Beyond subjective culture Flashcards
What do “unpackaging” studies assume?
That cultural context (e.g., national culture) causes individuals to develop different cultural orientations (psychological variables: beliefs, values, self-concepts, etc.), and that cultural orientations in turn lead to differences in behaviour.
However this kind of model may be too simplistic
Display rules for emotions
Friesen (1972) PhD thesis (procedure and results)
- Expression of emotion among US and Japanese
– Watched short film of bodily mutilation
– 2 conditions: alone vs. others present
– Facial expressions videoed and coded - Results
– Alone: both nationalities showed disgust
– Others present: Japanese didn’t show disgust - Negative emotional display risks harmony
Displaying emotions
What did Matsumoto (1990) predict?
- Matsumoto (1990) predicted differences in display rules for positive and negative emotions
– Collectivism predicts showing more positive (vs. negative) emotions to ingroups (vs. outgroups)
– Initial support in US-Japanese comparison - Across US, Japan, Russia, South Korea, individualism-collectivism measure accounted for 30% of cross-cultural differences in display rules (Matsumoto, Takeuchi, et al., 1998)
Reading emotions
Reading emotions from facial expressions
– US participants judged high intensity expressions as indicating less intense experience than expression
– Japanese judged low intensity expressions as indicating more intense experience than expression
– “Individualism-collectivism” measure accounted for individual but not cultural differences
(Matsumoto, Consolacion, et al., 2002)
– The facial expressions we use to show emotions in themselves have different cultural languages
– In Japanese cultures people may be more able to detect from subtle emotions what emotion is there
Difference between tight and loose cultures
Tight cultures have “many strong norms and a low tolerance of deviant behaviour”
Loose cultures have “weak social norms and a high tolerance of deviant behaviour”
“Ecological and human-made threats increase the need for strong norms and punishment of deviant behaviour in the service of social coordination for survival”
(Gelfand & 44 co-authors, 2011, Science)
Cultural tightness and looseness
(Gelfand & 44 co-authors, 2011, Science) model
Distal Ecological and historical factors and societal processes:
- Ecological & Historical Threats (pop density, history of conflict, natural disasters, resource scarcity, human disease)
- Socio-Political Institutions (govt, media, education, legal, religion)
←→
Strength of societal norms and tolerance of deviant behaviour
←→
Proximal/ Contemporaneous Processes:
- Recurrent Episodes in Local worlds (the structure of everyday situations, degree of situational constraint)
←→
- Psychological adaptations (self-guides, self-regulation, epistemic needs self-monitoring abilities)
She argues these features of context of society would predict tightness or looseness and tightness or looseness would predict what happens in everyday situations and these in turn would predict psychological concepts
Cultural tightness and looseness
- Student and adult participants in 33 nations
- Tightness-looseness scale (example items):
– There are many social norms that people are supposed to abide by in this country. (might live in tight culture)
– People in this country have a great deal of freedom in deciding how they want to behave in most situations. (might live in loose culture)
– In this country, if someone acts in an inappropriate way, others will almost always disapprove.
Cultural tightness and looseness
3 things
- Ecological and historical threats
– Population density and growth, lower food and water supplies, lower air quality, more natural disasters, more territorial threats from neighbours, more diseases and infant mortality. - Societal institutions and practices
– Autocratic rule, closed media, fewer political rights and civil liberties, more police per capita, stricter punishments, lower crime, more religion, less collective action. - Psychological adaptations
– Cautiousness, dutifulness, self-regulation (impulse control), need for structure, self-monitoring
Countries more challenging to love in tended to have tighter cultures. Tighter behaviours also linked with social institutions.
The country differences in tightness (Pakistan) and looseness (UK)
Family structures
2 structures
Nuclear family: parents and children
– Prevalent in North America and Northern Europe
–Also in hunter-gatherer societies
Extended families: parents and children, plus grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.
– Most of the rest of the world
– Especially agrarian societies
Arranged marriages
- in 2012 how many marriages were arranged?
- why might someone choose an arranged marriage?
In 2012, 53.25% of marriages in world were arranged
– Marrying for love was less common: 46.75%
– 88% of marriages in India were arranged
– NOT the same as forced marriage
Why might someone choose an arranged marriage?
- Preserve social harmony
- Create political and economic links between families
- Social and economic protection
- Rational rather than emotional choice!
Getting married without love?
Levine, Sato, Hashimoto & Verma (1995)
- surveyed students in India, Pakistan, Thailand, Mexico, Brazil, Japan, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Australia, UK, USA:
– “If a man/woman had all the other qualities you desired, would you marry this person if you were not in love with him (her)?”
– (Higher score = NO) - Predicted effects of individualism-collectivism (r = .56*)
- BUT stronger correlation with affluence (GDP) (r = .75**)
Best predictor of getting married without love wasn’t a collectivist culture but living in a poorer society
Characteristics of a desirable mate:
What did Buss et al. (1990) study
Studied preferences in selecting mates in 37 cultures
- Relatively similar profile across cultures
— Most desirable characteristics
— Mutual attraction—love
— Dependable character
— Emotional stability and maturity
— Pleasing disposition
— Education and intelligence
- Greatest cultural variation in value of chastity
What did Shackelford, Schmitt & Buss (2005) do?
Factor analysed Buss et al. data at individual level
Four factors:
- Love vs. Status & resources
- Dependability & stability vs. Health and good looks
- Education & intelligence vs. Desire home & children
- Sociability vs. Similar religion
(People who prioritise the first might be less likely to prioritise the second)
- National averages correlated with affluence (Chan, 2004, cited in Smith et al., 2013, p. 236)
Richer countries vs. Poorer countries
People in richer countries prioritised love, dependability, education and people in poorer countries prioritised status, health and good looks, desire for a home, religion.
So it seems to be economical development which is predicting the choices people make
Do people in different cultures understand the word ‘love’ in the same way?
- Not tested in Levine or Buss studies
- Suggestion: companionate love in collectivist cultures
- Contrasts with individualistic focus on romantic love
– Neto et al. (2000) studied endorsement of six - ‘love styles’ among students in 8 countries …
- Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, France, Macao, Mozambique, Portugal, Switzerland
Neto et al. findings
Lee, 1973 model
Eros: romantic, passionate love
Storge: friendship love
Ludus: game playing love
Agape: selfless love
Pragma: shopping list love
Mania: possessive, dependent love
mix of eros and storage = agape
mix of storage and ludus = pragma
mix of eros and ludos = mania
Neto et al. findings
- Minimal differences in three styles:
–Eros (romantic, passionate love)
–Mania
–Agape
These didn’t really differ across pp’s from different countries
- Stronger differences in three styles:
–Ludus (game playing love)
–Pragma
–Storge (firendship love)
Neto et al. measured love styles based on Lee’s (1973) theory of “Colours of love”.
Neto et al. findings detailed
- Storge
- highest- Angola, Cape Verde & Mozambique
> Brazil, Macao & Portugal
> France & Switzerland
friendship loss seems less important in richest countries - Pragma
- highest- Angola, Cape Verde, Mozambique & Brazil
> Macao & Portugal
> France & Switzerland
poorer developing countries shopping list love seems to be more prevalent - Ludus
- highest- Angola & Mozambique
> Macao
> lowest- Portugal, France, Switzerland, Brazil & Cape Verde
game playing love showed a more mixed pattern
What is relational mobility and measured in?
- Relational mobility is “a socioecological variable that represents how much freedom and opportunity a society affords individuals to choose and dispose of interpersonal relationships based on personal preference”
- Measured in online survey of 16,939 participants in 39 societies between 2014 and 2016
Relational mobility model
Society-level socioecological variables:
- ecological/ historical threats
- subsistence styles
→
Relational mobility
←→
Individual-level variables:
Interpersonal behaviour and psychological tendencies
- in more threatening contexts, people might be more cautious about entering and leaving relationships
- differences in relational mobility then predict psychological responses
Relational mobility
Thomson, Yuki, & 25 co-authors, 2018, PNAS task
- How much do you feel the following statements accurately describe people in the immediate society in which you live?
– They have many chances to get to know other people
– There are few opportunities for these people to form new friendships
– If they did not like their current groups, they could leave for better ones
– It is often the case that they cannot freely choose who they associate with
Relational mobility
Findings
- Subsistence styles
– Lower RM in rice-farming cultures; higher RM in herding cultures - Ecological and historical threats
– RM lower in harsh climates, higher pathogen prevalence, population density, historically poorer nations - Greater investment in relationships
– Higher RM predicts trust in strangers, higher self-esteem, self-disclosure, intimacy with close friend/partner, willingness to help a close friend in crisis (i.e., offer social support)
The “eco-cultural framework”
Aim, context
- Aim to map context of cultural differences using culture-level rather than aggregated indicators
- Ecological context
– Ambient temperature, rainfall, natural resources - Socio-political context
– Education, economics, mass communication,
population geography, religion
(Berry, 1976; Georgas & Berry, 1995; Georgas, van de Vijver, & Berry, 2004)
The “eco-cultural framework”
- what did Georgas et al. (2004) use?
- key findings centred on…
- Georgas et al. (2004) used eco-cultural clusters of nations to predict psychological dimensions
– Hofstede and Schwartz nation scores
– Citizen mean life satisfaction scores - Key findings centred on affluence and religion
– Affluence associated with greater individualism and life satisfaction, and with lower power distance
– Different religious clusters differed especially in power distance, hierarchy and uncertainty avoidance
(see also Oishi, 2014, Annual Review of Psychology)
Beyond affluence and religion
- Means of subsistence
– Farmers and fishers vs. herders in Eastern Turkey
(Uskul, Kitayama, & Nisbett, 2008, PNAS) - Southern (rice)- more interdependent pattern vs. Northern (wheat)- more independent pattern China.
(Talhelm et al., 2014, Science) - Ecological threats
– Pathogen prevalence
(Fincher, Thornhill, Murray, & Schaller, 2008, PRS B)
– Climato-economic interactions
(Van de Vliert, 2009; Van de Vliert, Huang, & Parker, 2004)
Climato-economic interactions
- Interactions between economical development and climate
- Graphs show that income makes a greater difference in harsher climates (very cold or very hot).
- In temperate climates, income makes little difference to happiness or altruism.
- If you live in a warm country (easy to survive) it doesn’t matter if country is rich or poor
- In you live in a very hot or cold country, people tend to be happier and more altruistic.
How has the “unpackaging” model of cross-cultural differences been extended?
- Effects of cultural context on individuals’ behaviour (norms and relationships, i.e. “cultural practices”) do not necessarily depend on individuals internalising the culturally prevailing beliefs and values (i.e. “cultural orientation”).
- Cultural orientations might also be a consequence of cultural practices.
- Cultural practices of individuals also serve to reproduce the broader cultural context.
- So we can view cultures as dynamic systems of beliefs, values and practices that reinforce each other.
