- •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
6.3.5 Dialectical and logical thinking.
Peng and Nisbett (1999) reported on cultural differences in test performance related to the cognitive styles. In the Western tradition thinking frequently involve a logical examination of alternatives, often opposites, and selecting a favored or correct response. For example American students are more likely to perceive different perspectives as conflicting and polarized. On the other hand Chinese students demonstrate the more holistic positions found in dialectical thinking and try to unify positions and reach a consensual decision. Peng and Nisbett argued that the difference in the relative use of dialectical and logical cognition is one of several ways that Asians and people from the West differ. This position has not gone unchallenged as Chan argued that dialectical and logical thinking are not necessarily incongruent or distinct (Chan, 2000). Likewise Ho (2000) suggested that perhaps it is better to characterize Asian thinking as conciliatory rather than employing dialectical procedures, and in any event both types of thinking can be found cross-culturally.
6.3.6 Authoritarianism and dogmatism as a cognitive style.
Authoritarianism and dogmatism are very heuristic constructs in social psychology. These constructs can also be thought of as cognitive processors especially for people who are at the extreme end of rightwing political authoritarianism or rigid dogmatism. Authoritarian attitudes were thought to develop out of fundamental insecurities that created a worldview of intolerance (Altemeyer, 1988). Linked to social attitudes authoritarianism has predicted prejudice toward a bewildering set of victims and in particular members of minorities or outgroups. Rokeach (1960) moved from a consideration of rightwing political content to the cognitive construct of dogmatism defined as closed-mindedness and cognitive rigidity. For Rokeach dogmatism described a mind closed to new information, and the rejection of others on the basis of belief incongruence. Larsen (1970, 1971) linked authoritarianism to social judgment and demonstrated a displacement of judgments toward extremes of an attitude scale on the part of the highly dogmatic respondents. Dogmatism can be thought of as a filter or processor that eliminates threatening and uncomfortable information and ensure stability or rigidity in the individual as well as the underlying culture.
6.4 The general processor implied in cognitive styles versus contextualized cognition.
Cole and his coworkers criticized the work on cognitive styles that essentially sought to link cognitive behavior to some hypothesized underlying processor (Cole, 1992, 1996). To substitute grand cognitive theories they suggested that cognitive performance should be understood through an examination of contextual features of the culture and specific cognitive operations. The authors received inspiration from the well-established traditions of the sociohistorical and cultural traditions that emphasized everyday behavior (Vygotsky, 1978; Luria, 1974). In particular Luria and Vygotsky noted that cognitive expertise comes from the salience of cognition to the individual and from repetition. Consequently cultural differences in cognition derive from cultural differences in situations to which cognitive processes are applied and not from differences in cognitive processors. In other words the presence of some central processor in the form of an organizing cognitive style is rejected by Cole.
The work on cognitive style represents a search for universal laws of the mind that control cognitive development. By contrast the context-specific approach tries to understand how cognitive processes that are initially context specific take on a generalizing role in people’s lives over time. Cognition from the context-specific perspective occurs within domains of activity. As the consequence of interactions within specific domains cognitive expertise is gradually developed. Research on quantitative skills and complex cognition support the idea that thought processes are determined by the situational context and since cognition is domain specific it is not possible to generalize achievement in one domain to other contexts. More specifically, Cole’s work challenged the literacy concepts of Luria that education is the signal event in human history and illiterates cannot carry out abstract cognitive operations Research results supported the idea that literacy made some limited differences in skills connected to specific contexts. The researchers concluded that there was no evidence that literacy transformed cognition in any major way (Scribner & Cole, 1981). Of course Cole did not address or discuss the cultural consequences of literacy or the type of societies that evolve with or without literacy. The research addressed simply generalizing affects of literacy that was rejected by Cole and his co-workers.