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
