Smaldino proposes that emergent group-level traits can be maintained and evolve by culturally transmitted norm-enforcing mechanisms such as narratives, mythologies, and religion. Such mechanisms can maintain the structured organizations of differentiated individuals because, as Smaldino claims, culture can have important influences on how individuals in a culture perceive any given set of situations. We argue, however, that culture cannot be regarded as an autonomous, superorganic force shaping human psychology. By finding other individual differences correlated with cultural differences, one can properly eliminate the explanatory power of culture in psychological models. We thus suggest that Smaldino fails to present the crucial mechanisms by which group-level traits are transmitted and evolve.
One goal of the target article is to document mechanisms by which emergent group-level traits are maintained, transmitted, and evolve. Based on Nisbett and his colleagues' evidence for cross-cultural differences in cognitive performance (Nisbett & Miyamoto Reference Nisbett and Miyamoto2005; Nisbett et al. Reference Nisbett, Peng, Choi and Norenzayan2001), Smaldino contends that culture can constrain how individuals within groups perceive situations in a way that norm-enforcing mechanisms such as narratives, mythologies, and religion would reinforce norms of social organizations. Note that in this avenue of cultural psychology, culture is deemed to be an autonomous, external variable that independently affects cognitive processing by members of that culture. Different thinking and behavior between members of East Asian and Western cultures (e.g., holistic vs. analytic cognition) are alleged to result from the fundamental differences in cognitive architecture formed over thousands of years of cultural development (Nisbett et al. Reference Nisbett, Peng, Choi and Norenzayan2001).
Although culture statistically affects cognitive performance, it does not follow that culture is a superorganic force that transcends an aggregate of individual differences within a culture. Put it differently, Nisbett and his colleagues' (2001) model of holistic versus analytic thinking should not be construed as indicating fundamental differences in modes of thought between Easterners and Westerners. For example, European Americans are not more individualistic than African Americans or Latinos and are not always less collectivistic than Japanese or Koreans. Among Asians, only Chinese show large differences with Westerners, being both less individualistic and more collectivistic than Americans (Oyserman et al. Reference Oyserman, Coon and Kemmelmeier2002). National averages of culture-related personality factors are often unstable as a result of, among many others, the reference-group effect, a tendency for people to respond to self-report items by comparing themselves with the implicit standards of their own culture (Heine et al. Reference Heine, Buchtel and Norenzayan2008).
An alternative and more fruitful approach is to identify psychological variables that ultimately drive individual differences in cognitive processing and are sources of variation in performance of different cultural groups. Only when we are unable to identify such variables should we conclude that members of different cultures are qualitatively different at the level of their cognitive architecture (Kim & Markman Reference Kim and Markman2006; Weber & Hsee Reference Weber and Hsee2000). Thus, we suggest that psychological variables that are correlated with cultural differences can lead to patterns of behavior in cognitive tasks that are like those observed in cross-cultural studies. For example, Peng and Nisbett's (Reference Peng and Nisbett1999) cross-cultural study reported that East Asians showed a greater preference for dialectical proverbs than did Americans. Kim and Markman (Reference Kim and Markman2006) explained these cross-cultural differences using a universal motivational variable, fear of isolation (FOI). They found that inducing a high level of FOI in Americans made their cognitive performance become more similar to that of East Asians, as reported in previous cross-cultural studies (Peng & Nisbett Reference Peng and Nisbett1999). Koreans had a greater relative preference for dialectical proverbs than Americans had. Statistical analyses showed that the between-culture variation in preference for dialectical proverbs was completely explained by differences in the level of FOI.
It is also worth noting that our view of culture as an aggregate of individual differences is well consistent with recent findings on the role of antipathogen psychology in shaping cross-cultural differences. In some regions with a greater prevalence of pathogen, stronger antipathogen psychological responses will be more beneficial than in other regions with a lower prevalence of pathogen. Studies have reported compelling evidence showing that many contemporary cross-cultural differences (e.g., the use of culinary spices, mate preference, family ties, religiosity, ethnocentrism, collectivism-individualism, openness and extraversion, democratization, and conformity) may result, in part, from a condition-dependent psychological adaptation evoked by the local variation of pathogen prevalence (Fincher & Thornhill Reference Fincher and Thornhill2012; Fincher et al. Reference Fincher, Thornhill, Murray and Schaller2008; Schaller Reference Schaller2011).
In sum, we question Smaldino's argument that culture plays the active role of maintaining and transmitting social organizations of differentiated individuals. By finding other individual differences correlated with cultural difference, one can properly eliminate the explanatory power of culture. That is, culture is an aggregate of individual differences in psychological variables within and between groups; it was not designed by group-level selection to maintain the structured organization of individuals. We conclude that Smaldino fails to present the crucial mechanism by which group-level traits are maintained, transmitted, and evolve.
Smaldino proposes that emergent group-level traits can be maintained and evolve by culturally transmitted norm-enforcing mechanisms such as narratives, mythologies, and religion. Such mechanisms can maintain the structured organizations of differentiated individuals because, as Smaldino claims, culture can have important influences on how individuals in a culture perceive any given set of situations. We argue, however, that culture cannot be regarded as an autonomous, superorganic force shaping human psychology. By finding other individual differences correlated with cultural differences, one can properly eliminate the explanatory power of culture in psychological models. We thus suggest that Smaldino fails to present the crucial mechanisms by which group-level traits are transmitted and evolve.
One goal of the target article is to document mechanisms by which emergent group-level traits are maintained, transmitted, and evolve. Based on Nisbett and his colleagues' evidence for cross-cultural differences in cognitive performance (Nisbett & Miyamoto Reference Nisbett and Miyamoto2005; Nisbett et al. Reference Nisbett, Peng, Choi and Norenzayan2001), Smaldino contends that culture can constrain how individuals within groups perceive situations in a way that norm-enforcing mechanisms such as narratives, mythologies, and religion would reinforce norms of social organizations. Note that in this avenue of cultural psychology, culture is deemed to be an autonomous, external variable that independently affects cognitive processing by members of that culture. Different thinking and behavior between members of East Asian and Western cultures (e.g., holistic vs. analytic cognition) are alleged to result from the fundamental differences in cognitive architecture formed over thousands of years of cultural development (Nisbett et al. Reference Nisbett, Peng, Choi and Norenzayan2001).
Although culture statistically affects cognitive performance, it does not follow that culture is a superorganic force that transcends an aggregate of individual differences within a culture. Put it differently, Nisbett and his colleagues' (2001) model of holistic versus analytic thinking should not be construed as indicating fundamental differences in modes of thought between Easterners and Westerners. For example, European Americans are not more individualistic than African Americans or Latinos and are not always less collectivistic than Japanese or Koreans. Among Asians, only Chinese show large differences with Westerners, being both less individualistic and more collectivistic than Americans (Oyserman et al. Reference Oyserman, Coon and Kemmelmeier2002). National averages of culture-related personality factors are often unstable as a result of, among many others, the reference-group effect, a tendency for people to respond to self-report items by comparing themselves with the implicit standards of their own culture (Heine et al. Reference Heine, Buchtel and Norenzayan2008).
An alternative and more fruitful approach is to identify psychological variables that ultimately drive individual differences in cognitive processing and are sources of variation in performance of different cultural groups. Only when we are unable to identify such variables should we conclude that members of different cultures are qualitatively different at the level of their cognitive architecture (Kim & Markman Reference Kim and Markman2006; Weber & Hsee Reference Weber and Hsee2000). Thus, we suggest that psychological variables that are correlated with cultural differences can lead to patterns of behavior in cognitive tasks that are like those observed in cross-cultural studies. For example, Peng and Nisbett's (Reference Peng and Nisbett1999) cross-cultural study reported that East Asians showed a greater preference for dialectical proverbs than did Americans. Kim and Markman (Reference Kim and Markman2006) explained these cross-cultural differences using a universal motivational variable, fear of isolation (FOI). They found that inducing a high level of FOI in Americans made their cognitive performance become more similar to that of East Asians, as reported in previous cross-cultural studies (Peng & Nisbett Reference Peng and Nisbett1999). Koreans had a greater relative preference for dialectical proverbs than Americans had. Statistical analyses showed that the between-culture variation in preference for dialectical proverbs was completely explained by differences in the level of FOI.
It is also worth noting that our view of culture as an aggregate of individual differences is well consistent with recent findings on the role of antipathogen psychology in shaping cross-cultural differences. In some regions with a greater prevalence of pathogen, stronger antipathogen psychological responses will be more beneficial than in other regions with a lower prevalence of pathogen. Studies have reported compelling evidence showing that many contemporary cross-cultural differences (e.g., the use of culinary spices, mate preference, family ties, religiosity, ethnocentrism, collectivism-individualism, openness and extraversion, democratization, and conformity) may result, in part, from a condition-dependent psychological adaptation evoked by the local variation of pathogen prevalence (Fincher & Thornhill Reference Fincher and Thornhill2012; Fincher et al. Reference Fincher, Thornhill, Murray and Schaller2008; Schaller Reference Schaller2011).
In sum, we question Smaldino's argument that culture plays the active role of maintaining and transmitting social organizations of differentiated individuals. By finding other individual differences correlated with cultural difference, one can properly eliminate the explanatory power of culture. That is, culture is an aggregate of individual differences in psychological variables within and between groups; it was not designed by group-level selection to maintain the structured organization of individuals. We conclude that Smaldino fails to present the crucial mechanism by which group-level traits are maintained, transmitted, and evolve.