1. Asymmetric Insight 1
Asymmetric Insight
in Self versus Others from a Cross-Cultural Perspective
Aimi Tsukiyama
Brigham Young University Hawaii
Current study investigated the influence of difference
in cultural background and relationship satisfaction
on perceptual knowledge and understanding. One
hundred and thirty-nine participants from
collectivistic and individualistic cultures filled out
questionnaire packets, containing asymmetric insight
scale and Relationship Assessment Scale. Consistent
with prediction, unsatisfied relationship led to bigger
perceptual gap (the magnitude of asymmetric insight)
between self and others. On the other hand, satisfied
relationship led to less asymmetrical perception
between self and others. In addition, while people
from individualistic culture tended to demonstrated
bigger asymmetry toward others from same
background but smaller asymmetry toward others
from different background, people from collectivistic
culture demonstrated virtually identical response
toward other from both same and different
background.
In recent studies, there were many studies that have
looked at various perceptional biases, and have
confirmed the existence and operation of various
biases in human judgment. However, there were not
sufficient studies that have looked holistically at how
cultural difference and relationship satisfaction would
influence such perceptional biases.
A number of studies suggested that there was
cognitive asymmetry when people compared
themselves to others (Kruger & Gilovich, 2004;
Pronin, Kruger, Savitsky, & Ross, 2001; Pronin, Lin,
& Ross, 2002; Van Boven, White, Kamada, &
Gilovich, 2003). For example, most people tend to
judge that others were more susceptible to biases than
they were (Pronin et al., 2002). Such perceptual
asymmetry between self and others was observed in
various domains such as in the assessment of
situational correction between self and others (Van
Boven et al.), and in the assessment of actions and
intentions in self and others (Kruger & Gilovich), etc.
In 2001, Pronin et al. demonstrated that such
asymmetry also existed in people’s perception of
interpersonal knowledge. For example, people tended
to think that their knowledge and understanding of
others surpassed others’ knowledge and
understanding of them (Pronin et al., 2001). In other
words, people tended to believe that others could not
know and understand them as much as they knew and
understood others (Pronin et al., 2001). Pronin et al.
named such phenomenon as the illusion of
asymmetric insight.
In their article, Pronin et al. (2001) speculated
about the possibility of cultural difference, especially
between individualistic culture and collectivistic
culture. Pronin et al. (2001) reasoned that this
asymmetry might be the reflection of characteristic of
individualistic culture, which emphasized the unique,
independent self. Therefore, they suggested that
collectivistic culture, which emphasizes more
interdependent relationships, not salience of self,
would have less asymmetry than that of
individualistic culture (Pronin et al., 2001). In fact,
numbers of studies demonstrated the cultural
difference in people’s cognitive processes and related
biases between people from individualistic culture
and collectivistic cultures (Choi & Choi, 2002;
Church et al., 2006), such as in the processes of
judgment (Choi & Nisbett, 1998; Masuda &
Kitayama, 2004).
Following the studies of Pronin et al. (2001), in
2006, Park, Choi, and Cho replicated a study of
Pronin et al. (2001) to examine cultural generality of
this phenomenon by using Korean as their
population. In opposed to the idea of Pronin et al.
(2001), Park et al. found that Korean students
similarly demonstrated the illusion of asymmetric
insight in interpersonal knowledge between self and
others. However, as Park et al. acknowledged in their
article, although their results suggest the universality

2. Asymmetric Insight 2
of existence of asymmetric insight, their results could
not tell whether there is really differences in the
magnitude of asymmetrical between individualistic
culture and collectivistic culture because they did
directly compare the results between people from
individualistic culture and collectivistic culture.
In addition to their finding on the illusion of
asymmetric insight, Pronin et al. (2001) also reported
that the intimacy of relationships decreased the
magnitude of asymmetry. For example, roommates
who were categorized as not close demonstrated a
larger gap between their own self-knowledge and
their roommate's self-knowledge than people who
were categorized as close (Pronin et al., 2001).
Takeda and Numazaki (2005) also demonstrated that
the magnitude of asymmetry were greater in non-
intimate relationship than in intimate relationship in
the Japanese population. With regarding to the
interpersonal perception in the relationship, Morry
(2005, 2007) also reported that people tend to
perceive more similarity with an individual if they
were satisfied by or attracted to the individual. In
other words, these studies suggested that the more
people perceived that they were similar in their
assumptions about each other, the more satisfaction
people experienced (Morry, 2005, 2007). Thus, these
studies demonstrated sufficient support that
relationship between people would influence how
people perceive about each other.
There have been many studies looking at the
existence and operation of asymmetric insight
between self versus others. These studies have
provided sufficient evidence to suggest the existence
of perceptional asymmetry in various domains.
However, not many studies have looked the
universality of such perceptual asymmetry across
cultures. More specifically, the magnitude of this
asymmetric insight across culture in related with
level of relationship has been neglected in past
studies. Thus, current study attempted to compare the
magnitude of the asymmetric insight between
individualistic and collectivistic culture, between
people from the same cultural groups and different
cultural groups, and between different levels of
relationship.
Present study hypothesized that 1) the
magnitude of asymmetric insight would be smaller in
collectivistic culture but bigger in individualistic
culture, 2) the magnitude of asymmetric insight
would be smaller toward people from same
background but bigger toward people from different
background, and the magnitude of asymmetric insight
would be smaller in satisfied relationship and bigger
in unsatisfied relationship. Independent variables for
the current study were the culture of self
(individualistic vs. collectivistic), the background of
others (same vs. different), and the level of
relationship with others (satisfied, neutral, or
unsatisfied). Dependent variables were the magnitude
of interpersonal asymmetrical insight on knowledge
and understanding.
Culture (individualistic vs. collectivistic) was
chosen as an independent variable because even
though Park et al. (2006) demonstrated asymmetric
insight in collectivistic cultures, no direct comparison
of asymmetrical gap or magnitude of asymmetry
between individualistic and collectivistic culture had
been done before. In addition, as Pronin et al. (2001)
speculated in their study, since several studies
suggested the different cognitive and decision-
making processes between people from
individualistic culture and collectivistic culture (Choi
& Choi, 2002; Choi & Nisbett, 1998; Masuda &
Kitayama, 2004), it would be reasonable to consider
that it was worth exploring to find the possibility of
cultural difference.
The background of others (same vs. different)
was chosen as another independent variable. In this
context, the background of others meant by the way
of group classification based on mostly where others
(Person A, B, and C) came from. For example, one
group who were given form A estimated their
perception toward others who came from same
background (having same home country), and
another group who were given form B estimated their
perception toward others who came from different
background (having different country or race). The
background of others was chosen because even if
Park et al. (2006) attempted to confirm the
universality of asymmetric insight across culture,
they only measured asymmetric insight toward
people from same background (e.g., Korean vs.
Korean), and no study had examined the asymmetric
insight toward people from different background(e.g.,
Korean vs. American).
In addition, it would be worth noting that Pronin
et al. (2001) demonstrated that asymmetric insight
also occurred in the intergroup contexts. For
example, it was demonstrated that people tended to
believe that their groups’ understanding of out-groups
surpassed out-groups’ understanding of own group.
Therefore, if we regard background such as home
country or race as a form of group, it was possible to
expect that the interaction of interpersonal and
intergroup asymmetric insight would magnify the
asymmetric insight toward others from different

3. Asymmetric Insight 3
background. In addition, as the world is becoming
increasingly diverse, people’s chance to interact with
others who came from different background had
significantly increased. Thus, it would be meaningful
to look at not only interaction of same group of
people, but also interaction of different group of
people.
Other independent variables for the current
study were the levels of relationship (satisfied,
neutral, or unsatisfied). The level of relationship was
chosen as an independent variable because even
though the results of two studies demonstrated that
relationship closeness would predict the magnitude of
asymmetric insight, these studies only looked at how
close or intimate their relationship were, but never
looked at another important aspect of relationship
measurement—how satisfied people were in their
relationship (Pronin et al., 2001; Takeda &
Numazaki, 2005).
The dependent variables for the current study
were the magnitude of interpersonal asymmetrical
insight on knowledge and understanding. The
magnitude of asymmetric insight was measured by a
questionnaire that was used in the previous studies of
Park et al. (2006) and Pronin et al. (2001). Then, the
magnitude of asymmetric insight was determined by
deducting the score of item on others from the score
of item on self. The magnitude of asymmetric insight
was chosen as dependent variables because many
studies had demonstrated the existence of
perceptional asymmetry between self and others in
various domains (Kruger & Gilovich, 2004; Pronin et
al., 2001; Pronin et al., 2002; Van Boven et al.,
2003), but no study examined the difference in
magnitude of such asymmetry between given groups.
Method
Participants
Participants of current study were recruited from
people of both collectivistic and individualistic
cultures who were living in both on-campus and off-
campus housing at a western multinational university.
Among total numbers of 139 participants (age: M =
24.12, SD = 6.11), four different groups were
classified; group CA, group CB, group IA, and group
IB. Group CA was consisted of 33 participants (age:
M = 23.73, SD = 2.49) from collectivistic culture who
were given form A of questionnaire packet, group CB
was consisted of 37 participants (age: M = 24.16, SD
= 2.87) from collectivistic culture, given form B,
group IA was consisted of 33 participants (age: M =
25.09, SD = 8.51), and group IB was consisted of 36
people (age: M = 23.53, SD = 8.08). Both group IA
and IB were came from individualistic culture, and
form A and form B were distributed respectively.
The people of collectivistic cultural groups came
from Japan (70%), Korea (9%), Hong Kong (9%),
Philippines (7%), Mongolia (3%), Taiwan (1%), and
China (1%). The people of individualistic cultural
group mostly come from United States (96%) and
other countries such as Canada. Since no gender
effect was reported in previous studies, gender was
not considered as a part of analysis in the study.
Apparatus and procedure
Four-page questionnaire packets were prepared
and distributed through on-campus and off-campus of
western multinational university. The questionnaire
packets were prepared in two different forms, form A
and form B. While form A asked questions about
others who were from same background (same
country) as participants, form B asked questions
about others who were from different background
(mostly different country, rarely same country but
different race) from participants. These two different
forms were distributed randomly to equal proportion
of participants.
A four-page questionnaire packet consisted of
three components: demographic survey,
asymmetrical insight scale (Park et al., 2006; Pronin
et al., 2001), and Hendrick’s (1988) Relationship
Assessment Scale (RAS). Demographic survey
contained general demographic questions such as
participants’ age, gender, home country, and years
lived in United States, etc.After the series of
demographic questions, participants were instructed
to think of three particular individuals and write
down their initials on the provided margins of
questionnaire. These individuals (Person A, B, and C)
had to be same gender as participants, and with

4. Asymmetric Insight 4
Person A, participants should have satisfied
relationship, with Person B, participants should have
neutral (neither satisfied nor unsatisfied) relationship,
and with Person C, participants should have
unsatisfied relationship. After participants had written
down the initials of Person A, B and C, participants
were instructed to answer the series of questions that
were comprised of asymmetrical insight scale and
RAS. These left of two components (the combination
of asymmetrical insight scale and RAS) were
repeated three times for the measurement of three
different others (Person A, B, and C) with three
different levels of relationship (satisfied, neutral, and
unsatisfied).
Asymmetrical insight scale was modeled after
the questions that Park et al. (2006) and Pronin et al.
(2001) used for their studies. This scale had two
components (the measurement of self and the
measurements of others), and each component
contained two items that measured interpersonal
perception on knowledge and understanding. For
example, if it was measurement on knowledge for
Person A, the item questioned, “How well do you
know Person A?”, and scale (1 =not at all,
10=perfectly) was provided for participants to
indicate their degree of knowledge toward Person A.
If it was measurement for perceived Person A’s
understanding for self, the item asked, “How well do
you think Person A understands you?”, and scale (1
=not at al, 10=perfectly) was also provided to
indicate participants’’ answer. In this study, the scale
was modified from the original scale 1 to 9 (Pronin et
al., 2001) or 1 to 11 (Park et al.) to 1 to 10.
Relationship Assessment Scale (Hendrick, 1988)
was normally used to measure the level of
satisfaction. However, current study used this scale as
a deceptive measurement to distract the attention of
participants from what this study was truly trying to
measure. Therefore, RAS was incorporated in
asymmetrical insight scale, inserted between the
items of measurement for others and the items of
measurement for self. In RAS, the term partner was
replaced with Person A, B or C in order to fit the
context of questionnaire.
There were seven items in RAS, and item 4 and
7 were reversed scores. As same as asymmetric
insight scale, the scale was modified from into 1 to
10. After scores of item 4 and 7 were reversed, all
score were averaged that ranging from 1 to 10.
Averaged RAS score were used to compare self
reported satisfaction level to validate the participants’
claim of level of relationship satisfaction.
Results
A 2 (culture: individualistic vs. collectivistic) x 2
(background: same vs. different) x 3 (relationship:
satisfied, neutral, or unsatisfied) repeated-measures
ANOVA was utilized to analyze current study.
Culture and background (form) were used as between
subject variables, and the level of relationship was
used as the within subject variable. The magnitude of
asymmetric insight on knowledge and understanding
were used as dependent variables.In oppose to the
first hypothesis, no main effects were found on
culture for both knowledge, F(1, 135) = 2.325, p =
ns, and understanding, F(1, 135) = 0.035, p = ns.
Also, in contrast to the second hypothesis, main
effects on background (form) were not observed for
both knowledge, F(1, 135) = 1.606, p = ns, and
understanding, F(1, 135) = 0.006, p = ns.
However, while main effect of both culture and
background was not observed, a significant
interaction was found between culture and
background (form) on knowledge, F(1, 135) = 4.681,
p < 0.05. Tukey post-hoc test revealed that the
magnitude of asymmetric insight for same
background (form A) was significantly different
between individualistic and collectivistic cultures, p =
0.05. This result supported the first hypothesis on the
possibility of cultural difference. In contrast, there
was virtually no difference in different background
(form B) between cultures, p = 0.967.
Also, though it did not reached to the level of
significance, nearly significant difference was
observed in individualistic culture (p = 0.07) between
same background (form A) and different background
(form B). In other words, people from individualistic
culture tend to demonstrate bigger perceptual
knowledge gap toward others from same background
than others from different cultural background. It was
actually the opposite of second hypothesis. The
interaction effect of understanding was not observed,
F(1, 135) = 0.06, p = ns.
According to the further statistical analysis, a
main effect of relationship was observed on both
knowledge, F(2, 270) = 29.151, p < 0.001, and
understanding, F (2, 270) = 5.195, p < 0.01. Tukey
post-hoc tests revealed that all groups on knowledge
were significantly different from each other (all p <
0.05), and satisfied relationship on understanding was
significantly smaller than that of unsatisfied
relationship (p < 0.01). Therefore, third hypothesis on
relationship were accepted for both on knowledge
and understanding.

5. Asymmetric Insight 5
Discussion
The current study investigated the influence of
difference in cultural background and relationship
satisfaction on perceptual knowledge and
understanding. As expected, the analysis of current
study indicated that there appeared to be shift in the
magnitude of asymmetry based on the levels of
relationship satisfaction.
For example, if a person have satisfied
relationship with a particular individual, the person is
more likely to have symmetric perception (smaller
perceptual gap) toward that individual. In other
words, the person tends to think that “he know me as
much as I know him,” or “she understand me as
much as I understand her.” However, if a person has
unsatisfied relationship with another particular
individual, the person is more likely to have
asymmetric perception (bigger perceptual gap), and
tends to think, “I know her better than she knows
me,” or “I understand him better than he understands
me.” This result is consistent with the results of
Pronin et al. (2001) on relationship closeness and the
results of Takeda and Numazaki (2005) on
relationship intimacy.
Also, as hypothesized, the analysis of current
study indicated the possibility of cultural difference.
Consistent with the idea of Pronin et al. (2001) about
the illusion of asymmetric insight and the ideas of
previous studies about bias (Choi & Choi, 2002; Choi
& Nisbett, 1998; Masuda & Kitayama, 2004), people
from individualistic culture are more likely to display
salient asymmetry (bigger perceptional gap) than
people from collectivistic culture when they
estimated perceptual knowledge toward others from
same background. However, in oppose to hypothesis,
when people estimated perceptual knowledge of self
and others who are from different cultural
background, there were virtually no difference
between people from individualistic and collectivistic
culture.
In related to this finding, although it was not
significant enough to validate the results (p = 0.07),
people from individualistic culture tended to display
more accurate estimation of perceptual knowledge
toward others from different background than others
from same background. This less salience of
asymmetric insight toward others from different
background might indicate that obvious difference
might suppress perceptional bias in people from
individualistic culture. On the other hands, people
from collectivistic culture perceive almost identically
toward others from both same and different
background.
Although some significant results were obtained,
there were various limitations of current study that
might buffer results. First of all, there was
considerable difference in the participants’ response
between perceptual knowledge and understanding.
While a significant result was observed on
knowledge when culture and background (form) were
interacted, no significant results were obtained on
understanding.
Since there seemed to have greater variability in
the estimation of perceptual understanding, the
apparatus might contain possible problems such as
ambiguous wording and the order of items. For
example, several participants showed some confusion
to distinct the difference between the measurement
for knowledge and understanding. Since some
participants could not make distinct difference
between these two items, after answering the question
on knowledge (the item on knowledge was preceded
to the item of understanding on current study’s
questionnaire) such confused participants might
unintentionally divert their answers on understanding.
Also, it is important to note that there were
considerable numbers of invalid data that also might
bias the results (possibly, due to the poor wording of
instruction and administration of survey). Although
these invalid data were not included to the statistical
analysis, there were 7 respondents who did not
answer the questions on unsatisfied relationship
(claiming that they do not have any unsatisfied
relationship with others), and 25 respondents who
mixed up others from same and different background.
Considering such limitations, if apparatus, population
demographics, and the methods of correcting data
were improved, more valid and reliable results might
be obtained.
One additional point that should be noted is that
current study was conducted on western multinational
university, whose students are coming from more
than 70 countries. Hence, in terms of cross-cultural
study, population that were used in this study might
have displayed some uniqueness in their interpersonal
perception since most participants had been
surrounded and exposed by others from various
different backgrounds.
Concerning about interpersonal or intergroup
bias, Pronin (2007) suggested the link between
perceptional biases and conflicts. Pronin stated that
“human judgment and decision making is distorted
by an array of cognitive, perceptual, and motivational
biases,”“[such biases] can compromise the quality of
human judgment and decision making, and they can
cause misunderstanding and conflict” (p.37).

6. Asymmetric Insight 6
We are now living in an extremely diverse and
complex world. Compared to centuries ago, not only
our geographical distance was much decreased by the
development of modern transportation, but our
functional distance was virtually diminished by the
means of modern technologies. While we gained
significant advantages by the technological
development, we also added considerable challenges
such as increased possibility to have various conflicts
because of increased chance of encounter with people
from different background. However, as current study
indicated, whether people are from individualistic
culture or collectivistic culture, or whether people are
estimating toward others from same background or
different background, it is clear that more accurate
perception is linked to satisfied relationship. In other
words, if people could find the way to remove bias
and see things accurately, the world with more
satisfaction and fewer conflicts may be achievable.
References
Choi, I., & Choi, Y. (2002). Culture and self-concept
flexibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28,
1508-1517.
Choi, I., & Nisbett, R. E. (1998). Situational salience and
cultural differences in the correspondence bias and actor-
observer bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
24, 949-960.
Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., del Prado, A. M., Ortiz, F.
A., Mastor, K. A., Harumi, Y., et al. (2006). Implicit theories
and self-perceptions of traitedness across cultures: Toward an
integration of cultural and trait psychology perspectives.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 694-716.
Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship
satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 93-98.
Hendrick, S. S., Dicke, A., &Hendrick, C. (1998). The
relationship assessment scale. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 15, 137-142.
Kruger, J., & Gilovich, T. (2004). Actions, intentions, and
self assessment: The road to self-enhancement is paved with
good intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
30, 328-339.
Masuda, T., & Kitayama, S. (2004). Perceiver-induced
constraint and attitude attribution in Japan and the US: A
case for the cultural dependence of the correspondence bias.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 409-416.
Morry, M. M. (2005). Relationship satisfaction as a predictor
of similarity ratings: A test of the attraction-similarity
hypothesis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
22, 561-584.
Morry, M. M. (2007). The attraction-similarity hypothesis
among cross-sex friends: Relationship satisfaction, perceived
similarities, and self-serving perceptions. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 24, 117-138.
Park, J., Choi, I., & Cho, G. (2006). The actor-observer bias
in beliefs of interpersonal insights. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 37, 630-642.
Pronin, E. (2007). Perception and misperception of bias in
human judgment. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 37-42.
Pronin, E., Kruger, J., Savitsky, K., & Ross, L. (2001). You
don’t know me, but I know you: The illusion of asymmetric
insight. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81,
639-656.
Pronin, E., Lin, D. Y., & Ross, L. (2002). The bias blind
spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 369-381.
Takeda, M., & Numazaki, M. (2005, January). The three
illusions on interpersonal perception: Effects of relationship
intimacy on two types of illusion of transparency and the
illusion of asymmetric insight. Poster session presented at the
fifth annual meeting at the Society of Personality and Social
Psychology, New Orleans, LA.
Van Boven, L., White, K., Kamada, A., & Gilovich, T.
(2003). Intuitions about situational correction in self and
others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85,
249-258.