For example, you might form an impression of a city bus driver based on how you would anticipate a person in that role to behave, considering individual personality characteristics only after you have formed this initial impression. Physical cues can also play an important role. If you see a woman dressed in a professional-looking suit, you might immediately assume that she works in a formal setting, perhaps at a law firm or bank. The salience of the information we perceive is also important.
Generally, we tend to focus on the most obvious points rather than noting background information. The more novel or obvious a factor is, the more likely we are to focus on it. If you see a woman dressed in a tailored suit with her hair styled in a bright pink mohawk, you are likely to pay more attention to her unusual hairstyle than her sensible business attire.
One of the mental shortcuts we use in person perception is social categorization. In this process, we mentally categorize people into different groups based on common characteristics. Sometimes this process occurs consciously, but for the most part, social categorizations happen automatically and unconsciously. Some of the most common social categories are age, gender, occupation, and race. As with many mental shortcuts, social categorization has both positive and negative aspects.
Realistically, you simply do not have time to get to know every person you come into contact with. Using social categorization allows you to make decisions and establish expectations of how people will behave quickly, allowing you to focus on other things.
Problems with this technique include the fact that it can lead to errors, as well as to stereotyping or even prejudice. There are only two seats available. One is next to a petite, elderly woman; the other is next to a burly, grim-faced man.
Based on your immediate impression, you sit next to the elderly woman, who unfortunately turns out to be quite skilled at picking pockets. Because of social categorization, you immediately judged the woman as harmless and the man as threatening, leading to the loss of your wallet.
While social categorization can be useful at times, it can also lead to these kinds of misjudgments. An implicit personality theory is a collection of beliefs and assumptions that we have about how certain traits are linked to other characteristics and behaviors.
Once we know something about a cardinal trait , we assume that the person also exhibits other traits that are commonly linked to that key characteristic. For example, if you observe that a new co-worker is very happy, you might immediately assume that they are also friendly, kind, and generous.
As with social categorization, implicit personality theories help people make judgments quickly, but they can also contribute to stereotyping and errors.
Ever wonder what your personality type means? Sign up to find out more in our Healthy Mind newsletter. Neuroimaging of person perception: A social-visual interface. Neurosci Lett. Thus, for instance, nations scoring high or low on power distance as a relational dynamic or on power as a value could be thought to be characterized by a particular shared understanding of the nature of hierarchy and authority Fiske, ; Bond, However, this view has become increasingly difficult to sustain.
A similar contrast between individual variance and nation-level variance is found for personality dimensions Poortinga and van Hemert, Schwartz has addressed these results most directly, arguing that:.
It cannot be observed directly, but can be inferred from its manifestations. The rich complex of meanings, beliefs, practices, symbols, norms and values prevalent among people in a society are among the manifestations of the underlying culture.
They are not culture itself. Thus, nation-level scores can better be considered as an indicator of an underlying structure that will have been molded over time by multiple factors, and which may entail institutional structures, such as family relations, schooling, work organizations, laws, and languages spoken. They do not necessarily require value consensus.
The strongest argument for retaining an interest in nation-level dimension scores is that they are found to consistently predict relevant nation-level indices derived from independent sources.
The meta-analysis of relevant studies by Taras et al. In a similar way, Schwartz has summarized significant independent correlates of each of his dimensions.
These results help to clarify what can be usefully derived from nation-level scores and what cannot. Dimension scores can give approximations of particular cultural contexts.
Dimension scores do not enable predictions about the behaviors of individuals within a given sample. By adhering to this distinction, we can avoid the ecological fallacy Robinson, ; Hofstede, of assuming that relations between variables at one level of analysis will be the same at a different level of analysis.
If we accept the coherence and predictive utility of some of the dimensions identified in the classic cross-national surveys, there remain numerous questions as to whether and how more recent studies can add value to what we already have. We consider first whether researchers have devised better measures and whether these have identified additional dimensions of variance. The items used to define his dimensions were not selected on the basis of explicit theory but rather opportunistically, using an in-house morale survey conducted at IBM in the s; there can be no certainty that they define the most important dimensions of variance.
The classic studies have also focused principally though not exclusively on defining dimensions on the basis of items measuring personal values. Given the emphasis of Triandis on cultural variations as complex entities, there is a need to tap other syndrome components.
Using a more specifically targeted design, Owe et al. Contextualism is defined as a belief that one can understand an individual through a knowledge of his or her context. Data from adults in 35 nations yielded contextualism scores on a six-item scale with metric invariance across national samples. Their nation-level scores were positively correlated with nation-level measures of collectivism based on values, but nation-level contextualism could also explain variance in dependent measures that was additional to that explained by values, suggesting the incremental validity of contextualism.
In a related study using the same dataset of adults from 35 nations, Vignoles et al. The intention of this study was to overcome the methodological weaknesses of earlier measures of self-construal and to differentiate the varying components of the global concept of collectivism. Four of these dimensions correlated significantly with earlier measures of collectivism, but the other three did not. These results underline the limitations of earlier stereotyping of Western nations as individualistic and Eastern nations as collectivistic.
Another aspect of cultural syndromes, namely the existence of cultural norms has been addressed by several projects. Some authors have tested for the prevalence of specific norms across samples. For example, Matsumoto et al.
Recognizing that the relevance of norms may be context-specific, Gelfand et al. Across students in 33 nations, their six-item measure of perceived tightness—looseness was found to correlate modestly with individualism—collectivism, but to also predict aspects of cultural difference for instance a history of social conflict that are unrelated to collectivism.
The items in the measure of Gelfand et al. A measure of the tightness—looseness of 68 nations based on descriptive norms has been created by Uz This was constructed by summarizing the variance in response to each item across a set of items drawn from the World Values Survey 1.
This index shows similar correlations with dependent measures to those obtained by Gelfand et al. Both descriptive and injunctive indices of tightness—looseness norms have potential in broadening the predictive potential of nation-level measures of cultural difference, taking the study of national culture beyond the thrall of individualism—collectivism.
The inclusion of an increasingly large number of nations within successive waves of the World Values Survey has also provided the basis for identification of further dimensions of variation. Nation-level factor analysis of selected attitude items initially identified two dimensions of variation named as rational—legal authority versus traditional authority and well-being versus survival Inglehart and Baker, Scores on both of these dimensions were found to correlate at an average of 0.
Bond and Lun drew on survey items concerning the values that parents consider that their children should learn, which have been included in more recent waves of the World Values Survey. Across 55 nations, these goals were found to vary in terms of emphasis on self-directedness versus other-directedness and civility versus practicality in socializing children. Most recently, Minkov et al. The seven items used to define their new measure of collectivism included value statements and self-descriptions.
Means were found to correlate between 0. Minkov et al. Again, national-level cultural variation extends beyond individualism—collectivism. The more recent studies detailed in this section are notable for substantial improvements in the use of theory-driven item selection, controls for measurement error, and the sophistication of the analyses used to test for measurement equivalence.
They provide some diversification away from the prior emphasis on values as the sole basis for identifying dimensions of variance. However, they continue for the most part to examine variance that is related to individualism—collectivism.
Where evidence is obtained for nation-level variance along more than this single dimension, possibilities are opened up for an examination of their interactive relation to relevant dependent measures. For instance, Smith showed that across 49 nations the relationship between autonomy—embeddedness values and levels of prosocial behaviors was stronger in nations with a loose rather than a tight culture, both when using the measure of Gelfand et al.
These types of moderation effect can be examined more thoroughly when individual-level variability is also taken into account, as we argue in detail later in this paper. The studies outlined in the preceding section have revealed a substantial consistency in the dimensions along which nations vary, even despite variations in the measures used and the types and range of samples that have been examined. We now consider evidence of what might explain these consistencies.
There are two ways in which this issue can be addressed. Firstly, if we can identify ecological circumstances that are correlated with cultural differences, but which existed prior to the emergence of these cultural differences, we shall know that it is much more plausible that the circumstances influenced the emergence of the cultural differences than vice versa Talhelm and Oishi, Secondly, if we can detect contemporary changes in cultural differences, we can seek out circumstances that preceded those changes and are plausibly linked to them.
An example of a circumstance preceding the development of cultural differences is provided by the pathogen prevalence theory of Fincher et al. These authors provided evidence that life-threatening pathogens are more frequent in some regions of the world. They reasoned that groups who developed a collective culture would be better able to survive, as they could reduce the risk of infections due to contacts with out-groups. Nations that are more collectivistic are indeed found in the hotter regions of the world where pathogens are more numerous and more dangerous.
Climate is another pre-existing circumstance, which will influence the adaptation of human populations in numerous ways, including levels of mobility and the facilitation of different types of agriculture. Talhelm et al. Rice growing requires much greater hours of labor and more coordinated activity for success than does wheat growing. These authors selected samples for comparison that were closely adjacent, in order to discount regional variations.
Respondents from rice-growing areas described themselves and their relations with others in more collectivistic ways. A more complex eco-cultural theory has been advanced by Van de Vliert , , who reasoned that the climatic challenges posed to populations living in different regions could be moderated by the wealth that is available to contain these challenges.
Levels of wealth would initially be dependent on available natural resources. Comparing mean scores for 15 Chinese provinces, van de Vliert et al.
Using a similar method, involving data from more than nations, Van de Vliert found three separate indicators of collectivism to be associated with climatic challenge. Gelfand et al. They found support for their predictions that the frequencies of risks such as earthquakes, floods, food shortages, and population density during historical periods would favor the development of tight cultures.
Their hypotheses were also supported on the basis of comparisons between states within the United States Harrington and Gelfand, Several eco-cultural explanations for the causes of cultural differences have thus been advanced. Where samples overlap to a sufficient degree, their predictions can be tested competitively against one another. For instance, Van de Vliert and Postmes showed that climate challenge predicted collectivism even after pathogen prevalence had been controlled, whereas pathogen prevalence was no longer predictive of collectivism after climatic challenge had been controlled.
Thus, we can determine which are the most basic causes of cultural differences and which are more peripheral. The second way to test for causal effects is to examine changes in scores on cultural dimensions over time.
The World Values Survey has provided extensive opportunities to do so, due to repeated administrations of relevant survey items over the past several decades. A model of global cultural change was first proposed by Inglehart and has been further developed by Inglehart and Welzel and by Welzel and Inglehart We here consider the most recent formulation Welzel, Cultural change within any particular national culture is seen as following a sequential series of stages.
The first stage is cognitive mobilization, which entails an increase in availability of information and participation in educational opportunities, which can open up understandings of the ways in which culture members can utilize available resources.
The experience of cognitive mobilization is predicted to lead to the development of emancipative values. These are values that favor equality, liberty, autonomy, and voice. Where these values are experienced as fulfilled, levels of life satisfaction are predicted to become more focused on intrinsic well-being and less on material circumstances.
The number of nations sampled in the World Values Survey has increased greatly over time, so that for many nations data are not available for the earlier waves. By extrapolating the rates of change for a given nation for the periods where data are available to the earlier periods where it is not, Welzel was able to create scores for each nation for value change for some of the periods where data were absent.
With this input accomplished, across 49 nations, he was able to test the relationship between increases in national wealth and increases in emancipative values. Controlling for wealth at Time 1, wealth at Time 2 predicts increase in emancipative values. However, controlling for values at Time 1, values at Time 2 predict increased national wealth. Thus, Welzel finds evidence for a reciprocal influence between wealth and emancipative values.
Increased wealth facilitates cognitive mobilization which elicits a move to emancipative values. Enactment of emancipative values facilitates economic growth.
In a subsequent analysis, Beugelsdijk and Welzel have used World Values Survey data from 68 nations to define three dimensions of national level variance: individualism—collectivism; duty versus joy; trust versus distrust.
They judge these dimensions to be equivalent to Hofstede et al. For these dimensions also, Beugelsdijk and Welzel found evidence for mutual influence between change in wealth and value change over time.
Schwartz , has conducted similar analyses, in which he shows reciprocal relations between increased national wealth and increased autonomy values, across a year interval. These analyses all reinforce the conclusion that nation-level cultural values can be both a cause and a consequence of the social contexts in which they are embedded.
In the preceding sections we have shown that there is some convergence in the knowledge of how the cultures of nations can usefully be described, and that there is evidence of the network of causal effects in which they may be involved. However, we have left to one side the question of just how such effects may occur.
Furthermore, most nations comprise numerous self-evident subcultures, defined by region, religion, social class, occupation, and so forth. We need to think more clearly about the factors that may mediate nation-level effects.
Welzel proposes that while individual values denote preferences, nation-level measures indicate the relative prevalence of different values. On this view, nation-level effects are a simple averaging of individual-level effects.
However, simple averaging takes no account of social inequalities within nations. Higher status individuals and groups within nations are characterized by different values from those of lower status Kohn et al. The greater influence of higher status groups in a nation makes it likely that their values will be better able than simple averages for the whole nation to predict nation-level effects. An instance of such a structure that would be salient in most nations is the language used in everyday use.
Nouns and adjectives less frequently imply a relationship with the speaker e. Thus, language use may repeatedly prime individuals to think in ways that are more individualistic or more collectivistic. We lack sufficient studies that have concurrently sampled both national culture and organizational culture. The organizations from which managers provided data were within the electronics, food processing, and financial services industries.
Brodbeck et al. However, within financial services there was stronger evidence for a global organizational culture that was unrelated to national context. Thus, there is some evidence for the view that nation-level cultural effects may be achieved by their replication within specific organizational cultures. However, in some circumstances, there is no such replication, in this case no doubt due to the international nature of the financial services sector.
We also have indicative evidence that the culture of families varies in relation to national culture Georgas et al. In this section, we have discussed evidence relating to nation-level variability. In doing so we have retained the usage pioneered by Hofstede that refers to this variability in terms of stable value dimensions.
We shall continue to do so in later sections of this paper, but in moving to the levels of analysis examined in the succeeding sections, it is important to acknowledge that we now know much more about the processes of social cognition than was the case a few decades ago. Throughout the day of an average individual, events will occur that cause a person to think of him or herself as a member of various social groups and entities, but sometimes also as an autonomous individual e.
Except in rare circumstances, they will not often think of themselves as a member of a nation. Recent studies have illustrated the way in which these momentary identifications can be manipulated experimentally Hong et al. Equally, the injunctive norms that characterize major institutions are likely to be reflective of the values endorsed by key groups within those institutions. National culture can be thought of as a fluid amalgam of innumerable momentary events, constantly open to change but sustained by the continuities of everyday life events in particular contexts.
We seek next to tease apart some of its components. Any group culture defines and regulates the interactions of it group members by systematizing and legitimating member exchanges to coordinate their actions for group survival and flourishing within the scope of ambient constraints and affordances.
These groupings vary in their immediacy to the individual actor in daily life and may be characterized in a varying number of ways. So, for example, Lee et al. Over the course of time, different constructs have been identified for each type of culture grouping, often without linking one set of such constructs to others previously researched in the same type of culture grouping. These dimensionalizations of functioning groups constitute an unpackaging of the culture characterizing that type of grouping.
That agenda is, after all, the fundamental role for a cross-cultural psychologist to assume. So, the personality—social psychologist could be trying to explain the behavioral response of an individual in a dyadic role relationship as defined in terms of its associated norms McAuley et al. Context is thus defined as the normative structure for the group in which the individual is embedded and is acting in conjunction with other members of that group.
A fuller understanding and prediction of individual behavior may be achieved in consequence. Norms are statements about behavioral regularities or social expectations for desirable or proscribed behaviors, i. Injunctive norms may refer either to behaviors that are to be done or are not to be done. As usual in social science, norms may be specified by referring to statistical averages of the relevant constructs as reported by a sample of respondents, e.
This average is then treated as the cultural-group descriptive norm. Alternatively, a subjective norm may be measured at the individual level by asking each individual to report his or her perception of the norm characterizing the cultural group in question. Whether and how either or both these types of norm are used will depend on the model for behavioral response being proposed by the researcher — it may be a group-level, individual-level, or cross-level model.
At the group level, we have evidence that subjective norms aggregated to the nation level can account for differences in effects as well as or better than measures based on personal values Fischer et al.
In order to address this issue cross-culturally, we first examine the literature concerning personality and situation more generally. Given the preceding, it becomes apparent just how complex, scattered, and difficult-to-integrate is the literature on norms.
The challenge is how best to include the concept of norms-as-context within a social—personality psychology that attempts to understand and predict individual responding. One approach is to acknowledge that individual responses are always situated, i. For instance, we may consider when a father is at home conversing with his son, or when one is in public settings with unfamiliar fellow citizens, respectively for a cross-national example, see Matsumoto et al.
Similarly, one could consider the normative constraints induced by different types of group tasks and other types of activities Kerr, The difficulty to be addressed with this approach is that any use of norms as constructs for describing such contexts for individual responses needs to indicate both the specificity of the behaviors in question and the nature or type of situations or tasks in which each behavior is being enacted or inhibited.
Situation , i. So, some situations may be characterized as strong, others as weak depending on the intensity of reward and punishments regarded by the individual as likely to arise given certain behaviors Kammrath et al. These reward and punishments could be applied intra-psychically or socially, alone or face-to-face Clark et al.
Using the Lewinian framework, researchers moved on to demonstrate the joint action of both personality and situation but made an ad hoc selection of specific situations to demonstrate the impact of both personality and situation in predicting individual responding e. Calls were eventually raised for a more analytic approach to distinguishing among situations as factors influencing behavior, especially in drawing a clear distinction between personality and situations as predictors in the response equation [see Reis for a historical summary].
A situation-referenced typology of situations independent of the individual perceiver was needed Funder, That gap was filled by Rauthmann et al.
Ziegler et al. This enables the separation of personality measures from those of the situation, and provides evidence that the situation measures add predictive power to personality measures, supporting the original Lewinian distinction between P and S Funder, Clark et al.
They note that other dimensions of relationship, like power differentials, are needed to supplement any analysis of relationship context. Such a broadening of relationship typology has been provided by Gerpott et al. In predicting individual cooperation, Gerpott et al.
Whatever the psychological outcome of interest, using a model of perceived situational interdependency holds promise in extending research in social psychology beyond its intra-psychic, personality focus. Having identified a general line of approach, we can now explore how it could find application to the study of cultural differences.
As Clark et al. In this light, the Gerpott et al. These researchers provide the following definitions of their five dimensions of interdependency:. We suggest that these dimensions of social—interpersonal interdependency can be linked in suggestive ways with the dimensions of variation in national culture that we discussed in preceding sections. For instance, within collectivistic cultural contexts there are likely to be stronger perceptions of mutual dependence, less perceived personal power, and greater perceived future interdependence.
Within tight cultures there is likely to be greater perceived information certainty. However, there is no reason to expect that all contexts within a given nation will replicate the characteristics of the nation as a whole.
Other dimensions will become relevant, as Gerpott et al. These speculations on cultural systems and their associated logics for interdependency management need to be tested empirically. They may provide a way to integrate situational analysis into cross-cultural comparisons of social and interpersonal behavior.
S for explaining individual behaviors across cultural groupings? There are a few points worth considering in this regard: Firstly, whatever effect personality might exercise on the individuals involved in a cross-cultural study of behavior will be dependent upon the specific lens of the personality measure used in that study. These measures vary across a spectrum of dimensionality — from the single, as in general self-esteem Schwarzer and Jerusalem, ; the double, as in proactive and prevention focus Higgins, , the triple, as in the dark and light triads Kaufman et al.
The choice of scale type will change depending on the model for behavioral response being used by the researcher. This is a life-threatening situation, persons located within these storm surge warning areas should take all necessary actions to protect life and property from rising water and the potential for other dangerous conditions. We're doing our best to make sure our content is useful, accurate and safe. If by any chance you spot an inappropriate comment while navigating through our website please use this form to let us know, and we'll take care of it shortly.
Forgot your password? Retrieve it. If by any chance you spot an inappropriate image within your search results please use this form to let us know, and we'll take care of it shortly. Term » Definition. Word in Definition. Wiktionary 3. Contrast people. Which persons are responsible for this mess? National Library of Medicine 0. Editors Contribution 2. Submitted by MaryC on January 18, Anagrams for persons » press on, spreons. How to pronounce persons?
Alex US English. David US English. Mark US English. Daniel British. Libby British. Mia British.
0コメント