Cultural practise, contact and change Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Display rules for emotions:

A

· Friesen (1972) PhD thesis (see SFVB, p. 153)
· Expression of emotion among US and Japanese
- Watched short film of bodily mutilation
- 2 conditions: alone vs. others present
- Facial expressions videoed and coded
· Results
- Alone: both nationalities showed disgust
- Others present: Japanese didn’t show disgust
· Negative emotional display risks harmony

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Displaying emotions:

A

· Matsumoto (1990) predicted differences in display rules for positive and negative emotions
- Collectivism predicts showing more positive (vs. negative) emotions to ingroups (vs. outgroups)
- Initial support in US-Japanese comparison
· Across US, Japan, Russia, South Korea, individualism-collectivism measure accounted for 30% of cross-cultural differences in display rules (Matsumoto, Takeuchi, et al., 1998)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Reading emotions:

A

· Reading emotions from facial expressions
- US participants judged high intensity expressions as indicating less intense experience than expression
- Japanese judged low intensity expressions as indicating more intense experience than expression
- “Individualism-collectivism” measure accounted for individual but not cultural differences
· (Matsumoto, Consolacion, et al., 2002)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Cultural tightness and looseness 1:

A

· Tight cultures have “many strong norms and a low tolerance of deviant behaviour”
· Loose cultures have “weak social norms and a high tolerance of deviant behaviour”
· “Ecological and human-made threats increase the need for strong norms and punishment of deviant behaviour in the service of social coordination for survival”
· (Gelfand & 44 co-authors, 2011, Science)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Cultural tightness and looseness 2:

A

· Student and adult participants in 33 nations
· Tightness-looseness scale (example items):
- There are many social norms that people are supposed to abide by in this country.
- People in this country have a great deal of freedom in deciding how they want to behave in most situations.
- In this country, if someone acts in an inappropriate way, others will almost always disapprove.
· (Gelfand & 44 co-authors, 2011, Science)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Cultural tightness and looseness 3:

A

· Ecological and historical threats
- Population density and growth, lower food and water supplies, lower air quality, more natural disasters, more territorial threats from neighbours, more diseases and infant mortality.
· Societal institutions and practices
- Autocratic rule, closed media, fewer political rights and civil liberties, more police per capita, stricter punishments, lower crime, more religion, less collective action.
· Psychological adaptations
- Cautiousness, dutifulness, self-regulation (impulse control), need for structure, self-monitoring
· (Gelfand & 44 co-authors, 2011, Science)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Family structures:

A

· Nuclear family - parents and children
- Prevalent in North America and Northern Europe
- Also in hunter-gatherer societies
· Extended families - parents and children, plus grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.
- Most of the rest of the world
- Especially agrarian societies
· For fuller discussion, see Georgas (2003)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Arranged marriages:

A

· In 2012, 53.25% of marriages in world were arranged
- Marrying for love was less common: 46.75%
- 88% of marriages in India were arranged
- NOT the same as forced marriage
· Why might someone choose an arranged marriage?
- Preserve social harmony
- Create political and economic links between families
- Social and economic protection
- Rational rather than emotional choice!

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Getting married without love?:

A

· Levine, Sato, Hashimoto & Verma (1995) surveyed students in India, Pakistan, Thailand, Mexico, Brazil, Japan, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Australia, UK, USA:
- “If a man/woman had all the other qualities you desired, would you marry this person if you were not in love with him (her)?”
- (Higher score = NO)
· Predicted effects of individualism-collectivism (r = .56*)
· BUT stronger correlation with affluence (r = .75**)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Characteristics of a desirable mate 1:

A

· Buss et al. (1990) studied preferences in selecting mates in 37 cultures
- Relatively similar profile across cultures
- Most desirable characteristics
- Mutual attraction—love
- Dependable character
- Emotional stability and maturity
- Pleasing disposition
- Education and intelligence
- Greatest cultural variation in value of chastity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Characteristics of a desirable mate 2:

A

· Shackelford, Schmitt & Buss (2005) factor analysed Buss et al. data at individual level
· Four factors:
- Love vs. Status & resources
- Dependability & stability vs. Health and good looks
- Education & intelligence vs. Desire home & children
- Sociability vs. Similar religion
· National averages correlated with affluence (Chan, 2004, cited in Smith et al., 2013, p. 236)
- Richer countries vs. Poorer countries

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is this thing called ‘love’?:

A

· Do people in different cultures understand the word ‘love’ in the same way?
- Not tested in Levine or Buss studies
- Suggestion: companionate love in collectivist cultures
- Contrasts with individualistic focus on romantic love
· Neto et al. (2000) studied endorsement of six ‘love styles’ among students in 8 countries …
- Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, France, Macao, Mozambique, Portugal, Switzerland

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Neto et al findings 1:

A

· Minimal differences in three styles:
- Eros
- Mania
- Agape
· Stronger differences in three styles:
- Ludus
- Pragma
- Storge

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Neto et al findings 2:

A

· Storge:
- Angola, Cape Verde & Mozambique
- > Brazil, Macao & Portugal
- > France & Switzerland
· Pragma:
- Angola, Cape Verde, Mozambique & Brazil
- > Macao & Portugal
- > France & Switzerland
· Ludus:
- Angola & Mozambique
- > Macao
- > Portugal, France, Switzerland, Brazil & Cape Verde

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Relational mobility 1:

A

· Relational mobility is “a socioecological variable that represents how much freedom and opportunity a society affords individuals to choose and dispose of interpersonal relationships based on personal preference”
· Measured in online survey of 16,939 participants in 39 societies between 2014 and 2016
· (Thomson, Yuki, & 25 co-authors, 2018, PNAS)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Relational mobility 2:

A

· How much do you feel the following statements accurately describe people in the immediate society in which you live?
- They have many chances to get to know other people
- There are few opportunities for these people to form new friendships
- If they did not like their current groups, they could leave for better ones
- It is often the case that they cannot freely choose who they associate with
· (Thomson, Yuki, & 25 co-authors, 2018, PNAS)

17
Q

Relational mobility 3:

A

· Subsistence styles
- Lower RM in rice-farming cultures; higher RM in herding cultures
· Ecological and historical threats
- RM lower in harsh climates, higher pathogen prevalence, population density, historically poorer nations
· Greater investment in relationships
- Higher RM predicts trust in strangers, higher self-esteem, self-disclosure, intimacy with close friend/partner, willingness to help a close friend in crisis (i.e., offer social support)

18
Q

The “eco-cultural framework”:

A

· Aim to map context of cultural differences using culture-level rather than aggregated indicators
· Ecological context
- Ambient temperature, rainfall, natural resources
· Socio-political context
- Education, economics, mass communication, population geography, religion

19
Q

The “eco-cultural framework” 2:

A

· Georgas et al. (2004) used eco-cultural clusters of nations to predict psychological dimensions
- Hofstede and Schwartz nation scores
- Citizen mean life satisfaction scores
· Key findings centred on affluence and religion
- Affluence associated with greater individualism and life satisfaction, and with lower power distance
- Different religious clusters differed especially in power distance, hierarchy and uncertainty avoidance

20
Q

Beyond affluence and religion:

A

· Means of subsistence
- Farmers and fishers vs. herders in Eastern Turkey (Uskul, Kitayama, & Nisbett, 2008, PNAS)
- Southern (rice) vs. Northern (wheat) China (Talhelm et al., 2014, Science)
· Ecological threats
- Pathogen prevalence (Fincher, Thornhill, Murray, & Schaller, 2008, PRS B)
- Climato-economic interactions (Van de Vliert, 2009; Van de Vliert, Huang, & Parker, 2004)