Publication | Closed Access
Within- and between-culture variation: Individual differences and the cultural logics of honor, face, and dignity cultures.
662
Citations
54
References
2011
Year
Cultural LogicsCultural RelationSocial PsychologyIndividual DifferencesDifferent LogicsCultural FactorCultural StudiesSocial SciencesBetween-culture VariationCultural DiversityCultural TraditionsSocial NormsCultural NormsLanguage StudiesDignity CulturesCross-cultural IssueSocial IdentityCultural PracticeCross-cultural StudiesApplied Social PsychologyCultural SensitivityCross-cultural EthicsMoral PsychologyCultureProsocial BehaviorCultural PracticesSocial BehaviorCross-cultural PerspectiveAnthropologyCulture ChangeCultural AnthropologyCultural Psychology
The CuPS (Culture × Person × Situation) framework jointly considers culture and individual differences, recognizing that culture shapes psychological situations and clusters of behavior, while individual differences vary in how strongly people endorse or reject a culture’s ideals, and that these meanings differ across cultures organized by distinct logics such as honor, face, and dignity. The authors illustrate their CuPS argument by conducting two experiments with participants from honor, face, and dignity cultures. The studies found that a person who is most helpful, honest, and integral in one culture is least likely to behave similarly in another, and the authors argue that CuPS offers an integrated framework for understanding such within‑ and between‑culture variation.
The CuPS (Culture × Person × Situation) approach attempts to jointly consider culture and individual differences, without treating either as noise and without reducing one to the other. Culture is important because it helps define psychological situations and create meaningful clusters of behavior according to particular logics. Individual differences are important because individuals vary in the extent to which they endorse or reject a culture's ideals. Further, because different cultures are organized by different logics, individual differences mean something different in each. Central to these studies are concepts of honor-related violence and individual worth as being inalienable versus socially conferred. We illustrate our argument with 2 experiments involving participants from honor, face, and dignity cultures. The studies showed that the same "type" of person who was most helpful, honest, and likely to behave with integrity in one culture was the "type" of person least likely to do so in another culture. We discuss how CuPS can provide a rudimentary but integrated approach to understanding both within- and between-culture variation.
| Year | Citations | |
|---|---|---|
Page 1
Page 1