Stereotypes, policy making and the lack of value research in the Pacific

I have been working on some policy related research work. The first stage of the project is a literature review of available research on values in the Pacific. The review generated is supposed to inform policy making in the Pacific. It is a fascinating project and topic. Yet, I am struck by two very peculiar observations as I am trying to locate relevant material.

Little research and lots of recommendations

The first thing that is really noteworthy is the absence of much high quality empirical work, but the abundance of policy recommendations, guidelines and advise based on a complete lack of information. For example, government departments in NZ provide information to employers about  how to deal with Pacific Island staff, but I was unable to locate any first hand research that supports these recommendations. This is just the tip of the iceberg, but seems to be part of a larger picture of wild guessing, stereotyping and random observations being turned into potentially ill-informed and inappropriate guidelines, policies and interventions. This is outright problematic in my opinion.

Old School Anthropology and lack of insider voices

The second striking fact is that there are quite a few books by American/European/Western anthropologists describing the exotic features of island life and isolated topics of interest to these foreign outsiders, but relatively few ethnographic or anthropological accounts (beyond artists responding to journalists questions) by local people. In some cases, the diverging view points by outsiders (as in the famous Mead vs Freeman exchange) are heavily debated by other anthropologists from overseas, but there is little voice in that debate that came from Samoans (as far as I can tell based on my initial search). Outsiders determine how one of the most diverse regions in the world is portrayed and described.

Island themed performance and stereotypical accounts from age-old ethnographic studies shape our vision of the Pacific

Basically it seems that our understanding of issues in the Pacific are shaped by Western anthropologists doing research with more traditional communities from the 1920s-1970s mainly and there is a relatively lack of research on how modern day general populations in the Pacific feel, think and believe about all sorts of issues of societal relevance. Advise to business, clinicians, and even governmental policies are built on the absence of reliable data.

Pain increases happiness... or why watching other people suffer can be more painful than suffering yourself

Why do people voluntarily engage in pain? We conducted a study a few years ago and the articles and a media release by our university are just out this.

We were interested in individuals who participate in objectively painful religious rituals. Western theories and observers would argue that people engaging in these activities risk infection, experience negative emotions and should feel less happy after the ritual, compared to others who do not engage in these behaviours. There is quite a bit of research in medical areas that talk about the negative effects of large scale religious events, especially if they involve painful activities (just think of jumping into ice cold water, walking over burning hot coals, piercing yourself with unsterilised metal rods, etc.).

We studied a festival on the small island of Mauritius in the Indian Ocean, just off the coast of Africa. The festival involves 10 days of fasting and prayers, and culminates in a long procession and fire-walking ritual. What was particularly interesting for us was to study the effects that active participation in the firewalk as the focal element of the ritual had on people, compared to others who participated, but did not do the firewalk or merely watched from the sidelines.

We invited fire-walkers (‘high-ordeal’ participants); people participating in the ritual without engaging in the high-intensity activities (‘low-ordeal’ participants); and spectators to be part of our study. The fire-walkers and ‘low-ordeal’ participants were members of the same families. The support from the local temple and community was actually phenomenal. We had to turn people away, because we did not have enough resources to study everyone. Here, the hard work by Dimitris Xygalatas in setting up the field site and establishing the connections with the local community really paid off!

Participants walked barefoot in the midday sun without eating or drinking while carrying pots of sacrificial offerings. The fire-walkers were pierced with needles or skewers and finished the procession by walking over knives and burning coals.

Our design was super-ambitious though. We asked individuals a few questions before the whole festival started, measuring their initial states of happiness and fatigue and we also strapped them up with mobile heart rate monitors. This allowed us to track their physiological arousal during the festival. We then asked people again after the end of the ceremony.

To examine the effects of participation, we compared the levels of happiness, fatigue and heart rate of low- and high-ordeal participants, and found that fire-walkers had experienced the highest increase in heart rate and reported greater happiness and less fatigue post-ritual.

Even more interesting was the experience of ‘low-ordeal’ participants because of their relationship to the fire-walkers. Fire-walkers experienced the emotional ‘high’ upon finishing the ritual, whereas ‘low-ordeal’ participants did not, while simultaneously worrying about the well-being of their friends and family. These people, even though they did not physically experience the pain, felt more exhausted than the fire-walkers. Sometimes, perceiving other people suffer can be more exhausting than actually experiencing the pain yourself.

The Team of Investigators - after the ritual ordeal is over

In the paper, we provide some speculations about potential biological mechanisms, especially opioid systems and pain-offset mechanisms to guide future research. The study of voluntary pain is highly fascinating and there is so much that we don't yet understand (see also my earlier posts about extreme rituals in this blog).

For those interested, the paper can be found here (it is open access, so no fees) and the media release is here.

Indigenous or not indigenous.... that is the question

Today I listened to a really interesting talk by Peter Smith from Sussex Uni. He was presenting his work on social influence, including some of the new stuff on different indigenous social influence strategies such as the Chinese guanxi, Brazilian jeitinho, Middle Eastern wasta and Russian svasy. These are all local behaviours that individuals may adopt to solve problems in their environment, typically by relying on social relationships or their power (e.g., for a great example from the news this morning - the son of the Iraqi transportation minister forcing a plane to return to Beirut). Peter and his colleagues asked students and managers to come up with good examples of each local cultural strategy in their local culture. They then took the most representative scenarios from each culture, removed any identifying content and gave it to managers in other cultures. What they found was that the supposedly indigenous influence strategies were generally seen as typical even in other cultures. In other words, British 'pulling strings' was often as likely to be seen as applicable and typical in China and Saudi Arabia as in the original British context.
This clearly challenges notions that indigenous influence strategies are unique and distinct to a specific local context. Of course, he immediately got challenged by some people in the audience defending the indigenous approach, claiming that these wimpy scenarios miss the rich context and the social relationships that go with each style.
I think that there are subtle differences in how these influence strategies work and are employed (see for example our qualitative ethnographic work on Brazilian jeitinho here and a set of empirical studies where we also make some theoretical claims about jeitinho vs guanxi here). Yet, there are three major issues that I think the indigenous people are missing.

First, there are limited behavioural options for humans. We are live in social settings with a core family, extended family and a relatively stable set of limited contacts in an extended social network. All these networks are more or less hierarchically structured. We all need to negotiate these networks and there is only a limited set of behavioural strategies for any of us (e.g., ingratiation, calling in favors, returning favors, making compliments, breaking some rules, paying a bribe, giving some gifts... you name it). See work by David Ralston. We can not just come up with something completely different. It is all there. We are humans. Therefore, people in most contexts will be able to recognize and distinguish particular types of behaviours. Hence, people can call a spade a spade... even if it looks a bit funny shaped.

Second, the functions of all these behaviours are to solve problems. It is the functionality of these behaviors, even if not socially approved and even considered illegal (think of corruption or nepotism), it still gets things done. This is why they are so widespread and so similar in form. We made this argument and showed some data supporting this claim here.  Peter Smith and his colleagues also found similar results in their cross-national study. Think behaviours - think functions. And think power corrupts... probably as universal a function of human behaviour as there can be.

Third, many of these behaviours are locally embellished, discussed, criticized, analyzed, debated. By doing this, these behavioural strategies take a life on their own in the minds of concerned members of a community. Go to Brazil and talk to them about jeitinho - you will be listening to complaints for hours - hopefully while having some good cool caipirinhas. Go to Lebanon and ask somebody about wasta - and better have a good shisha or coffee next to you, because you are not going to move for a while. These behaviours are often recognized as problematic, but they are so damn useful and this is why they continue. At the same time, discussing and gossiping about them becomes a reinforcer of the social norm and therefore serves as an identity marker. The behaviour is not just a behaviour anymore, but has taken a cultural life of its own. Therefore, it has to be unique - you can't say that another place has also something that really seems to be jeitinho... or wasta... or guanxi. It is what makes us who we are as people... So dare you say that somebody else may have come up with something similar.

So how does my claim that there are subtle differences fit in with that? I think the first and second point are the answer to that. There are a number of limited behaviours and strategies that people can use to solve problems. The nature and type of problems will differ slightly by context. Therefore, some behaviours will be more common or be expressed with greater force or variety than others. Hence, there is a matrix of behaviours which is latently present in all contexts, but then is expressed to slightly different degrees. Some patterns of the behavioural matrix may be missing or be expressed very weakly in some places. Others may take a particular form due to the different social relations- compare the loose social relations in Brazil which allows more flexibility in social norm bending with the still relatively strong family networks in China that may be less flexible. So what differentiates the various styles is how the matrix is filled with specific behaviours in a specific context. Jeitinho may be a bit more norm breaking, wasta a bit more relying on social hierarchy, guanxi a bit more social relationship harmony focused. But the matrix is there. It is recognizable. It has blends of the same ingredients. It is this matrix that makes us human and helps us to interact with anyone in the world. It is what makes us humans.

A Brazilian will recognize Chinese guanxi and know what it is all about. A Russian will painfully remember some personal experiences when hearing an example of wasta in Lebanon. We all can understand what happened in Beirut this morning - even though we may not want to do or can not do it ourselves (even though I have to admit it would be bloody awesome sometimes to force that damn train or bus to come back when I just missed it... Just saying... :).

Academia, theories and the real world

Yesterday was the first day of my workshop on culture, evolution and collective rituals organized by the Kurt Lewin Institute, hosted by Groningen University. I gave a talk on cultural change and how evolutionary processes can help to understand how, when and why cultures might be changing. It was more of a big picture kind of talk, with an overview of what I would consider exciting theories in the social and biological sciences about cultural dynamics. In the afternoon, me and Nina Hansen then gave the students a task: Breaking them into small groups, they had to imagine that they are asked to provide advise to UN Women about addressing gender inequality in developing countries. Their task was to use their respective theories of research to come up with interventions to tackle the task.
The interventions were really fascinating, typically addressing issues of arranged marriages and/or education of women. I loved how the students focused on concrete examples and target populations and considered trade-offs between costs and benefits that keep practices that disempower women in place. This was fantastic stuff. Some of the proposed interventions were also really innovative and creative - big ups for that.
It was also great to see that people were really aware of cultural sensitivity, issues of trust and ethics. They showed amazing sensitivity to potential problems.
At the same time, what was really striking was the lack of psychological theory. These students are PhD students in leading Dutch universities. Their research is in social psychology, on issues around status and intergroup relations. I would have thought this makes their theories and research immediately applicable to this specific intergroup context of gender relations. Yet, beyond simple nods towards social influence and contact theories (without actually using these theories to develop or guide their intervention), there was a void of theory. Lots of common sense reasoning, but nothing that an educated individual may not come up with... I was struck by this.
Are our psychological theories irrelevant to addressing pressing global issues?

What could account for this observation?
One option might be that psychologists are really good in terms of addressing the problem, using a problem focused mindset. So the students turned to the problem and addressed/ identified key issues about the problem. This is great critical thinking - but then... what is the use of studying psychology if critical thinking is the key?
Even when pressed by me, the students came back to classic theories of intergroup relations. Even though they work on cutting edge stuff at world leading universities, nobody really stepped up with an example of recent psychological theorizing. What is the practical relevance of these theories?
Another option might be that our instructions led them astray. We asked them to address the problem. Yet again, involving Kurt Lewin's old mantra: There is nothing as practical as a good theory. Good theories should lend themselves to address problems.
Another option is that the students were aware of all the pitfalls and problems and exceptions and boundary conditions of their theories and therefore were reluctant to apply it here. Great - but then, what is the relevance of the theory if it can not explain key mechanisms of human behaviour? What is the usefulness of a theory if by virtue of its boundary conditions and equivocal findings it becomes inapplicable to real world contexts?
Or are psychologists just too shy or unwilling to convert their theoretical stuff into useful real-world applications? So the problem would be one of translating science and research into interventions.

I am not blaming the students, I think it reflects a deeper problem in our field. Our work is increasingly specialized and focused on minute details (which can and should be important), but miss the link to real world applicability. This is reflected in a similar way in this great opinion piece by Nicholas Kristof.

One great quote from this opinion piece:

A basic challenge is that Ph.D. programs have fostered a culture that glorifies arcane unintelligibility while disdaining impact and audience. This culture of exclusivity is then transmitted to the next generation through the publish-or-perish tenure process. Rebels are too often crushed or driven away.

Side note on that blog: The one thing that I do not agree with there is that I believe we need more (but useful) quantitative thinking and research to tackle social problems. The issue for me is translating it into language that is understandable by the general public (see Statistics as Principled Arguments).

Back to my main points: I can already hear some colleagues complaining about the importance of basic research. I love basic research. I think we need a better understanding of human behaviour and all the intricacies of it. But we are not doing physics, most of what we are studying is based on real world observations. So our insights should also provide some better understanding of how things could be changed (see also my earlier post on practical psychology).

We had a great discussion yesterday. I think this is the starting point. We need to reflect on our practices. Maybe (and I actually believe this) our theories in psychology are relevant. But psychologists are too reluctant to take their own research serious, tweak it to make it relevant and most importantly communicate it in a useful way to help address social issues.

Philosophy of measurement, functional equivalence, DSM V... or how did I get here?

Here is a very raw and unfinished "trying to wrap my head around some rather confusing issues" post. I have been thinking about levels of equivalence or invariance in cross-cultural measurement. I have been a wee bit unhappy with a couple of conceptual problems in the framework, but particularly the most general or abstract level of 'functional equivalence' has intrigued me for a while. Traditionally, it is more of a philosophical or theoretical statement of the similarity of functions of a psychological construct in different cultural groups. In other words, a particular behaviour serves the same functions in two or more cultural contexts.

I have been following some of the discussions on IOnet and the posts by Paul Barrett as well as the more biologically oriented personality literature. Following a few of these leads, I recently started reading some more conceptual and philosophical papers on the philosophy of measurement in psychology. More specifically, I just finished reading Joel Michell's Quantitative science and the definition of measurement in psychology and Michael D. Maraun's Measurement as a Normative Practice. These papers are superbly well written (as far as you can say that about these kinds of papers) and express quite a few of my growing concerns about psychological research in very clear terms. I started off wondering about functional equivalence, but got much bigger issues to chew on now.

Michell's main logical argument is as follows (from his very concise reply to a number of commentaries, p. 401):

Premise 1. All measurement is of quantitative attributes.
Premise 2. Quantitative attributes are distinguished from non-quantitative attributes by the possession
of additive structure.
Premise 3. The issue of whether or not any attribute possesses additive structure is an empirical one.
Conclusion 1. The issue of whether or not any attribute is measurable is an empirical one.
Premise 4. With respect to any empirical hypothesis, the scientific task is to test it relative to the evidence.
Premise 5. Quantitative psychologists have hypothesized that some psychological attributes are
measurable.
Final thesis. The scientific task for quantitative psychologists is to test the hypothesis that their
hypothesized attributes are measurable (i.e. that they possess additive structure).

The  major task for psychology is to actually prove that anything that we do has a quantitative structure. Much of his review is taking to task the legacy of Fechner and especially Stevens (for those of you who ever suffered through some advanced methods classes... these names should be painfully familiar). It was an eye opener to see the larger context and the re-interpretation of stuff that I just took for granted as a student and never really questioned later on in my professional life. Fechner's legacy leading to a so-called quantitative imperative (e.g., Spearman, Cattell, Thorndike) was challenged in the early to mid-parts of the last century (the so-called Ferguson Committee), but Stevens became the most successful defender of this empiricist tradition. He argued in a representational theory of measurement that measurement is the numerical representation of empirical relations. There is a

'kind of isomorphism between (1) empirical relations among objects and events and (2) the properties of...' numerical systems (Stevens, 1951, p. 1). From this starting point he developed his theory of the four possible types of measurement scales (nominal, ordinal, interval and ratio)' (Michell, page 370). This is the foundation of any scale development in psychology. In a second argument beautifully laid out by Michell, it then becomes clear that these numerical representations due to their assumed isomorphic relations then both define the relations represented and represent them. Given this operationism, 'any rule for assigning numerals to objects or events could be taken as providing a numerical representation of at least the equivalence relation operationally defined by the rule itself.' (Michell, p. 371). 

And this loop is where we are stuck. We take a few items or questions, administer them to a bunch of people, factor analyze them to get a simple structure and voila... we have measured depression, anxiety, dominance, identity... you name it. Or take implicit measures...  you present a number of stimuli with no inherent coherent meaning and present them to individuals to measure their accuracy or reaction speed or whatever you want. Take the score and you have some measure of implicit bias, cognitive interference, etc. There is no relation between the empirical reality and the numerical representation as scores anymore. The question of whether the phenomenon of interest can be quantified has disappeared.

How does the DSM V fit in here? Well, it could be seen as just the latest installment of the same confusion. We don't know what exactly we are measuring (see for example this article on grief as a case in point).

The issue is that we need to test whether psychological constructs can actually be quantified. As simple or complex as that. As much as I agree, I can't stop scratching my head and wondering how the heck we are going to do that. How would you be able to examine whether any psychological construct (which is basically just an idea in our beautiful minds that we try to use and build some kind of professional convention around it) is actually quantifiable or not? The responses by a number of eminent psychometricians to this challenges suggested that nobody was able to come with an example to show that this has worked in a wider context within mainstream psychology.

Enter the second paper. Approaching the problem using Wittgenstein's philosophy of measurement as normative practice (comparing it to the logical structure of language), Maraun argues that measurement needs to be rule-based or normative. You need to start with a definition that then leads to a specific set of rules or norms of how to measure this particular phenomenon just defined. The definition and the set of rules are the most basic form of expression. There is nothing simpler or more basic than this. Once these norms are established, any other person should be able to arrive at a similar result, that even if based on a different metric should still be convertible (e.g., from meters to feet). In psychology in contrast, we have no rules. We have a test or an experiment that is being conducted and the results are examined against another set of empirical observations to claim that the results are valid. According the practice of measurement in physics, empirically based arguments are not relevant for claiming that something has been measured. Measuring a number of items that factor together and then correlating it with some other instrument similarly derived does not mean that anything meaningful has been measured. Observing some kind of empirical pattern in an experiment does not constitute measurement if it is then validated or compared to a different set of  empirical observations. The issue is that the concept is not sufficiently precise defined to lead to a set of rules that govern its measurement.

There a number of other points in that paper around validity, nomological networks, covariance structure and the like. Again, I keep scratching my head. These guys got a point... but how to get out of it. Maraun is very pessimistic. He argues:

Simply put, measurement requires a formalization which does not seem well suited to what Wittgenstein calls the 'messy' grammars of psychological concepts, grammars that evolved in an organic fashion through the 'grafting of language onto natural ("animal") behaviour' (Baker & Hacker, 1982). One aspect of this mismatch arises from the flexibility in the grounds of instantiation of many psychological concepts, the property that Baker and Hacker (1982) call an open-circumstance relativity (see also Gergen, Hepburn, & Comer Fisher, 1986, for a similar point). Take, for example, the concept dominance. Given the appropriate background conditions, practically any 'raw' behaviour could instantiate the concept. Hence, Joe's standing with his back to Sue could, in certain instances, be correctly conceptualized as a dominant action. On the other hand, Bob's ordering of someone to get off the phone is not a dominant action if closer scrutiny reveals the motivation for his behaviour to be a medical emergency which necessitated an immediate call for an ambulance. The possibility for the broadening of background conditions to defeat the application of a psychological concept is known as the defeasibility of criteria (Baker & Hacker, 1982). Together, open-circumstance relativity and the defeasibility of criteria suggest that psychological concepts are simply not organized around finite sets of behaviours which jointly provide necessary and sufficient conditions for their instantiation (Baker & Hacker, 1982). Yet, this is precisely the kind of formalization required if a concept is to play a role in measurement. (p. 457-458).

Maybe what we are studying is just the social construction of meanings of psychological concepts as expressed in the heads of individuals? Is this a feasible reconciliation? From a researcher perspective it might be a worthwhile endeavor (think of discourse analysts embracing factor analysis... the thought is actually quite amusing). However, this approach leaves our search for a) latent variables and b) measurement invariance completely meaningless.

The reading continues. Some random thoughts at 1am while I am writing these notes:
a) The search for quantitative latent constructs in psychology probably should (?) or could (?) start from basic biological principles. In essence, we assume that there is something 'latent' out there if we use EFA or CFA or any of the typical covariance structure tests. If there are biological mechanisms that lead to certain psychological phenomena, we can study the biological principles and their interaction with the social environment that lead to psychological realities. Then we could get around the quantification problem. Problem... what biological principles and at what level of specificity?
b) The use of covariance analyses provide simple structures of language concerning folk concepts. This may be useful and meaningful for understanding how people in a specific context interpret items or questions. It is probably more of a sociological analysis of meaning conventions than a psychological analysis. This could be useful or interesting for research purposes, but it is not quite how we commonly understand or interpret the results when we are using these kinds of techniques.

Or am I missing something? How can this measurement paradox be tackled?

The next IACCP Summer School coming up

It has been a while in the making, but finally we have the first details for the next IACCP Summer School. It will be the third installation of a programme that started in a very informal way in 2009 during the Cameroon Regional IACCP conference and since then has grown and matured. The Summer School is open to students at PhD and MSc level and is sponsored by the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology (IACCP). The goal is to provide specialized training by experts in topics of importance and relevance for studying psychology and culture in context.   In addition to its educational benefits, the programme is designed to facilitate cross-cultural contact and understanding among future academic leaders and to broaden their academic vision.  The next Summer School is conducted in association with the 22nd IACCP conference to take place in Reims, France. 

I am super-excited about the programme and the streamleaders that we have managed to get for this next version. Here is a quick overview of the three streams, the experts leading each stream and some ideas for improvements. A poster advertising the Summer School can be found here (print it and pass it around your department).

Culture and Human Development: Methodological and Conceptual Perspectives

Developmental trajectories reflect the interaction between individual abilities on the one hand, and the ecological and socio-cultural niche in which one grows up on the other hand. Informed by bioecological models, I will provide an overview of how different ecological niches have produced varying childrearing values and strategies, which in turn have created variations in the contexts in which developmental trajectories evolve. The workshop will be in two parts. In the first part, I will dedicate a significant amount of time to discussing how cultural and contextual factors influence development. More importantly, I will discuss conceptual and methodological approaches that need to be taken into consideration in order to adequately study human development in context. I will highlight issues of measurement, sampling, and analysis which are of importance in (cross) cultural developmental psychology. Lastly, translational behavioral research is gaining more prominence in psychology. We will discuss ways in which we can design studies that inform practice and policy.In the second part, students will be placed in small working groups based on earlier submitted work to discuss research ideas. Each working group will aim at developing a research plan with achievable milestones, for them to implement as a concrete outcome from participation in the workshop.

About the Stream Leader

Amina is associated with the Centre for Geographic Medicine Research, KEMRI/Wellcome Trust Research Programme Kenya; Department of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Tilburg University, Netherlands; Department of Child and Adolescent Studies, Utrecht University, Netherlands; Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, UK.Dr Amina Abubakar studied Educational psychology at Kenyatta University in Kenya, before proceeding to study Developmental Cross-Cultural Psychology at Tilburg University where obtained her PhD in 2008. She currently works at the Kenya Medical Research Institute/Wellcome Trust Research Programme, in Kenya.

Dr. Amina Abubakar is a Psychologist whose research concerns three broad areas: the sequelae of various childhood diseases, neurodevelopmental disorders, specifically Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) and contextual predictors of psychological well-being across cultural context. Her main interests are in the study of developmental delays and impairments among children exposed to various health problems such as HIV, malnutrition and malaria. Her main focus in this regard is on developing culturally appropriate strategies for identifying, monitoring and rehabilitating at-risk children. In addition, she is also interested in examining the prevalence of and risk factors for neurodevelopmental disorders, specifically ASD, within the African context. Lastly, alongside collaborators from more than twenty countries, she is developing a line of research where we investigate how various contextual factors (familial, school, peer and cultural) impact on wellbeing (mental health, life satisfaction and identity formation) of adolescents across cultural contexts.

Cultural Genomics: Understanding Gene-culture Coevolution from the Molecular Evolution Perspective

In this stream, I will introduce the basic concepts about human evolution, molecular approach to recent natural selection, data sets such as the HapMap and 1000 Genomes Projects and the Beijing Genes-Brain-Behavior Project, and ways to navigate, download, and analyze the data. Participants can select particular genes to examine their evolutionary history and current behavioral correlates.

About the stream leader

Chuansheng Chen is Professor of Psychology and Social Behavior and Professor of Education at the University of California, Irvine. He was trained as a developmental psychologist (Ph.D., 1992, University of Michigan) interested in cultural variations in developmental trajectories. Over the years, he has integrated multi-disciplinary methods into his work through extensive collaborations with developmental psychologists, anthropologists, molecular geneticists, and cognitive neuroscientists. His current work focuses on the intricate relations among genes, brain, and behavior through both molecular and evolutionary genetic methods and brain-imaging techniques (fMRI and ERP).

Contextualizing Acculturation: Multi-level and Multi-group Perspectives

As today’s societies are becoming increasingly diverse, cross-cultural research on contact and acculturation increasingly focuses on diversity and its outcomes, which are not always positive. This workshop starts from the question to what extent and when diversity is an asset for immigrant minorities and for societies at large. We will investigate how minority and majority group members experience culture contact in organizations or societies with different diversity climates (e.g., norms, values, ideologies …). To this end, students will be encouraged to engage with multi-level (at the level of individuals, organizations and societies) and multi-group (minority and majority group perspectives) approaches, data, and methods.

About the stream leaders

Karen Phalet (PhD 1993 University of Leuven) is full professor at the Centre for Social and Cultural Psychology, University of Leuven, and a senior research fellow of the European Research Center On Migration and Ethnic Relations, Utrecht University. Her cross-cultural research is broadly concerned with the psychological dimension of cultural diversity across immigrant minorities and European societies. She has published extensively on processes of cultural transmission, acculturation, self and identity, and their consequences for minority adjustment, acceptance, attainment, and political voice. Current comparative research lines investigate religion and acculturation among European Muslim minorities, as well as minority identity and acculturation in ethnically diverse schools and organizations.

Gülseli Baysu (PhD in 2011 from University of Leuven) is an assistant professor at Kadir Has University. Her main research interests concern minority perspectives on intercultural relations and minority outcomes, ranging from political mobilization to academic performance. She is well-versed in the full range of cross-cultural research data and methods, including cross-national (web)surveys, experiments, and multi-group, multi-level, and longitudinal analyses. Her main publications focus on how positive and negative experiences of culture contact affect minority acculturation and achievement across different migration contexts. In addition to continuing this line of research, another research line extends her earlier work on social identity and political mobilization to Turkey.   

Endorsement by Previous Participants

Hi, I am Dr Humera Iqbal and was lucky enough to be part of the first ever summer school in Istanbul. This was a wonderful experience for so many reasons. I met excellent young researchers with similar interests, some of whom I have continued to collaborate with. I was taught by some of the best minds in cross-cultural psychology and learned so much from them. The group discussions we had allowed me to think about my own research in a novel way and the articles we examined really helped in writing up my cross-cultural research. I also made some amazing friends. If you are doing your PhD in anything cross-cultural (at whatever stage), I really encourage you to apply for Paris 2014.

Hi, I am Saija Kuittinen. The IACCP PhD winterschool in Stellenbosch South-Africa (2012) was a great opportunity to meet fellow PhD students and senior colleagues from all around the world who share the same interests in cultural issues and psychology as I do. During the few intensive days of group work, besides learning more about conducting cross-cultural research, I also enjoyed the casual networking and talking about relevant issues - especially since I am the only one doing this line of research back in my home university.

New Ideas for Reims 2014

We have looked at the feedback and comments from previous years and are working on making it an even more enjoyable, educational and fun event. One suggestion was to provide an opportunity for members to briefly present their research work. We think this is a brilliant idea. Our current plan is to have some mix of Pecha Kucha, Ted-Talk and Three Minute Thesis Presentation. The current idea is that each member has 3 minutes and some combination of 1, 3, 6 or 9 slides (with no animations) to present his or her topic and research interests to the group on the first or second night. We are still ferociously debating whether we should include some important presentation rules like that you have to have at least one photo of you as a baby  plus one picture of the place where you grew up (after all, the summer school is about connecting people and increasing your understanding of cultural diversity - and baby pictures are highly relevant to at least one stream ;) 

Furthermore, people were keen to get more of an overview of what is happening in each stream and what each stream-leader is going to focus on. Hence, we have decided to add a few more lectures to provide a better overview of the various topics and streams. 

We also hope that all members will form their research groups and start reading and discussing their plans well before getting to Reims. We will ask for volunteers in each stream as facilitators that can work with me and the stream-leaders to getting the discussion and learning going early next year. 

If you have any thoughts or comments or suggestions of how we can make the summer school better, please get in touch.

Costs

The cost for the summer school will be 200 Euro for participants from high-income countries (as per IACCP fee structure) and 150 Euro for participants from low income countries. The fee includes accommodation, welcome dinner, lunches and coffee breaks. This is pretty damn good value for a three full day workshop with world leaders in the field of psychology and culture, providing you with cutting edge skills and material. 

The Schedule

	Human development	Cultural genomics	Contextualizing Acculturation
March 20	Application deadline
March 31	Decision on applications
April-01	Beginning of work in study groups (reading, discussing & exchanging ideas)
May-01	Finalizing study groups (each group to select a contact person)
Jun-01	Preliminary ideas submitted to stream leaders
Jul-11	Arrival in Reims (informal get-together in the evening)
Jul-12
9-10am	Introduction
10-11am	Lecture 1 (SL 1)
11.15-12.15pm	Lecture 2 (SL 2)
12.15-2pm	Lunch
2-3pm	Lecture 3 (SL 3)
3-6pm	Work in streams	Work in streams	Work in streams
6-7pm	Break
7-8pm	Dinner
8pm-10.30pm	Your research topic in 3 min (Presentation on PhD/MSc research by all participants)
Jul-13
9-11am	Work in streams	Work in streams	Work in streams
11-12.15pm	Lecture: Cultures are different, p < .05? Thinking about research beyond significance values
12.15-2pm	Lunch
2-6pm	Work in streams	Work in streams	Work in streams
Evening	Free
Jul-14
9-11am	Work in streams	Work in streams	Work in streams
11-12.15pm	Lecture: TBC
12.15-2pm	Lunch
2-6pm	Work in streams	Work in streams	Work in streams
Evening	Presenting your research proposals
Jul-15
9-11am	Joint workshop: Writing for publication
11-12pm	Wrapping up
Noon	Lunch
Afternoon	Transfer to conference

Application and Further Info

You will be able to apply here, the link is now active. If you have any questions about the programme, the leaders or the general procedure, please do not hesitate to contact me. The poster with all the relevant info can be found here. Print it and pass it on to your friends and colleagues!

Happy to answer your questions and look forward to seeing you all in Reims in a few months!

J'espère te voir bientôt!

The Evolutionary Puzzle of Extreme Rituals

These are my notes for the introduction of the recent Science Express Event on Extreme Rituals at Te Papa, sponsored by the Royal Society of New Zealand Wellington Branch and supported by the Centre for Applied Cross-Cultural Research, Wellington.  Many thanks for all those who came and engaged in a really interesting and stimulating discussion. There will be a podcast available soon, till then here are my typed-up notes for the introductory presentation.

(Photo by Rochelle Stewart-Allen)

Collective Rituals

I am interested in collective rituals. Many of us here have been to support the All Blacks, Hurricanes or the Wellington Phoenix at Westpac Stadium;  have been to a concert, watched a theater play or have been dancing in one of the bars. Collective rituals are common. 

Why do humans do this? There are no obvious evolutionary functions to these gatherings. They do not help us to get food, ward off predators or to create more offspring (although there may be a bit of  'that' going on after a good night out or when the All Blacks smash the Wallabies ;) 

We could say these rituals just serve pure entertainment purposes and are a byproduct of our big social brains. Obviously it does not hurt to sit and watch grown-up guys chase after an odd-shaped ball or sit through a 1 hour lecture at Te Papa. 

Yet, there are collective rituals in many societies and cultures that are painful, uncomfortable or may even injure or harm participants. It is difficult to convey the suffering that some people inflict on themselves during some of these events  in a talk like this. People chose to walk over glowing hot coals of 600-700 degrees that burns paper within seconds. Others walk over burning hot asphalt for hours in the midday sun without drinking or seeking shade while balancing a hot pot of milk on your head; they hit their face or back with swords, chains or sharp objects till they bleed profusely. Can you imagine hobbling on knees large distance and then circle churches or temples on your knees, over a period that takes a few hours. Most of us would feel uncomfortable sitting on our knees after a few minutes. There are collective rituals where people drag heavy wooden carts hooked into their skin over a distance of 6 km, a feat that takes 5 or more hours. Would you want to pierce your tongue or face with a number of random objects, needles, skewers, metal rods, swords, guns, tree branches or giant beach umbrellas?

Why do people do these things? The British anthropologist Harvey Whitehouse has argued that these more extreme rituals are the historically more ancient types of rituals. But what is the evolutionary purpose and why have such rituals survived over the millennia till today?

These are difficult questions to answer. There is much speculation and many attempts to explain such events by observers and social scientist.  But it is important to test these ideas more rigorously. I have joined forces with a dream-team of scientists to tackle these big questions in the field. 

Separating Collective from Individual Benefits

These rituals may have benefits for both individuals and communities and it is important to separate these effects.

There have been speculations going back more than one century all the way to Darwin and Durkheim that extreme ritual may act as a social bonding devise at the community level. Extreme rituals are thought to increase prosociality and cooperation in the community. They signal commitment to the group:  behaviour speaks louder than words. Groups with strong rituals are more likely to survive. Colleagues and friends such as Joseph Bulbulia, Bill Irons, Richard Sosis and Joe Henrich have written extensively on these theories. How can we test these mechanisms in modern societies?

Extreme Ritual: Studying Social Bonding Effects in Mauritius 

In one study with Dimitris Xygalatas, Joseph Bulbulia and other colleagues, we decided to study an extreme ritual in the small island of Mauritius. Our aim was to study the social aspects of extreme ritual by studying groups of individuals that differ in their involvement in the ritual (see this blog by Matthew Rossano on the larger context). We measured their behavioural responses – how much money are they giving to the community depending on the ritual they participate in. We used a considerable sum of money to ensure that we can tap into real prosocial motivations, where helping the in-group really hurts your own pocket. We studied individuals who participated in a low ordeal ritual, people who watched the high ordeal ritual and those individuals who engaged in what objectively appeared to be rather painful acts (such as piercing themselves with needles, skewers and rods, carrying wooden shrines on their head or pulling them through the streets by attaching hooks to their skin). Supporting the prosocial theories of extreme rituals, those in the high ordeal ritual gave more money to their temple. More importantly, the perception of pain helped us to explain the pattern  – the more pain you perceive, the more prosocial and charitable you become! It is the amount of perceived pain that binds the group together!!!!!

Extreme Ritual: What might be the motivation for the individuals? 

But what is in it for the individuals that perform these rather extreme actions? Why should I care that my group is tighter and more cooperative if it means that I have to hurt myself?

Let's examine one potential mechanism: By committing acts in a ritual that is important and central to the community, I can increase my status and prestige in the community. It signals my commitment to the group and therefore increases my social standing within the group. I become a fully fledged member and can benefit from the support and help of other group members in the future.

To test this social status mechanism I went to Thailand to study another extreme ritual. I again compared groups of individuals – high ordeal devotees who pierced themselves with all sorts of things, assistants who supported the high-ordeal performers and spectators trying to get the blessing of the high ordeal devotees. In order to measure the motivations of individuals, I measured their values (as motivational goals) in life. High ordeal devotees were much more oriented towards getting ahead in life – they are motivated to perform these actions to achieve some level of status and power in the group. In short, for individuals performing these actions is one possible mechanism to move up the social ladder. Often the more disadvantaged and marginalized group members engage in the more audacious acts. Bringing it back to our society, you may just  want to look at who are the boldest and best sports players in a lot of contexts. Often it is minorities that use sports (soccer, rugby, athletics, etc.) as a mechanism to achieve status in a society that values these sports.

Although these rituals may seem bizarre or extreme from an outsiders perspective, they involve universal human characteristics. It is a human universal: we want to be included in our groups. At the same time, we needed strong groups to survive in history. Bringing these threads together, it becomes clear why extreme rituals are appealing to individuals and why these rituals have survived for so long in our history. After all, these extreme rituals are just another expression of our shared humanity.

I hope I have convinced you that it is possible to scientifically study extreme rituals to address interesting questions about us humans. It is amazing to me that despite the popularity and widespread participation in quite extreme collective rituals the world over, we know very little about what is happening to individuals and communities involved in these rituals. I look forward to hearing your comments and reactions and an interesting discussion.

******end of my typed out introductory notes*******

Closing thoughts: Damn, it was a really interesting and fascinating discussion that we had at Te Papa. Many thanks again to everyone for asking questions and sharing their thoughts and experiences. Let's continue the discussion and even more importantly, let's do empirical work on this fascinating aspect of human experience.