An official website of the United States government
Different approaches to operationalizing the cultural theory (CT) developed by Douglas, Thompson, Wildavsky, and others in survey research on risk perceptions are rarely compared, never for the same people. We compare for US respondents the construct validity of cultural worldview measures developed by Jenkins-Smith and colleagues—including both indices of items refining the Wildavsky and Dake approach, and short paragraphs (cultural “statements”)—to those developed by Kahan and colleagues based on cultural cognition theory (CCT). Correlational analyses reveal moderate convergent and discriminant validity among these measures, and along with regression analyses controlling for demographic variables similarly moderate predictive validity across measures for judgments of personal risk for ten hazards. CT statements better discriminate between individualists and hierarchists, and CT indices explain more variance in judged risk (predictive validity) when controlling for demographic variables in regression analyses. We discuss theoretical and methodological implications of our findings to foster further scholarly comparisons of and improvements in these survey-based cultural approaches to explaining risk judgments.
more »
« less
Who needs control? A cultural perspective on the process of compensatory control
Abstract Compensatory control theory (CCT) provides a framework for understanding the mechanisms at play when one's personal control is challenged. The model suggests that believing the world is a structured and predictable place is fundamental, insofar as it provides the foundation upon which people can believe they are able to exert control over their environment and act agentically towards goals. Because of this, CCT suggests, when personal control is threatened people try to reaffirm the more foundational belief in structure/predictability in the world, so that they then have a strong foundation to reestablish feelings of personal control and pursue their goals. This review seeks to understand how the basic assumptions of these compensatory control processes unfold in different cultural contexts. Drawing on research and theorizing from cultural psychology, we propose that cultural models of self and agency, culturally prevalent modes of control, and culture‐specific motivations all have implications for compensatory control processes. Culture determines, in part, whether or not personal control deprivation is experienced as a threat to perceiving an orderly world, how/whether individuals respond to low personal control, and the function that responses to restore a sense of order in the world serve. A theoretical model of compensatory control processes across cultures is proposed that has implications for how people cope with a wide range of personal and societal events that potentially threaten their personal control.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1823824
- PAR ID:
- 10394798
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley-Blackwell
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Social and Personality Psychology Compass
- Volume:
- 17
- Issue:
- 2
- ISSN:
- 1751-9004
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
The Affect Heuristic-Cultural Cognition Theory (AH-CCT) model and the Solution Aversion-based (SA) model both suggest affect, meaning feelings or discrete emotions about a target, mediates associations between ‘culture,’ such as political ideology or cultural biases, and risk responses, such as risk perceptions, protective behaviours, and supportive attitudes towards protective policy. However, the models differ respectively by defining negative affect as directed towards the hazard (‘hazard affect’) or a specific behaviour or policy response (‘solution aversion,’ negative affect about a proposed risk reduction method). We compare these models with longitudinal mediation analysis of U.S. COVID-19 survey data (n = 866 in smallest-sample wave). Solution aversion accounted for more associations of culture with risk perceptions, such as personal risk, collective risk, and risk severity; behaviour and behavioural intentions, regarding mask wearing, avoiding large public gatherings, and vaccination; and support for risk mitigation policies, regarding mask mandates, public gathering bans, and vaccination mandates. Statistically significant direct effects were rare and were mainly for egalitarian cultural bias; indirect effects occurred for egalitarians, political conservatives, and individualists. Implications for further research on risk responses are discussed relative to limited previous work on these affect-mediation models.more » « less
-
Cross-cultural research suggests that rumination may have weaker maladaptive effects in Eastern than in Western cultural contexts. This study examines a mechanism underlying cultural differences in mental health correlates of rumination from sociocultural cognitive perspective. We propose that cultures differ in how people attribute rumination, which can lead to cultural differences in the link between rumination and mental health correlates. We developed the Attribution of Rumination scale, tested cultural differences (Study 1), and examined its relationship with theoretically related constructs (Study 2). In Study 3, self-doubt attribution moderated the association between rumination and mental health, partly explaining cultural differences in the rumination–mental health link. Study 4 replicated self-doubt attribution moderating the link between rumination and mental health among Asians. Furthermore, greater exposure to American culture was associated with self-doubt attribution. This work provides a novel approach to understanding cultural differences in the association between rumination and negative psychological correlates.more » « less
-
As practitioners and scientists reflect on what can be learned from COVID, we argue that cultural defaults—commonsense, rational, and taken-for-granted ways of thinking, feeling, and acting —played an important role in how countries responded to the pandemic, and help explain why the United States suffered 4-6 times more deaths per 100,000 people compared to the East Asian countries of Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea. Drawing on a recent review and theoretical integration, we describe six pairs of contrasting cultural defaults that were common in how the U.S. and some East Asian nations responded to the pandemic: (1) optimism-uniqueness vs. realism-similarity, (2) single vs. multiple causes, (3) expression of high vs. low arousal emotions, (4) influ-ence-control vs. wait-adjust, (5) personal choice-self-regulation vs. social choice-social regulation, and (6) pro-motion vs. prevention. These historically-derived defaults are often outside of individual awareness, but are reflected in and reinforced by institutional practices and policies, the media, and everyday interactions. They are infused with cultural values, understood as the “right way” to be or behave, and are adaptive in their respective contexts. Importantly, both constellations of cultural defaults are viable depending on the problem to be solved. We then provide six specific ways in which public health officers might productively consider these and other cultural defaults when preparing for the next crisis and planning how to effectively motivate people to protect their own and others’ health. Our hope is to facilitate efforts to include a focus on culture within the scope of the social determinants of health and to encourage more partnerships between behavioral scientists and public health practitioners. Recognizing the cultural defaults of the various “publics” they seek to protect is critical as U.S. public health officers aim to promote health for all, a significant and complex challenge in the increasingly individualistic U.S.more » « less
-
In this roundtable session, we will share what we have learned about understanding, documenting, and measuring transformation and translation in the WTRE model. We encourage session attendees to share their experiences evaluating related models that ask people to draw on deeply personal experiences and understandings to effect change with others at the organizational or collaborative levels. We will focus on internal processes, such as how people integrate concepts into their understanding of the self and relationships, conditional features like decision-making and change management processes, and cultural-political environments. We will highlight how engaging and amplifying diverse voices across the organization shapes our understanding of the transformational power of models such as WTRE, and how “translational” aspects of the model can extend or limit access to these voices. We hope that session attendees will leave with resources, ideas, and connections that can help extend how we engage voices beyond program participants to understand how individual transformations and experiences contribute to and reflect organizational changes that must arise simultaneously across personal, interpersonal, and structural levels.more » « less
