Mathematical abilities.

Mathematical ability is dependent on formal education as it relies on reasoning and analysis (Scribner & Cole, 1981). Formal reasoning is a cultural component and is different from the reasoning required in adaptation to cultural environments. For some researchers mathematical ability was directly an artifact of educational training, and higher order reasoning cannot occur in illiterate respondents (Luria (1974). Luria suggested that reasoning is an artificial cultural product and must be learned in the context of a Westernized education. As we have seen previously that contention has been called into question. Typically Asian children have performed better than their Western counterparts (Geary, Fan, & Bow-Thomas, 1992). The explanation for the higher performance are the strong family norms for achievement that support mathematical education and the strong educational efforts made to help children develop formal mathematical skills (van de Vijver & Willemsen, 1993).

However, despite the contention of Luria, members of a variety of illiterate cultures learn mathematical skills (Schliemann & Carraher, 2001). Illiterate farmers make very accurate estimation of volume of crops and others use a variety of devices to count and estimate. For example string devices known as khipu were used in the ancient Inca empire to register census data and evidence for the use of geometry to locate objects have been found among illiterate cultural groups living in the Amazon (Dehaene, Izard, Pica, & Spleke, 2006).

6.10.4 The ultimate pedagogical goal: Creativity.

Creativity refers to cognition that is novel and “outside the box”. Cultural development for both good and bad depends in the long term on individuals who can produce new ways of exploring old problems or produce original solutions not previously thought possible. Creativity has enabled humans to take great strides in science for example in the exploration of space with the latest achievement the Mars landing of the vehicle “Curiosity” having occurred during the week of this writing. At the same time creativity has also enabled scientists to contribute to horrifying weapons of mass destruction. All the great thinkers of the world have had creative approaches to the issues of their day. Some researchers think of creativity in terms of personality traits, particularly individuals who are confident and acceptant of the self, and display psychological independence (Barron & Harrington, 1981).

Creative persons have consistent with personal independence the ability to think divergently rather than relying on only the convergent cognition measured in intelligence testing. Also consistent with personal independence is a high tolerance for ambiguity and disorder and the willingness to take risks (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). Importantly, creative individuals have the ability to resist conformity pressures. These traits were also found in creative individuals even in highly conformist societies like the Sudan (Khaleefa, Erdos, & Ashria, 1996). The creative individual must be able to deal with and overcome many obstacles rooted in pressures from society and culture.

Research has also shown socialization practices to be important. Simonton (1987) concluded that strong parental support and stimulation encourages creativity in children. Stimulation is a necessary component that is often delimited by culture and class. For example, in one comparative study children that had socioeconomic advantages were more creative compared to children from deprived families that struggle for survival. However, even the most creative individual must operate within the boundaries of cultural norms. In one major study Shane, Venkataraman, and MacMillan (1995) results showed that the innovative strategies employed depended on the dominant cultural values. For example using Hofstede’s cultural values, the researchers found that in countries high on uncertainty avoidance creative individuals had to work through relevant organizational norms and procedures. On the other hand in countries identified as high on power distance creative individuals sought the assistance of authorities and found they needed a broad base of support. Whether Socrates or Copernicus, creative individuals have found themselves part of cultures and social structures that had to be taken into account in order to produce creative contributions. Although creative individuals may share traits across various cultures to perform their work they have to acknowledge cultural values and work in ways approved by those who have power (Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).

Summary

Differences in cognition define the very substance of what we mean by cultural differences. Cognition is culture that is learned from our daily life as influenced by social forces like cultural norms and values. Culture exerts influence through “mental programming” and serves the purpose of helping large groups living harmoniously in common territories. In other words cultural cognition is what we inherit by being born into societies characterized by unique social contexts. Cultural cognition must be understood developmentally as a result of the accumulated behaviors and thought patterns that influence and modify the external environment. At the same time the material culture also delimits to some extent cognition. In the final analysis the impact of culture is summarized in our knowledge about language, tradition, and social ideology.

Cognition starts with sensation and perception. Sensation is the consequence of the conversion of stimulation into neurophysiological processes that create psychological experiences. Perception involves the organization of association areas of the cortex by integrating new sensations with previous knowledge. Culture influences perception in a number of ways including spatial relationships. Cultural groups are exposed to a varying environmental conditions and societies that prime members for particular cognitive processes.

Research on cognitive development support the co-evolution of the brain with the complex human context. While cognitive development is hardwired to some extent the rate of acquisition of cognitive stages are culturally dependent on the complex interaction of biology, environment, socialization, and the transmission of cultural values through cultural institutions and education.

Research has focused a great deal of attention on the relationship of cultural values and cognitive style. From a Western perspective logical decision-making, analytical skills and reasoning abilities are highly valued. Globalization, however require a cautionary note on cultural differences as societies all over the world have reinforced and valued these reasoning cognitive approaches in order to deal with modern life. The relationship of cultural values to cognitive styles reveals important differences. For example East Asian students when requested to respond to stimuli tend to perceive the whole context of the stimuli and the relationships between stimuli objects to a greater extent than Western students. Cognitive styles are typically viewed as bipolar with respondents at the extreme ends of the dimension possessing distinct ways of thinking and categorization of information.

A primary cognitive style is the so-called field dependent and field independent reference. Research on perception demonstrated that some subjects rely primarily on an internal frame of reference whereas others utilize external anchors to assist in spatial orientation. The distinction has been expanded to understand cognition and social orientation. Field dependent subjects are more socially oriented and accept society as it is, tend to be more cognitive rigid and adhere to authority. Field independent respondents on the other hand look for cues within themselves to process information, and tend to be more autonomous, and are located more in Western societies. Perception studies have shown that differences in cognitive style between East Asians and Western students are reliable defined by a greater emphasis on holistic perception in the former. These differences are also supported by the stimulation of different areas activated in the brain in these cultural groups.

An understanding of cognitive style grew out of the comparative research on collectivistic and individualistic societies demonstrating varying cognition. Individualistic cultures promote self reliance and competiveness in pursuit of autonomy and independence. Collectivistic societies place a stronger emphasis on the interest of the group or collective and support higher levels of conformity and social responsibility. The two types of societies also foster different self-construal that is commonly called independent and interdependent.

Research has also pointed to the differences between Greek and Asian thinking as affecting the structure of cognitive processes. Deep sociocultural differences created different worldviews in Western and Asian societies that are thought to have originated with Socrates in Greece and Confucius in China. These ideas complement the differences between collectivistic and individualistic societies discussed above. The Western tradition emphasized critical thinking, skepticism and independence in the pursuit of truth whereas the Confucian tradition supported respect for educators and authority and the pragmatic value of information and knowledge. To understand these forms of cultural cognition we have to examine the history of each region.

Dialectical and logical thinking are also cognitive styles that are believed to have grown out of cultural experiences. For example the Western tradition emphasizes logical examination of opposites in order to choose the correct or favored response. On the other hand Asian and in particular the Chinese favored the more holistic positions of dialectics in order to unify ideas and form consensus decisions. In more recent times we have seen a great deal of research on authoritarianism and dogmatism as processors of cognition and cognitive style. Respondents who are extremely authoritarian and dogmatic have relatively closed minds to new information and seek thereby to eliminate threat and uncomfortable information.

The current debate is between cognitive styles as general processors of information versus the idea of contextualized cognition. As noted cognitive style refer to some hypothetically underlying processor. The sociohistorical tradition on the other hand suggests that cognition is the result of the salience of thinking to the individual and the repetition required by social interaction. The context specific approach tries to understand cognitive processes as initially linked to a specific social context, however over time this initial process takes on a generalizing role in people’s lives. From this perspective cognition occur within the domain of activity as a result of interaction from which cognitive expertise gradually grows.

Recent research has demonstrating the affect of priming that support contextual cognition. Priming of respondents occurs in an experiment when a subject is prepared, unknown to him/her self, for some experimental task. For example a respondent may be primed for either collectivistic or individualistic cognition by asking him/her in what ways he/she is the same or different from the family or cultural group. Such priming causes the subject to be sensitive to appropriate stimuli in the actual experiment. Unknown to the participant the first task is to prepare the respondents for the remaining experimental tasks. Research shows that the affect of priming is similar regardless of cultural group and seem more powerful than the hypothesized cognitive style. The cognitive differences between cultures may therefore be summarized as the result of the frequency of priming or the cultural preparation for particular cultural tasks. Cross-cultural differences in cognition are thought to be a function of practical imperatives. In the final analysis cognitive style and cultural practice both have a role to play and must be accepted as sources for cross-cultural differences in cognition. Overall research support cultural differences in frequencies of cultural practices related to cognition.

The chapter concludes with a discussion of intelligence, the different cultural definitions, the role of nature versus nurture, sources of bias in testing, and the role of socio-economic differences and the force of education. Research on race and interaction affects show that it is impossible to know about the variance that can be attributed to nature versus nurture as a source of a person’s intelligence. However, psychological tests can be useful and can be transferred cross-culturally with proper safeguards in comparative studies. Finally, general processors of higher order cognition is evaluated cross-culturally including the roles of categorization, memory, mathematical abilities and creativity.

Chapter 7

EMOTIONS AND HUMAN HAPPINESS: UNIVERSAL EXPRESSIONS AND CULTURAL VALUES

Emotions provide meaning and color in our lives by informing us about the negative or positive stimuli that affect our well-being. We feel joy in the arrival of new life, and sadness at the life that has passed. Through the emotions we feel we know about the quality of our relationships with others. At our peak experiences in life we can feel complex emotions summarized in the word happiness. At the same time tragedy visit all lives and corresponding emotions provide the framework for understanding these experiences. Emotions tend to be transitory, and can abruptly change or be replaced by alternate interpretations. It is generally agreed that a biological neurophysiological response platform prepare us to react to stimuli that is either benign or threatening. Our emotions consist of a syndrome of responses that in addition to our subjective feelings also include expressive facial reactions, changes in intonation of voice, the use of gestures, and physiological reactions including faster heart beats and more intense breathing. Emotions also have cognitive aspects as we think about the meaning of what we feel, and behavioral reactions depending on the nature of the emotion interpreted as either positive or negative.

Although psychopaths may seem devoid of subjective feelings, and people in wartime or other crisis situation suppress inner reactions, emotions are in fact ubiquitous in our lives. Along with other psychological functions emotions evolved because they were functional to survival and helped us react and learn about situations that were benign as well as those that presented a threat to health and well-being. Ethologists that have conducted comparative species research have found emotions among primates similar to those of humans including those of anger and fear (De Waal, 2003). However, the fact that humans have also evolved language makes our emotions more complex and differentiated compared to our primate cousins. Furthermore, since we have unique evaluations of the self represented in our thinking processes we can reflect on our behavior. Emotions like shame or guilt are the result of self-reflections and are based on concepts of morality (Haidt, 2001; Gottman & Levenson, 2002).

In summary, any model of emotions must include antecedent stimuli that illicit the reaction. Emotions produce expressive behaviors reflected by changes in our voice or face. We also experience subjective feelings that are typically of a positive or negative valuation, and can observe corresponding physiological reactions in the autonomic and central nervous systems. We are capable of evaluating and thinking about our emotions and may therefore attribute the cause of feelings to self or others. Finally, in our behavioral reactions we may take flight from fear of the stimulus, or approach the object that we love.

From a cross-cultural perspective we need to understand the components of emotions that are invariant across all societies and therefore based on a genetic inheritance common with all humanity. However, human behavior is plastic and culture can modify both the subjective experiences of emotions and also what is considered to be appropriate behavioral expressions. The complexity of human behavior causes the discourse about emotions to be complicated and creates difficulties in cross-cultural comparisons since members of different cultural groups do not all have the same words or descriptions with which to interpret or understand emotions. Because of the language complexities discussed in chapter 5 there is always some ambiguity in all cross-cultural comparative research. However, from the consistency of research results over time emotions that are invariant across cultures can be observed along with culturally specific manifestations. The culturally invariant and the culturally specific in emotional behavior are but two sides of the same coin.

7.1 The universality of emotions: Basic neurophysiological responses.

Emotions are closely connected to specific physiological reactions in the autonomic and central nervous systems. Ekman, Levenson and Friesen (1983) found that basic emotions produce distinct and discrete signals in the autonomic system. Others have also found specific emotion related responses in the central nervous system (Davidson, 2003; Mauss, Levenson, McCarter, Wilhelm, & Gross, 2005). Research has also demonstrated similar neurophysiological responses for the basic emotions in cross-cultural samples demonstrating their universality (Tsai & Levenson, 1997).

Researchers in biology and neurosciences have in the past also tried to locate the locus of emotions in certain brain structures (Gazzaniga, 1995). As might be expected it is not an easy process to find the emotion pathway in specific brain locations for complex subjective feelings of anger, sadness or happiness and the biological locus of these emotions are not well understood (Cacioppo & Tassinary, 1990). Nevertheless research has demonstrated convincingly the relationship between emotions and biological processes. Darwin (1998) argued that human behavior evolved from earlier primate ancestors and emotions exists as part of our behavioral repertoire since they serve evolutionary adaptation. In particular emotions serve the function of supporting adaptive fitness by providing important information about our subjective states, our relationships to others, and the emotion stimuli.

Over the years researchers have concluded that basic emotions (anger, fear, disgust, sadness, happiness, and surprise) are hardwired in the human brain. Basic emotions are thought to have evolved as part of our genetic inheritance and have certain characteristics in common (Ekman, 1992; Matsumoto & Hwang, 2011). The basic emotions are identified by universally recognized signals that are also present in other primates. As noted these responses produce collateral changes in the autonomic and central nervous systems, are related to distinctive antecedent events, and demonstrate coherence in reactions. Basic emotions are rapid in onset, of brief duration, and are typically appraised automatically.

7.1.1 How we understand the emotion of others: Facial expressions.

In his original research Darwin argued that humans all over the world use exactly the same facial expressions to convey emotions. According to Darwinian theory facial expressions are a part of our biological inheritance and are adaptive by conveying important emotional information. Darwin also noted that we share with the great apes some of similar facial expressions a finding that support our common evolutionary path with other primates. Ethologists (Snowdon, 2003) have produced evidence for the universality and genetic basis of facial expressions in the primates. For example, there are many morphological similarities between primate and human expressions when evaluated in similar social contexts. Some research found that infant chimpanzee has similar facial expressions as human infants (Ueno, Ueno, & Tomonaga (2004). Facial expressions provide a communication context to emotions thereby serving adaptive functions in intergroup and interpersonal behavior. Ekman, (1973) however, noted that the common experiences of human infants might also provide a basis for universal human expressions and that therefore universality can only be inferred from controlled experiments. Universality however is supported by the research on human development. The facial musculature necessary for facial expressions are present and functional at birth (Ekman & Oster, 1979). Infants are capable of signaling their emotional states and show interest and attention (Oster, 2005). The presence of universal emotional expressions so early in development is evidence of their biological basis.

Early studies (Ekman, 1972; Izard, 1971) independently pioneered a methodology to investigate the universality of the ability to recognize facial expressions of human emotions. Ekman created a series of photographs of facial expressions thought to represent universal basic emotions recognizable in every culture. Respondents in five countries were presented and asked to provide a label for photographs that corresponded to the six common emotions of happiness, anger fear, disgust, sadness and surprise. Later (Ekman, & Friesen, 1986) added contempt to the universally recognized expressions list. The results showed a very broad agreement identifying the same emotional expressions from the photographs among the judges from all cultures. Furthermore there were no significant differences in facial recognition between respondents from the different cultures. However, the respondents in these early studies all came from advanced industrialized societies leading critics to suggest that concordance in agreement might be the result of cultural diffusion in the display of emotion caused by Western movies and other media. The critics concluded that cultural diffusion and not biology contributed to the apparent universality of emotion display.

Ekman and his colleagues conducted another study (Ekman, Sorenson, & Friesen, 1969) employing similar methodology with preliterate tribes of New Guinea in an attempt to find respondents isolated from Western culture. Rather than asking for language labels that might not be available to the respondents Ekman requested that the participants tell a story illustrating the facial expression in the photographs. The results were remarkably similar to the labeling experiments as the stories were concordant with the emotions illustrated in the photographs. Cultural experience moderated responses to a small degree since recognition of emotions for children were very high around 90 percent, but lower for adults (80 percent). However, since these preliterate societies could not have experienced cultural diffusion, or at least only in very limited ways, the results were accepted as confirming the universality of emotions.

Later Ekman and his colleagues asked the tribe members to demonstrate emotions with their own facial expressions and took photographs of these responses. The facial expressions of the tribe members were then shown to American respondents who again correctly labeled the emotions displayed in the new tribal photographs supporting universality. Izard (1971) independently examined the issue of the universality of facial recognition. In general his results supported those found by Ekman and his colleagues. Further, Ekman, Friesen, O’Sulllivan, Diacoyanni-Tarlatris, Krause, Pitcairn, Scherer, Chan, Heider, LaCompte, Ricci-Bitti and Tomati (1987) in a study of ten cultures found similar universal recognition of even complex blended emotions

The aforementioned research was based on the assumption that universality can be demonstrated by common cross-cultural agreement in the labeling of or story telling about photographic stimuli. However, will people spontaneously display these basic emotions and are these reactions also universal? A study comparing responses in Japan and the U.S. (Ekman, 1972) exposed respondents to very stressful stimuli while taping their facial reactions. The results showed that the respondents from both countries showed similar facial reactions to the stressful stimuli. The universality of expression and recognition of emotions has now been documented in many research programs and is commonly accepted (Elfenbein & Ambady, 2002; Matsumoto, Keltner, Frank, & O’Sullivan, 2008). The basic emotions are expressed very rapidly and apparently with automatic appraisal and little cognitive awareness and are thought to be the product of evolution. The social context can modify responses, but without contextual differences facial expressions are universally similar.

Further, the emotions expressed are recognized in all cultures. Matsumoto (2001) reviewed 27 research reports of facial expressions and found universal recognition of the basic emotions. The meta-analysis reported by Elfenbein and Ambady (2002) also supported the universal recognition of emotion signals produced by facial expressions. It seems indisputable that such common agreement would not be found independent of culture unless the facial expressions were in fact universal and genetically based. Further research has expanded the list of emotions that are universally recognized (Matsmoto & Ekman, 2004; Tracy & Robbins, 2004). These studies together support the assertion that humans innately possess basic emotions as part of a genetically determined inheritance.

7.1.2 The effect of language and learning: Criticisms of studies supporting genetically based facial recognition.

Birdwhistell (1970) argued that emotional expressions are learned in the process of socialization. Later Russell (1994) noted that the idea of universality was itself imprecise, and could not be completely divorced from the effects of cultural diffusion. In particular he was critical of the lack of control for language. When respondents had a free choice in terms and descriptive sentences facial recognition of emotion tends to be lower than those employing the Ekman model. According to Russell only very broad cluster of emotional terms produced similar results to those found in the original Ekman studies. The main criticism of the Ekman model is that research using photographs tells us little about facial expressions occurring naturally in social relationships and fail to take into account the social context of emotions. Russell argued that emotion categories are somewhat dependent on unique features of language, and facial emotion recognition can only be understood within broad dimensional categories similar to those found for the semantic differential by Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum (1957), but not by using narrow emotional labels of the basic emotions (Russell, 1991).

Izard (1994) in responding to Russell however, noted that research on innate facial expressions are about much more than verbal descriptions, and have been observed in infants long before language had any effects. Russell’s criticisms, Izard maintains, are about the universality of semantic descriptions, but not the relationship of facial expressions to biology. Further, Ekman (1994) argued that universality in recognition of emotions do not require perfect concordance in judgment, only statistically significant agreement. The matching of words to reactions that are neurocultural cannot be expected to be perfect. Later, Ekman (1998) wrote that studies supporting the learned basis of facial emotional expressions were primarily anecdotal and lacked scientific credibility. Others (Haidt & Keltner, 1999) presented photographs of the basic emotions to respondents in India and the U.S. and found results that supported Ekman and his colleagues. Alternative methodologies have also been employed in studying the development of facial expressions in childhood, and other researchers have examined the similarity between human facial reactions with the expressions of nonhuman primates. Both lines of research have supported the conclusion that emotional expressions are hardwired from birth (Oster, 2005; Parr, Waller, Vick, & Bard, 2007).

Nevertheless researchers have disagreed about the source of basic emotional facial expressions, whether they are learned spontaneously through the mechanism of social learning or are automatic and dependent only on biology. Do universally recognized facial expressions occur because of similar learning processes across cultures or do they reflect biological constants. Some researchers argue that universality could result from similar social learning processes as children learn to express emotions spontaneously and automatically from watching others. From this perspective children learn to smile at happy events, because they see others doing so and experience reinforcement for context correct responses (Feldman, & Russell, 1999; Fernandez-Dols & Ruiz-Belda, 1997).

7.1.3 The definitive answer to the source of the facial expressions of emotions: Biology is the determinant.

Whether learning has a role, or whether facial expressions of emotions are fundamentally caused by biology can be answered by a study with blind people, especially in respondents born blind who have had no opportunity to observe the expression of others. If respondents who are congenitally blind (and therefore have no possibility for visual observations and the social learning of facial emotional expressions) show similar expressions as sighted respondents such results must be accepted as evidence of their inherited nature.

Matsumoto and Willingham (2006) studied the spontaneous facial expressions of sighted athletes who won gold, silver, bronze or were fifth place winners in the judo competition at the 2004 Athens Olympic Games. The 84 athletes from 35 countries represented a very culturally diverse group and were photographed after their matches and during the medal ceremonies. The athlete’s expressions were recorded immediately by using high-speed film when they knew they had won a medal (or not). The photographs were taken in a naturalistic and spontaneous field setting and recorded the athletes’ expressions at what was obviously a salient emotional time. The results showed no significant differences in emotional expression between the cultures represented in the competition supporting the universality of emotional facial expressions.

In the second study (Matsumoto & Willingham 2009) examined the facial expressions of congenitally blind and non-congenitally blind athletes who participated from 23 cultures in the 2004 Para-Olympic games in Athens. These athletes were recorded in the same way as the sighted athletes in the 2006 report. No differences in facial reactions were found between the congenital and non-congenital blind athletes, and their reaction results were therefore combined. The concordance between the sighted and blind athletes were nearly perfect with correlations for facial muscle behaviors varying from .94 for recordings made at match completion, to .98 for when the athletes received the medal, and .96 for facial expressions at the podium. This similarity between sighted and blind spontaneous facial expressions offers definitive support that these reactions are genetically coded and not socially learned and is universal in all cultures.

Date: 2015-01-11; view: 755