Pub Date : 2022-08-01DOI: 10.1177/00220221221084041
Peter B. Smith, M. Bond
Over 5 days at the Nag’s Head Conference Center, USA in 1987, social and cross-cultural psychologists discussed what would be required if research relating to culture were to gain greater attention from psychology in general, and in particular from what was perceived at the time as its mainstream. The criteria for gaining greater credibility laid down by three leading social psychologists proved daunting in relation to the cross-cultural work presented at the meeting but subsequently inspired cross-culturalists to “raise their game.” In this paper, we describe these crucial challenges and how they have been addressed more recently by cross-cultural psychologists. We assess the extent to which studies focused on cultural differences are now thoughtfully represented in social, personality, and organizational psychology by briefly surveying the content of a single year’s issues of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of International Business Studies, and the Journal of Personality in relation to the concurrent content of the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. We identify the perils of assimilation to psychology in general by diluting the concept of culture and by tyrannizing research with over-specified criteria of statistical rectitude. We also identify studies published in top-rated journals that have nonetheless advanced our field. We reiterate the need for defensible measures of cultural difference and methods for identifying and examining them as a basis for multi-level explanations of cultural effects and cultural change. We conclude by proposing a gold standard for assaying cross-cultural studies of psychological processes and outcomes.
{"title":"Four Decades of Challenges by Culture to Mainstream Psychology: Finding Ways Forward","authors":"Peter B. Smith, M. Bond","doi":"10.1177/00220221221084041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221084041","url":null,"abstract":"Over 5 days at the Nag’s Head Conference Center, USA in 1987, social and cross-cultural psychologists discussed what would be required if research relating to culture were to gain greater attention from psychology in general, and in particular from what was perceived at the time as its mainstream. The criteria for gaining greater credibility laid down by three leading social psychologists proved daunting in relation to the cross-cultural work presented at the meeting but subsequently inspired cross-culturalists to “raise their game.” In this paper, we describe these crucial challenges and how they have been addressed more recently by cross-cultural psychologists. We assess the extent to which studies focused on cultural differences are now thoughtfully represented in social, personality, and organizational psychology by briefly surveying the content of a single year’s issues of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of International Business Studies, and the Journal of Personality in relation to the concurrent content of the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. We identify the perils of assimilation to psychology in general by diluting the concept of culture and by tyrannizing research with over-specified criteria of statistical rectitude. We also identify studies published in top-rated journals that have nonetheless advanced our field. We reiterate the need for defensible measures of cultural difference and methods for identifying and examining them as a basis for multi-level explanations of cultural effects and cultural change. We conclude by proposing a gold standard for assaying cross-cultural studies of psychological processes and outcomes.","PeriodicalId":48354,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology","volume":"53 1","pages":"729 - 751"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44200020","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-01DOI: 10.1177/00220221221093810
J. Berry
Cross-cultural psychology has employed the concept of the “field” in two ways. First, as articulated by Lewin, it is the larger context in which all individuals develop their behaviors and now express them; it is a conceptual space within which to situate human behavior. Second, it refers to the cultures and communities in which anthropologists have usually worked, making observations of daily life, and then describing the cultures of the people; it is a physical and symbolic space in which human activity takes place. These two meanings share common features: they both consider that all human behavior develops and is exhibited in contexts; and that these contexts need to be studied and described before human activity can be understood and interpreted. I argue that it is essential for cross-cultural psychology to use and study both meanings of the field concept if we are to make valid interpretations of the origins (roots) and the influences (routes) on behaviors that we observe and assess in our research and practice. Starting over 100 years ago, collaboration between anthropologists and psychologists established the field of cross-cultural psychology. This collaboration continued for many years, but has diminished in recent times. I argue for the necessity to return to the field in both senses in order for our field to advance. This paper examines these two meanings in the disciplines of anthropology and psychology, and presents some elaborations of them, using the ecocultural framework as a general guide, and an arc framework as a specific exposition of it. Examples of fieldwork in psychology and anthropology are presented to provide substance to these frameworks. The claim is made that our discipline has largely abandoned the concept of the field, and proposes a way to correct this error.
{"title":"The Forgotten Field: Contexts for Cross-Cultural Psychology","authors":"J. Berry","doi":"10.1177/00220221221093810","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221093810","url":null,"abstract":"Cross-cultural psychology has employed the concept of the “field” in two ways. First, as articulated by Lewin, it is the larger context in which all individuals develop their behaviors and now express them; it is a conceptual space within which to situate human behavior. Second, it refers to the cultures and communities in which anthropologists have usually worked, making observations of daily life, and then describing the cultures of the people; it is a physical and symbolic space in which human activity takes place. These two meanings share common features: they both consider that all human behavior develops and is exhibited in contexts; and that these contexts need to be studied and described before human activity can be understood and interpreted. I argue that it is essential for cross-cultural psychology to use and study both meanings of the field concept if we are to make valid interpretations of the origins (roots) and the influences (routes) on behaviors that we observe and assess in our research and practice. Starting over 100 years ago, collaboration between anthropologists and psychologists established the field of cross-cultural psychology. This collaboration continued for many years, but has diminished in recent times. I argue for the necessity to return to the field in both senses in order for our field to advance. This paper examines these two meanings in the disciplines of anthropology and psychology, and presents some elaborations of them, using the ecocultural framework as a general guide, and an arc framework as a specific exposition of it. Examples of fieldwork in psychology and anthropology are presented to provide substance to these frameworks. The claim is made that our discipline has largely abandoned the concept of the field, and proposes a way to correct this error.","PeriodicalId":48354,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology","volume":"53 1","pages":"993 - 1009"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"64914103","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-01DOI: 10.1177/00220221221107727
P. Denoux, Paraskevi Simou
The paper aims to show the international impact of 50 years of cross-cultural psychology on interdisciplinary intercultural studies and intercultural psychology, as developed in French-speaking countries. An original overview of the most prominent research carried out by Association pour la Recherche Interculturelle (ARIC, Association for Intercultural Research) and the research team Interculturation Psychique et Contacts Culturels (IPCC, Psychological Interculturation and Cultural Contacts) is suggested, while tending to cover the worldwide research related to the individual in intercultural situations. ARIC’s main topics are education, socio-political aspects and identity, individual, and cultures. This international association focuses on the articulation of research and practice to propose better policies to multicultural societies. In this perspective, it has carried out research about the immigration challenges considering the immigrants as well as the host societies. As it concerns intercultural psychology, it develops according to interculturation, that is, the psychological process that allows to overcome the cultural differences. It shapes intercultural personality and identity and the cognitive, affective and behavioral reactions of individuals or groups in any cultural contact. The various fields of application of both underline the undoubtable influence of cross-cultural psychology and the possibilities for further in-depth collaboration due to mutual contributions.
{"title":"Cross-Cultural Psychology à la française: An Overview of Interdisciplinary Intercultural Studies and Intercultural Psychology","authors":"P. Denoux, Paraskevi Simou","doi":"10.1177/00220221221107727","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221107727","url":null,"abstract":"The paper aims to show the international impact of 50 years of cross-cultural psychology on interdisciplinary intercultural studies and intercultural psychology, as developed in French-speaking countries. An original overview of the most prominent research carried out by Association pour la Recherche Interculturelle (ARIC, Association for Intercultural Research) and the research team Interculturation Psychique et Contacts Culturels (IPCC, Psychological Interculturation and Cultural Contacts) is suggested, while tending to cover the worldwide research related to the individual in intercultural situations. ARIC’s main topics are education, socio-political aspects and identity, individual, and cultures. This international association focuses on the articulation of research and practice to propose better policies to multicultural societies. In this perspective, it has carried out research about the immigration challenges considering the immigrants as well as the host societies. As it concerns intercultural psychology, it develops according to interculturation, that is, the psychological process that allows to overcome the cultural differences. It shapes intercultural personality and identity and the cognitive, affective and behavioral reactions of individuals or groups in any cultural contact. The various fields of application of both underline the undoubtable influence of cross-cultural psychology and the possibilities for further in-depth collaboration due to mutual contributions.","PeriodicalId":48354,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology","volume":"53 1","pages":"817 - 846"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49080246","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-01DOI: 10.1177/00220221221092409
P. Dasen
This paper reports my own perceptions of the history of research on culture and cognitive development, in the approximate period 1960 to 2000. I review in particular my own efforts to test Piaget’s theory cross-culturally, but also include other lines of research such as research inspired by Vygotsky and research on child rearing/socialization potentially linked to cognitive development. I briefly mention a research program in Bali, Indonesia, India, and Nepal on the geocentric spatial frame of reference that allowed us to disentangle a variety of eco-cultural and linguistic variables that determine the preference for this geocentric cognitive style. I also recall the “integrated framework” that I proposed in 2003 to combine the models proposed by several authors and which serves to integrate all the findings. The main conclusion is that cognitive processes are universal but that there are cultural differences in cognitive styles and pathways of development. I also discuss why the field has lost momentum, whether it is because all the questions have been answered or because new topics and research methods have evolved.
{"title":"Culture and Cognitive Development","authors":"P. Dasen","doi":"10.1177/00220221221092409","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221092409","url":null,"abstract":"This paper reports my own perceptions of the history of research on culture and cognitive development, in the approximate period 1960 to 2000. I review in particular my own efforts to test Piaget’s theory cross-culturally, but also include other lines of research such as research inspired by Vygotsky and research on child rearing/socialization potentially linked to cognitive development. I briefly mention a research program in Bali, Indonesia, India, and Nepal on the geocentric spatial frame of reference that allowed us to disentangle a variety of eco-cultural and linguistic variables that determine the preference for this geocentric cognitive style. I also recall the “integrated framework” that I proposed in 2003 to combine the models proposed by several authors and which serves to integrate all the findings. The main conclusion is that cognitive processes are universal but that there are cultural differences in cognitive styles and pathways of development. I also discuss why the field has lost momentum, whether it is because all the questions have been answered or because new topics and research methods have evolved.","PeriodicalId":48354,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology","volume":"53 1","pages":"789 - 816"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45576147","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-28DOI: 10.1177/00220221221115654
Samuel Farley, J. Dawson, T. Greenaway, Keelan Meade, Daría Hernández Ibar
National status has been found to influence how people are perceived in multinational teams. Team members from an international background are often perceived as less competent than those from the local context. Studies mainly focus on language differences to explain this phenomenon, but in this study, we offer a different theoretical explanation. We propose that national status can affect psychological safety and its development within teams, which in turn affects verbal behavior and competence ratings. To test this notion, we examine differences in psychological safety growth, verbal behavior and competence ratings among home country nationals based in the United Kingdom (UK) and international members of newly formed multinational teams. In a sample of 519 team members (101 teams), results showed that internationals, compared to home country nationals, have lower initial psychological safety, as well as slower development in psychological safety over time. Furthermore, the relationship between national status and competence ratings was partially mediated by psychological safety growth and verbal behavior. These results were fully replicated on a separate sample of 538 team members (90 teams) in a second study using an identical research design. However, exploratory analyses indicated that the pattern of findings were not consistent across team members from Africa, Asia, and Europe. The psychological safety of home nationals only started and grew more quickly than that of Asians, while only African and Asian team members spoke less and were rated as less competent. Together these results have implications for managers of newly formed multinational teams.
{"title":"Does International Status Affect Competence Ratings in Newly Formed Multinational Teams? The Role of Psychological Safety Growth and Verbal Behavior","authors":"Samuel Farley, J. Dawson, T. Greenaway, Keelan Meade, Daría Hernández Ibar","doi":"10.1177/00220221221115654","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221115654","url":null,"abstract":"National status has been found to influence how people are perceived in multinational teams. Team members from an international background are often perceived as less competent than those from the local context. Studies mainly focus on language differences to explain this phenomenon, but in this study, we offer a different theoretical explanation. We propose that national status can affect psychological safety and its development within teams, which in turn affects verbal behavior and competence ratings. To test this notion, we examine differences in psychological safety growth, verbal behavior and competence ratings among home country nationals based in the United Kingdom (UK) and international members of newly formed multinational teams. In a sample of 519 team members (101 teams), results showed that internationals, compared to home country nationals, have lower initial psychological safety, as well as slower development in psychological safety over time. Furthermore, the relationship between national status and competence ratings was partially mediated by psychological safety growth and verbal behavior. These results were fully replicated on a separate sample of 538 team members (90 teams) in a second study using an identical research design. However, exploratory analyses indicated that the pattern of findings were not consistent across team members from Africa, Asia, and Europe. The psychological safety of home nationals only started and grew more quickly than that of Asians, while only African and Asian team members spoke less and were rated as less competent. Together these results have implications for managers of newly formed multinational teams.","PeriodicalId":48354,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology","volume":"53 1","pages":"1277 - 1299"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"64914168","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-19DOI: 10.1177/00220221221111814
G. H. Kuscul, K. Adamsons
This study uses bioecological and identity theories to explore associations among maternal education and employment, fathers’ gender role beliefs and identities, and fathers’ caregiving and nurturing involvement in a Turkish context. The study sample was derived from data collected in 2016 from 1,102 fathers of children between birth and 3 years of age. We used path analysis in structural equation modeling to test direct and indirect associations. Direct paths between maternal education and employment and fathers’ caregiving and nurturing behaviors were not significant; however, some fathers’ gender role beliefs mediated the associations. Modernity beliefs mediated the association between education and caregiving, and fathers’ emotional closeness mediated the association between maternal education and fathers’ nurturing behaviors. Furthermore, maternal employment was indirectly associated with fathers’ caregiving via his beliefs about the equality of sons and daughters and division of labor at home. Father identity development was not associated with maternal education or employment, and only mediated associations between fathers’ beliefs about emotional closeness and their caregiving and nurturing involvement. The current findings suggest that cultural norms and beliefs likely play themselves out via parenting styles and family structures (the microsystems for children), and therefore these family variables may contain very valuable cultural information in understanding the processes of father identity construction, masculinity beliefs, and father involvement behaviors.
{"title":"Maternal and Paternal Predictors of Turkish Fathers’ Nurturing and Caregiving","authors":"G. H. Kuscul, K. Adamsons","doi":"10.1177/00220221221111814","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221111814","url":null,"abstract":"This study uses bioecological and identity theories to explore associations among maternal education and employment, fathers’ gender role beliefs and identities, and fathers’ caregiving and nurturing involvement in a Turkish context. The study sample was derived from data collected in 2016 from 1,102 fathers of children between birth and 3 years of age. We used path analysis in structural equation modeling to test direct and indirect associations. Direct paths between maternal education and employment and fathers’ caregiving and nurturing behaviors were not significant; however, some fathers’ gender role beliefs mediated the associations. Modernity beliefs mediated the association between education and caregiving, and fathers’ emotional closeness mediated the association between maternal education and fathers’ nurturing behaviors. Furthermore, maternal employment was indirectly associated with fathers’ caregiving via his beliefs about the equality of sons and daughters and division of labor at home. Father identity development was not associated with maternal education or employment, and only mediated associations between fathers’ beliefs about emotional closeness and their caregiving and nurturing involvement. The current findings suggest that cultural norms and beliefs likely play themselves out via parenting styles and family structures (the microsystems for children), and therefore these family variables may contain very valuable cultural information in understanding the processes of father identity construction, masculinity beliefs, and father involvement behaviors.","PeriodicalId":48354,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology","volume":"53 1","pages":"1187 - 1205"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47747775","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-15DOI: 10.1177/00220221221110465
Ee Hwee Lau, A. Rattan, Rainer Romero-Canyas, Krishna Savani
We theorized that culturally-relevant frames—language that invokes valued cultural concepts without changing the communicated information—can increase people’s willingness to engage in environmental action. Across eight experiments (N = 10,294) in two national contexts, we adjusted the language of a carbon offset request that people received as part of a simulated flight purchase. We investigated the role of five constructs that are valued across cultures but vary in their importance: choice, economic growth, social change, moral responsibility, and sanctity. We found that the social change, moral responsibility, and sanctity frames did not differ from the control condition in either culture. Invoking the concept of economic development increased Indians’ willingness to contribute to a carbon offset compared to the control frame, whereas invoking the concept of choice increased US Americans’ willingness. If these simulated decisions translate into actual actions, the findings suggest that framing environmental requests using culturally-relevant frames have the potential to promote sustainable behavior. More generally, the findings highlight the importance of paying attention to culture to motivate environmental action.
{"title":"Culturally Relevant Frames Increase Individuals’ Motivation to Contribute to Carbon Emissions Offsets","authors":"Ee Hwee Lau, A. Rattan, Rainer Romero-Canyas, Krishna Savani","doi":"10.1177/00220221221110465","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221110465","url":null,"abstract":"We theorized that culturally-relevant frames—language that invokes valued cultural concepts without changing the communicated information—can increase people’s willingness to engage in environmental action. Across eight experiments (N = 10,294) in two national contexts, we adjusted the language of a carbon offset request that people received as part of a simulated flight purchase. We investigated the role of five constructs that are valued across cultures but vary in their importance: choice, economic growth, social change, moral responsibility, and sanctity. We found that the social change, moral responsibility, and sanctity frames did not differ from the control condition in either culture. Invoking the concept of economic development increased Indians’ willingness to contribute to a carbon offset compared to the control frame, whereas invoking the concept of choice increased US Americans’ willingness. If these simulated decisions translate into actual actions, the findings suggest that framing environmental requests using culturally-relevant frames have the potential to promote sustainable behavior. More generally, the findings highlight the importance of paying attention to culture to motivate environmental action.","PeriodicalId":48354,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology","volume":"53 1","pages":"1211 - 1234"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45014284","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-14DOI: 10.1177/00220221221110462
Emily A. Harris, T. Milfont, M. Hornsey
Although magical beliefs (such as belief in luck and precognition) are presumably universal, the extent to which such beliefs are embraced likely varies across cultures. We assessed the effect of culture on luck and precognition beliefs in two large-scale multinational studies (Study 1: k = 16, N = 17,664; Study 2: k = 25, N = 4,024). Over and above the effects of demographic factors, culture was a significant predictor of luck and precognition beliefs in both studies. Indeed, when culture was added to demographic models, the variance accounted for in luck and precognition beliefs approximately doubled. Belief in luck and precognition was highest in Latvia and Russia (Study 1) and South Asia (Study 2), and lowest in Protestant Europe (Studies 1 and 2). Thus, beyond the effects of age, gender, education, and religiosity, culture is a significant factor in explaining variance in people’s belief in luck and precognition. Follow-up analyses found a relatively consistent effect of socio-economic development, such that belief in luck and precognition were more prevalent in countries with lower scores on the Human Development Index. There was also some evidence that these beliefs were stronger in more collectivist cultures, but this effect was inconsistent. We discuss the possibility that there are culturally specific historical factors that contribute to relative openness to such beliefs in Russia, Latvia, and South Asia.
{"title":"Belief in Luck and Precognition Around the World","authors":"Emily A. Harris, T. Milfont, M. Hornsey","doi":"10.1177/00220221221110462","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221110462","url":null,"abstract":"Although magical beliefs (such as belief in luck and precognition) are presumably universal, the extent to which such beliefs are embraced likely varies across cultures. We assessed the effect of culture on luck and precognition beliefs in two large-scale multinational studies (Study 1: k = 16, N = 17,664; Study 2: k = 25, N = 4,024). Over and above the effects of demographic factors, culture was a significant predictor of luck and precognition beliefs in both studies. Indeed, when culture was added to demographic models, the variance accounted for in luck and precognition beliefs approximately doubled. Belief in luck and precognition was highest in Latvia and Russia (Study 1) and South Asia (Study 2), and lowest in Protestant Europe (Studies 1 and 2). Thus, beyond the effects of age, gender, education, and religiosity, culture is a significant factor in explaining variance in people’s belief in luck and precognition. Follow-up analyses found a relatively consistent effect of socio-economic development, such that belief in luck and precognition were more prevalent in countries with lower scores on the Human Development Index. There was also some evidence that these beliefs were stronger in more collectivist cultures, but this effect was inconsistent. We discuss the possibility that there are culturally specific historical factors that contribute to relative openness to such beliefs in Russia, Latvia, and South Asia.","PeriodicalId":48354,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology","volume":"53 1","pages":"1033 - 1053"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48202194","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-12DOI: 10.1177/00220221221110469
Ali F. Unal, Chao-chuan Chen
Societies and organizations face the dual challenges of increasing economic prosperity while also achieving social justice and protecting individual human rights. Drawing on cross-cultural research and social dominance theory, we investigate differences in trade-off decisions between managers and professionals from the U.S. and Turkey in responding to ethical dilemmas in two contexts: business organizations and their respective societies at large. U.S. managers, compared with their Turkish counterparts, and individuals of both the U.S. and Turkish nationalities with stronger social dominance orientation, prioritized economic prosperity over social justice, and the rights of the privileged over rights of the disadvantaged. Finally, social dominance orientation mediated some of the nationality effects. Theoretical and practical implications of cross- and within-cultural differences in ethical trade-offs are discussed.
{"title":"Preference for Inequality and Ethical Trade-Offs: A U.S. – Turkey Comparison","authors":"Ali F. Unal, Chao-chuan Chen","doi":"10.1177/00220221221110469","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221110469","url":null,"abstract":"Societies and organizations face the dual challenges of increasing economic prosperity while also achieving social justice and protecting individual human rights. Drawing on cross-cultural research and social dominance theory, we investigate differences in trade-off decisions between managers and professionals from the U.S. and Turkey in responding to ethical dilemmas in two contexts: business organizations and their respective societies at large. U.S. managers, compared with their Turkish counterparts, and individuals of both the U.S. and Turkish nationalities with stronger social dominance orientation, prioritized economic prosperity over social justice, and the rights of the privileged over rights of the disadvantaged. Finally, social dominance orientation mediated some of the nationality effects. Theoretical and practical implications of cross- and within-cultural differences in ethical trade-offs are discussed.","PeriodicalId":48354,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology","volume":"53 1","pages":"1235 - 1256"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46398552","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-07DOI: 10.1177/00220221221109564
Monica B. Bartucz, Silviu Matu, D. O. David
Previous studies indicated that collectivism represents a protective factor against depressive disorders, even among vulnerable populations. The protective effect of collectivism in relation to depressive disorders is often attributed to the social support networks available to individuals in collectivistic societies. The current study aims to investigate the protective effect of collectivism in the relationship between psychological vulnerabilities and depression. Moreover, we examined whether the protective effect of collectivism in relation to depression can be explained through the mechanism of social support. We measured individualism-collectivism for 42 Romanian counties (n = 2,882) before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Data for irrational cognitions, depression, and social support were collected online during the lockdown in Romania (n = 5,310). All instruments showed acceptable measurement and scalar invariance across regions. In a multi-level regression model, county-level collectivism was associated with lower levels of depressive symptoms b = −.032, 95% CI [−0.045; −0.019], while irrational cognitions were positively associated with depression b = .474, 95% CI [0.438; 0.510]. The interaction between irrational beliefs and collectivism had a significant and negative effect on depression, b = −.004, 95% CI [−0.008; −0.000]. The indirect effect of collectivism on depression via social support was tested in a two-level SEM model. Explicit and implicit social support were not significant mediators. Collectivism was negatively associated with the perceived availability of explicit social support, b = −.043, 95% CI [−0.074; −0.012]. The results support a general protective effect of collectivism on mental health but cast doubt that the mechanism for this effect is related to social support.
{"title":"The Protective Effect of Culture on Depression During Covid-19 Pandemic: A Romanian National Study","authors":"Monica B. Bartucz, Silviu Matu, D. O. David","doi":"10.1177/00220221221109564","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221109564","url":null,"abstract":"Previous studies indicated that collectivism represents a protective factor against depressive disorders, even among vulnerable populations. The protective effect of collectivism in relation to depressive disorders is often attributed to the social support networks available to individuals in collectivistic societies. The current study aims to investigate the protective effect of collectivism in the relationship between psychological vulnerabilities and depression. Moreover, we examined whether the protective effect of collectivism in relation to depression can be explained through the mechanism of social support. We measured individualism-collectivism for 42 Romanian counties (n = 2,882) before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Data for irrational cognitions, depression, and social support were collected online during the lockdown in Romania (n = 5,310). All instruments showed acceptable measurement and scalar invariance across regions. In a multi-level regression model, county-level collectivism was associated with lower levels of depressive symptoms b = −.032, 95% CI [−0.045; −0.019], while irrational cognitions were positively associated with depression b = .474, 95% CI [0.438; 0.510]. The interaction between irrational beliefs and collectivism had a significant and negative effect on depression, b = −.004, 95% CI [−0.008; −0.000]. The indirect effect of collectivism on depression via social support was tested in a two-level SEM model. Explicit and implicit social support were not significant mediators. Collectivism was negatively associated with the perceived availability of explicit social support, b = −.043, 95% CI [−0.074; −0.012]. The results support a general protective effect of collectivism on mental health but cast doubt that the mechanism for this effect is related to social support.","PeriodicalId":48354,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology","volume":"53 1","pages":"1166 - 1186"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44436776","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：