36 Cultural Perspectives on Personality and Social Psychology
assumption that the father is both the disciplinarian and the
mother’s lover, in this society, the mother’s brother, rather
than the father, assumed the role of disciplinarian. Based on
his analysis, Malinowski concluded that there was no evi-
dence for the occurrence of the Oedipus complex under these
societal conditions. Likewise, in another early example of
this type of approach, Margaret Mead provided evidence that
adolescence does not invariably involve the patterns of psy-
chosocial conflict that are observed in Western populations
and that were once assumed in psychological theory to be
universal (1928, 1939).
Later work in culture and personality developed models
that portrayed culture as an amalgam of parts that conformed
to the dominant pattern of individual personality possessed
by members of the culture. Such an assumption may be seen
reflected, for example, in the stance adopted by Benedict as
she portrayed culture and personality as highly integrated
entities: “A culture, like an individual, is a more or less con-
sistent pattern of thought and action” (1932, p. 42). Applying
this model to an analysis of Japan, Benedict (1946) traced
broad consistencies that characterized Japanese values, social
institutions, national policy, and interpersonal relations.
Similar types of assumptions characterized the national-
character studies that were conducted—research that fre-
quently involved studying culture at a distance by relying on
sources such as literature, art, and history (Adorno, Frenkel-
Brunswick, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950; Gorer, 1955; Gorer
& Rickman, 1962). For example, in examining why Nazism
was embraced in Germany, researchers identified an assumed
“authoritarian” personality that they maintained was charac-
teristic of the German psyche and that they saw as contribut-
ing to the emphasis on obedience to authority observed in
Germany under Nazi rule (Fromm, 1941).
Still a third thrust of work in culture and personality for-
warded a personality–integration-of-culture model (Kardiner,
1945; B. B. Whiting & Whiting, 1975). From this viewpoint,
individual personality structure was regarded as adapted to
cultural meanings and practices that in turn were regarded as
adapted to the demands of particular ecological settings. It
was assumed from this perspective that individuals come
over time to be socialized to behave in ways that fit what is re-
garded as the dominant psychological orientation of adults in
the culture. As reflected in research that made use of the
ethnographic reports compiled in the Human Relations Area
Files (HRAF; J. W. Whiting & Child, 1953), studies empiri-
cally tested assumed causal relationships between features of
the natural ecology, modes of social organization, child so-
cialization, and expressive aspects of culture, such as reli-
gious beliefs. In a groundbreaking program of research that
stands as one of the most influential contributions of this
school of thought, the Six Culture study tested these relations
in an investigation that involved conducting behavioral ob-
servations of parenting and child behavior in everyday con-
texts in a worldwide sampling of cultures (J. W. Whiting &
Child, 1975). As one example of the many findings from the
Six Culture project, it was demonstrated that cultures with
rich natural ecologies give rise to societies with complex
social structures, which, in turn, lead to the development of
egoistic personality dispositions among members of the cul-
tures and to cultural meanings and practices that emphasize
competitiveness.
In terms of criticisms, research in the tradition of culture
and personality was subject to challenge in terms of the theo-
ries of personality and of culture that it embodied (Shweder,
1979a, 1979b). Concerns were raised regarding the determin-
ism of treating culture merely as a concomitant of individual
personality, as well as regarding what was viewed as its
overly socialized conception of the person—a conception
that treated the individual as merely passively conforming to
prevailing norms. Additionally, it was argued that work in
culture and personality overestimated the thematic nature of
cultural forms, as well as failed to take into account the lim-
ited longitudinal stability and cross-situational consistency of
personality. For example, evidence suggested that what had
been interpreted as a difference in personality between
cultural populations in fact could be explained in normative
terms—as individuals responding to the behavioral expecta-
tions of different everyday cultural settings (Shweder, 1975).
Thus, the observation was later made that one of the most
important influences of culture on individual development
is that it provides contrasting socialization experiences rather
than affects individual personalities. For example, the de-
gree to which children in different cultures emphasize com-
petitive versus cooperative behavior appears closely linked to
whether children spend their days in the competitive atmos-
phere of formal school settings versus the more prosocial
atmosphere of sibling caregiving activities (B. B. Whiting &
Edwards, 1988).
In terms of enduring contributions, work on culture and
personality succeeded in highlighting the importance of un-
derstanding the mutual influence of ecological, psychologi-
cal, and cultural processes. Methodologically rich, research
in this tradition not only demonstrated the importance of in-
tegrating both ethnographic and quantitative approaches in
psychological investigation, but also called attention to the
value of observing behavior in naturalistic contexts and of
capturing the dynamics of everyday cultural activities and
practices (e.g., Ford, 1967; Honigmann, 1954; LeVine, 1973;
Spindler, 1980; Spiro, 1958, 1965, 1982; Wallace, 1961; J. W.
Whiting & Child, 1953; B. B. Whiting & Whiting, 1975).