Psychological Features Providing Understanding of Cultural Differences

Please reply to this classmate's post.
*Please use this source: Heine, S. J. (2020). Cultural Psychology (4th ed.). W. W. Norton & Company, Inc
Replies to classmates should discuss:
1. the differences in psychological features described in the article,
2. the Hofstede country comparison,
3. the benefits or challenges of the research design, or
4. possible extensions/new directions for this line of research.
Replies cannot simply restate/rephrase the original post, you must extend the discussion in some meaningful way.
The Post:
WE ARE NOT LIKE THEM. THEY ARE NOT LIKE US. CULTURAL DIMENSIONS AND MORAL REASONING IN THAILAND AND THE UNITED STATES
The chosen research study aims to explore the gaps between cultural dimensions and moral cognitive attitudes, employing a Western country represented by the United States, and the so-called 'land of smile' (Thailand Today, 2023), Thailand, representing a region not colonized by Western power. The research makes use of the possibility of scrutinizing the psychological aspects that form the basis of each country's morality: cultural values, demographics, and moral reasoning are at the forefront of achieving the intended purpose of truly understanding the degree to which psychological disparities exist between Western and non-Western collectivities. The study inquires into three questions in particular: the first of these analyses the disparity in the attitude to moral reasoning proposed by the two societies through three well-defined levels: the degree of self-interest, which concerns the individual's attitude for decision-making, that of adherence and respect for norms, and post-conventional principle reasoning, which allows moral reasoning to be identified and examined at an advanced level, enriched with greater complexity, and extended to the universality of fundamental rights and ethical principles. The collection of these data will then allow access to the correlations identified in the variations in moral reasoning revealed in the two reference samples. In conclusion, the analysis aims at an even broader perspective on the research conducted and does so through the study of the impact that psychological and demographic variables impose on the presented alterations in moral reasoning aptitude. The hypothesis of the research is not formally explicit, but this lies in its educational purpose that allows access to elucidations on whether and how cultural dimensions and demographic factors may ally in providing valuable information on the principle of the observed cultural dissimilarities.
The research method used in the study is built on the collection of data provided by the surveys. The Defining Issues Test is used as a scale for measuring moral reasoning, while the Values Survey Module 2013 proves useful in assessing cultural dimensions. The sampling of the subjects involved in the research requires them to fit the classification criteria by gender, nationality, and level of education. Finally, statistical analysis of correlation, multiple regression, and the t-test come to aid in verifying the revealed relationships between the variables.
Through the application of these measures, the research was able to provide documentation that confirmed the two cultural contexts’ actual heterogeneity. Moral reasoning based on the post-conventional principle turns out to be a dimension that scores highest with US respondents; the lowest score on the degree of self-interest, on the other hand, by default is assigned to the Thai counterpart. In contrast, the score on adherence to norms emerges more among Thai respondents than US respondents. Confirmation is thus also obtained on the differentiations manifested in the cultural dimensions, where Individualism dominates in the United States, mirroring a similar intensity of scoring presented by Thailand in the Long-Term Orientation dimension. Finally, the correlations identified between the variables studied reflect a positive anachronistic impact on moral reasoning based on post-conventional principles, and a negative correspondence in the relationship between political liberalism and certain patterns of moral reasoning (J & Piyapat, 2016).
The use of Hofstede's Compare Countries test is a very efficient measure for comparing the cultural dimensions of each nationality, and any similarities or discrepancies found in the comparison with the research.
We immediately notice a Power Distance of 64 points in Thailand, against a score of 40 for the United States where we can detect a proclivity for independence and equality akin to an attitude of moral reasoning based on the conventional principle and adherence to a stronger humanitarian type of liberalism.
The highest score on the Individualism dimension is awarded to the United States with a high 91, against a low 20 obtained by Thailand. Once again we can see the affinity to research and its finding of Thai citizens' strong adherence to the normative system, resulting in a much more collectivist approach.
The United States scored 62, compared to a lower 34 for Thailand in the Masculinity dimension, aligning with the finding of more self-interested moral reasoning.
Uncertainty Avoidance scores 64 for Thailand, and 46 for the United States, confirming the impactful relationship between social aversion and uncertainty in moral decision-making.
The Long-Term Orientation dimension is expressed in a 26 for the United States, and a 32 for Thailand, suggesting a stronger emphasis on tradition, linking perfectly with the cruciality of attention to regulatory systems.
To conclude then, Indulgence scores a higher 68 for the United States, and a lower 45 for Thailand. Thus, the assessment of aptitude for moral reasoning will be further clarified by a decisive self-interest found among the US participants (Hofstede, 2023).
A final appraisal of this study allows me to note how the information provided is a valuable insight for proceeding in the cross-cultural research of moral reasoning. The study sheds a powerful light on the importance of considering the lack of knowledge of these anthropological aspects as potential limitations to the correct interpretation of cultural contexts. Despite this, however, it is also necessary to identify certain constraints in the study that undermine its applicability.
Cross-cultural validity poses a potential obstacle to the applicability of this study: the cross-cultural comparison must be able to take place based on a solid knowledge base of the diversifications that also manifest themselves in the internal branches of the nation itself. Not taking into account the differentiated ethnic contexts of each social reality could result in a disproportionate simplification of the results.
Randomness and Correlation are added to the list of potential challenges of the study when the correlation between attitudinal levels of moral reasoning and cultural dimensions is established, but their causality is not determined. Knowing that the former does not necessarily imply the latter, we can understand how the omission of this information reveals an unexplored room of dynamics that could impact cultural shaping and moral reasoning.
Speaking of cultural shaping, the snapshot of moral principles proposed by the study may be subject to variations corroborated by phenomena such as globalization or even generational renewal, which must be kept in check to test long-term cultural progress.
All of this is sealed in the problem of generalisability, where the extrapolation of the outcomes obtained from isolating research, which thus chooses a specific representative of a Western society and a specific one of a non-Western society, cannot possibly lead to the application of these to several possible cultural representatives of these types of societies (Heine, 2019).