Handbook of Cultural Psychology PDF

HANDBOOK OF CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY Handbook of Cultural Psychology Edited by S HINOBU K ITAYAMA D OV C OHEN THE GUILFORD PRESS New York London © 2007 The Guilford Press A Division of Guilford Publications, Inc. 72 Spring Street, New York, NY 10012 www.guilford.com All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher. Printed in the United States of America This book is printed on acid-free paper. Last digit is print number: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Handbook of cultural psychology / edited by Shinobu Kitayama and Dov Cohen. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN-13: 978-1-59385-444-7 ISBN-10: 1-59385-444-7 (cloth: alk. paper) 1. Ethnopsychology. I. Kitayama, Shinobu. II. Cohen, Dov. GN502.H36 2007 155.8FIXME2—dc22 2006102547 In memory of Giyoo Hatano for his enormous contribution to the study of culture and psychology About the Editors Shinobu Kitayama, PhD, is Professor of Psychology and Director of the Culture and Cognition Program at the University of Michigan. He received his doctorate from the University of Michigan, where he has been teaching since 2003. Prior to joining the fac- ulty there, Dr. Kitayama taught at the Universities of Oregon and Chicago and at Kyoto University. He serves as an Associate Editor of the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Throughout his career Dr. Kitayama has studied cultural variations of self, emotion, and cognition and has presented his work in the books Emotion and Culture: Empirical Studies of Mutual Influences (with Hazel Markus) and The Heart’s Eye: Emo- tional Influences in Perception and Attention (with Paula Niedenthal), as well as in such leading journals as Psychological Review, Psychological Science, and the Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology. Dov Cohen, PhD, received his doctorate from the University of Michigan and taught at the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, and the University of Illinois, where he is currently a faculty member. His research interests relate to cultural continuity and change, within-culture variability, and the way people position themselves with respect to dominant cultural ideals. Dr. Cohen has conducted research on the cultural syndromes of honor, dignity, and face, as well as on cross-cultural similarities and differences in the experience of self. He coauthored the book Culture of Honor (with Richard Nisbett) and coedited Culture and Social Behavior (with Richard Sorrentino, James Olson, and Mark Zanna). vii Contributors Nalini Ambady, PhD, Department of Psychology, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts Scott Atran, PhD, National Center for Scientific Research, Paris, France; Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Department of Sociology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, New York Robert Boyd, PhD, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California Marilynn B. Brewer, PhD, Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio Joan Y. Chiao, PhD, Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois Chi-yue Chiu, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign, Champaign, Illinois Incheol Choi, PhD, Department of Psychology, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea Dov Cohen, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign, Champaign, Illinois Michael Cole, PhD, Department of Communication, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California Ed Diener, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign, Champaign, Illinois Sean Duffy, PhD, Department of Psychology, Rutgers–Camden, State University of New Jersey, Camden, New Jersey Alan P. Fiske, PhD, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California Susan T. Fiske, PhD, Department of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey Heidi Fung, PhD, Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica, Nankang, Taipei, Taiwan ix x Contributors MarYam G. Hamedani, PhD, Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, California Giyoo Hatano, PhD, (deceased) Keio University, Tokyo, Japan Elaine Hatfield, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii Steven J. Heine, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Lawrence A. Hirschfeld, PhD, Departments of Anthropology and Psychology, New School University, New York, New York Ying-yi Hong, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign, Champaign, Illinois Shinobu Kitayama, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan Melvin Konner, PhD, Department of Anthropology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia Michele Koven, PhD, Department of Speech Communication, University of Illinois, Urbana– Champaign, Champaign, Illinois Letty Kwan, MA, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign, Champaign, Illinois Fiona Lee, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan Spike Wing-Sing Lee, BA, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan Janxin Leu, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington Angela K-y. Leung, MA, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign, Champaign, Illinois Robert W. Levenson, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California Robert A. LeVine, PhD, Graduate School of Education, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts Shu-Chen Li, PhD, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Center for Lifespan Psychology, Berlin, Germany Hazel Rose Markus, PhD, Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, California Lise D. Martel, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii Anthony J. Marsella, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii Douglas L. Medin, PhD, Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California Contributors xi Batja Mesquita, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium Joan G. Miller, PhD, Department of Psychology, New School University, New York, New York Peggy J. Miller, PhD, Departments of Psychology and Speech Communication, University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign, Champaign, Illinois Walter Mischel, PhD, Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, New York Gilda A. Morelli, PhD, Department of Psychology, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts Lesley Newson, PhD, School of Psychology, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom Richard E. Nisbett, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan Sun No, MA, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign, Champaign, Illinois Ara Norenzayan, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Daphna Oyserman, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan Kaiping Peng, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California Nnamdi Pole, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan Richard L. Rapson, PhD, Department of History, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii Peter J. Richerson, PhD, Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California, Davis, Davis, California Michael Ross, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada Fred Rothbaum, PhD, Eliot–Pearson Department of Child Development, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts Paul Rozin, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Jeffrey Sanchez-Burks, PhD, Stephen M. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan Carmi Schooler, PhD, Section on Socio-Environmental Studies, National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, Maryland Richard A. Shweder, PhD, Department of Comparative Human Development, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois José Soto, PhD, Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania xii Contributors Robert J. Sternberg, PhD, Department of Psychology, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts William Tov, MA, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign, Champaign, Illinois Harry C. Triandis, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign, Champaign, Illinois Yukiko Uchida, PhD, Department of Psychology, Koshien University, Takarazuka, Japan Sara J. Unsworth, MA, Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois Ching Wan, PhD, Division of Psychology, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Qi Wang, PhD, Department of Human Development, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York Ann Marie Yamada, PhD, School of Social Work, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California Masaki Yuki, PhD, Department of Behavioral Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan Preface Although it has many important predecessors in related disciplines such as anthropol- ogy, linguistics, and sociology, the field of cultural psychology as we know it today has only recently become a major force in the discipline of psychology. In its initial stage, during the 1980s, the field received a substantial boost from Richard Shweder’s admoni- tion, “Culture and psyche make each other up.” By this, he meant that culture is not a “thing” out there; rather, it is a loosely organized set of interpersonal and institutional processes driven by people who participate in those processes. By the same token, the psyche is also not a discrete entity packed in the brain. Rather, it is a structure of psycho- logical processes that are shaped by and thus closely attuned to the culture that sur- rounds them. Accordingly, culture cannot be understood without a deep understanding of the minds of people who make it up and, likewise, the mind cannot be understood without reference to the sociocultural environment to which it is adapted and attuned. In significant ways, the field has since evolved by exploring the nature of the mutual consti- tution of culture and the psyche. Because many of us who engaged in this exploration were committed empirical psy- chologists, substantial effort was devoted to the questions of how culture might foster and even create different forms of psychological processes and how one could identify demonstrable consequences of such cross-culturally divergent psychological processes. These questions were raised and addressed with respect to some central topics of psy- chology, including self, identity, cognition, emotion, motivation, and interpersonal rela- tionships. Sometimes, initial efforts were guided by a rather simple heuristic of finding out spe- cific ways in which the contemporary theories in psychology might be seen as culturally bound, and were largely confined to middle-class, young, Western samples. In retrospect, this might seem reactive, because it searched for limitations and problems with “main- stream psychology.” Curiously, however, the empirical effort designed to show limita- tions of “mainstream theories” did in fact have more positive, proactive consequences. It enabled the researchers to extend existent theories, elaborate on them, and thus refine them as full-fledged theories of the interactions between sociocultural processes and psy- chological processes. In large part because of this, we believe that the field of cultural psychology has emerged from the periphery of the discipline to establish itself as a main- stay of contemporary psychology. Culture, then, has become an indispensable way to en- xiii xiv Preface rich basic theories of psychology. Here the current cultural approach in psychology dif- fers most significantly from its cousins both in the past and the present. This handbook represents an overview of the field of cultural psychology as it exists today. It starts with historical and disciplinary backgrounds of the field (Part I, “The Dis- cipline and Its History”), followed by discussions of some theoretical perspectives and methodological advances (Part II, “Theory and Methods”). The main body of the hand- book comprises more than 20 reviews of the diverse areas the field encompasses. The major themes include “Identity and Social Relations” (Part III), “Acquisition and Change of Culture” (Part IV), “Cognition” (Part V), and “Emotion and Motivation” (Part VI). We have compiled a total of 36 chapters, written by more than 60 top-notch researchers who pursue a diverse array of questions about culture. We are very happy and proud of what has come out as a major reference volume for the field. We believe that one virtue of any endeavor of this magnitude is to encourage our colleagues and new generations of researchers to reflect on our current shortcomings and drawbacks, which in reality constitute a fertile source of ideas, visions, and empirical hypotheses for further expansions and elaborations of the field. The best contribution this handbook makes, then, may be to provide a moment of such critical self-appraisals. If it can meet this modest aspiration, we may also hope that it will be remembered as a noteworthy stepping stone by succeeding generations of researchers on culture and the human mind. Contents I. THE DISCIPLINE AND ITS HISTORY 1. Sociocultural Psychology: The Dynamic Interdependence 3 among Self Systems and Social Systems Hazel Rose Markus and MarYam G. Hamedani 2. Anthropological Foundations of Cultural Psychology 40 Robert A. LeVine 3. Culture and Psychology: A History of the Study of Their Relationship 59 Harry C. Triandis 4. Evolutionary Foundations of Cultural Psychology 77 Melvin Konner II. THEORY AND METHODS 5. Cultural–Historical Activity Theory: Integrating Phylogeny, Cultural History, 109 and Ontogenesis in Cultural Psychology Michael Cole and Giyoo Hatano 6. Self as Cultural Mode of Being 136 Shinobu Kitayama, Sean Duffy, and Yukiko Uchida 7. Integrating System Approaches to Culture and Personality: 175 The Cultural Cognitive–Affective Processing System Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton and Walter Mischel xv xvi Contents 8. Methods in Cultural Psychology 196 Dov Cohen 9. Cultural Neuroscience: Parsing Universality and Diversity 237 across Levels of Analysis Joan Y. Chiao and Nalini Ambady 10. Priming “Culture”: Culture as Situated Cognition 255 Daphna Oyserman and Spike Wing-Sing Lee III. IDENTITY AND SOCIAL RELATIONS 11. Social Relationships in Our Species and Cultures 283 Alan P. Fiske and Susan T. Fiske 12. Culture and Social Identity 307 Marilynn B. Brewer and Masaki Yuki 13. Multicultural Identities 323 Ying-yi Hong, Ching Wan, Sun No, and Chi-yue Chiu 14. Cultural Psychology of Workways 346 Jeffrey Sanchez-Burks and Fiona Lee 15. Culture and Social Structure: The Relevance of Social Structure 370 to Cultural Psychology Carmi Schooler IV. ACQUISITION AND CHANGE OF CULTURE 16. Food and Eating 391 Paul Rozin 17. Religion’s Social and Cognitive Landscape: An Evolutionary Perspective 417 Scott Atran 18. Cultural Evolution and the Shaping of Cultural Diversity 454 Lesley Newson, Peter J. Richerson, and Robert Boyd 19. Cultural Psychology of Moral Development 477 Joan G. Miller Contents xvii 20. Situating the Child in Context: Attachment Relationships and Self-Regulation 500 in Different Cultures Gilda A. Morelli and Fred Rothbaum 21. Biocultural Co-Construction of Developmental Plasticity across the Lifespan 528 Shu-Chen Li V. COGNITION 22. Intelligence and Culture 547 Robert J. Sternberg 23. Perception and Cognition 569 Ara Norenzayan, Incheol Choi, and Kaiping Peng 24. Narrative Reverberations: How Participation in Narrative Practices 595 Co-Creates Persons and Cultures Peggy J. Miller, Heidi Fung, and Michele Koven 25. Culture, Categorization, and Reasoning 615 Douglas L. Medin, Sara J. Unsworth, and Lawrence Hirschfeld 26. Culture and Memory 645 Qi Wang and Michael Ross 27. Language, Cognition, and Culture: Beyond the Whorfian Hypothesis 668 Chi-yue Chiu, Angela K-y. Leung, and Letty Kwan VI. EMOTION AND MOTIVATION 28. Culture and Subjective Well-Being 691 William Tov and Ed Diener 29. Culture and Motivation: What Motivates People to Act in the Ways That They Do? 714 Steven J. Heine 30. The Cultural Psychology of Emotion 734 Batja Mesquita and Janxin Leu 31. Passionate Love and Sexual Desire 760 Elaine Hatfield, Richard L. Rapson, and Lise D. Martel xviii Contents 32. Emotion, Biology, and Culture 780 Robert W. Levenson, José Soto, and Nnamdi Pole 33. Culture and Psychopathology: Foundations, Issues, and Directions 797 Anthony J. Marsella and Ann Marie Yamada VII. COMMENTARIES FROM TWO PERSPECTIVES 34. An Anthropological Perspective: The Revival of Cultural Psychology— 821 Some Premonitions and Reflections Richard A. Shweder 35. A Psychological Perspective: Cultural Psychology—Past, Present, and Future 837 Richard E. Nisbett VIII. EPILOGUE 36. Cultural Psychology: This Stanza and the Next 847 Dov Cohen and Shinobu Kitayama Author Index 852 Subject Index 873 PART I THE DISCIPLINE AND ITS HISTORY CHAPTER 1 Sociocultural Psychology The Dynamic Interdependence among Self Systems and Social Systems HAZEL ROSE MARKUS MARYAM G. HAMEDANI T he word cultural has modified psychol- and research produced under these flags reveal ogy throughout its history. Cole (1990) calls a new and mature appreciation for an old and cultural psychology “a once and future dis- powerful idea. Expressed in a wide variety of cipline,” Shweder (1990, 2003) notes that ways, the core of this historically elusive and cultural psychology’s time has arrived “once empirically challenging notion is that people again,” and J. G. Miller (1999) contends that and their social worlds are inseparable: They psychology is and “always has been cultural.” require each other. Despite important and often heated arguments The psychological—typically defined as pat- about differences among the areas designated terns of thought, feeling, and action, sometimes by the terms “cultural psychology,” “cross- also called the mind, the psyche, the self, cultural psychology,” “sociocultural psychol- agency, mentalities, ways of being, or modes of ogy,” “psychological anthropology,” and “situ- operating—is grounded in and also fosters the ated cognition” (Atran, Medin, & Ross, 2005; sociocultural. The sociocultural—or patterns Berry, 2000; Keller et al., 2006; Keller & in the social world, sometimes called soci- Greenfield, 2000; Kim & Berry, 1993; Markus alities, sociocultural contexts, social systems, & Kitayama, 1991; Matsumoto, 2001; the environment, social structure, or culture— Nisbett, 2003; Norenzayan & Heine, 2005; is grounded in and fosters the psychological. Shweder & Sullivan, 1990, 1993; Triandis, Thus, in a process of ongoing mutual constitu- 1989; Veroff & Goldberger, 1995; Vygotsky, tion, the psychological and the cultural “make 1978; Wertsch, 1991), the joint reemergence of each other up” (Shweder, 1990, p. 24), and are these terms and the robust interest they have most productively analyzed and understood to- generated is a significant developmental gether (Adams & Markus, 2001; Kashima, marker for the field of psychology. The theory 2000; Wertsch & Sammarco, 1985). 3 4 I. THE DISCIPLINE AND ITS HISTORY The history of what we label here as tions of others. Their actions (i.e., their ways of “sociocultural psychology” is a story charac- being an agent in the world, their identities, terized by both a persistent attraction to the their selves) require, reflect, foster, and institu- idea that culture and psyche make each other tionalize these sociocultural affordances and up, and an equally strong resistance to this influences. Thus, as people actively construct idea, set up by the pervasive individualist their worlds, they are made up of, or “consti- representation—particularly densely distrib- tuted by,” relations with other people and by uted in North American contexts—that “it’s the ideas, practices, products, and institutions what’s inside” the person and not the “con- that are prevalent in their social contexts (i.e., text” that matters the most. The current wave environments, fields, situations, settings, of rapidly expanding interest among social sci- worlds). The people whose thoughts, feelings, entists regarding how behavior is socially and and actions are included in this circuit of mu- culturally constituted is driven, we suggest, by tual constitution include the individuals’ con- a confluence of several factors: (1) a robust set temporaries, the individual him or herself, and of empirical findings that challenge many of many others who have gone before and left psychology’s signature theories, and are thus their respective worlds replete with representa- not easily interpreted with dominant or main- tions, products, and systems reflecting prior stream frameworks; (2) a growing realiza- thoughts, feelings, and actions. tion among psychologists that the capacity for The major focus of the last two decades of culture making and culture sharing is at the research in sociocultural psychology has been core of what it means to be human, and that to discover just how mutual constitution pro- this capacity is a clear evolutionary advantage ceeds. What does it mean about the brain, the of the human species (Bruner, 1990; Carrithers, mind, and behavior to say that they are cultural 1992; Kashima, 2000; Mesquita, 2003; or socioculturally constituted? For some re- Schaller & Crandall, 2004; Tomascello, 1999); searchers, the goal has been to show that ideas, and (3) an increasing sophistication in how to practices, and products are not separate from conceptualize both the cultural and the psycho- “experience” or applied after behavior. The logical, such that the nature of their mutual sociocultural is not “overlaid” on a set of basic and reciprocal influence can be examined. or fixed psychological processes. Instead, ideas, We have organized our review and integra- practices, and products are active and incorpo- tion of the sociocultural perspective in psychol- rated in the very formation and operation of ogy around a set of questions: psychological processes (e.g., Cole, 1996; Markus, Mullally, & Kitayama, 1997; J. G. 1. Mutual constitution—what does it mean? Miller, 1994; Nisbett, 2003; Wertsch, 1991). 2. A sociocultural approach—what is it? The goal of other researchers has been to show 3. A sociocultural approach—where does it that the context is not separate or external to come from? the person but is, in fact, the psychological 4. What does a sociocultural approach add to externalized or materialized (D’Andrade & psychology? Strauss, 1992; Kitayama, Markus, Matsumoto, 5. What definition of culture is suitable for & Norasakkunkit, 1997; Markus, Uchida, psychology? Omoregie, Townsend, & Kitayama, 2005; 6. Assessing mutual constitution—what are Shore, 1996). In the terms of Shweder (1995), the current approaches? who has pioneered the theoretical development 7. Sociocultural psychology—what next? of modern cultural psychology, the goal is to find ways to talk about the psychological and about the cultural such that neither “is by na- MUTUAL CONSTITUTION—WHAT DOES IT MEAN? ture intrinsic or extrinsic to the other” (p. 69). Our intent in this chapter’s title is to signal Sociocultural psychologists begin their theoriz- our focus on theories and research that exam- ing with the person and several key observa- ine the structure and patterning inherent in var- tions. People exist everywhere in social net- ious social worlds, how this patterning contin- works, in groups, in communities, and in ually shapes psychological functioning, and relationships. They are chronically sensitive how people (selves or agents) require and de- and attuned to the thoughts, feelings, and ac- pend on these patterns as they become 1. Sociocultural Psychology 5 meaning-full participants in their social worlds. A SOCIOCULTURAL APPROACH—WHAT IS IT? The patterning of social worlds includes ideas and images, as well as the embodiment, anima- The emerging sociocultural psychology reflects tion, and realization of these ideas and images the most recent and most specific realization in social practices, material products, and insti- within psychology of the theory that being a tutions (here called “social systems”). person is fundamentally a social transaction We use the word sociocultural rather than (Asch, 1952; Baldwin, 1911; Lewin, 1948; the term cultural to emphasize that a Mead, 1934; for a review, see Cross & Markus, sociocultural analysis includes within its 1999) Moreover, it is an effort to extend and to scope both the conceptual and the material. elaborate empirically the view that social for- Thus, it includes both meanings—ideas, im- mations and psychological formations are fully ages, representations, attitudes, values, proto- interdependent, both contemporaneously and types, and stereotypes—and what is often historically (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; termed the sociostructural—cultural products, Bourdieu, 1990; Moscovici, 1988; Shweder, interpersonal interactions, institutional prac- 1990; Wundt, 1916). tices and systems—and person–situation con- From a sociocultural perspective, individu- tingencies, all of which embody, as well as als are biological entities (as well as genetic, render material and operable, normative pat- neuronal, chemical, hormonal entities), and all terns prevalent in a given context. We invoke behavior has a biological, as well as an evolu- the term interdependence to convey the sense tionary, foundation. Yet individuals are also in- that as people are involved in the processes of eluctably social and cultural phenomena. The mutual constitution, they are not passive re- option of being asocial or acultural, that is, liv- cipients of culture. Instead they are active ing as a neutral being who is not bound to par- agents who are socioculturally shaped shapers ticular practices and socioculturally structured of themselves and their worlds. The causal ways of behaving, is not available. People eat, arrows between social and psychological for- sleep, work, and relate to one another in mation are bidirectional; the constitution is culture-specific ways. As the rapidly expanding mutual. volume of theoretical and empirical studies has Finally, we use the term dynamic to signal made clear, people also think and feel and act that sociocultural patterns of ideas, practices, in culture-specific ways—ways that are shaped and products are not fixed, but are open and by the particular meanings and practices of complex networks or distributions of mental their lived experiences (for reviews see Cole, and material resources that are often, although 1996; Fiske, Kitayama, Markus, & Nisbett, not always, linked with significant, in the sense 1998; Greenfield & Cocking, 1994; Heine, of psychologically meaningful (socially, politi- Lehman, Markus, & Kitayama, 1999; J. G. cally, historically), constructed categories such Miller, 1997; Nisbett & Cohen, 1996; as ethnicity, race, religion, gender, occupation, Shweder, 1990, 2003; Shweder & LeVine, political party, social class, caste, sect, tribe, or 1984; Smith & Bond, 1993). Becoming a ma- region of the country or world. These catego- ture, competent adult necessitates that an indi- ries are elements of the repertoire of symbolic vidual successfully engage the systems of mean- resources that people themselves invoke, or ings, practices, and institutions that configure that are invoked by others, to render the social the contexts of her particular everyday life world meaningful. Such sets of ideas, practices, (Bruner, 1990; Geertz, 1975; Markus et al., products, and institutions are constantly 1997; Shweder, 1982, 1990). in flux and undergoing transformation as The sociocultural engagement that is an es- they are engaged—appropriated, incorporated, sential and constant process of human life is an contested—by selves acting or being in the active process that transforms the biological world. Others’ ways of categorizing the being into a social individual—a person with a sociocultural context that are less well- self and a set of context-contingent identities. instituted in existing contexts and map less well In the process of this cultural engagement, onto existing social categories (e.g., high or low “others”—their language; their ideas of what is gross domestic product [GDP] nations, red or good, true, and real; their understandings of blue America, mountainous or flat habitats) why and how to attend to, engage with, and are also important to investigate. operate within various worlds—become part of 6 I. THE DISCIPLINE AND ITS HISTORY a dynamic self that mediates and regulates menting and praising one another for individ- behavior. The patterns and processes of indi- ual performance by a frequent distribution of viduals’ social contexts condition their behav- awards and honors in classrooms and work- ior and give form to the interpretive systems places, and by situations such as job applica- that organize the behavioral system. As people tions and interviews that require people to fo- participate in their respective contexts, settings, cus on their good features and explain their life and environments, they are constantly in the outcomes in terms of their own actions and de- process of making meaning and reflecting these cisions. These psychological tendencies and ev- meanings in their actions by building them into eryday practices further structure worlds products and practices in their worlds (Bruner, through intentional products such as coffee 1990; Hallowell, 1955; Markus & Kitayama, mugs, bumper stickers, cars, medications, and 1994; Shweder, 1990). cigarette advertisements that declare “You’re As Shweder (1990) postulates, the inten- the best,” or exhort people to “Be a star,” tional person, or psyche, is interdependent with “Take control,” “Never follow,” and “Resist the intentional world, or culture. Intentional homogenization.” Such practices and products worlds are worlds of meanings—human foster material and behavioral environments in artifactual worlds, populated with products of which self-serving and self-interested actions our own design. An intentional world, Shweder are valued and normative. These cultural re- says, is replete with events such as “stealing” or sources thereby condition characteristic ways “taking communion”; processes such as of being and are themselves the result of previ- “harm” or “sin”; stations such as “in-law” or ous conditioned responding. “exorcist”; practices such as “betrothal” or As we analyze the process of sociocultural “divorce”; visible entities such as “weeds” and transformation, two facts become apparent: (1) invisible entities such as “natural rights” Individuals are not separate from social con- (p. 42). These cultural products are not just ex- texts, and (2) social contexts do not exist apart pressions, correlates, or residue of behavior. from or outside of people. Instead, contexts are Human behavior is premised on and organized the products of human activity: They are reposi- by these taken-for-granted meanings and cate- tories of previous psychological activity, and gorizations of social reality that are objectified they afford psychological activity. As a conse- in material objects and institutionalized in so- quence, social contexts do more than what psy- cial relations and social systems. chology typically labels “influence.” Instead, For example, many urban, middle-class they “constitute,” as in create, make up, or es- adults in North American contexts reveal high tablish, these psychological tendencies. The levels of self-esteem, self-efficacy, optimism, mental processes and behavioral tendencies that and intrinsic motivation; express a desire for are the subject of study in psychology, then, are mastery, control, and self-expression; and show not separate from, but are fundamentally real- preferences for uniqueness (Kim & Markus, ized through, cultural ideas and practices. 1999; Snibbe & Markus, 2005). This robust As researchers and theorists turn toward a set of psychological tendencies is not, however, sociocultural approach, they take seriously an expression of universal human nature. The Bruner’s (1990) claim that it is impossible to middle-class contexts of North America are re- “construct a human psychology on the basis of plete with choices; with requirements for self- the individual alone” (p. 12). Developing a expression and feeling good about the self; and sociocultural psychology requires spanning the with opportunities for focusing on the self, divides created by the many familiar and foun- mastering, and controlling one’s environment, dational psychological binaries, that is, and constructing the self as the primary source person–situation, individual–environment, of action. culture–social structure, and self–society, that What is readily apparent from a comparative conceptualize people as separate from their approach is that North American psychologi- “surrounding” contexts. Moreover, there is a cal tendencies have in many significant ways need to bridge the many disciplinary barriers been created, fostered, and maintained by that separate sociology, anthropology, and his- widely distributed ideas—such as the impor- tory from psychology. tance of individual achievement—and have Given the theorized interdependence of mind been reinforced and instituted by dense net- and sociocultural context, the assumption of a works of everyday practices—such as compli- sociocultural psychology is that the psychologi- 1. Sociocultural Psychology 7 cal nature of human beings can vary with time A SOCIOCULTURAL APPROACH— and space (Shweder, 2003). Thus, two central WHERE DOES IT COME FROM? goals of sociocultural psychology are to exam- ine variation in modes of psychological func- The major ideas of a sociocultural perspective, tioning across sociocultural contexts, and to as we have sketched it here, have multiple over- specify the varied cultural meanings and prac- lapping sources throughout the social sciences tices with which they are linked (Fiske et al., and philosophy. They can be traced to Herder 1998; Graumann, 1986; Markus, Kitayama, & and to Vico in philosophy (Shweder, 2003; Heiman, 1996; Moscovici, 1981; Shweder, Taylor, 1997; see also Triandis, Chapter 3, this 1990, 2003; Wundt, 1916). The field, however, volume); to Boas, Hallowell, Kroeber, and is often identified with (and criticized for) the Kluckholn in anthropology (see LeVine, Chap- search for differences in subjectivities, as well ter 2, this volume); to sociology (Berger & as with what Shweder (1990) calls the “rejec- Luckmann, 1966; Bourdieu, 1991; Moscovici, tion of psychic unity.” In conjunction with this 1991, 1998); and to a variety of psychological goal, however, sociocultural psychology seeks theorists, such as Wundt, Mead, Baldwin, (1) to discover systematic principles underlying Sullivan, G. Kelly, Asch, Lewin, and Bruner, all the diversity of culturally patterned socialities of whom emphasized meaning and the role of and psyches, and (2) to describe the processes intersubjectively shared understandings in cre- by which all humans are constituted as funda- ating and maintaining reality. In general, mentally social beings. sociocultural psychologists can be identified by Notably, the behavior of all individuals en- their appreciation for the interdependence of gaged in a particular (e.g., middle-class, Euro- the individual with the social, the material, and pean American) context is by no means uni- the historical, and by their view of people as ac- form or identical, revealing that sociocultural tive meaning makers and world makers. contexts may constitute, in the sense of shape or condition, people in a variety of ways as Thinking Beyond the Person they engage differently with their contexts. Contexts do not “determine,” in the sense of Common to many approaches classified as definitively settle or fix, the limits or forms of sociocultural psychology is a belief that the human behavior. People engage with and re- sources of mind and behavior cannot all be lo- spond to the ideas and practices of a given con- cated within the brain, the head, or the body. text in somewhat variable ways, with variable The sources of mind and behavior are distrib- intents and purposes. These varieties of engage- uted, existing both internally in the mind and ment depend on the person’s own particular set externally in the world. This commitment to of orienting, mediating, and interpretive frame- the ways in which psychological processes are works, which themselves are the result of a made up of, or made by, the social elements of host of other individual and situational differ- one’s contexts is revealed in some of psychol- ences, and also shape a person’s mode of being ogy’s earliest theorizing, although the term cul- in the world. People, then, are never tural was not explicitly invoked. Wundt be- monocultural, because they are always inter- lieved that no thought, judgment, or evaluation acting with multiple contexts (e.g., those delin- could be methodologically isolated from its eated by gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic sta- sociocultural base (Graumann, 1986). More tus, region, sexual orientation, occupation). explicitly, Lewin (1948) wrote: Cultural contexts are therefore not monolithic: Various combinations of cultural ideas and The perception of social space and the experimen- practices intersect within individuals, so that tal and conceptual investigation of the dynamics individuals may have different reactions to the and laws of the processes in social space are of fundamental and theoretical and practical impor- same context. Furthermore, as psychological tance.... The social climate in which a child lives tendencies are realized and expressed, they not is for the child as important as the air it breathes. only foster and reinforce but also sometimes The group to which the child belongs is the change the contexts in which they are ground on which he stands. (p. 82) grounded. The consequences of cultural en- gagement on behavior, although systematic and Similarly, Allport (1948) noted that: predictable in many aspects, are never mono- lithic and invariable. the group to which the individual belongs is the 8 I. THE DISCIPLINE AND ITS HISTORY ground for his perceptions, his feelings, and his course modes, the forms of logical and narrative actions. Most psychologists are so preoccupied explication, and the patterns of mutually depen- with the salient features of the individual’s mental dent communal life. (p. 34) life that they are prone to forget it is the ground of the social group that gives to the individual his fig- ured character. Just as the bed of a stream shapes WHAT DOES A SOCIOCULTURAL APPROACH ADD the direction and flow of water, so does the group TO PSYCHOLOGY? determine the current of an individual’s life. The interdependence of the ground and the figured flow is inescapable, intimate, dynamic, but is also In short, the social systems that the self systems elusive. (p. vii) engage derive from previous psychological ac- tivity and provide the resources and blueprints Extending these ideas, Wertsch and Sammarco for meaning-making and action. The organiz- (1985) argue forcefully, like Bruner, that to ex- ing theme of a sociocultural approach, and of plain the individual one must go beyond the in- this chapter, is that people and their social dividual. They invoke the words of Luria worlds are inseparable: They fundamentally (1981): require each other. A comprehensive social- psychological science requires mapping the In order to explain the highly complex forms of range of ways that the social world can be human consciousness, one must go beyond the made meaningful, and analysis of the processes human organism. One must seek the origins of by which this meaning making and world mak- conscious activity and “categorical” behavior not ing occur (Bruner, 1990; Markus, Kitayama, & in the recesses of the human brain or in the depths Heiman, 1996; Shweder, 1990, 2003). Just as of the spirit, but in the external conditions of life. neuroscientists scan the brain, seeking to pro- Above all, this means that one must seek these ori- duce a neural mapping of the mind, so must gins in external processes of social life, in the so- cial and transhistorical forms of human existence. psychologists scan the sociocultural environ- (p. 25) ment to generate a sociocultural mapping of the mind. Attaching a wide-angle lens to the current psychological camera so as to encom- Meaning Making as Basic Process pass more fully the sociocultural (as well as Another defining element of the sociocultural the historical) will allow researchers to iden- approach is the idea that, whereas the world tify the meaningful contexts that ground and suggests itself and can attract and bind atten- organize the cognitive, emotional, and behav- tion, the person is not simply a passive recipi- ioral tendencies observed in psychological ent of what the social world has to offer, but is studies. instead an active, intentional agent. From a Analyzing intentional worlds simultaneously sociocultural–psychological perspective, an es- as both products and shapers of psychological sential element of behavior is an engagement, activity is challenging. Many features of the so- or a coming together, an encounter, of a person cial environment—schools, churches, theaters, making sense of a world replete with meanings, marriage, as well as many other social objects, objects, and practices (Asch, 1952; Bruner, roles, practices, and relations generated in the 1990; Geertz, 1973). process of mutual constitution—are under- Most recently, in summarizing several de- standable only in terms of their social settings cades of research, Bruner (1990; see also and functions. As Asch (1952) noted, “A chair, Markus, Kitayama, & Heiman, 1996), invoked a dollar bill, a joking relative are social things; these now century-old claims about the social the most exhaustive physical, chemical and bi- and cultural nature of the mind, then extended ological analysis will fail to reveal this most es- them. He specified how cultural systems give sential property” (p. 178). form and direction to our lives. It is culture, he contends, that Meanings shapes human life and the human mind, that gives One category of the context that is central to meaning to action by situating its underlying in- understanding how the sociocultural and psy- tentional states in an interpretive system. It does chological make each other up is what Bruner this by imposing the patterns inherent in the cul- (1990) and Shweder (1990) call “meanings,” ture’s symbolic systems—its language and dis- or what Sperber (1985) and Moscovici (1981) 1. Sociocultural Psychology 9 call “representations.” Meanings or represen- distributed, provide useful ways of distinguish- tations are useful units of mutual constitution, ing among cultural contexts. Often these because they refer to constructed entities that meanings are linked to meanings of socially cannot be located solely in the head of the and historically significant categories such as meaning maker or solely in the practices or ethnicity, region of the world, or religion. products of world; they are always distributed Sociocultural psychologists have begun to sys- across both. Once ideas and images or other tematically extract divergent meanings from symbolic resources are instituted in actions and various contexts (those associated with region in the world, they are simultaneously forms of of the country or world, religion, ethnicity, social knowledge and social practices race, gender, age, sexual preference, social (Moscovici, 1981). For example, the meanings class, and occupation). They have identified associated with phenomena such as person, multiple meanings for concepts that are psy- self, group, family, sex, marriage, friendship, chological staples—concepts of self and iden- enemyship, society, mind, emotion, conscious- tity, cognition, emotion, motivation, morality, ness, time, the future, the past, life, luck, death, well-being, friendship, family, and group. They goodness, evil, and human nature provide the have identified such broad concepts as inde- substratum of images and assumptions that are pendence and interdependence that are evident essential for understanding sociocultural in some form in almost every context, but that contexts. Some of these meanings are created, differ in their prevalence, dominance, or in distributed, and instituted in response to how densely they are elaborated and distrib- critical—perhaps universal—problems of eth- uted in a given context. They have identified nicity, maturity, hierarchy, autonomy, and mo- concepts such as happiness, control, and choice rality. Others speak to particular concerns and that appear to organize middle-class American are more historically contingent or locally se- psyches and contexts but that are not particu- lected and derived. larly prevalent or salient in other contexts. One important goal of sociocultural psy- They have also distinguished many more spe- chology is to analyze the complex of meanings cific concepts that can be understood and iden- that have been naturalized and taken for tified but are not emphasized or foregrounded granted as basic human drives, needs, or psy- in the middle-class North American perspective chological processes, but that may be quite that still provides the unmarked framework of context-specific. Until recently, most psycholo- reference for most work in psychology. These gists have been Europeans and North Ameri- include concepts such as honor, shame, adjust- cans who have analyzed middle-class European ment, face, compassion, serenity, enemyship, and North American college students. The hierarchy, respect, deference, propriety, moder- dense and extensive set of representations that ation, balance, silence, divinity, restraint, and are foundational for and specific to this context relativism, as well as a growing set of concepts (including representations of independence, in- such as amae or simpatía that can be translated dividual responsibility, self-determination, self- but do not have simple English counterparts. esteem, control, freedom, equality, choice, Many sociocultural studies produce findings work, ability, intelligence, motivation, success, that are surprising and that pose questions for influence, achievement, power, and happiness), common middle-class North American under- which lend structure and coherence to behav- standings. For example, in Japanese contexts, ior, have been largely invisible and have gone happiness includes sadness (Uchida, unmarked (Jost & Major, 2001; Markus & Norasakkunkit, & Kitayama, 2004); in West Kitayama, 1994; Quinn & Crocker, 1999). African contexts, enemies are part of everyday Identifying the vast system of meanings that af- life (Adams, 2005); in Latin American con- fords agency in middle-class European and texts, work requires socializing (Sanchez-Burks North American contexts underscores the pos- & Mor Barak, 2004), and in Taiwanese con- sibility of marked differences in agency in other texts, feeling good is more likely to be identi- contexts. fied with feeling calm and tranquil than with Substantial differences in these meanings in feeling energized or excited (Tsai, Knutson, & terms of how they are conventionalized and Fung, 2006). These different ideas about what publically expressed in the environment (e.g., is normative or of value imply worlds and psy- what is self, what is the group, what is emo- ches organized in different ways from middle- tion, what is life–death), and in how they are class North American ones. 10 I. THE DISCIPLINE AND ITS HISTORY Practices grate people with the world and with each other. Cultural products can be conceptualized Cultural contexts are identified and maintained as the psychological externalized, or as the so- by not only shared subjective elements but also cial order objectified. As noted by Asch (1952), particular ways of acting and interacting in the such products have powerful effects on action. recurrent episodes of everyday life. Thus, an- For example, products such as an abacus, a other category of the sociocultural context that magazine advertisement, a child’s book, a song, can be analyzed is practices. As with meanings, the iPod on which said song is played, and, per- a focus on practices is an effort to move beyond haps most obviously, the Internet are simulta- the individual considered in isolation (Cole, neously conceptual and material. They carry 1995; Kitayama et al., 1997; P. J. Miller & with them past interactions, and they mediate Goodnow, 1995; Rogoff, 1991). An emphasis the present. These products reflect the ideas, on practices bridges the divide between think- images, understandings, and values of particu- ing and other parts of psychological activity lar contexts, and are therefore a good source of typically called “doing” or “being.” Participa- these meanings. Simultaneously, as people en- tion in routine activities, such as talking to a gage with these products, they re-present and friend, going shopping, going to the bank, at- institutionalize these ideas and values. In the tending a meeting, parenting, or teaching, ex- last few years, a growing number of psycholo- presses in concrete form what a given context gists have analyzed cultural products, including communicates about how to be a normatively song lyrics, television commercials, television appropriate person, as well as what is regarded news coverage, children’s storybooks, Web ad- as “good,” “right,” or “real.” Practices, there- vertisements, want ads, personals ads, newspa- fore, are not neutral behavior, but rather are per articles and headlines, photographs, school those that “reflect a social and moral order” and university mission statements, and social (Miller & Goodnow, 1995, p. 10). Practices, or networking sites (Aaker & Williams, 1998; H. what Bruner (1990) calls “acts,” are behaviors Kim & Markus, 1999; Plaut & Markus, 2005; that reflect intention or meaning. Practices, Rothbaum, Weisz, & Snyder, 1982; Snibbe & then, are not just behavior; they are meaning- Markus, 2005; J. Tsai, Knutson, & Fung, full acts that coordinate the actions of individu- 2006). als with those of others and maintain the social The goal of a sociocultural analysis is to ana- context. A practice perspective has been used lyze more of what is called “the situation” or to analyze, for example, processes of self- “the environment,” and to expand psychol- esteem maintenance (Heine et al., 1999; ogy’s understanding of the role of individual in Kitayama et al., 1997; P. J. Miller & Goodnow, maintaining the situations that influence them. 1995), sleeping arrangements/sleeping behav- A sociocultural approach adds to psychology a iors (Shweder, Balle-Jensen, & Goldstein, focus on the content and function of meanings, 1995), hiring decisions (D. Cohen & Nisbett, practices, and products. Such a focus succeeds 1997), prayer and religious activity (A. B. Co- in analyzing “more” of the situation, providing hen, Malka, Rozin, & Cherfas, 2006; J. L. a wider, and at the same time, a more in-depth Tsai, Miao, & Seppala, in press), talking (H. S. view. Kim, 2002), and health promotion (Markus, Curhan, & Ryff, 2006). WHAT IS A DEFINITION OF CULTURE SUITABLE Products FOR PSYCHOLOGY? Within psychology, Cole (1990) has focused on Most of the research we are categorizing under cultural contexts as defined by a continual flow the rubric of sociocultural psychology has con- of constructed activity. He describes the mate- centrated on the psychological, leaving the pat- rial flow of culture and stresses that humans terning or the distribution or the coherence of enter a world that is transformed by “the accu- the sociocultural mostly unspecified, and the mulated artifacts of previous generations.” workings of the process of mutual constitution Culture, then, is history in the present. Cole, unelaborated. For example, early cultural psy- who traces his thinking to the writings of chology investigations by J. G. Miller (1984), Vygotksy, Luria, and Leontiev, claims that the Triandis (1989), and Markus and Kitayama main function of the cultural artifact is to inte- (1991) revealed detailed representations and 1. Sociocultural Psychology 11 normative practices associated with observed stood as discrete, categorical groups that are differences in psychological tendencies. Most “internally homogeneous, externally distinc- subsequent references to these studies, how- tive objects” (Hermans & Kempen, 1998, ever, report the cultural differences observed as p. 1113). As noted by Adams and Markus those between types of people—“individual- (2004), such statements also suggest that cul- ists” and “collectivists,” or “independents” ture is an entity, or some defining cultural es- and “interdependents,” or “Westerners” and sence that groups “have.” From this perspec- “Easterners.” This type of description locates tive, culture is often understood as something the sources of the behavioral differences in extra that “other” groups “have,” and is less some internal attributes or traits of the individ- often used to make sense of ingroup behavior. uals rather than in some aspects of the cultural contexts, or in the transaction between the in- Culture as Patterns dividual and the context. Most recent scientific definitions of culture conceptualize it very differently, departing Cultural Psychology as Stereotyping 101? markedly from the idea of culture as a bundle Although it is easier to say “East Asians” or of traits or as a stable set of beliefs or norms, “interdependents” than to say “people partici- and are less likely to be vulnerable to the ste- pating in the ideas and practices that are perva- reotyping charge. Instead, culture is defined as sive in East Asian cultural contexts,” the labels, patterns of representations, actions, and arti- even if it is only a shorthand, repeatedly rein- facts that are distributed or spread by social force the sense that observed psychological ten- interaction. Under this definition, the concep- dencies (e.g., a prevalent tendency to be aware tual location of culture shifts from the interior of the preferences and expectations of close of a person to the often-implicit patterns that others and to correctly anticipate these prefer- exist simultaneously in people and in the world ences) derive from some properties or traits of with which they necessarily engage in the interdependence or collectivism rather than course of any behavior. For example, Atran et from persistent engagement in a world that is al. (2005), in a recent description of the cul- structured in specific ways, and that requires tural mind, defines culture as “causally distrib- and fosters a particular type of attention to uted patterns of mental representations, their others. public expression, and the resultant behaviors One of the formidable stumbling blocks on in given ecological contexts” (p. 751). the road to a systematic sociocultural psychol- Among the hundreds of definitions of cul- ogy has been the failure to articulate a defini- ture (Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952), many the- tion of “culture” or “the sociocultural” that orists (Adams & Markus, 2004; Shweder, fits the idea that the psychological and 2003) developing sociocultural theory have re- sociocultural are dynamically making each turned to the insights of Kroeber and other up. Without specific definitions, most ob- Kluckholn (1952): servers, laypersons, and social scientists alike have gravitated toward the simple and widely Culture consists of explicit and implicit patterns distributed idea of culture as a collection of of historically derived and selected ideas and their traits that define particular groups or collec- embodiment in institutions, practices, and arti- facts; cultural patterns may, on one hand, be con- tions of people. The commonsense idea re- sidered as products of action, and on the other as flected here is that a group is like a big person, conditioning elements of further action. (as sum- and that “culture” is the group’s “personality” marized by Adams & Markus, 2004, p. 341; em- or “character.” phasis in original). In everyday discourse, people make state- ments such as “He has visited 34 cultures,” Using this type of definition, the focus is not suggesting that cultures are specified by on studying culture as collections of people, geographical boundaries. Other seemingly but is instead on how psychological process commonsense statements include “Members of may be implicitly and explicitly shaped by the Chinese culture are family oriented,” or worlds, contexts, or cultural systems that peo- “Members of Mexican culture are hierarchi- ple inhabit. Culture, then, is not about groups cal.” Such statements can easily imply the view of people—the Japanese, the Americans, the that cultures are monolithic and can be under- 12 I. THE DISCIPLINE AND ITS HISTORY whites, the Latinos; thus, it is not groups them- and be free from influence by others. In con- selves that should be studied. Rather, the focus trast, in East Asian cultural contexts, choice— should be on the implicit and explicit patterns like many actions—is an interpersonal phe- of meanings, practices, and artifacts distributed nomenon, an expression of one’s public stance, throughout the contexts in which people par- and is subject to social evaluation and criti- ticipate, and on how people are engaged, in- cism. As a consequence of this very different voked, incorporated, contested or changed by culturally shared and practiced model of agents to complete themselves and guide their agency, making a choice in public renders peo- behavior. These ideas, practices, and artifacts, ple vulnerable to a loss of face, honor, or repu- although not a fixed or coherent set and not tation. shared equally by all in a given context, create Together these studies examining variation and maintain the social level of reality that in patterns of attention to self and other in the lends coherence to behavior and renders ac- two contexts show that when choices are pub- tions meaningful within a given cultural con- lic, where the scrutiny of others is possible, text. rather than private, people in East Asian cul- A recent program of research on cognitive tural contexts are likely to justify their actions. dissonance in East Asian and European Ameri- Other studies varying the nature of the other can contexts (Kitayama, Snibbe, Markus, & invoked during the choice situation—a liked Suzuki, 2004) is an example of a “culture as versus disliked other—revealed that partici- patterns” approach. These studies, along with pants in East Asian contexts were particularly earlier ones by Heine and Lehman (1997), sensitive to the interpersonal nature of the situ- demonstrate that people in East Asian cultural ation compared with those in European Ameri- contexts did not show dissonance when tested can contexts. An analysis of this type illumi- in the standard dissonance conditions. In these nates context differences in normative patterns studies participants rank-ordered a set of com- of how to be a person, and when and how to pact discs (CDs) according to their own prefer- reference others. Still other studies by research- ences. Later, they were offered a choice be- ers focusing on choice as a prototypical agentic tween the fifth- and sixth-ranked CDs. When act (Iyengar & DeVoe, 2003; Savani, Markus, asked to give a second ranking of the 10 CDs, & Snibbe, 2006; Stephens, Markus, & North Americans, but not East Asians, showed Townsend, 2006) show that because choice in a strong justification effect; that is, they rated North American contexts is a signature of au- the CD that they had chosen more highly than thentic agency and functions as a powerful the unchosen CD. Demonstrating one such dif- schema for organizing behavior, people orga- ference between people engaging in two differ- nize their own behavior and that of others in ent cultural contexts was not the end, however, terms of choices and make inferences about but rather the beginning of this series of stud- behavior in terms of choice. By focusing on the ies. The goal was to account for the observed behavioral patterns affording choice and ana- difference in terms of different patterns of ideas lyzing how choice is understood and practiced and practices relevant to choice, and further- in the two contexts, these studies underscore more, to understand what meanings and func- that differences in behavior among North tions choice had in the two cultural contexts. In Americans and Japanese are neither a result of a series of subsequent studies, the situation was something they “have” nor a matter of diver- manipulated such that North American and gent traits or attributes. Instead, these differ- East Asian participants made either a “public” ences are a function of something they do, of or “private” choice. In the public condition, re- differences in their actions that result from en- spondents were asked to consider the prefer- gaging different symbolic resources and social ences of others or were exposed to the sche- systems. matic faces of others. In these conditions East Asians, but not North Americans, revealed a tendency to justify their choices. ASSESSING MUTUAL CONSTITUTION: A careful analysis of the patterns of meaning WHAT ARE THE CURRENT APPROACHES? and practices relevant to choice in East Asian and North American contexts explains these How are psychologists empirically examining sharp differences in behavior. For North Amer- the dynamic interdependence between socio- icans, prevalent models of agency suggest that cultural context and mind? One important is- choices should express individual preferences sue to consider is how researchers conceptual- 1. Sociocultural Psychology 13 ize the psychological system with which the cial” (p. 13). He asks why psychologists have sociocultural system is interacting. Psycholo- not organized their study of the psychological gists have typically carved up the psychological with these, or other, particular bits. space into cognition, emotion, and motivation, Surveying current empirical work in the field and it is the cognitive system that has been the of sociocultural psychology, five major ap- most elaborated in recent decades (Wierzbicka, proaches emerge from the literature, offering 1994). These psychological systems have typi- perspectives on how to capture the dynamic in- cally been assumed to function similarly across terdependence between the psychological and all people, but the database of psychological re- the sociocultural. These five approaches are search has been based “almost completely on outlined first in this section. They are not mu- findings from samples of less than 10–15% of tually exclusive, although researchers utilizing the populations on the face of the earth” them often attempt to conceptualize and inves- (Rozin, 2001, p. 13), such as North America, tigate empirically the psychological study of Western Europe, and other regions in the sociocultural constitution in different ways. English-speaking world (see also Gergen & Da- What varies among them is how they theoreti- vis, 1985; Sears, 1986). This reliance on such a cally conceptualize and empirically investigate limited sampling of the human population may the psychological, the sociocultural, and the have led psychologists to conceptualize the psy- constituting relationship between the two. For chological system in a fashion more congruent each approach, this review focuses on its previ- with their sample and with the cultural con- ous or prototypical, rather than prospective, texts most familiar to them. contributions. Psychologists studying the dynamic interde- Following this description of the five ap- pendence between mind and culture have con- proaches, some of the proposed central mecha- fronted the following questions in their re- nisms and mediating processes that fashion the search approach: relationship between the cultural and the psy- chological are discussed. Finally, at the end of 1. What counts as the psychological? this chapter, an important distinction emerging 2. What counts as the sociocultural? in cultural psychological research is high- 3. What is the nature of the mutually constitut- lighted: conceptualizing culture as a constitut- ing relationship linking the two together? ing process versus a method of social influence. Figure 1.1 summarizes and organizes the Whether or not the psychological system func- perspectives articulated by the five approaches. tions similarly across all humans has been a The schematics associated with each approach central issue for psychologists assuming a represent graphically how each approach con- sociocultural approach. Some would argue that ceptualizes the link between the psychological the psychological system is universal, that it is and the sociocultural. Each schematic contains made up from the same basic bits in the same a P, which represents the various structures and fundamental fashion—in terms of cognition, processes of the psychological system, and an emotion, and motivation—across all socio- SC, which represents elements of the various cultural contexts. Others ask why the psycho- sociocultural contexts with which the psycho- logical system has been carved up in this partic- logical system engages. The size of the Ps rela- ular way, and whether or not it should be tive to the SCs vary to indicate the relative em- conceptualized in the same manner across all phasis placed on the psychological or the social worlds in which people engage. sociocultural in each approach’s theoretical Wierzbicka (1994), for example, notes that and empirical work. In each schematic, the ar- typical categories of emotion used in most psy- rows represent how the sociocultural and the chological research may “constitute cultural psychological are considered to interact with artifacts of Anglo culture reflected in, and con- one another, and we reflect this by varying the tinually reinforced by, the English language” direction of the arrows and whether they are (p. 135). Rozin (2001), for example, identifies solid or dashed. A solid arrow indicates that food, religion, ritual, leisure, sports, music, the relationship is relatively well specified, drama, money, and work as the major domains while a dashed arrow indicates that the rela- of human social life, thus contending that tionship is relatively less well specified in each “there is no doubt that food, work, and leisure approach’s theoretical and empirical work. are the three most time consuming waking ac- Three of the schematics include additional tivities of human beings, and are all deeply so- terms (dimension, ecology, and situation) be- 14 I. THE DISCIPLINE AND ITS HISTORY FIGURE 1.1. Current approaches in psychology to studying the dynamic interdependence between the cul- tural and the psychological. SC indicates the sociocultural system, and P indicates the psychological sys- tem. cause they are focal concepts explicitly theo- dimensions. Thus, each context’s distribution rized in each perspective. of behavior patterns, norms, attitudes, and per- sonality variables can be measured and com- pared (Triandis, 1989). Triandis (1996) terms Five Major Approaches this series of dimensions cultural syndromes, The Dimensional Approach: which are “dimensions of cultural variation A Focus on Quantifying Differences that can be used as parameters of psychological theories” (p. 407), are composed of attitudes, Several cross-cultural researchers (e.g., beliefs, norms, roles, self-definitions, and val- Hofstede, 1980, 1990; Leung, 1987; Schwartz, ues shared by members in a given cultural con- 1990; Triandis, 1989, 1990, 1995) explain the text and can be organized around a series of source of cultural psychological variation by central themes. The effect of the sociocultural identifying certain key dimensions along which on the psychological is therefore assumed to be cultural contexts may differ. They argue that, “defined” by where a specific combination of for culture to function as a useful explanatory people engaging in that culture, on average, variable, it should be conceptualized as a com- “score” along a series of dimensions, thereby plex, multidimensional structure that can be creating a particular patterning or cultural pro- evaluated along a set of particular dimensions. file (i.e., syndrome). The dimensional ap- Cultural differences may reflect underlying ba- proach, therefore, attempts to capture the ways sic value orientations, beliefs, and worldviews the sociocultural may constitute the psycholog- prevalent in a context; however, these differ- ical by organizing potential sources of differ- ences can be best and most parsimoniously ence along a series of dimensions. captured by identifying and describing cultures Some examples of these dimensions according to where they fall along a series of are power distance, uncertainty avoidance, 1. Sociocultural Psychology 15 masculinity–femininity, and individualism– themselves. Thus, SC is connected to P only collectivism (Hofstede, 1980); tightness, com- through particular dimensions, and SC and P plexity, active–passive, honor, collectivism– are not treated with equal emphasis. The di- individualism, and vertical–horizontal relation- mensional approach thereby offers a method ships (Triandis, 1989, 1990, 1995, 1996); and of conceptualizing what can be considered mastery, hierarchy, conservatism, affective au- “meta-constitution,” or a method of organiz- tonomy, intellectual authority, egalitarian com- ing the effects of mutual constitution without mitment, and harmony (Schwartz, 1990). An focusing on constituting processes themselves. example of how these dimensions function is Furthermore, this approach has not yet at- that although both Sweden and Germany are tempted to address the dynamic, changing na- individualistic contexts, (or contexts privileg- ture of culture and its interdependence with ing a notion of personhood as independent, au- the psychological, and can appear to view tonomous, and personally motivated), Sweden this relationship as rather static. is a horizontally individualistic context, em- phasizing egalitarian social relations, while The Sociocultural Models Approach: Germany is a vertically individualistic context, A Focus on the Interacting Self System emphasizing a hierarchical conception of rela- and Sociocultural System tions between people and groups (Triandis, 1995). Thus, Swedish and German contexts, Sociocultural models can be defined as cultur- and their corresponding constitution of the ally derived and selected ideas (both implicit psychological, can be more accurately charac- and explicit) and practices (both informal and terized by utilizing both dimensions, and po- formal) about what is real, true, beautiful, tential cultural psychological effects can be good, and right—and what is not—that are more precisely understood. embodied, enacted, or instituted in a given con- In this approach, therefore, the cultural di- text (Markus & Kitayama, 2004; Shweder, mension is the way of capturing how the 2003). Thus, sociocultural models give form sociocultural and the psychological interact. and direction to individual experience, for The dimensional approach places emphasis example, perception, cognition, emotion, moti- upon providing a parsimonious organizing vation, action. For example, models of agency structure by which a wide array of cultural ele- provide implicit guidelines for “how to be,” re- ments and their effects on the psychological flecting both descriptive and normative under- can be measured and compared; thus, they can standings of how and why people act be understood as dimensions of constitution. (Kitayama & Uchida, 2005; Markus et al., These dimensions of constitution can thereby 2005). Sociocultural models are dynamic, in be systematically organized around a particular that they both contribute to the mutual consti- set of effects. Furthermore, this approach cre- tution of culture and mind, and remain muta- ates a common metric by which different con- ble over time (Fiske et al., 1998). The concept textual influences on the psychological may be of sociocultural models derives from cultural compared along a discrete number of elements. and cognitive anthropology, as well as The dimensional approach, however, places sociocultural psychology (D’Andrade, 1990; little emphasis on the process by which the Fiske et al., 1998; Holland & Quinn, 1987; sociocultural and the psychological mutually Shore, 1996; Shweder, 1990; Shweder et al., constitute one another. It focuses on organiz- 1998; Strauss, 1992). ing the effects of the sociocultural on the psy- Shared meaning is central to their existence, chological, but as of yet has little to say in that a sociocultural model can be described about how this relationship functions. For the as an intersubjective cognitive schema most part, this approach has not focused on (D’Andrade, 1990). Cultural schemas, further- how psychological values and attitudes might more, “are presupposed, taken for granted be translated into social institutions, conven- models of the world that are widely shared tions, and habitual psychological tendencies. (though not to the exclusion of other alterna- For this reason, the schematic for this ap- tive models) by the members of a society and proach (Figure 1.1) highlights that the dimen- that play an enormous role in their understand- sional perspective focuses on quantifying the ing of the world and their behavior in it” (Hol- ways in which SC may interact with P, with- land & Quinn, 1987, p. 4). Sociocultural mod- out examining the constituting processes els are frequently imperceptible to the minds 16 I. THE DISCIPLINE AND ITS HISTORY that engage them, because they are represented Wertsch, 1991), morality (J. D. Miller, Bersoff, at the private, internal, mental level and func- & Harwood, 1990; Shweder, Much, tion by providing blueprints for how to think, Mahapatra, & Park, 1997), food and eating feel, and act—how to be—in the world. behavior (Rozin, 1996), intergroup relations Particularly important to the sociocultural (Plaut & Markus, 2005), education (Fryberg & models approach is that models not only exist Markus, 2006; Li, 2003), work ethic (Sanchez- in the minds of people participating in a partic- Burks, 2002), honor (D. Cohen, Nisbett, ular context but also structure the worlds in Bowdle, & Schwarz, 1996; Nisbett & Cohen, which people live. Culture is understood as 1996), hierarchy (A. Y. Tsai & Markus, 2006), public and exists before individuals participate relationships (Adams, 2005; Fiske, 1991, in it (J. G. Miller, 1999). Shore (1996) empha- 1992), and well-being (Markus, Curhan, & sizes the point that cultural models exist not Ryff, 2006; Plaut, Markus, & Lachman, 2002). only as “cognitive constructs ‘in the mind’ of For example, people engaging in working- members of a community” (p. 44) but also as class (WK) contexts are more likely to inhabit public artifacts and institutions “in the world” social and material worlds that afford fewer re- (see Berger & Luckmann, 1966). Hence, cul- sources, less opportunities for control and tural models are also represented at the public, choice, and more interdependence with family external, social, material level. This approach and kin than do people engaging in middle- thereby focuses on how culture exists both “in class (MD) contexts (Markus et al., 2005; the head” and “in the world,” demonstrating Snibbe & Markus, 2005). As a consequence, that culture not only interacts with the psycho- people in WK contexts are less disturbed than logical via the “heads” of people engaging in a those in MD contexts when others usurp their particular context but also via the material ability to make a choice, because choice mak- worlds that people inhabit. ing, and the self-expression and control over The existence of cultural models is dynamic environmental contingencies that it affords, and mutually constituted by person and envi- does not structure what it means to have a ronment, contingent upon and negotiated good and normatively appropriate self in WK through “endless social exchanges” (Shore, contexts (Snibbe & Markus, 2005). Moreover, 1996). The theory of social representations WK ideas about the right way to be in the (Moscovici, 1981), deriving from sociology world are more likely to foster a model of well- and social psychology, is another articulation being focused on interdependent relations with of a sociocultural models approach, emphasiz- close others (predominantly family and kin), ing that systems of values, ideas, practices, and and adjusting to obligations rather than a products serve as orienting devices that allow model of well-being focused on developing and people to successfully navigate their social expressing the self—the model most prevalent worlds. Furthermore, social representations en- in MD contexts (Markus et al., 2005). Most able effective communication to take place importantly, these differences are reflected not among members existing in the same context only in the psychological processes of those en- through engagement with shared meanings gaging in MD and WK contexts but also in ev- (Moscovici, 1981). eryday cultural products—including, for exam- The sociocultural models approach has been ple, popular song lyrics and magazine utilized to examine phenomena such as self sys- advertisements—that contribute to the struc- tems (Heine et al., 1999; Markus & Kitayama, turing of WK and MD worlds, replete with dif- 1991; Markus et al., 1997), agency (Kitayama ferent meanings, practices, and structures com- & Uchida, 2005; Markus & Kitayama, 2004; municating how to be and what kinds of self Markus et al., 2005; Snibbe & Markus, 2005), and life are normal, valued, and good. modes of being (Kitayama, Duffy, & Uchida, Sociocultural models organize the interplay Chapter 6, this volume), emotion (Mesquita, between the more discrete elements of the 2003; J. L. Tsai, Chentsova-Dutton, Freire- sociocultural and the psychological systems Bebeau, & Przymus, 2002), motivation (H. identified in the mutual constitution model of Kim & Markus, 1999), cognitive and social de- culture and psyche (see Fiske et al., 1998) and velopment (Cole, 1985, 1992; Cole, Gay, described previously. For this reason, the sche- Glick, & Sharp, 1971; Greenfield & Childs, matic reflecting this approach contains one 1977a, 1977b; Maynard & Greenfield, 2003; large, bidirectional arrow linking P and SC Moiser & Rogoff, 2003; Rogoff, 1991, 1995; (Figure 1.1). Through the bidirectionality of 1. Sociocultural Psychology 17 this large arrow, we represent the theoretical meaning in the world. The “culture as tools” and empirical attention paid to the mutual con- approach builds on the early work of Sapir stitution process itself by researchers utilizing (1956) and Whorf (1956). The tool kit of any this approach. The center of the arrow is com- given culture, explains Bruner (1990), “can be posed of several lines, intended to represent the described as a set of prosthetic devices by variety of ways in which difference levels of the which human beings can exceed or even rede- sociocultural systems (i.e., pervasive cultural fine the ‘natural limits’ of human functioning” ideas and the institutions, products, and every- (p. 21). Culture may be best conceptualized as day practices that reflect and promote these a cognitive tool kit in three primary ways ideas) and the psychological system sustain and (Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001). foster one another. Since the cultural models The first is that even if all cultural contexts approach attempts to delineate the process of mutual constitution by organizing how cultural possessed essentially the same basic cognitive pro- patterns both exist and necessarily depend cesses as their tools, the tools of choice for the upon how they are manifested and made real same problem may be habitually very different. People may differ markedly in their beliefs about both “in the head” and “in the world,” this whether a problem is one requiring use of a approach focuses on the constitution process wrench or pliers, in their skill in using the two itself. Additionally, the relative emphasis types of tools, and in the location of particular placed on SC and P in this approach is compa- tools at the top or the bottom of the toolkit. rable. Moreover, members of different cultures may not Like the tool kit approach we discuss next, see the same stimulus situation “in need of re- the models perspective contests the content– pair.” (Nisbett et al., 2001, p. 306) process distinction, in that culture does not en- ter the psychological by influencing the basic The second is that “cultures may construct psychological system, but rather is deeply in- composite cognitive tools out of the basic uni- volved in the constitution of the psychological versal tool kit, thereby performing acts of elab- itself. W

Handbook of Cultural Psychology PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue