Cross-Cultural Psychology Psy 420. Ingroup/Outgroup Relationships. Person Perception

Transcription

1 Cross-Cultural Psychology Psy 420 Chapter 14 Culture and Social Behavior II: Interpersonal and Intergroup Relations 1 Ingroup/Outgroup Relationships How does I-C play a role? Members of collectivist cultures, as opposed to individualist ones, likely to: Belong to fewer ingroups Have greater commitments to their ingroups Identify more with ingroups & conform to their norms Sacrifice own needs/goals for the sake of the ingroup Hesitate to express their own opposing attitudes or to bring up interpersonal concerns & conflicts Exhibit aloofness & discrimination towards outgroups Perceive ingroup members to be momogenous and outgroup members to be heterogenous (Quattrone, 1986) 2 Person Perception In general, perceptions of physical attractiveness an emic Some cultures do not expect, or even value, thinness in females to the same degree as the U.S. Within U.S., gender differences in body image and perception of what is attractive to the other sex Bias towards baby-like facial characteristics an etic Favorable stereotypes about personality & ability of attractive people an etic Content of the stereotypes an emic 3 1

2 Person Perception Cont d Content of person perception an emic (Zebrowitz-McArthur, 1988) Americans use more abstract terms to describe others, such as an individual s enduring abilities or personality. Other cultures (for example, Japan and Ethiopia) seem to prefer more concrete descriptors, such as a person s interpersonal style in a specific context. Does this reflect I-C? 4 Person Perception Cont d Own race bias in facial recognition. Why? Contact hypothesis Racial prejudice Primacy effect (tendency to evaluate others in terms of first impressions) an emic. Why? 5 Attribution Theory How do you explain positive and negative events that occur to you? Three dimensions Internal/External: Is the cause due to something about you or to a situation? Stable/Unstable: Is the cause always present or does it occur only occasionally? Global/Specific: Is the cause only present in this situation, or is it present in all situations? 6 2

3 Causal Attributions Kelley s 1973 Covariation Model: Logically, objective causal attributions should depend on: Consistency: person always responds same way in this situation Distinctiveness: person s behavior unique to the specific target of the behavior in this situation Consensus: Others respond same way in this situation Ex. If all 3 high, then external attributions. If Consistency high and other two low then internal attributions. 7 Causal Attributions Cont d However, biases in Causal Attribution: Fundamental Attribution Error: More likely to make dispositional attributions. Etic or emic? Why? Self-serving Bias (Bradley, 1978): Tendency to attribute positive outcome to one s traits and negative outcome to external factors. Unrealistic optimism (Weinstein, 1982): the tendency for people to believe that they are more likely to experience positive events and less likely to experience negative events than similar others. Eticor emic? Within U.S., males more likely to attribute success to ability, females more likely to attribute failure to lack of ability Above biases non-existent in most collectivist cultures, actually an opposite tendency. Ex. Self-Effacing Bias seen in Japan. Could SSB & SEB be functionally equivalent? All people are motivated to enhance their sense of self-worth (self-esteem). SSB has a self-protective function and maintains emotional well being in Western cultures, SEB accomplishes the same goals in Eastern cultures. We should not confuse desirable mental characteristics for the Japanese with undesirable mental characteristics for North Americans. 8 More on Cultural Differences in Attributions Miller (1984): Asked matched samples of American and Indian participants to narrate & explain incidences of prosocial behavior & deviant behavior ( Describe something a person you know well did recently that you considered a good (wrong) thing to have done. Explain why the behavior was undertaken). Findings: Cultural differences in attribution style exist and vary as a function of exposure to Western cultural values, not SES. Americans: more emphasis on general disposition (internal, stable, global) Hindus: more emphasis on situation, roles, & duties (external, unstable, specific) Especially true for explaining deviant behaviors in others. Results did not vary with SES, but Hindu group with semi-westernized cultural orientation made significantly more references to general dispositions than other Hindus. Not a matter of Hindus lacking the cognitive ability to classify on the basis of conceptual similarity: No group differences in percentage of selection of conceptually similar word pairs in classification task among American and Hindu Subgroups. Not a matter of the Indian-created examples being products of less abstract thought and less complex experience and thus simply just calling for and requiring contextual explanations: Americans did not make more references to contextual attributions for Indian-created examples than they did for previous American-created examples. 9 3

4 Interpersonal Attraction The Exchange Theory of mate selection holds that sex differences in the preferred characteristics of mates is an etic because evolutionary processes favor choices that perpetuate one s genes. Ex.: Buss et al. s 1995 study of mate selection preferences on over 10,000 respondents in over 30 countries found that males value physical attractiveness more, while females value potential earning power more 10 Interpersonal Attraction Cont d Yet, social construction theory holds that some emics in interpersonal attraction exist as well. Ex.: Traditional, less advanced cultures place more value on chastity, domestic skills, ability to support the home Romantic love not considered critical for mate selection in cultures with strong family & kinship ties & in cultures with less affluence. 11 Interpersonal Attraction Cont d Birds of a feather or opposites attract? Filter Theory Similarity? Complementarity? What about arranged marriages? 12 4

5 Intercultural Partnerships A primary concern of partners is the reactions of family and society. Early studies of intercultural partnerships in U.S. reflect a negative attitude (ex. looked at evidence of rebellion, personality disorders, or misfitting within one s culture). Albert Gordon (1964) points out that U.S. is the only nation that had laws prohibiting intermarriage. Gudykunst et. al (1991): People involved in intercultural romantic relationships view their partners as atypical of their culture. Ex. Japanese respondents perceived their American partners as different from other Americans & as having some Japanese attributes. 13 Intercultural Partnerships Cont d Romano (1997) & Ho (1984), Tseng (1977) identified several types of adjustments in intercultural partnerships: Submission/Immersion/Capitulation: one gives up all Compromise: both give up some Consensus/Coexistence: no one gives up anything Obliteration/Creative Adjustment: both give up all & invent new norms Alternating Way: take turns 14 Aggression Verbal criticism and verbal aggression (insults): You messages universally less effective than I messages. Anger statements universally less effective than distress statements. Verbal (Covert) aggression more prevalent among females Cultural differences in content of verbal insults. Why? Cultural differences in response to insults. Ex. Southerners (culture of honor) respond with more emotional arousal (cortisol, facial expressions) & more aggression/hostility (testosterone, projective tests) and demonstrated toughness (electric shock stress test) compared to northerners. 15 5

6 Aggression Cont d Aggressive behavior: Physical (overt) aggression more prevalent among males. More accepted & supported in U.S. than other cultures. Cultural differences show up as early as age 4. More common in cultures with hotter climates. North-South differences within US. What is it about the historical processes of the south that make its members more tolerant to violence by adopting a culture of honor (Cohen, Nisbett, Bowdle, & Schwarz, 1996)? In the past, economy of the south was based on herding. Settlers in the South primarily came from herding societies of Europe, where law enforcement was limited which meant herdsmen must be willing to use force to protect themselves and their property. Hence, they were forced to be self-reliant in their pursuit of justice and brought with them this tradition as they settled in the South. The norm is to be polite to each other. Southerners not accustomed to rudeness as are northerners. Exhibition of violence amongst southerners typically occur under circumstances that threaten one s property, status, and reputation. Violence in general is not endorsed. But violence approved of as a means to protect or to answer an affront to reputation, face, relative social status, or enduring relationships. 16 Aggression Cont d What are effects of reality T.V. on aggression in U.S.? Research shows that the more TV one watches, the more one believes in the world of TV. Nothing real about reality T.V. which is produced by some of the same producers of soap operas (where most characters depicted seem to have narcissistic, antisocial, delusional, or paranoid personality disorders). Cast members misrepresent reality by exaggerating conflict and publicly disclosing very private information for self promotion. Producers manipulate reality ( hrs of shooting for every show hour) and instigate hostilities Viewers learn it is O.K. to humiliate & be humiliated, to disengage from suffering of others, and to derive enjoyment from it. Schadenfreude is a covert form of aggression High level of relational aggression (backstabbing, spreading rumors) which often escalates to verbal & physical aggression 17 Aggression Cont d Problems in operationally defining aggression as crime rate in cross-cultural comparisons (Segall, Ember, and Ember, 1997): What is considered a crime varies with culture. Ex. In some cultures Infanticide functionally equivalent to late term abortion because reasons given for it similar to those given for abortion (Ex.excess children, illegitimacy). Also, in some cultures that have ceremonies to formally recognize birth, killing the child before the ceremony not considered crime. Killing an out-group member (ex. an enemy during wartime or a criminal who is outed ) not considered homicide. Severe physical punishment within family an accepted practice and not considered abuse. In fact no word for batterer or domestic violence in Russian or Arabic. 18 6

7 Obedience Milgram s 1963 study Cultural influences on obedience: Higher in collectivist societies Effect of presence of Buffers Do you think individuals in the U.S.are socialized differently now? Would you also obey if asked to administer electric shock to somebody? 19 Conformity Asch s 1956 experiments Cultural influences: Smith & Bond s 1993 review of 24 studies revealed that in Japan, results dependent on whether confederate was an in-group (will conform) or an out-group (will not conform). Generally, conformity stronger in collectivistic societies because group harmony & interdependence valued. Implications for advertising? Does viewing conformity & obedience as undesirable reflect U.S. cultural values? 20 7