Social 10 - cultural psychology

  • Created by: freya_bc
  • Created on: 05-05-18 20:16
Rohner (1984
“highly variable systems of meaning” (cog architecture/structure allows us to interact in socially approp ways in our envi/schema) that are learnt and shared by people from one generation to the next in an identifiable population.
1 of 35
(Berry et al., 2011
Cross-cultural psychology is the study of relationships between cultural context and human behaviour (Berry et al., 2011) how influence social judgement/perception
2 of 35
Henrich, Heine & Norenzayan (2010):
WEIRD samples 96% of samples in psychology come from countries representing only 12% of the world’s population!
3 of 35
Henrich et al., (2010)
fairness in economic decision making- how we allocated resources ultimatum game Western samples- proposers offer 40-50% of the amount Offers lower than 10% tend to be rejected Concern with fairness- if shown unfairness, will punish the other person
4 of 35
Hofstede (1980)
questionnaire to 117,000 managers of multinational companies in 40 countries. - factors of power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masc/fem, idv/collectivism, time perspective
5 of 35
...
GB idv & concerned with material success (masc), Denmark idc and caring egal not masc.but a western European culture – values autonomous and free choices and harmony of everyone else. Scandinavian nice comparison for us. HK accept power hierarc &coll
6 of 35
Markus & Kitayama’s (1991)
self-construal theory- independent self-construal, interdependent self- construal
7 of 35
Cross, Hardin & Gercek-Swing (2011)
women in western societies are more likely than men to define themselves in terms of their relationships - Relational self-construal (RelSC) – individual difference in the extent to which people define themselves in reference to close personal rel
8 of 35
Singelis, (1994)
questionnaire self construal scale- 12 IndSC 12 InterSC likert
9 of 35
Kuhn and McPartland, (1954)
twenty statements task
10 of 35
Trafimow, Triandis & Goto (1991)
priming self-construal- many different priming tasks asked people to think of what makes them different from their friends and family (IndSC prime) or what makes them similar to their friend/ fam (InterSC prime). c&e invest, assumes all have both
11 of 35
Masuda & Nisbett (2001):
link between self-construal types and attention to visual scenes. EA bound to social contexts and global structure, westerners focal object
12 of 35
Masuda and Nisbett, (2001) exp 1
26 US 26 ***, vary veg plant amount- prev seen background, without background, novel background- no less salient objs 45 orig 45 novel number of correclty recalled fish
13 of 35
..
No sig dif between American pp in whether they could ID focal fish if background changed because weren’t paying attention to it Sig dif for Japanese – signif better when see in original context but a lot better when on no background
14 of 35
Masuda and Nisbett, (2001)
replic findings in exp 2 with real wildlife photos and reaction time data. *** more errors with prev seen objects in novel backgrounds more sens to social contexts/rel between objs
15 of 35
Kitayama, Duffy, & Kawamura & Larsen (2003):
some tasks needed absolute judgement others relative framed line task Ask to replicate line in dif target frame Could be same size or bigger/smaller where have to change size of line in relative task whereas in absolute task always draw it same leng
16 of 35
exp 1
20 US 20 *** Americans more errors in relative task because not considering target frame as much, more just the length of the line ***anese errors in absolute task
17 of 35
exp 2
malleable cog styles of fixed Amercian pp more errors in rel Japanese more errors in absolute But bars don’t look same when studying in different cultural context to where raised- no clear cut pattern, prelim findings, small sample ...
18 of 35
...
Can see with Us in japan. Shift in performance in absolute task (not as good) and getting better at relative task- in line with what is the favoured visual processing in that area
19 of 35
Park & Huang (2010)
) reviewed research on cross-cultural differences in cognition. They conclude that there is substantial evidence that culture affects neural function – particularly in the ventral visual cortex.
20 of 35
Lui, Rigoulot & Pell, 2016).
Research is starting to examine how cultural immersion in another (host) country affects neural processing
21 of 35
Morris and Peng, (1994)
predicted cross-cultural differences in attribution would occur in social situations due to differences in socialization. study 1- 100 chin 100 US animated displays of social events (fish swim) phsy events, ratings of extent obj movement influenced..
22 of 35
...
by internal and ext factors- harmonious or discordant and group or idv. Cross cult dif in explan of social events americnas more int attrib, in complusion no dif in others, chinese more sig dif in external in all 3
23 of 35
Morris and Peng, (1994) study 2
American newspaper made more dispositional attributions for a mass shooting, whereas Chinese newspaper made more situational attributions.
24 of 35
Morris and Peng, (1994) study 3
American participants judged dispositional factors more likely as the causes for the mass shooting, whereas situational factors were judged more likely for Chinese participants
25 of 35
Choi, Nisbett, & Norenzayan, 1999
There is an attenuation of the correspondence bias in East Asian cultures
26 of 35
Choi and Nisbett, (1998)
78 US 94 korean no choice in stance on essay, exposure they were told to write pro and youre going to do same, exposure and argument you write pro heres some good reasons for you to use, americans just as likely to internal attrib, korean reverse ...
27 of 35
...
trend- but no sig dif between american and korean in no choice
28 of 35
Choi, Nisbett, & Norenzayan (1999):
Dispositionalism is a mode of thinking that is seen across cultures. The attenuation of the correspondence bias in East Asian cultures is due stronger situationalism.
29 of 35
Oyserman, Coon & Kemmelmeier’s (2002)
meta-analysis of IND-COL research revealed: IND-COL differences often assumed without measurement Over-reliance on correlational studies Diversity of measures used to measure the same DV Lack of replication studies
30 of 35
Cross et al., (2011)
two issues with self report- 2 factor structure IndSc and InterSC not a good fit , Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities are adequate at best- fall below .7 we would use as cut off mark
31 of 35
Heine, Lehman, Peng & Greenholtz, 2002
reference group effect- gender more of explaining factor in some situ than others- don’t give them a reference group e.g. compare to western.eastern- likely comparing against others they know so getting idv variation dif rather than other cultures
32 of 35
Cross et al., (2011)
issues with 20 statements test Researchers rarely provide a detailed description of their coding scheme. Researchers differ in their definition (& hence coding) of InterSC and RelSC. TST does not assess the importance of self-views to the person
33 of 35
Gungor et al., (2014)
keeping face cultures and honour cultures 163 *** and 172 turkish ***anese participants described their agency more in terms of conformity than Turkish participants, whereas Turkish participants described their agency more in terms of relatedness.
34 of 35
Cohen (2009)
many dif types of culture- religion, SES, region within a country
35 of 35

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

(Berry et al., 2011

Back

Cross-cultural psychology is the study of relationships between cultural context and human behaviour (Berry et al., 2011) how influence social judgement/perception

Card 3

Front

Henrich, Heine & Norenzayan (2010):

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

Henrich et al., (2010)

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

Hofstede (1980)

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Cultural psychology resources »