Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T18:58:52.584Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ecological priming: Convergent evidence for the link between ecology and psychological processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 August 2013

Michele J. Gelfand  and
Janetta Lun
Michele J. Gelfand
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742. [email protected]://www.bsos.umd.edu/psyc/gelfand/[email protected]
Janetta Lun
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742. [email protected]://www.bsos.umd.edu/psyc/gelfand/[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This commentary describes the use of ecological priming methods to address the limitations of the correlational research discussed in the target article. We provide examples from our own work on cultural tightness–looseness to illustrate how we can bring ecological and societal conditions into the laboratory in order to study the impact of ecological threats on psychological processes experimentally.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 5 , October 2013 , pp. 489 - 490
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

Baumeister, R. F. & Heatherton, T. F. (1996) Self-regulation failure: An overview. Psychological Inquiry 7:1–15.Google Scholar
Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L. & Holcombe Ehrhart, K. (2002) Methodological issues in cross cultural organizational research. In: Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology research methods, ed. Rogelberg, S., pp. 216–41. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim, B. C., Duan, L., Almaliach, A., Ang, S., Arnadottir, J., Aycan, Z., Boehnke, K., Boski, P., Cabecinhas, R., Chan, D., Chhokar, J., D'Amato, A., Ferrer, M., Fischlmayr, I. C., Fischer, R., Fülöp, M., Georgas, J., Kashima, E. S., Kashima, Y., Kim, K., Lempereur, A., Marquez, P., Othman, R., Overlaet, B., Panagiotopoulou, P., Peltzer, K., Perez-Florizno, L. R., Ponomarenko, L., Realo, A., Schei, V., Schmitt, M., Smith, P. B., Soomro, N., Szabo, E., Taveesin, N., Toyama, M., Van de Vliert, E., Vohra, N., Ward, C., & Yamaguchi, S. (2011) Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science 332:1100–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higgins, E. T. (1996) The “self digest”: Self-knowledge serving self-regulatory functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71:1062–83.Google Scholar
Lun, J., Gelfand, M. & Mohr, R. (2012) Attitudes toward deviance in tight and loose cultures. Poster presented at the Culture Preconference at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP), San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
Mortensen, C. R., Becker, D. V., Ackerman, J. M., Neuberg, S. L. & Kenrick, D. T. (2010) Infection breeds reticence: The effects of disease salience on self-perceptions of personality and behavioral avoidance tendencies. Psychological Science 21:440–47.Google Scholar
Neuberg, S. L. & Newsom, J. T. (1993) Personal need for structure: Individual differences in the desire for simple structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65:113–31.Google Scholar
Oyserman, D. & Lee, S. W. S. (2008) Does culture influence what and how we think? Effects of priming individualism and collectivism. Psychological Bulletin 134:311–42.Google Scholar
Snyder, M. & Gangestad, S. (1986) On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51:125–39.Google Scholar
Trafimow, D., Triandis, H. C. & Goto, S. G. (1991) Some tests of the distinction between the private self and the collective self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60:649–55.Google Scholar