Diferencia entre revisiones de «Psicología de la cultura»

A menudo se confunde la psicología de la cultura con la [[psicología intercultural]]. Sin embargo, la psicología de la cultura se diferencia de la psicología intercultural en cuanto a que los psicólogos interculturales por lo general utilizan la cultura como un medio de probar la universalidad de los procesos psicológicos en vez de determinar como las prácticas culturales locales modelas los procesos psicológicos.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Heine | first1 = S. | last2 = Ruby | first2 = M. B. | year = 2010 | title = Cultural Psychology | url = | journal = Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science | volume = 1 | issue = | page = 2 | doi = 10.1002/wcs.7 }}</ref> Por lo que mientras que un psicólogo intercultural se puede preguntar si las etapas de desarrollo de [[Jean Piaget]] son universales a través de las diversas culturas, un psicólogo de la cultura se interesará por saber como es que las prácticas sociales de un conjunto específico de culturas modela de diferentes maneras el desarrollo de los procesos cognitivos.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Markus | first1 = H.R. | last2 = Kitayama | first2 = S. | year = 2003 | title = Culture, Self, and the Reality of the Social | url = | journal = Psychological Inquiry | volume = 14 | issue = 3| pages = 277–83 | doi = 10.1207/S15327965PLI1403&4_17 }}</ref>

 

<!--

==Importancia==

"One way we organize and understand our social world is through the use of cultural models or culturally shaped mental maps. These consist of culturally derived ideas and practices that are embodied, enacted, or instituted in everyday life." Cultural psychologists develop models to categorize cultural phenomena.<ref name="Fryberg">{{cite journal | last1 = Fryberg | first1 = S.A. | last2 = Markus | first2 = H.R. | year = 2007 | title = Cultural models of education in American Indian, Asian America, and European American contexts | url = | journal = Social Psychology of Education | volume = 10 | issue = | pages = 1381–2890 | doi = 10.1007/s11218-007-9017-z }}</ref>

 

 

 

The first "I" concerns how an individual thinks about and expresses itself. Studies show that in the United States, individuals are more likely think of him or herself as "independent", "equal", and "individualistic". Individuals have characteristics that are consistent across time and situation. When asked to describe themselves, Americans are likely to use adjectives to describe their personalities, such as "energetic", "friendly", or "hard-working". In Japan, studies show that individuals are more likely to think of themselves as "obligated to society", "interdependent", and "considerate". The self is adaptable to the situation. Japanese individuals are therefore more likely to describe themselves in relation to others, such as "I try not to upset anyone," or "I am a father, a son, and a brother."<ref name=":21">Heine, S. (2011). Cultural Psychology. San Francisco: W. W. Norton & Co.</ref>

 

Interactions with other people and products reinforce cultural behaviors on a daily basis. Stories, songs, architecture, and advertisements are all methods of interaction that guide individuals in a culture to promote certain values and teach them how to behave.<ref name=":20" /> For example, in Japan, no-smoking signs emphasize the impact that smoke has on others by illustrating the path of smoke as it affects surrounding people. In the US, no-smoking signs focus on individual action by simply saying "No Smoking". These signs reflect underlying cultural norms and values, and when people see them they are encouraged to behave in accordance with the greater cultural values.

 

The next layer of culture is made up of the institutions in which everyday interactions take place. These determine and enforce the rules for a society and include legal, government, economic, scientific, philosophical, and religious bodies. Institutions encourage certain practices and products while discouraging others. In Japanese kindergartens, children learn about important cultural values such as teamwork, group harmony, and cooperation. During "birthday month celebration," for example, the class celebrates all the children who have birthdays that month. This institutional practice underscores the importance of a group over an individual. In US kindergartens, children learn their personal value when they celebrate their birthdays one by one, enforcing the cultural value of uniqueness and individualism. Everyday institutional practices such as classroom birthday celebrations propagate prominent cultural themes.<ref name=":20" /><ref name=":21" />

 

 

 

Many researchers have expanded upon the Whiting model,<ref name="Worthman" /> and the Whiting model's influence is clear in both modern psychology and anthropology. According to an article by Thomas Weisner in the ''[[Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology]]'', "All these [more recent] approaches share a common intellectual project: to take culture and context deeply and seriously into account in studies of human development."<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Weisner | first1 = T.S. | year = 2010 | title = John and Beatrice Whiting's Contributions to the Cross-Cultural Study of Human Development: Their Values, Goals, Norms, and Practices | url = http://jcc.sagepub.com/content/41/4/499.full.pdf+html | journal = Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology | volume = 41 | issue = | pages = 499–509 | doi = 10.1177/0022022110362720 }}</ref>

 

 

A main distinction to understand when looking at psychology and culture is the difference between [[Individualism|individualistic]] and [[Collectivism|collectivistic]] cultures. People from an individualistic culture typically demonstrate an independent view of the self; the focus is usually on personal achievement.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Prooijen|first1=J.|title=Individualistic and social motives for justice judgments|journal=Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences|date=2013|volume=1299|issue=1|pages=60–67|doi=10.1111/nyas.12143|pmid=25708080}}</ref> Members of a collectivistic society have more of a focus on the group (interdependent view of self), usually focusing on things that will benefit the group.<ref name="Hui (1988)">{{cite journal|last1=Hui|first1=C.H.|title=Measurement of individualism-collectivism|journal=Journal of Research in Personality|date=1988|volume=22|issue=1|pages=17–36|doi=10.1016/0092-6566(88)90022-0}}</ref> Research has shown such differences of the self when comparing collectivistic and individualistic cultures: The [[Fundamental attribution error|Fundamental Attribution Error]] has been shown to be more common in America (individualistic) as compared to in India (collectivistic).<ref name="Ross (1977)">{{cite book|author1=Ross|authorlink1=L.|editor1-last=Berkowitz|editor1-first=L.|title=Advances in Experimental Social Psychology|date=1977|publisher=Academic Press|location=New York|edition=4th|chapter=The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process}}</ref> Along these same lines, the self-serving bias was again shown as more common among Americans than Japanese individuals.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Kashima|first1=Y.|last2=Triandis|first2=H.C.|title=The self-serving bias in attributions as a coping strategy: A cross-cultural study|journal=Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology|date=1986|volume=17|issue=1|pages=83–97|doi=10.1177/0022002186017001006}}</ref> This is not to imply that collectivism and individualism are completely dichotomous, but these two cultural orientations are to be understood more so as a spectrum. Each representation is at either end; thus, some members of individualistic cultures may hold collectivistic values, and some collectivistic individual may hold some individualist values. The concepts of collectivism and individualism show a general idea of the values of a specific ethnic culture but should not be juxtaposed in competition.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Hofstede|first1=G.|title=Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values|date=1980|publisher=Sage|location=Beverly Hills, CA}}</ref>

 

These differences in values across cultures suggests that understanding and expressing empathy may be manifested differently throughout varying cultures. Duan and Hill<ref name="Duan & Hill (1996)">{{cite journal|last1=Duan|first1=C.|last2=Hill|first2=C.E.|title=The current state of empathy research|journal=Journal of Counseling Psychology|date=1996|volume=15|issue=1|pages=57–81}}</ref> first discussed empathy in subcategories of intellectual empathy: taking on someone's thoughts/perspective, also known as cognitive empathy<ref name="Soto & Levenson (2009)">{{cite journal|last1=Soto|first1=J.A.|last2=Levenson|first2=R.W.|title=Emotion recognition across culture: The influence of ethnicity on empathic accuracy and physiological linkage|journal=Emotion|date=2009|volume=9|issue=6|doi=10.1037/a0017399|pages=874–884}}</ref> and emotional empathy: taking on someone's feeling/experience. Duan, Wei, and Wang<ref name="Duan, Wei, & Wang (2008)">{{cite journal|last1=Duan|first1=C.|last2=Wei|first2=M.|last3=Wang|first3=L.|title=The role of individualism-collectivism|journal=Asian Journal of Counseling|date=2008|volume=29|issue=3|pages=57–81}}</ref> furthered this idea to include empathy in terms of being either dispositional (capacity for noticing/understanding empathy) or experiential (specific to a certain context or situation, observing the person and empathizing). This created four types of empathy to further examine: 1) dispositional intellectual empathy; 2) dispositional empathic emotion; 3) experienced intellectual empathy; and 4) experienced empathic emotion. These four branches allowed researchers to examine empathic proclivities among individuals of different cultures. While individualism was not shown to correlate with either types of dispositional empathy, collectivism was shown to have a direct correlation with both types of dispositional empathy, possibly suggesting that by having less focus on the self, there is more capacity towards noticing the needs of others. More so, individualism predicted experienced intellectual empathy, and collectivism predicted experienced empathic emotion. These results are congruent with the values of collectivistic and individualistic societies. The self-centered identity and egoistic motives prevalent in individualistic cultures, perhaps acts as a hindrance in being open to (fully) experiencing empathy.<ref name="Kitayama & Markus (1994)">{{cite book|last1=Kitayama|first1=S.|last2=Markus|first2=H.R.|title=Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual influence|date=1994|publisher=American Psychological Association|location=Washington, DC}}</ref>