STUDENTS’ REFLEXIVE CONCEPTIONS ON CULTURAL PECULIARITIES OF RUSSIA, INDIA AND USA: A CROSS-CULTURAL APPROACH ( PART 2)
This paper has been presented on the 19-th International Congress of Cross-Cultural Psychology, July 27-31, 2008
A.B. Khromov, M.M. Basimov (Russia),
D. Morrison (USA), B. Dubey (India)
Subject of research: young family (family life experience not more than 5 years)
Object-matter for research: direct estimations and reflexive representations on young families’ problems in cross-cultural measurement
Research objective: to compare peculiarities of subjective feelings of young families’ problems in Russia and USA
Hypotheses:
Irrespective of differences in living standards in Russia and USA, there is no fundamental difference between Russian and American students’ nature of reflexive representations of family problems, but Russian students, due to their cultural peculiarities, exaggerate the intensity of their peculiar economic problems.
Research tasks:
Elaboration of the questionnaire for measurement of reflexive representations on family problems in cross-cultural research
Revelation of peculiarities of reflexive representations on family problems of Russians and Americans
There are no answers to the fundamental questions of cross-cultural psychology: to what degree and by which methods culture influences the person’s inner world; what psychological facts are actually universal and could be investigated in case of the person’s behavior description in the cultures being compared; how to overcome subjectivism in the results’ interpretation in case of the cultures’ comparison.
The results of cross-cultural comparisons often induce dissatisfaction. And the main disadvantages of all subjective methods in cross-cultural psychology are the difficulties related to the problem of overcoming personalism in interpretation of the investigation data.
In order to estimate the different cultures’ peculiarities in measuring ethnic representations, we propose to use the reflexive method, which minimizes the excessive ethnocentric subjectivism of the persons being tested.
Сurrently, reflexive methodology is being used more and more as a means of analyzing psychological perceptions (Lefevr, Lepsky, Shchedrovitsky and others.). What is reflection? Reflection displays secondary images, enabling the researcher to see the subject’s world differently than just from a direct point of view. Reflexive estimation of the subject from different positions allows the researcher to discover more general and objective characteristics of the informer’s reality, thus promoting consistent results.
If we use the categorical link of subject-object and imagine as "percept” a certain thing lying opposite us, then take the notion of "subject” as being able to reflect, "the subject of representation is the image vehicle of conceptualization” or that thing/person which bears information.
The other subject is at the same time an object of our direct estimation as well as the estimation of the others, and at the same time is the object of self-estimation, thus affirming something by its estimation and its subjective conceptualization.
A competitive situation occurs in which it is necessary to specify if our representation of the object and the subject’s self-representation about it are identical. The resulting truth determination is possible only at a higher level of reflection -- at a reflexive level at which the subject becomes not only the initial representation (or the thing to be imagined) but also its reflection or even double reflexive reflection. That is to say, truth (the second level of reflexive reflecting) becomes the subject of representation at the second level. In this case we can say more confidently that this reflexive representation corresponds to the subject’s reality to a greater degree, and a non-reflexive representation to a lesser degree.
A competitive situation occurs in which it is necessary to specify if our representation of the object and the subject’s self-representation about it are identical. The resulting truth determination is possible only at a higher level of reflection -- at a reflexive level at which the subject becomes not only the initial representation (or the thing to be imagined) but also its reflection or even double reflexive reflection. That is to say, truth (the second level of reflexive reflecting) becomes the subject of representation at the second level. In this case we can say more confidently that this reflexive representation corresponds to the subject’s reality to a greater degree, and a non-reflexive representation to a lesser degree.
How can we specify the genuineness of representation about an ethnic object? It is possible by correlating the instant representation of the object with reflection of the second level (or with proper reflexive representation). This second representation, representation of the second level, is the very reflexive representation.
The procedure of "two mirrors” can be the prototype of this reflexive approach. It allows us to compare the own images (self- characteristics) with the other’s images.
The points of view of the subjects are the positions of subjects’ reflexive representation. Students’ collective representations were studied on three levels of reflection (0, 1, 2).
The zero level included the direct estimations of the particularities of self culture and the particularities of the other cultures. The first level of reflection measured the point of view of the other representatives of the same ethnos. The second level of the reflexive representation included the reflections about some particularities of the culture from the standpoint of the representatives of the other culture.
1. Uncertainty about the future
2. Difficulties purchasing housing
3. Inequality of men and women
4. Unemployment
5. Paid education
6. Paid health services
7. Education of children
8. Violence in family against children
9. Violence in family against woman
10. Relationship with parents
11. Problem of innocence at marriage
12. Planning of family and contraception
13. Abortion
14. Disagreement concerning sex
15. Free time problems
During construction of the questionnaire, 60 Russian family couples were asked to specify their 10 most pressing problems. Factor analysis found 15 problems, which were then proposed for estimation by Russian (60), Indian (68) and American (38) married students.
The assessments were performed at three levels – as direct, as own reflexive, and as reflexive representations from the standpoint of other cultures' subjects.
Method was applied to cross-cultural research of responses from Russia , USA, and later, India.
Diagram 1. Direct estimations of Russian and American
students on family problems in Russia
Diagram 2. Direct estimations of Russians and American students on family problems in USA
Analysis of direct estimations of Russian families’ problems by Russian and American students revealed significant differences on six parameters. Russian students consider that in Russia housing loans and the problem of paid education are an acute problem for young families, while Americans consider that in Russia the problems of inequality of men and women, different types of family violations in relation to the children and women, and spouses’ disagreements on sexual problems are more pressing. The other problems do not differ statistically. Both Americans and Russians are equally concerned about problems of unemployment, paid medical care, interaction with parents and spare time problems. The problem of least concern is innocence in the course of marriage contraction. (diagram 1).
Direct estimations of American family problems by American and Russian students definitely differ on 8 parameters. Americans experience more acute problems than the Russians in the following areas – unemployment, family violence in relation to women and children, inequality of men and women, difficulties in obtaining housing loans, lack of confidence in their future, contraception problems and family planning, the problem of innocence during marriage contraction. Thus, according to the direct estimations of family problems, the vector of Americans and Russians is different: problems which Americans consider to be pressing for themselves are on one vector, while problems they estimate to be causing anxiety from the point of view of married Russians are on another vector, causing Americans the least anxiety. The following problems are not different on the level of direct estimations of both Russians and Americans: relationship with the parents, spare time problems, abortion, up-bringing of the children, paid medical care (diagram 2).
Diagram 3. Representations of Russian and American students on family problems in Russia from the point of view of the Russians
Diagram 4. Representations of Russian and American students on family problems in USA from the point of view of the Russians
The first level of reflection. During comparison of estimations of American family problems by Russian students from the point of view of the Russians (reflexive position of the first level) and representations of Americans on what Russians think about American problems (reflexive position of Americans but of the second level), differences appeared on seven parameters: Russians being tested think that their compatriot Russians estimate higher problems of unemployment in USA, paid medicine, relationship problems with the parents, abortion, spouses’ disagreement on sexual problems, and problems of free time. American students consider that Russians are not concerned about these problems of USA students (diagram 3).
During estimation by the Russian and American students of family problems in USA from the point of view of Russians (this is the second level of reflection of Americans, that is, Americans represent how Russians think about these problems), a significant difference is revealed only on one parameter – family planning and contraception. Russian students consider that this problem in the USA is solved for the young people. Russians also think that paid education is an exciting problem for married Americans which is different from the opinion of the Americans themselves. In the other parameters representations and estimations of Russians and Americans coincide. Russian and American students consider that in USA the most actual problem is the problem of relationship with the parents, and the least actual problem for Americans is lack of confidence in their future (diagram 4). It is seen that Americans represent very well what Russians think about them (practically full coincidence of the curves).
5. Representations of Russian students on family problems in Russia from the point of view of Americans
6. Representations of American students on family problems in USA from the point of view of the other Americans and Russians instead of Americans
Reflexive estimations of the second level (estimations from the representatives of the other culture)
During estimation of Russians on how all the Americans estimate Russian family problems and representations of Americans on what the other Americans think about Russian family problems – there are no significant differences revealed. That is, in this case, the level of reflection of Americans is higher than that of Russians because they understand correctly what Russians think about their own problems. Maximally, the problem of unemployment is estimated, and minimally, the problem of innocence during marriage conclusion (diagram 5). We see that Americans relatively well represent what Russians think about them (practically full coincidence of the curves on the schedule).
When comparing reflexive representations of Russian and American students on family problems in USA from the point of view of Russians instead of Americans it is possible to see that Americans are less anxious about the problems of unemployment, residential problems and confidence in the future. From the point of view of Americans the young married Americans have lack of confidence in future, difficulties obtaining housing loans and are afraid of unemployment. That is, Russians are mistaken when they underestimate the problems of Americans. American students consider that their compatriots are sufficiently anxious about these problems and their confidence in the future is not so strongly expressed as is thought by Russians (diagram 6). Comparing these two charts, we see that representations of Americans on family problems in Russia are more adequate.
7. Representations of Russian students on family problems in Russia and USA
8. Representations of American students on family problems in Russia and USA
When comparing the perceived intensity of their family problems by Russian students and the intensity of the representations on problems of Americans, we observe the maximum representational mismatching. Russians obviously exaggerate their problems, and they represent American problems to be underestimated
Russians are frightened of unemployment, difficulties in obtaining hosing loans, paid education and they demonstrate lack of confidence in their future, while they consider that these problems have been solved in USA (diagram 7).
However, in the comparison of their problems by American students and their estimation of problems of Russian families – family problems in both cultures related to lack of confidence in future and spouses’ disagreement on sexual problems are expressed. Americans consider that in Russia relationships with parents are less harmonious than in USA. (diagram 8). (Statistical discrepancies in the first, tenth and fourteenth parameters).
9. Personal representations of Russian students and their reflexive representations from the point of view of Americans on young families’ problems in Russia
10. Estimations of American students and their representations from the point of view of Russians on young families’ problems in USA
When comparing direct estimations of the Russian students and their reflexive representations instead of Americans on young family problems in Russia, there 6 significant differences revealed. Russians consider that Americans have stereotypical representations of the Russian family, such as: violence, spare time problems, and men and women inequality (Diagram 9).
In comparing direct estimations of the American students’ own problems and their reflexive representations instead of Russians on young family problems in USA, 9 significant differences were revealed. American students consider that Russians underestimate problems of young families in USA, such as: lack of confidence of the young in their future, difficulties in obtaining housing loans, man and woman inequality, unemployment, paid education and medicine, child-rearing practices, family violence, and spare time problems. Most of all Americans emphasize paid medical care as the most serious problem, and spouses’ disagreement on sexual problems as the least serious problem. (Diagram 10).
Conclusions
D. Campbell considers the characteristic of ethnic representation genuineness to be congruity between group perception of itself and of its perception by the other group, that is verity is possible in case of coincidence of auto stereotypes and hetero- stereotypes or in the terms of our research – in case of coincidence of direct estimations and mutual reflexive estimations.
Crosswise comparison of direct and reflexive estimations of family problems shows that in spite of differences in the standard of living in Russia and USA, the Russian and American students have no fundamental differences in the character of reflexive representations, but Americans reflect them relatively better.
In the case of cross-cultural comparison of auto stereotype representations of Russian and American respondents, it is revealed that Russian students more keenly perceive the problems related to economic family life activity, while American students give more attention to the problems of inequality of man and woman and to family violation.
The level of the respondents’ subjective attitude toward life hardships in different cultures decreases in relationship to the growth of socioeconomic satisfaction with the financial, social and cultural components of the society, and representations about themselves or about the culture being compared to a large extent depends on cultural background.
