I disagree, therefore I am: how to test and strengthen cultural versatility

Abstract

In the last few decades, a perspective on how to resolve wicked social problems has become increasingly prominent: the cultural theory pioneered by anthropologist Dame Mary Douglas. So far, the empirical evidence garnered in support of this approach has mostly been of a qualitative nature. Cultural theory has fared less well in survey-based, statistical tests. However, several features make it hard to test the theory with questionnaires. We overcome this research dilemma by showing how cultural theory can be tested with observational and experimental tests developed in cross-cultural psychology. We argue that this is possible due to the remarkable overlap between concepts and theories in cross-cultural psychology and Douglas' approach. We present five research designs that add up to a rigorous test of cultural theory. Finally, we sketch some contributions that cultural theory could make to the further development of cross-cultural psychology, as well as to efforts to resolve wicked problems, if it were thus confirmed.

Keywords:

• Mary Douglas
• cultural theory
• cross-cultural psychology
• wicked problems

Notes

1. The notion of an “experiment” has a stricter connotation in psychology than in political science. In the latter discipline, an experiment is any inquiry “for which the investigator partly or wholly controls the phenomena of interest and sets the conditions under which they are observed and measured” (Willer and Walker 2007, 2). In the former discipline, such control over the objects of analysis is not sufficient. What is also needed is the use of a control group in which no manipulation takes place. When no control group can be formed, psychologists use the term “observation.” In the parlance of psychology, we propose to undertake two observations (Study I and III) and three experiments (Studies II, IV and V).

2. The more usual understanding of grid as externally imposed constraints has also surfaced in cross-cultural psychology. Gelfand and colleagues (Gelfand et al. 2011) have highlighted the differences among cultures that are “loose” (have weak social norms, and high tolerance for deviant behavior) and those that are “tight” (have strong social norms, and low tolerance for deviant behavior).

3. The overlap between how social relations are conceived in cultural theory and cross-cultural psychology does not end here. Cultural theory's take on social relations also resembles Shalom Schwartz’ influential analysis of the social dimensions underlying human values (Schwartz 1992). Schwartz’ conservatism (with its emphasis on security, conformity and tradition) resembles high grid; his openness to change (which stresses people's freedom to follow novel directions) comes close to low grid; and his contrast between self-enhancement and self-transcendence (which captures the extent to which individuals are motivated by self-interest or the welfare of others) mirrors the distinction between low and high group.

4. Again, this listing of similarities is not exhaustive. For instance, it has been noted (Bruce 2013) that the patterns of beliefs, norms, and values set out in cultural theory overlap with the moralities set out by Richard Shweder et al. (1997) as well as by Jonathan Haidt (2007).

5. In preliminary research undertaken in Singapore by Shengua Luan and Mark Nowacki, it transpired that the social dynamics posited by cultural theory seem to emerge only if interactions take place between at least ten to twelve people. Hence, in this research project our focus groups will always include twelve participants, whenever that is practically feasible.

6. One technique for doing so is the verbal protocol analysis developed by Ronald Fernandes and Herbert Simon (1999) as part of their investigations into how members of different professions tackle highly complicated problems.

7. Here we diverge from using twelve participants per focus group. The reason is that design thinking teams typically consist of not more than five or six people. However, any disadvantages that might accrue from having such a relatively low number of participants per team can be lessened by ensuring that the teams interact. These contacts can be established by having the teams operate in a common workspace, and/or by asking the teams to present their work-in-progress to each other at regular intervals. Such interactions between teams are not uncommon in design thinking. Alternatively, it is possible to enlarge the teams to ten or twelve participants, though this is not usually done in design thinking processes.