Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 43(5) 774–783 © The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0022022111414417 jccp.sagepub.com 414417JCC XX X 10.1177/0022022111414417Park et al.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 1 The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia Corresponding Author: Joonha Park, Psychological Sciences, Level 12, Redmond Barry Building, The University of Melbourne, Parkville VIC 3010, Australia. Email: j.park3@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au Relational to the Core: Lay Theories of Humanness in Australia, Japan, and Korea Joonha Park 1 , Nick Haslam 1 , and Yoshihisa Kashima 1 Abstract The authors investigated how different cultures understand what it means to be human, focus- ing on whether people essentialize human nature and conceptualize it in accordance with the culture’s dominant form of self-construal. Seventy-nine European Australian, 76 Japanese, and 97 Korean university students were asked to rate a set of personality traits on humanness, essentialism, individualism, collectivism, and relationism. There was substantial cross-cultural agreement in conceptualization of meanings of humanness. Two proposed dimensions of human- ness were distinguished in each culture, the traits understood to compose each dimension were consistent, and traits believed to compose human nature were essentialized in all samples. Relationism was the primary predictor of human nature across cultures. Keywords cultural psychology, humanness, social cognition, human nature, relationism There is growing evidence that humanness is a fundamental dimension of social judgment. Peo- ple may see themselves and their ingroups as more human than others, may stereotype groups as varying in humanness, and may dehumanize one another during social conflicts. However, peo- ple’s conceptions of humanness have received very little empirical attention in their own right and may differ across cultures. In the present study, we investigate how people from different cultures understand humanness, with a focus on how their understandings relate to culturally varying dimensions of self-construal and beliefs about the core or essential attributes of humans. Haslam (2006) proposed that there are two distinct meanings of humanness: Human Nature and Human Uniqueness. Human Nature refers to properties that are believed to be essential or typical properties of humans. They tend to be seen as innate and natural, and in preliminary research in Australia, they tended to center on emotionality, warmth, and openness. Human Uniqueness characteristics are understood to distinguish humans from other animals. They tend to be seen as socially learned and tend to involve morality, refinement, and cognitive competence (e.g., Haslam, Bain, Douge, Lee, & Bastian, 2005; Haslam, Bastian, & Bissett, 2004). Furthermore, these two meanings of humanness clarify how humanness is attributed or denied to