While Mendoza-Denton and Mischel (2007) focused on how socio-cultural contexts affect the formation of cognitive-affective units, Hong and Mallorie (2004; see also Hong, Morris, Chiu & Benet-Martínez, 2000) examined how cultures condition the availability and accessibility of different implicit theories that individuals use to interpret their social world. In comparison to these attempts, Bond separated the situation from personality, contending situations as socially shared affordances.
Culture may also play a role at a meta-level in affecting the ‘beta weights’ (i.e. how determining a component is in predicting the behaviour outcomes) of the four components and their interactions across contexts. On the one hand, cultures can promote or limit the experiences an individual may have. Bond argued that personality (P) may manifest in the situations an individual chooses to enter or avoid. However, an over-emphasis on the role of choice in the situations an individual is in may be a commitment of the fundamental attribution error. On the other hand, Weber (from Gerth & Mills, 1948) introduced the concept of ‘life chances’ in how economic-political factors constrain and limit the kinds of outcomes an individual can have. Similarly, cultures can funnel individual's life chances through the emphasis or rejection of certain practices, interpretations, and values (Kitayama & Markus, 1999). Values promoted by a community will be given more opportunities to be expressed (Mendoza-Denton & Mischel, 2007), consequently resulting in particular situations being more prevalent in some cultural contexts than others (Kitayama, Mesquita & Karasawa, 2006). In other words, cultures restrict the choices that are available to the individuals embedded within and provide the rules by which people are to make choices in their lives (Schwartz, 2000).
In addition, Bond discussed that the overlaps between P(S) and O(S) are likely to be greater in settings where pressure toward conformity is greater. This is interesting and can be related to recent advancements in research on inter-subjectivity and tight versus loose cultures. For example, Wan and colleagues (Wan et al., 2007; Wan, Torelli & Chiu, 2010) have shown that, at an individual level, the stronger the participants identify with the group, the more they would be affected by the consensual values of the group (vs their own personal values). At a cultural level, Gelfand and her colleagues (2011) have shown that some nations have clearer norms (consensus) and enhanced pressure for conformity to norms (i.e. tight cultures), whereas other nations are less so (i.e. loose cultures). In general, Chinese, in comparison to Americans, tend to have a higher identification with the national group (Hong, 2009). Likewise, Asian cultures are tighter than Western cultures (Gelfand et al., 2011). This implies that theories mainly emphasizing P would not be as applicable in understanding Asian psychology.
Furthermore, in this globalized era where cultures' juxtapose in the same social and temporal space (Chiu, Mallorie, Hean Tat Keh & Law,2009), individuals often possess multiple cultural knowledge systems (Hong et al., 2000). This adds a dynamic aspect to the traditional notion of cultural influence, as individuals' cultural knowledge systems can be differentially activated by their immediate social contexts. Depending on the particular context or situation, individuals vary in their use of specific cultural knowledge to understand, interpret, and behave (Chiu, Gries, Torelli & Cheng, 2011; Hong et al., 2000). As such, cultural influences can no longer be regarded as static, but dynamic.
he includes both the norms, O(S), and perception of the consensus of the norms, CO(S), as social factors affecting the individual's behaviours. Secondly, interestingly, he also proposes that the beta weight of O(S) and CO(S) would also be affected by the culture, such that the beta weight for O(S) and CO(S) to affect behaviour is stronger in collectivist cultures than in individualist cultures. Bond's proposal is a timely addition, as the recent discourses of intersubjectivity and tight versus loose cultures have shed light on the normative influences of culture. Culture provides individuals with shared representations, that individuals, subsequently, use to impart meanings.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.chain.kent.ac.uk/doi/10.1111/ajsp.12016/full
ALSO see http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.chain.kent.ac.uk/doi/10.1111/ajsp.12018/full
he includes both the norms, O(S), and perception of the consensus of the norms, CO(S), as social factors affecting the individual's behaviours. Secondly, interestingly, he also proposes that the beta weight of O(S) and CO(S) would also be affected by the culture, such that the beta weight for O(S) and CO(S) to affect behaviour is stronger in collectivist cultures than in individualist cultures. Bond's proposal is a timely addition, as the recent discourses of intersubjectivity and tight versus loose cultures have shed light on the normative influences of culture. Culture provides individuals with shared representations, that individuals, subsequently, use to impart meanings.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.chain.kent.ac.uk/doi/10.1111/ajsp.12016/full
ALSO see http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.chain.kent.ac.uk/doi/10.1111/ajsp.12018/full
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder