Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T18:43:53.693Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

14 - Differences and universals in families across cultures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
James Georgas
Edited by
Fons J. R. van de Vijver ,
Athanasios Chasiotis  and
Seger M. Breugelmans
James Georgas
Affiliation:
University of Athens, Greece
Fons J. R. van de Vijver
Affiliation:
Universiteit van Tilburg, The Netherlands
Athanasios Chasiotis
Affiliation:
Universiteit van Tilburg, The Netherlands
Seger M. Breugelmans
Affiliation:
Universiteit van Tilburg, The Netherlands
Get access

Summary

Family has become an increasingly important subject of study in cross-cultural and cultural/indigenous psychology during the past few decades. Two themes have characterised the study of family historically, family change and diversity of family structure and function across cultures. The first is family change. The relationship of family change to social change initially studied by Le Play (1855, 1871) has been the dominant theme of family sociology for almost two centuries, that is, social change resulted in the breakdown of the agricultural extended family of post-monarchical France to the nuclear family system. Talcott Parsons (1943, 1949, 1965) developed perhaps the most influential theory of family change, structuralism-functionalism, in the twentieth century. Society was viewed in a structural-functional perspective as an organism that strives to resist change and to maintain a state of equilibrium. The adaptation of the extended family unit to the industrial revolution required a nuclear family structure to carry out societal functions and to satisfy the physical and psychological needs of family members. Parsons argued that the nuclear family was fragmented from its kinship network, leading to psychological isolation. Parsons' theory has been criticised by many during the past six decades. His theory of the isolation of the nuclear family from its kin has been dismembered by research on family networks in the United States (Uzoka, 1979) and other countries (Segalen, 1986, 2000).

Type
Chapter
Information
Fundamental Questions in Cross-Cultural Psychology , pp. 341 - 375
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allik, J., and McCrae, R. R. (2002). A five-factor theory perspective. In McCrae, R. R. and Allik, J. (eds.), The five-factor model of personality across cultures (pp. 303–32). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allik, J., and McCrae, R. R. (2004). Toward a geography of personality traits: Patterns of profiles across 36 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bender, D. R. (1967). A refinement of the concept of household: Families, co-residence, and domestic functions. American Anthropologist, 69, 493–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, J. W. (1976). Human ecology and cognitive style: Comparative studies in cultural and psychological adaptation. New York: Sage/Halsted.Google Scholar
Berry, J. W. (1979). A cultural ecology of social behavior. In Berkowitz, L. (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. XII, pp. 177–206). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Berry, J. W.(1985). Cultural psychology and ethnic psychology: A comparative analysis. In Reyes-Lagunes, I. and Poortinga, Y. H. (eds.), From a different perspective (pp. 3–15). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Berry, J. W. (2000). Cross-cultural psychology: A symbiosis of cultural and comparative approaches. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, J. W. (2001). Contextual studies of cognitive adaptation. In Collis, J. M. and Messick, S. (eds.), Intelligence and personality: Bridging the gap in theory and measurement (pp. 319–33). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berry, J. W., and Poortinga, Y. H. (2006). Cross-cultural theory and methodology. In Georgas, J., Berry, J. W., Vijver, F. J. R., Kağitçibaşi, C. and Poortinga, Y. H. (eds.), Families across cultures: A 30-nation psychological study (pp. 51–71). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, M. H., Leung, K., Au, A., Tong, K. K., Carrasquel, S. R., Murakami, F., et al. (2004). Culture-level dimensions of social axioms and their correlates across 41 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 548–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breugelmans, S. M., Poortinga, Y. H., Ambadar, Z., Setiadi, B., Vaca, J. B., Widiyanto, P., et al. (2005). Body sensations associated with emotions in Raramuri Indians, rural Javanese, and three student samples. Emotion, 5, 166–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burton, M. L., Moore, C. C., Whiting, J. W. M., and Romney, A. K. (1996). Regions based on social structure. Current Anthropology, 37, 87–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1949). The dimensions of culture patterns by factorization of national characters. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 279–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cattell, R. B., Graham, R. K., and Woliver, R. E. (1979). A reassessment of the factorial cultural dimensions of modern nations. Journal of Social Psychology, 108, 241–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edn). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Diener, E. (1996). Subjective well-being in cross-cultural perspective. In Grad, H., Blanco, A. and Georgas, J. (eds.), Key issues in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 319–30). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Ember, C. R., and Ember, M. (2002). Cultural anthropology (10th edn). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Forde, D. (1934). Habitat, economy and society. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
Georgas, J. (1988). An ecological and social cross-cultural model: The case of Greece. In Berry, J. W., Irvine, S. H. and Hunt, E. B. (eds.), Indigenous cognition: Functioning in cultural context (pp. 105–23). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgas, J. (1989). Changing family values in Greece: From collectivist to individualist. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 80–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgas, J. (1991). Intra-family acculturation of values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22, 445–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgas, J. (1993). An ecological-social model for indigenous psychology: The example of Greece. In Kim, U. and Berry, J. W. (eds.), Indigenous psychologies: Theory, method and experience in cultural context (pp. 56–78). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Georgas, J. (1999). Family as a context variable in cross-cultural psychology. In Adamopoulos, J. and Kashima, Y. (eds.), Social psychology and cultural context (pp. 163–75). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgas, J., and Berry, J. W. (1995). An ecocultural taxonomy for cross-cultural psychology. Cross-Cultural Research, 29, 121–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgas, J., Vijver, F. J. R., and Berry, J. W. (2004). The ecocultural framework, ecosocial indicators and psychological variables in cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 74–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgas, J., Weiss, L. G., Vijver, F. J. R., and Saklofske, D. H. (eds.) (2003). Culture and children's intelligence: Cross-cultural analysis of the WISC-III. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Georgas, J., Berry, J. W., Vijver, F. J. R., Kağitçibaşi, Ç., and Poortinga, Y. H. (2006). Families across cultures: A 30-nation psychological study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgas, J., Christakopoulou, S., Poortinga, Y., Goodwin, R., Angleitner, A., and Charalambous, N. (1997). The relationship of family bonds to family structure and function across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 303–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgas, J., Mylonas, K., Bafiti, T., Christakopoulou, S., Poortinga, Y. H., Kağitçibaşi, Ç., et al. (2001). Functional relationships in the nuclear and extended family: A 16 culture study. International Journal of Psychology, 36, 289–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goody, J. (1983). The oriental, the ancient, and the primitive: Systems of marriage and the family in the pre-industrial societies of Eurasia. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harrison, L. E. (2000). Why culture matters. In Harrison, L. E. and Huntington, S. P. (eds.), Culture matters: How values shape human progress (pp. xvii–xxxiv). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G., and McCrae, R. R. (2004). Personality and culture revisited: Linking traits and dimensions of culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 38, 52–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., and Gupta, V. (2004). Cultures, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Human Relations Areas Files (n.d.), . eHRAF World Cultures. Retrieved 8 December 2009 from http://ehrafWorldCultures.yale.edu.Google Scholar
Huntington, S. P. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Inglehart, R., and Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65, 19–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inkeles, A. (1998). One world emerging? Convergence and divergence in industrial societies. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Kağitçibaşi, Ç. (1990). Family and socialization in cross-cultural perspective: A model of change. In Berman, J. (ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives: Nebraska symposium on motivation,1989 (pp. 135–200). Lincoln, NE: Nebraska University Press.Google Scholar
Kağitçibaşi, Ç.(1996). Family and human development across cultures: A view from the other side. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kluckhohn, C., and Murray, H. A. (1950). Personality formation: The determinants. In Kluckhohn, C. and Murray, H. A. (eds.), Personality in nature, society and culture (pp. 35–48). New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Kroeber, A. (1939). Cultural and natural areas of native North America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Kroeber, A. L. (1909). Classificatory systems of relationship. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 39, 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroeber, A. L., and Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum.Google Scholar
Play, F. (1855). Les Ouvriers européens. Études sur les travaux, la vie domestique et la condition morale des populations ouvrières de l'Europe, précédées d'un exposé de la méthode d'observation. Paris: Imprimerie impériale.Google Scholar
Play, F.(1871). L'Organisation de la famille. Paris: Tegui.Google Scholar
Levinson, D., and Malone, M. J. (1980). Toward explaining human nature. New Haven, CT: HRAF Press.Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1969). The elementary structures of kinship (Bell, J. H., Needham, R. and Sturmer, J. R., trans.) (Rev. edn). Boston: Beacon Press. (Original work published 1949.)Google Scholar
Malinowski, B. (1927). Sex and repression in savage society. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, D., Nezlek, J. B., and Koopmann, B. (2007). Evidence for universality in phenomenological emotion response system coherence. Emotion, 7, 57–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matsumoto, D., and Yoo, S. H. (2006). Toward a new generation of cross-cultural research. Cross-Cultural Research, 1, 234–50.Google Scholar
McCrae, R. R., and Costa, P. T. (1999). A Five-Factor Theory of personality. In Pervin, L. A. and John, O. P. (eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd edn, pp. 139–53). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
McCrae, R. R., and Terracciano, A. (2005). Universal features of personality traits from the observer's perspective: Data from 50 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 547–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Minturn, L., and Lambert, W. W. (1964). Mothers of six cultures. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Morgan, L. H. (1870). Systems of consanguinity and affinity of the human family. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murdock, G. P. (1949). Social structure. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Naroll, R., Michik, G. L., and Naroll, F. (1974). Hologeistic theory testing. In Jurgensen, J. G. (ed.), Comparative studies by Harold E. Driver and essays in his honor. New Haven, CT: HRAF Press.Google Scholar
Parsons, T. (1943). The kinship system of the contemporary United States. American Anthropologist, 45, 22–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, T. (1949). The social structure of the family. In Anshen, R. N. (ed.), The family: Its functions and destiny (pp. 33–58). New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Parsons, T. (1965). The normal American family. In Farber, S. M. (ed.), Man and civilization: The family's search for survival (pp. 34–6). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Pasternak, B. E., Ember, C. R., and Ember, M. (1997). Sex, gender and kinship: A cross-cultural perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Poortinga, Y. H. (1990). Towards a conceptualization of culture for psychology?Cross-Cultural Psychology Bulletin, 24, 2–10.Google Scholar
Poortinga, Y. H., and Georgas, J. (2006). Family portraits from 30 countries: An overview. In Georgas, J., Kağitçibaşi, C., Berry, J. W., Vijver, F. J. R. and Poortinga, Y. H. (eds.), Families across cultures: A 30-nation psychological study (pp. 90–9). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poortinga, Y. H., Vijver, F. J. R., Joe, R. C., and Koppel, J. M. H. (1987). Peeling the onion called culture: A synopsis. In Kağitçibaşi, C. (ed.), Growth and progress in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 22–34). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Popenoe, D. (1988). Disturbing the nest: Family change and decline in modern societies. Chicago, IL: Aldine.Google Scholar
Religion Statistics Geography, (2002). Religion by location index. Retrieved September 2002 from http://adherents.com.Google Scholar
Rummel, R. J. (1979). National attributes and behavior. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Sam, D. L., and Berry, J. W. (eds.) (2006). Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Scherer, K. R. (1997). The role of culture in emotion-antecedent appraisal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 902–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, K. R., and Wallbott, H. (1994). Evidence for universality and cultural variation of differential emotion response-patterning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 310–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in twenty countries. In Zanna, M. P. (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. XXV, pp. 1–65). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism–collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kağitçibaşi, Ç., Choi, S.-C. and Yoon, G. (eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 85–119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H. (2000). Sociologie de la famille. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Segalen, M. (1986). Historical anthropology of the family. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singelis, T. M., and Brown, W. J. (1995). Culture, self, and collectivist communication: Linking culture to individual behavior. Human Communication Research, 21, 354–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singelis, T. M., and Sharkey, W. F. (1995). Culture, self-construal, and embarrassability. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 622–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, P. B., Dugan, S., and Trompenaars, F. (1996). National culture and values of organizational employees. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 231–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, S. (1995). Family theory and multicultural family studies. In Ingoldsby, B. and Smith, S. (eds.), Families in multicultural perspective (pp. 5–35). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., and Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1006–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tylor, E. B. (1889). On a method of investigation the development of institutions: Applied to laws of marriage and descent. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 18, 245–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,United Nations Statistics Division (2002a). Demographic, Social and Housing Statistics. Retrieved 5 September 2002 from http://unstats.un.org/unsd.Google Scholar
,United Nations Statistics Division (2002b). Energy Statistics. Retrieved 5 September 2002 from http://unstats.un.org/unsd.Google Scholar
Uzoka, A. F. (1979). The myth of the nuclear family. American Psychologist, 34, 1095–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vijver, F. J. R. (1997). Meta-analysis of cross-cultural comparisons of cognitive test performance. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 678–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vijver, F. J. R., and Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analyses for cross-cultural research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Vijver, F. J. R., and Poortinga, Y. H. (2002). Structural equivalence in multilevel research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 141–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vijver, F. J. R., Mylonas, K., Pavlopoulos, V., and Georgas, J. (2006). Results: Cross-cultural analysis of the family. In Georgas, J., Berry, J. W., Vijver, F. J. R., Kağitçibaşi, Ç. and Poortinga, Y. H. (2006). Families across cultures: A 30-nation psychological study (pp. 126–85). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemert, D. A., Vijver, F. J. R., Poortinga, Y. H., and Georgas, J. (2002). Structural and functional equivalence of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire within and between countries. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 1229–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant ethic and spirit of capitalism (Parsons, T. and Tawney, R. H., trans.). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. (Original work published in 1904.)Google Scholar
Whiting, J. W. M. (1974). A model for psychocultural research. Annual Report,Washington, DC, American Anthropological Association.Google Scholar
Whiting, J. W. M., and Child, I. L. (1953). Child training and personality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Whiting, B., and Whiting, J. W. M. (1975). Children of six cultures: A psycho-cultural analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. E., Satterwhite, R. C., and Saiz, J. L. (1998). The importance of psychological traits: A cross-cultural study. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
World Bank (2002). World development report 2002. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yanagisako, S. J. (1979). Family and household: The analysis of domestic groups. Annual Review of Anthropology, 8, 161–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×