Approaches of Sociocultural Psychology - Term Paper Example

 Approaches of Sociocultural Psychology Introduction Since centuries, experts (Rosa, 2007) have been putting efforts to explain different aspects of humans, in order to acquire effective solutions of various issues in different fields, such as education, business, health, etc. In such efforts, psychology has been a significant contributing in enabling a comprehensive understanding of human societies, especially human behavior in an efficient manner. However, since evolution of the field of psychology until today, it has formed numerous branches that offer analysis of humans and human societies from a different and diverse perspective. In specific, this paper will focus on one of the most innovative and contemporary branches of psychology, sociocultural psychology that has been able to acquire huge amount of supporters in a short span of time. In this regard, the paper will put efforts to identify different approaches of sociocultural psychology that it offers to resolve an issue or a problem in the human society. Moreover, for a crucial understanding, the paper will include discussion on specific approaches related to the issue of health, and especially health promotion that has become a major concern of psychologists in recent times. Sociocultural Psychology In order to discuss approaches of sociocultural psychology, it is essential to acquire a brief understanding of the branch itself. It is an observation that until the introduction of sociocultural psychology, traditional branches of the psychology continued to view humans from an individualistic perspective that although allowed psychologists to explain different behaviors and actions of the humans; however, it lacked the social and cultural aspect of individuals that is now one of the most imperative notions in human life. In this regard, sociocultural approach of psychology focuses primarily on social and cultural transactions of human life (Rosa, 2007). In terms of approaching a problem, conventional psychologists viewed social structures and psychological behaviors as independent without having any connection with each other. However, sociocultural psychologists have criticized such explanations of traditional psychologists, and argued that both formations enjoy an interdependent relationship with each other, and have continued to do so since centuries. In brief, sociocultural psychologists (Rosa, 2007) refute the idea of individuals living without any having interaction or influence from the environment. In this manner, sociocultural psychologists consider issues or problems as an outcome of social and cultural formations of individuals. In other words, sociocultural psychology (Rosa, 2007) is an effort to transform biological human into a socially and culturally matured individual that understands and responds to different meanings and practices in his society or culture. In addition, analysis of the literature has indicated that language enjoys a fundamental position in sociocultural psychology, as language is a unique tool that distinguishes humans from the animals, and is the only tool that enables humans to interact with each other, as well as create groups in the form of different societies and cultures. From this perspective, sociocultural psychology proposes and encourages social participation as an efficient methodology of contributing in the society that impact human behavior subsequently. Psychologists (Berry, 2002) from this branch of psychology have specified that as societies allow participation of people in different and diverse contexts, they indirectly enable humans to create meanings and contribute in the ongoing process of meaning production that is essential for functioning of the society. In other words, sociocultural psychologists argue that social and cultural meanings play an influential role in developing human behavior that was not a notion in conventional forms of psychology. They further argue that individuals of different societies and cultures enjoy uniqueness that shows the influence of societal and cultural meanings in their lives. For instance, studies have indicated high levels of confidence and self-esteem in individuals representing North American societies; however, individuals from the African cultures did not portray such high levels in their behavior (Berry, 2002). Thus, environment in the form of cultures and societies plays an influential role in the construction of individual behaviors. Furthermore, sociocultural psychologists (Kim & Yang, 2006) have identified a number of social and cultural meanings that, as the time passes, become a part of social and cultural identity of individuals of a specific society. According to them, such hidden meanings and expressions can play a constructive role in altering individual behaviors and actions in the society, and can be valuable in resolving a problem in the society. For instance, they indicate the existence of teacups, car stickers, etc with statements such as 'You are the best', 'Stay healthy', etc that are some of the significant examples of practices that promote specific actions in the society. In this regard, in order to approach a problem from the perspective of sociocultural psychologist, two facts are evident in the process. One declares that individuals live under the influence of social and cultural contexts, and cannot exist without such contexts. Secondly, the other fact explains social and cultural contexts as nothing but outcomes of human actions and behaviors (Cohen, 2007). In other words, sociocultural psychologists propose a two-way process in which, contexts influence human behaviors, and responses of human behaviors create new contexts for the coming generations. Although conventional psychologists (Cohen, 2007) provided quite similar role of social contexts; however, sociocultural psychologists went a step ahead by providing the access of creating psychological trends by these contexts that were only enjoy the authority of influencing psychological behaviors and tendencies of humans in traditional psychology. In addition, psychologists (Uchida & Morling, 2008) in the past focused on these subjects but in a separate manner; however, sociocultural psychology has argued that understanding of human behaviors and psychological tendencies is possible only through the lens of social and cultural practices, and their avoidance will result in complexities that was problem with the conventional approaches of psychology. In this regard, as sociocultural psychologists approach an issue, they deem it impossible to understand the human psychology without social contexts, or while focusing on the human alone. In other words, sociocultural psychologists promote approaching a problem while considering contexts and individuals in an interdependent manner, such as human-environment, individual-situation, self-culture, etc. Moreover, sociocultural psychologists (Uchida & Morling, 2008) have made an appeal to the experts and psychologists to integrate different fields of study such as sociology, anthropology, etc, in order to identify and understand a problem in efficient manner, as these barriers or closed bridges between different disciplines will not allow an effective understanding of the problems. While proposing such strategies to approach a problem, sociocultural psychologists have indicated that although individuals of North American portrayed high levels of confidence and self-esteem. However, one must not consider behavior of all individuals as universal, as every individual from a particular society or a specific cultural will be having his/her own behavior and actions based on his/her responses and interaction with social and cultural contexts. In this regard, contexts do not create psychological tendencies in a fixed or rigid manner, but they create a range of behaviors that may be applicable to individuals of that society or culture. In other words, sociocultural psychology (Kim & Yang, 2006) acknowledges that people interacts with contexts in their own unique way that makes an individual unique from other members of the society. However, sociocultural psychologists argue that experts should take this uniqueness of individuals as strength rather than weakness, and at the same time, one may benefit from taken-for-granted hidden meanings of a society or culture that will be similar, and will be efficient in approaching a problem in a significant manner. Alternatively, while proposing approaches to the problems, sociocultural psychology (Welch & Kim, 2007) refutes the notion of other psychological perspectives that deem brain or physical body as the primary source of human behavior. Conversely, they deem two major sources, internal and external that exists inside the body and the other one roams around the environment in the form of culture and social norms and practices. In this regard, sociocultural psychologists criticize traditional psychologists, saying that majority of psychologists are busy in focusing on mental states of individuals to resolve issues and problems, and in such preoccupancy, psychologists intentionally or unintentionally ignore the authority of social group or social capital over the behavior and actions of individuals. Moreover, sociocultural approaches promote a distinct perspective about individuals as active agents in the societies. In other words, sociocultural psychology (Welch & Kim, 2007) calls experts to focus on 'engagement' or 'interaction' of individuals with outer worlds that will allow them to acquire understanding of human behavior, and subsequently, analysis of problem in a comprehensible manner. In other words, as neurologists put efforts to scan brain activities, psychologists should carry out the same procedure of scanning social and cultural formations of individuals' environment, in order to understand their behaviors. One efficient approach according to sociocultural psychologists will be attachment of lens of sociocultural approach with the conventional psychological approaches that will enable experts in acquiring a meaningful understanding of emotional, physical, and behavioral trends of individuals in the society. Furthermore, another but very challenging approach will be to analyze products and services of outer worlds, such as schools, offices, public places, parks, etc that will be very effective in approaching the issues in conjunction with social and cultural contexts (Taylor, 2004). Until now, the paper has discussed fundamental basis of approaches exist in the sociocultural psychology. However, in order to acquire a crucial understanding, the paper will now consider the issue of health or health promotion, and will put efforts to identify approaches and implications of sociocultural psychologists in this regard. Approaches to the Issue of Health In psychology, studies of earlier 20th century indicate the dominance of medical approach towards understanding the issue of health around the globe during which, experts explained health as nothing but deficiency of disease. However, in recent years, there has been paradigm shift in this perspective that has inclined more towards social psychology and sociocultural psychology that promotes the consideration of social and cultural pervasive forces in ensuring health in the society (Taylor, 2004). This paradigm shift from conventional psychology to sociocultural psychology became evident when the World Health Organization declared the definition of health involving not only mental and physical but also social happiness and comfort of individuals that disproved the earlier notion of absence of illness. Subsequently, it indirectly acknowledged and promoted the conception of multi-dimensional or socio-cultural existence of factors and forces in the society. In other words, this approach towards health unlocked new avenues that accepted individuals as social beings rather than physical or mental beings that were the concepts of conventional psychology. In the result, sociocultural psychology promoted consideration of human beings as small component of larger groups of pervasive forces, already discussed in the paper, and declared that focus on these forces will play an influential role in approaching the issue of health and promoting it accordingly. Sociocultural psychologists (Less, 2008) believe that it is very imperative for experts to approach the issue of health prevention and promotion from a cultural and social perspective. Theoretically, psychologists focused primarily on the societies of Western world for the evaluation of their models; however, inclusion of cultural meanings and societal factors will enable the evaluation of these psychological models in other parts of the globe based on specific cultural societies. In other words, this will facilitate sociocultural psychologists to validate their models scientifically that will enhance their acceptance in the society, as earlier models lacked these factors and focused only on individuals that resulted in their incapacity of validation. On the other hand, amalgamation of cultural and social factors in the understanding of health issue indicates constructive prospects from a practical viewpoint as well. For instance, in this era of globalization, it is merely impossible and complicated to create plans for improving health conditions in a society without having understanding of its cultural and social factors (Marshall, 2005). It is observation that a number of societies are confronting cases of discrimination and chauvinism in the healthcare sector, and different cultures indicate diverse rates of diseases. Understanding of all such differences has now become a critical issue that needs cultural and social consideration according to sociocultural psychologists, and every intervention for the promotion and prevention of health will be useless in absence of such understandings. According to them (Sherman, 2008), a number of diseases exist in specific cultures and particular societies, and thus, a sociocultural approach towards health issues will be effective in identifying and analyzing such illnesses, and will be difficult and almost impossible from other approaches. Although approach of pre-understanding of cultural factors seems efficient, however, analysis has indicated that it has confronted criticism as well, mainly due to broad definition of culture globally. In sociology and anthropology, a huge number of experts have attempted to offer a different definition of culture involving various components, such as language, traditions, norms, religion, etc. Due to such variance in the definition of culture itself, adversaries of sociocultural psychology argue that this ambiguity will be nebbish and will create complexities during sociocultural interventions for health promotion and prevention. For this reason, sociocultural psychologists have identified few particular characteristics of culture that can play constructive role in approaching health issue. In specific, the notions of individualism and collectivism (Kagitcibasi, 1997) are two major constructs in sociocultural psychology that enables experts to understand differences and similarities between different cultures, essential for knowing the way people think about themselves and their societies. In this way, these constructs are important for the acquisition of personal view and worldview that play a crucial role in the success of efforts related to promoting different health practices in the society. For instance, in individualism, the culture promotes the notion of self-independence in the society, and experts in these societies put efforts to ensure individual independence and freedom of individuals (Kagitcibasi, 1997). It is observation that individualistic societies and cultures consist of agentic individuals that decide their actions on their own responsibility. On the other hand, in collectivism, the culture promotes the notion of interdependence in the society, and experts in these societies put efforts to ensure enhancement of social relationships and interactions. In these societies, individuals take decisions collectively and a number of social factors influence their decisions and actions. Contrary to individualistic cultures, members of collectivism try to follow the accepted and promoted practices in the society, and alter their behaviors according to the needs and fundamentals of the culture (Kagitcibasi, 1997). This shows the effectiveness of a sociocultural approach towards the issue of health, as implementation of health plans based on the characteristics of communal groups would not result in significant impact in individualistic societies and vice versa. In light of this realization, sociocultural psychologists (Helman, 2007) have encouraged the utilization of health communication as a significant way of approaching the issue of health and illness. However, it is very imperative that experts develop health communication strategies that match the existing cultural formations in the society, as studies have indicated that communication harmonizing the cultural forces seems to have a greater impact on individuals, as compared with interventions based on general predictions. The underlying crux of this discussion is that individuals will consider health communication relevant and appropriate if it will be in conjunction with their cultural values and social practices. From this perspective, a number of organizations (Helman, 2007) are nowadays putting efforts to carry out research regarding the social frameworks and cultural characteristics of societies before planning materials for health promotion. For instance, if a society consists of individuals that are more receptive towards rewards, then it will be easier to convince and influence them with materials of health promotion that will include advantages of healthy practices. On the other hand, if a society consists of individuals that are more receptive towards drawbacks, then it will be easier to convince and influence them with materials of health promotion that will include drawbacks of unhealthy practices. However, a health promotion campaign based on advantages in a society responsive to drawbacks will result in insignificant outcomes, and thus, sociocultural psychologists once again endeavor to promote cultural approach to the health issue that will ensure positive results. In this regard, a number of recent studies have indicated that matching materials of health promotion with cultural factors play a significant and positive role in influencing health practices and behaviors of individuals in the society. In addition to this approach, studies (Gurung, 2010) have identified different sources that cause inequalities in the health sector. Besides economic factors, experts (Gurung, 2010) have noted that a number of symbolic factors play a crucial role in affecting health practices and behavior of individuals from minority groups. From this perspective, social exclusion is a critical factor that disables individuals from accessing information related to healthy practices (Campbell & Jovchelovitch, 2000). Moreover, it affects the level of value that individuals give to the issue of health in their groups. It is observation that social exclusion results in reduction of self-esteem of individuals, causing them to be careless about their health, and thus, they are likely to remain absent in activities of health promotion and prevention. For such marginalized groups and victims of social exclusion, social capital is the fundamental and most efficient approach towards resolving a health issue. In specific, social capital involves efforts of individuals in their own capacities for a single objective in a collective manner (Adams, 2005). Some of the significant examples of social capital are efforts of individuals for health promotion at governmental level, campaigns of non-governmental organizations for specific cultural groups, ventures of multinational companies with NGOs, and other efforts that involve implementation of social policies at national, as well as international levels (Campbell & Jovchelovitch, 2000). All such efforts are different forms of social capital that work together directly and indirectly for a cause, and health is not the only issue that needs social capital, but education, housing, employment, etc need the similar intervention in a societal and collective manner according to sociocultural psychologists. Sociocultural psychologists (Campbell & Jovchelovitch, 2000) believe that every effort of social capital creates a backdrop that later becomes a part of a larger canvas that influences individuals, and promotes them to participate and engage in the development of community and society by addressing their health disparities. Analysis has indicated that sociocultural psychology has somehow been successful in ensuring application of its psychological models, as there has been significant paradigm shift from medical to cultural-intrinsic projects in the area of health promotion and prevention. This perspective of sociocultural psychology indicates the importance of participation of different cultural groups in various processes of health promotional programs, as only social participation will be creating a significant impact on the society, especially in this era of globalization. In this regard, psychologists (Campbell & Jovchelovitch, 2000) seem to divide this perspective into three categories. Firstly, it is imperative that societies should begin to recognize the importance of local community participation in decision-making processes of health promotion. It is a belief that such participation will eliminate the issues of racism, discrimination, and disparities from the area of healthcare confronted by socially excluded groups. Secondly, concerned authorities of health promotion should include individuals from the targeted groups to work with them, as psychologists believe that people will be more likely to alter their health behaviors if they will notice members of their own society in the initiatives. Thirdly, neighborhood communities play an indirect but influential role in creating an impact on the other communities in the area of health promotion, and thus, organizations should put efforts to create networks of local groups or communities that will be effective in developing a sense of healthy behaviors in the individuals of these societies. All these three approaches (Campbell & Jovchelovitch, 2000) constitute the social psychology of participation that has become a major aspect of sociocultural approach of the field of psychology. From a theoretical standpoint of psychology, participation of individuals will enhance the association of individuals with their society that is the fundamental basis of sociocultural psychology. In addition, theoretical evidence has indicated that even in the past, participation on social levels has always resulted in enhanced health conditions of societies. Conclusion Lastly, sociocultural psychologists have criticized the approach of health education in the area of health promotion. Researchers (Campbell & Jovchelovitch, 2000) have pointed out that health education has many limitations and they seem to impact and influence a very small percent of people in the society that are educated and already matured in their thinking patterns. It is their belief that alteration in the health behaviors requires not only rational acceptance but also an observation that may indicate the implementation of same practice in the society. For this reason, they refute the idea of focusing on health education, and promote the approach of promoting healthy behaviors by carrying out cultural and social researches, as well as by encouraging social capital and participation in the area of health that will be significant in promoting healthy activities in the societies. Conclusively, the paper has discussed some of the significant aspects of sociocultural psychology, and has analyzed different approaches that sociocultural psychologists consider to approach an issue in the society. In order to acquire a crucial realization of different aspects, the paper focused on the issue of health and specifically health promotion, and discussed different implications of sociocultural psychologists in this regard. Although paper identified various psychological studies and researches, however, it is anticipation that future study in this regard will be more efficient in the acquisition of updated understanding of contribution of sociocultural psychology. Finally, it is an expectation that the paper will be beneficial for students, teachers, and professionals in better understanding of the topic. References Adams, G. (2005). “The cultural grounding of personal relationship.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Volume 88, pp. 948–68. Berry, John W. (2002). Cross-cultural Psychology. Cambridge University Press. Campbell, Catherine & Jovchelovitch, Sandra. (2000). “Health, Community, and Development.” Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology. Volume 10, Issue 4, pp. 255-70. Cohen, Dov. (2007). Handbook of Cultural Psychology. Guilford Press. Gurung, R. (2010). Health psychology. Wadsworth. Helman, C. (2007). Culture, health, and illness. Hodder Arnold. Kagitcibasi, C. (1997). “Individualism and collectivism.” Handbook of Cross-cultural Psychology. Volume 3, Issue 2, pp. 1-49. Kim, Uichol & Yang, Guoshu. (2006). Indigenous and Cultural Psychology. Springer. Lee, S. W. (2008). “Does culture influence what and how we think?” Psychological Bulletin. Volume 134, pp. 311-42. Marshall, T. (2005). “Promoting success or preventing failure.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Volume 31, pp. 379-92. Rosa, Alberto. (2007). the Cambridge Handbook of Sociocultural Psychology. Cambridge University Press. Sheldon, K. M. (2001). “A cross cultural analysis of avoidance personal goals.” Psychological Science. Volume 12, pp. 505-10. Sherman, D. K. (2008). “Culture and social support.” American Psychologist. Volume 63, pp. 518-26. Taylor, S. E. (2004). “Culture and social support.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Volume 87, pp. 354–62. Uchida, Y. & Morling, B. (2008). “Is perceived emotional support beneficial?” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Volume 34, pp. 741-54. Welch, W. & Kim, H. S. (2007). “Cultural differences in the impact of social support on psychological and biological stress responses.” Psychological Science. Volume 18, pp. 831-37. Read More