Does temporal thought extend asymmetrically into the past and the future? Do asymmetries depend on cultural differences in temporal focus? Some studies suggest that people in Western (arguably future-focused) cultures perceive the future as being closer, more valued, and deeper than the past (a future asymmetry), while the opposite is shown in East Asian (arguably past-focused) cultures. The proposed explanations of these findings predict a negative relationship between past and future: the more we delve into the future, the less we delve into the past. Here, we report findings that pose a significant challenge to this view. We presented several tasks previously used to measure temporal asymmetry (self-continuity, time discounting, temporal distance, and temporal depth) and two measures of temporal focus to American, Spanish, Serbian, Bosniak, Croatian, Moroccan, Turkish, and Chinese participants (total N = 1,075). There was an overall future asymmetry in all tasks except for temporal distance, but the asymmetry only varied with cultural temporal focus in time discounting. Past and future held a positive (instead of negative) relation in the mind: the more we delve into the future, the more we delve into the past. Finally, the findings suggest that temporal thought has a complex underlying structure.

There is growing interest in the adaptation of psychological questionnaires in different countries, due to the need for cross-cultural research using the same tests adapted to diverse populations. This paper presents the standardization of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991, 2007) in Spain and Chile (both Spanish-speaking countries). The Spanish sample was made up of 940 people (461 men and 479 women), and the Chilean sample of 569 people (231 men and 338 women). Results revealed that the Chilean means were higher than those of the Spanish sample at confidence level 99.9%, although the associated effect sizes were generally small to moderate (partial eta-square between 0.008 and 0.187). Sex differences in the variables evaluated were commented on, and the importance of cross-cultural research and the influence of sex on personality and psychopathology variables were discussed.

The assumption of strategy approaches like the resource based view is that, despite environmental constraints, ample room remains for organizations to differentiate on the basis of organizational culture (together with related human resource practices) to achieve sustained competitive advantage. In contrast, other perspectives assume that management practice and organizational culture mirror, or are constrained by, national culture. To the degree that such a constraint exists, within-country variance in culture should be small and between-country variance large. In statistical terms, the first question is: what is the magnitude of the effect size for country? The larger the effect, the more likely it is a constraint. Second, what portion of the country effect size is due to differences in national culture? My review finds that most of the variance in organizational cultures is not explained by country; of the variance that is explained by country, only a minority is due to national culture differences. As such, there may be more room for organizational differentiation than typically recognized. Third, under what circumstances will country and national culture effects be larger or smaller? I present a model suggesting more room for differentiation in countries having greater individual level variance in cultural values and related variables.

This study examined estimates of their own, and their parents' general and multiple intelligences. Three hundred and twenty three students from East Timor, and one hundred eighty three students from Portugal estimated their own, and their parents' IQ scores on each of Gardner's ten multiple intelligences. Men believed they were more intelligent than were women on mathematical (logical), spatial, and naturalistic intelligence. There were consistent and clear culture differences. Portuguese gave higher self, and family ratings than Timorese, as expected. Participants of both cultures rated overall intelligence of their father higher than that of their mother. Implications of these results for education and self-presentations are considered.

This paper examines the relationship between attitudes of filial responsibility and five different types of care-giving behaviours to parents among three cultural groups. It does so within an assessment of the relative importance of cultural versus structural factors for care-giving behaviours. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 100 Caucasian-Canadians, 90 Chinese-Canadians and 125 Hong Kong-Chinese. Multiple regression analyses assessed the association of cultural and structural factors with behaviours among the total sample and each of the three cultural groups. Limited support was found for an association between care-giving attitudes and care-giving behaviours. Attitudes are related to emotional support only among the two Chinese groups as well as to financial support among Chinese-Canadian respondents and to companionship among Hong Kong-Chinese respondents. Attitudes are not the strongest predictors and are unrelated to assistance with basic and instrumental activities of daily living. However, cultural group per se is a strong predictor of care-giving behaviours as are: parental ill health, living arrangements, and relationship quality. This study suggests gerontological assumptions about the role of societal norms and personal attitudes in parental care-giving should be questioned. It also suggests the need for further inquiry into unpacking those aspects of ‘cultural group’ that are related to behavioural differences, and the importance of examining multiple types of care-giving behaviours and of distinguishing task-oriented helping behaviour from other types of assistance.

Human ethology is defined as the biology of human behavior. The methods it employs and the questions it poses are elaborations of those generally used in the various fields of biology, but especially adapted to the study of man. Observation and experimentation in the natural and seminatural setting as well as the comparative method derived from morphology play important roles in human ethology, and the exploration of phylogenetic adaptations constitutes one of its focal interests. On the basis of observations on experientially deprived and nondeprived children, comparative primate and animal behavior studies, and cross-cultural investigations, certain universal phylogenetic adaptations (in terms of fixed action patterns, innate releasing mechanisms, releasers, innate motivating mechanisms, and innate learning dispositions) have been found to occur. However, human ethology does not restrict itself to the investigation of phylogenetic adaptations. The question as to how a behavior pattern contributes to survival can be posed with respect to cultural patterns as well. Similar selection pressures have shaped both culturally and phylogenetically evolved patterns. Through cross-cultural studies a number of universal social interaction strategies have been discovered.

Most phobias are focussed on a small number of fear-inducing stimuli (e.g., snakes, spiders). A review of the evidence supporting biological and cognitive explanations of this uneven distribution of phobias suggests that the readiness with which such stimuli become associated with aversive outcomes arises from biases in the processing of information about threatening stimuli rather than from phylogenetically based associative predispositions or “biological preparedness.” This cognitive bias, consisting of a heightened expectation of aversive outcomes following fear-relevant stimuli, generates and maintains robust learned associations between them. Some of the features of such stimuli which determine this expectancy bias are estimates of how dangerous they are, the semiotic similarity between them and their aversive outcomes, and the degree of prior fear they elicit. Ontogenetic and cultural factors influence these features of fear-relevant stimuli and are hence important in determining expectancy bias. The available evidence does not exclude the possibility that both expectancy biases and specific evolved predispositions coexist, but the former can explain a number of important findings that the latter cannot.