- •Cross-cultural universal traits and the culturally specific in human behavior Cross-cultural and Cultural Psychology Knud s. Larsen
- •Introduction
- •Introduction
- •Cross-cultural psychology in a changing world
- •Behavior as culture specific or universal.
- •1.2 The etic and emic approaches.
- •1.3 Cross-cultural psychology and cultural/ indigenous psychology.
- •1.4 Culture versus ethnicity and race.
- •1.5 All groups with a significant history have culture
- •1.6 Toward an inclusive definition of culture.
- •1.6.1 Culture is the evolution of human society.
- •1.6.2 Animal and human culture.
- •1.6.3 The ecological and sociological context.
- •1.7 Resource rich or poor cultures.
- •1.8 Cultural values and dimensions.
- •1.8.1 Universal values.
- •1.8.2 Cultural value dimensions.
- •1.8.3 The social axioms of Leung and Bond.
- •1.9 Enculturation, culture, and psychological outcomes.
- •1.10 Understanding cross-cultural psychology in a changing world.
- •1.11 The major objectives of cross-cultural psychology.
- •1.12 The ethnocentrism of Psychology.
- •Summary
- •Research approaches and critical thinking in cross-cultural psychology
- •2.1 Cultural bias and criterion of equivalence.
- •2.1.1 The issue of language equivalence.
- •2.1.2 Psychometric equivalence.
- •2.1.3 Selecting equivalent samples in cross-cultural psychology.
- •2.2 Nonequivalence in cross-cultural research.
- •2.3 Levels of inference.
- •2.4 Studies of cultural level ecological averages.
- •2.5 What is measured in cross-cultural research?
- •2.6 Bias in psychological assessments.
- •2.7 Inferences from statistical tests on cross-cultural comparisons.
- •2.8 Experimental versus correlational studies.
- •2.9 Qualitative and quantitative research in cross-cultural psychology.
- •2.10 Quantitative comparative cross-cultural research.
- •2.10.1 Surveys.
- •2.10.2 Experiments.
- •2.11 The problems of validity.
- •2.12 A critical look at the findings from cross-cultural comparisons.
- •2.13 Skeptical thinking is the path to an improved cross-cultural psychology.
- •Summary
- •The origin of culture: cultural transformation and sociocultural evolution
- •3.1 The case for the biological foundations of human characteristics.
- •3.1.1 Evolution and the mechanisms of transmission.
- •3.1.2 Races as a biological and social construct.
- •3.1.3 The role of adaptation.
- •3.2 The research supporting the evolution of human emotion.
- •3.2.1 Universal temperament and personality traits are evidence of common evolved history.
- •3.2.2 Intelligence as a biological and racial construct.
- •3.2.3 Behavior genetics and disease.
- •3.2.4 Hardwired optimism: The driver for cultural development.
- •3.3 Sociobiology and evolutionary psychology.
- •3.3.1 Gender differences in mate selection.
- •3.3.2 Is ethnocentrism and racism a broader manifestation of inclusive fitness for reproductive success?
- •3.4 Culture matters!
- •3.5 Socio-cultural evolution: a little history.
- •3.5.1 The evolution of evolutionary theories.
- •3.5.2 Dual inheritance: Approaches to cultural transmission.
- •3.6 Theories of modernization and post-industrial society.
- •Summary
- •Human development: culture and biology
- •4.1 Socialization or enculturation?
- •4.2 Enculturation and choice.
- •4.3 Authoritative versus authoritarian childrearing approaches and cultural differences.
- •4.4 Creating the climate of home: Cultural and cross-cultural studies.
- •4.4.1 The sleeping arrangements of childhood.
- •4.4.2 Attachment in childhood.
- •4.4.3 Relationships with siblings.
- •4.4.4 The influence of the extended family and peers.
- •4.5 Culture and the educational system.
- •4.6 Socio-economic climate.
- •4.7 Social identity.
- •4.8 Comparative studies in child rearing behaviors.
- •4.9 Human development is incorporation of culture.
- •4.10 Stage theories of human development: Culturally unique or universal.
- •4.10.1 The evolution of cognition.
- •4.10.2 The evolution of moral development.
- •4.10.3 Evolution of psychosocial development.
- •4.11 Human development is the expression of biology: the presence of universal values.
- •4.12 The evolutionary basis for human behavior: Maximizing inclusive fitness.
- •4.13 Perspective in the transmission of culture.
- •Summary
- •The evolution of language and socio-culture
- •5.1 The evolution of socioculture and language.
- •5.2 Language development: the meaning of language terms and early speech.
- •5.3 Cultural language difference and linguistic relativity.
- •5.4 Cultural language and thought.
- •5.5 Universals in language.
- •5.6 Intercultural communication.
- •5.6.1 Obstacles and uncertainty reduction in intercultural communication.
- •5.6.2 The affect of bilingualism.
- •5.7 Nonverbal communication and culture.
- •5.8 Darwinian evolution and phylogenetic trees of language and socio-cultural evolution.
- •5.8.1 Selective group genetic advantages in cultural evolution.
- •5.8.2 The analogy of genetic and cultural evolution.
- •5.9 The tree branching of cultural traits.
- •5.10 Limitations of genetic and cultural co-evolutionary theory: Horizontal and vertical cultural evolution.
- •5.11 Cultural stability: Processes countering cultural evolution.
- •5.11.1 Migration and cultural stability.
- •5.11.2 Conformity and geographical mechanisms affecting cultural evolution and language development.
- •5.12 Social learning: Imitating success.
- •5.13 Religion, agriculture development and cultural evolution.
- •5.14 Phylogenetic evidence of the socio-cultural origins of language and other cultural traits.
- •5.14.1 Tracing the evolution of languages.
- •5.14.2 Evidence of language evolution.
- •5.15 Culture as a function of evolving information.
- •5.16 How did language evolve?
- •5.16.1 Contacts between different language speakers.
- •5.16.2 Artefactual languages.
- •Cognition: our common biology and cultural impact
- •6.1 Culture and cognition.
- •6.1.1 Sensation and perception.
- •6.1.2 Cultural impact on sensation and perception.
- •6.2 Cognitive development.
- •6.3 Cognitive style and cultural values.
- •6.3.1 Field dependent and independent cognitive style.
- •6.3.2 Perception studies and cognitive style.
- •6.3.3 Collectivistic and individualistic cognition.
- •6.3.4 Greek versus Asian thinking style.
- •6.3.5 Dialectical and logical thinking.
- •6.3.6 Authoritarianism and dogmatism as a cognitive style.
- •6.4 The general processor implied in cognitive styles versus contextualized cognition.
- •6.5 Cognitive style and priming cognition.
- •6.6 Cross-cultural differences in cognition as a function of practical imperatives.
- •6.7 Intelligence and adaptation: general and cross-cultural aspects.
- •6.7.1 Definitions of general intelligence.
- •6.7.2 Nature or nurture: What determines intelligence?
- •6.7.3 Sources of bias in intelligence testing.
- •6.7.4 Socioeconomic differences and fairness.
- •6.7.5 Race and the interaction effect.
- •6.8 The use of psychological tests in varying cultures.
- •6.9 How intelligence is viewed in other cultures.
- •6.10 General processes in higher order cognition and intelligence.
- •6.10.1 Categorization.
- •6.10.2 Memory functions.
- •6.10.3 Mathematical abilities.
- •6.10.4 The ultimate pedagogical goal: Creativity.
- •Summary
- •Emotions and human happiness: universal expressions and cultural values
- •7.1 The universality of emotions: Basic neurophysiological responses.
- •7.1.1 How we understand the emotion of others: Facial expressions.
- •7.1.2 The effect of language and learning: Criticisms of studies supporting genetically based facial recognition.
- •7.1.3 The definitive answer to the source of the facial expressions of emotions: Biology is the determinant.
- •7.1.4 Universal agreement and cultural emphasis in other emotion constructs.
- •7.1.4.1 Antecedents of emotions.
- •7.1.4.2 Vocalization and intonation in emotional expression.
- •7.1.4.3 Appraisal of emotion.
- •7.2 The role of culture in emotional reactions.
- •7.2.1 The display of emotions.
- •7.2.2 Individualistic versus collectivistic cultures: Display rules in emotion intensity and negativity ratings.
- •7.2.3 Personal space and gestures: Cultural influences in non-verbal communication.
- •7.2.4 Cross-cultural differences in evaluating emotions in other people.
- •7.3. The cultural context of emotional communication.
- •7.4 Toward a positive psychology of emotion: Happiness and well-being.
- •7.4.1 Methodological issues in definitions of happiness and well-being.
- •7.4.2 Sources of well-being.
- •7.4.3 The trending of happiness scores and economic crises and transitions.
- •7.4.4 The impact of culture on happiness and subjective well-being.
- •7.4.5 Creating social policies that promote well-being.
- •7.4.6 The role of national and local government.
- •Personality theory: western, eastern and indigenous approaches
- •8.1 Western thoughts on personality.
- •8.1.1 Freud’s contributions.
- •8.1.2 The humanistic approach to personality.
- •8.1.3 Social-cognitive interaction theory.
- •8.1.4 Locus of control
- •8.1.5 Cross-cultural research on locus of control and autonomy: In control or being controlled.
- •8.1.6 Personality types and hardwired foundations.
- •8.1.7 The Big Five.
- •8.1.8 The genetic and evolutionary basis of personality.
- •8.1.9 Is national character a psychological reality?
- •8.2 Eastern thoughts about personality.
- •8.2.1 The Buddhist tradition.
- •8.2.2 The self and causation.
- •8.2.3 Buddhism and consciousness.
- •8.2.4 Buddhism as a therapeutic approach.
- •8.2.5 A critical thought.
- •8.3 Confucian perspective on personality and the self.
- •8.4 Culture specific personality: As seen from the perspective of indigenous cultures.
- •8.5 Some evaluative comments on Confucianism and indigenous psychology.
- •Summary
- •Culture, sex and gender
- •10.1 Culture and gender.
- •10.1.1 Sex roles, gender stereotypes, and culture.
- •10.1. 2 Gender and families.
- •10.1.3 Traditional versus egalitarian sex role ideologies.
- •10.2 Gender stereotypes and discrimination against women.
- •10.2.1 Dissatisfaction with body image.
- •10.2.2 Equal work equal pay?
- •10.3 Violence against women: a dirty page of history and contemporary society.
- •10.3.1 Intimate violence: The ubiquitous nature of rape.
- •10.3.2 Sexual exploitation.
- •10.3.3 Gender justice and the empowerment of women.
- •10.3.4 Gender ability differences and the role of culture.
- •10.3.5 Culture and Gender differences in spatial abilities.
- •10.3.6 Current research on gender differences in mathematical abilities.
- •10.3.7 Gender and conformity.
- •10.3.8 Gender and aggression.
- •10.4 Sexual behavior and culture.
- •10.4.1 Mate selection.
- •10.4.2 Attractiveness and culture.
- •10.4.3 The future of love and marriage.
- •Summary
- •Culture and human health
- •12.1 The injustice of health disparities in the world.
- •12.1.1 Socio-economic disparities and well-being.
- •12.1.2 Mental health among ethnic minorities: Injustice in the United States.
- •12.1.3 Migrants, refugees and stress: Mental health outcomes.
- •12.2 The role of culture.
- •12.2.1 Cultural health beliefs.
- •12.2.2 Problems in cultural definitions of abnormality and mental illness
- •12.3 Psychopathology as universal or relativist.
- •12.4 Culturally specific and universal factors in mental health.
- •12.4.1 Anxiety disorders.
- •12.4.2 Regulation of mood: Depression.
- •12.4.3 Schizophrenia.
- •12.4.4 Attention deficit disorder.
- •12.4.5 Personality disorders.
- •12.5 Culturally sensitive assessment of abnormal behavior.
- •12.6 Cross-cultural assessments of mental disorder.
- •12.7 Abnormal behavior and psychotherapy from cultural perspectives.
- •12.7.1 The cultural framework matters in psychotherapy.
- •12.7.2 Homogeneity of patient and therapist.
- •12.7.3 Approaches based in indigenous forms of treatment.
- •12.7.4 Adding the biomedical model to indigenous beliefs.
- •Summary
5.4 Cultural language and thought.
The relationship of language to thought has been debated in cross-cultural psychology for some time. Since each culture is expressed through a unique language, perhaps the lexical content and grammatical rules also affect thinking. Culture affects languages, but does the language of a culture also affect thinking processes? The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is a proposition that with some face validity argues that variances in languages produce differences in cognition. If true, cultures experience reality in different ways as all societies are dependent on the tools of language for perception and expression. Similar situations may be perceived differently because of variations in language structure, lexical content, and grammatical rules. Language relativity raises the issue of whether we can ever translate deeper cultural meanings accurately from one language to another. Do bilingual speakers experience different realities depending on which language they use?
The initial research compared European languages with those of Native Americans (Whorf, 1956). For example among Hopi Indians there are no words that refer to time which is perceived as a floating continuum. The closest idea to time in Hopi expressions are expressed by differences between objective and subjective reality. For the Hopi the subjective is that which is not manifest in the present like for example the “future” or “desire and hope”. In Hopi there are no subjective plurals, so Hopi speakers cannot indicate the number of days that pass between events, but rather would compare two events as differing in lateness.
The relationship of language to thinking processes and learning has received a great deal of attention (Levinson, 2006). The accessibility of certain complex concepts is language dependent. In turn the complexity of concepts depends on our ability to utilize a complex vocabulary. Languages in grammar form and lexical content vary profoundly producing cognitive differences between language speakers. Regier and Kay (2006) argued that linguistic differences are causational agents of cognitive differences in members of language groups and therefore more agentic than correlational. Although all humans are born with similar genetic constraints language learning have significant affects on our ability to think. Languages are representational systems that organize our cultural world and permit transmission of knowledge to succeeding generations.
Fishman (1960) investigated linguistic relativity at the lexical level and in the use of grammar among the Inuits . For example, Inuits have many words describing snow that is a salient component of their culture, and they can therefore differentiate its characteristics to a greater degree than people speaking English. Support for the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was also found among Navajo speakers (Carroll & Casagrande, 1958). Research showed that because of the unique grammatical features of Navajo language that provided many words for the handling of objects Navajo children were more likely to categorize objects by shape than by color compared to English speaking children.
Another research project examined differences between Chinese and English speaking respondents (Bloom, 1981). English speakers can use counterfactual statements saying for example: “If I were rich… I would”. That statement implies that the speaker is not rich. Chinese on the other hand don’t have counterfactual expressions, and therefore must precede the comment with an explicit statement of fact: “I am not rich, therefore …”.This absence of counterfactual statements limits Chinese speakers in the use of counterfactual thinking, and according to Bloom may affect how the Chinese and English speakers think and categorize the world. However, Au (1983) found no cross-cultural differences between Chinese and English speakers, and the research literature has not definitively supported the affect of grammar on thinking. Vorster and Schuring (1989) also found no support in their study for the Sapir-Whorfian hypothesis.
The categorization of color has been used to test linguistic relativity. Color categorization permit an unambiguous testing of the Sapir-Whorfian hypotheses since it can be directly related to physical measurements. Many cultures do not have words that correspond to the basic eleven colors categorized in the English language (Berlin & Kay, 1969). However, Bornstein, Kessen, and Weiskopf (1976) showed that color categories for infants are the same as for adults supporting the primacy of perception rather than language in color perception. Their research on color perception did not lend support to linguistic relativity.
Kay and Kempton (1984) however found that the lexical (word) content of language mattered to color categorization. They compared the thought processes of respondents speaking Tarahumara in northern Mexico with English speakers and found a comparative difference in the discrimination of color. More recent studies (Schwanenflugel, 1995; Gordon, 2004) found support for the importance of cultural lexical knowledge in categorization processes and mathematical counting. Hoosain (1991) showed that particular elements of the Chinese language influence the relative ease of processing information.
Is it easier to discriminate and perceive subtle nuances in the real world when speakers have more words available in a language? Further, do multiple words referring to the same phenomenon make it easier to communicate in that language by describing specified nuances? Hunt and Agnoli (1991) found that the words available in a language could facilitate or inhibit the processing of certain types of information. Words available can make it easier to communicate in the language and either support or hinder thinking processes.
However, it would appear that support for the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in comparative cross-cultural studies comes from a narrow area of research where language differences are directly relevant to perceptual or cognitive functioning. In an important review on linguistic relativity Pinker (1995) concluded that many of the studies reported above were severely flawed, noting for example that it is possible to think without words. Deaf children can think, and those who grow up without language invent one and engage in abstract thinking. These findings suggest that the brain is hardwired for language. Research has also supported the important role of nonverbal language and visual thinking in social cognition. Fishman (1960) concluded that lexical differences are not a strong influence on thinking, whereas grammar and pragmatics (the social context) are salient areas where language can influence cognition.