cultural practices in socioecological context

describe Frisen (1972, display rules for emotions)

• expression of emotion among US and Japanese

• watch short film of bodily mutilation; 2 conditions - alone vs. together; facial expressions videoed and coded

• results: alone - both nationalities showed disgust; together - Japanese didn’t show disgust

• negative emotional display risks harmony

describe Matsumoto (1990, displaying emotions)

• predicted differences in display rules for positive and negative emotions

• collectivism predicts showing more positive (vs. negative) emotions to ingroups (vs. outgroup)

• across US, Japan, Russia, South Korea, individualism-collectivism measure accounted for 30% of cross-cultural differences in display rules

describe Matsumoto, Consolacion et al. (2002, reading emotions)

• US participants judged high intensity expression as indicating less intense experience than expression

• Japanese judged low intensity expressions as indicating more intense experience than expression

• individualism-collectivism measure accounted for individual but not cultural differences

what is a tight culture?

has many strong norms and a low tolerance of deviant behaviour

what is a loose culture?

has weak social norms and a high tolerance of deviant behaviour

what causes cultural tightness and looseness?

• ecological and human-made threats increase the need for strong norms and punishment of deviant behaviour in the service of social coordination for survival

what are the factors that influence cultural tightness and looseness according to Gelfand et al. (2011)?

• ecological and historical threats

  • Population density and growth, lower food and water supplies, lower air quality, more natural disasters, more territorial threats from neighbours, more diseases and infant mortality

• societal institutions and practices

  • Autocratic rule, closed media, fewer political rights and civil liberties, more police per capita, stricter punishments, lower crime, more religion, less collective action

• psychological adaptations

  • Cautiousness, dutifulness, self-regulation (impulse control),
    need for structure, self-monitoring

how do family structures differ around the world?

• nuclear family - prevalent in North America and Northern Europe; prevalent in hunter-gatherer societies

• extended families - majority of the rest of the world, especially agrarian societies

why might someone choose to have an arranged marriage?

• preserve social harmony

• create political and economic links between families

• social and economic protection

• rational rather than emotional choice

describe Levine et al. (1995)

• surveyed students in in India, Pakistan, Thailand, Mexico, Brazil, Japan, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Australia, UK, USA

• asked “if a man/woman had all the other qualities you desired, would you marry this person if you were not in love with him (her)?”

• majority answered ‘non’

• predicted effects of individualism-collectivism (r = .56) - individualistic cultures less likely to get married without love

• stronger correlation with affluence (r = .75) - richer countries less likely to get married without love

desirable characteristics of a mate according to Buss et al. (1990)

• studied mate preferences in 37 cultures

• relatively similar profile across cultures (greatest cultural variation in value of chastity)

• most desirable characteristics:

  • Mutual attraction—love

  • Dependable character

  • Emotional stability and maturity

  • Pleasing disposition

  • Education and intelligence

desirable characteristics of a mate according to Shackelford et al. (2005)

• factor analysed Buss et al. at individual level

• four factors identified:

  • love vs status and resources

  • dependability and stability vs health and good looks

  • education and intelligence vs desire home and children

  • sociability vs similar region

• national averages correlated with affluence

love in collectivist vs individualist cultures

• companionate love in collectivist cultures

• romantic love in individualist cultures

describe Neto et al. (2000)

• studied endorsement of six ‘love styles’ among students in 8 countries

• based on Lee’s (1973) theory of ‘colours of love’

• minimal differences in eros, mania, and agape

• stronger differences in ludus, pragma, storge

what is relational mobility?

• a socioecological variable that represents how much freedom and opportunity a society affords individuals to choose and dispose of interpersonal relationships based on personal preference

describe Thomson & Yuki et al. (2018) - relational mobility

• asked questions about how much people felt statements about the immediate society where they lived were accurate (e.g. ‘there are many chances to get to know other people’)

• relational mobility predicted by:

  • subsistence styles - lower RM in rice-farming cultures; higher RM in herding cultures

  • ecological and historical threats - RM lower in harsh climates, higher pathogen prevalence, population density, historically poorer nations

• relational mobility predicts:

  • greater investment in relationships - higher RM predicts trust in strangers, higher self-esteem, self-disclosure, intimacy with close friend/partner, willingness to help a close friend in crisis (i.e., offer social support)

what does the ‘eco-cultural framework’ aim to do?

• to map context of cultural differences using culture-level rather than aggregated indicators

• ecological context - temperature, rainfall, resources etc.

• socio-political context

beyond affluence and religion

Means of subsistence

• Farmers and fishers vs. herders in Eastern Turkey
  (Uskul, Kitayama, & Nisbett, 2008, PNAS)

• Southern (rice) vs. Northern (wheat) China
  (Talhelm et al., 2014, Science)

Ecological threats

• Pathogen prevalence
  (Fincher, Thornhill, Murray, & Schaller, 2008, PRS B)

• Climato-economic interactions
  (Van de Vliert, 2009; Van de Vliert, Huang, & Parker, 2004)

climato-economic interactions

• income makes a greater difference in harsher climates

• in temperate climates, income makes little difference to happiness or altruism