An official website of the United States government
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
Cultural Defaults in the Time of COVID: Lessons for the Future
Five years after the beginning of the COVID pandemic, one thing is clear: The East Asian countries of Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea outperformed the United States in responding to and controlling the outbreak of the deadly virus. Although multiple factors likely contributed to this disparity, we propose that the culturally linked psychological defaults (“cultural defaults”) that pervade these contexts also played a role. Cultural defaults are commonsense, rational, taken-for-granted ways of thinking, feeling, and acting. In the United States, these cultural defaults include optimism and uniqueness, single cause, high arousal, influence and control, personal choice and self-regulation, and promotion. In Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, these defaults include realism and similarity, multiple causes, low arousal, waiting and adjusting, social choice and social regulation, and prevention. In this article, we (a) synthesize decades of empirical research supporting these unmarked defaults; (b) illustrate how they were evident in the announcements and speeches of high-level government and organizational decision makers as they addressed the existential questions posed by the pandemic, including “Will it happen to me/us?” “What is happening?” “What should I/we do?” and “How should I/we live now?”; and (c) show the similarities between these cultural defaults and different national responses to the pandemic. The goal is to integrate some of the voluminous literature in psychology on cultural variation between the United States and East Asia particularly relevant to the pandemic and to emphasize the crucial and practical significance of meaning-making in behavior during this crisis. We provide guidelines for how decision makers might take cultural defaults into account as they design policies to address current and future novel and complex threats, including pandemics, emerging technologies, and climate change.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2214203
- PAR ID:
- 10589670
- Publisher / Repository:
- Sage Publishing
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Psychological Science in the Public Interest
- Volume:
- 25
- Issue:
- 2
- ISSN:
- 1529-1006
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 41 to 91
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
The volume is the seventh in the Korea Maritime Institute/East-West Center series on the Arctic in World Affairs. These volumes publish the papers from the annual North Pacific Arctic Conference which aims to provide a forum in which key individuals from relevant countries and major stakeholder groups are able to develop relations of trust that allow them to discuss complex and sometimes difficult issues pertaining to the maritime Arctic in a spirit of problem solving rather than advocacy. Bringing together prominent experts from three North Pacific Arctic states (Canada, Russia and the United States) and three leading North Pacific non-Arctic states, China, Japan and Korea including not only scientists but policy makers, indigenous representatives and other stakeholders, this volume addresses five major themes relating to the Arctic: the impacts of a changing global order; responsible development in the Arctic; sustainable Arctic communities; Arctic challenges and opportunities for global maritime industries; and opportunities for enhancing the dialogue between practitioners and analysts. The book goes beyond generalities; it identifies and evaluates the likely effectiveness of innovative measures designed to maintain the Arctic as a zone of peace and promote development in this region.more » « less
-
When a group member commits wrongdoing, people sometimes assign responsibility and blame not only to the wrongdoer but also to other members of the same group. We examined such assignment of collective responsibility in the context of exploitation of one family by another. Participants were recruited from the United States and South Korea, which are known to vary in cultural norms and endorsement of collectivistic values. Participants in both countries rated the degree to which an agent (grandson) should be held responsible for his grandfather’s exploitation of a victimized family, while varying the closeness of familial connection. Participants’ responsibility judgments showed sensitivity to whether the grandson received financial benefit from the wrongdoer and to the perceived closeness between the grandson and the wrongdoer. Korean participants imposed greater responsibility on the agent than did American participants. Implications for understanding the influence of social norms on moral judgments are discussed.more » « less
-
This chapter begins by discussing two broad criticisms of engineering ethics education (EEE) assessment and then suggests ways to improve it. The criticisms focus on whether (1) measures used in EEE effectively assess behavior change and (2) they should be used across different national and cultural groups. To address these criticisms, the authors argue that educators and researchers should draw on insights and methods from moral and cultural psychology, using more globally representative participant samples. Measures of EEE assessment have been developed primarily by scholars working in the United States, with participants from US universities. However, it is unclear whether moral reasoning, sensitivity, attitudes, or values result in more ethical behaviors – presumably, the goal of EEE – or if these measures assess what they should. It also remains unclear whether these measures are reliable across global populations. Engineering is a global profession, but measures of EEE have been developed by researchers in and with sample groups primarily drawn from the United States. The United States is culturally WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic), and relative to global populations, individuals from WEIRD cultures are outliers on various psychological and social measures. This chapter provides food for thought about behavior and culture related to ethics.more » « less
-
Nooripour, Roghieh (Ed.)School choice initiatives–which empower parents to choose which schools their children attend–are built on the assumptions that parents know what features of a school are most important to their family and that they are capable of focusing on the most important features when they make their decisions. However, decades of psychological research suggest that decision makers lack metacognitive knowledge of the factors that influence their decisions. We sought to reconcile this discrepancy between the policy assumptions and the psychological research. To do so, we asked participants to complete Choice-Based Conjoint surveys in which they made series of choices between different hypothetical schools. We then asked participants to self-report the weight they placed on each attribute when making their choices. Across four studies, we found that participants did not know how much weight they had placed on various school attributes. Average correlations between stated and revealed weights ranged fromr= .34–.54. Stated weights predicted different choices than revealed weights in 16.41–20.63% of decisions. These metacognitive limitations persisted regardless of whether the participants were parents or non-parents (Study 1a/1b), the nature of the attributes that participants used to evaluate alternatives (Study 2), and whether or not decision makers had access to school ratings that could be used as metacognitive aids (Study 3). In line with prior psychological research–and in contract to policy assumptions–these findings demonstrate that decision makers do not have particularly strong metacognitive knowledge of the factors that influence their school choice decisions. As a result, parents making school choice decisions are likely to seek out and use the wrong information, thus leading to suboptimal school choices. Future research should replicate these results in more ecologically valid samples and test new approaches to school choice that account for these metacognitive limitations.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1177/15291006241277810
