclose other) violated an important group norm. We find that Indonesian Moluccans are more likely not to forgive group members who violate a group norm than Dutch Moluccans. This finding suggests that the group is more important to Indonesian Moluccans. Across the two samples, however, participants were more inclined to forgive an ingroup deviant for the benefit of this person or their relationship than for the benefit of the group. Interestingly, self‐focused concerns were more important among Indonesian Moluccans and differences between the samples in the relative importance of the different motives could not be explained by people's self‐definition (i.e., more independent or interdependent). Implications of these findings for the literature on forgiveness and on individualism–collectivism are discussed.