Tag: culture

Cultural Capital: How Does Your Culture Benefit You

Posted on by Leave a comment

Imagine you are interviewing two candidates for a job.

They are equally qualified for the job, have the same work experience, and were both compelling in their interviews.

But one went to Harvard, is proficient in three languages, and was dressed in the finest clothes.

The other went to a state school, had no language proficiency, and was dressed well enough but his clothing was not quality.

Even though neither language proficiency nor wardrobe matters for this job, who would you be more likely to choose for the role?

Last week, we talked about social capital – i.e. networking amongst similar groups of people, either of the same social status, across socioeconomic groups, or through shared characteristics.

Similarly, cultural capital can either help an individual succeed in society…or if you have none, it can sometimes stand in the way of success.

Let’s take a closer look at what cultural capital is and how it works.

Cultural Capital

Cultural capital is often defined as “the social assets of a person.”

It refers to the cultural knowledge, skills, and experiences that a person possesses, which can be exploited to gain social status and power. 

Think one’s education, language proficiency or speech patterns, artistic or musical abilities, dress, mannerisms, knowledge of literature, history, and social norms.

All of these characteristics are part of a person’s cultural capital, and they can provide opportunities for some that wouldn’t be open to others.

History of the Concept

The concept of cultural capital was developed by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, who argued that cultural capital can be used to reproduce social inequality. 

In his view, those who possess cultural capital are more likely to succeed in society because they are better equipped to navigate social situations and gain access to valuable resources such as education, jobs, and social connections.

In fact, Bordieu believed:

“cultural inheritance and personal biography attribute to individual success more than intelligence or talent.” 

Cultural capital can be acquired through formal education or through exposure to various cultural experiences throughout one’s life…or it can be convincingly faked, as con artists like Anna “Delvey” Sorokin have demonstrated.

Sorokin famously conned her way into high society New York, stealing upwards of $200,000 from the friends she made and from banks.

How?

She knew the value of cultural capital, and she played the part well by convincing her social circle of her style, tastes, and intellect.

Next week, we’ll talk more about how cultural and social capital work together in different cultures around the world.

‘Simpatia’ and Spontaneous Helping: What Values Contribute to a Culture of Volunteering?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Do you find time to volunteer?

For what reason?

Is it something personally important to you? Or is it something that your culture values?

We’ve been talking about prosocial behavior in culture over the last couple of weeks, including donating money.

This week, we’ll look at what values might contribute to a culture of volunteering.

Spontaneous Helping

When you think of volunteering, you probably think of giving your time and energy regularly to an organization – working at a food bank, helping your church bake sale, participating in big brother/sister, etc.

But there are different forms of volunteering.

One form – spontaneous helping – was the focus of a study on cross-cultural differences in helping strangers.

Research was conducted in big cities – New York, Shanghai, Rio de Janeiro, etc. – of 23 countries.

Non-emergency situations were set up, in order to assess how frequently strangers might proactively come to a person’s aid.

These situations included a stranger dropping a pen, a stranger with an injured leg trying to pick up magazines, and a blind person crossing the street.

These three measures resulted in a relatively stable helping rate per city.

But the findings across cities varied greatly.

Brazilians vs. Malaysians

The highest helping rate – 93% – was found in the city of Rio de Janeiro.

This finding is in line with past studies of cultural norms in Spanish and Latin American countries.

Such studies have highlighted the cultural value of “simpatia” in such cultures – i.e. a demonstrated politeness and helpfulness to strangers and a proactive concern for others.

The lowest helping rate – 40% – was found in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Being that both Brazil and Malaysia are collectivist cultures, this result contradicts the theory that collectivist societies might have a higher helping rate than individualist societies, due to their social orientation.

In reality, the results were all over the map in relation to collectivism vs. individualism and helping, with cities in some collectivist countries averaging higher helping rates – like San Jose, Costa Rica (91.33%) and Lilongwe, Malawi (86%) – while others had low rates – like Singapore (48%) and Sofia, Bulgaria (57%).

Conversely, some individualist cultures were high on the scale – like Vienna (81%) and Copenhagen (77.67%) – while others were low – like New York City (44.67%) and Amsterdam (53.67%).

Economic Productivity

One curious finding was the inverse relationship between helping and the country’s economic productivity.

That is, helping occurred less on the whole in wealthier countries than in poorer ones.

This might suggest that some cultures show more care for each other out of necessity.

Next week, we’ll talk more about different avenues of volunteering and their cultural relevance.

A Universal Truth: Research Confirms That Giving Makes You Feel Good

Posted on by Leave a comment

Prosocial Spending – aka, Charity – is a Psychological Universal

You’re walking down the street, and you see someone holding a sign, asking for help.

Just $20 for gas, $5 for food.

You feel the urge to give. You want to help.

While you might assume generosity and giving is not a universal value, this tug on the heartstrings may be more common than you think.

Prosocial Spending

In the last post, we talked about prosocial behavior – i.e. care given to other people and one’s community.

Prosocial spending – or charity – is one part of prosocial behavior.

It’s defined as using one’s financial resources to help others.

One study of over 600 North Americans showed that those selected at random to spend a small windfall of money on others were significantly happier than those directed to spend it on themselves.

And this happiness derived from generosity was found to be universal.

Research on Prosocial Spending and Well Being shows that those who give have greater well-being, the world over.

When survey data was analyzed across 136 countries using Gallup World Poll data, the study found that humans on a whole derive happiness and other emotional benefits from helping others financially.

As the study reads,

“In contrast to traditional economic thought—which places self-interest as the guiding principle of human motivation—our findings suggest that the reward experienced from helping others may be deeply ingrained in human nature, emerging in diverse cultural and economic contexts.”

Apart from the surveys, the researchers went on to conduct experiments for causality in two widely different countries: Uganda and Canada. 

Here’s what they found.

Uganda vs. Canada: Well-Being and Prosocial Spending

While controlling for household income, donating to charity had a positive effect on life evaluation/well-being across the board.

The study also found that while people in wealthier countries were able to donate at higher rates, the well-being was not greater.

Well-being based on giving monetarily is only weakened in less wealthy nations due to the infrequency of donations.

When investigating Canada (which falls within the top 15% of countries based on per capita income) and Uganda (which falls in the lower 15%), the study found that 66% of respondents in Canada reported donating frequently while only 13% did in Uganda.

However, the experimental study went on to assess prosocial spending in different cultural contexts other than charitable giving.

Approaching students at random on campuses in Uganda and Canada, researchers asked the participants to describe their experience after spending 10,000 Ugandan shillings or 20 Canadian dollars (each of which has equal buying power in these two countries) and also rate their happiness on the Subjective Happiness Scale.

Others were asked to rate self-spending and their corresponding happiness.

As past studies have shown, those who spent on others reported higher levels of happiness than those who spent on themselves.

But what emerged about the cultural differences in spending was interesting.

In Uganda, those who purchased something for themselves described a personal necessity at three times the rate as those in Canada. 

Additionally, Ugandans were more likely to have purchased something for others in response to a negative event, like medical services or supplies, while the same result was not met with at all in Canada.

Despite these differences in spending on others, the emotional benefits were the same in both countries.

Prosocial Behavior: Why Do We Give? Why Do We Care?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Do you donate money to charity? Time and energy to volunteering? 

Are you concerned about social issues, like homelessness, racial discrimination, or gender inequality?

If you answered ‘yes’ to any of these questions, then you’re engaging in prosocial behavior.

Over the next few weeks, we’ll be looking at prosocial behavior and culture.

But first, let’s define and understand it.

Origin of the Term, ‘Prosocial Behavior’

The term, ‘prosocial behavior,’ appeared in the ‘70s as an antonym for ‘antisocial behavior.’

It’s defined as demonstrating actions such as cooperation, diplomacy, sharing, helping, feeling empathy, etc.

Basically, prosocial behavior involves caring for other people and your community.

Personal benefits of being a “helper” include boosting one’s mood, reducing stress, and giving your network or community social support.

Reasons for Prosocial Behavior

Aside from the personal benefits of prosocial behaviors, there are other evolutionary and psychological reasons to engage in it. 

  • Reciprocity – Helping others may have evolved from the social norm of reciprocity. When on the receiving end of help, one might feel obliged to help the person in return in their time of need.
  • Socialization – Early child development often includes teachings on kindness, sharing, and helping. These prosocial behaviors may be encouraged as the child grows.
  • Egoism – One might be performatively prosocial, engaging in prosocial behaviors purely to benefit themselves.
  • Survival of the Fittest – Evolution might explain why prosocial behaviors developed. Helping one’s in-group (family, for instance) would ensure survival of your species and/or genetics.

Types of Prosocial Behavior

Researchers have that prosocial behavior can be driven by different motivations.

Here are three distinct types of prosocial behavior:

  • Altruistic – This type of prosocial behavior is not motivated by personal gain. It seeks to help and support others for their sake. Think donating to a cause anonymously.
  • Reactive – This type of prosocial behavior is motivated by individual needs. The individual is acting in response to someone’s specific need. Think supporting a friend when they’re going through a hard time.
  • Proactive – This type of prosocial behavior is motivated by personal gain. The goal of this behavior is to seek status and in-group popularity through “generous” actions. Reciprocity is expected. Think national diplomacy.

With this brief introduction to prosocial behavior, we’ll be discussing how it manifests culturally over the next few weeks in the context of charity and volunteering.

Are You Friendly, Temperamental, or Creative? It May Partly Depend on Where You Live

Posted on by Leave a comment

Is your personality defined by your locale?

It goes without saying that our culture’s values and norms define – or at least influence – each of us.

They determine what is (or should be) important in our lives and, in doing so, drive our motivations.

As this study shows, our culture may even play a role in shaping our personalities.

Big Five Trait Measures

Not only do personality norms differ across national cultures, but they differ across regions within a nation as well.

This study, led by Peter Rentfrow at the University of Cambridge, found three standout regional psychological profiles in the US. 

Researchers took five samples of data through various methods and Big Five trait measures, in a multisample approach taken from different self-reported personality studies collected over 12 years.

Three Psychological Regions in the US

After analyzing responses from more than 1.5 million participants, researchers found three distinct personality types.

  • Cluster 1 – Friendly and Conventional
  • Cluster 2 – Relaxed and Creative
  • Cluster 3 – Temperamental and Uninhibited

The Deep South and Upper Midwest share personality traits identified as “friendly and conventional.”

This is Cluster 1.

Often referred to as “Red” states, this region of Middle America is known for conservative social values and was found to have high levels of Extraversion and low levels of Openness.

Cluster 2, predominantly in the West, is defined as “relaxed and creative.”

The region has a larger population with college degrees, lower levels of Extraversion, and higher levels of Openness.

Other character traits attributed to Cluster 2 are calmness and emotional stability.

Cluster 3, predominantly located in the Northeast, is described as “temperamental and uninhibited.” 

The “Blue” states have low Extraversion and Agreeableness and a high level of Neuroticism.

They also have higher levels of irritability, depression, and stress.

However, they share one personality trait with Cluster 2, in that they’re considered more Open.

The study concludes,

“The psychological profiles were found to cluster geographically and displayed unique patterns of associations with key geographical indicators.”

These psychological clusters may produce the regional variations noted in key indicators such as politics, economics, health, and social attributes.

Selective Migration

While these results may suggest that each region’s culture informs the personality of its residents, selective migration is cited as one possible factor in these regional differences.

This is when someone chooses to move to a locale that complements their needs, personality, and mentality.

For instance, those seeking Openness might settle in (or remain in) a locale known for diversity, while those who are high in Extraversion might settle in (or remain in) a locale where a social network, family, and community are important.

As the study notes, this investigation departs from earlier regional research focusing on voting patterns, economic indicators, cultural stereotypes, etc.

Instead, this study outlines residents’ psychological characteristics, which factor into microlevel PESH metrics via individual-level behaviors.

The Five-Factor Model: Are Gendered Personality Traits Universal?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Do personality traits differ across gender? 

And do those differences translate across cultures?

Last week, we talked about how age differences in personality follow a universal pattern.

But are gendered personality traits also universal?

This study dives in.

NEO Personality Inventory-Revised

A standard questionnaire has been developed according to the Five Factor Model to provide a systematic assessment of the five major domains of personality in relation to motivational, attitudinal, experiential, interpersonal, and emotional styles.

Defining each domain are six traits/facets.

This questionnaire is known as the NEO-PI-R.

For the 2001 study by Costa, Terracciano, and McCrae, this questionnaire was distributed to college-age and adult men and women in 26 countries to collect a sample size.

Results of Cultural Gender Study

As a reminder, the five factors are Neuroticism (N), Extraversion (E), Openness to Experience (O), Agreeableness (A), and Conscientiousness (C).

The data collected showed that men in the U.S. typically scored higher on E and O, particularly in facets of assertiveness and openness.

Women in the U.S. typically scored higher on N and A, but also scored higher on E and O in facets such as openness to aesthetics and warmth.

There was little difference in C between men and women in the U.S.

When compared to other countries, these gender differences appear universal.

Worldwide, men scored higher in the facets of openness to ideas, excitement seeking, assertiveness, and competence, while women scored higher in the facets of openness to aesthetics, straightforwardness, vulnerability, and anxiety.

Does this mean gender differences are biologically based, or are gender differences universally shaped in this way by each and every culture and thus adapted by each personality?

That’s a question waiting to be answered.

Progressive vs. Traditional

Was there a chasm between more progressive cultures and more traditional cultures regarding the magnitude of gender differences in personality traits?

Yes, but not how you’d expect.

You would think that the gap in gender differences in personality would be reduced in modern, progressive cultures and would be greater in traditional cultures.

But the opposite was found.

Modern European countries like The Netherlands saw a broader gap between genders than traditional countries, like South Korea.

One explanation for this may be the way such traits are attributed.

Robert R. McCrae explains,

“In countries where women are expected to be subservient, they attribute their low Assertiveness to their role as a woman rather than their traits. By contrast, European women who are equally low in Assertiveness identify it as a part of their own personality.”

Further studies might take a closer look at this seeming contradiction to get a clearer idea of this gap.

We’ll talk more about personality profiles of cultures next week.

The Five-Factor Model: Do Personalities Age the Same Way Across Cultures?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Does your culture have a personality?

Let’s use the Five-Factor Model to find out.

Developed in the United States in the ‘80s and ‘90s, the Five-Factor Model (FFM) is an exhaustive taxonomy of personality traits (defined as “tendencies to show consistent patterns of thoughts, feelings, and actions”). 

The personality structure model has been applied in various cultures and is described as universal.

Gender differences in personality and personality attributes related to age – like a boost in conscientiousness and a reduction in openness from adolescence to adulthood – also seem to be universal.

This has led to the FFM being used internationally by psychologists in various functions.

So what is the Five-Factor Model, and what does it mean for cross-cultural studies?

The Five Factors of the Five-Factor Model

We’ve already mentioned two of the factors in the FFM: conscientiousness and openness to experience.

The three others are extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism.

Let’s take a closer look at each of these factors:

  • Conscientiousness – exhibiting behaviors such as foresight, duty, and responsibility.
  • Openness to experience – exhibiting behaviors that are thoughtful, inquisitive, and show a willingness to meet intellectually challenging tasks.
  • Extraversion – exhibiting behaviors that are energetic, assertive, and gregarious.
  • Agreeableness – exhibiting behaviors that are sympathetic, empathetic, and kind.
  • Neuroticism – exhibiting behaviors that are irritable, moody, and emotionally unstable.

Where is the FFM Used?

This popular trait model of human personality has been used by researchers and practitioners in clinical, social, and industrial-organizational spheres.

It’s also used in cross-cultural research.

One study, for instance, sought to determine if the changes in the mean levels of all five factors between adolescence and the age of 30 were purely American.

The original study found that 

“In terms of personality traits, 30-year-olds resemble 70-year-olds more than 20-year-olds.”

Cross-cultural researchers analyzed similar data from a dozen countries – including Germany, Russia, South Korea, Japan, and Britain – and found that the personality patterns amongst all twelve countries were similar, suggesting a universal maturational process.

As humans meet mid-adulthood, they become less open to new experiences and less enthusiastic, but more altruistic, adjusted, and organized.

This personality trend is common in all societies.

We’ll look at more cultural research regarding the FFM next week.

3, 2, 1…New Year’s Traditions From Around the World, Part II

Posted on by Leave a comment

Goodbye 2022, and hello 2023 – let’s celebrate the new year around the world!

Last year, we talked about New Year’s traditions from Scotland, Spain, and Japan.

This year, we’re heading to the Philippines, Ecuador, and American Samoa to learn of their unique traditions and customs.

Polka Dots in the Philippines

If polka dots are your favorite fashion trend, then the Philippines is where you should ring in the new year.

In the Philippines, where round things represent prosperity, polka dots signify money and fortune.

Needless to say, the fashion of the new year is polka dots, so dress in your finest.

Continuing in this concept, you’ll likely be eating round-shaped fruits as well, which are the centerpiece of the Media Noche (Spanish for “midnight”) – the tradition of a lavish midnight feast, inherited from the Spaniards who once colonized the Philippines.

Burning Effigies in Ecuador

Who wants to burn last year to the ground?

If that’s how you feel, celebrate the new year in Ecuador, where a masked dummy known as the año viejo is made to symbolize the misfortunes of the past year.

At midnight, the sawdust-and-paper effigies are burnt to ashes in the hopes that last year’s misfortunes will disappear in the new year.

Often, the figures are wearing masks of politicians, sports or film stars, cartoon figures, superheroes, animals, and more.

Two-in-One New Year in the South Pacific

Located in the South Pacific Ocean, the last inhabited place on earth to celebrate the New Year is the island of Tutuila in the America Samoa.

The remote tropical island sees only 34,000 visitors annually, and its primary city of Pago Pago is home to fewer than 10,000 people.

Samoan families who have immigrated to other countries often return home to celebrate in homes dressed with flowers and colored papers.

The celebration involves gift-giving, as well as traditional dancing and food.

Its neighboring island of Tonga lies 550 miles away and, lying on the other end of the international dateline, is one of the first countries to ring in the new year. 

So, you have a chance to hop on an 18-minute flight from Tonga to Tutuila to ring in the new year twice!

Christmas Around the World: Interesting Cultural Christmas Characters & Traditions, PART II

Posted on by Leave a comment

Ho, ho, ho, and a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all you readers!

Last year, we talked about Christmas traditions from Italy, the Netherlands, and Austria.

This year, we will explore traditions from countries south of the equator – Australia, Brazil, and Argentina.

Let’s jump right in!

Surfing Santa in Australia

Though it’s summer in Australia at Christmas time and there’s no real snow to be found, Aussies fold in their own fun-in-the-sun Christmas traditions.

For one, Australian Santa surfs.

Abandoning the traditional white-fur-lined red fleece suit and black winter boots, you’re more likely to see Santa in board shorts on the beach on Christmas day.

And instead of the roast turkey or ham spread found in some western countries, Aussies pack in the prawns for their Christmas meal.

This requires a “prawn run,” where an unfortunate family member will be sent to stand in line at the nearest packed seafood store in the morning to buy the freshest grub.

Thirteenth Salary in Brazil

While Christmas Day may be the more lively celebration in some countries, Christmas Eve is where it’s at in Brazil.

Often people dress up in their finest to visit their friends in the afternoon and hold a huge celebration with their families in the evening.

Dinner is served around 10 PM, and midnight is when presents are exchanged or “Missa de Gallo” (Midnight Mass) is attended by the religious.

There’s no chimney-diving for Papai Noel in Brazil; instead, he drops on by to replace stockings left on windowsills with presents.

And to help Papai Noel provide gifts for Christmas, most employees are given a “thirteenth salary” (two months’ pay) in November/December – a scheme introduced by former president João Goulart in the ‘60s to boost the economy before Christmas time.

Three Kings Day in Argentina

While you can enjoy incredible fireworks displays at midnight on Christmas Eve in Argentina, as well as small paper lanterns called “globos” sent into the sky, you’ll have to wait a couple of weeks to open your presents.

Three Kings Day, celebrated on January 6, is when most families receive their gifts in Argentina.

Instead of Santa or Papa Noel delivering the gifts to children, the Three Kings – who delivered gifts to the baby Jesus – will leave them in children’s shoes.

Despite this tradition, Santa is growing popular in Argentina – only there, he is known as “El Gordo de Navidad,” literally translated to “The Christmas Fat.”

As this list shows, wherever you are this Christmas, you’re bound to experience new and exciting ways to celebrate the holiday!

Is It Worth the Risk?: Different Cultural Takes on Risk Perception

Posted on by Leave a comment

Are some cultures greater risk-takers than others?

This study dove in to find out.

Analyzing the data of respondents from Germany, Poland, the US, and China, the study measured respondents’ risk preference for pricing financial options.

These are their findings.

Hypothesis

Studies have shown a correlation between a culture’s position on the individualism-collectivism scale and its risk preference.

Called the Cushion Hypothesis (Weber & Hsee, 1998), the theory suggests that those from collectivist cultures are more likely to take financial risks.

Why?

Due to the perceived support from their collectivist culture and, thus, the reduced negative consequences such a risk might have on the individual.

While this study did arrive at the same conclusion – that the collectivist society of China was less risk-averse than its American counterpart – it did identify a more specific reason for it.

Risk-Averse

The majority of respondents in all four cultures were identified as risk-averse (i.e. they were willing to pay more for options they saw as “less risky”).

When you look at a risk-return conceptualization, it is natural that most people, no matter what culture, would perceive risk this way.

When risk preference was evaluated in the traditional expected-utility framework, Chinese respondents were considerably less risk-averse in pricing than Americans.

But what this study found was that the difference in risk preference may not be due to a cultural attitude toward perceived risk; instead, it appears largely due to the perception of the financial options’ risk itself.

Chinese participants simply did not find the options as risky as their counterparts.

Conclusion

The study states:

“Chinese respondents were closest to risk neutrality in their pricing of the financial options and judged the risk of these options to be the lowest, but were not significantly less perceived-risk averse.

“American and Germans offered the lowest prices and also perceived the risk of the options to be highest, but were not significantly more perceived-risk averse.”

One might practically apply this knowledge to commerce and negotiation when working across these particular cultures, affording both negotiators joint gains.

The study concludes that while cultures do vary on a collectivism-individualism continuum which undoubtedly impacts perceived risk, other cultural factors in risky decision-making – locus of control, differences in achievement motivation, etc. – may also come into play in risk preference.

Further studies into the subject might provide more insight.