What forms of culture are there, and what is important and interesting about cultural variation from a psychological point of view?
Social psychologist are very much primarily focused and interested in the East and West cultural differences. As far as the study concern there are numerous culture followed in worldwide and been one of the evolution of research for the many more of the authors (Cohen & Kitayama, 2007). One of them is Adam Cohen who is being continuously researching on the psychological religious culture differences within the identity of the people. The journal of Adam B Cohen suggests that, each of the major religions are very much similar in many ways whether it is Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, catholic or protestant. However, each of them has their own beliefs and the social norms which are being practices by the various groups that define their personality (Siev & Cohen, 2007). The study moves on the, it takes 3 most cultural variations dynamics such as religions, social economic status and geographic of the various country.
As discussed by Tarakeshwar Stanton & Pargament (2003), religions and culture very much strong prosthetics in moral judgment of the cultural differences within the ethnic groups. From the above study, it also gives knowledge of the various examples of culture and their differences which will give enough scope to accustom with the existing culture. For instance, Jesus has pronounced that, woman as lust, on the contrary, in Judaism immoral thoughts considered as immoral status (Whaley & Davis, 2007). Most of members of the different religious grouped are being considered as the difference in psychological processes.
Apart from that, social economic status or the social class culture is been more of developed by the human beings in order to gain feel themselves superior. The differences in the class are another measurement of culture differences (Tarakeshwar Stanton & Pargament, 2003). For instance, plumber considers himself as the social class and the clerk working in the books stores consider himself middle class. But the money earned by both them is same. The study shows that various aspect of culture based on the power, privilege and social status.
As noted by Cohen & Kitayama (2007), the third major concern within the study is the geographical regions which affects the cultures. Regional inferences or the boundary of the nations are being one of the major differences created in habits and the living of the residents. Moreover, the study focuses eon the southern and northern to reach understand the cultural universality. There have been several other divergences which show the default in the people beliefs in the culture which some time insignificant to the thoughts of god and the translation did by humans. On the other hand, Siev & Cohen (2007), the multiculturalism person has various actives on the cultures. These people are very much follows the both Christian and Hinduism. The country has been known as the multicultural places because of the various forms of cultural people live within the nations. Finally the study does not give any wrong or right set of method o following the culture in fact it widened the view that culture does only affect the differences between individualism versus collectivisms but it also plays important role in moral judgment and moral form of reasoning within the activist (Snibbe & Markus, 2005).
Siev, J., & Cohen, A. B. (2007). Is thought-action fusion related to religiosity? Group differences between Jews and Christians. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45, 829 – 837.
Snibbe, A. C., & Markus, H. R. (2005). You can't always get what you want: Educational attainment, agency, and choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 703–720.
Tarakeshwar, N., Stanton, J., & Pargament, K. I. (2003). Religion: An overlooked dimension in cross-cultural psychology. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 34, 377–394.
Whaley, A. L., & Davis, K. E. (2007). Cultural competence and evidence based practice in mental health services: A contemporary perspective. American Psychologist, 62, 563–574.