Cultural Psychology, Socialization, and Individual Development in Changing Contexts
Media
Part of Cultural Psychology, Socialization, and Individual Development in Changing Contexts
- Title
- Cultural Psychology, Socialization, and Individual Development in Changing Contexts
- extracted text
-
Cultural Psychology, Socialization,
and Individual Development in
Changing Contexts
GISELA TROMMSDORFF
Abstract
This essay discusses two major emerging trends in the study of culture and psychology. One trend can be observed in the reconciliation of cross-cultural and
culture-indigenous approaches due to conceptualizing culture in a value- and
norm-oriented framework of cultural meaning and cultural minds. A second
trend is based on questions of culture learning and socialization, reconciling
the nature–nurture debate. Developmental studies integrating biological and
socialization conditions in cultural contexts are complemented by selected studies
on culture-specificities of self-regulation, prosocial behavior, caretaker’s implicit
theories on parenting, and intergenerational relations. The meaning-making
function of socialization is seen as a major process in culture learning and the
development of cultural mindsets. I conclude with questions regarding socioeconomic, demographic, and cultural changes, suggesting a major research goal for
an emerging science of cultural psychology: to provide a scientific basis for better
understanding culture-psychological conditions and consequences of fundamental
ongoing changes related to cultural diversity and to accelerating intercultural
connections.
Globalization has widened the options for cultural encounters, cultural
affordances, and constraints, challenging the status of regional and national
cultures and the respective cultural values and identities. These options
are related to multiple problems intensified by multiple forces of change,
for example, climate, demographics, migration, religious conflicts, and
technological transformations. The impact of ongoing demographic, social,
economic, political, and cultural changes are affecting socialization conditions in the family, in school, and on the labor market, thereby shaping
individual development. Resulting effects on the individual’s self- and
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Robert Scott and Marlis Buchmann (General Editors) with Stephen Kosslyn (Consulting Editor).
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
world-view and on cultural values and practices will influence the living
and socialization conditions and the cultural contexts of the present and the
next generation.
Though questions regarding human development in changing cultural contexts have not been a central focus in psychology, cultural psychology may
provide some clarifications. Cultural aspects of human behavior and development have recently stimulated an increasing number of culture-informed
studies aiming to better understand the relations between culture and developmental processes, testing mainstream theories in non-western contexts,
and acknowledging the diversity of populations and related cultural practices and values. Studies on cultural differences and similarities in human
development are widening the perspective beyond the European–American
cultural context, attempting to overcome an ethnocentric bias. The millennium even started with the expectation of a “cultural revolution in psychology” (Ng & Liu, 2000), assuming a global, culture-informed international
psychology.
Despite the many forms of culture and various definitions of culture in
the psychological literature, cultural psychologists conceive of culture as
possessing some temporal stability, certain boundaries, and some predictive
value as a source of variance for human behavior. Culture is transmitted
over time and generations, characterized by adaptive interactions between
humans and the environment, and consisting of shared components
(Lehman, Chiu, & Schaller, 2004). This conceptualization raises the question
for cultural psychology regarding how culture and human development are
related.
The aim of this essay is to discuss selected emerging trends in research on
the interrelations between psychology and culture focusing on human development. In the first part, I will give a brief overview on main debates and
emerging approaches in cultural psychology. In the second part, I will discuss models, controversies, and selected empirical research on socialization
and human development in cultural contexts. I will conclude with suggestions regarding an expansion of research topics for an emerging science of
cultural psychology.
OVERVIEW ON MAIN APPROACHES IN CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
Cultural psychology describes and explains intra- and inter-individual
processes and human development, including cultural learning, in cultural
contexts. Cultural psychology as presently emerging from debates between
cross-cultural and culture-psychological (and indigenous) main approaches
does no longer regard culture as a fixed categorical variable. Culture is rather
Cultural Psychology, Socialization, and Individual Development in Changing Contexts
3
seen as a dynamic, fluid, and complex process, consisting of polyvalent
elements related to cultural values and practices and contributing to cultural
variations in human development.
Culture-comparative (cross-cultural) psychologists focus on how cultural
factors shape individual development and behavior, aiming for better
understanding psychological phenomena of individuals in diverse cultures,
attempting to clarify universalities and refine and broaden psychological theories (Triandis, 1994). Comparisons among diverse cultures are
to increase the explanatory power in testing psychological theories and
to ensure ecological validity. Cross-cultural studies on similarities and
differences in relationships between the cultural context and the development of human behavior conceive of culture as a complex environment
for psychological processes, including human development. The concept of culture underlying the cross-cultural approach has often been
criticized as too broad for psychological studies. Given the many definitions, components, and the unclear boundaries of cultures, Poortinga
(2015) has suggested to abandon the concept of culture, proposing to
specify “cultural” characteristics for cultural psychological comparisons,
for example, choosing objective indicators on the national level such as
the gross domestic product (GDP). However, cross-national comparisons
show that global economic measures are only partially useful to predict
psychological phenomena (e.g., well-being; Oishi & Gilbert, 2016), whereas
measures on the national context related to socialization and cultural
values (e.g., World Values Surveys; Human Development Index, HDI)
are more useful for testing cultural psychological assumptions (Bond,
Lun, & Li, 2012; Mayer et al., 2015; Trommsdorff, 2009). For example,
socialization emphasis on self-directedness versus other-directness characterizing one’s national culture partially predicts well-being (Lun &
Bond, 2016). Global indicators of the cultural context may obscure relations between distal contextual factors and individual developmental
outcomes. Thus, mediators and moderators on the macro-, meso-, and
micro-level should be included for enhancing predictive power of models for individual development. Examining multiple cultures (multilevel
analyses) and different forms of culture simultaneously may reveal which
cultural variables and which of their relations are the best predictors
for developmental outcomes (Mayer et al., 2015). Testing the functional
equivalence of indicators and proximal variables, both embedded in longitudinal designs, would be most preferable for explaining developmental
processes.
A different approach promoted by culture and indigenous psychology has
emerged from criticism of functionalist cross-cultural studies. Different from
the nomothetic culture-insensitive paradigm of mainstream psychology,
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
culture and indigenous psychologists are interested in cultural meanings
(Geertz, 1973) and interpretative schemes (Shweder, 1985), assuming
interdependencies between culture (in its historically based complexity)
and the human mind. Cultural dynamics are seen as constitutive of and
intertwined with (but not as external influential factors of) human development, while better knowledge on interrelations between culture and
psychological processes helps to understand the meaning of cultural and
psychological phenomena (Bruner, 1990; Eckensberger, 2010; Geertz, 1973).
The meaning-focused approach makes use of symbols and verbal accounts
of subjective interpretations, beliefs, and intuitive theories. It also studies
cultural practices to clarify how individual and collective actions connect
for shared goal achievement.
Hofstede (2001) has initiated a third approach, a cultural-dimensions psychology, emerging from value-based conceptualizations of culture. He suggested
to measure “cultural dimensions”, classifying national cultures based on the
mapping of cultural value dimensions (e.g., individualism–collectivism).
Conceptually reducing “culture” to psychological traits serving as cultural indicators for cultural comparisons has yielded an enormous rise of
cross-cultural studies, partly using the research tool of the representative
World Value Surveys. Schwartz’s theory on the universal content and
structure of values (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1990) promoted the comparison
of the variability of large cultural entities, such as nations and specific
universally valid values between individuals. Further dimensions of cultural variability—“loose–tight cultures”—are reflecting attitudes toward
norms. “Tight” nations foster strong norms and a low tolerance of deviant
behavior; “loose” nations prefer weak norms and a high tolerance of deviant
behavior (Gelfand et al., 2011). Value- and norm-based cross-national
studies face problems to distinguish the cultural and individual level of
values. Also, cultural variations should not be limited to national and
geographic borders. Artificial or politically imposed national borders
do not necessarily indicate “national-equals-cultural unity.” Adding to
the complex nature of culture, diverse levels of interconnected elements
(e.g., institutions, political, ethnic, and religious groups) complement
and advance the theoretical scope of cross-cultural research in terms
of intracultural studies. In his discussion on “many forms of culture”,
Cohen (2009) suggests several “cultural markers”, for example, region,
socioeconomic status, and religion. Overall, this approach contributes to
an improved psychological understanding of the meaning of culture and
bridges the seemingly divergent approaches conceiving of culture as an
external variable influencing human development (cross-cultural view)
versus culture as interrelated with human development (culture-indigenous
view).
Cultural Psychology, Socialization, and Individual Development in Changing Contexts
5
On this basis, a fourth approach has been emerging, cultural psychology.
Regarding culture and self as mutually constitutive is part of the basic idea
of Markus and Kitayama (1991), assuming that cultural patterns and social
structures are related to fundamental psychological processes. Assumed
interdependencies of culture and the self can explain cultural differences in
emotion, cognition, motivation, and behavior. Social situations common in a
culture reinforce culture-specific tendencies such as independence or interdependence. Based on the concept of the cultural model of self-construal,
the preference for independence or interdependence and their relations
to other psychological phenomena allow going beyond national borders,
identify cultural subgroups, and test cultural differences and similarities.
This theorizing allows the study of the meaning of individual’s behavior
in a value- or norm-based framework which serves to connect the cultural
context and individual development including self-construals and related
self- and world-views. Markus and Kitayama’s (1991) theory on cultural
models of self-construal are thus further reconciling cross-cultural and
indigenous approaches, allowing for a cultural psychological approach
to human development. Conceptually related to the cultural model of
self-construal is the “culture-as-situated cognitions” perspective by Oyserman (2015, 2017). This situational dynamic approach predicts that activating
one aspect of an individualist or collectivist position may activate other
related aspects, assuming the following: Human cognition is contextually
activated; human culture has developed from the survival necessity for
interpersonal relations; culture is a functional, universal, and set of practices
to solve basic problems in cooperation with others. Cultural mindsets
function as associative networks, emerging during development and
influencing the person’s subjective meaning of their experiences. Across
societies, variations of the individualistic and collectivistic cultural mindsets
are related to specific practices. While individualism and collectivism (as
universal cultural mindsets) have been experimentally activated through
priming in diverse societies, Novin and Oyserman (2016) and Oyserman
(2017) have proposed “honor” as third universal cultural mindset also
functioning as a meaning-making framework, influencing cognitions
and judgments. Honor as focal concern in collectivistic cultures, where
individuals are focusing on an external evaluation of the self (in contrast
to dignity as an intrinsic value of the self in individualistic cultures),
can be activated outside of the laboratory influencing behavior (Gelfand
et al., 2015). Differences in focus of promoting an honorable person and
preventing a dishonorable person are defined through different linguistic pathways, revealed in rational models of negotiation (in the United
States) contrasted to relational models of honor (Egypt) (Gelfand et al.,
2015).
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIALIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT
OF CULTURAL MINDSET
In the following, I discuss socialization conditions for cultural learning
and the development of a cultural mindset from the perspective of cultural
psychology. Socialization research as part of cultural psychology aims to
study the relationships between the cultural context and human development assuming interrelations between biology, culture, and psychological
processes.
BIOLOGY AND CULTURE
The nature–nurture debate on the primacy of biological or of environmental
factors in development has affected cultural psychology of socialization
from its early beginnings. Recent approaches in cultural psychology of
socialization do no longer ignore the biological properties, recognizing at
the same time the ecological and cultural environment of the developing
child. Human development is seen as based on biological and evolutionary
processes; sociocultural activities stem from interactions among biological
and sociocultural phenomena. A revision of the formerly “nurture”-focused
view assumes effects of genes, biology, and heredity on infant development
influencing parenting and ecological factors, thus acknowledging interactive
processes between the environment and the caretakers’ and child’s biology
and psychology (German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina,
2014).
In her observational study on biological, social, and cognitive changes in
infant development, Greenfield (2002) illustrates the relations between the
cultural environment and the biological nature of the infant. Biologically
based sensitive periods for development are “respected” by culture and
reflected in implicit caretaker’s ethnotheories of development. “Culture
shapes development” through cultural practices stimulating neuromuscular
pathways, the foundation for cognitive development adaptive to the cultural tasks. Cultural norms for infant care “reinforces biology”, for example,
newborn’s motor behavior. The level of physical activity continues into
adulthood, reinforced by cultural norms. The transmission of cultural norms
and biology to the next generation are facilitated by a restrained movement
environment for the unborn baby (“culture appropriating biology”). Further, culture and biology are mutually adaptive for survival in a dangerous
environment (late infant walking). “Culture selects from biology” means
that the environment reinforces certain elements of the infant’s biologically grounded capacities, depending on environmental affordances and
constraints—the foundation for differentiated cultural socialization.
Cultural Psychology, Socialization, and Individual Development in Changing Contexts
7
These descriptions touch issues of cultural neuroscience, studying learning
and related brain changes, sensitive periods (when neural development
increases susceptibility to environmental influences), and epigenetic effects
due to prenatal experience or in early infancy, influencing the individual’s
development over the life span and possibly also the next generation. Cultural neuroscience, having shown that psychological differences between
cultures are linked to biological processes (e.g., neural activation), is analyzing the joint function of cultural and biological processes in human
development and behavior and the constituent role of culture in biological
processes. In their review, Sasaki and Kim (2017) discuss evidence regarding
culture and gene (gene–environment and gene–culture interactions), physiological processes (neuroendocrine and immune responses) in different
cultures, and neural processes related to cultural differences in psychological
outcomes. Their overview supports the notion that “certain genotypes may
endow people with greater predispositions to be influenced by cultural values, expectations, and norms.” (p. 8). Thus, the assumption that influences
of the environment depend on biological factors can be specified: genes
predispose persons to be more or less susceptible to influences from cultural
socialization. Persons carrying the environmental susceptibility genes show
stronger cross-cultural differences, for example, reporting a more independent orientation in the United States, and a more interdependent orientation
in Japan (norm sensitivity hypothesis) (Kitayama, King, Hsu, Liberzon, &
Yoon, 2016). To summarize, the gene–culture interaction model as suggested
by cultural neuroscience views culture and biology as basically embedded
in human development.
SOCIALIZATION IN CULTURAL CONTEXTS
Assuming that meaningful input from the sociocultural environment is necessary for biological functions in human development, our focus now is on
the contexts of development. Matsumoto (2001) suggests a broad contextual view on culture learning and socialization: “ … culture may be learned
through situated cognitive schemas and structures related to specific contexts, and that cultural meaning is constructed across these contexts as individuals develop social cognitive abilities that allow for such construction to
occur.” (p. 193). This is in line with Bruner’s (1990) postulation that understanding the subjective meaning of the respective variables is most important. The task is to “translate” the cultural and the subjective meaning of
socialization practices and developmental outcomes in a way that it can be
incorporated in an integrated theory.
Whiting and Whiting (1975) have suggested a socialization model on
the relations between the individual and the environment. The ecological
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
multilevel model by Bronfenbrenner and Morris (1998) discusses the permeable boundaries between the individual, the micro-, and the macro-level
of society. However, these contextual models on interactions between the
person and environments have not been designed to identify the socialization process and the cultural meaning of the contexts for cultural learning.
Super and Harkness’s (1986) conceptualization of the “developmental
niche” provides a framework that includes both objective-structural and
subjective aspects of the child’s development and cultural learning. The
major components of the niche are the physical and social setting, the
customs of child care and child rearing, and the psychology of caregivers,
all embedded in the larger environment and interacting with each other
and with the child. This approach has stimulated cultural psychologists to
study caretakers’ subjective beliefs and the meaning of parenting as cultural
mindsets in diverse cultures aiming to understand cultural differences in
the function of socialization (Friedlmeier, Schäfermeier, Vasconcellos, &
Trommsdorff, 2008; Rothbaum & Trommsdorff, 2007; Schwarz, Schäfermeier,
& Trommsdorff, 2005; Trommsdorff, Cole, & Heikamp, 2012). Further, a
focus on the cultural meaning of socialization conditions has contributed to
question the generalizability of biological-based developmental phenomena
such as attachment (Rothbaum, Weisz, Pott, Miyake, & Morelli, 2000) or
motivation (Kornadt, 2002).
SOCIALIZATION OF SELF- AND EMOTION REGULATION IN CULTURAL CONTEXTS
Self-regulation is a major developmental task in all cultures, organizing
impulsive automatic behavior in ways that fit with predominant cultural values and foster successful developmental outcomes. Strategies for
self-regulation differ across cultures, situations, and inter-individually,
depending on the activation of different cultural mindsets, influenced
by individual needs of autonomy, relatedness, and competence that vary
cross-culturally in relative importance (Rothbaum & Trommsdorff, 2007;
Trommsdorff, 2009). Examples from observational studies of German and
Japanese mother–child interactions reveal effects of domain specificity
and bidirectional influences between caretaker and child moderated by
the cultural context prioritizing independence/interdependence. These
factors influence a mother’s sensitivity interacting with her disappointed
child, revealing culture-specific qualities (Friedlmeier & Trommsdorff, 1999;
Kornadt, 2011; Trommsdorff & Friedlmeier, 2010). When the child fails to
solve a task, Japanese mothers, rather believing in a malleable self (growth
mindset), encourage the frustrated child to continue, thereby reducing
the child’s disappointment, avoiding to harm her self-concept. German
mothers rather believing in an entity self (fixed mindset), acknowledge the
Cultural Psychology, Socialization, and Individual Development in Changing Contexts
9
child’s failure, reinforcing the child’s disappointment. Thus, socialization
and cultural learning of emotion regulation are related to cultural mindsets regarding autonomy/relatedness (Kagitcibasi, 2007), self-construals
of independence/interdependence (Markus & Kitayama, 1998), and
fixed/growth mindsets (Dweck, 2006), influencing the development of selfand world-views.
The function of self- and emotion regulation for prosocial behavior has
been revealed in observational studies on preschool children, who interact
with another person suffering from a misfortune. Depending on the cultural
model of independence or interdependence, children experience different
qualities of empathic distress and emotion regulation ability. The cultural
model of independence (focusing on separateness of self), less relevant
for Japanese and Malays, enables Germans and Israelis to regulate their
(other-focused) distress and engage in prosocial behavior (Trommsdorff,
Friedlmeier, & Mayer, 2007). These culturally different emotion-regulation
strategies fostered by respective self-construals and cultural learning
affect the cultural mindset and the subjective meaning of the “objectively”
comparable situation in different cultural contexts.
Due to the cultural variability in emotion socialization, caretakers’ naïve
theories (as aspect of the “developmental niche”) allow the assessment of the
cultural meaning of mothers’ strategies for their children’s emotion regulations (pro- or reactive sensitivity) in different situations (Park, Trommsdorff,
& Lee, 2012; Trommsdorff & Cole, 2011; Trommsdorff et al., 2012). Proactive
sensitivity and minimization strategies are more preferred in cultures prioritizing interdependent values (Nepal or India), while reactive sensitivity and
maximization strategies fit with cultural values prioritizing independence
(United States and Germany). Korean mothers experiencing major transitions and value change favor both minimization and maximization strategies. Future research may focus on sociocultural change influencing socialization, cultural learning, and transitions in cultural mindsets, possibly profiting from cultural neuroscience for improving the measurement of self- and
emotion regulation.
INTERGENERATIONAL RELATIONS IN CHANGING CULTURAL CONTEXTS
Challenged by ongoing demographic and cultural changes in all parts of
the world, another focus of our cultural psychological studies was on the
changing value of children and intergenerational relations, including a wide
range of countries based on large sample sizes and multiple sites within
countries. The model of intergenerational relations, which assumes that
culture-specific parent–child relations influence processes of value transmission (Trommsdorff, 2016), and Kagitcibasi’s (Kagitcibasi, 2007) family
10
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
model predicting emotional interdependence as converging from family
values of independence and interdependence have guided our research. The
studies have revealed cultural differences and similarities in associations
among cultural factors of socialization, grandparent–parent–child and peer
relations, well-being, (given and received) support, and the transmission
of values between three generations in transitional, industrialized, and
traditional cultures (Mayer & Trommsdorff, 2010; Mayer, Trommsdorff,
Kagitcibasi, & Mishra, 2012; Schwarz et al., 2012; Trommsdorff, 2012, 2016;
Trommsdorff & Mayer, 2012). Further, relations among culture, values,
religion, and life satisfaction of adolescents have provided novel insights
in possibly emerging cultural constellations and socialization conditions
(Mayer & Trommsdorff, 2012; Trommsdorff, 2012, 2015).
Since our study designs are not genetically informative, our research on
intergenerational transmission of values could not account for variations in
susceptibility to environmental influences, especially to the quality of parenting. Growing evidence on epigenetic processes based on prenatal maternal
experience (German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, 2014) should
be acknowledged in future transmission research, by also taking into account
interactions between such biological factors and culture. Further studies are
needed on biological factors underlying transmission effects, using longitudinal designs to assess interactions between contextual, especially cultural,
and individual factors in socialization and cultural learning.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A major question of this essay was on how cultural psychology may
contribute to culture-sensitive socialization research and to a better understanding of interrelations between culture and human development, thereby
promoting the emergence of an integrative science of cultural psychology. So
far, the debate on differences between cross-cultural and culture-indigenous
psychology has resulted in the joint endeavor to study the cultural meaning
of psychological phenomena by interrelating culture and psychology, thus
strengthening the impact of cultural psychology. Further, the reconciliation
of the nature–nurture controversy has identified socialization research and
cultural learning as a major part of cultural psychology. Further research
focusing on generalizability of results, conceptual replications, and improving methodological sophistication (van de Vijver, 2015) beyond verbal
assessments may partly integrate biological, evolutionary, anthropological,
and sociological approaches in a science of cultural psychology.
At present, cultural psychology can serve as a scientific guide for stepping
beyond our own culture and out of our familiar environment, rethinking
long-standing practices, gaining deeper insight in cultural diversity, and
Cultural Psychology, Socialization, and Individual Development in Changing Contexts
11
improving our understanding of foreign cultures. However, new challenges
arise for cultural psychology facing fundamentally changing contexts,
due to massive demographic, climate, social, and technological changes
related to cultural diversity and to accelerating intercultural connections.
Culture-bound socialization affecting cultural learning, cultural mindsets,
and meaning-making may influence further cultural and societal changes.
Facing these changes, an emerging goal of cultural psychology and
culture-sensitive socialization research may be to provide a scientific basis
for better understanding the cultural and psychological conditions and the
consequences of ongoing fundamental changes for human development in
diverse cultures. This needs solid theoretical and methodological approaches
for analyzing interrelations between psychology and culture; moreover,
it needs the willingness to study world-wide changes in collaboration
with experts from the respective disciplines in natural, social, and human
sciences. Pursuing these goals would be a major step in emerging as science
of cultural psychology.
These goals will induce shifting toward research on dynamic processes,
going beyond the present focus of examining modes of psychological
functions across various sociocultural contexts. The focus would then be
on specifying conditions and consequences of changes in the development
of cultural meanings linked to changing cultural contexts. This focus
will engage cultural psychology in various topics like culture-sensitive
research on changing intergenerational relations, segmented integration of
immigrants, resolution of conflicts in cultural encounters, and the impact
of climate and technological change, religion, education, and family values
on individual and cultural development. For example, the demographic
changes are not only related to aging and decline of populations in some
countries and population increase with growing numbers of unemployed
youth in other countries. Rather, questions arise regarding the cultural
meaning of such changes, and how these are related to cultural self- and
world-views and to individual development over the life span.
In times of sociocultural changes and cultural encounters, the awareness
of multidimensionality of cultures and the multi-faced self may improve
cultural learning. Further, acknowledging the function of cultural mindsets
and meaning-making in socialization will be fruitful for comparative cultural psychology of human development. Collaborating with neuroscience
may encourage studies on the development of the cultural brain and gene
expression in diverse cultures and in changing sociocultural contexts,
promoting life span research on the development of individual and cultural
adaptation to risky sociocultural contexts, considering differential susceptibility to environmental influences (for better or for worse). In sum, recent
progress in cultural psychology suggests further innovative theoretical and
12
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
methodological advancements fostering an emerging science of cultural
psychology.
REFERENCES
Bond, M., Lun, V. M., & Li, L. M. W. (2012). Religion and life satisfaction of young
persons around the world: Personal values and social context. In G. Trommsdorff
& X. Chen (Eds.), Values, religion, and culture in adolescent development (pp. 123–146).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes.
In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: 1, Theoretical models of human
development (pp. 793–829). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cohen, A. B. (2009). Many forms of culture. American Psychologist, 64(3), 194–204.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset. New York, NY: Random House.
Eckensberger, L. (2010). Kulturvergleichende Psychologie, indigene Psychologien und Kulturpsychologie: Eine harmonische oder disharmonische Familienbeziehung? Bemerkungen aus Sicht der Entwicklungspsychologie. In B. Mayer &
H. J. Kornadt (Eds.), Psychologie – Kultur - Gesellschaft. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS
Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Friedlmeier, W., Schäfermeier, E., Vasconcellos, V., & Trommsdorff, G. (2008).
Self-construal and cultural orientation as predictors for developmental goals: A
comparison between Brazilian and German caregivers. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5(1), 39–67.
Friedlmeier, W., & Trommsdorff, G. (1999). Emotion regulation in early childhood:
A cross-cultural comparison between German and Japanese toddlers. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 684–711.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (Vol. 5019). New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim, B. C., & Aycan, Z.
(2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science,
332(6033), 1100–1104.
Gelfand, M. J., Severance, L., Lee, T., Bruss, C. B., Lun, J., Abdel-Latif, A. H., &
Moustafa Ahmed, S. (2015). Culture and getting to yes: The linguistic signature
of creative agreements in the United States and Egypt. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 36(7), 967–989.
German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina (2014). Socialization in
early childhood: Biological, psychological, linguistic, sociological, and economic
perspectives (Statements for policy advice, 1st ed.). Berlin, Germany: Mediabogen. https://www.leopoldina.org/en/publications/detailview/publication/
fruehkindliche-sozialisation-2014/.
Greenfield, P. M. (2002). The mutual definition of culture and biology in development. In H. Keller, Y. H. Poortinga & A. Schölmerich (Eds.), Between culture and
biology: Perspectives on ontogenetic development, 8 (pp. 136–155). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Cultural Psychology, Socialization, and Individual Development in Changing Contexts
13
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and
organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kagitcibasi, C. (2007). Family, self, and human development across cultures: Theory and
applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kitayama, S., King, A., Hsu, M., Liberzon, I., & Yoon, C. (2016). Dopamine-system
genes and cultural acquisitions: The norm sensitivity hypothesis. Current Opinion
in Psychology, 8, 167–174.
Kornadt, H.-J. (2002). Biology, culture and childrearing: The development of social
motives. In H. Keller, Y. H. Poortinga & A. Schölmerich (Eds.), Between culture and
biology: Perspectives on ontogenetic development, 8 (pp. 191–211). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Kornadt, H.-J. (2011). Aggression. Die Rolle der Erziehung in Europa und Ostasien. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Lehman, D. R., Chiu, C. Y., & Schaller, M. (2004). Psychology and culture. Annual
Review of Psychology, 55, 689–714.
Lun, V. M. C., & Bond, M. H. (2016). Achieving subjective well-being around the
world: The moderating influence of gender, age and national goals for socializing
children. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(2), 587–608.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1998). The cultural psychology of personality. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(1), 63–87.
Matsumoto, D. (Ed.) (2001). The handbook of culture and psychology. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Mayer, B., & Trommsdorff, G. (2010). Adolescents’ value of children and their
intentions to have children: A cross-cultural and multilevel analysis. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41, 671–689.
Mayer, B., & Trommsdorff, G. (2012). Cross-cultural perspectives on adolescents’ religiosity and family orientation. In G. Trommsdorff & X. Chen (Eds.), Values, religion,
and culture in adolescent development (pp. 341–369). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, B., Trommsdorff, G., Friedlmeier, M., Lubiewska, K., Barni, D., Kasearu, K.,
& Albert, I. (2015). The roles of religiosity and affluence for adolescents’ family orientation: Multilevel analyses of 18 cultures. Italian Journal of Sociology of Education,
7, 47–88.
Mayer, B., Trommsdorff, G., Kagitcibasi, C., & Mishra, R. C. (2012). Family models
of independence/interdependence and their intergenerational similarity in Germany, Turkey, and India. Family Science, 3, 64–74.
Ng, S. H., & Liu, J. H. (2000). Cultural revolution in psychology. Asian Journal of Social
Psychology, 3(3), 289–293.
Novin, S., & Oyserman, D. (2016). Honor as cultural mindset: Activated honor mindset affects subsequent judgment and attention in mindset-congruent ways. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–14.
Oishi, S., & Gilbert, E. A. (2016). Current and future directions in culture and happiness research. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8, 54–58.
14
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Oyserman, D. (2015). Culture as situated cognition. In R. A. Scott & M. C. Buchmann
(Eds.), Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 1–20). Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Oyserman, D. (2017). Culture three ways: Culture and subcultures within countries.
Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 435–463.
Park, S.-Y., Trommsdorff, G., & Lee, E. G. (2012). Korean mothers’ intuitive theories
regarding emotion socialization of their children. International Journal of Human
Ecology, 13, 39–56.
Poortinga, Y. (2015). Is “Culture” a workable concept for (cross-) cultural psychology? Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 14.
Rothbaum, F., & Trommsdorff, G. (2007). Do roots and wings complement or oppose
one another? The socialization of relatedness and autonomy in cultural context. In
J. E. Grusec & P. Hastings (Eds.), The handbook of socialization (pp. 461–489). New
York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J., Pott, M., Miyake, K., & Morelli, G. (2000). Attachment and
culture: Security in the United States and Japan. American Psychologist, 55(10),
1093–1104.
Sasaki, J., & Kim, H. J. S. (2017). Nature, nurture, and their interplay: Review of cultural neuroscience. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48, 4–22.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and
structure of values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 878–891.
Schwarz, B., Mayer, B., Trommsdorff, G., Ben-Arieh, A., Friedlmeier, M., Lubiewska,
K., … Peltzer, K. (2012). Does the importance of parent and peer relationships for
adolescents’ life satisfaction vary across cultures? Journal of Early Adolescence, 32,
55–80.
Schwarz, B., Schäfermeier, E., & Trommsdorff, G. (2005). Relations between value orientation, child-rearing goals, and parenting: A comparison of German and South
Korean mothers. In W. Friedlmeier, P. Chakkarath & B. Schwarz (Eds.), Culture
and human development: The importance of cross-cultural research to the social sciences
(pp. 203–230). Hove, England: Psychology Press.
Shweder, R. A. (1985). Cultural psychology. What is it? In N. R. Goldberger (Ed.), The
culture and psychology reader (pp. 41–86). New York, NY: University Press.
Super, C. M., & Harkness, S. (1986). The developmental niche: A conceptualization
at the interface of child and culture. International Journal of Behavioral Development,
9(4), 545–569.
Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Trommsdorff, G. (2009). A social change and a human development perspective on
the value of children. In A. Aksu-Koc & S. Bekman (Eds.), Perspectives on human
development, family and culture (pp. 86–107). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Trommsdorff, G. (2012). Cultural perspectives on values and religion in adolescent
development: A conceptual overview and synthesis. In G. Trommsdorff & X. Chen
(Eds.), Values, religion, and culture in adolescent development (pp. 3–45). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Cultural Psychology, Socialization, and Individual Development in Changing Contexts
15
Trommsdorff, G. (2015). Cultural roots of values, morals, and religious orientations in
adolescent development. In L. A. Jensen (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human development and culture: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 377–395). Oxford, England:
Oxford Library of Psychology.
Trommsdorff, G. (2016). Intergenerational relations in cultural context and in
socio-economic change. In C. Timmerman, N. Clycq, M. McAndrew, A. Balde, L.
Braeckmans & S. Mels (Eds.), Youth in education: The necessity of valuing ethnocultural
diversity (pp. 11–26). Oxford, England: Routledge.
Trommsdorff, G., & Cole, P. M. (2011). Emotion, self-regulation, and social behavior
in cultural contexts. In X. Chen & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), Socioemotional development in
cultural context (pp. 131–163). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Trommsdorff, G., Cole, P. M., & Heikamp, T. (2012). Cultural variations in mothers’ intuitive theories: A preliminary report on interviewing mothers from five
nations about their socialization of children’s emotions. Global Studies of Childhood,
2, 158–169.
Trommsdorff, G., & Friedlmeier, W. (2010). Preschool girls’ distress and mothers’
sensitivity in Japan and Germany. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7,
350–370.
Trommsdorff, G., Friedlmeier, W., & Mayer, B. (2007). Sympathy, distress, and
prosocial behavior of preschool children in four cultures. International Journal of
Behavioural Development, 31(3), 284–293.
Trommsdorff, G., & Mayer, B. (2012). A cross-cultural study of intergenerational relations. In H. Bertram & N. Ehlert (Eds.), Family, ties, and care. Family transformation
in a plural modernity (pp. 315–342). Opladen, Germany: Barbara Budrich.
van de Vijver, F. J. S. (2015). Methodological aspects of cross-cultural research. In
M. J. Gelfand, C.-Y. Chiu & Y.-Y. Hong (Eds.), Handbook of advances in culture and
psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 101–160). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Whiting, B. B., & Whiting, J. W. (1975). Children of six cultures: A psycho-cultural analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
GISELA TROMMSDORFF SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Gisela Trommsdorff is Professor Emeritus of the Chair for Developmental
and Cross-Cultural Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of
Konstanz. She presently is Research Professor at the German Institute for
Economic Research (DIW) Berlin; Co-Director of the Research Institute for
Human Sciences of the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt; and
President of the German–Japanese Society for Social Sciences. She serves
in many scientific/advisory committees (e.g., International Advisory Committee, Research Center for Psychological Science, Chung-Yuan Christian
University, Taiwan; Board of Trustees of the Werner Reimers Foundation;
until recently Scientific Advisory Board of the German Institute for Japanese
Studies (DIJ), Tokyo) as well as editorial/advisory boards (e.g., Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology; Asian Journal of Social Psychology; Child Studies
16
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
in Diverse Contexts). Her publication record includes 27 books (co-edited),
166 book chapters, and 110 articles in major journals. Her main research
interests involve cultural aspects of intergenerational relations and social
change, transmission of values, as well as socio-emotional, moral, and
prosocial development. Her honors include fellowships at Keio University,
Tokyo; Kansai University, Osaka; Institute for Statistical Mathematics,
Tokyo; Member of the Academy of Sciences in Erfurt (Akademie Gemeinnütziger Wissenschaften zu Erfurt); Federal Cross of Merit, 1st Class, of the
Federal Republic of Germany; Minister of Foreign Affairs commendation
¯ o)
¯ awarded by the Japanese Government. Email:
(Gaimu daijin hyosh
gisela.trommsdorff@uni-konstanz.de
RELATED ESSAYS
Culture and Cognition (Sociology), Karen A. Cerulo
Cultural Differences in Emotions (Psychology), Jozefien De Leersnyder et al.
Biology and Culture (Psychology), Robert Peter Hobson
Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes (Psychology),
Shinobu Kitayama and Sarah Huff
The Emerging Psychology of Social Class (Psychology), Michael W. Kraus
Culture as Situated Cognition (Psychology), Daphna Oyserman
Economics and Culture (Economics), Gérard Roland
Culture and Globalization (Sociology), Frederick F. Wherry
The Reading Brain: The Canary in the Mind (Psychology), Maryanne Wolf
-
Cultural Psychology, Socialization,
and Individual Development in
Changing Contexts
GISELA TROMMSDORFF
Abstract
This essay discusses two major emerging trends in the study of culture and psychology. One trend can be observed in the reconciliation of cross-cultural and
culture-indigenous approaches due to conceptualizing culture in a value- and
norm-oriented framework of cultural meaning and cultural minds. A second
trend is based on questions of culture learning and socialization, reconciling
the nature–nurture debate. Developmental studies integrating biological and
socialization conditions in cultural contexts are complemented by selected studies
on culture-specificities of self-regulation, prosocial behavior, caretaker’s implicit
theories on parenting, and intergenerational relations. The meaning-making
function of socialization is seen as a major process in culture learning and the
development of cultural mindsets. I conclude with questions regarding socioeconomic, demographic, and cultural changes, suggesting a major research goal for
an emerging science of cultural psychology: to provide a scientific basis for better
understanding culture-psychological conditions and consequences of fundamental
ongoing changes related to cultural diversity and to accelerating intercultural
connections.
Globalization has widened the options for cultural encounters, cultural
affordances, and constraints, challenging the status of regional and national
cultures and the respective cultural values and identities. These options
are related to multiple problems intensified by multiple forces of change,
for example, climate, demographics, migration, religious conflicts, and
technological transformations. The impact of ongoing demographic, social,
economic, political, and cultural changes are affecting socialization conditions in the family, in school, and on the labor market, thereby shaping
individual development. Resulting effects on the individual’s self- and
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Robert Scott and Marlis Buchmann (General Editors) with Stephen Kosslyn (Consulting Editor).
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
world-view and on cultural values and practices will influence the living
and socialization conditions and the cultural contexts of the present and the
next generation.
Though questions regarding human development in changing cultural contexts have not been a central focus in psychology, cultural psychology may
provide some clarifications. Cultural aspects of human behavior and development have recently stimulated an increasing number of culture-informed
studies aiming to better understand the relations between culture and developmental processes, testing mainstream theories in non-western contexts,
and acknowledging the diversity of populations and related cultural practices and values. Studies on cultural differences and similarities in human
development are widening the perspective beyond the European–American
cultural context, attempting to overcome an ethnocentric bias. The millennium even started with the expectation of a “cultural revolution in psychology” (Ng & Liu, 2000), assuming a global, culture-informed international
psychology.
Despite the many forms of culture and various definitions of culture in
the psychological literature, cultural psychologists conceive of culture as
possessing some temporal stability, certain boundaries, and some predictive
value as a source of variance for human behavior. Culture is transmitted
over time and generations, characterized by adaptive interactions between
humans and the environment, and consisting of shared components
(Lehman, Chiu, & Schaller, 2004). This conceptualization raises the question
for cultural psychology regarding how culture and human development are
related.
The aim of this essay is to discuss selected emerging trends in research on
the interrelations between psychology and culture focusing on human development. In the first part, I will give a brief overview on main debates and
emerging approaches in cultural psychology. In the second part, I will discuss models, controversies, and selected empirical research on socialization
and human development in cultural contexts. I will conclude with suggestions regarding an expansion of research topics for an emerging science of
cultural psychology.
OVERVIEW ON MAIN APPROACHES IN CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
Cultural psychology describes and explains intra- and inter-individual
processes and human development, including cultural learning, in cultural
contexts. Cultural psychology as presently emerging from debates between
cross-cultural and culture-psychological (and indigenous) main approaches
does no longer regard culture as a fixed categorical variable. Culture is rather
Cultural Psychology, Socialization, and Individual Development in Changing Contexts
3
seen as a dynamic, fluid, and complex process, consisting of polyvalent
elements related to cultural values and practices and contributing to cultural
variations in human development.
Culture-comparative (cross-cultural) psychologists focus on how cultural
factors shape individual development and behavior, aiming for better
understanding psychological phenomena of individuals in diverse cultures,
attempting to clarify universalities and refine and broaden psychological theories (Triandis, 1994). Comparisons among diverse cultures are
to increase the explanatory power in testing psychological theories and
to ensure ecological validity. Cross-cultural studies on similarities and
differences in relationships between the cultural context and the development of human behavior conceive of culture as a complex environment
for psychological processes, including human development. The concept of culture underlying the cross-cultural approach has often been
criticized as too broad for psychological studies. Given the many definitions, components, and the unclear boundaries of cultures, Poortinga
(2015) has suggested to abandon the concept of culture, proposing to
specify “cultural” characteristics for cultural psychological comparisons,
for example, choosing objective indicators on the national level such as
the gross domestic product (GDP). However, cross-national comparisons
show that global economic measures are only partially useful to predict
psychological phenomena (e.g., well-being; Oishi & Gilbert, 2016), whereas
measures on the national context related to socialization and cultural
values (e.g., World Values Surveys; Human Development Index, HDI)
are more useful for testing cultural psychological assumptions (Bond,
Lun, & Li, 2012; Mayer et al., 2015; Trommsdorff, 2009). For example,
socialization emphasis on self-directedness versus other-directness characterizing one’s national culture partially predicts well-being (Lun &
Bond, 2016). Global indicators of the cultural context may obscure relations between distal contextual factors and individual developmental
outcomes. Thus, mediators and moderators on the macro-, meso-, and
micro-level should be included for enhancing predictive power of models for individual development. Examining multiple cultures (multilevel
analyses) and different forms of culture simultaneously may reveal which
cultural variables and which of their relations are the best predictors
for developmental outcomes (Mayer et al., 2015). Testing the functional
equivalence of indicators and proximal variables, both embedded in longitudinal designs, would be most preferable for explaining developmental
processes.
A different approach promoted by culture and indigenous psychology has
emerged from criticism of functionalist cross-cultural studies. Different from
the nomothetic culture-insensitive paradigm of mainstream psychology,
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
culture and indigenous psychologists are interested in cultural meanings
(Geertz, 1973) and interpretative schemes (Shweder, 1985), assuming
interdependencies between culture (in its historically based complexity)
and the human mind. Cultural dynamics are seen as constitutive of and
intertwined with (but not as external influential factors of) human development, while better knowledge on interrelations between culture and
psychological processes helps to understand the meaning of cultural and
psychological phenomena (Bruner, 1990; Eckensberger, 2010; Geertz, 1973).
The meaning-focused approach makes use of symbols and verbal accounts
of subjective interpretations, beliefs, and intuitive theories. It also studies
cultural practices to clarify how individual and collective actions connect
for shared goal achievement.
Hofstede (2001) has initiated a third approach, a cultural-dimensions psychology, emerging from value-based conceptualizations of culture. He suggested
to measure “cultural dimensions”, classifying national cultures based on the
mapping of cultural value dimensions (e.g., individualism–collectivism).
Conceptually reducing “culture” to psychological traits serving as cultural indicators for cultural comparisons has yielded an enormous rise of
cross-cultural studies, partly using the research tool of the representative
World Value Surveys. Schwartz’s theory on the universal content and
structure of values (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1990) promoted the comparison
of the variability of large cultural entities, such as nations and specific
universally valid values between individuals. Further dimensions of cultural variability—“loose–tight cultures”—are reflecting attitudes toward
norms. “Tight” nations foster strong norms and a low tolerance of deviant
behavior; “loose” nations prefer weak norms and a high tolerance of deviant
behavior (Gelfand et al., 2011). Value- and norm-based cross-national
studies face problems to distinguish the cultural and individual level of
values. Also, cultural variations should not be limited to national and
geographic borders. Artificial or politically imposed national borders
do not necessarily indicate “national-equals-cultural unity.” Adding to
the complex nature of culture, diverse levels of interconnected elements
(e.g., institutions, political, ethnic, and religious groups) complement
and advance the theoretical scope of cross-cultural research in terms
of intracultural studies. In his discussion on “many forms of culture”,
Cohen (2009) suggests several “cultural markers”, for example, region,
socioeconomic status, and religion. Overall, this approach contributes to
an improved psychological understanding of the meaning of culture and
bridges the seemingly divergent approaches conceiving of culture as an
external variable influencing human development (cross-cultural view)
versus culture as interrelated with human development (culture-indigenous
view).
Cultural Psychology, Socialization, and Individual Development in Changing Contexts
5
On this basis, a fourth approach has been emerging, cultural psychology.
Regarding culture and self as mutually constitutive is part of the basic idea
of Markus and Kitayama (1991), assuming that cultural patterns and social
structures are related to fundamental psychological processes. Assumed
interdependencies of culture and the self can explain cultural differences in
emotion, cognition, motivation, and behavior. Social situations common in a
culture reinforce culture-specific tendencies such as independence or interdependence. Based on the concept of the cultural model of self-construal,
the preference for independence or interdependence and their relations
to other psychological phenomena allow going beyond national borders,
identify cultural subgroups, and test cultural differences and similarities.
This theorizing allows the study of the meaning of individual’s behavior
in a value- or norm-based framework which serves to connect the cultural
context and individual development including self-construals and related
self- and world-views. Markus and Kitayama’s (1991) theory on cultural
models of self-construal are thus further reconciling cross-cultural and
indigenous approaches, allowing for a cultural psychological approach
to human development. Conceptually related to the cultural model of
self-construal is the “culture-as-situated cognitions” perspective by Oyserman (2015, 2017). This situational dynamic approach predicts that activating
one aspect of an individualist or collectivist position may activate other
related aspects, assuming the following: Human cognition is contextually
activated; human culture has developed from the survival necessity for
interpersonal relations; culture is a functional, universal, and set of practices
to solve basic problems in cooperation with others. Cultural mindsets
function as associative networks, emerging during development and
influencing the person’s subjective meaning of their experiences. Across
societies, variations of the individualistic and collectivistic cultural mindsets
are related to specific practices. While individualism and collectivism (as
universal cultural mindsets) have been experimentally activated through
priming in diverse societies, Novin and Oyserman (2016) and Oyserman
(2017) have proposed “honor” as third universal cultural mindset also
functioning as a meaning-making framework, influencing cognitions
and judgments. Honor as focal concern in collectivistic cultures, where
individuals are focusing on an external evaluation of the self (in contrast
to dignity as an intrinsic value of the self in individualistic cultures),
can be activated outside of the laboratory influencing behavior (Gelfand
et al., 2015). Differences in focus of promoting an honorable person and
preventing a dishonorable person are defined through different linguistic pathways, revealed in rational models of negotiation (in the United
States) contrasted to relational models of honor (Egypt) (Gelfand et al.,
2015).
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIALIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT
OF CULTURAL MINDSET
In the following, I discuss socialization conditions for cultural learning
and the development of a cultural mindset from the perspective of cultural
psychology. Socialization research as part of cultural psychology aims to
study the relationships between the cultural context and human development assuming interrelations between biology, culture, and psychological
processes.
BIOLOGY AND CULTURE
The nature–nurture debate on the primacy of biological or of environmental
factors in development has affected cultural psychology of socialization
from its early beginnings. Recent approaches in cultural psychology of
socialization do no longer ignore the biological properties, recognizing at
the same time the ecological and cultural environment of the developing
child. Human development is seen as based on biological and evolutionary
processes; sociocultural activities stem from interactions among biological
and sociocultural phenomena. A revision of the formerly “nurture”-focused
view assumes effects of genes, biology, and heredity on infant development
influencing parenting and ecological factors, thus acknowledging interactive
processes between the environment and the caretakers’ and child’s biology
and psychology (German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina,
2014).
In her observational study on biological, social, and cognitive changes in
infant development, Greenfield (2002) illustrates the relations between the
cultural environment and the biological nature of the infant. Biologically
based sensitive periods for development are “respected” by culture and
reflected in implicit caretaker’s ethnotheories of development. “Culture
shapes development” through cultural practices stimulating neuromuscular
pathways, the foundation for cognitive development adaptive to the cultural tasks. Cultural norms for infant care “reinforces biology”, for example,
newborn’s motor behavior. The level of physical activity continues into
adulthood, reinforced by cultural norms. The transmission of cultural norms
and biology to the next generation are facilitated by a restrained movement
environment for the unborn baby (“culture appropriating biology”). Further, culture and biology are mutually adaptive for survival in a dangerous
environment (late infant walking). “Culture selects from biology” means
that the environment reinforces certain elements of the infant’s biologically grounded capacities, depending on environmental affordances and
constraints—the foundation for differentiated cultural socialization.
Cultural Psychology, Socialization, and Individual Development in Changing Contexts
7
These descriptions touch issues of cultural neuroscience, studying learning
and related brain changes, sensitive periods (when neural development
increases susceptibility to environmental influences), and epigenetic effects
due to prenatal experience or in early infancy, influencing the individual’s
development over the life span and possibly also the next generation. Cultural neuroscience, having shown that psychological differences between
cultures are linked to biological processes (e.g., neural activation), is analyzing the joint function of cultural and biological processes in human
development and behavior and the constituent role of culture in biological
processes. In their review, Sasaki and Kim (2017) discuss evidence regarding
culture and gene (gene–environment and gene–culture interactions), physiological processes (neuroendocrine and immune responses) in different
cultures, and neural processes related to cultural differences in psychological
outcomes. Their overview supports the notion that “certain genotypes may
endow people with greater predispositions to be influenced by cultural values, expectations, and norms.” (p. 8). Thus, the assumption that influences
of the environment depend on biological factors can be specified: genes
predispose persons to be more or less susceptible to influences from cultural
socialization. Persons carrying the environmental susceptibility genes show
stronger cross-cultural differences, for example, reporting a more independent orientation in the United States, and a more interdependent orientation
in Japan (norm sensitivity hypothesis) (Kitayama, King, Hsu, Liberzon, &
Yoon, 2016). To summarize, the gene–culture interaction model as suggested
by cultural neuroscience views culture and biology as basically embedded
in human development.
SOCIALIZATION IN CULTURAL CONTEXTS
Assuming that meaningful input from the sociocultural environment is necessary for biological functions in human development, our focus now is on
the contexts of development. Matsumoto (2001) suggests a broad contextual view on culture learning and socialization: “ … culture may be learned
through situated cognitive schemas and structures related to specific contexts, and that cultural meaning is constructed across these contexts as individuals develop social cognitive abilities that allow for such construction to
occur.” (p. 193). This is in line with Bruner’s (1990) postulation that understanding the subjective meaning of the respective variables is most important. The task is to “translate” the cultural and the subjective meaning of
socialization practices and developmental outcomes in a way that it can be
incorporated in an integrated theory.
Whiting and Whiting (1975) have suggested a socialization model on
the relations between the individual and the environment. The ecological
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
multilevel model by Bronfenbrenner and Morris (1998) discusses the permeable boundaries between the individual, the micro-, and the macro-level
of society. However, these contextual models on interactions between the
person and environments have not been designed to identify the socialization process and the cultural meaning of the contexts for cultural learning.
Super and Harkness’s (1986) conceptualization of the “developmental
niche” provides a framework that includes both objective-structural and
subjective aspects of the child’s development and cultural learning. The
major components of the niche are the physical and social setting, the
customs of child care and child rearing, and the psychology of caregivers,
all embedded in the larger environment and interacting with each other
and with the child. This approach has stimulated cultural psychologists to
study caretakers’ subjective beliefs and the meaning of parenting as cultural
mindsets in diverse cultures aiming to understand cultural differences in
the function of socialization (Friedlmeier, Schäfermeier, Vasconcellos, &
Trommsdorff, 2008; Rothbaum & Trommsdorff, 2007; Schwarz, Schäfermeier,
& Trommsdorff, 2005; Trommsdorff, Cole, & Heikamp, 2012). Further, a
focus on the cultural meaning of socialization conditions has contributed to
question the generalizability of biological-based developmental phenomena
such as attachment (Rothbaum, Weisz, Pott, Miyake, & Morelli, 2000) or
motivation (Kornadt, 2002).
SOCIALIZATION OF SELF- AND EMOTION REGULATION IN CULTURAL CONTEXTS
Self-regulation is a major developmental task in all cultures, organizing
impulsive automatic behavior in ways that fit with predominant cultural values and foster successful developmental outcomes. Strategies for
self-regulation differ across cultures, situations, and inter-individually,
depending on the activation of different cultural mindsets, influenced
by individual needs of autonomy, relatedness, and competence that vary
cross-culturally in relative importance (Rothbaum & Trommsdorff, 2007;
Trommsdorff, 2009). Examples from observational studies of German and
Japanese mother–child interactions reveal effects of domain specificity
and bidirectional influences between caretaker and child moderated by
the cultural context prioritizing independence/interdependence. These
factors influence a mother’s sensitivity interacting with her disappointed
child, revealing culture-specific qualities (Friedlmeier & Trommsdorff, 1999;
Kornadt, 2011; Trommsdorff & Friedlmeier, 2010). When the child fails to
solve a task, Japanese mothers, rather believing in a malleable self (growth
mindset), encourage the frustrated child to continue, thereby reducing
the child’s disappointment, avoiding to harm her self-concept. German
mothers rather believing in an entity self (fixed mindset), acknowledge the
Cultural Psychology, Socialization, and Individual Development in Changing Contexts
9
child’s failure, reinforcing the child’s disappointment. Thus, socialization
and cultural learning of emotion regulation are related to cultural mindsets regarding autonomy/relatedness (Kagitcibasi, 2007), self-construals
of independence/interdependence (Markus & Kitayama, 1998), and
fixed/growth mindsets (Dweck, 2006), influencing the development of selfand world-views.
The function of self- and emotion regulation for prosocial behavior has
been revealed in observational studies on preschool children, who interact
with another person suffering from a misfortune. Depending on the cultural
model of independence or interdependence, children experience different
qualities of empathic distress and emotion regulation ability. The cultural
model of independence (focusing on separateness of self), less relevant
for Japanese and Malays, enables Germans and Israelis to regulate their
(other-focused) distress and engage in prosocial behavior (Trommsdorff,
Friedlmeier, & Mayer, 2007). These culturally different emotion-regulation
strategies fostered by respective self-construals and cultural learning
affect the cultural mindset and the subjective meaning of the “objectively”
comparable situation in different cultural contexts.
Due to the cultural variability in emotion socialization, caretakers’ naïve
theories (as aspect of the “developmental niche”) allow the assessment of the
cultural meaning of mothers’ strategies for their children’s emotion regulations (pro- or reactive sensitivity) in different situations (Park, Trommsdorff,
& Lee, 2012; Trommsdorff & Cole, 2011; Trommsdorff et al., 2012). Proactive
sensitivity and minimization strategies are more preferred in cultures prioritizing interdependent values (Nepal or India), while reactive sensitivity and
maximization strategies fit with cultural values prioritizing independence
(United States and Germany). Korean mothers experiencing major transitions and value change favor both minimization and maximization strategies. Future research may focus on sociocultural change influencing socialization, cultural learning, and transitions in cultural mindsets, possibly profiting from cultural neuroscience for improving the measurement of self- and
emotion regulation.
INTERGENERATIONAL RELATIONS IN CHANGING CULTURAL CONTEXTS
Challenged by ongoing demographic and cultural changes in all parts of
the world, another focus of our cultural psychological studies was on the
changing value of children and intergenerational relations, including a wide
range of countries based on large sample sizes and multiple sites within
countries. The model of intergenerational relations, which assumes that
culture-specific parent–child relations influence processes of value transmission (Trommsdorff, 2016), and Kagitcibasi’s (Kagitcibasi, 2007) family
10
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
model predicting emotional interdependence as converging from family
values of independence and interdependence have guided our research. The
studies have revealed cultural differences and similarities in associations
among cultural factors of socialization, grandparent–parent–child and peer
relations, well-being, (given and received) support, and the transmission
of values between three generations in transitional, industrialized, and
traditional cultures (Mayer & Trommsdorff, 2010; Mayer, Trommsdorff,
Kagitcibasi, & Mishra, 2012; Schwarz et al., 2012; Trommsdorff, 2012, 2016;
Trommsdorff & Mayer, 2012). Further, relations among culture, values,
religion, and life satisfaction of adolescents have provided novel insights
in possibly emerging cultural constellations and socialization conditions
(Mayer & Trommsdorff, 2012; Trommsdorff, 2012, 2015).
Since our study designs are not genetically informative, our research on
intergenerational transmission of values could not account for variations in
susceptibility to environmental influences, especially to the quality of parenting. Growing evidence on epigenetic processes based on prenatal maternal
experience (German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, 2014) should
be acknowledged in future transmission research, by also taking into account
interactions between such biological factors and culture. Further studies are
needed on biological factors underlying transmission effects, using longitudinal designs to assess interactions between contextual, especially cultural,
and individual factors in socialization and cultural learning.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A major question of this essay was on how cultural psychology may
contribute to culture-sensitive socialization research and to a better understanding of interrelations between culture and human development, thereby
promoting the emergence of an integrative science of cultural psychology. So
far, the debate on differences between cross-cultural and culture-indigenous
psychology has resulted in the joint endeavor to study the cultural meaning
of psychological phenomena by interrelating culture and psychology, thus
strengthening the impact of cultural psychology. Further, the reconciliation
of the nature–nurture controversy has identified socialization research and
cultural learning as a major part of cultural psychology. Further research
focusing on generalizability of results, conceptual replications, and improving methodological sophistication (van de Vijver, 2015) beyond verbal
assessments may partly integrate biological, evolutionary, anthropological,
and sociological approaches in a science of cultural psychology.
At present, cultural psychology can serve as a scientific guide for stepping
beyond our own culture and out of our familiar environment, rethinking
long-standing practices, gaining deeper insight in cultural diversity, and
Cultural Psychology, Socialization, and Individual Development in Changing Contexts
11
improving our understanding of foreign cultures. However, new challenges
arise for cultural psychology facing fundamentally changing contexts,
due to massive demographic, climate, social, and technological changes
related to cultural diversity and to accelerating intercultural connections.
Culture-bound socialization affecting cultural learning, cultural mindsets,
and meaning-making may influence further cultural and societal changes.
Facing these changes, an emerging goal of cultural psychology and
culture-sensitive socialization research may be to provide a scientific basis
for better understanding the cultural and psychological conditions and the
consequences of ongoing fundamental changes for human development in
diverse cultures. This needs solid theoretical and methodological approaches
for analyzing interrelations between psychology and culture; moreover,
it needs the willingness to study world-wide changes in collaboration
with experts from the respective disciplines in natural, social, and human
sciences. Pursuing these goals would be a major step in emerging as science
of cultural psychology.
These goals will induce shifting toward research on dynamic processes,
going beyond the present focus of examining modes of psychological
functions across various sociocultural contexts. The focus would then be
on specifying conditions and consequences of changes in the development
of cultural meanings linked to changing cultural contexts. This focus
will engage cultural psychology in various topics like culture-sensitive
research on changing intergenerational relations, segmented integration of
immigrants, resolution of conflicts in cultural encounters, and the impact
of climate and technological change, religion, education, and family values
on individual and cultural development. For example, the demographic
changes are not only related to aging and decline of populations in some
countries and population increase with growing numbers of unemployed
youth in other countries. Rather, questions arise regarding the cultural
meaning of such changes, and how these are related to cultural self- and
world-views and to individual development over the life span.
In times of sociocultural changes and cultural encounters, the awareness
of multidimensionality of cultures and the multi-faced self may improve
cultural learning. Further, acknowledging the function of cultural mindsets
and meaning-making in socialization will be fruitful for comparative cultural psychology of human development. Collaborating with neuroscience
may encourage studies on the development of the cultural brain and gene
expression in diverse cultures and in changing sociocultural contexts,
promoting life span research on the development of individual and cultural
adaptation to risky sociocultural contexts, considering differential susceptibility to environmental influences (for better or for worse). In sum, recent
progress in cultural psychology suggests further innovative theoretical and
12
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
methodological advancements fostering an emerging science of cultural
psychology.
REFERENCES
Bond, M., Lun, V. M., & Li, L. M. W. (2012). Religion and life satisfaction of young
persons around the world: Personal values and social context. In G. Trommsdorff
& X. Chen (Eds.), Values, religion, and culture in adolescent development (pp. 123–146).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes.
In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: 1, Theoretical models of human
development (pp. 793–829). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cohen, A. B. (2009). Many forms of culture. American Psychologist, 64(3), 194–204.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset. New York, NY: Random House.
Eckensberger, L. (2010). Kulturvergleichende Psychologie, indigene Psychologien und Kulturpsychologie: Eine harmonische oder disharmonische Familienbeziehung? Bemerkungen aus Sicht der Entwicklungspsychologie. In B. Mayer &
H. J. Kornadt (Eds.), Psychologie – Kultur - Gesellschaft. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS
Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Friedlmeier, W., Schäfermeier, E., Vasconcellos, V., & Trommsdorff, G. (2008).
Self-construal and cultural orientation as predictors for developmental goals: A
comparison between Brazilian and German caregivers. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5(1), 39–67.
Friedlmeier, W., & Trommsdorff, G. (1999). Emotion regulation in early childhood:
A cross-cultural comparison between German and Japanese toddlers. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 684–711.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (Vol. 5019). New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim, B. C., & Aycan, Z.
(2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science,
332(6033), 1100–1104.
Gelfand, M. J., Severance, L., Lee, T., Bruss, C. B., Lun, J., Abdel-Latif, A. H., &
Moustafa Ahmed, S. (2015). Culture and getting to yes: The linguistic signature
of creative agreements in the United States and Egypt. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 36(7), 967–989.
German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina (2014). Socialization in
early childhood: Biological, psychological, linguistic, sociological, and economic
perspectives (Statements for policy advice, 1st ed.). Berlin, Germany: Mediabogen. https://www.leopoldina.org/en/publications/detailview/publication/
fruehkindliche-sozialisation-2014/.
Greenfield, P. M. (2002). The mutual definition of culture and biology in development. In H. Keller, Y. H. Poortinga & A. Schölmerich (Eds.), Between culture and
biology: Perspectives on ontogenetic development, 8 (pp. 136–155). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Cultural Psychology, Socialization, and Individual Development in Changing Contexts
13
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and
organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kagitcibasi, C. (2007). Family, self, and human development across cultures: Theory and
applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kitayama, S., King, A., Hsu, M., Liberzon, I., & Yoon, C. (2016). Dopamine-system
genes and cultural acquisitions: The norm sensitivity hypothesis. Current Opinion
in Psychology, 8, 167–174.
Kornadt, H.-J. (2002). Biology, culture and childrearing: The development of social
motives. In H. Keller, Y. H. Poortinga & A. Schölmerich (Eds.), Between culture and
biology: Perspectives on ontogenetic development, 8 (pp. 191–211). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Kornadt, H.-J. (2011). Aggression. Die Rolle der Erziehung in Europa und Ostasien. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Lehman, D. R., Chiu, C. Y., & Schaller, M. (2004). Psychology and culture. Annual
Review of Psychology, 55, 689–714.
Lun, V. M. C., & Bond, M. H. (2016). Achieving subjective well-being around the
world: The moderating influence of gender, age and national goals for socializing
children. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(2), 587–608.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1998). The cultural psychology of personality. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(1), 63–87.
Matsumoto, D. (Ed.) (2001). The handbook of culture and psychology. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Mayer, B., & Trommsdorff, G. (2010). Adolescents’ value of children and their
intentions to have children: A cross-cultural and multilevel analysis. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41, 671–689.
Mayer, B., & Trommsdorff, G. (2012). Cross-cultural perspectives on adolescents’ religiosity and family orientation. In G. Trommsdorff & X. Chen (Eds.), Values, religion,
and culture in adolescent development (pp. 341–369). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, B., Trommsdorff, G., Friedlmeier, M., Lubiewska, K., Barni, D., Kasearu, K.,
& Albert, I. (2015). The roles of religiosity and affluence for adolescents’ family orientation: Multilevel analyses of 18 cultures. Italian Journal of Sociology of Education,
7, 47–88.
Mayer, B., Trommsdorff, G., Kagitcibasi, C., & Mishra, R. C. (2012). Family models
of independence/interdependence and their intergenerational similarity in Germany, Turkey, and India. Family Science, 3, 64–74.
Ng, S. H., & Liu, J. H. (2000). Cultural revolution in psychology. Asian Journal of Social
Psychology, 3(3), 289–293.
Novin, S., & Oyserman, D. (2016). Honor as cultural mindset: Activated honor mindset affects subsequent judgment and attention in mindset-congruent ways. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–14.
Oishi, S., & Gilbert, E. A. (2016). Current and future directions in culture and happiness research. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8, 54–58.
14
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Oyserman, D. (2015). Culture as situated cognition. In R. A. Scott & M. C. Buchmann
(Eds.), Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 1–20). Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Oyserman, D. (2017). Culture three ways: Culture and subcultures within countries.
Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 435–463.
Park, S.-Y., Trommsdorff, G., & Lee, E. G. (2012). Korean mothers’ intuitive theories
regarding emotion socialization of their children. International Journal of Human
Ecology, 13, 39–56.
Poortinga, Y. (2015). Is “Culture” a workable concept for (cross-) cultural psychology? Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 14.
Rothbaum, F., & Trommsdorff, G. (2007). Do roots and wings complement or oppose
one another? The socialization of relatedness and autonomy in cultural context. In
J. E. Grusec & P. Hastings (Eds.), The handbook of socialization (pp. 461–489). New
York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J., Pott, M., Miyake, K., & Morelli, G. (2000). Attachment and
culture: Security in the United States and Japan. American Psychologist, 55(10),
1093–1104.
Sasaki, J., & Kim, H. J. S. (2017). Nature, nurture, and their interplay: Review of cultural neuroscience. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48, 4–22.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and
structure of values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 878–891.
Schwarz, B., Mayer, B., Trommsdorff, G., Ben-Arieh, A., Friedlmeier, M., Lubiewska,
K., … Peltzer, K. (2012). Does the importance of parent and peer relationships for
adolescents’ life satisfaction vary across cultures? Journal of Early Adolescence, 32,
55–80.
Schwarz, B., Schäfermeier, E., & Trommsdorff, G. (2005). Relations between value orientation, child-rearing goals, and parenting: A comparison of German and South
Korean mothers. In W. Friedlmeier, P. Chakkarath & B. Schwarz (Eds.), Culture
and human development: The importance of cross-cultural research to the social sciences
(pp. 203–230). Hove, England: Psychology Press.
Shweder, R. A. (1985). Cultural psychology. What is it? In N. R. Goldberger (Ed.), The
culture and psychology reader (pp. 41–86). New York, NY: University Press.
Super, C. M., & Harkness, S. (1986). The developmental niche: A conceptualization
at the interface of child and culture. International Journal of Behavioral Development,
9(4), 545–569.
Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Trommsdorff, G. (2009). A social change and a human development perspective on
the value of children. In A. Aksu-Koc & S. Bekman (Eds.), Perspectives on human
development, family and culture (pp. 86–107). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Trommsdorff, G. (2012). Cultural perspectives on values and religion in adolescent
development: A conceptual overview and synthesis. In G. Trommsdorff & X. Chen
(Eds.), Values, religion, and culture in adolescent development (pp. 3–45). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Cultural Psychology, Socialization, and Individual Development in Changing Contexts
15
Trommsdorff, G. (2015). Cultural roots of values, morals, and religious orientations in
adolescent development. In L. A. Jensen (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human development and culture: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 377–395). Oxford, England:
Oxford Library of Psychology.
Trommsdorff, G. (2016). Intergenerational relations in cultural context and in
socio-economic change. In C. Timmerman, N. Clycq, M. McAndrew, A. Balde, L.
Braeckmans & S. Mels (Eds.), Youth in education: The necessity of valuing ethnocultural
diversity (pp. 11–26). Oxford, England: Routledge.
Trommsdorff, G., & Cole, P. M. (2011). Emotion, self-regulation, and social behavior
in cultural contexts. In X. Chen & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), Socioemotional development in
cultural context (pp. 131–163). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Trommsdorff, G., Cole, P. M., & Heikamp, T. (2012). Cultural variations in mothers’ intuitive theories: A preliminary report on interviewing mothers from five
nations about their socialization of children’s emotions. Global Studies of Childhood,
2, 158–169.
Trommsdorff, G., & Friedlmeier, W. (2010). Preschool girls’ distress and mothers’
sensitivity in Japan and Germany. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7,
350–370.
Trommsdorff, G., Friedlmeier, W., & Mayer, B. (2007). Sympathy, distress, and
prosocial behavior of preschool children in four cultures. International Journal of
Behavioural Development, 31(3), 284–293.
Trommsdorff, G., & Mayer, B. (2012). A cross-cultural study of intergenerational relations. In H. Bertram & N. Ehlert (Eds.), Family, ties, and care. Family transformation
in a plural modernity (pp. 315–342). Opladen, Germany: Barbara Budrich.
van de Vijver, F. J. S. (2015). Methodological aspects of cross-cultural research. In
M. J. Gelfand, C.-Y. Chiu & Y.-Y. Hong (Eds.), Handbook of advances in culture and
psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 101–160). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Whiting, B. B., & Whiting, J. W. (1975). Children of six cultures: A psycho-cultural analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
GISELA TROMMSDORFF SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Gisela Trommsdorff is Professor Emeritus of the Chair for Developmental
and Cross-Cultural Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of
Konstanz. She presently is Research Professor at the German Institute for
Economic Research (DIW) Berlin; Co-Director of the Research Institute for
Human Sciences of the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt; and
President of the German–Japanese Society for Social Sciences. She serves
in many scientific/advisory committees (e.g., International Advisory Committee, Research Center for Psychological Science, Chung-Yuan Christian
University, Taiwan; Board of Trustees of the Werner Reimers Foundation;
until recently Scientific Advisory Board of the German Institute for Japanese
Studies (DIJ), Tokyo) as well as editorial/advisory boards (e.g., Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology; Asian Journal of Social Psychology; Child Studies
16
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
in Diverse Contexts). Her publication record includes 27 books (co-edited),
166 book chapters, and 110 articles in major journals. Her main research
interests involve cultural aspects of intergenerational relations and social
change, transmission of values, as well as socio-emotional, moral, and
prosocial development. Her honors include fellowships at Keio University,
Tokyo; Kansai University, Osaka; Institute for Statistical Mathematics,
Tokyo; Member of the Academy of Sciences in Erfurt (Akademie Gemeinnütziger Wissenschaften zu Erfurt); Federal Cross of Merit, 1st Class, of the
Federal Republic of Germany; Minister of Foreign Affairs commendation
(Gaimu daijin hyōshō) awarded by the Japanese Government. Email:
gisela.trommsdorff@uni-konstanz.de
RELATED ESSAYS
Culture and Cognition (Sociology), Karen A. Cerulo
Cultural Differences in Emotions (Psychology), Jozefien De Leersnyder et al.
Biology and Culture (Psychology), Robert Peter Hobson
Cultural Neuroscience: Connecting Culture, Brain, and Genes (Psychology),
Shinobu Kitayama and Sarah Huff
The Emerging Psychology of Social Class (Psychology), Michael W. Kraus
Culture as Situated Cognition (Psychology), Daphna Oyserman
Economics and Culture (Economics), Gérard Roland
Culture and Globalization (Sociology), Frederick F. Wherry
The Reading Brain: The Canary in the Mind (Psychology), Maryanne Wolf