psych 307 - F Flashcards
1
Q
ethnocentricism
A
- assumption that one’s culture’s way is better or more natural than others’
- obstacle to understanding people in unfamiliar cultures
- hard to avoid: people are socialized to think in ways consistent with their cultural values
2
Q
2 approaches in morality
A
-
evolutionist approach: perspective that assumes the development of a trait for all humans follows a progressing trajectory
(later stages deemed more advanced and better) -
relativist approach: perspective that the development of a trait depends on local demands, where outcomes are a cultural solution to a cultural problem
- no trajectory, no hierarchy / stages
- all are solutions and none is better / advanced
3
Q
Description of Kohlberg’s Stage Theory of Morality
A
- evolutionary approach
- universal progression through the 3 levels
- cannot reach next level without passing the previous level
- cognitive abilities underlie moral reasoning → those abilities progress as individuals develop and are educated
- right and wrong is dependent on which stage of moral development they have achieved
4
Q
Steps of Kohlberg’s Stage Theory of Morality
A
-
level 1: pre-conventional level
- calculation of what provides the best overall return, taking into account one’s needs and being punished
- main driver: being punished
- should not steal because A will get in trouble
- good v bad action determined by whether it satisfies the person’s own needs, and occasionally the need of others
- morality = behave in the way that provides the best overall return
- calculation of what provides the best overall return, taking into account one’s needs and being punished
-
level 2: conventional level
- following rules, maintaining and facilitating social order (abiding by conventions)
- main driver: the law / rules
- should not steal because A should uphold the law because the law is right
- able to identify themselves with a particular group and social order
- morality = help maintain social order — violating any rules is wrong regardless what the rules are about
- following rules, maintaining and facilitating social order (abiding by conventions)
-
level 3: post-conventional level
- considering abstract, universal ethical principles that emphasize individual rights
- main driver:
- should steal because it is just, as allowing someone to die when it can be helped is always wrong regardless of what the law says
- moral values exist separately from authority of social groups
- based on consideration of abstract ethical principles
- good behaviour = consistent with set of universal ethical principles that emphasize justice and individual rights
- considering abstract, universal ethical principles that emphasize individual rights
5
Q
Universality v Variability of Kohlberg’s Stage Theory of Morality
A
- universality
- all cultures go through same order of development — although they will vary in rate and terminal point
- all urban societies had at least one adult engaging in post-conventional level
- variability
- the levels that various cultures reach: post-conventional reasoning is not found universally
- some tribal and indigenous societies no evidence of post-conventional thinking
- possible explanation: not necessarily that some are better than others
- some cultural environments encourage different kinds of moral reasoning (i.e. based on individual principles)
- too much focus on certain forms of moral reasoning assumes certain cultural environments are on the “top” of a hierarchy → prompted relativist approach
6
Q
Description of Shweder’s Big Three Approach
A
- argues that Kohlberg’s model only represents one of 3 codes of ethics (ethic of autonomy)
- Westerners often view ultimate principles to be protection of individual rights, but ethics of community and divinity are important principles in many parts of the world
- relativist approach
- there are 3 moral codes that different cultural groups emphasize, and no one code is better than the others
- reflect understanding of right and wrong that is not based on one’s preferences / community’s view
- differences in emphasis result in cross-cultural grievances
- studied using scenarios
- how much money would you need to be convinced to _______ ?
- more money = more strongly you adhere to that code of ethic
- over-reliance on one type of code can be problematic
- many clashes between code of autonomy v community: i.e. are you allowed to mandate masks? vaccinations?
- clashes with divinity: i.e. abortion laws
7
Q
Shweder’s Big Three
A
-
ethic of autonomy: associated with concerns about issues of harm, rights and justice
- must protect freedoms of individuals as much as possible
- was someone harmed?
- was someone denied their rights?
- more emphasized in individualistic cultural groups
- sees morality in terms of individual freedom and rights violation
- i.e. personal choice, right to engage in free contracts, individual liberty
- immoral if directly hurts another person / infringes on their rights and freedom (i.e. stealing someone’s lunch)
- must protect freedoms of individuals as much as possible
-
ethic of community: tied to individual’s interpersonal obligations
- must protect social order by fulfilling one’s obligations to others
- did someone show a lack of loyalty?
- did someone conform to the traditions?
- more emphasized in collectivist cultural groups
- people have duties in their roles in society — must uphold one’s duties and obligations to others
- women are more likely to reason this way than men — much controversy on whether such differences exist
- moral obligations ≠ responsibilities
- [1] viewed as objective obligations → obligation to act in a certain way when there is no official rule or law that requires it
- [2] legitimately regulated → people should be prevented from engaging in moral violations, and should be punished if they act that way
- Indians far more likely to view interpersonal breaches in moral terms — sometimes view them more seriously than justice obligations
- must protect social order by fulfilling one’s obligations to others
-
ethic of divinity: associated with concerns about sanctity and “natural order”
- must preserve standards mandated by transcendent authority
- did someone do something disgusting?
- did someone act in a way that God would approve of?
- more emphasized in collectivist cultural groups
- has overlap with code of community, but can have cultures that emphasize code of community without divinity
- concerned with sanctity and perceived natural order — obligated to preserve standards mandated by a transcendent authority
- involves belief in God creating a sacred world
- must respect and preserve its sanctity
- immoral = cause impurity or degradation to oneself or others / sinning against the sacredness of God
- people from a lower socioeconomic status shows stronger concern for ethic of divinity
- based on emotions — shows that reaching moral judgements is not purely in cold, cognitive terms
- people can come up with moral justifications for strong emotions when witnessing undesirable behaviour
- must preserve standards mandated by transcendent authority
8
Q
Culture wars: religious orthodoxy v progressivism
A
-
orthodox religions: close affinity with ethic of divinity
- committed to idea of transcendent authority
- [1] authority existed long before humans
- [2] operates independently of people
- [3] more knowledgeable and powerful than all of human experience
- transcendent authority originated a moral code and revealed it to humans in sacred texts
- code holds across time and context
- should not be altered for any social change or individual differences
- individuals and society are expected to adapt themselves to this moral code
- more likely to make judgements based on ethic of divinity: spoke about God’s exclusive authority on human life
- committed to idea of transcendent authority
-
progressive religions: close affinity with ethic of autonomy
- emphasize importance of human agency to understand and formulate a moral code
- rejects idea that transcendent authority reveals itself and its will to humans
- people play an integral role in formulation of moral code
- as social circumstances change, moral code must change
- more likely to make judgements based on ethic of autonomy: individuals had to interpret scriptures and reach a conclusion for themselves
- **ethic of community seems to characterize all religious viewpoints*
- this is a broad distinction — people’s values do not always fall neatly to one or the other
- people from each sect occassionally offers justification from each 3 ethics
- everyone has potential to reason in either way
- but most people tend to favor one ethic over another
- [universality] everyone makes judgements about right and wrong in importantly different ways
9
Q
5 Moral Foundations (expanded from Shweder)
A
- ethic of autonomy can be split into:
- avoiding harm
- mammalian evolution has shaped parental brains to be sensitive to the suffering of an offspring
- over time, sensitivity become generalized beyond mother-child relationship as societies become larger and require anonymous cooperation
- i.e. see teacher hit student’s hand with ruler
- protecting fairness
- whether resources are distributed to people in a fair way
- alliance formation and cooperation led to emotions that helped motivate cooperation and prevent cheating
- i.e. see boy skip to the front of the line because his friend is an employee
- avoiding harm
- ethic of community can be split into:
- loyalty to in-group
- history of living in kin-based groups lead to trusting in-groups and distrusting out-groups
- showing loyalty to group allows the survival of your group
- prompts us to prioritize our group over others
- i.e. teacher hopes another school wins the math contest
- history of living in kin-based groups lead to trusting in-groups and distrusting out-groups
- respecting hierarchy
- hierarchically-structured in-groups shape our brains to navigate hierarchies
- when groups come together, some sort of hierarchy always forms
- i.e. see teenager girl coming home late, ignoring her curfew
- hierarchically-structured in-groups shape our brains to navigate hierarchies
- loyalty to in-group
- ethic of divinity [not split further]
- achieve purity
- motivated by wanting to achieve wellness (of the soul / of the physical body)
- about sickness, contamination (physical / meta-physical)
- disgust is often a strong predictor, even in the absence of deities
- i.e. see a single man order a sex doll that looks like his secretary
- motivated by wanting to achieve wellness (of the soul / of the physical body)
- achieve purity
10
Q
Shweder’s Moral Foundations
A
- perceived to be universal, but certain cultures differ in which they emphasize
- political liberals tend to feel strongly about avoiding harm and protecting fairness
- political conservatives tend to feel strongly about all 5
- have stronger disgust responses than liberals
- invoke more purity concerns than liberals
- different principles are necessary to solve the same problem
- i.e. being vegetarian
- North America: to avoid harm and protect fairness (associated with liberalism)
- India: related to all 5 (associated with conservatism)
- i.e. being vegetarian
- many of the same issues can be thought of in terms of different moral values
11
Q
Fairness
A
- can be defined in multiple ways
- principle of need: resources directed to those who need the resources the most
- principle of equality: resources shared among all members of a group
- principle of equity: resources distributed based on people’s individual contributions
- individualistic societies (= principle of equity)
- more emphasis on work for rewards
- one’s input is proportional to one’s reward
- supposed to increase motivation to work — breeds competition
- collectivistic societies (= principle of equality)
- everyone gets same raise, but reward those who have been in a workplace the longest
- weakens link between input and rewards — decreases motivation to work hard
- promotes harmonious relations by removing intragroup competition
12
Q
Economic Games (to judge fairness)
A
-
dictator game: gives $100, and asks how much you want to give to another person
- 50-50 split is not common — some will keep more and share less
- more about what the player thinks is fair — see what the person generally thinks is fair
-
ultimatum game
- receiver can decide to accept / reject offer
- if reject → neither of you get the money
- will have to tap into what people generally think is fair
- economic theorist’s of Homo economicus: offer low, accept low
- but results find that:
- minimum offers accepted: 30%
- offers made: 40-50%
- typical explanations for prosocial behaviour
- kinship — expanded version
- reciprocity — if you do something nice, they will be nice to you in the future
- humans are sensitive to fairness, even in large unrelated groups
- cross-cultural variations — fairness norms vary
- receiver can decide to accept / reject offer
-
public goods game: willingness to incur personal cost to punish others (3 players)
- everyone contributes resources to the common pot
- at the end of the turn, common resource accrues in value→ value gets split evenly
- individually, better to pay nothing and get from the system
- collectively, better for everyone to go all in and divide
- i.e. A and B go all in, but C gives 10%
- A and B can spend money to punish C — not get dividends / get smaller share of dividends
- results on willingness to incur personal cost to punish others:
- all groups showed altruistic punishment: punishing people who don’t contribute enough
- likely triggered by negative emotions from violation to fairness norms
- all groups showed some anti-social punishment: punishing people who cooperate too much
- could be due to prior behaviour — still taking it out on the person / motivated by idea that they are showing off
- negatively predicted by rule of law and civic cooperation
- the more rule of law and civic cooperation, the less anti-social punishment
- rule of law: faith in judicial system, practice civic responsibilities
- all groups showed altruistic punishment: punishing people who don’t contribute enough
13
Q
Market Integration
A
-
market integration: measured as the percentage of purchased calories
- = how much of your daily calories are not grown by yourself
- more market integration → more 50/50 fairness norms
- more used to dealing with unfamiliar people
- need to have enough trust, fairness and cooperation with anonymous groups that what you are giving to the person is approx. a similar value of what you are getting back
14
Q
Secularization Theory
A
- religion is on the decline and that people everywhere are discovering new secular and rational ways to make sense of their lives > due to progression of the world
- but religion remains a potent force
- religion is strong in many parts of the world
- coming into contact with each other more now → interfaith hostility
15
Q
Protestanism
A
- developed as a reaction to perceived corruption of medieval Catholic Church
- main idea of P: individuals were capable of communicating with God directly → not dependent on the church as an intermediary
- emphasized literacy training so people can read Bibles on their own
- individualized relationship with God → central to growth of individualism (that continues to influence Western society today)
- Martin Luther (founder of Protestanism)
- every individual has a calling: unique, God-given purpose to fulfill during their lifetime
- God gives each person skills to attain his / her purpose, and it is up to the individual to discover what that is
- highest moral duty: serve God by working hard at their calling
→ able to give daily labor a spiritual significance (previously reserved for religious activities like prayer)- work became moral obligation, not just out of need for subsistence
- felt like they should take their work very seriously
16
Q
Predestination
A
- Weber believed this played key role in development of capitalism
- predestination brought feeling of inner loneliness:
people were motivated to escape it by convincing themselves they were among the privileged elect- God would not reward those who were doomed to burn in hell
- any material success from diligence = elect status
- predestination brought feeling of inner loneliness:
- modern capitalism was concerned with accumulation of wealth for its own sake (not for its material pleasures)
- predestination → converted into code of behaviour of honesty, hard work, seriousness and thrifty use of money and time
= laid foundation for development of capitalism - evidence:
- Protestant > Catholic in county wealth in the 19th century
- Protestant > Catholic in earnings
- Protestants:
- consider prospect of being unemployed as more of a blow to their well-being
- a pro-market economc attitude
- more likely to enter high-status, nonmanual occupations
- nations were more industrialized
- evidence shows difference of psychological variables between Catholics and Protestant individuals
- degree of individualism → 6 most individualistic countries are largely Protestant, while least individualistic Western societies are largely Catholic
- work ethic → Protestants have:
- negative attitude towards laziness and being over weight
- parents expected children to be self-reliant at an earlier age
- stronger achievement motivations
17
Q
Max Weber v Cross-cultural Research
A
- interested in how capitalism emerged out of traditional, medieval economies
- proposed: capitalism grew out of belief system rooted in cultural idea that grew out of the Protestant Reformation
- cross-cultural research shows evidence is not consistent with Weber’s thesis
- [1] Weber: Protestantism resulted in work becoming seen as a spiritual task → motivated to work harder
- study primed participants with words related to salvation (v neutral in control) → given work task to complete
- Americans primed about salvation worked harder, regardless of whether they were religious → supports Weber’s claim that ideas about predestination has become secularized — part of American cultural fabric
- Canadians did not work any harder regardless of which condition → shows implicit link between salvation and working does not exist for them
- [2] Weber: when working, Protestants should be entirely focused on the task and avoid distractions because work is sacred
- American Protestants have a more serious, professional attitude toward their work than other groups
- Americans focused primarily on work task at hand
- Mexicans had better recall for interpersonal information
- American-born workers more likely to decorate cubicle in professional manner compared to immigrants→ fewer personal items
- Americans see hypothetical job candidate more negatively when candidate mentioned non-work-related activities
- preferred candidates who only discussed information related to work
- American Protestants found to focus only on work-related tasks
- pay less attention to interpersonal cues
- non-Protestant Americans attended to relational cues + work
- American Protestants have a more serious, professional attitude toward their work than other groups
- [3] Weber: Protestant anxiety about salvation + worldview maintaining that people are inherently wicked and corruptible = driving force behind their work ethic
→ any thoughts that behaviour is less than holy → motivate Protestants to work even harder in their calling to confince themselves they are still among the elect
→ additionally, Protestanism do not have institutional rituals for forgiveness (i.e. Judaism’s Day of Atonement / Catholicism’s confessions) → fewer ways of dispelling guilt- Protestants with sexual anxieties (= anxiety about sex in their lives) were x2 as productive in their careers and creative pursuits
- sexual anxiety was unrelated for Jews and Catholics
- participants primed with inappropriate sexual thoughts → made the best sculptures (judged by local art experts) = more creative
- also unrelated for Jews and Catholics
- Protestant drive to be creative and productive may be based on effort to rid oneself of spiritually-unpure thoughts
- Protestants with sexual anxieties (= anxiety about sex in their lives) were x2 as productive in their careers and creative pursuits
- [1] Weber: Protestantism resulted in work becoming seen as a spiritual task → motivated to work harder
18
Q
Influence of religion on moral reasoning
A
- Protestants and Jews feel dissimilar theories about being morally responsible for your thoughts
- Jewish: doctrine based on Hebrew Bible
- foundation is on the 10 Testaments — 8/10 is focused on behaviours
- Protestants more likely to view “honor your parents” as having respectful thoughts about them
- Jews more likely to view “honor your parents” as taking care of them when they’re old
- membership is defined by descent
- rated practices as more important than beliefs
- emphasizes specific practices — i.e. kosher foods
- foundation is on the 10 Testaments — 8/10 is focused on behaviours
- Christian: doctrine based in part on Hebrew Bible (= old testament), but primarily oriented to New Testament (includes Jesus’ teaching)
- clear evidence of thoughts to be moralized
- stronger focus on faith and belief (than in Judaism)
- membership defined as publicly accepting Christian faith
- rated beliefs more important than practices
19
Q
Universal physical predictors of attraction
A
- [1] clear complexion: skin signals health in a direct, visible manner
- strong predictor – more attractive if free of blemishes, blotches, sores and rashes
- people are attracted to healthy mates who would produce healthy offspring that would survive
- does not mean people are consciously thinking about healthy mates — more towards unconscious preferences for traits associated with health
- guided by natural selection — over time, preference for perfect skin became more common in human gene pool
- strong predictor – more attractive if free of blemishes, blotches, sores and rashes
- [2] human face is rarely symmetrical, but high levels of asymmetry signals health issues
- symmetry is an indicator of developmental stability
- asymmetry caused by genetic mutations, pathogens, stressor in the womb
- smaller effect size than for clear complexion
- preference is strongest in hunter-gatherer populations
- i.e. Hadza in Tanzania — have higher rates of infant mortality → should be especially attracted to any indicator of health in mates
- symmetry is an indicator of developmental stability
- [3] average features (in size and configuration)
- average = less likely to contain genetic abnormalities
- quick processing associated with good feelings and a sense of attraction (easier to process something close to average)
- exceptions in industrialized societies:
- men prefer youthful features in women
- women prefer masculine features in men
- attractiveness of average faces consistent even in how people view those from unfamiliar cultures (tested through morphing)
- the more faces used to morph, the more attractive the face is
- due to genetic fitness explanation: genes predict traits and determine immune system
- mixed faces = more heterozygosity
- more resistant to infections
- more survivability
- why are mixed faces more attractive?
- genetic diversity = marker of healthy genes
- multiracial faces represent best average of all faces
- [4] bodies that depart from the average
- most varied across culture: women’s weight
- ideal female form is different in the past than today
- Western societies: attractive = slender
- West Africa: “fat” is considered a compliment → strength and beauty
- African Americans have heavier ideal body weight, and feel less social pressure to be slender
- most varied across culture: women’s weight
20
Q
Universal characteristics as predictors of attraction
A
- emotional stability (stand out more)
- dependability (stand out more)
- kindness
- intelligence
21
Q
Socially-oriented predictors of attraction
A
- ultimately, attraction is a social process
- not just about physical attractiveness personality, but has a social-oriented processes
- aspects of social interaction that increase attraction
- propinquity effect
- similarity-attraction effect
22
Q
Propinquity Effect
A
- tendency we have to form relationships with people we encounter more often
- [1] surprisingly powerful
- study at Maryland State Policy Academy: recruits lined up alphabetically, in seating arrangement and dorm rooms
- 45% of all friendships were with adjacent last names
- proximity was a more important influence on selection of friends than personality, background or religious belief
- friendships are not fully voluntarily, but can be influenced by circumstances that bring people together
- [2] due to mere exposure effect: more exposure → greater attraction due to familiarity
- can happen with people, objects — i.e. the more you see a particular phone model, the more you’ll be attracted to it
- culturally universal: Japanese and Americans equally likely to like people they interact with most often
- primarily works for people whom we’ve had lightly negative, neutral or positive impressions at first
- if very negative first impression, more unlikely (but not impossible) to have that attraction
- [1] surprisingly powerful
23
Q
Socially-oriented predictors of attraction - Similarity Attraction Effect
A
- tendency to become attracted to others if they share many similarities with us
- similarity plays a bigger role for important issues (than on less important issues) — attitudes, personality, religion, social background, economic level, activities
- associated with independent self-construal
- self = enduring traits → want a partner with the same enduring traits
- contrast with interdependent self-construal → internal traits are less important + do not fully get to pick their social circle
- not non-existent for interdependent, but less likely to desire someone with similar traits as them
- one of the most powerful and reliable predictors of interpersonal relationships – but not necessarily as universal as propinquity effect
- study: met a stranger with same sex and nationality, and told to fill out questionnaires
- shown (fake) questionnaire filled out by stranger that was highly similar / dissimilar
- Canadians: showed evidence of similarity-attraction effect
- Japanese: liking for a stranger is less affected by similarities — results were identical regardless of stranger’s background
- in some studies, Japanese do show similarity-attraction effect, but is consistently weaker than for North Americans
- study: met a stranger with same sex and nationality, and told to fill out questionnaires
24
Q
4 Basic Elements of Sociality
A
- all relationships are based on one or more of the 4 elements
- universal, but some variability exists
- possible for one relationship to be governed by all 4
(i.e. at a family dinner)- communal sharing: everyone allowed to eat until satisfied
- authority ranking: father occupies head of table
- equality matching: each person can claim same-sized cupcake
- market pricing: child paid $1 for loading the dishwasher
25
Q
4 basic elements of sociality - Communal Sharing
A
- communal sharing: common identity based on something socially meaningful (to that group)
- emphasis by members is on their common identity
- ideal goal: equality among all members of the group
- people will share resources
- not a lot of keeping of track of who is taking what from pool / who is contributing what
- pooled resources belong to larger whole for the greater good (not distributed based on merit)
- strongest groups created via consubstantial assimilation
- created based off of sharing some aspect of their bodies with each other
- can be literal: families (shared genes)
- can be metaphoric: cults (i.e. blood pacts)
- high level of compassion for each other’s suffering
- attack on one = attack on all
26
Q
Authority Ranking
A
-
authority ranking: hierarchical ordering of members, leading to asymmetrical relationships
-
higher ranking → more privilege and prestige, entitlted to more resources
- tend to give commands / demand things from lower ranks
-
lower ranking → entitled to protection and care from above
- tend to have expectation to be more obedient to higher rank
- in exchange for obedience → services, care
- i.e. military
-
higher ranking → more privilege and prestige, entitlted to more resources
27
Q
Equality Matching
A
-
equality matching: relationships based on reciprocity and balance
- everyone is treated as more or less equals
- contributions are always tracked — high need for reciprocation
- i.e. receive a gift → will “have to” give a gift back
- i.e. everyone gets 1 vote
- turn-taking to ensure equality matching (”eye for an eye”)
- motivated to pay back in equivalent terms
- i.e. car pools, reciprocal dinner invites
- relative position of individuals do not matter — everyone gets their turn regardless of rank
- especially common in traditional subsistence societies
- elaborate rituals often part of a reciprocal exchange of equally valued goods
- i.e. Trobriand Islanders — men take long, dangerous joruneys in open ocean to exchange shell necklaces (that have no ‘practical’ value)
- person who received necklace is obligated to go on same journey to exchange a similarly-valued gift
- elaborate rituals often part of a reciprocal exchange of equally valued goods
28
Q
4 basic elements of sociality - Market Pricing
A
-
market pricing: emphasizes balance and reciprocity through monitoring
- based on proportionality and ratios
- still focusing on balance, but not recicprocity in kind
- does not entail turn-taking (usually occurs immediately)
- relies on arbritary symbols (i.e. currency) for interactions on same turn
(main difference with equality matching — not giving the same thing back)
- similar to equality matching, but both sides of the exchange usually occurs at once, with different kinds of goods exchanged
- relative status of individuals is irrelevant (CEO charged same amount for milk as the mailman)
- especially common in individualistic cultural groups
29
Q
Variability in 4 Basic Elements of Sociality
A
- although 4 basic relational models serve the same purpose globally, some cultures rely on particular ones more than the others
- communal sharing — norms stronger in India than US
- West: most common in families (more common in people with lower socioeconomic status
- authority ranking — greater proportion in hierarchical class-based societies
- equality matching
- more common in traditional subsistence societies: elaborate rituals often part of a reciprocal exchange of equally valued goods
- stronger motivations in East Asians: reluctant to accept gifts due to feeling of obligation to reciprocate
- market pricing — more common for individualistic → does not involve close relationships
30
Q
Relational Mobility
A
- relational mobility: amount of freedom people have to move between relationships
- high:
- people have flexible ties, have options
- plenty of opportunities for forming new connections (rather than being bound to existing ones)
- people are usually keeping eyes opened to new relationships that appear promising
- low:
- fewer opportunities to form new relationships
- commitments and obligations to existing ones guide them
- relationships viewed as stable, lifelong connections
- relationships provide benefits as well as costs to maintain them
- people are typically not considering how they might find better relationships than the ones they currently have
- when people move to new cultures → acquire some of new culture’s attitudes about relational mobility (although not all)
31
Q
Key Differences of Relational Mobility
A
- key difference: basis for starting and maintaining relationships
- low:
- relationships primarily determined by circumstances, and exist independently of one’s actions
- born into family with network of relatives
- connections not up for negotiation — they simply exist
- establishes relationships with those they share contexts with (same school, neighborhood, jobs, etc)
- relationships exist naturally regardless of what one does — default, people do not choose
- how much someone likes / attracted to others is less important
- primarily seen in:
- East, Southeast Asia, North and West Africa, Middle East
- farming communities
- people have little opportunity to get up and move
- interdependent with neighbors for irrigation, etc
- societies with severe ecological threats (natural disasters) / high prevalence for disease-causing pathogens = people tend to form close-knit communities, and distrust outsiders
- high:
- relationships primarily determined by choice
- relationships are started and maintained on mutually voluntarily basis
- default state between 2 people: no relationship
- only happen when people take steps to form them
- tenous nature requires people to agree that benefits are worth effort to keep connection healthy and strong
- living in open relationship market
- regularly face new possibilities for friendships, partners and colleagues
- if current relationship is not satisfying → can look to form new ones
- due to option to leave: motivated to behave in ways to strengthen mutual commitment
- primarily seen in:
- Latin America, North America, Western Europe
- herding communities - less reliance on neighbours)
- in a more open relationship market:
- any kind of attribute that can attract potential new relationships should be more useful
- contrast: if relationships are stable, characteristics that attract people should be less useful
- i.e. inclination for similarity-attraction effect is less clear in non-Western cultures (i.e. Japan)
- Americans were more drawn to similar others
- Americans felt they had more chances for starting new relationships than the Japanese did
- cultural differences in relational mobility can account for cultural difference in similarity-attraction effect
→ because being attractive to others is more important in high-relational mobility context, people pay more attention to features that makes someone attractive (i.e. similarity) - people are more likely to strive to be unique — access to broader network will allow them to find more like-minded others
- any kind of attribute that can attract potential new relationships should be more useful
32
Q
Relational Mobility - tyranny of the beautiful
A
- enhanced value of attractiveness in high-relational-mobility context
- Westerners: physical attractive people have more positive life outcome
- essays written by attractive author is evaluated more possitively
- attractive politicans get more votes
- attractive chidlren are rated as smarter and better-behaved
- attractive MBA graduates earn more money
- attractive criminals get lighter sentences
- from young age, we learn that attractive people have more desirable characteristics
- i.e. Cinderella is kind and beautiful, unlike her evil and ugly stepsisters
- halo effect: because the first thing we learn about someone is their physical attractiveness, it is cognitively easier to assume they have other positive features as well
- however, most of this research is done in high-relational-mobility samples: did study on Ghanaian and American students
- tyranny of the beautiful evident for American participants
- more-attractive Americans reported being more satisfied with their lives and friendships
- contrast: more-attractive Ghanaians report being less satisfied with their general life outcomes and friendships (due to having lower relational mobility than the Americans)
- parallel findings when study was done on urban v rural Americans: more-attractive urban American women had greater well-being, but this relationship is not found with rural American women
- tyranny of the beautiful evident for American participants
33
Q
Residential Mobility
A
- residential mobility: being more physically mobile (i.e. changing place of residence)
- influences relational mobility
- high residential mobile areas have
- higher crime rates
- less pro-community action
- more large national chain stores + more goods sold at these stores
- people with residential mobility
- shows more conditional loyalty (i.e. only identify with your university when being described positively)
- have more Facebook friends on campus, and continue to acquire more over time
- view personality traits to be a more central part of their identity than group memberships
- personality traits (= immediately apparent upon meeting)
- group memberships (= takes more time to get to know)
- prefer large national chain stores that are the same everywhere (i.e. Starbucks, Walmart) than local regional stores
- better employment opportunities
- different views have significant economic consequences over generations – people learn attitudes about mobility from their families → families with lower mobility tend to remain poorer
- one reason why Americans appear to be psychologically unusual in the context of world culture may be due to their mobile lifestyle
34
Q
Organizations around the world - Chaebol
A
-
chaebol: South Korean form of business organization
(not unique to Korea, but very common in Korea)- collection of corporations in different domains under one name, controlled by one chairman and family — i.e. Samsung
- runs on a hierarchy with a chairman and other executives at the top
- superiors are supposed to act fatherly to workers (loving but stern)
- superiors supposed to create a family-like working environment
- important to foster sense of family within the company
- trying to foster tight-knit network within the workplace
- mixing of life inside and outside of work
- expectations that you’re not only going to work in work hours, but expected to hang out with work friends and superiors outside of work
35
Q
Organizations around the world - Simpatia
A
-
simpatía: the approach to interactions common in Latin cultures
(similar to East Asian cultural environments)- emphasis on maintaining social harmony and interpersonal attention (= paying attention to other people’s emotional states)→ meant to allow for smoother social interactions
- someone who demonstrates simpatía has simpático (= easygoing, respectful, courteous, agreeable)
- differences from East Asian cultural context
- positive v negative affect
- Latin: emphasizes high arousal positive affect (v low arousal positive affect)
- in-group v out-group
- emphasizes social harmony, but in-group v out-group is not very emphasized (”everyone is welcome”)
- bosses from Latin cultural environments pay more attention to goals and aspirations of subordinates
- workers from Latin cultural environments pay more attention to emotional state of other workers
- can see more cooperation (v employees in the US)
- positive v negative affect
- Latin Americans spend more time socializing with others (compared to European Americans)
- presence of Latin Americans in groups comes with simpático attitude → warmer exchanges
36
Q
Friends and Enemies
A
- friendships are very important — sometimes considered key to success
- quality of friendships is best predictor of happiness
- close friendships increases lifespan
- cultural differences:
- [1] Americans felt enemies were more likely to come from outside their group
- high mobility: people do not get to know each other unless its to their advantage to form a relationship
- show greater desire to avoid enemies – enemies are not a problem because they chooses not to engage with them
- low mobility: people do not get along, but stay in the relationship despite negative feelings
- show greater desire to understand enemies
- high mobility: people do not get to know each other unless its to their advantage to form a relationship
- [2] Americans have more friends than people from other cultures
- Ghana: friendships come with obligations (many friends = many obligations) due to low relational mobility
- [3] in collectivistic cultures, important aspect of friendship is giving advice (regardless of whether listener wants it or not)
- [1] Americans felt enemies were more likely to come from outside their group
