Maternal views on aggression: Japan and Israel

Maternal views on aggressive behavior in their children were investigated in Japan and Israel. Sixty Japanese and 60 Israeli mothers of kindergarten children were interviewed individually about their children's fighting and quarreling. The findings indicate that both Japanese and Israeli mothers disapprove of their children's aggression on the basis of their value system, but their views of the same aggressive behavior differ considerably; Japanese mothers consider aggression among children as natural; aggression is a fact of life which has its constructive as well as destructive aspects, but it should be kept under control in order not to cause harm to others. Israeli mothers consider their children's aggression to be dangerous both for the child and for the relationship with the opponent. It is approved as a reaction to assault, mainly in self-defense and considered caused by emotions, tension, and lack of self-control. Thus, aggression is perceived by Japanese mothers as a natural and necessary aspect of development, while Israeli mothers perceive the same behaviors as justified mainly as reactions to assault or provocation and as expressing negative emotional states. © 1992 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

National Character and Personality

ABSTRACT— People in all cultures have shared perceptions about the personality characteristics of the typical member of their own culture and of typical members of other cultures. Recent collaborative work has provided validated assessments of the personality profiles of over 50 cultures, and judged by these criteria, perceptions of national character are unfounded stereotypes. An appreciation of that fact by the public might improve international relations, so research is needed to understand the origins and persistence of national-character stereotypes. Psychologists have begun to explore the utility of aggregate personality profiles, which reflect subtle but real differences between cultures in mean levels of personality traits.     

儒家经典英译与儒家思想的跨文化传播

儒家经典是中国传统文化的瑰宝。儒家经典的外译特别是英译,一直是西方国家了解中国文化的重要途径之一,也为西方读者提供了更为广阔的欣赏儒家思想的空间。儒家经典英译其本质是一种跨文化传播活动。儒家经典众多的译本由于译者的背景、传播目的和目标受众的不同,也呈现出不同的风格。     

文化心理学的跨学科运用——以跨文化传播研究为例

文化心理学是最近二三十年来心理学中发展最快的领域之一,作为一门典型的交叉学科,它有人类学、心理学、传播学等多种学科取向,是一门有胸怀、有气度、能包容的学科。文化心理学与跨文化传播研究诞生在相同的社会历史文化背景中,拥有共同的学科渊源,这种天然的关系决定了跨文化传播研究中运用文化心理学的正当性、必然性。文化心理学的全球化研究视角为跨文化传播研究提供了参照; 文化的观念、文化适应理论、文化敏感性和文化冲突理论等文化心理学的概念和理论为跨文化传播研究提供了理论支撑; 文化心理学还为跨文化传播现象和问题的具体研究提供了分析工具。反之,跨文化传播研究不仅为文化心理学提供了鲜活的案例,还为其理论建构提供了重要资源。     

The Relation between Formal and Informal Logic

The issue of the relationship between formal and informal logic depends strongly on how one understands these two designations. While there is very little disagreement about the nature of formal logic, the same is not true regarding informal logic, which is understood in various (often incompatible) ways by various thinkers. After reviewing some of the more prominent conceptions of informal logic, I will present my own, defend it and then show how informal logic, so understood, is complementary to formal logic.     

Do Coping Styles Differ Across Sociocultural Groups? The Role of Measurement Equivalence in Making This Judgment

Cross-sociocultural group measurement equivalency is an important issue that generally has not been studied in the coping literature. Measurement equivalency of the COPE (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989) was assessed across two sociocultural groups, a sample of 100 Anglo middle-class divorced mothers and a sample of 122 low-income Mexican American/Mexican immigrant mothers. A series of restrictive confirmatory factor analyses revealed that seven of the COPE's subscales may be measuring the same underlying construct across populations. However, scores derived from the subscales may not represent the same magnitude of the construct in these two groups. This study makes an important first step in furthering the understanding of coping strategies in low-income Mexican American/Mexican immigrant mothers. This study also illustrates the importance of testing for measurement equivalency before conducting comparative research in disparate populations.     

Coalescent argumentation

Coalescent argumentation is a normative ideal that involves the joining together of two disparate claims through recognition and exploration of opposing positions. By uncovering the crucial connection between a claim and the attitudes, beliefs, feelings, values and needs to which it is connected dispute partners are able to identify points of agreement and disagreement. These points can then be utilized to effect coalescence, a joining or merging of divergent positions, by forming the basis for a mutual investigation of non-conflictual options that might otherwise have remained unconsidered. The essay proceeds by defining and discussing argument, position and understanding. These notions are then brought together to outline the concept of coalescent reasoning.     

Do stigma and its psychosocial impact differ between Asian-born Chinese immigrants and Western-born Caucasians with head and neck cancer?

Stigma appears to influence emotional distress and well-being in cancer survivors, but cross-cultural differences have been ignored. Previous studies suggest that stigma may be especially relevant for survivors of Asian origin. However, their study designs (e.g. focused on female cancers, qualitative designs, and an absence of comparison groups) limit the strength of this conclusion. We hypothesized that (1) Asian-born Chinese immigrants (AI) would report more perceived cancer-related stigma than Western-born Caucasians (WBC); and (2) the impact of stigma on emotional distress and well-being would be greater in AI as compared to WBC. Head and neck cancer survivors (n = 118 AI and n = 404 WBC) completed measures of well-being, emotional distress, and a three-item indicator of stigma in structured interviews. The majority of respondents (59%) reported one or more indicators of stigma. Stigma correlated significantly with emotional distress (r = .13, p = .004) and well-being (r = ?.09, p = .032). Contrary to our hypotheses, WBCs and AIs did not differ in reported stigma nor did we detect differences in its psychosocial impact. Stigma exerts a deleterious psychosocial impact on head and neck cancer survivors. It did not differ significantly between AI and WBC survivors.     

松-紧文化:跨文化心理学研究的新维度

松-紧文化是跨文化心理学研究的新维度,它发轫于人类学的文化田野考察,致力于刻画不同文化间社会规范强度和对偏差行为宽容程度的结构性特征.松-紧文化有其较为明确的概念定义和成因,以及在国家、区域和个体层次上的测量方法.松-紧文化已广泛运用于自我、人格、心理健康与幸福感、判断与决策、创新、脑认知神经和基因、恐怖主义与社会和谐等心理学基础和应用研究主题之中.未来研究可进一步甄别细分社会规范中的描述性规范和命令性规范,并综合吸收其它研究视角的长处.     

Evaluating Arguments Based on Toulmin’s Scheme

Toulmin’s scheme for the layout of arguments (1958, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) represents an influential tool for the analysis of arguments. The scheme enriches the traditional premises-conclusion model of arguments by distinguishing additional elements, like warrant, backing and rebuttal. The present paper contains a formal elaboration of Toulmin’s scheme, and extends it with a treatment of the formal evaluation of Toulmin-style arguments, which Toulmin did not discuss at all. Arguments are evaluated in terms of a so-called dialectical interpretation of their assumptions. In such an interpretation, an argument’s assumptions can be evaluated as defeated, e.g., when there is a defeating reason against the assumption. The present work builds on recent research on defeasible argumentation (cf. e.g. the work of Pollock, Reiter, Loui, Vreeswijk, Prakken, Hage and Dung). More specifically, the author’s work on the dialectical logic DEFLOG and the argumentation tool ARGUMED serve as starting points.