PSYC215 Chapter 8 Notes Definitions: Chapter Notes:
PSYC215 Chapter 8 Notes Definitions: Natural Selection: The evolutionary process by which nature selects traits that best enable organisms to survive and reproduce in particular environmental niches Evolutionary Psychology: The study of the evolution of behaviour using principles of natural selection Culture: The enduring behaviours, ideas, attitudes, and traditions shared by a large group of people and transmitted from one generation to the next Norms: Rules for accepted and expected behaviour. Norms prescribe “proper” behaviour (In a different sense of the word, norms also describe what most others do – what is normal) Individualism: The concept of giving priority to one’s own goals over group goals and defining one’s identity in terms of personal attributes rather than group identification Collectivism: Giving priority to the goals of one’s groups (often one’s extended family or work group) and defining one’s identity accordingly Holistic Reasoning: Reasoning that emphasizes considering all possible influences and balancing competing forces Analytical Reasoning: Reasoning that emphasizes the proper use of rules and that contradictory statements cannot be true Superordinate Goal: A shared goal that necessitates cooperative effort; a goal that overrides people’s differences from one another Interaction: The effect of one factor (such as biology) depends on another factor (such as environment)
Chapter Notes:
In viewing human similarities and differences, two perspectives dominate current thinking: an evolutionary perspective, emphasizing human kinship, and a cultural perspective, emphasizing human diversity. Nearly everyone agrees that we need both We are all social creatures. We join groups, conform, and recognize distinctions of social status. We return favours, punish offences, and grieve a child’s death. As children, beginning at about eight months old, we fear strangers, and as adults we favour members of our own groups The universal behaviours that define human nature arise from our biological similarity. Some 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, we were all Africans. As we dispersed to different habitats and adapted to our new environments, humans developed differences that, measured on anthropological scales To explain the traits of our species, and of all species, recall Charles Darwin’s proposed evolutionary process. As organisms vary, nature selects those best equipped to survive and reproduce in particular environments. Genes that produced traits that increased the odds of leaving descendants became more abundant The process of natural selection, long an organizing principle of biology, has recently become an important principle for psychology as well. Evolutionary psychology studies how natural selection predisposes not just adaptive physical traits suited to particular contexts, but also psychological traits and social behaviours that enhance the preservation and spread of one’s genes As mobile gene machines, we carry the legacy of our ancestors’ adaptive preferences. We long for whatever helped them survive, reproduce, and nurture their offspring to survive and reproduce
Evolutionary psychologists highlight these universal characteristics that are handed down from our ancestors. Cultures, however, provide the specific rules for working out the elements of social life The hallmark of our species is our capacity to learn and adapt. Ironically, it is our shared human biology that enables our cultural diversity Evolutionary psychology incorporates environmental influences. It recognizes the nature and nurture interact in forming us. Genes are not fixed blueprints; their expression depends on the environment We humans have been selected not only for big brains and biceps but also for social competence. We come prepared to learn language and to cooperate in securing good, caring for young, and protecting ourselves. Nature therefore predisposes us to learn whatever culture we are born into The cultural perspective, while acknowledging that all behaviour requires our evolved genes, highlights human adaptability. People’s “natures are alike”, “it is their habits that carry them far apart.” The diversity of our languages, customs, and expressive behaviours suggests that much of our behaviour is socially programmed, not hardwired. The genetic leash is indeed long If we all lived as homogeneous ethnic groups in separate regions of the world, as some people still do, cultural diversity would be less relevant. Example: 126 million of 127 million residents of Japan are Japanese, therefore, minimal internal cultural differences. On the contrary, Toronto is composed of dozens of ethnic groups Cultural conflicts have been described as “the AIDS of international politics – lying dormant for years, then flaring up to destroy countries” Princess Diana’s death typifies globalization in the sense of the variety of cultures and cultural production involved in her death In a world divided by wars, genuine peace requires respect for both differences and similarities As etiquette rules illustrate, all cultures have their accepted ideas about appropriate behaviours. We often view these social expectations, or norms, as a negative force that imprisons people in a blind effort to perpetuate tradition Norms do restrain and control us – so successfully and so subtly that we hardly sense their existence Norms can be arbitrary and confining. In unfamiliar situations, when the norms may be unclear, we monitor others’ behaviour and adjust our own accordingly. In familiar situations, our words and acts come effortlessly Thanks to human adaptability, cultures differ. Yet, beneath the veneer of cultural differences, there lies an essential universality. AS members of one species, the processes that underlie our differing behaviours are much the same everywhere Around the world, people tend to describe others as more or less stable, outgoing, open, agreeable, and conscientious. If a test specifies where you stand on these “Big Five” personality dimensions, it pretty well describes your personality, no matter where you live Kwok Leung and Michael Bond says there are five universal dimensions of social beliefs: cynicism (powerful people tend to exploit others), social complexity (one has to deal with matters according to the specific circumstances), reward for application (one will succeed if he/she really tries), spirituality (religious faith contributes to good mental health), and fate control (fate determines one’s success and failures). People’s adherence to these social beliefs appears to guide their living. Those who espouse cynicism express lower life satisfaction and favour assertive influence tactics and right-wing politics while those who espouse reward for application are inclined to invest themselves in studying, planning, and competing
Roger Brown noticed another universal norm of people forming status hierarchies, and speaking to individuals in higher-status in the respectful way they often talk to strangers while speaking to lower-status people on first name, like a friend basis The first aspect of Brown’s universal norm – that forms of address communicate not only social distance but also social status – correlates with a second aspect: advances in intimacy are usually suggested by the higher-status person In general then, the higher-status person is the pacesetter in the progression toward intimacy Social theorists assume that social life is like acting on a theatrical stage, with all its scene, masks and scripts. Social roles, such as parent, student, and friend, outlast those who play them When only a few norms are associated with a social category, we do not regard the position as a social role. It takes a whole cluster of norms to define a role. We could generate a long list of norms prescribing our activities as professors or as fathers. Although we may acquire our particular images by violating the least important norms, violating our role’s most important norms (i.e. failing to meet our classes, abusing our children) could lead to our being fired or divorced Roles have a powerful effect. We tend to absorb our roles. On a first date or on a new job, we may act the role self-consciously. As we internalize the role, self-consciousness subsides. What felt awkward now feels genuine Our actions depend not only on the social situation but also on our dispositions. Some social situations can move most “normal” people to behave in “abnormal” ways. Experiments have shown that putting well-intentioned people in a bad situation to see whether good or evil prevails. To a dismaying extent, evil wins. Nice guys often don’t finish nice One of the most profound ways that culture influences us is by shaping the way we think about ourselves and our world. The very way that we see or do not see inconsistencies in ourselves, in our world, and between our thoughts and actions are powerfully shaped by culture Wherever we go, whomever we are with, we are also with ourselves. The self is a constant in our social experience. There are times when the self takes center stage or times when its influence fades, but there is little question that the self powerfully shapes our thinking. Thus, one of the important ways that cultures influence our thinking is through the self-concept For some people, especially those in industrialized Western cultures, individualism prevails. Identity is pretty much self-contained. The psychology of Western cultures assumes that your life will be enriched by defining your possible selves and believing in your power of personal control Individualism flourishes when people experience affluence, mobility, urbanism, and mass media Most cultures native to Asia, Africa, and Central and South America place a greater value on collectivism. They nurture interdependent self. People are more self-critical and have less need for positive self-regard. Identity is defined more in relation to others When speaking, people using the languages of collectivist countries say “I” less often. A person might say “went to the movie” rather than “I went to the movie” with the subject made clear by the grammar or context Pigeonholing cultures as solely individualist or collectivist oversimplifies, because with any culture individualism varies from person to person. Individualism-collectivism also varies across a country’s regions and political views. o Conservatives tend to be economic individualist and moral collectivists o Liberals tend to be economic collectivists and moral individualists Despite individual and subcultural variations, researchers continue to regard individualism and collectivism as genuine cultural variables Social psychologist Richard Nisbett contends that collectivism results not only in social relations that differ from the more individualist West but also in differing ways of thinking
Nisbett concluded from his studies that East Asians think more holistically – perceiving and thinking about objects and people in relationship to one another and to their environment With an interdependent self, one has a greater sense of belonging. Uprooted and cut off from family, colleagues, and loyal friends, interdependent people would lose the social connections that define who they are. They have not one selves, but many selves The interdependent self is embedded in social memberships. Conversations are less direct and more polite. The goal of social life is not so much to enhance one’s individual self as to harmonize with and support one’s communities Self-esteem in collectivist cultures correlates closely with “what others think of me and my group.” Self-concept is malleable (context-specific) rather than stable (enduring across situations) For those in individualistic cultures, self-esteem is more personal and less relational. Threaten our personal identity and we’ll feel angrier and gloomier than when someone threatens our collective identity Japanese will persist more on tasks when they are failing (not wanting to fall short of others’ expectations), people in individualistic countries persist more when succeeding, because success elevates self-esteem. Western individualists like to make comparisons with others to boost their self-esteem. Asian collectivists make comparisons (often upward, with those doing better) in ways that facilitate self-improvement Chinese students’ self-evaluations are not negative but rather characterized by both positive and negative views that are not necessarily resolved. In contrast, North American students’ selfevaluations are more neatly resolved to reflect positive views of the self Collectivist Japanese individuals believe happiness comes with positive social engagement – with feeling close, friendly, and respectful. For American individualists, happiness comes more with disengaged emotions – with feeling effective, superior, and proud Conflict in collectivist cultures often is between groups while individualist cultures breed more crime and divorce between individuals It seems that personal self-esteem increased among Japanese exchange students after spending seven months at UofBC. Individual self-esteem is also higher among long-term Asian immigrants to Canada than among more recent immigrants Culture shapes not only the way we think about ourselves, but also the way we think about and perceive the world. We often have to make sense of events that at first sight make no sense at all Studies have shown that people from Western cultures are more likely than people from Eastern cultures to prefer personal rather than situational explanations for others’ behaviours Cultures also influence our attributions. A Western worldview predisposes people to assume that people, not situations, cause events. Internal explanations are more socially approved The fundamental attribution error occurs across all cultures studied. Yet people in Eastern Asian cultures are somewhat more sensitive to the importance of situations. Thus, when aware of the social context, they are less inclined to assume that others’ behaviour corresponds to their traits People from Eastern cultures make more situational attributions because they perceive the world as more holistically and less analytically than people from Western cultures. In seeing the world more holistically, Easterners are more sensitive to social constraints in the situation and therefore are more likely to see the situation as a cause of a particular behaviour. When the situation is not salient, Easterners see personality as just as potent a cause of behaviour as Westerners do. Easterners an Westerners alike see other people as having coherent, enduring personalities The tendency to see the world holistically in Eastern cultures and analytically in Western cultures seems rooted in the cultures’ histories and philosophies. Eastern cultures have been
heavily influenced by Chinese philosophy that emphasizes cyclical change and the interrelationship of all aspects of the world (yin and yang) Reasoning is holistic – it emphasizes all of the relevant influences and finds a balance between competing forces Western culture shave been heavily influenced by Greek philosophy that emphasizes linear change, logical analysis, and the isolation of elements into discrete categories. Reasoning is analytical – it emphasizes the proper use of rules and principles, including the understanding that contradictory truths cannot both be truth and the belief that things are what they are Human brains seem to share a remarkably similar capacity for reasoning. The cultural differences suggest that culture can shape in what direction this capacity is channelled Culture can shape the experience of cognitive dissonance. Having an individualistic versus a collectivistic self-concept will affect when and how people experience cognitive dissonance. In the example of the CD selection and rating of the CDs, Canadians who made a choice for themselves would have their individualistic self-concept threatened whereas the collectivistic Japanese student who had to make a choice for a friend would have their self-concept threatened Some of our expressions and gestures mean very different things in different parts of the world. We wonder whether there may be a part in the world where a frown means that people are happy. The answer: facial expressions are universal Although all cultures share a common language of facial expressions, cultures differ in how intensely people express emotions. In individualistic cultures, the display of emotions tend to be more intense and prolonged than in collectivist cultures Cultures also affect the way that facial expressions are perceived. Studies have demonstrated that when people interpret the emotion behind a facial expression of others, Japanese people are more likely to take the expressions of all the people in the scene into account, whereas North Americans are more likely to focus solely on the expressions of the central character Culture can also affect the way people perceive more ambiguous facial expressions. North Americans project their own feelings onto ambiguous faces. If they were angry they thought the other person was angry. People born in Asia had a very different reaction. They often projected the complementary emotion to what they were feeling onto the ambiguous face. If they were feeling sad, they thought the ambiguous face was showing sympathy; if they were feeling shame, they thought the ambiguous face was showing disgust. These ideas reinforce the collectivistic culture of Asian communities Culture not only shapes our understanding of emotion, it also provides a framework through which we can interpret situations. For example, in the US, good feelings were associated with isolated, disengaged feelings and actions. In Japan, good feelings were associated with interpersonally engaged – friendly – feelings that occur when interacting with others In Korea, ads are more likely to emphasize the interpersonal benefits of products whereas North American ads are more likely to emphasize the personal benefits of products, and the content of these ads also affects how persuasive they are When people process persuasive appeals, they sometimes process them carefully and thoughtfully and sometimes process without much thought. When people process information thoughtfully the content of the message primarily determines people’s reactions to the persuasive appeal – people are persuaded by good arguments and not persuaded by bad arguments. When people process information less thoughtfully, however, many subtle factors influence the persuasiveness of a message including the attractiveness of the communicator, the mood people are in, and the number of arguments (as opposed to the quality of the arguments) that are made Jennifer Aacker et al. suggests that the basic model of persuasion is similar across cultures. The subtle factors which influence the persuasiveness of a message is where cultural difference
matter. The subtle cues that influence persuasive appeals when people process information less carefully vary across cultures. o A good example is the influence of information about what most people do (consensus information). In individualistic Western cultures, people rarely pay attention to such consensus information. If one wants to shape a unique sense of self then what other people do hardly matters. In collectivistic Eastern cultures, fitting in with others is a central concern. IN these cultures consensus information seems to be a cue that has a large effect on the persuasiveness of a message Cultural background and values predicts how conforming people will be. Compared with people in individualistic countries, those in collectivistic countries (in which harmony is prized and connections help define the self) are most responsive to others’ influence Cultures may change, however, thus showing that conformity and obedience are universal phenomena, yet they vary across cultures and eras People in collectivist cultures do exhibit less social loafing than do people in individualist cultures. The nature of the group also seems to make a great deal of difference to whether social loafing occurs among collectivists. One study showed that Chinese and Israelis worked hardest when they were with other ingroup members while Americans worked hardest when alone All cultures have norms that govern who gets resources and how resources are distributed. Violating these norms is often seen as an aggressive attack against the social order that can and should be punished with further violence. IN this way, culture can provide the context for facilitating and inhibiting aggression Cohen et al. believe that a culture of honour is likely to emerge wherever people view violence as the only way to defend their hearth and home Friendships and intimate relationships do not differ across cultures. They are a common aspect of all cultures, but culture can shape the way these relationships unfold Individualism and collectivism can also shape the way we form intimate relationships. A study examined how people from Hong Kong and Hawaii and those from US form dating relationships. Those from a collectivism culture develop a style of relationship that accommodates for the other’s needs in the relationship, whereas people from the US are more likely to develop a style of relationship that emphasizes meeting one’s own needs in the relationship There is clear evidence that contact does promote harmony between groups. Increased contact between members of different ethnic groups tends to be associated with better relations between groups and a decrease in prejudice. This is especially true for majority group attitude toward minorities Although contact can improve intergroup relations, it is sometimes not enough to overcome all the problems that exist between groups. To establish positive intergroup relations, one must have the two groups work together to achieve a common goal, which would otherwise not be achievable by one group alone (superordinate goal). With isolation and competition, strangers become bitter enemies but with superordinate goals, you can make enemies into friends Stephen Worchel et al. confirmed that successful cooperation between two groups boost their attraction for one another. If previously conflicting groups fail in a cooperative effort, and if conditions allow them to attribute their failure to each other, the conflict may worsen Given cooperative contacts with those from another group, we will generalize if: o We see others in our group modelling friendships with outgroup member o We perceive the others as representative of their group rather than atypical o We think of them not just as individuals but as having a different group identity than our own
Initially, we will be most likely to interaction with people if their outgroup identity is minimized – if we see them as essentially like us rather than feeling threatened by their being different. But if our liking is to generalize, their group identity must at some point become salient In everyday life, we often reconcile dual identities. We acknowledge our subgroup identity (as parent or child) and then transcend it (sensing our superordinate identity as a family) Many in our society see themselves as Canadians and as members of another culture. This sense of identifying with both ethnic culture and the larger culture is what researchers call a “bicultural identity” When people find the larger culture as uninviting and unfriendly, they are more likely to remain solely identified with their culture of origin. Nevertheless, with time, identification with a new culture often grows We evaluate ourselves to a large extent in terms of our group memberships. Seeing our own group as good helps us feel good about ourselves. A positive ethnic identity can therefore contribute to positive self-esteem. Bicultural people, who affirm both identities, typically have a strongly positive self-concept. Often, they alternate between their two cultures, adapting their language and behaviour to whichever group they are with Language itself shapes a man’s basic ideas. Based on a study where participants had to describe themselves either in Chinese or English, the results showed that language can shape the way that people see themselves since those who responded in Chinese made more collective selfstatements, reported more agreement with Chinese cultural values, and reported roughly equal positive and negative self-statements and similar levels of positive and negative mood A study by Wallace Lambert showed that bilinguals outperformed monolinguals on intelligence tests and showed greater “mental flexibility” and a “more diversified structure of mental abilities” For English Canadians, learning French is a form of additive bilingualism (it will not eliminate their usage of English) while for the Inuit, learning English or French raises the realistic possibility that their heritage language (Inuktitut) and even their culture may wither and die. This is a form of subtractive bilingualism Cultural norms subtly but powerfully affect our attitude and behaviours, but they don’t do so independent of biology. Everything social and psychological is ultimately biological. If others’ expectation influence us, that is part of our biological programming What our biological heritage initiates, culture may accentuate. If genes and hormones predispose males to be more physically aggressive than females, culture may amplify this difference through norms that expect males to be tough and females to be the kinder, gentler sex Biology and culture may also interact. Gene’s don’t just constrain us, they respond adaptively to our experiences Social control (the power of the situation) and personal control (the power of the person) no more compete with one another than do biological and cultural explanations. Social and personal explanations of our social behaviours are both valid, for at any moment we are both the creatures and the creators of our social worlds. Our choices today determine our environment tomorrow Social situations do profoundly influence individuals, but individuals also influence the social situation. The two interact. Interaction occurs in three ways: o A given social situation often affects different people differently – we each respond to a situation as we construe it o People choose their situations o People create their situations – our actions towards an individual may be the result of preconceptions being self-fulfilling
Chapter Notes:
In viewing human similarities and differences, two perspectives dominate current thinking: an evolutionary perspective, emphasizing human kinship, and a cultural perspective, emphasizing human diversity. Nearly everyone agrees that we need both We are all social creatures. We join groups, conform, and recognize distinctions of social status. We return favours, punish offences, and grieve a child’s death. As children, beginning at about eight months old, we fear strangers, and as adults we favour members of our own groups The universal behaviours that define human nature arise from our biological similarity. Some 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, we were all Africans. As we dispersed to different habitats and adapted to our new environments, humans developed differences that, measured on anthropological scales To explain the traits of our species, and of all species, recall Charles Darwin’s proposed evolutionary process. As organisms vary, nature selects those best equipped to survive and reproduce in particular environments. Genes that produced traits that increased the odds of leaving descendants became more abundant The process of natural selection, long an organizing principle of biology, has recently become an important principle for psychology as well. Evolutionary psychology studies how natural selection predisposes not just adaptive physical traits suited to particular contexts, but also psychological traits and social behaviours that enhance the preservation and spread of one’s genes As mobile gene machines, we carry the legacy of our ancestors’ adaptive preferences. We long for whatever helped them survive, reproduce, and nurture their offspring to survive and reproduce
Evolutionary psychologists highlight these universal characteristics that are handed down from our ancestors. Cultures, however, provide the specific rules for working out the elements of social life The hallmark of our species is our capacity to learn and adapt. Ironically, it is our shared human biology that enables our cultural diversity Evolutionary psychology incorporates environmental influences. It recognizes the nature and nurture interact in forming us. Genes are not fixed blueprints; their expression depends on the environment We humans have been selected not only for big brains and biceps but also for social competence. We come prepared to learn language and to cooperate in securing good, caring for young, and protecting ourselves. Nature therefore predisposes us to learn whatever culture we are born into The cultural perspective, while acknowledging that all behaviour requires our evolved genes, highlights human adaptability. People’s “natures are alike”, “it is their habits that carry them far apart.” The diversity of our languages, customs, and expressive behaviours suggests that much of our behaviour is socially programmed, not hardwired. The genetic leash is indeed long If we all lived as homogeneous ethnic groups in separate regions of the world, as some people still do, cultural diversity would be less relevant. Example: 126 million of 127 million residents of Japan are Japanese, therefore, minimal internal cultural differences. On the contrary, Toronto is composed of dozens of ethnic groups Cultural conflicts have been described as “the AIDS of international politics – lying dormant for years, then flaring up to destroy countries” Princess Diana’s death typifies globalization in the sense of the variety of cultures and cultural production involved in her death In a world divided by wars, genuine peace requires respect for both differences and similarities As etiquette rules illustrate, all cultures have their accepted ideas about appropriate behaviours. We often view these social expectations, or norms, as a negative force that imprisons people in a blind effort to perpetuate tradition Norms do restrain and control us – so successfully and so subtly that we hardly sense their existence Norms can be arbitrary and confining. In unfamiliar situations, when the norms may be unclear, we monitor others’ behaviour and adjust our own accordingly. In familiar situations, our words and acts come effortlessly Thanks to human adaptability, cultures differ. Yet, beneath the veneer of cultural differences, there lies an essential universality. AS members of one species, the processes that underlie our differing behaviours are much the same everywhere Around the world, people tend to describe others as more or less stable, outgoing, open, agreeable, and conscientious. If a test specifies where you stand on these “Big Five” personality dimensions, it pretty well describes your personality, no matter where you live Kwok Leung and Michael Bond says there are five universal dimensions of social beliefs: cynicism (powerful people tend to exploit others), social complexity (one has to deal with matters according to the specific circumstances), reward for application (one will succeed if he/she really tries), spirituality (religious faith contributes to good mental health), and fate control (fate determines one’s success and failures). People’s adherence to these social beliefs appears to guide their living. Those who espouse cynicism express lower life satisfaction and favour assertive influence tactics and right-wing politics while those who espouse reward for application are inclined to invest themselves in studying, planning, and competing
Roger Brown noticed another universal norm of people forming status hierarchies, and speaking to individuals in higher-status in the respectful way they often talk to strangers while speaking to lower-status people on first name, like a friend basis The first aspect of Brown’s universal norm – that forms of address communicate not only social distance but also social status – correlates with a second aspect: advances in intimacy are usually suggested by the higher-status person In general then, the higher-status person is the pacesetter in the progression toward intimacy Social theorists assume that social life is like acting on a theatrical stage, with all its scene, masks and scripts. Social roles, such as parent, student, and friend, outlast those who play them When only a few norms are associated with a social category, we do not regard the position as a social role. It takes a whole cluster of norms to define a role. We could generate a long list of norms prescribing our activities as professors or as fathers. Although we may acquire our particular images by violating the least important norms, violating our role’s most important norms (i.e. failing to meet our classes, abusing our children) could lead to our being fired or divorced Roles have a powerful effect. We tend to absorb our roles. On a first date or on a new job, we may act the role self-consciously. As we internalize the role, self-consciousness subsides. What felt awkward now feels genuine Our actions depend not only on the social situation but also on our dispositions. Some social situations can move most “normal” people to behave in “abnormal” ways. Experiments have shown that putting well-intentioned people in a bad situation to see whether good or evil prevails. To a dismaying extent, evil wins. Nice guys often don’t finish nice One of the most profound ways that culture influences us is by shaping the way we think about ourselves and our world. The very way that we see or do not see inconsistencies in ourselves, in our world, and between our thoughts and actions are powerfully shaped by culture Wherever we go, whomever we are with, we are also with ourselves. The self is a constant in our social experience. There are times when the self takes center stage or times when its influence fades, but there is little question that the self powerfully shapes our thinking. Thus, one of the important ways that cultures influence our thinking is through the self-concept For some people, especially those in industrialized Western cultures, individualism prevails. Identity is pretty much self-contained. The psychology of Western cultures assumes that your life will be enriched by defining your possible selves and believing in your power of personal control Individualism flourishes when people experience affluence, mobility, urbanism, and mass media Most cultures native to Asia, Africa, and Central and South America place a greater value on collectivism. They nurture interdependent self. People are more self-critical and have less need for positive self-regard. Identity is defined more in relation to others When speaking, people using the languages of collectivist countries say “I” less often. A person might say “went to the movie” rather than “I went to the movie” with the subject made clear by the grammar or context Pigeonholing cultures as solely individualist or collectivist oversimplifies, because with any culture individualism varies from person to person. Individualism-collectivism also varies across a country’s regions and political views. o Conservatives tend to be economic individualist and moral collectivists o Liberals tend to be economic collectivists and moral individualists Despite individual and subcultural variations, researchers continue to regard individualism and collectivism as genuine cultural variables Social psychologist Richard Nisbett contends that collectivism results not only in social relations that differ from the more individualist West but also in differing ways of thinking
Nisbett concluded from his studies that East Asians think more holistically – perceiving and thinking about objects and people in relationship to one another and to their environment With an interdependent self, one has a greater sense of belonging. Uprooted and cut off from family, colleagues, and loyal friends, interdependent people would lose the social connections that define who they are. They have not one selves, but many selves The interdependent self is embedded in social memberships. Conversations are less direct and more polite. The goal of social life is not so much to enhance one’s individual self as to harmonize with and support one’s communities Self-esteem in collectivist cultures correlates closely with “what others think of me and my group.” Self-concept is malleable (context-specific) rather than stable (enduring across situations) For those in individualistic cultures, self-esteem is more personal and less relational. Threaten our personal identity and we’ll feel angrier and gloomier than when someone threatens our collective identity Japanese will persist more on tasks when they are failing (not wanting to fall short of others’ expectations), people in individualistic countries persist more when succeeding, because success elevates self-esteem. Western individualists like to make comparisons with others to boost their self-esteem. Asian collectivists make comparisons (often upward, with those doing better) in ways that facilitate self-improvement Chinese students’ self-evaluations are not negative but rather characterized by both positive and negative views that are not necessarily resolved. In contrast, North American students’ selfevaluations are more neatly resolved to reflect positive views of the self Collectivist Japanese individuals believe happiness comes with positive social engagement – with feeling close, friendly, and respectful. For American individualists, happiness comes more with disengaged emotions – with feeling effective, superior, and proud Conflict in collectivist cultures often is between groups while individualist cultures breed more crime and divorce between individuals It seems that personal self-esteem increased among Japanese exchange students after spending seven months at UofBC. Individual self-esteem is also higher among long-term Asian immigrants to Canada than among more recent immigrants Culture shapes not only the way we think about ourselves, but also the way we think about and perceive the world. We often have to make sense of events that at first sight make no sense at all Studies have shown that people from Western cultures are more likely than people from Eastern cultures to prefer personal rather than situational explanations for others’ behaviours Cultures also influence our attributions. A Western worldview predisposes people to assume that people, not situations, cause events. Internal explanations are more socially approved The fundamental attribution error occurs across all cultures studied. Yet people in Eastern Asian cultures are somewhat more sensitive to the importance of situations. Thus, when aware of the social context, they are less inclined to assume that others’ behaviour corresponds to their traits People from Eastern cultures make more situational attributions because they perceive the world as more holistically and less analytically than people from Western cultures. In seeing the world more holistically, Easterners are more sensitive to social constraints in the situation and therefore are more likely to see the situation as a cause of a particular behaviour. When the situation is not salient, Easterners see personality as just as potent a cause of behaviour as Westerners do. Easterners an Westerners alike see other people as having coherent, enduring personalities The tendency to see the world holistically in Eastern cultures and analytically in Western cultures seems rooted in the cultures’ histories and philosophies. Eastern cultures have been
heavily influenced by Chinese philosophy that emphasizes cyclical change and the interrelationship of all aspects of the world (yin and yang) Reasoning is holistic – it emphasizes all of the relevant influences and finds a balance between competing forces Western culture shave been heavily influenced by Greek philosophy that emphasizes linear change, logical analysis, and the isolation of elements into discrete categories. Reasoning is analytical – it emphasizes the proper use of rules and principles, including the understanding that contradictory truths cannot both be truth and the belief that things are what they are Human brains seem to share a remarkably similar capacity for reasoning. The cultural differences suggest that culture can shape in what direction this capacity is channelled Culture can shape the experience of cognitive dissonance. Having an individualistic versus a collectivistic self-concept will affect when and how people experience cognitive dissonance. In the example of the CD selection and rating of the CDs, Canadians who made a choice for themselves would have their individualistic self-concept threatened whereas the collectivistic Japanese student who had to make a choice for a friend would have their self-concept threatened Some of our expressions and gestures mean very different things in different parts of the world. We wonder whether there may be a part in the world where a frown means that people are happy. The answer: facial expressions are universal Although all cultures share a common language of facial expressions, cultures differ in how intensely people express emotions. In individualistic cultures, the display of emotions tend to be more intense and prolonged than in collectivist cultures Cultures also affect the way that facial expressions are perceived. Studies have demonstrated that when people interpret the emotion behind a facial expression of others, Japanese people are more likely to take the expressions of all the people in the scene into account, whereas North Americans are more likely to focus solely on the expressions of the central character Culture can also affect the way people perceive more ambiguous facial expressions. North Americans project their own feelings onto ambiguous faces. If they were angry they thought the other person was angry. People born in Asia had a very different reaction. They often projected the complementary emotion to what they were feeling onto the ambiguous face. If they were feeling sad, they thought the ambiguous face was showing sympathy; if they were feeling shame, they thought the ambiguous face was showing disgust. These ideas reinforce the collectivistic culture of Asian communities Culture not only shapes our understanding of emotion, it also provides a framework through which we can interpret situations. For example, in the US, good feelings were associated with isolated, disengaged feelings and actions. In Japan, good feelings were associated with interpersonally engaged – friendly – feelings that occur when interacting with others In Korea, ads are more likely to emphasize the interpersonal benefits of products whereas North American ads are more likely to emphasize the personal benefits of products, and the content of these ads also affects how persuasive they are When people process persuasive appeals, they sometimes process them carefully and thoughtfully and sometimes process without much thought. When people process information thoughtfully the content of the message primarily determines people’s reactions to the persuasive appeal – people are persuaded by good arguments and not persuaded by bad arguments. When people process information less thoughtfully, however, many subtle factors influence the persuasiveness of a message including the attractiveness of the communicator, the mood people are in, and the number of arguments (as opposed to the quality of the arguments) that are made Jennifer Aacker et al. suggests that the basic model of persuasion is similar across cultures. The subtle factors which influence the persuasiveness of a message is where cultural difference
matter. The subtle cues that influence persuasive appeals when people process information less carefully vary across cultures. o A good example is the influence of information about what most people do (consensus information). In individualistic Western cultures, people rarely pay attention to such consensus information. If one wants to shape a unique sense of self then what other people do hardly matters. In collectivistic Eastern cultures, fitting in with others is a central concern. IN these cultures consensus information seems to be a cue that has a large effect on the persuasiveness of a message Cultural background and values predicts how conforming people will be. Compared with people in individualistic countries, those in collectivistic countries (in which harmony is prized and connections help define the self) are most responsive to others’ influence Cultures may change, however, thus showing that conformity and obedience are universal phenomena, yet they vary across cultures and eras People in collectivist cultures do exhibit less social loafing than do people in individualist cultures. The nature of the group also seems to make a great deal of difference to whether social loafing occurs among collectivists. One study showed that Chinese and Israelis worked hardest when they were with other ingroup members while Americans worked hardest when alone All cultures have norms that govern who gets resources and how resources are distributed. Violating these norms is often seen as an aggressive attack against the social order that can and should be punished with further violence. IN this way, culture can provide the context for facilitating and inhibiting aggression Cohen et al. believe that a culture of honour is likely to emerge wherever people view violence as the only way to defend their hearth and home Friendships and intimate relationships do not differ across cultures. They are a common aspect of all cultures, but culture can shape the way these relationships unfold Individualism and collectivism can also shape the way we form intimate relationships. A study examined how people from Hong Kong and Hawaii and those from US form dating relationships. Those from a collectivism culture develop a style of relationship that accommodates for the other’s needs in the relationship, whereas people from the US are more likely to develop a style of relationship that emphasizes meeting one’s own needs in the relationship There is clear evidence that contact does promote harmony between groups. Increased contact between members of different ethnic groups tends to be associated with better relations between groups and a decrease in prejudice. This is especially true for majority group attitude toward minorities Although contact can improve intergroup relations, it is sometimes not enough to overcome all the problems that exist between groups. To establish positive intergroup relations, one must have the two groups work together to achieve a common goal, which would otherwise not be achievable by one group alone (superordinate goal). With isolation and competition, strangers become bitter enemies but with superordinate goals, you can make enemies into friends Stephen Worchel et al. confirmed that successful cooperation between two groups boost their attraction for one another. If previously conflicting groups fail in a cooperative effort, and if conditions allow them to attribute their failure to each other, the conflict may worsen Given cooperative contacts with those from another group, we will generalize if: o We see others in our group modelling friendships with outgroup member o We perceive the others as representative of their group rather than atypical o We think of them not just as individuals but as having a different group identity than our own
Initially, we will be most likely to interaction with people if their outgroup identity is minimized – if we see them as essentially like us rather than feeling threatened by their being different. But if our liking is to generalize, their group identity must at some point become salient In everyday life, we often reconcile dual identities. We acknowledge our subgroup identity (as parent or child) and then transcend it (sensing our superordinate identity as a family) Many in our society see themselves as Canadians and as members of another culture. This sense of identifying with both ethnic culture and the larger culture is what researchers call a “bicultural identity” When people find the larger culture as uninviting and unfriendly, they are more likely to remain solely identified with their culture of origin. Nevertheless, with time, identification with a new culture often grows We evaluate ourselves to a large extent in terms of our group memberships. Seeing our own group as good helps us feel good about ourselves. A positive ethnic identity can therefore contribute to positive self-esteem. Bicultural people, who affirm both identities, typically have a strongly positive self-concept. Often, they alternate between their two cultures, adapting their language and behaviour to whichever group they are with Language itself shapes a man’s basic ideas. Based on a study where participants had to describe themselves either in Chinese or English, the results showed that language can shape the way that people see themselves since those who responded in Chinese made more collective selfstatements, reported more agreement with Chinese cultural values, and reported roughly equal positive and negative self-statements and similar levels of positive and negative mood A study by Wallace Lambert showed that bilinguals outperformed monolinguals on intelligence tests and showed greater “mental flexibility” and a “more diversified structure of mental abilities” For English Canadians, learning French is a form of additive bilingualism (it will not eliminate their usage of English) while for the Inuit, learning English or French raises the realistic possibility that their heritage language (Inuktitut) and even their culture may wither and die. This is a form of subtractive bilingualism Cultural norms subtly but powerfully affect our attitude and behaviours, but they don’t do so independent of biology. Everything social and psychological is ultimately biological. If others’ expectation influence us, that is part of our biological programming What our biological heritage initiates, culture may accentuate. If genes and hormones predispose males to be more physically aggressive than females, culture may amplify this difference through norms that expect males to be tough and females to be the kinder, gentler sex Biology and culture may also interact. Gene’s don’t just constrain us, they respond adaptively to our experiences Social control (the power of the situation) and personal control (the power of the person) no more compete with one another than do biological and cultural explanations. Social and personal explanations of our social behaviours are both valid, for at any moment we are both the creatures and the creators of our social worlds. Our choices today determine our environment tomorrow Social situations do profoundly influence individuals, but individuals also influence the social situation. The two interact. Interaction occurs in three ways: o A given social situation often affects different people differently – we each respond to a situation as we construe it o People choose their situations o People create their situations – our actions towards an individual may be the result of preconceptions being self-fulfilling
