psych 307 - M2 Flashcards
1
Q
Cultural Values
A
- guiding principles for how people in certain cultural environments interact with their physical and social environment
- studied using value dimensions:
- Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s Value Dimensions
- Hofstede’s Value Dimensions
- overlap between the value dimensions: relational v individualism and indulgence
- most commonly studied
2
Q
Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s Value Dimensions
A
-
“time” dimension: where in the chronological timeline do people focus on
- past: ancestor worship, discussion of ancestors (East, South-East Asian)
- present: not focused on planning, here and now (i.e. substance use)
-
future: planning and thinking about the future
- linked to higher academic achievement
-
“nature” orientation: human’s place in the cosmos – how we interact with the environment
- subjugation to nature: higher levels of helplessness, cannot change the environment
- harmony with nature: humans are extension to nature, meant to take care of it
- mastery over nature: can fully exert agency to shape environment however they want to (i.e. land reclamation)
-
“human nature” orientation: what is the nature of humanity
- good: humans are good by nature, but is easy to stray away > have to continue to cultivate to refine “chi”
- evil: people are born with sin
- mixed: people have capacity for good or bad, not not innately good or bad
-
“relational” orientation: nature of the relationships between people
- collateral: power sharing, equality between individuals, horizontal collective hierarchies
- linear: hierarchy, decisions made at the top and filtered down
- individualistic: making decisions for me, by myself
3
Q
Hofstede’s Value Dimensions
A
-
power distance: whether people in a group (particularly those at the bottom), accept and expect unequal distributions of power in society
- low: lower rates of corruption, equal distribution of wealth and income, children given more autonomy [Western European]
- high: rampant corruption and scandals, uneven distribution of income, children taught to respect authority [Eastern European, Southeast Asian]
-
uncertainty avoidance: whether people in a group are comfortable with ambiguity and unstructured interactions
- low: tolerate different opinions, dislike rules and norms, teachers can say “idk” [East Asian, South American]
- high: different opinions seen as dangerous, emotional need for rules for clarity and structure, teachers should have all answers [English-speaking, Nordic]
-
masculinity: whether men and women in a group have differentiated gender roles (assertive, ambitious v modest, caring)
- fem: minimum gender role differentiation, many women elected into politics, sexuality is not a moral issue [Nordic]
- masc: maximum gender role differentiation, few women elected into politics, sexuality is highly moralized [Eastern European, Asian]
-
individualism: whether people are integrated into a cohesive group rather than a loose collection of individuals
- collect: strong emphasis on maintaining harmony, breaking rules leads to shame, born into complex network of extended relationships [Central American, East Asian]
- indiv: strong emphasis for speaking one’s mind, breaking rules lead to guilt, primary relationships involve immediate family [Western countries]
-
indulgence: whether people in a group value / control gratification of one’s desires and happiness
- restrained: little concern for freedom of speech, personal life seen through helplessness, less likely to remember / think about positive emotions
- indulgent: great importance on free speech, people see personal life as controllable, more likely to remember / think / talk about positive emotions
4
Q
self schema / concept
A
- self schema: cognitive schema that contains beliefs about the self (= self construals)
- 2 types of self-construals (Markus and Kitayama (1991))
- everyone falls somewhere in-between the two: independent v interdependent self-construal
- instead of seeing it as binary / high-low, speak in terms of which end they are closer to
- self-concept serves key functions = understanding how people view themselves allows us to make predictions about how specific psychological processes vary cross-culturally
- how we relate to others
- attainment of personal goals
- organize information we have about ourselves
- direct attention to information considered relevant
- shapes the concerns we have
- guides choices of relationship partners and kinds of relationships we maintain
- influences how we interpret situations and the emotional experiences we have
5
Q
Independent Self-Construal
A
- main separation between self and others
- linked to higher individualism (more emphasis on the self)
- attributes are basis of the individual’s identity
- diagram:
- circle around individual do not overlap with significant relationship circles
- attributes are self-contained
- arises from individual, not from interactions with others
- individuals feel obligated to publicly present themselves consistently with these attributes
- X lie inside the circle within the individual:
- unique to the individual
- significant for regulating behaviour
- circle around individual has solid border: experiences are stable, and do not change from situation to situation
- circle around in-group has dotted line border: boundary between in-group and out-group is permeable
- people view themselves as closer to in-group than out-group, but do not view them in fundamentally distinct ways
- circle around individual do not overlap with significant relationship circles
6
Q
Interdependent Self-Construal
A
- main separation is between in-group and out-group
- linked to collectivism
- important aspects of self sits at relationships with others (X)
- aspects of identity based on internal characteristics (x) are less central to their identity
- diagram:
- circle around individual overlaps considerably with significant relationships
- behaviour depends on perception of others’ thoughts, feelings and actions
- individual is not perceived as separate entities, but as participants in a larger social unit
- X lies in intersections between individual and their significant relationships
- identities are grounded in relationships with others – people take particular roles that govern how they feel and behave towards their partners
- circle around individual has dotted line: identity is fluid and permeable
- the role the person occupies will vary
- circle separating in-group and out-group has a solid line: significant and stable
- relationships with in-group are self-defining
- people do not easily become in-groups
- in-groups do not easily become out-groups
- views in and out-groups distinctively, and will behave differently
- circle around individual overlaps considerably with significant relationships
7
Q
Independent v Interdependent self-construals
A
- definition of self:
- free from social context
- tied to social context
- structure of self
- stable, bounded, unitary - individual is own entity
- variable, flexible, fluid
- primary tasks
- uniqueness, self-expression, realization of internal attributes, promotion of personal goals
- fitting in, self-restraint, assuming one’s proper place, promotion of others’ goals
- basis of self-esteem:
- ability to express oneself and one’s internal attributes
- ability to restrain oneself and maintain harmony with others
- in-group and out-group relationships
- [ind] several close relationships with in-group, but relationships are less self-defining
- perceives selves as functioning separately from social environment
- relationships can form and dissolve without much impact on identity
- more wiling to form new connections, maintain large networks
- [inter] more solid and stable in-group and out-group boundary
- close relationships are especially important
- serves to direct behaviour
- people have obligations to these relationships
- study: Asian Americans more accurate in identifying emotions of close friends, European Americans more accurate in recognizing emotions of strangers and have higher levels of general trust to strangers
- problem in conducting research: studies usually assess behaviour with strangers – interdependent people may feel especially distant and would act differently than Westerners
8
Q
differences associated with self-construals
A
-
[1] self descriptors: how people describe themselves (“i am ___”)
- through Twenty Statements Test
- [ind] describes you as a general person, focus on personal characteristics (abstract, global, stable)
- [inter] describes you in the relation of your relationships, focus on social identity (social categories, affiliations, social roles)
-
[2] self-consistency: structure of the self
- measured through self-concept clarity scale:
- strong relationship between self-concept confusion = lower self-esteem for European Canadians with self-esteem, weak relationship for East Asians
- built into languages / society (i.e. Korean uses different words)
- [ind] more fixed – you are the same person no matter where or who you are with
- conformity seen as negative and immature (have not developed self)
- people who adapt to situations are seen as “fake” / not genuine
- [inter] more variable and fluid
- conformity seen positively, as sign of maturity (insistence on non-conformity is immature and stubborn)
- maturity = able to overcome urges, read social situation and act accordingly
-
cognitive dissonance: distressing feeling when we observe ourselves behave inconsistently, or against our own sense of self-consistency
- to reduce: act more consistently / dissonance reduction: change our attitudes (after decision) so we don’t appear inconsistent
- North Americans aspire to be self-consistent (rationalize for own decision), while East Asians aspire to be consistent with others (rationalize for decision made for others)
- East Asians are not less consistent, just in a different way
- measured through self-concept clarity scale:
-
[3] implicit theories of self
- [ind] entity theory of self = abilities are fixed and reflect innate qualities because the self is stable and bound
- deal with failure: blame lack of ability > will withdraw from task
-
[inter] incremental theory of self = abilities are malleable and can be changed with effort because the self is malleable and fluid
- deal with failure: blame lack of effort > will redouble efforts and be less likely to give up
- North Americans less likely to hold incremental view than Asians (can see difference in kinds of exams created: aptitude v knowledge)
- [ind] entity theory of self = abilities are fixed and reflect innate qualities because the self is stable and bound
- [4] self-esteem
-
[5] brain activation patterns
- Westerners show different regions of brain activation between themselves and their mothers
- Chinese show activation patterns in the same brain regions
- shows that significant in-group relationships form core part of self-concept
- activation occurs in medial pre-fontal cortex: linked to self-concept
-
[6] self awareness
- subjective self-awareness: consider ourselves from inside out perspective
- concerned with outside world, unaware of ourselves
- American: self-evaluations unaffected by whichever score other people know about = evaluations based on own standards
- objective self-awareness: consider ourselves from the outside in perspective
- looking at ourselves objectively the way we perceive the rest of the world
- Hong Kong: self-evaluations affected by score confederate saw = evaluations are product of others’ thoughts
- affects how you think:
- first v third person perspective (habit of considering perspective of others > objective perspective of self)
- accuracy of one’s self-view (more accurate in predicting own future behaviour because of objective perspective of self)
- subjective self-awareness: consider ourselves from inside out perspective
9
Q
Individualism v Collectivism
A
- self-concept and cultural practices make each other up
- self-concept is shaped by cultural practices to direct individuals on what to focus on, value, believe and attain
- cultural practices are shaped by self-concept of a culture’s members
- [indiv] engage in thoughts and behaviours that foster independence, feel distinct from others, emphasize being self-sufficient
- [collect] engage in thoughts and behaviours that foster interdependent self-concept = close relationships and group memberships
- issue: collectivistic cultures make up > 80% world population, but most research is done in independent cultures
- individualism varies with social class
- higher SES: have more independent selves from poorer backgrounds
- exception: impoverished people = experience social isolation and report fewer close social relationships
- middle-class parents emphasize teaching children self-direction // working-class parents put greater value to conforming to authority
- economic growth is linked to greater rates of independence, recession is linked to greater rates of interdependence
10
Q
Gender and Culture
A
- 4 underlying factors: agency, assertiveness, collectivism, relatedness
- cultural differences:
- Western score higher on agency and assertiveness
- Eastern score higher on collectivism and relatedness
- gender differences:
- independent self-concept more characteristic of men, interdependent self-concept more characteristic of women
- but women score on relatedness [no differences for other factors]
- suggests women are more interdependent than men in feelings and concerns, while other factors have no differences
- cultural differences:
- gender norms
- part of cultural discourse: men and women share similar views, but men have more traditional views than women
- Northern = more egalitarian, Southern = more traditional
- Urban = more egalitarian
- Christian countries = more egalitarian, Muslim = more traditional
- roots in agriculture: societies who historically did plowing have more traditional norms and fewer women in the work force today
- shifting cultivation (work done by women) v plow cultivation (work done by men)
- part of cultural discourse: men and women share similar views, but men have more traditional views than women
11
Q
Personality
A
- personality: one’s characteristic pattern of thought, emotion and behaviour, along with accompanying psychological mechanisms
- cultural differences:
- some see as fixed, some as entity that can change
- universality: all cultural groups possess terms to describe enduring characteristics
- personality exists everywhere, but for some cultures may need to re-conceptualize as something existing within relationships
- variability: some languages pay a lot to attention and have many words to describe it
- some cultures conceptualize as trans-situationally stable, others do not discuss being stable across situations
- some argue that the study of personality is simply an extension of studying Western individualism
- personality traits tend to cluster: influence of daily interactions / demands of environment / people move to places with like-minded others
12
Q
How to study personality?
A
- lexical approach:
- look for dictionary entries with trait adjectives
- eliminate synonyms, physical descriptors (i.e. muscular), temporary states (i.e. tired), unfamiliar terms (uncommonly known)
- give list to people to rate themselves
- do a factor analysis: determines how many factors underlie a construct
- example: 2 factors from 6 questions
- factor 1: answer question 1, 3, 4 similarly (if high for 1, will be high for 3, 4)
- factor 2: answer question 2, 5, 6 similarly
- results in 5 factor model = OCEAN
- openness to experiences
- conscientiousness: how responsible / dependable
- extraversion: how active / dominant
- agreeableness: how warm / pleasant / friendly
- neuroticism: emotional instability / unpredictability
- OCEAN shows universality and coverage for personality variations, but it is not shocking if the 5 factors are yielded from one language
- must take lexical approach to other cultures
- Tagalog yielded 7 factors
- intellect: clever / sensible (= openness)
- conscientiousness: dependable / religious
- gregariousness: liking company of others (= extraversion)
- concern for others: humble / not violent (= agreeableness)
- self-assurance: brave / assertive (= neuroticism)
- temperamentalness: emotional reactivity / hotheaded
- negative valence: sadistic / crazy / social deviance
13
Q
Measures and Questions of universality
A
-
emic measure: a measure created within a culture, and used to assess people from within the culture
- would see more variability
-
etic measure: a measure created from one culture and exported for use in another culture
- would see more universality (it is what the test is designed to reveal)
14
Q
Self Esteem (last difference associated with self-construal)
A
-
self esteem: how positive one’s overall / global evaluation of oneself
- measured using Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: European Canadians > South Asian Canadians > everyone else > East Asian Canadians
- [ind] strong emphasis on having and maintaining high self-esteem
-
more likely to engage in self-enhancement: tendency to view selves positively and socially desirable
- self-serving bias: tendency for people to exaggerate their positive characteristics
- motivated by desire to bolster self image and demonstrate unique attributes
- try not to think about discrepancy between actual and ideal self > predictive of depression symptoms
- [inter] strong emphasis on social categories, affiliations, social roles
- more likely to engage in self-effacement: tendency to view selves in a critical manner and think of shortcomings
- find failures more memorable (think of them more)
- motivated by desire to fit in and self-improve
- experience more actual-ideal discrepancy (not as concerned)
15
Q
Strategies for self-enhancement
A
-
downward social comparison: compare ourselves to those who are worse off than us (“at least I didn’t get 50% like that person”)
- v upward social comparison: compare ourselves to those better than us
-
discounting: downplay the importance of the attribute (“i don’t really care about this course anyways”)
- v value task even more
-
external attributions: attribute failures to others than than ourselves (“the prof’s instructions were unclear”)
- v make external attributions for success (instead of failures)
-
compensatory self-enhancement: focusing on and exaggerating how good you are at something unrelated (“but I am a really good clarinet player”)
- v tendency to exaggerate negative self-view
- basking in reflected glory: emphasizing connections to successful others from a group you belong to (“we won!” - about university football team)
16
Q
Result for self-enhancement
A
- more ambition: more likely to try for less-likely outcomes due to positive view of self
- ignore adversity: believe in ability to handle adversity due to unrealistically positive view of self
- better physical health (less stressed)
17
Q
Modesty Norms
A
- alternative explanation to self-enhancement v self-effacement > explain away cultural variability
- culture norms to be modest stops people from self-enhancing (= don’t self-enhance when giving answers)
- studied self-enhancement through overconfidence (= overestimation, overplacement and overprecision)
- overestimation:how well you think you did v how well you did
- overplacement: estimating how you did in relation to others (what percentile rank are you)
- overprecision: how certain are you in the absence of information
- results: have to be specific, cannot give blanket statement
- with incentives, all cultures do self-enhancement, but some more than others
- less cultural variability for overestimation
- more cultural variability for overprecision
18
Q
Origin of cultural differences for self-enhancement
A
- people learn motives for self-enhancement as they grow up
-
parents’ stories about child’s past behaviour
- European American: focus on previous successes
- Taiwan: focus on child’s past transgressions
- parents’ view on self-esteem
- American: self-esteem is central to child rearing, is a positive quality, and should be cultivated by parents
- Taiwan: seen negatively, too much self-esteem leads to frustration in adversity
-
parents’ stories about child’s past behaviour
- [1] Protestant Reformation stimulated growth of self-enhancing motivations
- predestination: before birth, it is pre-determined whether someone will go to Heaven / Hell
- motivated people to interpret events in life as a sign of favor from God
- [2] as cultures become more individualistic, people have to learn to take care of themselves
- needs increased self-esteem to do that
- as individualism increases, self-esteem and self-enhancement also increases
- [3] income inequality - people want to think of themselves as better than others when there are pronounced differences
19
Q
Face and Self-Improvement
A
- self-improvement: identifying potential weaknesses and work on correcting them
-
face: amount of social value others give you if you live up to standards associated with your position
- higher social position = greater face
- face can be shared by groups
- very important in hierarchical, collectivist societies
- characteristics of the face
- [1] more easily lost than gained
-
prevention orientation: defensive, cautious approach to protect self from negative outcomes > avoid bad things
- more interested on things they did poorly = less likely to fail in the future
-
promotion orientation: advancing oneself and aspiring for gains > strive at advancements
- more interested on things they did well = more likely to provide opportunity for success
-
prevention orientation: defensive, cautious approach to protect self from negative outcomes > avoid bad things
- [2] involves person’s concern with how they are being considered by others
- only maintained through others’ evaluations
- another strategy: present oneself to others in a way that enhances face (i.e. brand-name products) > maintain / increase face
- [1] more easily lost than gained