Cross-Cultural Psychology

TR 9:25 am - 10:40 am B33

Texts:

 PAPER:

• This is not a paper in the traditional sense. Rather, you will be putting together a scrapbook. It is due on November 26.
• Begin collecting clippings which can be used to illustrate concepts that are presented in the lectures and/or in the text. The clipping (or a photocopy) should be small enough to fit in a single page and should come from nonprofessional sources. Therefore, any article from a psychology journal, including Psychology Today, should not be included, both because it comes from a professional source and because it generally will be too long. The clippings instead, should come from newspapers, news magazines, catalogues, advertisements. Any clipping which illustrates any aspect of cross-cultural differences is appropriate. The clippings can be photographs, brief news articles, or cartoons.
• One clipping or a set of related clippings should be attached to each page. Write a commentary to accompany each clipping or set of related clippings, describing how that clipping illustrates some aspect of cross-cultural differences presented in text and/or lecture. If the clipping shows some characteristic of American culture which differs from other cultures, point out specifically how we behave or think differently from others. In other words, describe the American cultural norm illustrated by the clipping and then describe the norm in another, specified culture. Don't just say that other cultures do things differently. Conversely, if the clipping shows some aspect of another culture which differs from ours, specify this difference. Each commentary should be from five to eight sentences long and should describe completely the concept being illustrated. Each clipping and accompanying commentary should fit on one page.
• You will be graded on how accurately a clipping illustrates a concept or research finding, completeness of description, and insight. You must have 10 commentaries illustrating different concepts or research findings. 10 points will be subtracted for each missing commentary or repeated concept. This assignment is the equivalent of one exam grade.
• Examples of what you might include are photographs or clippings which illustrate cultural differences in family structure, emotional or verbal expressiveness, gender roles, marriage partner choices, styles of communication, obedience, aggression, individualism-collectivism, helping, etc. This assignment should not be too difficult since the text and the book of readings are loaded with examples of cultural differences.
• Please do not enclose the pages of your scrapbook in clear plastic. Instead, staple them together or put them in a binder.

ATTENDANCE:

Good attendance and class participation is expected since I try to key the multiple-choice exams to the class lectures. However, I will also reward excellent attendance by adding points to your final average. If your attendance is perfect, I will add 4 points. If you miss one class, I add 3 points. If you miss two classes, I add 2 points. And if you miss three classes, I give 1 point. These points don't sound significant, but since they are added to your final average, they can sometimes make the difference between a higher and lower grade.

MAKEUPS:

Makeup exams will only be given if you have a valid excuse for missing the exam. For your sake, make every effort not to miss any exams. Makeups will be given at my convenience, not yours. All makeup exams will be given on specified dates at specified times and locations. The makeup schedule will be posted on my web site and outside of the Psychology Department Office.

Culture, Self, and Meaning

Victor de Munck

In this highly informative and interdisciplinary exploration of the relationship between culture and psyche, de Munck provides a substantive introduction to pertinent issues, theory, and empirical studies that lie at the junction of psychology, sociology, and anthropology. This engagingly written text reviews various approaches to such questions as: Where is culture located—inside or outside the head? What is the self—is there a single, unified self or do many selves inhabit the body? Do institutional structures form to meet our needs—or are our everyday lives simply a result of institutional structures? What is meaning and how do we study it? de Munck’s examination of these different approaches illuminates the importance of the topic, expands readers’ understanding of human life, and points to psychological anthropology’s relevance in affecting public policies.
 

113 pages, $12.50 list; ISBN 1-57766-137-0

“A brilliant and provocative summation of the developments in psychological anthropology dealing with the central issues of culture, self, and meaning.”  — Ken Kensinger

“An excellent text for culture and personality courses. It is readable and opens the subject so that the student can begin the process of questioning the relationship between culture and self.” —H. Bruce Stokes, California Baptist University
 

“Culture, Self, and Meaning is one of the most insightful books I have read in our field in some time. The author should be congratulated on doing such illuminating work.” —Ray Scupin
 

“This thoughtful book is an excellent introduction to the three concepts named in the title, and provides nice, balanced coverage of opposing viewpoints in discussion of the concepts. I will highly recommend it.” —Brian Stross, University of Texas
 

“I ordered it for my psychological anthropology class. It’s cutting edge!” —Dona Davis, University of South Dakota
 

“I find the chapter on the self especially good. It brings together the literature comprehensively and offers a convincing argument against multiple, fragmented selves.” —Leslie Irvine, University of Colorado
 

“The theme, the clarity, and the organization of the book make it manageable, understandable, and applicable. It applies to life ‘outside’ the classroom also!” —Judith A. Siebert, University of Iowa
 

“The de Munck text is a concise, well-organized book that addresses all of the key elements needed to get a basic understanding of personality, culture, and meaning from an anthropological and psychological perspective.” —Marilyn Moore, California Baptist University
 

Table of Contents

1. Surveying the Terrain

2. Where Is Culture Located?

Culture Is Located Outside / Culture Is Located in People’s Heads / Real-World Implications of the “Outside/Inside” Theories of Culture

3. What (or Who) Is the Self?

A Brief History of the Self / Theories of the Self as Multiple and Singular / The Self as a Necessary Illusion /       The Postmodern Self / Does the Concept of Self Vary Cross-Culturally? / Summary

4. What Is Meaning?

Early Ethnoscience Approaches to Meaning / Taxonomies, Paradigms, and Marking Hierarchies: Three Universal Cognitive Structures         / Prototypes and Graded Categories / The Schema Concept

Introduction to Cultural Sport Psychology: Special Edition

Robert J. Schinke, Ginette Michel, Richard Danielson,
Alain Gauthier, & Patricia Pickard
School of Human Kinetics
Laurentian University
Sudbury, Ontario
Canada

Introduction to Cultural Psychology Forum

Re: Toipc 4: Cultural Psychology

Posted By: Jannine Davies <Janninedavies@hotmail.com>
Date: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 10:36 a.m.

In Response To: Toipc 4: Cultural Psychology (Dave Hiles)

The proposal by the American linguist and anthropolgist Edward Sapir and his pupil Benjamin Lee Whorf that "people who speak diffenret languages percieve and thing about the world quite differently", comes from the theory that language detemines thought; if there is no way to express a concept in a language, then that concept is not availabe for people who speak that language.

One of the major implications that is apparent from this propasl means that it would never really be possilbe to translate an idea perfectly from one language to another, as thought processes would be different. 'Is this the reaosn why conflicts occur'?

In my opinion this theory is to simplistic, there are numerous factors which determine thought, after all individuals who speak the same language still have diffenrt perceptions and thoughts about the world. For example, sub-cultures. Within a particular language speaking culture there are sub-cultures, each of which may be very different from one another, and sometimes people belonging to these sub-cultures have very different ways of seeing the world despite speaking the same language.

The factors that I believe influence individuals thoughts are things such as innate charecterisitics, gender, age, education, upbringing, etc.

Another implication that arises, is what about individuals who are able to speak multiple languages, do they have differnet thoughts depending on what language they are speaking at the time?

An alternative to this theory is known as Cognitive Determinism, of which is the flip side to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, thus being that thought determines language (language is the tool of thought). Evidence by Vygotsky also gives a different view of which is that language and thought are complexly inter-related, no one determines the other.

Cross-Cultural Comparisons of European and North-American Social Psychology: Implications for a Social Constructionist Epistemology

Cross-cultural psychology can be seen as an attempt to understand why so few generalizations about one human group appear capable of travelling unproblematically across social, historical and cultural boundaries (Shweder & Sullivan, 1993). For some cross-cultural psychologists, that understanding is directed toward controlling for the cultural variables that are thought to mask the more fundamental universal laws of human psychology. For others, cross-cultural work is directed toward showing that such variables are what actually constitutes the human mind, and that no universal laws of human psychology are likely to exist.

European and North American social psychologies, stemming as they do from shared intellectual traditions, would not seem to be an obvious source of cross-cultural data. Yet cross-cultural comparison of the social psychologies of Europe and North America is relatively common, perhaps because together, they represent most of the social psychology in existence. The most frequently noted difference between these social psychologies is the Europeans' greater emphasis on the social and the North Americans' greater emphasis on the individual (e.g., Jahoda, 19XX; Manstead, 19XX). To the extent that academic psychologies reflect or constitute a nation's unique psychological makeup, such comparisons will indicate cross-cultural differences between North Americans and Europeans.

Although this difference in social-versus-individual emphasis between European and North American social psychology can be analyzed as an instance of psychology's need to acknowledge cultural differences, it can also be used to bolster a stronger epistemological argument. Specifically, cross-cultural differences in both psychological research and in lived experience can support the view that some form of social constructionism is the proper epistemology for social psychology. Two such proposals (Gergen, 1985; Cerullo, 1992) are examined. Both argue that the cultural relativity of meaning demands that social psychologists become more morally engaged. In this view, because cross-cultural differences contradict the notion of scientific objectivity, social psychologists must instead support their conclusions with socially contextualized moral claims.

Two Social Psychologies: Europe and North America

Cross-cultural psychology, according to Jahoda (19XX), consists of two major critiques of mainstream psychology, the socio-scientific and socio-historical critiques. According to the socio-scientific view, culture is a set of variables located outside the person. Proponents of the socio-scientific perspective hold the rather uncontroversial view that psychology has erred in formulating general laws or principles of human psychology with the almost-exclusive use of Western participants. In order to untangle the influence of nature from that of culture, investigators in the socio-scientific tradition study diverse cultures in order to find what is common to all of them. This common factor or process is then assumed to be universal. The ultimate aim of the socio-scientific perspective is to uncover these truly universal psychological principles; to do so, researchers must take cultural variables into account.

One such cultural variable is the dimension , one of three major themes in recent cross-cultural research (Bond and Smith, 1996). One way of comparing cultures on this dimension is to examine the extent to which psychological researchers in diverse cultures focus on individualistic versus collectivistic questions. In comparing European and North American social psychology, Manstead (19XX) identifies the centrality of a social dimension for European social psychology, as compared to the centrality of intra-individual processes for North American social psychology. Content analysis of major European and North American social psychology journals supports this conclusion.[1] In the years 1987-1989, intergroup relations was a prominent topic in European journals, but not in the North American journals. In addition, the North American journals gave twice as much attention as the European journals to the intra-individual processes of social perception and social cognition. Thus, it appears that there is a greater concern with the social or the collective in Europe and a greater concern with the individual in North America. Individualism-collectivism, therefore, is one dimension for which cross-cultural psychologists in the socio-scientific tradition may wish to control in making cross-cultural comparisons.

The socio-scientific tradition aims to study the human being with culture stripped away. In contrast, the more radical socio- historical view does not see culture as a set of variables located outside the human mind (Jahoda, 19XX). In this perspective, the mind is partly constituted by culture; the two are inseparable. The socio-historical tradition aims to understand human beings as products of language and culture, not as entities apart from language and culture. Human psychology, in this view, cannot be studied as a natural science because it changes as society changes. Cross-cultural psychology, for advocates of this view, should be more than an attempt to control for error variance attributable to cultural factors. Instead, it should attempt to understand how psychological processes and culture constitute one another.

Jahoda's discussion of the socio-scientific and socio- historical perspectives in cross-cultural psychology traces the roots of these two perspectives to European intellectual history, showing their links to much older and more fundamental issues within psychology. Like most arguments in psychology, the divide between those cross-cultural investigators who seek universal psychological laws and those who claim that no such universals can be uncovered represents a more fundamental philosophical debate, namely that of relativism versus universalism.

European themes: Social content and intersubjectivity. Universalism is the view that psychological laws or principles exist, independent of the circumstances or contexts in which they occur. Relativism is the view that "events have no intrinsic meaning independent of other events or of a general framework within which they may be viewed" (Reber, 1985). Two major themes in European psychology show a degree of epistemological relativism. According to Rijsman (19XX), the intersubjectivity of knowledge and the social content of knowledge are two major themes permeating European social psychology. Within both of these themes, social context is intrinsic to knowledge.

The social content of knowledge refers to the social construction of knowledge about the self and others (Rijsman, 19XX). Knowledge about ourselves and others is fundamental, for example, to theories of social identity and intergroup relations, both of which are much stronger in Europe than in North America. Within European social psychology, both of these areas of research are infused with the notion of the social. According to social identity theory, for example, an important component of one's own identity is derived from one's membership in social groups. Identity is not absolute -- the social group provides its context.

The second major theme Rijsman (19XX) identifies in European social psychology is the intersubjectivity of knowledge. Whereas social content refers to the construction of knowledge about people, intersubjectivity refers to the construction of knowledge between people. Intersubjectivity of knowledge refers to the fact that different groups of people seem to have different definitions of reality; cultures may, for instance, differ in what they mean by "intelligence", or "beauty". This observation, while making the important point that knowledge is influenced by social factors, does not go far enough, according to Rijsman. Instead, he calls for recognition of the "social nature of human thinking . . . . a social ontology" (19XX, p. 175). Such an ontology would show how meaning is socially constructed, not just socially transmitted.

Social Constructionism

Social constructionism is an epistemology which asserts precisely that: Knowledge is socially constructed. According to Gergen (1985), the preservation of some meanings over others depends not on their correspondence to the empirical world, but rather on "the vicissitudes of social processes" (p. 268). Through social processes such as communication and conflict, people create meaning together. Unlike the universalist, the social constructionist believes that knowledge is neither transhistorical nor transcultural. Instead, it is relative to and dependent upon social and linguistic contexts.

One such context is scientific discourse. Scientific descriptions and explanations have implications for meaning because they set the agenda, the boundaries and systems within which questions will be posed. Because all discourse is inherently social, scientific discourse, according to Gergen, can be seen as a form of "social action". Rather than uncovering the universal truth about psychological processes, psychologists are, in fact, engaging in discourse which contributes to the meaning of that process; they are engaging in the act of making meaning.

Critics argue that under social constructionism, epistemological relativism necessitates moral relativism. In this view, notions of morality are meaningless if human actions must always be evaluated within their social contexts. If morality is culture-specific, critics argue, then all actions may be considered moral in certain socio-historical contexts. Such a notion is abhorrent to those who believe that a universal moral code does, or should, exist. To counter these accusations of "rampant relativism" (1985, p. 273), Gergen asserts that it is empiricism, not social constructionism, which leads to moral relativism. Under empiricism, conclusions may rely on an inflexible, decontextualized notion of reality. Because social constructionists believe that knowledge is neither transhistorical nor transcultural, they believe conclusions must be defensible within particular cultural contexts. In other words, morality must be justifiable within its sociohistorical contexts. There can be no more reliance on "the facts" for justification of socially reprehensible ideas. In this sense, Gergen's constructionism "reasserts the relevance of moral criteria for scientific practice" (1985, p. 273).

Arguing along similar lines, Cerullo (1992) agrees that social constructionism makes moral criteria relevant to scientific practice. Furthermore, he asserts that opposition to social constructionism is based not so much on epistemological grounds (relativism), but rather more on the hesitation of social scientists to be "recast . . . as moralist[s] rather than technocrat[s]" (p. 554). According to Cerullo, scientists obtain institutional support from elites in exchange for "usable technologies of social control" (p. 554) such as psychological tests and measures. For their part in this compromise, scientists agree to renounce their "critical/moral" role and limit their activities to "epistemic/predictive" functions (1992, p. 557). Yet scientists' renunciation of explicit ideological alignments may simply mask the fact that that alignment is in fact with the elites.

Although the source of resistance to social constructionism is correctly focused on its relativism, it is not really directed toward the claim that constructionists believe that "anything goes". Instead, as Cerullo argues, the source of the resistance is located in the requirements for moral claims-making by social scientists, and the loss of status and power that such a move would entail. In its most extreme form, social constructionism would entail that "expert" knowledge merely stand alongside all other accounts, with all of its positivist adornments stripped away. Relativistic epistemologies such as social constructionism threaten to undermine the position of scientific psychologists.

Conclusions

Cross-cultural comparisons between two social psychologies, European and North American, suggest a fundamentally more social approach in the former than in the latter. This more social orientation is expressed in the topics studied by European researchers (Manstead, 19XX), which reveal a more collective and less individualistic content and approach. The European roots of two major perspectives within cross-cultural psychology (Jahoda, 19XX) also indicate a European preoccupation with "the social". One, the socio-scientific view, seeks to uncover universal human processes by systematically controlling for the cultural variables which are thought to obscure them. The other, the socio-historical view, denies the existence of universal psychological laws, arguing instead for a more contextualized epistemology.

Another European call for a more social epistemology is made by Rijsman (19XX). He identifies two major themes within European social psychology, the intersubjective nature of knowledge and the social content of knowledge. Both of these themes within European social psychology represent the view that social factors influence various forms of knowledge. Yet Rijsman argues that a truly social epistemology would recognize that knowledge is socially constructed, not just socially transmitted.

I argue that social constructionism provides such an epistemology. In this view, people create meaning together, through conflict and through communication. Yet this philosophy of knowledge is likely to make many psychologists uncomfortable, because it requires that knowledge claims be defended as moral claims. By requiring that the moral underpinnings of social- psychological claims be made explicit, social constructionism may require that scientists give up some of the power associated with making claims about supposedly objective, acultural, ahistorical universalities.

_______________

[1] The European journals were European Journal of Social Psychology and British Journal of Social Psychology, and the North American journals were Journal of Experimental Social Psychology and Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

Comments about my paper? Just send me an email. No comment? Return to my homepage.

References

Bond, M. H. & Smith, P. B. (1996). Cross-cultural social and organizational psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 205- 235.

Cerullo, J. (1992). From epistemological critique to moral discourse: Reflections of the social constructionist movement in social psychology. Canadian Psychology, 33, 554-562.

Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 266-275.

Jahoda, G. (19XX). Cross-cultural psychology: Its European roots. (pp. 325-337)

Manstead, A. S. R. (19XX). Developments to be expected in European social psychology in the 1990's. (pp. 183-203).

Reber, A. (1985). Dictionary of psychology. London: Penguin.

Shweder, R. A. & Sullivan, M. A. (1993). Cultural psychology: Who needs it? Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 497-523.

Return to seminar home page

Introduction to Cultural Psychology Forum

Re: Toipc 4: Cultural Psychology

Posted By: martene cross <martenecross@hotmail.com>
Date: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 10:35 a.m.

In Response To: Toipc 4: Cultural Psychology (Dave Hiles)

In order to support this claim, Sapir and Whorf contrasted American Indian and Indo European languages, for example, Eskimo's have 20 words for snow, this is because it is important for them to recognise the different types. with Hopi, (an American Indian tribe), there is no diffeentiation between flying objects.

there is also no gramatical analysis of time. time in english, looks at past, present and the future but time in Hopi is described as "getting later of everything that has ever been done".

there appear to be few implications of this theory, apart from the criticism that Sapir-Whorf over estimate the significance of language differences.

However, there is lots of support for this claim. According to Gross (1992) Carrol and Casagrande, found that Navaho children , although taken out of their surroundings,in which they grew up in and developed language, still perceived things differently to children of other cultures.

Alternative proposals to Linguistic Relativity include a biological structure, located within the brain for learning language, (the language acquisition device), there is also the 'universal linguistic structures' hypothesis. this states that thought affects language and not vice-versa.

According to the work of Berlin and Kay, basic colours seem to correspond across languages, e.g. Red, Blue, Green and Yellow, this therefore contradicts the claim that Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf make.

Psychology the science of Mind and Behaviour, Richard D. Gross, 1992

There are many theories that attempt to account for the social aspects of the self. Unfortunately, most, if not all, of these theories do not account for variation over time and across space. Social psychological theories of the self also walk a thin line between social science and theology. In this essay, I will bracket questions relating to the necessity and/or usefulness of this divide. There are many good reasons why theories of the self have this difficulty. Among them is perhaps the most important, namely that our understanding of the self is necessarily rooted deeply in our own cultural and social milieu. As numerous post-modern theorists have pointed out, humans are creatures of our environment. Therefore, it is essentially impossible for our theories to be anything but products of our environment.

Here we arrive at the point of departure for this essay. Given that our consciousness is historically and socially specific, what are the mechanisms through which we come to be overdetermined by society and simultaneously individuals full of unique qualities, thoughts, and emotions? Put another way, what is the interface of the individual and the collectivity? The social is commonly understood as being made up of groups-both formal groups (institutions ranging from government to the family) and informal groups (ranging from extended kinship networks to the basic unit of the social, the dyad). It is these phenomena that I refer to when using the words social, society, and the like. In contrast, I separate the social and the cultural. By the cultural, I mean such phenomena as ideology, consumerism, mass media, popular music, and art. Furthermore, the cultural also refers to mores, folkways, stigma, paradigms, and other thought-defining phenomena. The cultural is always already changing as one moves through space and time.

It is my proposition that the cultural constitutes the interface between the self and the social. Through the cultural, society shapes individuals in a continuous and changing process of inculturation. The term inculturation is particularly well-suited to this phenomenon because it precisely indicates the internalization of culture. What is does not do, however, is indicate the feedback that individuals give to culture. Many social psychologists have indicated that the social in incorporated into children as they are being reared. Few, if any, have shown that this is an imperfect process and that individuals may not be inculturated properly. Fewer still have shown how change takes place. To paraphrase an astute sociologist, cultural change is either regarded as so commonsense as to be unworthy of mention or as so complex that nothing can be said about it. In both cases, nothing gets said. My central intellectual enterprise is to attempt to comprehend cultural change. An understanding of the self is critical to this endeavor.

Inculturation and Children.

This topic has been dealt with at great length elsewhere, so I will treat it only briefly. Since Freud, psychologists have recognized the important role that parents play in creating children who can function in a given society (or, in some cases, children who cannot function in society). Also since Freud, the dynamics of person creation have become more complex. With the growth of mandatory public education and media consumption by children, budding persons are exposed to many more influences that shape consciousness than their parents (by parents I refer to any adult person with primary responsibility for child-rearing). Television, teachers, peer groups, and other factors all come to influence personality formation.

In Freud's time, children were raised by their parents or by surrogate parents in the form of relatives, community members, or professionals (nannies). These people were often the only significant influence in the child's life (children should be seen and not heard). Children received morality, religiosity, preferences, and the complex of unconscious predilections that I refer to as thought patterns from these adults. This is not to say that the transmission of values from one generation to the next was flawless. Indeed, there are many historical examples of people whose values did not match those of the period. However, these discrepancies can often be explained in terms of contradictions within the value system of the time and place. Furthermore, there are noteworthy historical periods when the predominant values did not change appreciably (for example: the Tokugawa period in Japan, the early Middle Ages in Western Europe, and pre-colonial Sub-Saharan Africa, to name a few). Thus, it is not unreasonable to suggest that prior to the massification of culture through mass media and mass education, culture change occurred relatively slowly and primarily through the introduction of external influences (through wars, trade, or invention, primarily).

Any discussion of static culture begs questions about how cultures change. Clearly, cultures do change. In this essay, I am largely bracketing a macro-level analysis of cultural change, although certain implications can be drawn from my analysis of culture and the self.

This digression into history aside, we are faced with a situation today in which children receive the values not only of their parents, but also those of the society at large, via television and schooling. This much is fairly commonsense. What does not appear immediately, however, is the significance of this inculturation on the meaning of self. As Jane Flax pointed out, many of us are fragmented beings. We exist in a multitude of selves and in a plethora of worlds synchronously. We learn to do this as children, as a direct result of the dynamics of growing up. First, we are at home and learn to behave as our parents teach us. Second, we are in school with different restrictions and expectations. Third, we are with our peer groups, at play, where we form yet another set of rules. Finally, we are experiencing media. Whether playing computer games, watching television, or listening to music, we learn to suspend disbelief, ignore discrepancies, play within the setting, and, above all, consume.

Parents come in all shapes and sizes, with a wide variety of beliefs. Some subscribe to the Dr. Spock school of child-rearing, others break out the belt over spilled milk. Some live within the state-controlled world of AFDC and Medicaid, others , through luck or purchase, live beyond the direct reach of the state in enclaves or other relatively autonomous communities. Some attend Christian churches twice a week, others have nothing but disdain for religions. Even those parents who do not actively seek to create children who will follow in their footsteps teach by example and by exclusion. Parents who claim to have no interest in politics teach tacit acceptance, while those who espouse free choice have already made one and their children are thus prejudiced. Through design or not, children see how their parents live which has a profound effect on their selves. This is not to say that children are necessarily converted to their parents viewpoint. Indeed many children react negatively to their parents choices precisely because they are their parents choices, not the child's. Nevertheless, parents make an undeniable imprint on a child's consciousness, regardless of what other factors come into play.

Children are delivered to the care of schools already imprinted with language and some (at least rudimentary) code of conduct. The school seeks to imprint upon each child its own rules which may or may not fit well with those the child absorbed from the parents. These rules are explicitly geared towards ensuring order in the school, good study skills, and, ultimately, preparing the child for entry into society. What children actually learn varies widely from place to place. Children in wealthy suburbs learn how to "get ahead" while children in inner cities learn to get through the day alive (hopefully). In any case, schools expose children to the values of the community (perhaps tempered somewhat by a broader context), which may or may not be in concert with what they learn at home. Where there is conflict, the stage is set for one or more of the following possibilities: neurosis, withdrawal, subscription to one set and rejection of the other set of values, anger, disillusionment, and rejection of everything one is presented with-often followed by seeking out alternatives. Furthermore, children begin to detect cleavages between what they are taught and what they experience. For example, children who are taught that anyone can "succeed" if they work hard and perceive that everyone they know is "down and out" quickly recognize this and react to it in similar ways to those mentioned above. The school setting differs from the peer group because of the authority structure involved.

Another important formative factor in school is the child's encounter with authority. Although many (perhaps most) have authority figures at home, not all do. For some, school is the first encounter with an authority figure who cannot be cajoled into leniency. This is where children learn their reactions to institutionalized authority. Despite the best wishes of many educators, children learn their reactions according to their perception of expectations from the peer group and are often motivated by factors outside the immediate situation (such as gaining recognition and stature from peers). Children know perfectly well what to expect from teachers, having been exposed to the situation of "being bad" many times. And yet, they still "act up." Why? There are many examples, but I will focus on one in particular-the media.

Thus far, I have focused on behavioral effects of inculturation. Turning now to the media, it is necessary to retreat from the readily observable world into a more abstract realm of thoughts-conscious and unconscious. A recent study found that on average, American children consume six hours of television per day. What are they watching? What effect does it have? Although there are many "educational" programs, their viewership is limited. As of this writing, the current rage in children's television is the "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers." These characters are yet another variety of super(s)hero. They do daily battle against the forces of evil, whose activities range from holding cities hostage with super-weapons to committing eco-terrorism. The Power Rangers do not generally use weapons, rather they engage in hand-to-hand combat. As evidence of the prevalence of the Power Ranger phenomenon, an article was recently run in a Northern Maine daily newspaper (The Bangor Daily News, March 8,1995) about an elementary school in Northern Maine that is banning all Power Ranger paraphernalia and is cracking down on mimicking behavior. The Power Rangers' trademark is a martial arts move known as the roundhouse kick. Children find this move very compelling and practice it on their schoolmates. Undoubtedly, these children mean no real harm, since the show is devoid of injuries or other consequences, but they are, nonetheless, getting hurt.

This anecdote illustrates the subtle effect of television on children in a not so subtle way. By watching this show day and day out, the children come to function in a way that is wholly appropriate for the world portrayed in the show, but in not considered appropriate in the "real" world. The specifics of the behavior aside, we see the beginnings of fragmented selves. In order for the children to enjoy the show, as they believe they must (peer group sanctioning for failure to participate in the culture of the school can be severe and lead to later neuroses), they must learn to contain the world of the show within themselves and not express it outwardly. Put another way, children are not allowed to incorporate rules learned by watching television into the self that exists in the school setting. They are required to closet the self of the show when existing in other realms. The self that understands and learns from the show cannot be allowed to get in the way of the socially required behaviors of the school. As the reader will no doubt suspect, such compartmentalization is never perfect.

Children find themselves simultaneously existing in separate, yet parallel worlds that are not supposed to overlap. However, the child, while expressing the appropriate attitude (that the show is mere fantasy) nonetheless incorporates various aspects of the world of the show into her self. At the early stages of fragmentation, it is very difficult to keep the worlds separate. Adults, who have more practice, can often appear to keep their worlds separate. Children need reinforcement to aid in their forced cleavage of selves. Thus, teachers and parents work to keep children in line while the child struggles to contain and reconcile the fractures of her self. The process is, unfortunately, not as difficult as it sounds. Many aspects of our culture assist in solidifying the walls.

For boys, such strictures as, "boys don't cry," reinforce the division between internal life and external life. The boy clearly feels like crying, but parents, teachers, and television equally clearly portray the normative image of boys who cry as sissies, crybabies, and wimps. Boys are taught to be like their fathers, or in the absence of a father, to be like other boys. While such role-modeling is on shaky ground (alternative role models can alter the inculturation), it is also extremely powerful. Children learn very early that if they are to be accepted by others, they must emulate people who are already accepted. A boy whose father breaks out of stereotypes is still confronted with teachers, peers, and television.

For girls, the situation is somewhat more complicated. While boys are given fairly unified pictures of how to act, girls are presented with contradictory images. On the one hand, they are told that girls can do everything boys can. On the other, they learn quickly that people have different expectations. Girls are expected to play with dolls, talk about relationships, and be caretakers. Again role models come into play. Most girls today see their mothers going to work and cooking every meal. While there are certainly examples to the contrary, girls still learn that, "its not smart to be too smart."

With these examples in hand, we can see that the inculturation process in terribly complex, riddled with counter-examples, and ambiguities. Nevertheless, we also see that it is extremely powerful in shaping the configuration of the modern self(s). The opinion of luminary developmental psychologists to the contrary, inculturation does not cease when one "grows up." This is a fundamental difference between inculturation and socialization. A young adult is almost completely socialized. S/he understands the basic rules of society and is more or less able to function according to the behavioral schemes of the society. One may even have become an active participant, creating and re-creating social structures. Inculturation, however, has not stopped. In adults, we also see more clearly the ways in which feedback occurs in the inculturation process.

Inculturation and Adults

We arrive in adulthood equipped with many of the heuristics necessary to navigate the social space we occupy. We also have developed the multiple selves necessary to keep "fantasy" out of "reality." For many of us this includes not only separating television and work, but also keeping our dreams out of rational planning. We understand that we cannot "get ahead" by dreaming, that imaginings do not put food on the table. The part of us that dreams and imagines has been closeted, only to find expression through consumption of media. Obviously, this fracture is not complete. There is always slippage between these aspects of the self. This slippage allows for feedback and change. To illustrate this point, I will look at the phenomenon of science fiction (hereafter referred to as sci-fi).

Sci-fi exists at the intersection of imagination and rationality. It illuminates and facilitates the cleavage between the Homo œconomicus demanded by the worlds of business, government, and the like and the dreamer of our (pre-fracture) childhood. Sci-fi is part of our culture that has grown significantly in importance over the last twenty years. Beginning with the runaway box office performance of Star Wars, sci-fi has become part of our everyday culture. Today, many commercials utilize various components of sci-fi to generate demand. As a significant portion of our culture, sci-fi constitutes part of the inculturation we participate in. It also offers a unique example of how culture can change.

When sci-fi first arrived in mainstream culture, it was predominantly of the variety known as "hard science fiction." This sub-genre addresses technological change over variable periods of time into the future. By and large, it does not foresee significant cultural or social shifts; rather, hard sci-fi superimposes technological and scientific advances over the social template that already exists. Star Wars, for example, places very recognizable s/hero figures into a distant future where government is quite reminiscent of Imperial Rome and our s/heroes are fighting for freedom from tyranny. This theme is not uncommon in hard sci-fi-nor is it uncommon in other adventure literature. There is nothing especially groundbreaking in the world presented in Star Wars. Hard sci-fi often places salvation in the invention of new technologies to solve the problems of the day. This characteristic makes it clearly identifiable as a product of Modernity. However, in the intervening years since Star Wars, sci-fi has undergone a massive shift.

Through the influence of such writers as Ursula LeGuin, Marion Zimmer Bradley, and Samuel R. Delaney sci-fi has transformed itself from a realm primarily populated by educated, white men to one that embraces both genders and many races (though there is still a definite class characteristic in the readership). Today, it is virtually impossible to publish short fiction in the major sci-fi magazines that is considered hard sci-fi. A recent editorial in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction described what the editors look for in a story. To paraphrase, Kristine Kathryn Rusch, the managing editor, identified stories that deal with the human condition, that explore the ways humans adjust to technology, and re-arrange societies as being most in demand. Other magazines have identified similar interests (e.g., Asimov's Science Fiction, Aboriginal Science Fiction, Amazing, and Interzone, to name but a few). William Bainbridge has coined the term new wave sci-fi to describe this new trend.

New wave sci-fi includes several sub-genre such as cyberpunk, twenty-minutes-into-the-future, utopian, and feminist. While each of these has distinct characteristics, all de-center technology from the story. The reader is invited to experience an alternative lifestyle, one that probably (but not necessarily) includes new technologies, but certainly includes different ways of looking at the world. In cyberpunk sci-fi, current social trends are extrapolated. Often computers are seen to be smaller, faster, and more common. Crime and stratification have grown to fantastic proportions. Characters come from different social classes, with different worldviews and (often) conflicting ideas about how things should be. In hard sci-fi, conflict is usually restricted to some other, while in new wave, conflict is between social categories or is internal, visceral.

Armed with this general understanding of sci-fi, we can now turn to an examination of the effect its consumption has on the self. As noted above, adults are usually already fragmented into (at least) their fantasy and rational selves. Consumption of sci-fi is definitely an enterprise of the fantasy self. However, as we have also noted, there is always slippage between one's selves. Part of the allure of scifi is its relationship to "reality." New wave scifi is firmly grounded in the world we occupy. Feminist sci-fi, for example, is primarily concerned with showing futures in which women have escaped their historical bonds. This fiction is only interesting precisely because women still occupy a position of relative deprivation and the fiction shows that we can imagine a world where that is no longer the case. It is compelling because it is such stark contrast to the world of "reality." Suddenly, a person who might not have dared to imagine a better life has had it presented before her.

This person, the reader, is faced with a conflict between what she has dreamed and what she faces everyday. This is not the same conflict as that faced by the child who envisions a world through the television and finds it incompatible with the requirements of existing in society. The child is testing limits to determine what is expected. The adult already knows. She has experienced fully what it means to be fragmented even if she does not put that word to the feeling. The child's conflict arises from an unwillingness to become fragmented, the adult's conflict is rooted in the experience of dissatisfaction with the world. The adult experiences an inability to reconcile the two visions of how things should be. She is forced to fragment further or begin to reject the fragmentation.

It is here, on the fault lines, that change occurs. This model of change has been identified by many people, in various contexts. Thomas Kuhn used the idea of accumulating data inconsistent with expectations to explain scientific paradigm shift. Dorothy Smith (and other feminists) wrote of ruptures between women's experience and their expectations as being causal factors in women's understanding of the oppression of women. Even Darwin had a similar conception of how evolution takes place-slight mutations with survival value are selected for. The elaboration of this model as it applies to culture will constitute the conclusion of this essay.

The Cultural Self in Cultural Change

When one experiences a fracture between self and culture, change can begin to occur. Importantly, the fracture must be experienced by an individual. A work of art may have an effect on me that leads me to re-evaluate an attitude that I hold, but another person may have a totally different response. Prediction of that response is beyond the scope of this essay. For now, suffice it to say that the cultural human is extremely complex. So much so that it may be necessary to employ chaos theory to generate probabilities of outcomes rather than being able to predict the reaction of any given individual. Such considerations aside, we can explore the dynamics of both individual response and the ensuing re-action.

When an individual consumes a cultural artifact (be it book, essay, movie, painting, or commercial), there is an assimilation process in which the individual interprets the artifact. This phenomenon is influenced by myriad factors. Here, an individual's prejudices, attitudes, and personality are all brought to bear upon the problem. These psychological categories form a filter through which impulses pass. The consumptive act creates a body of sensory data that the person must interpret in a meaningful way. The data themselves do not have meaning. A person must impart meaning on the experience. This is done by reaching into the body of heuristics one has learned throughout life. There may be innumerable conflicts within this body of knowledge. The process may be filled with ambivalence. The meaning of an experience may be revised at a future point. Nevertheless, meaning is imparted on the experience, if only provisionally. Once a person has given meaning to an experience, the experience brought into the personality, producing an internal effect.

The internal effect of a meaningful experience is largely unpredictable and can range from life transforming to undetectable. The internal effect can reinforce previously existing ideas or heuristics. If the meaning imparted by the assimilation process is insignificance, the internal effect will most likely be negligible. Meaning can also be inconsistent with expectations. In this case, there may be a fracture. Fractures in the self may simply lead to a shifting of the heuristics applied to a given situation or they may allow insight pertaining to the fractious character of the self and its consumption. The process may stop with an internal effect. Sometimes, no other reaction is called for or demanded. In other cases, the internal action produces a reaction.

Here we finally see how feedback occurs in the culture-self loop. People are constantly required to act in the world. This can be in relatively innocuous ways, such as cooking dinner, or in more virulent ways, such as copy writing for commercials. All desires pass through the filter of our acquired heuristics. For example, when a person feels hungry, she expresses that desire in a culturally specific way. In America, we often reach for a snack. Which snack we choose depends on our inculturation, but may also be influenced by ephemeral factors such as ease of locating an item or some notion of what we think we should eat. However, our choice of snack (and indeed the choice of to snack or not to snack) has an external effect. The choice to consume one thing and not everything else is measured in sales and, in turn, effects the culture we live and breathe. Continuing with the snack example, if I choose a piece of fruit for my snack, I am contributing (in a small way) to more fruit sales. My choice may or may not, in the final analysis, have a direct effect on fruit sales. If others do not choose fruit or choose not to snack, fruit growing may become unprofitable and prices may increase. If others do choose fruit, businesses may notice and begin selling more fruit-we may begin to see advertising for fruit, thus attempting to create more demand. When one sees the advertising, the loop begins again. Perhaps the advertisement is offensive in some way. In this case, I do not choose fruit next time. Others, however, decide to switch to fruit thus offsetting my choice to avoid fruit. And so it goes. This example suffers somewhat from its economistic nature, but the dynamics are similar for non-economic phenomena.

I have gathered a body of sensory data from experiencing a novel. Much of the data gathered is from my own translation of the words into images, smells, and emotions. In this book, children who thought they were playing a video game were actually commanding real starships in an all-out war against an alien species. I have assigned meaning to this experience. In particular, I have reinforced my convictions that authority must be questioned and guarded against (I simplify my actual reactions for expository purposes). I had a pre-existing heuristic that told me to be wary when assigning meaning to experiences generated by interaction with institutionalized authority. My consumption of the novel served to add strength and validity to that heuristic. There was no direct external re-action on my part. However, all subsequent re-actions and assimilation processes have been affected by my consumption. The feedback occurs in an ongoing and incremental process of assimilation and re-action. Note also that there was significant cross-over between my selves in this process. Although the novel was clearly read in the fantasy self and my fantasy self shared in the adventure of the novel, my reality selves were also affected. The lessons learned from the novel color not only the heuristics I use to assimilate and re-act to literature, but also those that I use in dealing with "reality." This example did not serve to further illuminate the fractures of myself because the meaning I assigned to the experience did not conflict with my division of my selves. However, a friend of mine read it and assigned a totally different meaning to the book and did come to realize something about her fractures.

This person assimilated the novel as a prophecy about the dangers of over reliance on technological barriers between people. My friend had been devoted to abusing others through the medium of electronic mail. It had not truly occurred to her that actual feelings were attached to the string of numbers she sent mail to. The novel showed her that despite apparent divisions induced by technology, there is always a feeling person on the other side. She subsequently evaluated her own behavior and realized that she had used many other techniques to insulate herself from others and their feelings. She is in the process of re-aligning her heuristics such that she no longer interprets and re-acts as she did.

This essay has attempted to analyze the mechanisms whereby individuals come to assign meaning to experiences and the dynamics of the culture-self feedback loop. I have avoided many questions, primarily those pertaining to the implications of this psychological model for cultural and social level analyses. Among the important questions that should be addressed are: What are the factors that prevent cultural change? What is the relative importance of self and culture in determining the course of events in a society? How is creativity possible within this model? How does technology interact with individuals to facilitate the fragmentation of selves? There are innumerable others, but these should serve to whet the readers appetite

Cultural psychology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cultural psychology is a field of psychology which contains the idea that culture and mind are inseparable, thus there are no universal laws for how the mind works and that psychological theories grounded in one culture are likely to be limited in applicability when applied to a different culture. As Richard Shweder, one of the major proponents of the field, writes, "Cultural psychology is the study of the way cultural traditions and social practices regulate, express, and transform the human psyche, resulting less in psychic unity for humankind than in ethnic divergences in mind, self, and emotion" (1991, p. 72).

Cultural psychology has its roots in the 1960s and 1970s but became more prominent in the 1980's and 1990's. Some of the classic texts promoting cultural psychology include Shweder and Levine (1984), Triandis (1989), Bruner (1990) Shweder (1991), Markus and Kitayama (1991), Cole (1996), Nisbett & Cohen (1996), Shore (1996), Fiske, et al. (1998), Nisbett, et al. (2001) and Nisbett (2003). Cultural psychologists generally use either ethnographic or experimental methods (or a combination of both) for collecting data

Cultural psychology is distinct from cross-cultural psychology in that the cross-cultural psychologists generally use culture as a means of testing the universality of psychological processes rather than determining how local cultural practices shape psychological processes. So whereas a cross-cultural psychologist might ask whether Piaget's stages of development are universal across a variety of cultures, a cultural psychologist would be interested in how the social practices of a particular set of cultures shape the development of cognitive processes in different ways.

Cultural psychology research informs several fields within psychology, including social psychology, developmental psychology, and cognitive psychology. However, the relativist perspective of cultural psychology tends to clash with the universalist perspectives common in most fields in psychology.

One of the most significant themes in recent years has been cultural differences between East Asians and North Americans in attention (Masuda & Nisbett, 2001) perception (Kitayama, et al., 2003), cognition (Nisbett, et al. 2001) and social psychological phenomena such as the self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). However, some (Turiel) have argued that this research is based on cultural stereotyping and faulty methodology (Matsumoto).

References

• Bruner, Jerome (1990). Acts of Meaning. Harvard University Press.

• Cole, M. (1996). Cultural Psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

• Fiske, A., Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Nisbett, R. E. (1998). The cultural matrix of social psychology. In D. Gilbert & S. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (4th ed., pp. 915–981). San Francisco: McGraw-Hill.

• Kitayama, S., Duffy, S., Kawamura, T., & Larsen, J. T. (2003). Perceiving an object and its context in different cultures: A cultural look at new look. Psychological Science, 14(3), 201–206.

• Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.

• Masuda, T., & Nisbett, R. A. (2001). Attending holistically versus analytically: Comparing the context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(5), 922–934.

• Nisbett, R.E. (2003). The Geography of thought. New York: Free Press.

• Nisbett, R. E., & Cohen, D. (1996). Culture of Honor: The Psychology of Violence in the South. Denver, CO: Westview Press.

• Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic vs. analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291–310.

• Shore, B. (1996). Culture in mind: Cognition, culture and the problem of meaning. New York: Oxford University Press.

• Shweder, R.A., & Levine, R.A. (Eds., 1984). Culture theory: Essays on mind, self, and emotion. New York: Cambridge University Press.

• Shweder, Richard (1991). Thinking Through Cultures. Harvard University Press.

• Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506–520.

اختلالات رفتاري كودكان از جمله بيش فعالي كمبود توجه ‪ ADHD‬گاهي اوقات پس از عمل جراحي خارج كردن لوزه‌ها بهبود مي‌يابد.

به گزارش خبرگزاري رويترز هلث از نيويورك، اين يافته‌ها مويد اين فرضيه است كه مشكلات تنفسي شبانه و درنتيجه كم خوابي در بروز اختلالات رفتاري در طول روز نقش دارند.

هنگامي كه لوزه‌ها بزرگ مي‌شوند مي‌توانند مجاري تنفسي را مسدود كنند.

مشكلات حاد تنفسي مهمترين علت عمل جراحي برداشتن لوزه‌ها در كودكان است.

محققان در يك مطالعه ‪ ۷۸‬كودك پنج تا ‪ ۱۳‬ساله را كه قرار بود لوزه‌هايشان برداشته شود بررسي كردند.

نتايج آزمايشهاي خواب شبانه قبل از جراحي تاييد كرد نيمي از كودكان آپنه انسدادي خواب دارند. در اين اختلال در طول شب تنفس بطور مكرر قطع و وصل مي‌شود و باعث ايجاد صداي خر خر بلند و اغلب خواب آلودگي در طول روز مي‌شود.

ميزان اختلالات رفتاري در اين كودكان نيز بيشتر مشاهده شد. ‪ ۲۸‬درصد كودكان به بيش فعالي كمبود توجه مبتلا بودند. اين ميزان در يك گروه شاهد شامل ‪ ۲۷‬كودك فقط دو درصد بود.

يك سال بعد از عمل جراحي مشكلات رفتاري و خواب اين كودكان تفاوتي با ديگر همسالانشان نشان نداد. ميزان آپنه خواب از ‪ ۵۰‬درصد به ‪ ۱۲‬درصد رسيد و بي‌خوابي آنها نيز بهبود يافت.

جالب‌ترين كشف اين تحقيق اين بود كه نيمي از كودكاني كه قبل از جراحي اختلال بيش فعالي در آنها تشخيص داده شده بود يك سال بعد ديگر به اين اختلال رفتاري مبتلا نبودند.

دكتر رونالد چروين نويسنده اين تحقيق مي‌گويد اين يافته‌ها به اين معني نيست كه عمل جراحي لوزه كليد جادويي درمان بيش فعالي در كودكان است.

چروين كه مسئوليت مركز اختلالات خواب را در دانشگاه ميشيگان در آن آربور به عهده دارد مي‌گويد والدين و پزشكان بايد در كودكاني كه بيش فعالي يا خواب آلودگي شديد در طول روز دارند ، احتمال اختلال خواب را مدنظر قرار دهند.

هنگامي كه كودك خرخر بلند و مزمن يا عادت به تنفس دهاني دارد توجه به اين نكته بسيار مهم است. شمار قابل توجهي از كودكان بيش فعال در صورت توجه به اختلالات خواب آنها بهبود مي‌يابند.

اختلالات خواب و مشكلات رفتاري لزوما در كودكان شركت‌كننده در اين تحقيق مطابقت نداشت. ميزان بيش فعالي كه در كودكاني كه آپنه خواب داشتند مشابه كودكاني بود كه به اين اختلال دچار نبودند. هر دو دسته از اين كودكان بعد از برداشتن لوزه‌ها بهبود يافتند.

اين محققان قصد دارند تحقيقات بيشتري را در اين زمينه انجام دهند.

Cross-Cultural Psychology in the 21st Century

David Matsumoto
San Francisco State University

If things continue as they have until now, cross-cultural psychology as we know it today will cease to exist in the 21st century. Instead, it will be integrated into mainstream psychology. Yet that integration should not be a total assimilation of cross-cultural psychology into mainstream psychology. There will be major accommodations as well, fundamentally changing the essence of the way we model and study human behavior. We are already witness to these changes, as we are in the middle of an evolution in psychology.

Cross-Cultural Psychology

Cross-cultural issues are becoming more prominent in psychology as the discipline expands in countries other than the U.S.A. Matsumoto (1994) has argued that American psychology has been much more concerned with studying its own residents than with studying others. He goes on to state that, until recently, most of the data in psychology were derived from predominantly middle-class, white, introductory psychology students. Further, many of us teach in environments that are not culturally diverse, so getting students to understand cross-cultural concepts is difficult in those settings.

Levine (1988) summarizes research concerning the pace of time in different cultures. As a visiting professor in Brazil, he discovered that college students there had a very different conception of class time compared to American students. When the time came to meet his first class, Levine arrived twenty minutes late to an empty classroom (Levine & Wolff, 1985). But, unlike in the U.S.A., that did not mean that the class had already been there and left. Rather, it meant that none of the class had even arrived! Then, when class was over, only a few students left. The rest hung around for an additional half hour. That comparison alone should wake up your students.

Levine went on to conduct additional cross-cultural studies relating to time. One study (Levine and Bartlett, 1984) examined the accuracy of bank clocks, pedestrian walking speed, and work pace in six countries. The data were quite clear, and the three measures correlated highly with each other. The Japanese samples were the highest in all three measures. The Indonesian sample had the slowest walking speed and least accurate clocks. The Italian sample had the slowest business transaction time. Coronary heart disease was correlated with a fast pace of life, except in the fastest sample, the Japanese. Those last data probably indicate that coronary heart disease incidence is affected by other factors as well.

These data illustrate how a concept, time, can vary widely across cultures. Levine (1988) argues that simple explanations for cross-cultural differences are not sufficient. For example, in Brazil, being late is perceived as a privilege of the rich and powerful. Stereotypical explanations that rely on simple notions of cross cultural differences (e.g., laziness) will not serve to explain those differences.

Cultural Psychology and
the Centre-ground of Psychology

Dave Hiles
(Psychology, De Montfort University, Leicester. LE7 9SU. UK.)
(Email:    drhiles@dmu.ac.uk  )

ABSTRACT: The emerging field of Cultural Psychology, quite distinct from a trans- and cross-cultural psychology, is defined. This field is concerned with the relationship between culture and mind, i.e. with such questions as how mind is shaped by culture, as well as how culture is shaped by mind. The original view of psychology as a cultural science, vigorously debated a century ago when the new discipline emerged, needs urgent further consideration. Cultural Psychology has a serious claim to playing a central rôle in all approaches of the discipline, indeed, in any scientific study of mind and behaviour.

 

روشهايي براي كاهش استرس در محيط كار ( قسمت اول )

1-    علائم هشدار دهنده ي استرس زا را  تشخيص دهيد و براي رفع آن اقدام كنيد .

2-    از صحبت راجع به مواقعي كه دچار استرس هستيد نترسيد .

3-     وقتي دچار استرس هستيد آرام قدم بزنيد ، اين امر مي تواند آرامش و سلامتي شما را باز گرداند .

4-    از بردن  كارهاي اداري به منزل خودداري كنيد .

5-    سعي كنيد متوجه هر گونه تغيير در الگوهاي غذايي و نوشيدني  خود باشيد .

6-    به رؤسا حقيقت را بگوييد ، از گفتن اتفاقات موجود در دفترتان  به مدير شركت نهراسيد .

7-    وقتي فكر كرديد كه كار زيادي داريد ، حداقل يكي از آنها را به ديگري واگذار كنيد .

8-    از روش زندگي افرادي كه استرس ندارند الگو بگيريد .

9-    از انجام كار در آخر هفته يا دير وقت پرهيز كنيد .

10- اگر دچار  سردرد يا بي خوابي هستيد به دكتر مراجعه كنيد .

11- از هر چيزي كه به شما كمك مي كند تا به آرامش برسيد نكته برداري كنيد .

12- از خود بپرسيد آيا ديگران كار با شما را استرس زا مي دانند ؟

13- احساس خود را از لحظاتي كه دچار استرس شـَديد هستيد در يك دفترچه ، يادداشت  كنيد .

14- چيزي را كه مي خواهيد ، بخريد و از آن لذت ببريد ؛ اما خريد را براي خود يك عادت نكنيد .

15- از مدت زمان سفرهاي بين شهري و درون شهري تا رسيدن به محل كار ، جهت برنامه ريزي روزانه يا استراحت كوتاه استفاده كنيد و كار بيشتري انجام ندهيد .

چه كنيم تا در محيط كارمان آرامش داشته باشيم؟ ( قسمت دوم )

1- يك يا دوساعت از هفته را دور از خانواده و درگيري شغلي خود بگذرانيد .

2- سعي كنيد با به روز كردن مهارتهاي خود تغييرات شغلي را پيش بيني كنيد .

3- با جلب توجه ديگران به ارزش كاري كه انجام مي دهيد ، از شغل خود محافظت كنيد .

4- از برنامه هاي آموزشي استفاده كنيد تا  بتوانيد در باره فرهنگ هاي كاري گوناگون و جديد مطالبي را بياموزيد .

5- همكاران همفكر را شناخته و براي سازش و تغييرات محيط كار از آنها كمك بگيريد .

6- وقتي فناوري جديدي را مي آموزيد ، استفاده از آن را آهسته شروع كنيد و كاملاً به مهارت خود مطمئن شويد .

7- سعي كنيد دفتر خود را كنار دفاتر ديگران قرار دهيد ،  زيرا انزوا باعث ايجاد استرس مي شود .

8- براي يادگيري يك مهارت جديد ، براي مثال مهارتي مانند كار با كامپيوتر و ... هيچگاه دير نيست .

9- عوامل استرس زاي هر شغل جديد را پيش از پذيرفتن آن ارزيابي  كنيد .

10- با تمام كاركنان بدون  توجه به مقام و عنوانشان ، با احترام رفتار كنيد .

11- با همكاران خود به گونه اي رفتار كنيد كه نشانگر  قدرداني  شما از آنان باشد .

12- با همكار جديد  خود غذا بخوريد  تا رابطه  كاري شما با او تسهيل شود .

13- براي ايجاد ارتباط بيشتر با همكاري كه نزديك  به شما زندگي مي كند ، همسفر شويد .

14- هميشه در نظرها و افكار خود انعطاف داشته باشيد ،  زيرا ممكن است  تمام ماجرا را ندانيد .

15- نقش فعالي در بهبود كيفيت زندگي شغلي خود ايفا كنيد

اگر در محيط كارتان دچار استرس هستيد به اين نكات عمل كنيد...  ( قسمت سوم )

1- در تصميم گيري درباره مسائل مهم و اساسي  ، اصلاً عجله نكنيد . 

2- سعي كنيد يك روز در هفته  با همكار يا دوست صميمي خود ناهار بخوريد .

3- اگر نزديك محل كار خود زندگي مي كنيد ، در هفته چند ساعت پياده  يا با دوچرخه به سر كار برويد  .

4 -  بياموزيد كه درباره عواطف و احساسات  خود با دوستان نزديك و افراد قابل اطمينان ، به وضوح صحبت كنيد .

5- نظرات و پيشنهادات خود را به درون صندوق نظرات ( سازمان ) بريزيد تا اين  كار باعث كاهش استرس شما در محيط كار شود .

6- با مطرح كردن مشكلات كار و محيط كار ، مي توانيد از فشارهاي آن بكاهيد .

7- با انجام ورزش هايي  مانند پياده روي و شنا سعي كنيد ميزان استرس را كاهش بدهيد .

8- از امتياز دادن به همكاران همجنس  و هم نژاد خود در محيط جداً پرهيز كنيد .

9- علل غيبت كردنتان را بررسي كنيد و ببينيد كه  كدام روزهاي هفته بدترين روز هستند .

10- براي داشتن يك روز بدون استرس بهتر است كه ، ميز كار خود را آخر وقت روز قبل مرتب كنيد .

11- قبل از استقرار در يك دفتر جديد ،  طرحهاي  مختلف اتاق و طرز چيدن آن را امتحان كنيد .

12- وقتي به يك محيط كار جديد مي رويد ، با خود بينديشيد كه ، چگونه آن محيط را شادتر و خوشايندتر كنيد.

13- به يكي از همكاران خود بگوييد تا وقتي دچار استرس هستيد شما را آگاه كند .

14- وقتي يك پروژه را محاسبه كرديد ، مدت زمان را طولاني تر از زمان لازم تخمين بزنيد .

15- روزانه از مشكلات يادداشت برداريد و ببينيد كه ، آيا الگويي به دست مي آيد يا نه ؟

Cultural Psychology

A Once and Future Discipline

Michael Cole

• Awarded Harvard University Press's Annual Prize for an Outstanding Publication about Education and Society, Established in 1995 by the Virginia and Warren Stone Fund
  
  Honorable Mention in the Category of Psychology, 1996 Association of American Publishers, Professional/Scholarly Publishing Division
  
  

The distinguished psychologist Michael Cole, known for his pioneering work in literacy, cognition, and human development, offers a multifaceted account of what cultural psychology is, what it has been, and what it can be. A rare synthesis of the theory and empirical work shaping the field, this book will become a major foundation for the emerging discipline.

Cultural Psychology

Susan E. Cross, Assistant Professor;

Department of Psychology, W253 Lagomarcino

Office phone: 294-3224 e-mail: scross@iastate.edu

Mailbox: W113 Lago

Office hours: 1:30-3:00 Monday; 2-3:30 Thursday

Brislin, R. (1999). Understanding culture's influence on behavior. Fort Worth: Harcourt College Publishers.

A coursepack of required readings is also available at the University Bookstore.

Prerequisites. Courses in Social Psychology and at least one other psychology course. Research methods (Psych. 301 or its equivalent) is highly recommended.

Course Overview. As our world becomes smaller, it is very important that we understand how individuals in other cultures think, feel, and behave, and to understand the forces, beliefs and motivations that underlie their behavior. Unfortunately, psychology as a field has tended to focus on the behavior of members of North American and Western European countries. Recently, cross-cultural research in psychology has demonstrated that many psychological processes once assumed to be universal (i.e., shared by members of all cultures) are actually quite culture-bound. Although a few topics on psychology have a relatively long history of cross-cultural investigation, psychologists are becoming more aware that all of the topics on psychology must be examined from a broad cultural perspective. In this course we will focus on topics in personality, social, developmental and health psychology, examining them in light of various cultural backgrounds and orientations.

• To introduce the field of cultural psychology and to examine the concepts and processes necessary for cross-cultural research.
• To encourage an appreciation for the diversity of cultures and how culture influences behavior.
• To encourage students to think culturally about psychology and everyday behavior.
• To help students understand the dynamics of cross-cultural experiences.
• To help students understand their own cultural backgrounds and the ways that cultural perspectives relate to their lives.
• To improve written and oral presentation skills.

Student Evaluation. There will be two exams, one at midterm (Feb. 28) and a comprehensive exam during finals week. Each exam will consist of multiple choice, short answer, and essay questions. Each exam will be worth approximately 100 points.

There are also 2 writing assignments for this class. In the first assignment, students will read a book chosen from a list of possible selections, and write a report. The written book reports are due April 11. (Points may be deducted for late papers.) Students are also responsible for a 15 minute presentation of the psychological concepts and issues presented in the book on April 11. The assignment is worth 50 points (35 points for the paper and 15 points for the oral presentation).

The second assignment is a critique of an empirical article that examines an issue cross-culturally. Students will write a 2-3 page evaluation of the article, and will present the article to the class. Further details of this assignment are presented at the end of the syllabus. This assignment is worth 25 points.

In addition, there will be a few homework assignments made during the semester. Because these assignments will be discussed in class, no late papers will be accepted.

Attendance policy: You are asked to read the required readings before class each week, and to come to class ready to discuss them. This course heavily relies on the quality of discussion, and everyone loses out when others are not well prepared. To facilitate your advance preparation, review questions will be handed out for each week's readings. In addition, pop quizzes may be given without notice.

On the papers and presentations, a person who does the minimum required will earn 60-70% of the points available for that assignment. Only truly exceptional papers or projects will be given the full credit. If you would like to contest a grade on one of your papers or exams, please put in writing what you think was mis-graded and why you believe you deserve additional credit.

Final course grades will be based on the total number of points a student has accumulated during the class. The highest number of points earned by a student in the class will be counted as 100%. Each person’s percentage score will be his or her total number of points earned divided by the highest total. The assignment of letter grades will approximate the following ranges:

90% of the top score total = A

80-89% = B

70-79% = C

60-69% = D

Plus and minus grades, such as A- and B+ will be assigned as appropriate. Using this grading system, there is theoretically no upper limit on the number of As or Bs in the class and there do not have to be any Ds or Fs. You are competing only with yourself and not with other class members.

* These dates are subject to change. **These papers are on reserve in the library.

Note: numbers in parentheses reflect the ordering of the papers in the following list.

1. Carroll, R. (1987). Conversation. In Cultural misunderstandings: The French-American experience. (chapter 2, pp. 22-39). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

2. Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1994). A collective fear of the collective: Implications for selves and theories of selves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 568-579.

3. Cross, S. E., & Markus, H. R. (1999). The cultural constitution of personality. In L. Pervin & O. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and research (2^nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

4. Riesman, P. (1992). Child development in Fulani ethnopsychology. In P. Riesman, First find your child a good mother. (Chapter 7, pp. 160-183). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
5. Lewis, C. C. (1995). The roots of discipline: Community and commitment. Educating hearts and minds: Relections on Japanese preschool and elementary school. (Chapters 5, pp. 101 -123). NY : Cambridge University Press.
6. Segall, M. H., Dasen, P. R., Berry, J. W., & Poortinga, Y. H. (1999). Perceptual and cognitive processes (chapter 4, pp. 94-125). In Human behavior in global perspective. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
7. Greenfield, P. M. (1997). You can't take it with you: Why ability assessments don't cross cultures. American Psychologist, 52, 1115-1124.
8. Shiraev, E., & Levy, D. (2001). Social perception and social cognition. In Introduction to cross-cultural psychology: Critical thinking and contemporary applications (Chapter 10, pp. 277-302). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
9. Morris, M. W., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 949-971.

10.. Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (1996). The romantic, sexual and marital ideal. In E. Hatfield & R. L. Rapson (Eds.), Love and sex: Cross-cultural perspectives (Chapter 2, pp. 25-58). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon

Achebe, C. (1959). Things fall apart.

Allende, I. (1985). House of the spirits.

Endo, S. (1969). Silence.

Gordimer., N. July’s people.

Mukherjee, B. Wife.

Sasson, J. (1992). Princess: A true story of life behind the veil in Saudi Arabia.

Emecheta, B. (1979). The joys of motherhood.

Hogan, L. (1995). Solar storms.

Fadiman, (1998). The spirit catches you and you fall down.

Your paper should focus on the cultural issues presented in the book. Some of the books focus on beliefs, practices, and experiences within one culture, whereas others focus on the conflicts and issues that arise when people cross cultures. Do not simply retell the story. I'm most interested in how you can apply the concepts of this course to the story you read.

Some questions to keep in mind that you may address in your paper are:

• What are the beliefs, ideologies, and values that underlie the behaviors described in this book? How do cultural beliefs and values influence the events of the book?
• Are there some cultural beliefs or practices represented in this book that are new or foreign to you?
• Are there conflicts between different cultural systems or beliefs represented in this book? If so, what are they? Why do they occur?
• How did your own cultural background influence your understanding of the book?
• Are there particular incidents in the book that are especially representative of cultural conflicts, or of the cultural beliefs, etc. of the characters in the book? If so, you might want to focus on 1 or 2 of these incidents in your report.
• What questions does this book raise about our contemporary understanding of psychology and human nature?

You are to locate an empirical article (e.g., one that presents original research, not a review of others' research) that examines a psychological phenomenon cross-culturally. You must find a recent article (dated 1999-2000) in one of the following journals, available in the library:

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Health Psychology

Journal of Personality

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Journal of Abnormal Psychology

Journal of Applied Psychology

Child Development

Journal of Experimental Psychology

Journal of Counseling Psychology

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Psychology and Aging

Journal of Educational Psychology

You should write a 2-3 page (typed, double-spaced) paper that addresses the points below. Please turn in 2 copies of your critique along with a copy of the original article. I will return one copy of your critique and the original article.

1. What were the primary questions or hypotheses of this research project? Are they appropriate for the cultures studied?
2. What are the independent and dependent variables (or predictor and outcome variables)?
3. Summarize the methods used to test the hypotheses.

• How are the variables operationalized?
• What method is used (e.g. experimental, quasi-experimental, correlational, etc).
• Who were the participants? How generalizable are these data to other persons?

• Did the researchers employ good cross-cultural methodology (e.g., translation and back translation, etc.)? If measures or paper-and-pencil instruments were used, were they appropriate for the samples? How was equivalence of the measures or treatments determined?

1. How did the author(s) summarize the findings of the study. Did the findings turn out as expected? Why or why not? Were there any surprising findings?
2. What questions are left unanswered by this study? Was there anything particularly interesting about this study to you? How might one improve on this study?
3. Did you see evidence of cultural bias in this study? If so, where? How could it have been avoided?

When you present your article to the class, you must hand out a copy of the citation and the abstract to all the class members (a copy of the first page of the article is fine). You should summarize the paper in 10-15 minutes, describing briefly the hypotheses, the methods used, the findings, and anything else you thought was interesting about the paper. One or two students will present each day in class.

Cultural Psychology and
the Centre-ground of Psychology

Dave Hiles
(Psychology, De Montfort University, Leicester. LE7 9SU. UK.)
(Email:    drhiles@dmu.ac.uk  )

ABSTRACT: The emerging field of Cultural Psychology, quite distinct from a trans- and cross-cultural psychology, is defined. This field is concerned with the relationship between culture and mind, i.e. with such questions as how mind is shaped by culture, as well as how culture is shaped by mind. The original view of psychology as a cultural science, vigorously debated a century ago when the new discipline emerged, needs urgent further consideration. Cultural Psychology has a serious claim to playing a central rôle in all approaches of the discipline, indeed, in any scientific study of mind and behaviour.

 

Jerome Bruner has recently proposed the recognition of the emerging field of Cultural Psychology. He argues that a psychology which concerns itself centrally with meaning:-

" . . inevitably becomes a cultural psychology [which] must venture beyond the conventional areas of positivist science with its ideals of reductionism, causal explanation and prediction" (Bruner, 1990; p.xiii).

Cultural Psychology, therefore, is concerned with what Bruner calls the "meaning-making process" which plays a central rôle in all human action and experience. Yet another view of Cultural Psychology is the study of the human mind through studying its cultural products. This emerging field of Cultural Psychology is concerned with the relationship between culture and mind, i.e. with such questions as:- how mind is shaped by culture, how culture is shaped by mind. Mind and culture are viewed as fundamentally interdependent, and Cultural Psychology, therefore, is concerned with some of the very basic issues about human nature. In the focus on the meaning-making process, Cultural Psychology is concerned with the meaning-exchange and the meaning-circulation process and the contexts this provides for human behaviour and experience. The purpose of this paper is to propose three major tasks that a developing Cultural Psychology must address, and establish the key rôle that culture must play in the explanation and study of all aspects of human behaviour.

Consider this quotation from the anthropologist, Clifford Geertz:-

"Undirected by cultural patterns - organized systems of significant symbols - [human] behaviour would be virtually ungovernable, a mere chaos of pointless acts and exploding emotions, [our] experience virtually shapeless. Culture, the accumulated totality of such patterns, is not just an ornament of human existence but the principle basis of its specificity - an essential condition of it." (Geertz, 1973; p.46).

Culture, Geertz argues, is an essential condition for human behaviour and experience. This position recognizes that human experience and identity are culturally embedded and are constructed discursively in language, in myth, in narrative, in ritual, indeed in all cultural practices. The original view of psychology as a cultural science was vigorously debated a century ago when the new discipline emerged (Jahoda, 1992). The idea that the human mind could be studied through its cultural products originated with Wilhelm Wundt and Wilhelm Dilthey. It is easily overlooked that Wundt recognised two psychologies. The first, an experimental science was for the study of the lower mental processes, and the second, a cultural science which studied the products of the mind rather than the mind itself. Wundt recognised the limits of the experimental method. The higher mental processes cannot be studied by experimental method - but they can be studied indirectly by investigation of their products. And, the cultural products to be studied would include:- language, narratives, customs, beliefs, traditions, social institutions, indeed the totality of human culture. Wundt was not alone in his vision. Wilhelm Dilthey, the German philosopher and psychologist, who was a contemporary of Wundt, argued that the development of psychology as a natural, empirical science was quite inadequate to study the elements of consciousness. He felt that only a psychology envisaged as a cultural science could properly treat the mind as a whole. Despite these early positions, psychology as a cultural science became little more than a marginal interest to an academic psychology dominated by the positivist, empirical approach of Behaviourism. Some of the concerns of a Cultural Psychology can be traced through the seminal work of:- Edward Sapir (see especially: Sapir, 1994 [1928/39]), Lev Vygotsky, George Herbert Mead, Frederic Bartlett, Jean Piaget, Noam Chomsky, and more recently in the work of:- Jerome Bruner, Michael Cole, Gustav Jahoda, Richard Shweder and James Wertsch.

2.1 Cultural Psychology:- a progress report on its present status

Some recent milestones do include a new journal ("Culture & Psychology" - Vol. 1(1) first published in March '95, with stated editorial aims of addressing " . . the centrality of culture necessary for a basic understanding of the psychology of human beings: their identity, social conduct, intra- and intersubjective experiences, emotions and semiotic creativity"), and landmark contributions especially by Bruner (1986, 1990; see Appendix for a summary of Bruner’s work), Cole (1990) and Shweder (see Shweder, 1991; Shweder & Sullivan, 1993). These developments have been variously described as a Second Cognitive Revolution, or the New Cognitivism. However, in the introduction to their recently published "Culture & Psychology Reader", Goldberger & Veroff (1995) remark on " . . . how little attention psychology has given to the role of culture in human behaviour and development" (p. 4). A wide survey of research abstracts, Ph.Ds, psychology textbooks, encyclopedic dictionaries of psychology, degree course outlines, and a quick surf on the internet, (and even this conference programme), all concur on the relatively low profile of Cultural Psychology. Indeed, Cultural Psychology is hardly seen as mainstream, it is placed rather at the margins, or seen as an applied topic area. One matter that does emerge from such a survey is a continuing confusion of terminology. A crucial distinction does need to be made between:-

             (1) Cross-cultural psychology

             (2) Trans-cultural psychology

             (3) Cultural psychology.

Cross-cultural psychology is simply concerned with cultural differences, i.e comparisons between cultures. Whereas, Trans-cultural psychology relates to the discipline of psychology as a whole, and is concerned with ensuring that psychological theories and findings have trans-cultural application, and not the naive transference from one culture to another irrespective of context. It is important to note that Cultural Psychology both highlights the study of cultural differences, and embraces the pursuit of a truly trans-cultural psychology. But what Cultural Psychology recognizes as its primary major task is in addressing the processes that underlie the rôle that culture plays in all psychological phenomenon. In this respect, Cultural Psychology is not to be taken simply as an applied branch of psychology, it can and must be seen to occupy a central position in the discipline, concerned with theories of the rôle that culture plays in the meaning-making process, and all aspects of human behaviour and experience.

2.2 The Narrative Mode

Cultural Psychology goes much further than simply asserting the importance of culture to the study of human psychology. Examination of the cultural products of the mind reveals patterns of human thinking that challenge the pre-eminence given to rational thought. The intrapersonal "will to meaning", the interpersonal exchange of meanings, and the cultural transmission of knowledge all use another very powerful form of human thinking - The Narrative Mode (Bruner, 1986). Individual human action can only be understood within the context of the available plausible accounts that are circulating at a personal, discursive and cultural level. In addition, every human culture lays out constructions of reality which offer an ordering of that reality into us/them, right/wrong, good/bad, etc, etc. An important theoretical insight is that these accounts and constructions can be modeled as narratives (see Polkinghorne, 1988; Sarbin, 1986). Narrative is a fundamental feature of human cognitive processes - a basic property of the human mind. Narrative is the pre-eminent organizing structure of human experience. This is no better expressed than by Miller Mair, a psychotherapist:-

" . . we live in and are shaped and constituted by the stories of our culture [ . . ] stories of past ages live through us and make us aware, blind, competent, and incompetent within the limits they define" (Mair, 1989; p. 9).

For a more detailed example of the importance of a discursive/cultural approach, see Hiles (1996), which reviews the discursive/cultural study of recovered memory.

Any serious study of the meaning-making process must develop a model of "context". Harré & Gillett (1994) have argued that an individual's behaviour can only be understood when we grasp the meanings that are informing that person's activity. Furthermore, the new cognitivism rejects the notion of a context-free central processor (see Shweder 1991; p. 77-84). Context is central to the notion of meaning, and it is notable that narrative is proposed as a major tool in the modelling of context (Sarbin, 1986).

3. RECOGNITION OF DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CULTURAL AND HUMAN SCIENCES - TASK (2)

A two-way relationship does need to be established between psychology and the other cultural and human sciences. One aspect of this is for Cultural Psychology to recognize the considerable progress that has been made in the cultural sciences. Indeed, it is possibly the lack of an adequate method for the study of culture that held back Wundt's vision. The tools now exist for the study of culture as a set of social and signifying practices. These clearly play a central rôle in human behaviour and experience. The basic processes of communication and thinking are in essence sign processes, and therefore the relevance of a semiotic approach to psychology needs to be addressed (Hiles, 1994). Furthermore, whereas major contributions to the cultural sciences have been made by linguistics, anthropology, media and cultural studies, and the humanities as a whole, the discipline of psychology has contributed very little. Indeed, it was Wilhelm Dilthey who originally proposed psychology as a foundational science to these disciplines, just as mathematics is to the natural sciences. But, while psychology was dominated by an empirical experimental approach, this was never really a serious possibility. It remains to be seen whether a mental calculus can ever be offered to the humanities from psychology.

While anthropology has made significant contributions to the resurgence of interest in Cultural Psychology, it is also in the recent study of popular culture that recognition of the impact of cultural texts on human thinking is being made. The mind's construction of reality is not seen as simply a consequence of direct contact and interaction with objective reality, but is seen also as a function of the continual stream of interpretations of reality received through the media, human language, indeed all cultural practices. These cultural practices invariably offer a realism that although a product of human interpretation, nevertheless, can and invariably is confused for reality itself (see Fiske, 1987). Inevitably, culture acts as a "lens" through which the external world is "viewed". A lens without which we would be unable to "see", or to know. Such an emphasis does recognise the postmodern "turn" that is happening in contemporary social theory, which challenges many of the assumptions of modernist science. This is beginning to have an impact on psychology (see Kvale, 1992), which has been slow to wake up to the "paradigm shift" occurring in the sciences. Put simply, the world is not knowable, or, at least not knowable directly (i.e. the phenomenological premise), there is no simple objective truth, we are imprisoned in our language, in our culture. This has radical implications for the science of psychology, and clearly places the highest priority on a systematic study of the relation between mind and culture. At the same time, the social and signifying practices of mediated communication incorporate an implicit theory of the human mind. The practice of montage and editing in film and television texts is a particularly good example from the field of visual communication. The study of such cultural texts, codes and communicative practices, when treated as products of the mind (and products for the mind), potentially can reveal much about the mental processes involved, and in turn can offer further hermeneutic perspectives on human cognition to complement the traditional experimental approaches. Nevertheless, it is to be regretted that the growth of the cultural and human sciences, over the past fifty years or so, has proceeded with only cursory input from psychology. What is now needed is cross-fertilization, and joint consolidation of theoretical principles and analytical research tools from the interpretive disciplines of the human sciences for Cultural Psychology to be well founded.

4. THE UNIFYING RÔLE THAT CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY OFFERS TO THE
     DISCIPLINE - TASK (3)

With the emphasis on the study of the meaning-making process, it is proposed that Cultural Psychology places emphasis on psychology as:- an Empirical science, a Human science, and a Cultural science. Cultural Psychology can embrace without any contradiction:- the phenomenological premise (Giorgi, 1970); a social constructionist perspective (Gergen, 1985); and a discursive psychology perspective (Edwards and Potter, 1992); as well as the positivist empirical approach to science. Moreover, meaning provides a unifying theme for the discipline. Consider the three major forces in psychology:- Cognitive/Behavioural, Psychodynamic, and Humanistic/Existential. The Cognitive/Behavioural approach to psychology obviously has a continuing interest in meaning-making processes, even though this is not always very explicit, the attempt to model a context-free central processor is flawed, and the issue of "meaning" is often fudged. A similar concern with "meaning" also is central to much theoretical work in Humanistic/Existential psychology. For example, the work of Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow and Victor Frankl all emphasise the rôle of personal meaning and effective communication for individual growth. Admittedly, the approach to understanding how meaning is created in human lived experience is here a little different from the cognitive/behavioural approach. Also, the issue of "meaning" is central to the concerns of Psychodynamic or Depth psychology, following after Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, and others. With the emphasis on interpretation, and unconscious determinants of meaning, psychoanalysis and other psychotherapies have made significant and important contributions to the understanding of the cultural contexts of human behaviour and experience.

It is then an interest in the "meaning-making process", and the rôle that culture plays in this, that is in effect a central issue for these three major approaches to psychology. The contention that is made here is that, by marginalizing the issue of meaning, psychology has become a seriously fragmented discipline. Human action is not a simple expression of unconscious instincts, nor a simple response to stimulus conditions, but is an active, multi-determined, culturally-channelled expression carrying meaning and significance. It is this latter view that holds the most promise for a properly integrated discipline of Psychology.

5. CONCLUSIONS

Cultural Psychology has a serious claim to playing a central rôle in all approaches of the discipline, indeed, in any scientific study of mind and behaviour. Cultural Psychology is to be placed, not at the margins, but crucially occupying part of the central ground of the discipline of psychology. Wider discussion of the disciplinary, teaching and research issues that this raises is needed.

REFERENCES

Bruner, J. (1986) Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. (1990) Acts of Meaning. Harvard University Press.

Cole, M. (1990) "Cultural Psychology: A once and future discipline?" In J.J. Barman (ed.), Cross-cultural Perspectives, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1989. Univ. of Nebraska Press.

Edwards, D. & Potter, J. (1992) Discursive Psychology. Sage.

Fiske, J. (1987) Television Culture. Routledge.

Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books.

Gergen, K. (1985) "The social constructionist movement in modern psychology." American Psychologist, 40, 266-75.

Giorgi, A. (1970) Psychology as a Human Science. Harper & Row.

Goldberger, N.R. & Veroff, J.B. (eds) (1995) The Culture and Psychology Reader. New York University Press.

Harré, R. & Gillett, G. (1994) The Discursive Mind. Sage.

Hiles, D.R. (1994) "The division of signs: A four-fold symmetry." 5th Congress IASS, San Francisco. (To be published in I. Rauch & G.F. Carr (eds), Semiotics around the world: Synthesis in diversity. Mouton de Gruyter.)

Hiles, D.R. (1996) "Recovered memory: A discursive psychology model." Paper presented at the 26th ICP, Montreal.

Jahoda, G. (1992) Crossroads Between Culture and Mind: Continuities and change in theories of human nature. Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Kvale, S. (Ed.) (1992) Psychology and Postmodernism. Sage.

Mair, M. (1989) "Psychology as a discipline of discourse." BPS Psychotherapy Section Newsletter, No. 7.

Polkinghorne, D.E. (1988) Narrative Knowing and the Human Sciences. SUNY Press.

Sapir, E. (1994 [1928/39]) The Psychology of Culture. (Edited and reconstructed by J.T. Irvine). Mouton de Gruyter.

Sarbin, T.R. (1986) "Narrative as a root metaphor in psychology." In T.R. Sarbin (Ed.) Narrative Psychology: The storied nature of human conduct. Praeger.

Shweder, R.A. (1991) Thinking Through Cultures: Expeditions in cultural psychology. Harvard University Press.

Shweder, R.A. & Sullivan, M.A. (1993) "Cultural Psychology: Who needs it?" Annual Review of Psychology. 44, 497-523

راههای مقابله با فراموشی و بهسازی حافظه
برای بهسازي حافظه و كاستن از ميزان فراموشي بايد مطالب يادگيري را به صورت معني دار آموخت و محتواي حافظه خود را سازمان داد .
1- سازماندهي : يكي از مشكلات عمده در راه يادگيري از عوامل فراموشي ، جابجايي اطلاعات و قاطي شدن اطلاعات در يكديگر است . در صورت تنظيم و سازماندهي اطلاعات، اين عامل مخرب از بين رفته و حافظه انسجام كافي پيدا مي كند. در ضمن مي توان با تلاش اندكي ، ميزان بسيار زيادي اطلاعات را از حافظه بدست آورد.

2-استفاده از واسطه‌ها: يك راه براي معنا بخشيدن به مطالب ظاهرا  بي معنا استفاده از واسطه‌ها يا ميانجي‌ها است.

3- ساخت سلسله مراتبي مطالب : عناصر يا تكاليف يادگيري را مي توان به صورت يك سلسله مراتب از ساده به دشوار مرتب كرد به نحوي كه يادگيري هر عنصر يا تكليف به يادگيري تكاليف ديگر مربوط باشد فايده اين عمل اين است كه يادگيرنده، يادگيري خود را با مطالب ساده آغاز مي كند و با يادگيري هر مطلب پيش نياز براي يادگيري مطالب بعدي آمادگي كسب مي كند.
وجود پيش نياز يادگيري براي هر مطلب تازه آن مطلب را به حالت آشنا و معني دار براي يادگيرنده در مي آورد .

4- الگوي يادگيري فعال : با استفاده از اين الگو مي توان ياد داري مطالب آموخته شده را طولاني تر كرد .چنين فعاليتي باعث خواهد شد كه ارتباطهاي بيشتري ما بين مطالب آموختني بر قرار شود كه بدين طريق آنها بهتر رمز گرداني خواهند شد.
الف ) يادگيري بخش بخش : منظور از اين روش اين است كه مطالب زياد به بخشهاي كوچكتري تقسيم شود چرا كه با اين روش قسمتهاي قبلي مطالب در تسلط آموخته مي شوند و يادگيرنده پس از يادگيري هر قسمت به سراغ قسمت بعدي خواهد رفت .
ب) پر آموزي : براي مقابله با مشكل فراموشي از فرد خواسته مي شود كه مطالب آموخته شده را تكرار كند . بدين طريق اطلاعات بيشتر تثبيت خواهند شد.
ج)تمرين و مرور ذهني: مرور ذهني به تكرار بخش كوچكي از اطلاعات گفته مي شود كه بلافاصله بعد از رسيدن آن به حافظه كوتاه مدت صورت مي گيرد و باعث باقي ماندن اطلاعات در حافظه كوتاه مدت مي شود .

كاربر محترم اين مطلب در دو قسمت ارائه خواهد شد.

افسردگي بيماري بسيار شايع عصر ماست. و در تمامي جهان روندي فزاينده دارد. اين در حالي است كه حدود نيمي از مبتلايان به افسردگي يا از بيماري خود بي خبرند يا بيماري آنها چيزي ديگر تشخيص داده شده است.

افسردگي يك بيماري اختصاصي نيست بلكه در تماما سنين و همه نژادها، هم در زنان و هم در مردان ظاهر مي شود. افسردگي بيماري ساده اي نيست بلكه انواع گوناگون دارد به طوري كه در بعضي افراد به صورت هايي ظاهر مي شود كه ما عموماً آنها را افسردگي نمي شناسيم. افسردگي پس از آنكه درمان شد غالباً باز مي گردد.

افسردگي مسائل گوناگوني به همراه دارد. غيراز مسائل پزشكي و اندوه كه بسيار شايع است، فرد مبتلا به افسردگي خود را در كارها مورد تبعيض و از نظر اجتماعي مطرود و حتي منفور خانواده خودش مي بيند. گاهي انزواي همراه افسردگي، بيماراني را كه وضعي درمان پذير دارند به دوري از مردم يا به سوي مرگ سوق مي دهد. درباره افسردگي خبرهاي خوشي نيز وجود دارد: بيشتر انواع افسردگي قابل درمان اند.

 Depression كه غالباً افسردگي باليني، اختلالات خلق و خوي يا اختلالات عاطفي ناميده مي شود، بيمار را دچار آشفتگي انديشه، آشفتگي عاطفي، تغيير رفتار و بيماري هاي جسماني مي كند.

افسردگي باليني، از ديدگاه عملكردهاي اجتماعي بيش از ديگر بيماري هاي مزمن، بيمار را ناتوان مي كند. افسردگي كبير بيش از بيماري هاي مزمن  ششي، التهاب مفصل و ديابت ، ناتوان كننده است. افسردگي يك نشانگان (Syndrom) يعني مجموعه اي از علامات مرضي(Symptoms) مختلف است.

املاك هاي تشخيص افسردگي عبارت اند از:

1- افسرده بودن خلق و خوي در بيشتر روزها، تقريباً هر روز.

2- كاهش آشكار علاقه يا ميل به هر نوع فعاليت در زندگي.

3- كاهش يا افزايش قابل توجه وزن بر اثر كاهش يا افزايش اشتهاي غذا خوردن.

4- بي خوابي يا پرخوابي در غالب شب ها.

5- افزايش يا كاهش اعمال رواني حركتي يا فعاليت هاي ذهني.

6- خستگي يا كاهش انرژي.

7- احساس بي ارزشي يا گناهكار بودن.

8- كاهش توان انديشيدن يا تمركز ذهن و تصميم گيري.

9- انديشيدن به مرگ ( نه ترسيدن از آن) و به خودكشي، بدون داشتن طرحي براي آن ، يا اقدام به خودكشي با طرحي از پيش ريخته.

داشتن حداقل پنج علامت ياد شده براي ابتلا به افسردگي كبير كافي است. ولي علامات مرضي يك و دو بايد جزء آن علامت باشند. افسردگي نمي تواند واكنش معمولي مرگ يك عزيز باشد. همه افراد مبتلا به افسردگي تمام علامات مرضي اين بيماري را ندارند و شدت علامات مرضي در افراد مختلف متفاوت است

انواع افسردگي

افسردگي اقسام گوناگون دارد، شايع ترين آن افسردگي كبير است كه فرد مبتلا به آن گاهي شاد و خوشدل و موقتاً فعال مي شود. نوعي از افسردگي كبير به افسردگي ماليخوليايي موسوم است كه بيمار هيچ گاه از چيزي دلخوش نمي شود  در حدود 15 درصد مبتلايان به افسردگي كبير دچار افسردگي اوهام اند كه معمولاً با خلق و خوي اندوهگين همراه است. مثلاً خود را گناهكار و غير قابل بخشش تصور مي كنند. در حدود 15 در صد مبتلايان به افسردگي كبير نيز دچار روان پريشي مي شوند.

نوع ديگري از افسردگي وجود دارد به نام "افسردگي غيرمعمول" كه بر خلاف اسمش شايع است. علامات مرضي آن عكس علامات مرضي افسردگي معمولي است كه مبتلايان كم مي خوابند و كم مي خورند. مبتلايان به افسردگي غير معمول زياد مي خوابند و زياد مي خورند و به سرعت اضافه وزن پيدا مي كنند. به قول يكي از متخصصان برجسته بيماري افسردگي ( دونالد كلاين)، افسردگي غير معمول، "مزمن" است نه" دوره اي" ؛ از بلوغ آغاز مي شود و بيماران نسبت به همه امور كم توجه اند.

نوع ديگرافسردگي، روان رنجوري است كه عموماً حدود دو سال طول مي كشد و علامات مرضي آن خفيف تر از افسردگي كبير است ولي همواره احساس ناراحتي مي كنند.

شيوع افسردگي در قرن بيستم به خصوص بعد از دو جنگ جهاني بيشتر شده است، علت آن را مصرف دارو و الكل، افزايش استرس و كاهش اشتغال گفته اند ؛ علت ديگر افزايش افسردگي تغييرات اساسي اجتماعي است. گروهي از روان شناسان بر اين باورند كه جامعه كنوني، كانوني ناسالم در درون افراد به وجود آورده و آنها را بيش از اندازه به رضايت خاطر و شكست هاي شخصي وابسته كرده است.

آنچه گفته شد جنبه نظري دارد ولي بعضي از پژوهشگران درباره جنبه علمي علت ها اظهار نظر كرده اند. بر اساس پژوهش هاي آنها، تلويزيون " منشاء عمده افسردگي است" Paul Kottl روان پزشك مركز پزشكي پنسيلوانيا كشف كرده است كه " ارتباط تنگانگي بين دسترسي مداوم كودكان به تلويزيون و افسردگي كبير در 24 سالگي وجود دارد." Kottl مي نويسد:

" اثرات اجتماعي برنامه هاي چند ساعته تلويزيوني، بايد از دلايل شروع زودرس افسردگي كبير در نوجوانان به حساب آيد، هزاران ساعت تماشاي تلويزيون، كودكان ما را در معرض خشونت هاي ابلهانه مكرر قرار مي دهد و آنها را هر چه بيشتر از تماس هاي اجتماعي با همسالان و خانواده دور مي كند."

افسردگي كبير بيشتر در دهه هاي سوم و چهارم زندگي ظاهر مي گردد و در غالب افراد بين شش ماه تا يك سال، حتي بدون درمان رفع مي شود ؛ ولي اگر درمان شود بعد از چند هفته از بين مي رود. بازگشت افسردگي در بيش از نيمي از افراد ظرف دو سال بعد از رويداد نخستين رخ مي دهد. خطر افسردگي با تعداد بازگشت ها افزايش مي يابد. بدين معني كه بعد از دو بازگشت، هفتاد در صد و بعد از سه بازگشت به نود درصد مي رسد.

عوامل زير خطر بازگشت افسردگي را افزايش مي دهند:

اگر نخستين افسردگي پيش از بيست سالگي رخ داده باشد و سابقه خانوادگي موجود باشد؛

اگرنخستين افسردگي شديد باشد و دير به درمان اقدام شده باشد؛

اگر بيماري رواني ديگري نيز وجود داشته باشد؛

اگر فرد نسبت به استرس ها يا ديگر عوامل اجتماعي آسيب پذيرتر باشد.

اگر فرد از افسردگي قبلي كاملاً  بهبود نيافته باشد؛

اگر افسردگي در اواخر عمر رخ داده باشد.