Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T06:32:38.868Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cultural mindsets shape what grounded procedures mean: Cleansing can separate or connect and separating can feel good or not so good

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2021

Daphna Oyserman Open the ORCID record for Daphna Oyserman [Opens in a new window]
Daphna Oyserman*
Affiliation:
Mind and Society Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA90089. oyserman@usc.edu https://dornsife.usc.edu/daphna-oyserman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Are grounded procedures such as cleansing value-neutral main effects? Culture-as-situated-cognition theory suggests otherwise. Societies differ in how frequently they trigger membership and individualizing cultural mindsets and their linked mental-procedures – connecting and separating, respectively. Commonly triggered mindsets (and their linked mental-procedures) feel fluent. Fluency feels good. Cleansing can separate from but also connect to others in the form of membership-based rituals.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 44 , 2021 , e16
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (2005). The origin and evolution of cultures. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fincher, C. L., Thornhill, R., Murray, D. R., & Schaller, M. (2008). Pathogen prevalence predicts human cross-cultural variability in individualism/collectivism. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275, 1279–1285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lin, Y., Arieli, S., & Oyserman, D. (2019). Cultural fluency means all is okay, cultural disfluency implies otherwise. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 84. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mesoudi, A. (2019). Cultural evolution and cultural psychology. In Cohen, D. & Kitayama, S. (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (2nd ed., pp. 144–162). Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Mourey, J. A., Lam, B. C., & Oyserman, D. (2015). Consequences of cultural fluency. Social Cognition, 33(4), 308–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osiurak, F., & Reynaud, E. (2020) The elephant in the room: What matters cognitively in cumulative technological culture. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 43, 1–57.Google Scholar
Oyserman, D. (2018). Culture three ways: Culture and subcultures within countries. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 435–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oyserman, D., & Lee, S. W. S. (2008). Does culture influence what and how we think? Effects of priming individualism and collectivism. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 311–342. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oyserman, D., & Yan, V. X. (2019). Making meaning: A culture-as-situated cognition approach to the consequences of cultural fluency and disfluency. In Cohen, D. & Kitayama, S. (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (2nd ed., pp. 536–565). Guilford Press.Google Scholar
von Hippel, W. von Hippel, F. A., & Suddendorf, T. (in press) Evolutionary foundations of social psychology. In Van Lange, P. A. M., Higgins, T. E. & Kruglanski, A. (Eds.), Social psychology: Basic principles (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.Google Scholar