Cultural practise, contact and change 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 1:
· 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 2:
· 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.
· (Gelfand & 44 co-authors, 2011, Science)
Cultural tightness and looseness 3:
· 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
· (Gelfand & 44 co-authors, 2011, Science)
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)
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**)
Characteristics of a desirable mate 1:
· 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
Characteristics of a desirable mate 2:
· 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 (Chan, 2004, cited in Smith et al., 2013, p. 236)
- Richer countries vs. Poorer countries
What is this thing called ‘love’?:
· 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 1:
· Minimal differences in three styles:
- Eros
- Mania
- Agape
· Stronger differences in three styles:
- Ludus
- Pragma
- Storge
Neto et al findings 2:
· Storge:
- Angola, Cape Verde & Mozambique
- > Brazil, Macao & Portugal
- > France & Switzerland
· Pragma:
- Angola, Cape Verde, Mozambique & Brazil
- > Macao & Portugal
- > France & Switzerland
· Ludus:
- Angola & Mozambique
- > Macao
- > Portugal, France, Switzerland, Brazil & Cape Verde
Relational mobility 1:
· 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
· (Thomson, Yuki, & 25 co-authors, 2018, PNAS)
