Topic 6 - Multicultural Perspectives – Part 2 Flashcards
Slavin, Rainer, McCreary, & Gowda (1991) - this week’s reading - main points/focus
• Purpose was to expand a standard stress process model to include culture-relevant dimensions
- Culture was defined as the thoughts, beliefs, practices and behaviours of a group of people in the areas of history, religion, social organization, economic organization, political organization and collective production
- Race was defined as social group based on visible physical characteristics and on assumedly common ancestral origins
- Ethnicity was defined as a group’s social and cultural heritage, passed on to group members from one generation to the next
- Oppressed groups defined as all social groups that are devalued and negatively stereotyped in the majority culture
Authors also considered discussing e.g. Gender and SES.
They really considered what terms they were using, how they used them.
= something that might be lacking in the literature = we throw terms around without really considering them = creates confusion!
We want a group understanding of what the authors try to communicate/display
Lazarus and Folkman’s transactional theory/model:
- Looked at culture in very general terms - looked at relationship between individual and society.
- They saw their paper as a “launching point” for future research, for people to move field forward.
An iterative process (each step feeding back/forward to other steps.)
Panel 1:
Occurrence of a potentially stressful event:
-Major events
-Minor events (hassles)
Panel 2: Primary (cognitive) Appraisal of event “Am I in trouble?” -Irrelevant -Benign/Positive -Stressful • Harm/loss • Threat • Challenge Event is evaluated BY indivdiual to determine if there is a threat/challenge
Secondary (cognitive) Appraisal “What can be done about it?”
-Coping options
Efficacy expectations
-Available resources
“what can be done about it”/what are coping options etc
implementation of coping strategy
Coping Efforts
-Problem focused
- Emotion focused
physical and mental health outcomes Adaptational Outcomes -Social functioning -Morale -Somatic health Physical and mental health outcomes - implications for e.g. Social functioning
Probelm with lazarus model: build on euro-centric perspective - the authors highlighted the expanseion has to be more than “building on”, but “putting in a new lens”/looking at it in a different way.
It is likely impossible to be 100% free of cultural bias - these biases are likely to exist and impact your work (even when you make hard to avoid them) - only in being AWARE of it can you work to minimize it to best of your ability.
How culture affects…
Panel 1: Occurrence of potential stressor.
How does belonging to this cultural group affect the nature and frequency of potentially stressful life events?
- Events related to minority status
- Events involving discrimination
- Events related to socioeconomic status
- Events related to specific customs
Cultural group membership affect the experiences people have.
At least 4 ways this happens, but likely many more.
- Minority group are fewer in numbers = each is more likely to experience stressor (e.g. Being only one in classroom = more likely to experience stressors)
- more likely to experience discrimination (e.g. Hose lacking political power)
- people in lower SES - more likely to experience e.g. Lack of health care, eviction, etc. - distressing life events occur with greater frequency in minority groups
- Minority groups have unique customs in groups = might face certain stressors (that might not be factor in majority culture - an example could be arranged marriage)
Authors highlighted these four ways that LIKELY increase minority group member’s (probability of) experience of a stressful situation
How culture affects…
Panel 2: primary appraisal
How does belonging to this cultural group affect the way events are defined or the way the stressfulness of the event is evaluated?
- Cultural/family definition of the events
- Degree of “fit” between the event and the cultural frame for understanding it
Stressor can’t be viewed without culture coming in to play to some extent
E.g. For oppresed groups: given higher frequency of discrimination = likely to be hypervigilant = even in neutral situation, there is still consideration of harrasment/discrimination. - even in neutral situation, the cognitions are still there.
Ownership of stressful event in primary appraisal section - some cultures see major life changes as belonging to indvidual, while other see them as belonging to the group = affects what is appraised as stress/challenging/threatening.
Differences in cultural meaning for events can also cause distress (can also contribute to generation differences and how they produce stress - related to varying rates of aculturation. (kids vs parents, 1st and second generations, they get used to new culture in different ways/extents - e.g. Immmigrants may have specific view regarding dating - then you have kids growing up in bicultural environment = their views might be very different = might create stress because of this gap between generations)
How culture affects…
Panel 3: secondary appraisal
How does belonging to this ethnic group affect perceptions about the availability of resources, expectations for successful coping and the coping options available?
- Cultural definitions of behavioral options; role definitions, beliefs about how the system works
- Ethnic identity and beliefs about group efficacy
- Definition of family , community & social network
Culture plays a role in what we perceive as a proper way of dealing with the stressor
Also affects the social resources you have available
When looking at “what can be done”, being in cultural group, what is EXPECTED of the people, how have history affected what options are available to them, etc
E.g. Working in public hospital = served lot of minority populations - things doctor would see as possible options on how to deal with stressor, was not available (e.g. Because it costs money (like afterschool activities)
–> what can be done WITHIN OPTIONS AVAILABLE
How culture affects…
Panel 4: Coping implementation
How does belonging to this ethnic group affect choices about ways of coping with a stressful event?
- Culture specific coping behaviors (e.g., rituals)
- Cultural & mainstream sanctions against some coping strategies
- Biculturation; acquisition of skills to negotiate both minority & majority cultural settings
E.g. Minority group may face “barriers” in choosing coping methods appropriate in their culture, in majority-culture.
E.g. Indigenous people - before, their ways of healign was not allowed (in hospitals?) - they dind’t have a choice.
Sanctions against specific copign strategies /religions
What you experience when you choose a coping strategy (e.g. Sanctions or support for using it), and what you see your friends experience when they use it, affects what you later think about using it in the future.
Example: e.g. Maybe you tried something, and your friends did, and you got shamed for it.
Example form authors: how canadian / eurocentric culture has shaped how we allow males and females to display emotions - females seen as emotion copers (that is not as readily accepted for males) = shape how we cope. (e.g. Females encouraged to share emotion = may share more emotion in future)
This influence of what is seen as “okay” is way more pronounced for minority individuals. - often have to develop copings appropriate for minority context, and another for majority context, and then they have to think about the context they are in how what coping is appropriate (besides the fact that they have to cope - even more effort!)
How culture affects…
Panel 5: health outcomes
How does belonging to this ethnic group affect the psychological and physical health problems that develop in response to stress when coping efforts are inadequate?
- Cultural influences on symptom presentation
- Cultural norms for behavior
Culture also plays a role in what is “appropriate to complain about” - e.g. Asians complainign about somatic issues rather than mental issues.
some behviors seen as normal in one culture are pathological in another (e.g. Talking about spirits and demons)
Culture may affect prevalence of mental health problems - e.g. Mental health, black teenage girls less likely for anorexia, likely for better cultural body image)
Implications for intervention
- Psychological intervention is Euro-centric, middle-class value system driven
- = because of that, it might not apply to all cultures –> something we should be aware of!
- Intervention can occur at multiple points in the stress process
- As such attention needs to be given to cultural aspects of these stages
- From what is identified as stressful, to cultural normative coping responses and culturally appropriate ways of showing distress
- Part of why authors went through each stage and consider questions we should think about
Knowledge gaps…Culture Shock
• We know stress and culture interact, but question remains HOW
- Oberg (1958): Culture shock- anxiety resulting from losing one’s sense of when and how to “do the right thing”.
- A more accurate term for this is acculturative stress = and adjustment process, involves a stage of uncertainty where they don’t know what others expect, and what they themselves can expect from others = has emotional, psychological, cognitive consequences.
- Any radical change in your life that involved some kind of role change can result in culture schock (e.g. Divorce)
Questions: when does something become a culture shock - what are long/short term consequences? What are possibel interventions? = possible knowledge gap areas
Knowledge gaps…Defining Culture
• Broad and narrow definitions
How culture is defined can vary significnatly
There can be braod and narrow deifnitions
We want to include e.g. Education, SES, etnopgraphic variables (language, nationality) = multicultural perspective becomes very generic (i think this is a more broad definition)
More narrow: tied more to multiethnic/multinational perspective
No group is unimodal –> a broad definition may be more able to deal with complex differences in groups.
BUT! Using broad definition might lead term multicultural be so inclusive it might lead to confusion and be basically meaningless. (see we look more at individual differences, than actual “culture”)
So there is a grey area in how we define culture.
Questions: should we define culture broad/narrowly? How can culture centered approaches manage stress and enhance coping? What are implications of cultural psychology for studying stress and coping (how self and others all kinda live together/require each other, everyhting acts together dynamically)
Chaos theory: is culture a self-generating dynamic system, within the context of chaos theory (21.01, very complex question)
Take away: there are different ways to define culture, and there is ongoing debate what is best which can lead to confusion within field = important to make sure you define your constructs! Helps clarify your persepctives to others.
Knowledge gaps…Healthy Balance
• Balances (in many cultures) is used to describe a condition of health for the individual and society
So western psychologists tend to adopt either/or perspective (but we are movign more towards “acceptance therapy” and less either-or), where other use both/and perspective = inherent discrepency in how things are approached.
So when we think about balance as constructs, it involves conflicting events/ culturally learned persepctives, wihtout resolving the difference - so recognize this conflict exist, and be okay that there is conflict between culturally learned perspectives not about accepting oppression, but accepting that on cultural level that there will be differences, and it is okay for differences to exist)
Balance isn’t about trying to notice a conflict when it is occuring, and then fix it, to get to balance - you have to recognize confilct is there, and accepting that (not that you don’t try to make a change, but accepting the dissonance is there, and try to make a balance (might be making a change in YOUR life) - it is not about “erasing”, but accepting the dissonance is there, and it is not “either/or”
Working well/healthy functioning in a multicultural context may require a person to maintiain multiple (conflicting) cultural perspectives, without possibility of resolving this conflict (someone has to hold these different/conflicting viewpoints and be able to accept that withour resolving conflict)
Questions: How can non-western perspectives be incoorporated into western culture? How can balance be achieved in stressful situation? How can balance enhance the coping process?
Take away: there are questions about what is healthy balance, how can we achieve balance and not think of it as either/or- one perspective over the other.
Knowledge gaps… Religious and Spiritual
- Largely neglected in the field of stress and coping
- The why of this neglect has been hypothesized as a result of an attempt to “protect” scientific objectivity
- Clients/Consumers are more likely than providers to recognize the value of religious and spiritual resources
E.g. Why has relgion and spirituality been such a neglected resource for providers?
Takeaway: hypothesized the field was neglected in order to protect scientific objectivety. Clients are more liekly than prociders to realize it’s value.
Questions: How can these be used to mobilize healing? Enhance/inhibit/irrelevant to change? Why is it so neglected
Methodological Issues
Two main issues
Measurement equivalence
• Cross cultural research requires same tool/measurement is used on both contexts = often using translations don’t reveal exact same measurement!
Sampling equivalence
- Samples should be similar on “3rd variables” e.g. age, education, etc - difficult to match perfectly!
Methodological Issues: Measurement Equivalence
- Sapir-Whorf (or Whorfian) hypothesis – language acts as a filter between individual and the objective reality around them (Werner and Campbell 1970)
- So language is thought to filter evaluative and cognitive meaning of scale items - really talking about self report scales.
- = prevents precise comparison across groups
- (this view is not shared by a lot of researchers in cross cultural research, they still try to do comparisons in spite of these linguisitc differences)
- Translation may create a potential confound of language and culture effects
- Even happens in “back translations” (translating from the translation back into original language, and compare against original document to make sure they match)
- An exact match may not exist (e.g. Severity might not match, even if concepts are the same)
- Likert Scales
- Extreme ends are generally easier to translate with more difficulty translating mid-point anchors
How this (might) be fixed:
• Between-participant comparisons across languages that hold culture constant
• Between-participant comparisons across cultures holding language constant
• E.g. Comapring respondents from united states to australians
• Within-participant comparison of responses in different languages provided by bilingual individuals
• Having bilingual peoplen complete questionnire in both languages
Between-participant comparisons across languages that hold culture constant
• Self selection may be an issue
• An example of this is a study conducted by the CAF (Candell and Hulin 1987)
• Of 596 participants who identified French as their first language
• 235 chose to complete the English version of the survey
• Even though they were able to hold culture constant, it is possible culture was still confounded by language between the two groups (in terms of how they chose to answer the survey)
Between-participant comparisons across cultures holding language constant
• Problem: there might be sample difference in third variables
• This is closely tied to sample equivalence differences (discussed on a later slide)
Within-participant comparison of responses in different languages provided by bilingual individuals
• Multilinguals may differ from monolinguals both culturally and linguistically
• Exposure to culture of country of second language = they might respond differently to the same question as a monolingual person
Construct equivalence
• Possible that something is perfectly translated but the construct is different across languages
• As well a construct may manifest differently across cultures so different items would be required
What can we do about these issues?
- Bilingualism versus biculturalism of translators (People familiar with subtleties)
• Test across monolinguals
• Look at internal consistency across samples (get a whole lot of people to fill it out) = not really helpful, doesn’t establish if its a language or cultural thing.
• Use bilingual samples
• There are still issues: small sample sizes, how bilingual individuals process info (might use source knowledge of language to infer information - even if doing french questionnaire, they might interpret questions internally in english = clouds whetehr translations work, or if they can answer correctly becase they can do these internal translations). We have to think about practcie effects (can be handled by counter balancing samples (first doing A than B, and vice versa)
• Bilinguals may approach same question differently in seperate languages. = we can compare we they respond in version A and B, question 10 (i guess this is also kinda related to internal consistency?)
Methodological issues: Sampling Equivalence
- Hard to establish equivalent participant samples
- One way to try and overcome this is with matched samples
- Hard to find equivalent participan samples.( we might compare individuals who are not only from different countries, but also from diffrent demographics) = you should try to match “3rd variables” (age, gender, economics, education, etc) = there more you can match, the better (the more difference you can then attribute to culture)
- You want to use subjective appraisal - you want to make sure you have THEIR consideration, not your just your research assumption (they might have a lot fo friends, but might not FEEL they have a lot of social support)
- It can be hard to establish (perfectly) equivalent samples.
Rating scale use in cross-cultural coping research (differences in rating scales, and how we can fix it)
Cultural differences are often shaped by what is normally seen. (can create problem of how we use rating scales)
• Nay-saying
• Cultures differ in tendency to say “nay” - north americans may say nay more tha chinese
• Extremism
• There might be response bias (e.g. Likelyhood of not using extreemes)
• Reference Effect
• They might compare themselves to a group (but you don’t necessarily know what that group is)
• Translation Problems
• Imposed-Etic Research
• We KNOW constructs don’t always match between cultures
What we can do
• Nay-saying
• E.g. Convert scores to relative scores (e.g. If using a strategy more/less than others)
• Extremism
• E.g. Using maps to “correct” how people respond (e.g. We know individualists tend to use extreeme scores less –> we might add points to their scores = might result in unwanted biases!)
• Reference Effect
• Doing research in cross cultural setting = you might know what groups could be referenced agaisnt = find as “multicultural environment as possible - do whatever you are used to doing within that setting, so you have better understand that -this group- usually compares themselves aginst so and so, rather than a group you know nothing about (i think that was the point??)
• Translation Problems
• Just remember standard is back-translations = does not mean the constructs are appropriately communicated
• Imposed-Etic Research
• Try to minimize your ignorance of important construct - don’t ignore the culture you are trying to do the research in - include important aspects.
• Imposed etic research = basically, you take unaltered methods and apply them in another culture, and thinking it is appropriate - e.g. You take depression scale, translate it to spanish, and just assume all about your construct of depression apply to the spanish populatin - basically, what to do: just don’t do that! Make sure you are not missing an important construct - don’t go into the research “blind” look into the culture, more sure you are not missing an important aspect. E.g. Indigenous people = you don’t want to wakl into the research, saying “fill out this questionnaire reflecting MY construct, and that will reflect YOUR construct” - you need to understand if your questions will be helpful = DON’T WALK INTO IT BLIND
•
