Cross-cultural variations in leadership perceptions and attribution of charisma to the leader

Leadership perception is based on (a) a recognition-based process that involves categorization of leaders’ characteristics into relevant stereotypes; and (b) an inference-based process that involves making attributions for leaders’ characteristics based on outcomes of salient events ([Lord and Maher, 1993]). The present study examined the interactive effects of these two alternative processes of leadership perceptions on attributions of charisma cross-culturally. Groups of participants from either a collectivistic culture (Turkey) or an individualistic culture (United States) read a vignette about a prototypical or antiprototypical leader (manipulation of recognition-based process) whose company produced a slight or significant increase in sales (manipulation of inference-based process). The results showed that the co-occurrence of these two processes produced optimal attribution of charisma to the leader. In addition, the leaders’ prototypical characteristics were more effective in forming a leadership impression in an individualistic culture, whereas collectivistic people made attributions based on the company performance outcome.     

Cross-cultural Psychology

This article examines some of the limitations of social psychology and shows how they can be remedied by increased attention to cross-cultural studies. For example, many of the key constructs of the discipline, such as self, conformity, control, intelligence, and well being, are culture bound. The author proposes directions in theory development and methodology that will incorporate cultural syndromes in social psychological theories. Also, the author gives examples of methodologies that can consider simultaneously attributes of the participants (including their culture), attributes of the actors and targets of action (including their culture), attributes of the setting and context of the study, the prior relationships of the actor and target, and the attributes of the behaviors under examination.     

Johnson and the Soundness Doctrine

Why informal logic? Informal logic is a group of proposals meant to contrast with, replace, and reject formal logic, at least for the analysis and evaluation of everyday arguments. Why reject formal logic? Formal logic is criticized and claimed to be inadequate because of its commitment to the soundness doctrine. In this paper I will examine and try to respond to some of these criticisms. It is not my aim to examine every argument ever given against formal logic; I am limiting myself to those that, as a matter of historical fact, were instrumental in the replacement of formal logic by informal logic and initially established informal logic as a separate discipline (in particular, Toulmin’s attacks on what he calls the “analytic ideal” will not form part of the discussion and were not instrumental in this way, only becoming appreciated later). If the criticism of the soundness doctrine is defective, then the move from formal logic to informal logic was not theoretically well-motivated. It is this motivation that I wish to bring into question, rather than the adequacy or inadequacy of formal or informal logic as such. While I will tend to the view that formal logic is as adequate as it is reasonable to expect, the real issue is whether it is inadequate for the reasons that, as a matter of historical fact, were used to motivate its rejection.     

Cross-cultural Psychoanalysis and the Interpersonal Perspective

From its beginning Interpersonal Psychoanalysis was eminently suited to address theoretical and clinically issues when working with patients from different cultures. The open-ended quality of the detailed inquiry was a particularly useful tool to get to know the "stranger," as American social scientists of the fifties and sixties were quick to acknowledge. It therefore comes as a surprise how few interpersonalists have addressed themselves to cross-cultural issues. Particularly lacking has been attention to countertransferential problems in analyzing patients from other cultures. In addition the impact of the cultural climate on the analytic process itself has rarely been explored. As cross-cultural contacts in the consulting room have become more frequent it is important for analysts to consider that developmental sequences, family relationships, interpersonal distance, concepts of time and openness to emotional sharing may differ from what Western psychoanalysis considers to be "normal."     

Johnson on the Metaphysics of Argument

This paper responds to two aspects of Ralph Johnson's Manifest Rationality (2000). The first is his critique of deductivism. The second is his failure to make room for some species of argument (e.g., visual and kisceral arguments) proposed by recent commentators. In the first case, Johnson holds that argumentation theorists have adopted a notion of argument which is too narrow. In the second, that they have adopted one which is too broad. I discuss the case Johnson makes for both claims, and possible objections to his analysis.     

Comment by James Turner Johnson

Comments on:
"Just War Theory in Comparative Perspective: AReview Essay" by Simeon O. Ilesanmi Journal of Religious Ethics 28.1 (Spring 2000)     

宗教与理性的跨文化心理学研究

信仰与世俗化科学之间的对立统一是自启蒙运动以来许多传统宗教社会所面临的问题。在当前的宗教心理学实证研究中,宗教信仰与科学理性的关系也日渐成为科学研究感兴趣的话题。同时在学科内部,宗教和科学关系的研究由于总是单向度的进行着,阻碍了对这一话题的深入探析。本文在相关宗教与理性关系的实证研究基础上,以美国基督徒、伊朗穆斯林、印度教徒等为主要研究对象,对宗教开放性假设进行跨文化的研究和探讨。同时采用意识形态模型(Ideological Surround Model,ISM)研究范式中的对话方式对相关实证研究结果进行进一步的思考和探索,鼓励跨文化的宗教信仰与科学理性的对话以及不同意识形态之间的对话,希望在理论上能够对国内宗教心理学的研究有所助益。