How do the people around us, our cultures and our beliefs shape what we think, feel and do? This lesson revisits classic social psychology through the lens of culture, belief systems and religion, and asks which findings hold everywhere and which depend on where and how we live.
Social psychology studies how people think about, influence and relate to one another. Its starting point is the self, and the self is shaped by culture. Markus and Kitayama (1991) described an independent self, defined by unique traits and personal goals, and an interdependent self, defined by relationships, roles and fitting in. Every culture and every person holds both, in different balances.
These views of the self change what people notice, what motivates them and what makes them feel good: personal achievement and standing out, or harmony, belonging and meeting obligations to others.
When asked to describe themselves, people from more individualist settings tend to list personal traits, while people from more collectivist settings mention more social roles and relationships.
We constantly explain other people's behavior. The fundamental attribution error is the tendency to over-explain behavior by personality and under-weight the situation (Ross, 1977). But this "error" is not equally strong everywhere.
Miller (1984) found that Hindu Indian adults explained everyday behavior more by context and social roles, while American adults pointed more to personal dispositions. Morris and Peng (1994) found that English-language U.S. newspapers explained the same murders mostly by the killers' personal traits, while Chinese-language newspapers gave more attention to situations and relationships.
A new student arrives 20 minutes late to class for the third time. What is your first explanation?
In Asch's (1956) studies, many participants went along at least once with a group that gave an obviously wrong answer. A meta-analysis of 133 studies in 17 countries found higher conformity in more collectivist cultures, where agreeing with the group can express harmony and respect rather than weakness (Bond & Smith, 1996).
Milgram (1963) found that most participants continued giving what they believed were painful shocks when an authority told them to. Replications in several countries found broadly similar obedience (Blass, 1999). The studies also changed research ethics, leading to stronger protections for participants.
A study of 33 nations found that cultures differ in how strong their social norms are and how much deviation they tolerate (Gelfand et al., 2011). Tighter cultures, often those facing more threats such as conflict, disease or disasters, have stronger norms; looser cultures allow more variety.
People gain part of their self-worth from the groups they belong to, such as ethnicity, nation, religion, school or team. This can build pride and belonging, and it can also lead to favoring the in-group over out-groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
Mamie Phipps Clark and Kenneth Clark (1947) showed that many Black children in segregated settings preferred white dolls, evidence of the harm of segregation that was cited in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Their work is a powerful example of social psychology shaping law and justice.
Meet Mamie Phipps Clark →Allport (1954) proposed that contact between groups reduces prejudice under the right conditions: equal status, shared goals, cooperation and support from authorities. A meta-analysis of more than 500 studies found that contact reliably reduces prejudice across many kinds of groups (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006).
Steele and Aronson (1995) found that Black students performed worse on a difficult test when it was described as measuring intellectual ability, a sign that the fear of confirming a stereotype can affect performance. Later research debates the size of the effect, but the idea shaped efforts to make classrooms identity-safe.
Tools such as the Implicit Association Test measure automatic associations between groups and good or bad. They are useful for teaching and group-level research, but individual scores are not reliable enough to label a person as biased (see the Psychometrics Lab).
Religious identity can be a deep source of meaning, community and resilience. It can also be a basis for discrimination, such as antisemitism, Islamophobia and anti-Sikh violence. Social identity theory helps explain both the strength of faith communities and conflict between groups.
More than three-quarters of the world's people identify with a religion, and many others hold strong secular or spiritual worldviews. These belief systems shape how people think about obligation, morality, helping, family and suffering.
Shweder and colleagues (1997) described three moral codes found across cultures: an ethic of autonomy (rights, harm and fairness), an ethic of community (duty, loyalty and respect for roles) and an ethic of divinity (purity, sacredness and the soul). Moral Foundations Theory similarly measures care, fairness, loyalty, authority and sanctity (Graham et al., 2011). Cultures and religious communities weigh these differently.
Researchers have proposed that shared religious beliefs, rituals and community help large groups of strangers cooperate and trust one another (Norenzayan & Shariff, 2008). Religion also offers ways of coping with stress, such as prayer, meaning-making and support from a faith community, which can help or, at times, add distress (Pargament, 1997).
These short descriptions introduce ideas from each tradition in general terms; every tradition is diverse, and individuals relate to their beliefs in many ways.
The most studied cultural dimension: whether people see themselves mainly as individuals or as members of groups with shared obligations (Hofstede, 2001; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998).
How much people accept unequal power and hierarchy, for example in how students address teachers or employees address managers (Hofstede, 2001).
In dignity cultures, worth is seen as inborn; in face cultures, worth depends on one's place in a respectful social order; in honor cultures, worth must be claimed and defended (Nisbett & Cohen, 1996).
How strong norms are and how much deviation is tolerated (Gelfand et al., 2011).
Most social psychology has studied Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic people, often U.S. college students (Henrich et al., 2010). Findings should be tested before being called universal.
Dimensions describe average tendencies of large groups, not individuals. There is wide variation within every country, region, religion and family.
When people move between cultures, through immigration, refugee resettlement, going away to college or marriage, they negotiate two questions: How much do I keep my heritage culture? How much do I take part in the new or mainstream culture? Berry (1997) described four strategies that follow from the answers.
Research generally links integration, keeping one's heritage while also connecting with the wider society, to better adjustment, though outcomes depend on whether the wider society welcomes newcomers. Many people become bicultural, switching cultural frames depending on the setting.
People are less likely to help in an emergency when others are present, partly because responsibility feels shared (Darley & Latané, 1968). A meta-analysis found the effect is weaker in clearly dangerous emergencies (Fischer et al., 2011).
Field experiments in 23 cities found large differences in helping strangers, with especially high rates in Rio de Janeiro and San José, Costa Rica, cities in cultures that value simpatía, friendly concern for others (Levine et al., 2001).
In many cultures, helping obligations are strongest toward family and community. Belief systems such as ubuntu, zakat, seva and tikkun olam extend care beyond the self, each in its own way.
Discuss each case, then tap to see what social psychology and cultural context add.
Short talks and peer-reviewed articles published in the last ten years (2016 or later) that support this lesson. Videos and article links need an internet connection.
Moral foundations and why groups with different values see the world so differently.
“Moral reframing”: speaking to other people’s values to bridge divides.
Bounded ethicality and a growth mindset for confronting our own bias.
