Cultural psychology

Cultural psychology is the study of how cultures reflect and shape the psychological processes of their members.[1]

Part of a series on
Psychology
Basic types
  •  Psychology portal

The main tenet of cultural psychology is that mind and culture are inseparable and mutually constitutive, meaning that people are shaped by their culture and their culture is also shaped by them.[2] As Richard Shweder, one of the major proponents of the field, writes, "Cultural psychology is the study of the way cultural traditions and social practices regulate, express, and transform the human psyche, resulting less in psychic unity for humankind than in ethnic divergences in mind, self, and emotion."[3]

Relationships with other branches of psychology

Cultural psychology is often confused with cross-cultural psychology. However, cultural psychology is distinct from cross-cultural psychology in that the cross-cultural psychologists generally use culture as a means of testing the universality of psychological processes rather than determining how local cultural practices shape psychological processes.[4] So whereas a cross-cultural psychologist might ask whether Jean Piaget's stages of development are universal across a variety of cultures, a cultural psychologist would be interested in how the social practices of a particular set of cultures shape the development of cognitive processes in different ways.[5]

Cultural psychology research informs several fields within psychology, including social psychology, cultural-historical psychology, developmental psychology, and cognitive psychology. However, the relativist perspective of cultural psychology, through which cultural psychologists compare thought patterns and behaviors within and across cultures, tends to clash with the universal perspectives common in most fields in psychology, which seek to qualify fundamental psychological truths that are consistent across all of humanity.

Importance

Need for expanded cultural research

According to Richard Shweder, there has been repeated failure to replicate Western psychology laboratory findings in non-Western settings.[3] Therefore, a major goal of cultural psychology is to have many and varied cultures contribute to basic psychological theories in order to correct these theories so that they become more relevant to the predictions, descriptions, and explanations of all human behaviors, not just Western ones.[6] This goal is shared by many of the scholars who promote the indigenous psychology approach. In an attempt to show the interrelated interests of cultural and indigenous psychology, cultural psychologist Pradeep Chakkarath emphasizes that international mainstream psychology, as it has been exported to most regions of the world by the so-called West, is only one among many indigenous psychologies and therefore may not have enough intercultural expertise to claim, as it frequently does, that its theories have universal validity.[7]

The acronym W.E.I.R.D. describes populations that are Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic. Thus far, W.E.I.R.D. populations have been vastly overrepresented in psychological research.[8][9] Findings from psychology research utilizing primarily W.E.I.R.D. populations are often labeled as universal theories and are inaccurately applied to other cultures.[10]

Recent research is showing that cultures differ in many areas, such as logical reasoning and social values.[9][10] The evidence that basic cognitive and motivational processes vary across populations has become increasingly difficult to ignore. For example, many studies have shown that Americans, Canadians and western Europeans rely on analytical reasoning strategies, which separate objects from their contexts to explain and predict behavior. Social psychologists refer to the "fundamental attribution error" or the tendency to explain people's behavior in terms of internal, inherent personality traits rather than external, situational considerations (e.g. attributing an instance of angry behavior to an angry personality). Outside W.E.I.R.D. cultures, however, this phenomenon is less prominent, as many non-W.E.I.R.D. populations tend to pay more attention to the context in which behavior occurs. Asians tend to reason holistically, for example by considering people's behavior in terms of their situation; someone's anger might be viewed as simply a result of an irritating day.[11][12] Yet many long-standing theories of how humans think rely on the prominence of analytical thought.[10]

By studying only W.E.I.R.D. populations, psychologists fail to account for a substantial amount of diversity of the global population. Applying the findings from W.E.I.R.D. populations to other populations can lead to a miscalculation of psychological theories and may hinder psychologists' abilities to isolate fundamental cultural characteristics.

Mutual constitution

Mutual constitution is the notion that the society and the individual have an influencing effect on one another. Because a society is composed of individuals, the behavior and actions of the individuals directly impact the society. In the same manner, society directly impacts the individual living within it. The values, morals, and ways of life a society exemplifies will have an immediate impact on the way an individual is shaped as a person. The atmosphere that a society provides for the individual is a determining factor for how an individual will develop. Furthermore, mutual constitution is a cyclical model in which the society and the individual both influence one another.[13]

While cultural psychology is reliant on this model, societies often fail to recognize this. Despite the overwhelming acceptance that people affect culture and culture affects people, societal systems tend to minimize the effect that people form on their communities. For example, mission statements of businesses, schools, and foundations attempt make promises regarding the environment and values that their establishment holds. However, these promises cannot be made in accordance with the mutually consisting theory without being upheld by all participants. The mission statement for the employees of Southwest Airlines, for example, makes the claim that, "...We are committed to provide our Employees a stable work environment with equal opportunity for learning and personal growth".[14] While the company can ensure the "equal opportunity for learning and personal growth", the aforementioned message cannot be promised. The work environment that Southwest provides includes paying consumers. While rules can be enforced to ensure safety on their aircraft, customers will not be removed due to attitude or a lack of courtesy. This therefore contradicts the promise of a "stable work environment". On the contrary, some establishments do ensure that their mission statements agree with the mutually consisting model. For example, Yale University promises within its mission statement that:

Yale is committed to improving the world today and for future generations through outstanding research and scholarship, education, preservation, and practice. Yale educates aspiring leaders worldwide who serve all sectors of society. We carry out this mission through the free exchange of ideas in an ethical, interdependent, and diverse community of faculty, staff, students, and alumni.[15]
This image is a representation derived from ideas found in the journal article "Cultures and Selves: A Cycle of Mutual Constitution" by Hazel Rose Markus and Shinoba Kitayama.

Instead of making promises that depend on all of their students and faculty, they make statements that can refer to only a part of their student/ faculty body. The statement focuses more on what they offer, and how they uphold these promises. By providing evidence they provide readers with an example as to how their school community members participate in the environment they promise, accepting the community's role in their school culture.

Past research has been conducted by middle-class North Americans analyzing culturally different societies by means of comparison mostly involving middle-class North Americans and/or aforementioned W.E.I.R.D. societies. What has been characterized as Euro-American centrism, resulted in a great volume of research for this specific selection of humans. It has also allowed us to divert from the idea that certain psychological processes can be considered basic or universal, and recognize humans' remarkable capacity to create cultures and then be shaped by them.[16] Although cultural psychology has internalized the mutually constituting model, further implementation in our society is necessary. Being aware of this model promotes taking responsibility for one's actions and the effect that their actions have on their community. Through acceptance of ones responsibilities and conscious application, communities have opportunity for improvement which in turn supports the individuals within the community. These ideas can be found in the journal article "Cultures and Selves: A Cycle of Mutual Constitution" by Hazel Rose Markus and Shinobu Kitayama which are also represented in the graphic provided.

Criticisms

Stereotyping

One of the most significant themes in recent years has been cultural differences between East Asians and North Americans in attention,[17] perception,[18] cognition,[19] and social psychological phenomena such as the self.[20] Some psychologists, such as Turiel, have argued that this research is based on cultural stereotyping.[21] Psychologist Per Gjerde states that cultural psychology tends to "generalize about human development across nations and continents" and assigning characteristics to a culture promotes a disregard for heterogeneity and minimizes the role of the individual.[22] Gjerde argues that individuals develop multiple perspectives about their culture, sometimes act in accord with their culture without sharing the cultural beliefs, and sometimes outright oppose their culture. Stereotyping thus views individuals as homogeneous products of culture.[23]

Faulty methodology

Self-reporting data is one of the easiest and most accessible methods of mass data collection, especially in cultural psychology.[17][24] However, over-emphasizing cross-cultural comparisons of self-reported attitudes and values can lead to relatively unstable and ultimately misleading data.[25][26]

Methods

Cultural psychologist, Richard Shweder argues that the psyche and culture are mutually constructed and inseparable.[3] The failure of replicating many psychology findings in other regions of the world supported the idea that mind and environment are interdependent, and different throughout the world. Some criticisms state that using self-report may be a relatively unreliable method, and could be misleading especially in different cultural context. Regardless that self-report is an important way to obtain mass data, it is not the only way.

In fact, cultural psychologists utilized multiple measurements and resources no different from other scientific researches – observation, experiment, data analysis etc. For example, Nisbett & Cohen (1996) investigated the relation between historical cultural background and regional aggression difference in the U.S.A. In this study, researchers designed laboratory experiment to observe participants' aggression, and crime rate, demographic statistics were analyzed. The experiment results supported the culture of honor theory that the aggression is a defense mechanism which is rooted in the herding cultural origin for most the southerners.[20] In laboratory observations, Heine and his colleagues found that Japanese students spend more time than American students on tasks that they did poorly on, and the finding presents a self-improvement motivation often seen in East Asian that failure and success is interconvertible with effort.[27] In terms of cognition styles, Chinese tend to perceive image using a holistic view compared to American.[28]

Quantitative statistics of cultural products revealed that public media in western countries promote more individualistic components than East-Asian countries.[29] These statistics are objective because it does not involve having people fill out questionnaire, instead, psychologists use physical measurements to quantitatively collect data about culture products, such as painting and photos. These statistics data can also be national records, for example, Chiao & Blizinsky (2010) revealed that cultures of high collectivism is associated with lower prevalence of mood/anxiety disorders in study involving 29 countries.[30] In addition to the experimental and statistics data, evidence from neuro-imaging studies, also help strengthen the reliability of cultural psychology research. For example, when thinking of mother, the brain region related to self-concept showed significant activation in Chinese, whereas no activation observed in Westerners.[31]

Cultural models

"One way we organize and understand our social world is through the use of cultural models or culturally shaped mental maps. These consist of culturally derived ideas and practices that are embodied, enacted, or instituted in everyday life." Cultural psychologists develop models to categorize cultural phenomena.[32]

The 4 I's culture cycle

The 4 I's cultural model was developed by Hazel Rose Markus and Alana Conner in their book Clash! 8 Cultural Conflicts That Make Us Who We Are. In it, they refer to the mutually constitutive nature of culture and individual as a "culture cycle." The culture cycle consists of four layers (Individuals, Interactions, Institutions, Ideas) of cultural influence that help to explain the interaction between self and culture.[33]

Individuals

The first "I" concerns how an individual thinks about and expresses itself. Studies show that in the United States, individuals are more likely think of him or herself as "independent", "equal", and "individualistic". Individuals have characteristics that are consistent across time and situation. When asked to describe themselves, Americans are likely to use adjectives to describe their personalities, such as "energetic", "friendly", or "hard-working". In Japan, studies show that individuals are more likely to think of themselves as "obligated to society", "interdependent", and "considerate". The self is adaptable to the situation. Japanese individuals are therefore more likely to describe themselves in relation to others, such as "I try not to upset anyone," or "I am a father, a son, and a brother."[34]

Interactions

Interactions with other people and products reinforce cultural behaviors on a daily basis. Stories, songs, architecture, and advertisements are all methods of interaction that guide individuals in a culture to promote certain values and teach them how to behave.[24] For example, in Japan, no-smoking signs emphasize the impact that smoke has on others by illustrating the path of smoke as it affects surrounding people. In the US, no-smoking signs focus on individual action by simply saying "No Smoking". These signs reflect underlying cultural norms and values, and when people see them they are encouraged to behave in accordance with the greater cultural values.

Institutions

The next layer of culture is made up of the institutions in which everyday interactions take place. These determine and enforce the rules for a society and include legal, government, economic, scientific, philosophical, and religious bodies. Institutions encourage certain practices and products while discouraging others. In Japanese kindergartens, children learn about important cultural values such as teamwork, group harmony, and cooperation. During "birthday month celebration," for example, the class celebrates all the children who have birthdays that month. This institutional practice underscores the importance of a group over an individual. In US kindergartens, children learn their personal value when they celebrate their birthdays one by one, enforcing the cultural value of uniqueness and individualism. Everyday institutional practices such as classroom birthday celebrations propagate prominent cultural themes.[24][34]

Whiting model

John and Beatrice Whiting, along with their research students at Harvard University, developed the "Whiting model" for child development during the 1970s and 1980s, which specifically focused on how culture influences development.[35]

The Whitings coined the term "cultural learning environment", to describe the surroundings that influence a child during development.[36] Beatrice Whiting defined a child's environmental contexts as being "characterized by an activity in progress, a physically defined space, a characteristic group of people, and norms of behavior".[36] This environment is composed of several layers. A child's geographical context influences the history/anthropology of their greater community. This results in maintenance systems (i.e., sociological characteristics) that form a cultural learning environment. These factors inform learned behavior, or progressive expressive systems that take the form of religion, magic beliefs, ritual and ceremony, art, recreation, games and play, or crime rates.[37]

Many researchers have expanded upon the Whiting model,[35] and the Whiting model's influence is clear in both modern psychology and anthropology. According to an article by Thomas Weisner in the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, "All these [more recent] approaches share a common intellectual project: to take culture and context deeply and seriously into account in studies of human development."[38]

Culture and motivation

Self-enhancement vs. self-improvement

While self-enhancement is a person's motivation to view themselves positively, self-improvement is a person's motivation to have others view themselves positively. The distinction between the two modes of life is most evident between independent and collectivistic cultures.[39] Cultures with independent self-views (the premise that people see themselves as self-contained entities) often emphasize self-esteem, confidence in one's own worth and abilities.[40] With self-esteem seen as a main source of happiness in Western cultures,[41] the motivation to self-enhance generally follows as a way to maintain one's positive view about oneself. Some strategies employed when self-enhancing often include downward social comparison, compensatory self-enhancement, discounting, external attributions and basking in reflected glory.[42] In contrast, collectivistic cultures often emphasize self-improvement as a leading motivating factor in their lives. This motivation is often derived from a desire to not lose face and to appear positively among social groups.[43]

Culture and empathy

Cultural orientation: collectivistic and individualistic

A main distinction to understand when looking at psychology and culture is the difference between individualistic and collectivistic cultures. People from an individualistic culture typically demonstrate an independent view of the self; the focus is usually on personal achievement.[44] Members of a collectivistic society have more of a focus on the group (interdependent view of self), usually focusing on things that will benefit the group.[45] Research has shown such differences of the self when comparing collectivistic and individualistic cultures: The Fundamental Attribution Error has been shown to be more common in America (individualistic) as compared to in India (collectivistic).[46] Along these same lines, the self-serving bias was again shown as more common among Americans than Japanese individuals.[47] This can be seen in a study involving an animation of fish, wherein Western viewers interpreted the scene of a fish swimming away from a school as an expression of individualism and independence, while Eastern individuals wondered what was wrong with the singular fish and concluded that the school had kicked it out.[48] Another study showed that in coverage of the same instance of violent crime, Western news focused on innate character flaws and the failings of the individual while Chinese news pointed out the lack of relationships of the perpetrator in a foreign environment and the failings of society.[48] This is not to imply that collectivism and individualism are completely dichotomous, but these two cultural orientations are to be understood more so as a spectrum. Each representation is at either end; thus, some members of individualistic cultures may hold collectivistic values, and some collectivistic individual may hold some individualist values. The concepts of collectivism and individualism show a general idea of the values of a specific ethnic culture but should not be juxtaposed in competition.[49]

Empathy across cultures

These differences in values across cultures suggests that understanding and expressing empathy may be manifested differently throughout varying cultures. Duan and Hill[50] first discussed empathy in subcategories of intellectual empathy: taking on someone's thoughts/perspective, also known as cognitive empathy[51] and emotional empathy: taking on someone's feeling/experience. Duan, Wei, and Wang[52] furthered this idea to include empathy in terms of being either dispositional (capacity for noticing/understanding empathy) or experiential (specific to a certain context or situation, observing the person and empathizing). This created four types of empathy to further examine: 1) dispositional intellectual empathy; 2) dispositional empathic emotion; 3) experienced intellectual empathy; and 4) experienced empathic emotion. These four branches allowed researchers to examine empathic proclivities among individuals of different cultures. While individualism was not shown to correlate with either types of dispositional empathy, collectivism was shown to have a direct correlation with both types of dispositional empathy, possibly suggesting that by having less focus on the self, there is more capacity towards noticing the needs of others. More so, individualism predicted experienced intellectual empathy, and collectivism predicted experienced empathic emotion. These results are congruent with the values of collectivistic and individualistic societies. The self-centered identity and egoistic motives prevalent in individualistic cultures, perhaps acts as a hindrance in being open to (fully) experiencing empathy.[53]

Intercultural and ethnocultural empathy

Cultural empathy became broadly understood as concurrent understanding and acceptance of a culture different from one's own.[54] This idea has been further developed with the concept of ethnocultural empathy.[55] This moves beyond merely accepting and understanding another culture, and also includes acknowledging how the values of a culture may affect empathy. This idea is meant to foster cultural empathy as well as engender cultural competence.[55][56] One of the greatest barriers of empathy between cultures is people's tendency to operate from an ethnocentric point of view. Eysenck[57] conceptualized ethnocentrism as using one's own culture to understand the rest of the world, while holding one's own values as correct. Concomitant with this barrier to intercultural empathy, Rasoal, Eklund, and Hansen[58] posit five hindrances of intercultural empathy; these include:

Paucity of:

  • (general) knowledge outside one's own culture
  • (general) experience with other cultures outside one's own
  • (specific) knowledge regarding other people's cultures
  • (specific) experiences regarding other people's cultures

and:

  • inability to bridge different cultures by understanding the commonalities and dissimilarities

These five points elucidate lack of both depth and breadth as hindrances in developing and practicing intercultural empathy.

Another barrier to intercultural empathy is that there is often a power dynamic between different cultures. Bridging an oppressed culture with their (upper-echelon) oppressor is a goal of intercultural empathy. One approach to this barrier is to attempt to acknowledge one's personal oppression.[59] While this may be minimal in comparison to other people's oppression, it will still help with realizing that other people have been oppressed.[59] The goal of bridging the gap should focus on building an alliance by finding the core commonalities of the human experience; this shows empathy to be a relational experience, not an independent one. Through this, the goal is that intercultural empathy can lend toward broader intercultural understanding across cultures and societies.

Four important facets of cultural empathy are:[55]

  • Taking the perspective of someone from a different culture
  • Understanding the verbal/behavioral expression that occurs during ethnocultural empathy
  • Being cognizant of how different cultures are treated by larger entities such as the job market and the media
  • Accepting differences in cultural choices regarding language, clothing preference, food choice, etc.

These four aspects may be especially helpful for practicing cultural competence in a clinical setting. Given that most psychological practices were founded on the parochial ideals of Euro-American psychologists, cultural competence was not considered much of a necessity until said psychologists increasingly began seeing clients with different ethnic backgrounds.[56] Many of the problems that contribute to therapy not being beneficial for people of color include: therapy having an individual focus, an emphasis on expressiveness, and an emphasis on openness.[60] For more on intercultural competence, see intercultural competence.

Research institutions
gollark: Well, I *don't*, since that would result in me being bound by whatever legal stuff is happening.
gollark: 🦀
gollark: It makes the whole thing more secretive. It was already pretty secretive *before* v2, but it's more so now.
gollark: I mean, there being one person working on it... doesn't particularly make it not bad?
gollark: Well, they probably *can't* get help as easily if people have to go through legal wotsits.

See also

References
  1. Heine, S. J. (2011). Cultural Psychology. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
  2. Fiske, A.; Kitayama, S.; Markus, H.R.; & Nisbett, R.E. (1998). The cultural matrix of social psychology. In D. Gilbert & S. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (4th ed., pp. 915–81). San Francisco: McGraw-Hill.
  3. Shweder, Richard (1991). Thinking Through Cultures. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-88415-9.
  4. Heine, S.; Ruby, M. B. (2010). "Cultural Psychology". Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science. 1 (2): 254–266. doi:10.1002/wcs.7. PMID 26271239.
  5. Markus, H.R.; Kitayama, S. (2003). "Culture, Self, and the Reality of the Social". Psychological Inquiry. 14 (3): 277–83. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1403&4_17.
  6. Shweder, R.A. & Levine, R.A., eds. (1984). Culture theory: Essays on mind, self, and emotion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Chakkarath, P. (2012). "The role of indigenous psychologies in the building of basic cultural psychology". In J. Valsiner (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Culture and Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 71–95. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396430.001.0001. ISBN 9780195396430.
  8. Arnett, J. J. (2008). "The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American" (PDF). American Psychologist. 63 (7): 602–614. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.455.5296. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.7.602. PMID 18855491. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-08-08. Retrieved 2013-09-28.
  9. Henrich, J.; Heine, S. J.; Norenzayan, A. (2010). "The weirdest people in the world?". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 33 (2–3): 61–135. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999152X. PMID 20550733.
  10. Henrich, Joseph (2010). "Most people are not WEIRD" (PDF). Nature. 466 (5): 29. doi:10.1038/466029a. PMID 20595995. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-12-24. Retrieved 2013-09-27.
  11. Jones, D. (2010). "A WEIRD View of Human Nature" (PDF). Science. 328 (25): 1627. doi:10.1126/science.328.5986.1627. PMID 20576866.
  12. Nisbett, R.; Miyamoto, Y. (2005). "The influence of culture: holistic versus analytic perception". Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 9 (10): 467–473. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.87.43. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.08.004. PMID 16129648.
  13. Rogoff, Barbara (2003). The Cultural Nature of Human Development (Reprint ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-513133-8.
  14. "About Southwest". Southwest Airlines.
  15. "Mission Statement". Yale University. 2015-09-03.
  16. Markus, Hazel Rose; Kitayama, Shinobu (2010). "Cultures and Selves: A Cycle of Mutual Constitution". Perspectives on Psychological Science. 5 (4): 420–430. doi:10.1177/1745691610375557. PMID 26162188.
  17. Masuda, T.; Nisbett, R.A. (2001). "Attending holistically versus analytically: Comparing the context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 81 (5): 922–34. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.5.922. PMID 11708567. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-12-24.
  18. Kitayama, S.; Duffy, S.; Kawamura, T.; Larsen, J.T. (2003). "Perceiving an object and its context in different cultures: A cultural look at new look" (PDF). Psychological Science. 14 (3): 201–06. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.02432. PMID 12741741. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-12-24. Retrieved 2013-09-29.
  19. Cole, M. (1998). Cultural Psychology: A Once and Future Discipline. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  20. Nisbett, R.E.; & Cohen, D. (1996). Culture of Honor: The Psychology of Violence in the South. Denver, CO: Westview Press.
  21. Turiel, Elliott (2002). The Culture of Morality: Social Development, Context, and Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  22. McNulty, Jennifer (2004, July 26). "Emphasis on 'culture' in psychology fuels stereotypes, scholar says." University of California: Santa Cruz.
  23. Wainryb, C (2004). "The Study of Diversity in Human Development: Culture, Urgencies, and Perils" (PDF). Human Development. 47 (3): 131–137. doi:10.1159/000077986. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-11-10.
  24. Kitayama, S.; et al. (2002). "Culture and basic psychological processes—Toward a system view of culture: Comment on Oyserman et al" (PDF). Psychological Bulletin. 128 (1): 89–96. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.89. PMID 11843550.
  25. Heine, S.J.; Lehman, D.R.; Peng, K.; Greenholtz, J. (2002). "What's wrong with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales: The reference-group problem" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 82 (6): 903–18. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.903. PMID 12051579.
  26. Peng, K.; Nisbett, R.E.; Wong, N. (1997). "Validity problems of cross-cultural value comparison and possible solutions" (PDF). Psychological Methods. 2 (4): 329–41. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.2.4.329.
  27. Heine, Steven (2012). Cultural psychology. 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y.10110: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. pp. 253–254. ISBN 978-0-393-91283-8.CS1 maint: location (link)
  28. Jenkins, Lucas J.; Yang, Yung-Jui; Goh, Joshua; Hong, Ying-Yi; Park, Denise C. (2010-06-01). "Cultural differences in the lateral occipital complex while viewing incongruent scenes". Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 5 (2–3): 236–241. doi:10.1093/scan/nsp056. ISSN 1749-5016. PMC 2894688. PMID 20083532.
  29. Morling, Beth; Lamoreaux, Marika (2008-08-01). "Measuring Culture Outside the Head: A Meta-Analysis of Individualism—Collectivism in Cultural Products". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 12 (3): 199–221. doi:10.1177/1088868308318260. ISSN 1088-8683. PMID 18544712.
  30. Chiao, Joan Y.; Blizinsky, Katherine D. (2010-02-22). "Culture–gene coevolution of individualism–collectivism and the serotonin transporter gene". Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences. 277 (1681): 529–537. doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.1650. ISSN 0962-8452. PMC 2842692. PMID 19864286.
  31. Zhu, Ying; Zhang, Li; Fan, Jin; Han, Shihui (2007-02-01). "Neural basis of cultural influence on self-representation". NeuroImage. 34 (3): 1310–1316. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.125.9234. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.08.047. PMID 17134915.
  32. Fryberg, S.A.; Markus, H.R. (2007). "Cultural models of education in American Indian, Asian America, and European American contexts". Social Psychology of Education. 10 (2): 1381–2890. doi:10.1007/s11218-007-9017-z.
  33. Markus, H. R., & Conner, A. C. (2013). Clash! Eight Cultural Conflicts that Make Us Who We Are. New York: Penguin (Hudson Street Press).
  34. Heine, S. (2011). Cultural Psychology. San Francisco: W. W. Norton & Co.
  35. Worthman, C. M. (2010). "The Ecology of Human Development: Evolving Models for Cultural Psychology". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 41 (4): 546–562. doi:10.1177/0022022110362627.
  36. Edwards, Carolyn P. and Bloch, M. (2010). "The Whitings' Concepts of Culture and How They Have Fared in Contemporary Psychology and Anthropology." Faculty Publications, Department of Psychology.Paper 501.
  37. John W. Berry, Ype H. Poortinga, Marshall H. Segall, Pierre R. Dasen, Cambridge University Press, 1992, Cross-Cultural Psychology: Research and Applications: Second Edition
  38. Weisner, T.S. (2010). "John and Beatrice Whiting's Contributions to the Cross-Cultural Study of Human Development: Their Values, Goals, Norms, and Practices". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 41 (4): 499–509. doi:10.1177/0022022110362720.
  39. Heine, Steven (1999). "Is there a universal need for positive self-regard?". 2017 American Psychological Association.
  40. "High self-esteem may be culturally universal, international study shows".
  41. Kim, Hyunji (February 2016). "The Role of Positive Self-Evaluation on Cross-Cultural Differences in Well-Being". Cross-Cultural Research.
  42. Heine, Steven. Cultural Psychology.
  43. Heine, Steven J.; Raineri, Andres (January 2009). "Self-Improving Motivations and Collectivism". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 40 (1): 158–163. doi:10.1177/0022022108326193.
  44. Prooijen, J. (2013). "Individualistic and social motives for justice judgments". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1299 (1): 60–67. doi:10.1111/nyas.12143. PMID 25708080.
  45. Hui, C.H. (1988). "Measurement of individualism-collectivism". Journal of Research in Personality. 22 (1): 17–36. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(88)90022-0.
  46. Ross (1977). "The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process". In Berkowitz, L. (ed.). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (4th ed.). New York: Academic Press.
  47. Kashima, Y.; Triandis, H.C. (1986). "The self-serving bias in attributions as a coping strategy: A cross-cultural study". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 17 (1): 83–97. doi:10.1177/0022002186017001006.
  48. Zimbardo, Philip. "Discovering Psychology: Cultural Psychology" (PDF). Learner.org. Retrieved 26 January 2018.
  49. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  50. Duan, C.; Hill, C.E. (1996). "The current state of empathy research". Journal of Counseling Psychology. 43 (3): 261–74. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.43.3.261.
  51. Soto, J.A.; Levenson, R.W. (2009). "Emotion recognition across culture: The influence of ethnicity on empathic accuracy and physiological linkage". Emotion. 9 (6): 874–884. doi:10.1037/a0017399. PMC 2877627. PMID 20001130.
  52. Duan, C.; Wei, M.; Wang, L. (2008). "The role of individualism-collectivism". Asian Journal of Counseling. 29 (3): 57–81.
  53. Kitayama, S.; Markus, H.R. (1994). Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual influence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  54. Ridely, C.R.; Lingle, D.W. (1996). "Cultural empathy in multicultural counseling: A multidimensional process model.". In Pedersen, P.B.; Draguns, J.G. (eds.). Counseling Across Culture. Thousands Oaks: CA: Sage.
  55. Wang, Y.W.; Blier, J.; Davidson, M.; Savoy, H.; Tan, J.; Tan, J.; Yakushka, O. (2003). "The scale of ethnocultural empathy: Development, validation, and reliability". Journal of Counseling Psychology. 50 (2): 221–234. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.50.2.221.
  56. Dyche, L.; Zayas, L.H. (2001). "Cross-cultural empathy and training the contemporary psychotherapist". Clinical Social Work Journal. 29 (3): 245–258. doi:10.1023/A:1010407728614.
  57. Eysenck, M. (2000). Psychology: A student's handbook. Psychology Press LTD.
  58. Raosal, C.; Eklund, J.; Hansen, E.M. (2011). "Toward a conceptualization of ethnocultural empathy". Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology. 5 (1): 1–13. doi:10.1037/h0099278.
  59. DeTurk, S. (2001). "Intercultural empathy: Myth, competency, or possibility for alliance building?". Communication Building. 50 (4): 374–384. doi:10.1080/03634520109379262.
  60. Sue, D.W.; Sue, D. (1977). "Barriers to effective cross-cultural counseling". Journal of Counseling Psychology. 24 (5): 420–429. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.24.5.420.

Further reading
Library resources about
Cultural psychology
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.