Culture as Process: The Dynamics of Cultural Stability and Change

Author’s personal copy (e-offprint) M. Kemmelmeier SocialP sychology 2012; & U. Vol. Kühnen: 43(4):171–173 Editorial Editorial © 2012 Hogrefe Publishing Culture as Process: The Dynamics of Cultural Stability and Change Markus Kemmelmeier1 and Ulrich Kühnen2 1 University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA, 2Jacobs University, Bremen, Germany The temptation is strong to treat culture and cultural differences as a “thing.” However, research in cultural social psychology and related disciplines has demonstrated that culture is better thought of as a process. Social psychologists have demonstrated that, even when cultural patterns appear to be relatively stable over time, culture is continuously being produced and reproduced in the dynamic interaction between individuals and their social and natural environments (e.g., Greenfield, 1997; Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martinez, 2000; Markus & Kitayama, 2010; Oyserman, Kemmelmeier, & Coon, 2002; Tooby & Cosmides, 1992). When individuals respond to contextual affordances, culture lies both “within” and “outside” of the individual. In the words of Shweder (1990, p. 24), culture and individual “make each other up.” A focus on cultural processes also makes clear that there is a great deal of variation between individuals in the same culture, as well as within each individual across different situations (e.g., Hannover & Kühnen, 2004; Leung & Cohen, 2011). But regardless of how stable cultures may appear from the outside, the dynamic nature of cultural processes carry within them the seeds of change. Whether sparked by increasing intercultural contact, economic transitions, political changes, or new technologies, societies change in terms of the cultural values, beliefs, and behaviors of their members (e.g., Greenfield, 2009; Vargas & Kemmelmeier, 2012). This special issue brings together contemporary research and theories that advance our understanding of culture as a process. Indeed, the seven contributions elucidate cultural dynamics in terms of all of the topics mentioned above. The papers are loosely grouped by the types of cultural processes they address. The first two papers target basic processes of culture generation and acquisition. Drawing primarily on an evolutionary framework, Clay and colleagues extend work by Fincher, Thornhill, Murray, and Schaller (2008), who argued that cultures and cultural differences originate in the human need to avoid potentially contagious diseases (Clay, Terrizzi, & Shook, 2012). Where Fincher et al. (2008) focused on cross-cultural differences, Clay and collaborators © 2012 Hogrefe Publishing demonstrate that individual differences in the endorsement of cultural values are similarly associated with individual differences in the reactivity of the psychological system aimed at avoiding disease-causing pathogens. By contrast, Flynn and Smith (2012) examine imitation as a critical mechanism in the acquisition and spread of cultural practices. Using an experimental paradigm from development psychology, they demonstrate that, like children, adults overimitate. That is, adults faithfully imitate the behavior of a model even when this behavior is self-evidently of no instrumental value. Flynn and Smith argue that (over)imitation appears to be a process so basic that it occurs even when contextual manipulations militate against it. The second group of articles addresses processes of cultural maintenance. To be sure, much is already known about this topic, with processes such as task-framing, choice, language, and priming having been shown to be involved in culture production and reproduction (e.g., Kemmelmeier & Cheng, 2004; Kitayama, Park, Sevincer, Karasawa, & Uskul, 2009; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Yet the first paper will likely complicate the picture somewhat. Across three experiments, Saribay, Rim, and Uleman (2012) suggest that the influence of independent and interdependent self-construals on interpersonal impressions is much more conditional than implied by the most sophisticated research of even only a few years ago. The remaining pair of articles in this section focuses on emotion, a critical dimension of human interaction. Crowe, Raval, Trivedi, Daga, and Raval (2012) demonstrate systematic differences in the kinds of emotions that Americans and Indians tend to experience and communicate in the same set of situations. This work points also to different emotion regulation goals and strategies by members of different cultures (see Martini, 2011); these are arguably the basis of the interpersonal practices that lead to a greater “other”-focus in India compared to the United States. In a comparison of samples from Canada, China, and Gabon, the contribution by Thibault, Levesque, Gosselin, and Hess (2012) then challenges the idea that the Duchenne smile is universally considered more authentic than the non-Duchenne smile. Rather, Social Psychology 2012; Vol. 43(4):171–173 DOI: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000117 172 M. Kemmelmeier & U. Kühnen: Editorial these authors’ findings are more compatible with the notion that smiles and their authenticity are embedded in culturespecific dialects of nonverbal behavior, which are learned just like linguistic dialects. The third and last section of our special issues is devoted to processes of cultural change. Focusing on the presumed profound influence of technology on cultural aspects of the self, Hansen, Postmes, van der Vinne, and van Thiel (2012) report on a longitudinal field experiment with Ethiopian children who each received a laptop for 1 year. Working with a laptop induced a shift in self-concept in the direction of individualism, a finding that, on a much grander scale, can help us understand how technology shapes culture. Also with a focus on Africa, Salter and Adams (2012) present a cross-sectional study tracing the influence of profound cultural change in Ghana. Relying on traditional dilemma task, these authors document how urbanization and modernity have rearranged relationship priorities from kin relations to nuclear/spousal relations. Lastly, Quezada, Shaw, and Zárate (2012) are motivated by the profound demographic shift that is currently occurring in the United States, which will soon render Americans of European ancestry a numerical minority. Though much research to date has focused on how European Americans perceive minority groups, this authors’ work looks to recent theories to examine the support for and resistance to cultural change in a sample of Latinos. Overall, the papers in this special issue offer a glimpse at state-of-the-art theory and research in cultural and crosscultural psychology, which is increasingly embracing the view that culture is generated and re-generated dynamically in the interactions of individuals with their social and material environments. Yet, in at least one respect, this special issue is highly atypical for contemporary research in cultural psychology: With the research reported here relying on samples form Canada, China, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Great Britain, India, and the United States, Africa is no longer underrepresented as so often the case, with one EastAfrican and two sub-Saharan societies in the mix. We hope this collection of different perspectives and analyses of cultural processes will contribute to our understanding of how cultures attain stability and how they change. We would like to thank all colleagues who sent us their work for editorial consideration for this special issue. We also thank the reviewers for their insights and counsel as well as the Editor-in-Chief Hans-Peter Erb for entrusting us with this special issue. It is our sincere hope that the research reported here will inspire new insights and innovative research that will advance our field even further. References Clay, R., Terrizzi Jr., J. A., & Shook, N. J. (2012). Individual differences in the behavioral immune system and the emergence of cultural systems. Social Psychology, 43, 174–184. Social Psychology 2012; Vol. 43(4):171–173 Crowe, M., Raval, V. V., Trivedi, S. S., Daga, S. S., & Raval, P. H. (2012). Processes of emotion communication and control: A comparison of India and the United States. Social Psychology, 43, 205–214. Fincher, C. L., Thornhill, R., Murray, D. R., & Schaller, M. (2008). Pathogen prevalence predicts human cross-cultural variability in individualism/collectivism. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 275, 1279–1285. doi 10.1098/rspb.2008.0094 Flynn, E., & Smith, K. (2012). Investigating the mechanisms of cultural acquisition: How pervasive is adults’ overimitation? Social Psychology, 43, 185–195. Greenfield, P. M. (1997). Culture as process: Empirical methods for cultural psychology. In J. W. Berry, Y. H. Poortinga, & J. Pandey (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, Vol. 1: Theory and method (pp. 301–346). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Greenfield, P. M. (2009). Linking social change and developmental change: Shifting pathways of human development. Developmental Psychology, 45, 401–418. doi 10.1037/a0014725 Hannover, B., & Kühnen, U. (2004). Culture, context, and cognition: The semantic procedural interface model of the self. European Review of Social Psychology, 15, 297–333. doi 10. 1080/10463280440000053 Hansen, N., Postmes, T., van der Vinne, N., & van Thiel, W. (2012). Information and communication technology and cultural change: How ICT changes self-construal and values. Social Psychology, 43, 222–231. Hong, Y.-Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C.-Y., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Multicultural minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55, 709–720. Kemmelmeier, M., & Cheng, B. Y.-M. (2004). Language and selfconstrual priming: A replication and extension in a Hong Kong sample. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 705–712. Kitayama, S., Park, H., Sevincer, A. T., Karasawa, M., & Uskul, A. K. (2009). A cultural task analysis of implicit independence: Comparing North America, Western Europe, and East Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 236–255. doi 10.1037/a0015999 Leung, A. K.-Y., & Cohen, D. (2011). Within- and between-culture variation: Individual differences and the cultural logics of honor, face, and dignity cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 507–526. doi 10.1037/a0022151 Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224 Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 420–430. doi 10.1177/1745691610375557 Martini, T. S. (2011). Effects of target audience on emotion regulation strategies and goals. Social Psychology, 42, 124–134. doi 10.1027/1864-9335/a000052 Oyserman, D., Kemmelmeier, M., & Coon, H. M. (2002). Cultural psychology: A new look. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 110–117. doi 10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.110 Quezada, S. A., Shaw, M. P., & Zárate, M. A. (2012). Cultural inertia: The relationship between ethnic identity and reactions to cultural change. Social Psychology, 43, 243–251. Salter, P., & Adams, G. (2012). Mother or wife? An African dilemma tale and the psychological dynamics of sociocultural change. Social Psychology, 43, 232–243. © 2012 Hogrefe Publishing M. Kemmelmeier & U. Kühnen: Editorial Saribay, S. A., Rim, S., & Uleman, J. S. (2012). Primed self-construal, culture, and stages of impression formation. Social Psychology, 43, 196–204. Shweder, R. A. (1990). Cultural psychology: What is it? In J. W. Stigler, R. A. Shweder, & G. Herdt (Eds.), Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human development (pp. 1–46). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Thibault, P., Levesque, M., Gosselin, P., & Hess, U. (2012). The Duchenne marker is NOT a universal signal of smile authenticity: But it can be learned! Social Psychology, 43, 215–221. Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 19–137). New York: Oxford University Press. Vargas, J. H., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2012). Ethnicity and contemporary American culture: A meta-analytic investigation of horizontal – vertical individualism – collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. doi 10.1177/0022022112443733 © 2012 Hogrefe Publishing View publication stats 173 Markus Kemmelmeier Interdisciplinary PhD Program in Social Psychology University of Nevada Mail Stop 300 Reno, NV 89557 USA E-mail [email protected] Ulrich Kühnen School of Humanities & Social Sciences Jacobs University Campus Ring 1 28759 Bremen Germany E-mail [email protected] Social Psychology 2012; Vol. 43(4):171–173