Lecture 10 - Cross Cultural Differences Flashcards
Define culture
No consensus definition
Define culture according to Rohner 1984
Highly variable systems of meaning
Learnt and shared by people from one generation to the next in an identifiable population
Define culture according to Hogg and Vaughan 2014
Expression group norms and values at national racial and ethnic level
Why is culture important
Human behaviour not exist in cultural vacuum
Provides context understanding development and behaviour
Existing research challenged universality of some prior findings
Define what cross cultural psychology is Berry et al 2011
Study of relationships between cultural context and human behaviour between cultures similarities against back drop of cultural differences
What is a WEIRD sample
Western Educated Industrialised Rich Democratic
What are Henrich Heine and Norenzayan 2010 sub definitions of WEIRD samples
96% samples in psych come from countries representing only 12% worlds population
80% relief college students
Randomly selected American UG 4000x more likely be a ppt than randomly selected person from country outside the west
Why does Henrich et al 2010 believe researchers use WEIRD samples
Researchers assume there is little variation across populations and standard subjects are representative of species
What did Henrich et al 2010 fine in actual fact of the representativeness of WEIRD samples
WEIRD samples are frequent outliers across wide range psychological domains
What is an example of a study showing WEIRD cross cultural issues
Fairness in economic decision making
—> the ultimatum game
What is the ultimatum game
Given sum money and decide how much allocate other person
Responder choose whether accept or not
If don’t accept both lose money
What are the typical offers accepted in the ultimatum game Henrich et al 2010
Typically £4-5 of the £10
Offering 40-50% accepted
Lower 30% rejected
What is the cross cultural issue with ultimatum game Henrich et al 2010
Not reflected in other countries
Some countries accept lower amount
Just reflecting western results
How does Hofsede 1980 investigate characterising cultures by values
Looked at work place culture
Questionnaire 117,000 managers of multinational companies
40 counties
Factor analysis
Dimensions characterised WHOLE cultures and societies
What factors did Hofstede 1980 look at in his factor analysis of work place culture
Power distance Uncertainty avoidance Masculinity- Femininity Individualism-Collectivism Time Perspective
What is power distance
How acceptable speak up and challenge boss
What is uncertainty avoidance
Extent which culture plans for stability and dealing with uncertainty
What is Masculinity-Femininity
What we value
Masculinity = achievement success wealth external
Femininity = interpersonal harmony relationships
What is individualism collectivism
Most widely used dimension
See identity product own internal attributes
Choices they make vs making themselves fit to social context
What is Time Perspective
Long term planning incorporating how overcome obstacles
Goal related planning
Added 1991
How can Great Britain be characterised according to Hoftese 1980
Individualistic
Concerned with material success
How can Denmark be characterised according to Hoftese 1980
Individualistic
Caring
Egalitarian (female)
How can Hong Kong be characterised according to Hoftese 1980
Accepting power hierarchies and collectivistic
Outline Markus and and Kitahamas 1991 Self Construal Theory to characterise people within cultures
Individualistic-Collectivist dimension measured at individual level
Independent Self Construal
Interdependent Self construal
What is Interdependent Self Construal
Persons identity intertwined with others and defined by those relationships
More permeable boundaries. Identities more fluent depending who with and cultures
What is Independent Self Construal
Persons identity product stable internal traits and separate and unique from others
Outline Cross, Hardin and Gercek Swing 2011 criticism of Markus and Kitayamas 1991 Self Construal Theory
Women western societies more likely than men to define themselves terms their relationships
Relational Self Construal - individual difference extent which people define themselves reference close personal relationships
Not about group memberships or social roles
Outline Questionnaires and the Self Construal Scale by Singelis 1994 as a measurement of Self Construal
Most common
12 items on Independent Self Construal
12 items on Interdependent Self Construal
Likert Scale 1-7
Give examples of Interdependent Self Construal items from the Self Construal Scale
My happiness depends on happiness those around me
Often have feeling that my relationships with others are more important than my own accomplishments
Give examples of Independent Self Construal items from the Self Construal Scale
I am comfortable being singled out for praise or rewards
I act same no matter who I am with
I enjoy being unique and different from others in many respects
Outline the 20 statement task by Kuhn and McPartland 1954 for measurement of Self Construal
Ppts complete 20 sentence stems
Start with “I am…”
Codes into independent, interdependent and relational Self Construal
Number statements each category serves as measure Self Construal
Outline Priming Self Construal as a measurement by Trafimow Triandis and Goto 1991
Asked people think what makes them different from their friends and family - Independent Self Construal
Asked Think what makes them similar to friends and family - interdependent Self Construal
Evaluation of the Priming Self Construal Measurement
Assumes people in all cultures have both independent and interdependent Self Construal
Allows cause and effect relationships to be investigated
Who investigated cross cultural differences in attention
Masuda and Nisbett 2001
Outline the background of cross cultural differences in attention by Masuda and Nisbett 2001
Link between Self Construal and attention to visual sciences
East Asian process holistically - perception bound to social context
Westerners - process focal object
Where do the findings of cross cultural differences in attention by Masuda and Nisbett 2001 stem from
Stems from differences in Ancient Greek (autonomy, formal logical, breaking it down)
VS
Ancient Chinese societies
Historic and socialisation why differences seen between 2 cultures
Outline the method of experiment 1 by Masuda and Nisbett 2001
Ppts saw 45 original & 45 novel objects
Watched 10 underwater animated videos
Focal fish bigger
Surprised memory test
Background manipulated
Ppts were to indicate if they had seen this object
Outline the results for experiment 1 by Masuda and Nisbett 2001
2X3 ANOVA no interaction in Americans recalling focal object
Japanese - function background have them
When presented original background accuracy significantly better than novel
Object holistically encoded with original background proving difficult recognise when presented novel
Outline experiment 2 by Masuda and Nisbett 2001
Replicated findings with real wildlife photos and reaction times
Japanese more Errors with previously seen objects on novel backgrounds
More attentive to social context and relationships between objects
Outline cross cultural differences in perception by Kitayama Duffy and Kawamura and Larsen 2003
Differences cognitive processing may be differentials advantageous
Some tasks require absolute judgements - focal object unaffected by context
Others require relative judgement - focal object dependent on context
Describe the Framed Line Task as a non social test of cross cultural differences of cognitive ability
Presented frame 1 original stimulus of square varying in size with line drawn in
Frame 2 - smaller or larger square
Have to complete absolute or relative task
What is the absolute task for the Framed Line Task as a non social test of cross cultural differences of cognitive ability
Draw line seen in first image in second image at exact same size
What is the relative task for the Framed Line Task as a non social test of cross cultural differences of cognitive ability
Draw line seen but in relative proportion not exact size
What are the results of the Framed Line Task
Japanese make significantly more errors when completing absolute task - focus focal object
Americans worse at relative task - focus overall image
Outline experiment 2 findings using the Framed Line Task
Japanese ppts in Japan made more errors in absolute task
Americans in America made more errors in relative tasks
Americans in Japan begin to make more errors in absolute task. Reverse findings
Japanese in America - improvement in absolute task, decline relative task
Why do the results occur in experiment 2 Framed Line Task
Down to socialising
Begin to adapt and respond
Is culture hard wired in the brain according to Park and Huang 2010
Culture affects neural function particularly central visual cortex
Research examine how cultural immersion another country affects neural processing
Outline what attribution bias is related to culture
Correspondence bias
Attribute others bad behaviours to internal causes
Attribute own bad behaviours to external causes
Is this more common in individualistic culture?
Outline the method for study 1 by Morris and Peng 1994 in culture and attribution
Compulsion display Chinese and American school children
Watched animated displays social events (fish swimming) and physical events (football moving)
Ratings of extent which movements due to function object itself or external force
Outline the results for study 1 by Morris and Peng 1994 in culture and attribution
No differences Chinese and American on causal attribution physical events
Social events
1 out of 3 studies Americans more internal findings
Chinese ppts explaining social situations using external factors more frequently than Americans
What did Morris and Peng 1994 predict about attributions and cross cultural differences
Predicted cross cultural differences in attribution occur in social situations due to differences in socialisation
Outline study 2 by Morris and Peng 1994 on attributions and cross cultural differences
Replicated more naturalistic context
American newspaper more dispositional attributions for mass shooting
Chinese newspaper more situational attributions
Outline study 3 by Morris and Peng 1994 on attributions and cross cultural differences
Replicated in more naturalistic context
American ppts judges dispositional factors more likely causes mass shooting
Situational factors judged more likely by Chinese participants
What attribution bias appears evident in East Asian Cultures
Attenuation of correspondence bias in East Asian Cultures
Why does there appear to be an attenuation of correspondence bias in East Asian Cultures
Due to differences in use dispositional cues?
Greater sensitivity social context?
Combination?
Outline Choi and Nisbett 1998 study
American and Korean ppts read pro capital punishment essay written by another student
Investigate if cultural differences in different levels of salience
Decide extent which essay corresponded to student real attitude 1-7
What are the conditions in Choi and Nesbitts 1998 study
No choice condition - student no choice over topic
Exposure condition - told to take a stance making contextual info more salient
Exposure and arguments condition - told write essay stance take and given 2 arguments try and include
Results of Choi and Nisbetts 1998 study in American ppts
No difference across conditions for American ppts
Equally likely say essay reflected true judgements in all conditions
Not sensitive to contextual info
Results of Choi and Nisbetts 1998 study in Korean ppts
Reverse findings
Belief own individuals own work goes down as salience increases
Why do Choi and Nisbett 1998 believe there is an attenuation of correspondence bias in East Asian Cultures
Stronger situationalism
Define dispositionalism
Mode of thinking
Seen across cultures
Attribute internal characteristics
Outline Limitations in cross cultural psychology Oyserman Coon and Kemmelmeiers meta analysis
Individualistic-Collectivist differences often assumed without measurement
Over reliance correlational studies
Diversity measures used measure same DV
Lack replication
Cross et al 201- issues with self report measures of cross cultural differences
2 factor structure IndSC and InterSC not good fit
Cronbachs alpha reliabilities adequate at best
Multiple version Self Construal Scale - how compare if different forms
Face validity questionable - rate in comparison to others know
Reference group effect - variation within culture not necessarily between
Cross et al 2011 issues with 20 statements test
Researchers rarely provided detailed description coding scheme
Differ in definition and coding InterSC and RelSC
Not assess importance self views
Hard task
Outline Voronov and Singer conceptual issue of collectivism and individualism being reductionist labels
Whole culture or society pigeon holes in dichotomous categories
Subtle differences and qualitative nuances glossed over
Evoke fixed and caricature like mental impressions
Rather than representative picture of their complexities
Outline Güngör et al 2014 study on capital issues and face and honour cultures
Interdependent cultures value interpersonal connectedness
But the nature of connection differs
Keeping face cultures - respect others observing norms dictated by position in social hierarchy
Honour cultures - pride based social image, reputation, others evaluation. Interpersonal harmony
Outline Güngör et al 2014 study on interpersonal agency
Japanese and Turkish sample
Japanese describe agency more terms conformity
Turkish ppts more terms relatedness
Collectivism/individualism distinction glossed over nuances between 2 interdependent cultures
Outline Cohen 2009 conceptual issue of their being many different types of culture
Religion
SES
Religion within a country
Psychologists need expand definition and measurement beyond individualism-collectivism and IndSC and InterSC
Conclusion
Cultural differences construction social identity
East Asian ppts process visual info holistically. Attend more to context
East Asian less likely make correspondence bias when importance situational context made salient
Issues conceptualisation and measurement culture
