Cultural practices in socioecology Flashcards
Display rules for emotions
Friesen (1972) PhD thesis (see SFVB, p. 153) -> 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
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).
Cultural tightness and looseness
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”. Student and adult participants in 33 nations: 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. People in this country have a great deal of freedom in deciding how they want to behave in most situations. In this country, if someone acts in an inappropriate way, others will almost always disapprove.
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. Tended to have tighter cultures. 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.
Family 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 -> For fuller discussion, see Georgas (2003).
Characteristics of a desirable mate
Buss et al. (1990) 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. Shackelford, Schmitt & Buss (2005) 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 -> National averages correlated with affluence -> Richer countries vs. Poorer countries. 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. Found minimal differences in three styles -> eros (romantic, passionate love), mania (possessive, dependent love), agape (selfless love). Stronger differences in three styles -> ludus (game, playing love) pragma (shopping list love). Storge (friendship love). Lee at al. Colours of love.
Arranged marriages
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 (r = .75**)
Storage
Angola, Cape Verde & Mozambique < Brazil, Macao & Portugal, weakest in France & Switzerland.
Pragma
Angola, Cape Verde, Mozambique & Brazil, < Macao & Portugal weakest in France & Switzerland
Ludus
Angola & Mozambique > Macao, weakest in Portugal, France, Switzerland, Brazil & Cape Verde
What is relational mobility
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. Society-level socioecological variables -> individual level variables = ecological/historical threats and subsistence styles = relational mobility (interpersonal behaviour and psychological tendencies). 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. 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 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. Georgas et al. (2004) used eco-cultural clusters of nations to predict psychological dimensions. Hofstede and Schwartz nation scores. Citizen means life satisfaction scores. Key findings centred on affluence and religion -> Affluence associated with greater individualism and life satisfaction, and with lower power distance, rich individuals had higher life satisfaction -> Different religious clusters differed especially in power distance, hierarchy and uncertainty avoidance.
Beyond affluence and religion
Means of subsistence, Farmers and fishers vs. herders in Eastern Turkey, Southern (rice) vs. Northern (wheat) China, Ecological threats, Pathogen prevalence, Climato-economic interactions. 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. Climate matters more if you live in high income or low-income country. If you live in warm country doesn’t matter what income, you are -> satisfaction levels the same.
