Socio Economic Environment and Human Psychology Social Ecological and Cultural Perspectives Ayse K Uskul Full Chapter PDF

Socio-Economic Environment and
Human Psychology: Social, Ecological,

and Cultural Perspectives Ay■e K.
Üskül
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/socio-economic-environment-and-human-psychology
-social-ecological-and-cultural-perspectives-ayse-k-uskul/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Human Behavior in the Social Environment: Perspectives

on Development and the Life Course
https://ebookmass.com/product/human-behavior-in-the-social-
environment-perspectives-on-development-and-the-life-course/
Sustainable Businesses in Developing Economies: Socio-

Economic and Governance Perspectives Rajagopal
https://ebookmass.com/product/sustainable-businesses-in-
developing-economies-socio-economic-and-governance-perspectives-
rajagopal/
Urban Form and Accessibility: Social, Economic, and

Environment Impacts Corinne Mulley
https://ebookmass.com/product/urban-form-and-accessibility-
social-economic-and-environment-impacts-corinne-mulley/
Bioeconomy And Global Inequalities: Socio-Ecological

Perspectives On Biomass Sourcing And Production 1st
Edition Edition Maria Backhouse
https://ebookmass.com/product/bioeconomy-and-global-inequalities-
socio-ecological-perspectives-on-biomass-sourcing-and-
production-1st-edition-edition-maria-backhouse/
Economics and Sustainability: Social-Ecological
Perspectives 1st ed. Edition Karl Bruckmeier
https://ebookmass.com/product/economics-and-sustainability-
social-ecological-perspectives-1st-ed-edition-karl-bruckmeier/
The Political Economy of Human Behaviour and Economic

Development: Psychology and Economic Development
Sangaralingam Ramesh
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-political-economy-of-human-
behaviour-and-economic-development-psychology-and-economic-
development-sangaralingam-ramesh/
Human Behavior in the Social Environment: Perspectives

on Development and the Life Course 5th Edition – Ebook
PDF Version
https://ebookmass.com/product/human-behavior-in-the-social-
environment-perspectives-on-development-and-the-life-course-5th-
edition-ebook-pdf-version/
Social Psychology and Human Nature, Brief 4th Edition

Baumeister
https://ebookmass.com/product/social-psychology-and-human-nature-
brief-4th-edition-baumeister/
Social Psychology and Human Nature, Brief 4th Edition,

(Ebook PDF)
https://ebookmass.com/product/social-psychology-and-human-nature-
brief-4th-edition-ebook-pdf/
Socio-Economic Environment and Human Psychology

Socio-Economic Environment
and Human Psychology
Social, Ecological, and
Cultural Perspectives
Edited by
AY Ş E K. ÜSKÜL
and
Shigehiro OISHI
1
1
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.
© Oxford University Press 2018
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Üskül, Ayşe K., editor. | Oishi, Shigehiro, editor.
Title: Socio-economic environment and human psychology : social, ecological, and
cultural perspectives / edited by Ayşe K. Üskül, Shigehiro Oishi.
Description: New York : Oxford University Press, 2018. |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2017046499 | ISBN 9780190492908 (hardback : alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Economics—Sociological aspects. | Economics—Psychological
aspects. | BISAC: PSYCHOLOGY / Social Psychology. | BUSINESS & ECONOMICS /
Economics / Microeconomics. | SOCIAL SCIENCE / Anthropology / Cultural.
Classification: LCC HM548 .S6176 2018 | DDC 306.3—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017046499
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed by Sheridan Books, Inc., United States of America
To my family members, including my father, my mother, my sister,
my husband and our 7-year old daughter Mira Ayda whose level of
productivity in producing books I don’t even aspire to reach. You all have
been the greatest inspiration to me.
Ayşe K. Üskül
To my undergraduate advisor, the late Professor Tamotsu Fujinaga,

whose generosity and wisdom I will never forget.
Shigehiro Oishi
CONTENTS
Contributor List ix
Introduction xi
Ayşe K. Üskül and Shigehiro Oishi
SECTION 1 | Ecology and Economic Activity

CHAPTER 1 Ecocultural Perspective on Human Behavior 3
John W. Berry
CHAPTER 2 The Role of Economic Culture in Social
Interdependence: Consequences for Social Exclusion
Experiences 33
Ayşe K. Üskül and Harriet Over
CHAPTER 3 How Rice Farming Shaped Culture in Southern
China 53
Thomas Talhelm and Shigehiro Oishi
CHAPTER 4 Rationally Irrational? The Ecologies and Economics
of Honor 77
Dov Cohen, Ivan Hernandez, Karl Gruschow,
Andrzej Nowak, Michele J. Gelfand,
and Wojciech Borkowski
SECTION 2 | Socio-Economic Status and Inequality

CHAPTER 5 Decision-Making Up Against the Wall: A Framework
for Understanding the Behavioral Dimension of Low
Socio-Economic Status 105
Jennifer Sheehy-Skeffington
CHAPTER 6 Socio-Economic Inequality in Health: Individual-and
Area-Level Measures of Socio-Economic Position 129
Nicos Middleton, Panayiota Ellina, George Zannoupas,
Demetris Lamnisos, and Christiana Kouta
CHAPTER 7 Socio-Economic Cultures: How Education Shapes
the Self 171
Rebecca Carey and Lucy Zhang Bencharit
CHAPTER 8 Context Shapes Human Development: Studies
from Turkey 199
Çiğdem Kağitçibaşi and Zeynep Cemalcilar
SECTION 3 | Economic Conditions

CHAPTER 9 Economics of Subjective Well-Being: Evaluating
the Evidence for the Easterlin Paradox 225
Anke C. Plagnol and Lucia Macchia
CHAPTER 10 Economic Shifts and Cultural Changes in Individualism:
A Cross-Temporal Perspective 247
Yuji Ogihara
CHAPTER 11 Dynamics of Culture Change and Cultural Stability
among the Shuar of Ecuador 271
H. Clark Barrett
SECTION 4 | Ecological and Economic Threat

CHAPTER 12 Economic Conditions Cue Evolutionary Challenges:
When a Recession is More Than Just a Recession 299
Jeff Gassen and Sarah E. Hill
CHAPTER 13 Disasters, Insurance, and Preferences 327
Yasuyuki Sawada
Author Biographies 353

Index 363
viii | Contents
CONTRIBUTOR LIST
H. Clark Barrett Dov Cohen

Department of Anthropology Department of Psychology
University of California, Los University of Illinois at
Angeles Urbana-Champaign
Los Angeles, CA, USA Champaign, IL, USA
John W. Berry Panayiota Ellina
Department of Psychology Department of Nursing
Queen’s University Cyprus University of Technology
Kingston, Ontario, Canada Limassol, Cyprus
Wojciech Borkowski Jeff Gassen
School of Social Sciences and Department of Psychology
Humanities Texas Christian University
University of Warsaw Fort Worth, TX, USA
Warsaw, Poland
Michele J. Gelfand
Rebecca Carey Department of Psychology
Department of Psychology University of Maryland
Stanford University College Park, MD, USA
Stanford, CA, USA
Karl Gruschow
Zeynep Cemalcılar Department of Psychology
Department of Psychology University of Illinois at
Koç University Urbana-Champaign
Istanbul, Turkey Champaign, IL, USA
Ivan Hernandez Shigehiro Oishi
Department of Psychology Department of Psychology
DePaul University University of Virginia
Chicago, IL, USA Charlottesville, VA, USA
Sarah E. Hill Harriet Over
Texas Christian University University of York
Fort Worth, TX, USA York, England, UK
Çiğdem Kağitçibaşi Anke C. Plagnol
Koç University City, University of London
Istanbul, Turkey London, England, UK
Christiana Kouta Yasuyuki Sawada
Department of Nursing Faculty of Economics
Cyprus University of Technology University of Tokyo
Limassol, Cyprus Tokyo, Japan
Demetris Lamnisos Jennifer Sheehy-Skeffington
Department of Health Science Department of Psychology
European University Cyprus London School of Economics
Nicosia, Cyprus London, England, UK
Lucia Macchia Thomas Talhelm
Department of Psychology Booth School of Business
City, University of London University of Chicago
London, England, UK Chicago, IL, USA
Nicos Middleton Ayşe K. Üskül
Department of Nursing School of Psychology
Cyprus University of Technology University of Kent
Limassol, Cyprus Kent, England, USA
Andrzej Nowak George Zannoupas
Department of Psychology Department of Nursing
University of Warsaw Cyprus University of Technology
Warsaw, Poland Limassol, Cyprus
Yuji Ogihara Lucy Zhang Bencharit
Department of Cognitive Department of Psychology
Psychology Stanford University
Kyoto University Stanford, CA, USA
Kyoto, Japan
x | Contributor List
INTRODUCTION
Ayşe K. Üskül and Shigehiro Oishi
S ocioecological psychology is a relatively new subfield of psychology

that investigates humans’ cognitive, emotional, and behavioral adapta-
tion to physical, interpersonal, economic, and political environments. By
adopting an objectivist perspective to psychological science and focus-
ing on how objective social and physical environments affect one’s think-
ing, feeling, and behaviors, as well as how people’s thinking, feeling, and
behaviors give rise to social and built environments, it differs from many
other subfields of psychology that typically focus on how an individual’s
perception and construal of the environment affect one’s thinking, feeling,
and behavior (e.g., Dweck, 2006; Wilson, 2011). This way, it moves away
from the study of the subjective, intrapsychic phenomenology to elucidate
how individuals and different types of ecologies define each other (for
reviews, see Oishi, 2010, 2014; Oishi & Graham, 2010). By focusing on
the ecology-psychology interface, socioecological psychology acknowl-
edges the importance of the commonly neglected fact that people most
often think, feel emotions, and act in reaction to, and in the presence of,
other people and in certain physical, climatic, political, economic, demo-
graphic, and cultural conditions.
In this book, we focus on one of these environments, namely the socio-
economic environment, which impacts every aspect of individuals’ entire
life cycle. By doing so we highlight the importance of situating the indi-
vidual directly in the everyday realities afforded by economic conditions
and settings that provide the material basis of psychological outcomes and
contribute to bridging the psychological with the external circumstances.
This approach is important as it highlights the important role that psychol-
ogy can play in understanding the human experience as embedded in dif-
ferent (economic) ecologies and puts psychology in closer communication
with other social sciences, such as sociology and economics, that have a
tradition of attending to objective social structural factors.
In this edited volume, we underline the value of attending to socioec-
ological approaches in understanding the relationship between the socio-
economic environment and human psychology by including state-of-the
art research that focuses on the role played by (a) type of ecology and
associated economic activity/structure (e.g., farming, herding), (b) socio-
economic status and inequality (e.g., poverty, educational attainment),
(c) economic conditions (e.g., wealth, urbanization), and (d) ecological
and economic threat (e.g., disasters, resource scarcity) in the shaping of
different psychological processes including subjective well-being, con-
struction of the self, endorsement of honor, cognitive styles, responses to
social exclusion, food intake, decision-making, health behaviors, and aca-
demic outcomes, among others. We grouped contributions under sections
that tap into these topics. However, as it will be apparent, there are cross-
cutting themes that the readers will come across in different sections.
Our decision to prepare an edited volume to focus on the role of differ-
ent aspects of the socio-economic environment in human psychological
processes was motivated by the following theoretical and empirical develop-
ments. First, in our view, the amount of accumulated research designed to
examine the impact of the socio-economic environment on different psycho-
logical processes justifies an edited volume. Research in this area has already
produced large evidence on a rich set of connections between economic life
and human psychology, linking, for example, on the one hand economic con-
ditions such as wealth, socio-economic status and inequality, and economic
change with subjective well-being, autonomy-relatedness, and identity, and,
on the other hand, economic activities or structures, such as (wheat vs. rice)
farming and herding or market economy versus conditions of stable hierar-
chy, with perceptual and social interdependence, prosociality, coordination,
and motivation. The absence of a similar volume in the literature that brings
to the reader a collection of different disciplinary approaches to this topic was
one of our main motivations to prepare an edited volume that would show-
case the rich and diverse set of perspectives researchers take to understand the
link between the economic environment and psychological processes.
Second, researchers in social science disciplines other than psychol-
ogy that examine the impact of objective and social structural conditions
xii | Introduction
on human reality (e.g., sociology, economics) have limited awareness of
the contributions that psychology has made to the study of the association
between economic life and human psychological functioning (and vice
versa). This book showcases cutting-edge research from psychology on
this topic and helps introduce it to readers in other social science disci-
plines. Although showcasing psychological research in this area was one
of our motivations, our ultimate aim was to bring together perspectives
from different social science disciplines. Thus the coverage of this book is
not limited to psychology but also includes contributions from researchers
in economics, anthropology, epidemiology, and evolutionary science who
take a socioecological approach to investigating the link between socio-
economic environment and psychological processes. As will be clear,
most chapters also draw links between different disciplines such as social
psychology, evolutionary science, and economics, reflecting the interdis-
ciplinary nature of the questions asked in this area of inquiry. Reflecting
the different (inter)disciplinary approaches presented across the contribu-
tions, this volume also showcases the different methods researchers uti-
lize including archival, experimental (lab-based and field), correlational,
observational, and agent-based modeling. We hope that the multidiscipli-
nary (and multimethod) nature of this volume will provide a gateway to
increasing interdisciplinary communication on the topic in the future and
encourage learning from each discipline’s methodological and theoretical
strengths to help advance the knowledge in a concerted fashion.
Third, research that takes a socioecological approach is becoming
increasingly diverse in terms of the location and type of the groups stud-
ied in different disciplines. We aimed to bring together contributions that
highlights this diversity. Accordingly, the research covered in this volume
originates from different parts of the world covering different geographical
regions (e.g., Turkey, China, Japan, the United States, Ecuador, the United
Kingdom, Cyprus) and kinds of human groups including wheat, rice, tea
farmers and herders, rural tribes and metropolitan settlers, working-class
versus middle-class individuals, low socio-economic groups, and individ-
uals who face recession or disasters.
Furthermore, most chapters adopt a comparative socioecological
approach that presents evidence for similarities between and variation
across the studied economic conditions and activities. By looking beyond
single groups and adopting a comparative lens, chapters provide an oppor-
tunity to refine, anchor, reinforce, or modify existing arguments and
assumptions about human psychology and contribute to the diversity of
knowledge in psychological sciences, helping our discipline move away
Introduction | xiii
from being a study of the WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized,
Rich, and Democratic) societies (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010).
Fourth, there are now several groups of researchers in different parts
of the world based in different social science departments investigating
related research questions that tap into the relationship between socio-
economic environment and human psychology. For the most part, these
groups are not connected and are rarely aware of the commonalities and
differences in the approaches they take and the conclusions they draw
from their research discoveries. We hoped to prepare a volume that would
be instrumental in creating a coherent body of knowledge and stimulate
collaborative efforts to investigate novel questions at the interface of eco-
nomic conditions and activities and human psychological processes.
Finally, as seen by the Lehman shock, the Eurozone crisis, the yet
unknown but feared economic effects of Brexit and other recent booms
and busts, economic conditions are constantly changing in many societies.
In the middle of economic uncertainties and fast changes, it is timely to
focus on the impact of various economic conditions on human psychology
that should be of interest to scholars in and outside of psychology and eco-
nomics, as well as policy makers and the general public.
Overview of the Volume
We start this edited volume with contributions from leading researchers

in social and (cross)cultural psychology who have significantly advanced
our understanding of the association between different forms of economic
activities individuals pursue for living and different aspects of human
mind and behavior. The first section of the volume, titled “Ecology and
Economic Activity” features four chapters that highlight the important
role played by ecology, which shapes the type of economic activity in
which members of a community engage and the subsequent dominant eco-
nomic structures in how individuals perceive and act upon their physical
and social world. This section starts with a review chapter by John Berry,
one of the leading figures who introduced the ecocultural approach to
the study of human behavior in the 1960s. In this approach, he empha-
sizes the role of both ecological and cultural contexts in understanding
the development and display of human behavior and highlights the con-
cepts of interaction (reciprocal relationships among elements in the sys-
tem) and adaptation (change that takes place that may/may not increase
mutual compatibility) in making sense of human behavior in context. In
xiv | Introduction
this chapter, Berry reviews research that focuses on the dynamic inter-
play between ecology and human behavior emphasizing consequences
for perception, cognition, and social relations. His review of studies (old
and new) sheds light into the evolution of ideas that have been examined
using the ecocultural approach and highlights the interdisciplinary nature
of thinking that cuts across different subfields of anthropology, cognitive
science, and psychology.
In the following chapter, Ayşe K. Üskül, a social/cultural psychologist,
and Harriet Over, a developmental psychologist, focus on daily require-
ments induced by pursuing farming or herding for living and the associ-
ated consequences for social relationships. Specifically, they discuss how
different economies can give rise to different habits and social practices
and how these habits and social practices then translate into how indi-
viduals relate to others and define their self-concepts. They review stud-
ies conducted with members of tea farming and herding communities in
the eastern Black Sea region of Turkey designed to examine the role of
social interdependencies individuals build with others in how they respond
to social exclusion. This chapter features research conducted with both
adults and children with a goal to identify how deep-rooted the differ-
ences between these economic communities might be. In addition to high-
lighting the role of the economic activity and associated level of social
interdependencies in social relationships, this chapter also contributes to a
more refined understanding of social exclusion experiences by focusing on
the source of social exclusion (by strangers versus close others) and how
children respond to social exclusion incidents that they witness and how
they morally evaluate those involved in exclusion.
In the next chapter, social and cultural psychologists Thomas Talhelm
and Shigehiro Oishi focus on even a finer distinction between different
types of economic activities and compare wheat farming with rice farm-
ing in terms of the likely consequences for coordination and cooperation
among individuals that come from communities that earn their livelihood
from pursuing these economic activities. Their observations reported in
this chapter originate mainly from studies conducted in China based on
which they put forward a theory that links southern China’s history of
rice farming to its modern-day culture. They first give a detailed account
of how rice farming differs from other forms of farming in terms of labor
requirements and need for coordination and how the distinct characteris-
tics of rice farming are expected to shape social relationships and thought
styles among individuals from rice farming areas differently compared
with those from what farming areas. They then present research evidence
Introduction | xv
that demonstrates differences between rice versus wheat farming areas in
terms of importance of the self, friend/stranger distinction, and relational
mobility. Finally, they discuss the effects of modernization on changes in
rice-farming and the potential shifts these changes might bring about in
human psychology.
In the final chapter of the first section of this volume, Dov Cohen and
his colleagues discuss a relatively recently introduced distinction between
three motivational systems, honor cultures, face cultures, and dignity cul-
tures, and then focus on the ecological (e.g., rough, mountainous terrain)
and economic (e.g., presence of portable, stealable wealth) structures that
give rise to the emergence of honor cultures. Next, they introduce the dis-
tinct characteristics related to honor cultures including short-term irra-
tionality, which might prove to be a “rational” strategy in the long run.
They then test this rationality argument in terms of costs and benefits
using agent-based modeling. Specifically, this chapter draws upon recent
work conducted using three agent-based models that examine when an
honor stance proves advantageous and that explore the population dynam-
ics of strategies in the environment. They demonstrate that the long-term
effects of short-term irrationalities observed in honor cultures may in fact
be rational in that they help maximize desired outcomes for the individual
and social group at large.
The second section of the volume, titled “Socio-economic Status and
Inequality,” features four chapters that highlight the role of socio-economic
conditions in decision-making, health, and the self. This section starts with
a chapter by the social psychologist Jennifer Sheehy-Skeffington, who
surveys a wide range of evidence for socio-economic status (SES) dispari-
ties in health behavior, economic decisions, and educational outcomes.
She further examines an intriguing question regarding why low-SES indi-
viduals are more likely than high-SES individuals to engage in disadvan-
tageous behaviors (e.g., health-damaging behaviors, suboptimal financial
decisions). She offers a new framework for understanding this important
phenomenon based on the psychology of resource scarcity (e.g., weakened
executive function) and self-regulation (e.g., less ability to act in line with
long-term goals). In the end, Sheehy-Skeffington advocates a shift away
from the deficit model of poverty to the adaptive, life history theory of
poverty.
In the second chapter of this section, the epidemiologist Nicos
Middleton and his colleagues explore the role of socio-economic posi
tion in health. The authors focus on the relative position of an individual
household and a community in their analyses. At the individual level of
xvi | Introduction
analysis, Middleton and colleagues examine the role of education, income/
wealth, and occupational status. At the level of community, they use the
census- based measure of neighborhood deprivation (e.g., unemploy-
ment rate, overcrowding), as well as new multiple indicators that include
income, air quality, and crime rate. Besides objective indices of neighbor-
hood deprivation, some researchers use the aggregate of survey responses
on concepts such as social capital and collective efficacy. This chapter also
provides a useful guideline for indices of community-level deprivation.
The third chapter in this section by social and cultural psychologists
Rebecca Carey and Lucy Zhang Bencharit focuses on the role of socio-
economic cultures, defined primarily by level of educational attainment,
in human behavior through their impact on one’s experience of self as
either independent or interdependent. They first outline how level of
educational attainment shapes sociocultural and socio-economic reali-
ties through their impact on interactions and social networks; the norms,
rules, policies, and practices of formal institutions; and ideas about what
is good and normative. They then summarize research illustrating how
high school and college-educated contexts can breed an interdependent
self and independent self, respectively, and the consequences these con-
texts create for cognitive, emotional, and motivational processes. Finally,
they focus attention on how parental educational attainment influences
children’s educational attainment, further contributing to disparities in
our societies and put forward suggestions that are grounded in research
for how to overcome these disparities. This chapter contributes to our
understanding of how education can have psychological outcomes, going
beyond the traditional focus of social sciences on the importance of edu-
cation for economic outcomes.
The fourth and final chapter in this section by Çiğdem Kağitçibaşi
and Zeynep Cemalcılar, two social developmental psychologists, first
discusses the importance of socio-economic context for human develop-
ment including topics such as parenting and schooling. The authors then
introduce Kağitçibaşi’s theory of family change that takes into account the
dynamic interplay between different aspects of social and economic context
(e.g., urban-rural habitat, SES, level of affluence) and how this can lead to
the emergence of different types of family models. This approach empha-
sizes that families and the parenting styles they adopt adapt to the require-
ments of socio-economic contexts and transform with contextual changes,
especially with increasing levels of urbanization and socio-economic devel-
opment. To highlight the role of socio-economic status in human devel-
opment, the authors present findings from research conducted in Turkey,
Introduction | xvii
a cultural context with high levels of social change in recent times, that
demonstrates the detrimental effects of low SES on various social (e.g.,
prosocial behaviors), developmental (e.g., children’s vocabulary), and aca-
demic (e.g., school dropout) outcomes. They also present findings from an
intervention study aiming to counteract some of the negative consequences
of low SES on child development. Their approach not only emphasizes
the importance of socio-economic context on human development but
also takes into account the changing nature of socio-economic factors. It
also situates family as a socializing unit at the core to understand the link
between changing environmental conditions and the self.
The third section of the volume, titled “Economic Conditions,” brings
together three contributions that focus on the role of changes in economic
conditions in subjective well-being, individualism-collectivism, and cul-
ture at large. The economists Anke C. Plagnol and Lucia Macchia tackle
a paradoxical finding initially observed by Richard Easterlin, called the
Easterlin paradox: Even though wealthy individuals are happier than
poor individuals, economic growth has not increased citizens’ happiness
in many countries, including the United States. Recently, however, some
researchers have challenged Easterlin’s original observations and shown
that economic growth has increased citizens’ happiness in some countries.
Plagnol and Macchia review the latest empirical evidence and argue that
the Easterlin paradox is still present. Furthermore, the authors explore the
factors that contribute to the Easterlin paradox such as social comparison,
hedonic adaptation, and consumption norms.
The second chapter in this section by the social and cultural psychol-
ogist Yuji Ogihara takes a temporal perspective to understand how eco-
nomic shifts are associated with changes in individualism in the United
States, Japan, and China. The author builds on previous research demon-
strating that wealth and individualism are positively associated both at the
individual and the national level and asks whether this relationship is also
present at the temporal level. He first introduces a theoretical account for
why economic affluence and level of individualism may be associated. He
then presents empirical evidence on economic development in the United
States, Japan, and China and temporal changes in individualism focus-
ing on historical shifts in family structure (divorce rate, household size),
baby naming practices, and individualistic nature of words in books. He
concludes that, over time, as a society becomes more affluent, it becomes
more individualistic. He discusses potential underlying mechanisms for
this association and makes valuable suggestions for future research in this
growing field of inquiry.
xviii | Introduction
The final chapter in this section by anthropologist H. Clark Barrett
examines culture change and culture stability among the Shuar, an indig-
enous Amazonian society in southeastern Ecuador, a community that is
undergoing rapid changes in technology and infrastructure leading to
shifts in the economic (e.g., resource sharing, acquisition, and distribu-
tion) and social (e.g., marriage and family structures) life. Using a cultural
evolutionary perspective, he asks which aspects of the Shuar economic
and social life are expected to change and which aspects are expected to
remain stable. He also discusses possible processes that shape cultural
change and stasis among the Shuar. Through this specific example, Barrett
engages with broader questions concerning the dynamics of human cul-
tural history, focusing on the bidirectional feedback between environmen-
tal structures and individual behavior.
The fourth and final section of the volume, titled “Ecological and
Economic Threat,” brings together two contributions that focus on differ-
ent kinds of threats: recessions and disasters. Economists, sociologists,
and other social scientists have documented the effects of economic crises
or threats on various human behaviors, ranging from consumer spending
to criminal activities to voting. The links are fairly straightforward—such
as the finding that people do not spend as much money on nonessential
items during a recession as they do during an economic boom—and do
not require much psychological analysis. However, recent research emerg-
ing from psychology and economics research showed more distal, nonin-
tuitive links between economic conditions and human behaviors. The last
two chapters provide us an introduction into psychological responses to
ecological and economic threats and how it might be possible to find pro-
tection against the damaging consequences of such threats.
The chapter by Jeff Gassen, an experimental psychologist, and Sarah
Hill, a behavioral ecologist and evolutionary psychologist, reviews
research that has approached psychological responses to one particular
type of economic threat, namely resource scarcity, from an evolution-
ary perspective. First, they focus on the effects of economic conditions
encountered in childhood on critical developmental outcomes (e.g., thrifty
phenotype, eating in the absence of hunger). Next, they review studies that
examine how market forces can shape interpersonal relationships (e.g.,
degree of trust toward and inclusion of others into our in-groups). Finally,
they discuss findings demonstrating the role of recessions in providing
information about the local mating market and the benefits and costs asso-
ciated with investing in mating and parenting (e.g., men’s attitudes toward
wealth distribution, use of cosmetics, parental investment). Given the
Introduction | xix
damages incurred by modern economic recessions, this chapter provides
timely insight into the powerful role played by economic disasters in shap-
ing developmental trajectories and perceptions of our social, physical, and
economic environments later in life.
The final chapter of the volume by the economist Yasuyuki Sawada
starts by highlighting the link between natural or man-made disasters
(including economic disasters as threats) and economic growth and under-
scores that disasters affect the poor and the vulnerable more negatively
than the affluent due to limited physical, financial, and social resources.
He then asks how individuals can protect themselves from damaging
consequences of disasters. As response to this question, he first reviews
several market and nonmarket insurance mechanisms that can help indi-
viduals cope with the potential damages caused by disasters, focusing on
the linkages between the market, government, and community. Next, he
summarizes findings from field experiments conducted to study changes
in individual preferences for risk and social preferences (e.g., altruism,
fairness) as a function of disasters that can potentially have long-term neg-
ative consequences for development prospects. The identification and the
study of the disasters-preferences link has important policy implications,
and accordingly this chapter stresses how this link plays a role in coping,
reconstruction, and rehabilitation of a disaster.
Conclusion
Through this volume, we aim to introduce the socioecological approach

used by an increasing number of social scientists to investigate the inter-
face between the environment and human psychology. Our goal is also to
underline the importance of the socio-economic environment as a worth-
while condition to examine when taking into account how individuals
think, feel, and behave in context. Since the socioecological psychology
is a relatively new subfield of psychology, we hope this volume serves the
important goal of contributing to the diversity of approaches taken in psy-
chology and other social sciences.
References
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset. New York: Random House.

Oishi, S. (2010). The psychology of residential mobility: Implications for the self, social
relationships, and well-being. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 5–21.
xx | Introduction
Oishi, S. (2014). Socio-ecological psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 581–609.
Oishi, S., & Graham, J. (2010). Social ecology: Lost and found in psychological science.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 356–377.
Wilson, T. D. (2011). Redirect: The surprising new science of psychological change.
New York: Little, Brown.
Introduction | xxi
SECTION 1 Ecology and Economic
Activity
CHAPTER 1 Ecocultural Perspective on
Human Behavior
John W. Berry
Introduction: The Ecocultural Approach
The ecocultural approach combines the ecological and the cultural

approaches to understanding the development and display of human
behavior. The ecological approach examines phenomena in their natu-
ral contexts and attempts to identify relationships between the phenom-
ena and these contexts. The cultural approach examines behaviors in the
cultural contexts in which they develop and are displayed. When these
examinations are carried out comparatively, the cross-cultural approach
results. Essential to these approaches are the concepts of interaction and
adaptation. Interaction implies reciprocal relationships among elements in
the system; adaptation implies changes will take place that may (or may
not) increase their mutual fit or compatibility. That is, not all adaptations
are positive (in the sense that all members of the group will benefit). For
example, Edgerton (1992) claimed that “it has never been demonstrated
that all human customs or institutions, or even most of them, have adapt-
ive value (p. 28)” and goes on to show that the opposite (maladaptation)
may occur by referring to possible negative reactions to challenges such as
depression, schizophrenia, or panic.
In addition to this ecological line of thinking (where ecology, culture,
and behavior are linked) there is a second line of thinking that originates
from contact with other cultures. This second source of influence links the
sociopolitical context that brings about contact with other cultures, which
in turn shapes both the original culture, the biology, and the behavior of
a group. In this case of adaptation to intercultural contact, much research
has shown that groups and individuals adopt various intercultural strate-
gies (Berry, 1980; Sam & Berry, 2016) that may or may not improve their
well-being. Research on these strategies has revealed that there are usually
four ways of dealing with these outside cultural influences: assimilation
(by giving up one’s heritage culture and becoming absorbed into the larger
society); separation (retaining one’s heritage culture and turning away
from the larger society); integration (retaining one’s heritage culture while
at the same time seeking equitable participation in the larger society); and
marginalization (turning away from both one’s heritage culture and the
larger society). In most studies, the integration strategy is found to be the
most common, probably because individuals find it to be the most adapt-
ive. This may be the case especially in political contexts where the mainte-
nance of one’s own culture and identity are permitted, or even encouraged.
Indeed, numerous reviews (e.g., Berry, 1997; Nguyen & Benet-Martinez,
2013) of the relationship between these various intercultural strategies and
adaptation have shown that the most positive adaptations (such as subjec-
tive well-being, positive mental health, and high self-esteem) are present
when individuals adopt the integration strategy. In contrast, those who are
marginal to both cultures are least well-adapted, and those adopting assim-
ilation of separation usually fall in between.
By combining the ecological and cultural approaches to how groups
and individuals adapt to change, the ecocultural approach to understand-
ing human behavior is generated. Its core claims are that cultural and bio-
logical features of human populations interact with, and are adaptive to,
both the ecological and sociopolitical contexts in which they develop and
live and that the development and display of individual human behavior
are adaptive to these ecological, cultural, biological, and sociopolitical
contexts.
This chapter outlines these contexts and features of groups and the rela-
tionships among them and then relates these features to some cognitive
and social behaviors in a number of cultures around the world.
The Ecological Perspective
The ecological approach to understanding any phenomenon is to examine

it in context. These contexts can be naturally occurring or human-made.
The core ideas of the ecological approach have a long history in the natural
sciences and have recently become part of understandings and explana-
tions in the social and behavioral sciences.
4 | Socio-Economic Environment and Human Psychology

Ecology, Culture, and Biology
The relationships between ecology and culture have been postulated for
a long time in anthropology (see Feldman, 1975). The claim that “culture
is adaptive” (see Ember & Ember, 1999, pp. 182–185) has roots that go
back to Forde’s (1934) classic analysis of relationships between physical
habitat and societal features in Africa. In that work, Forde examined 16
cultural groups, classifying them as food gatherers, cultivators, or pasto-
ral nomads. In his summary chapters on the relationship between habitat
and economy, he was very much aware of the diversity of cultural forms
within these broad subsistence categories, but he also wanted to demon-
strate that there were “complex relationships between the human habitat
and the manifold technical and social devices for its exploitation” (Forde,
1934, p. 460). In a similar vein, Kroeber (1939) demonstrated that cultural
areas and natural areas in Aboriginal North America covary. When exam-
ining the natural areas of North America on a map and then comparing
these with cultural areas, there were remarkable parallels in the overlap-
ping of geographic coverage. For example, the Arctic (above the tree line)
had only gathering and hunting subsistence economic activities and was
inhabited by only one cultural group (the Inuit). Further south, the Boreal
forest and the Plains natural areas also had hunting as a main subsistence
activity and were largely inhabited by members of the Athabascan and the
Algonkian cultures and language speakers. Both the work of Forde and
Kroeber clearly established a link between habitat and culture (including
language); they go together spatially in remarkable ways.
In biology, the links between habitat and biology go back at least to
Darwin (1859) and continue to this day. Species and their individual mem-
bers adapt through a process of natural selection that allows those traits
to that are adaptive to survive and be passed on over generations. This
theme of adaptation to habitat has been pervasive in cultural anthropol-
ogy. It asserts that cultural variations may be understood as adaptations to
differing ecological settings or contexts (Boyd & Richardson, 1983). The
line of thinking usually is known as cultural ecology (Vayda & Rappaport,
1968), ecological anthropology (Moran, 2006) or environmental anthro-
pology (Townsend, 2009). Note that, unlike earlier simplistic assumptions
about how the environment determined human behavior (e.g., the school
of “environmental determinism”; Huntington, 1945), the ecological school
of thinking has ranged from the notion of possibilism (where the environ-
ment sets some constraints on, or limits the range of, possible cultural
forms that may emerge) to an emphasis on resource utilization (where
Ecocultural Perspective on Human Behavior | 5

active and interactive relationships between human populations and their
habitats are analyzed in relation to the resources available, such as water,
soil, and temperature).
A main idea in cultural-ecology is that of “resource utilization”; this
approach has been used in three different ways to understand human
adaptation to habitat (Steward, 1955). First is the analysis of the rela-
tionship between the physical environment and the economic subsistence
system. Second is the examination of shared behavior patterns (cultural
customs) associated with a particular subsistence activity. Third is the
search for any broader effects of such customs on other aspects of the
culture. Of particular interest for psychologists is Steward’s notion of
the cognised environment. This concept refers to the “selected features
of the environment of greatest relevance to a population’s subsistence.”
With this notion, ecological thinking moved away from any links to ear-
lier deterministic views and toward the psychological idea that individu-
als actively perceive, appraise, and selectively interact with aspects of
their environment.
As Moran (1990, p. 10) argues, the ecological approach to understand-
ing culture has moved the field in the direction of functionalism: cultural
activities are viewed as complex sets of interrelated activities that are col-
lectively adapted to the ecological context in order for societies to man-
age their subsistence strategies in a particular habitat. In these ecological
approaches cultural systems have been viewed as relatively stable or even
permanent adaptations (i.e., as a state). Until recently, the study of adapta-
tion as a process (and of adaptability as a system characteristic of cultural
populations) has largely been ignored. However, there is now a strongly
shared view that cultures evolve over time in response to changing eco-
logical circumstances or as a result of contact with other cultures (e.g.,
Kottak, 1999; Sutton & Anderson, 2010).
This viewpoint has led to a more dynamic conception of ecological
adaptation as a continuous interactive process between ecological, cul-
tural, and biological variables. It is from the most recent position that we
approach the topic. It is a view that is consistent with more recent general
changes in anthropology, away from a “museum” orientation to culture
(collecting and organizing static artefacts) to one that emphasizes cultures
as constantly changing and that is concerned with creation, metamorpho-
sis, and recreation.
This dynamic conception has become linked to the concept of cultural
evolution (Boyd, Richerson, & Henrich, 2011; Richerson & Boyd, 2005).
The concept of cultural evolution no longer assumes that cultural groups

advance from lower to higher levels of civilization. Instead, evolution is
thought of as a continuous process of mutual adaptation to improve the fit
between organisms and societies and their habitat. As argued by Boyd and
Richerson (2005):
Our ability to successfully adapt to such a diverse range of habitats is often

explained in terms of our cognitive ability. Humans have relatively bigger
brains and more computing power than other animals, and this allows us
to figure out how to live in a wide range of environments. Here we argue
that humans may be smarter than other creatures, but none of us is nearly
smart enough to acquire all of the information necessary to survive in any
single habitat. . . . We owe our success to our uniquely developed ability to
learn from others. This capacity enables humans to gradually accumulate
information across generations and develop well-adapted tools, beliefs, and
practices that are too complex for any single individual to invent during
their lifetime. (p. 82)
In this view, cultural evolution is very much linked to human cognition,

and in particular to our abilities to gain the information needed to live
successfully in our particular ecosystems. Thus our cognition engages in
reciprocal and interactive relationships with ecological contexts and our
cultural adaptations.
Ecology and Human Behavior

The linking of human behavioral development to cultural and biologi-
cal adaptation, and thence back to ecology, has an equally long history
in psychology (Berry, 1995; Jahoda, 1995). Contemporary thinking about
this sequence (ecology-culture-behavior) is often traced to the work of
Kardiner and colleagues (e.g., Kardiner & Linton, 1939). They proposed
that primary institutions (such as subsistence economic and socialization
practices) lead to basic personality structures, which in turn lead to sec-
ondary institutions (such as art, governance, religion, and play). In this
sequence there are ecological beginnings, with cultural and then psycho-
logical outcomes. This sequence may form a feedback loop in which the
evolved behaviors return to influence the ecological and cultural settings
in which they emerged.
In the field of psychology, as well as in anthropology, ecological per-
spectives have become more and more prominent, with the development
of the field of environmental (or ecological) psychology. The early work of

Barker (1968) and Brunswik (1967) attempted to specify the links between
ecological context and individual human development and behavior (see
also Stokols & Altman, 1987; Werner, 1997). More recent advances (e.g.,
De Young, 2013; Gifford, 2007) have developed the field into a highly
differentiated set of topics, including the study of behavior settings, place
identity, and the impact on behavior of the built environment. These
advances in the ecological approach to studying individual behavior have
greatly influenced psychological thinking about the development and dis-
play of human behavior across cultures.
In parallel with environmental psychology, the field of cross-cultural
psychology has generally viewed cultures as differential contexts for
development and views behavior as adaptive to these different contexts.
In the 1960s there began a series of articles and books more explicitly
focused on the psychological outcomes of the process of adapting to eco-
logical, cultural, and biological contexts (Berry, 1966, 1967, 1975, 1976;
Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Whiting, 1977; Whiting & Whiting, 1975). There
soon followed elaborations of this way of thinking, especially focused on
child development (Super & Harkness, 1986, 1997; Weisner, 1984; see
also Keller, Poortinga, & Scholmerich, 2002).
To elaborate this development, Berry (1966, 1971) originally called his
framework an “ecological-cultural-behavioral” model (later shortened to
“ecocultural” in 1976); Bronfenbrenner (1979) named his approach “eco-
logical”; and the Whitings (Whiting & Whiting, 1975) referred to their
approach as “psychocultural” and also used the concept of “ecological
niche.” Super and Harkness (1986, 1997) coined the term “developmental
niche,” and Weisner (1984) continued the use of the term “ecocultural.” All
of these approaches attempt to understand the development and display of
human behavior as a function of the process of group and individual adap-
tation to ecological, cultural, biological, and sociopolitical (intercultural)
settings.
Researchers in cross- cultural psychology (see Berry, Poortinga,
Breugelmans, Chasiotis, & Sam, 2011) have emphasized the analysis of
both the natural (ecological) and the cultural (human-made) features of
the environment in order to achieve a complete understanding of human
behavior in context. We have argued that ecological and cultural influences
operate in tandem (Berry, 1976, 1994). The coining and development of
an ecocultural model has been used by Berry in a series of research mono-
graphs (Berry, 1976; Berry et al., 1986; Berry et al., 2006; Georgas &
Berry, 1995; Mishra & Berry, 2016; Mishra, Sinha, & Berry, 1996). Much
of this work is reviewed in later sections of this chapter.

Conceptual and Methodological Issues
Universalism
The ecocultural approach is rooted in the theoretical perspective known
as universalism in cross-cultural psychology (Berry, Poortinga, Segall, &
Dasen, 2002). The universalist perspective asserts that all human societ-
ies exhibit commonalities (“cultural universals”) and that all individual
human beings possess and share basic psychological processes (“psycho-
logical universals”). Cultural universals are those characteristics of societ-
ies that are developed and practiced in one way or another in all societies.
Psychological universals (Lonner, 1980) are the processes that are shared,
species-common characteristics of all human beings in every culture.
Cultural experiences shape the expression of these underlying processes
during the course of development and daily activity, resulting in infinite
variations in behavioral expression. The methodological advantage of the
universalist perspective is that it allows for comparisons of customs and
behaviors across cultures and individuals (based on the common underly-
ing process) but makes comparison worthwhile (using the surface varia-
tion as basic evidence).
There is evidence for the existence of cultural universals in our cognate
disciplines of anthropology (e.g., Murdock, 1975), sociology, (e.g., Aberle
et al., 1950), and linguistics (e.g., Chomsky, 2000). In this work, there
is substantial evidence that groups everywhere possess shared sociocul-
tural attributes. For example, all peoples have tools, social structures (e.g.,
norms, roles), social institutions (e.g., marriage, justice), and language. It
is also evident that such underlying commonalities are expressed by cul-
tural groups in vastly different ways from one time and place to another.
That is, common processes become developed and expressed differentially
across groups. This surface variation in customary practices is seen to be
the result of differing adaptations to ecological contexts (as portrayed ear-
lier in the discussion of ecological anthropology).
With respect to psychological universals, there is parallel evidence for
both underlying similarity and surface variation (see Berry et al., 1997;
Triandis et al., 1980, for overviews of this evidence). For example, all
individuals have the basic processes needed to develop, learn, and perform
speech; use technology; role-play, and observe norms. In the field of cross-
cultural psychology, there are no studies that reveal the absence of any
basic psychological process in any cultural group. This point of view was
early captured by Cole, Gay, Glick, and Sharp (1971, p. 233): “cultural

differences in cognition reside more in the situations to which particu-
lar cognitive processes are applied than in the existence of a process in
one cultural group and its absence in another.” Even with the existence
of these common processes, there are obviously vast group and individ-
ual differences in the development, and in the way of expressing, these
shared underlying processes. These variations in developed competencies
and expressed behaviors are interpreted as adaptations to the ecocultural
contexts.
A classic example of the universalist perspective is from the work of
Rivers (1989) who worked in the Torres Strait Islands and administered
a variety of psychological tasks. He found that the visual acuity of these
people “though superior to that of the normal European, is not so to any
marked degree “(p. 45). He went on to make a distinction between “acuity
proper, and the power of observation depending on the habit of attending
to and discriminating any minute indications which are given by the organ
of sense” (p. 12). He concluded that
By long continued practice in attending to minute details in surroundings

with which he becomes extremely familiar, the savage is able to see and
recognize distant objects in a way that appear almost miraculous, but it is
doubtful whether his visual powers excell those of the European who has
trained his vision to any special end. (p. 43)
Continuing this line of research, Berry (1976) studied the ability to vis-
ually discern small elements from a complex background across cultural
groups that varied in their degree of hunting versus agriculture subsistence
economic activities. All participants were able to perform this disembed-
ding task, and so he considered this process to be universal, common to
all human beings. However, the degree to which this ability is developed
and used in daily life was found to vary across cultural groups according
to the degree to which they engage in gathering and hunting subsistence
activities.
This combination of underlying similarity with surface expressive var-
iation (i.e., universalism) has been distinguished by Berry and colleagues
(Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 1992; 2002; Berry et al., 2011) from
two other theoretical views: absolutism denies that there are any impor-
tant cultural influences on behavioral development and expression, while
relativism denies the existence of common underlying psychological pro-
cesses, even suggesting that cultural experience can alter the basic pro-
cesses, resulting in changing the very nature of the process. An important

issue here is to recognize that, while variations in behavioral expression
(performances) can be directly observed, underlying commonalities
(including both competencies and processes) are theoretical constructions
and cannot be observed directly (Troadec, 2001). It may appear paradox-
ical that this search for our common humanity (our basic similarities) can
only be pursued by observing our diversity (our differences). However, this
dual task is the essence of cross-cultural psychology (Berry, 1969, 2000).
Process, Competence, and Performance

I now expand on this fundamental distinction in psychology between proc-
ess, competence, and performance. Processes are those psychological fea-
tures of individuals that are the fundamental ways in which people deal
with their day-to-day experiences, such as perception, learning, and cat-
egorization. Competencies are those features of individuals that develop
with cultural experience, such as abilities, attitudes, and values. They are
developed on the basis of the interaction between the basic underlying
processes and peoples’ encounters with their daily world. Performances
are those activities of individuals that are expressed as behavior, such
as skilled work, carrying out projects, or engaging in political action.
Performances are those expressions of competencies that are appropriate
to, or are triggered by, the need to act in a suitable way in a particular con-
text. The actual performance will depend not only on the competence but
also on a host of situational factors (Berland, 1980). For example, all indi-
viduals have the basic processes required to learn a language (or multiple
languages). Which language(s) will be learned (competencies) depends
on the cultural context in which the individual develops. And, in a situa-
tion where there is a choice of language, the performance will depend on
the language of the interlocutor and the requirement to speak a particular
language in any specific situation (such as at work or in one’s cultural
community).
With respect to competencies, we may distinguish between cognitive
and social competencies. Cognitive competencies refer to cultural knowl-
edge about how to carry out daily activities. These can range from some
rather mundane abilities (such as those that are useful in carrying out eco-
nomic roles, knowing how to use the public transport systems) to much
more complex sets of knowledge (such as the laws pertaining to taxation
or hate speech). Social competencies include such aspects as social sensi-
tivity toward others, attitudes toward one’s own group and other groups,
and cultural identities and values.

With respect to performances, as noted, not everything a person is capa-
ble of doing is actually expressed in behavior; the stage needs to be set
appropriately for any competence to be performed. Abilities, attitudes,
identities, and values may or may not be expressed depending on the social
context. Similarly, motivation to acquire a particular competence may be
enhance or suppressed.
The distinction among process, competence, and performance is impor-
tant for understanding and interpreting differences in behavior found
across cultures. For example, Nisbett (2003, p. xviii) denies that “eve-
ryone has the same basic cognitive processes . . . or that all rely on the
same tools for perception, memory, causal analysis, categorization and
inference.” To support the claim, Nisbett and his colleagues have carried
out a large number of co-ordinated experiments by using US American,
Chinese or Japanese, and Asian American college students as subjects.
Summarizing the findings of these studies Nisbett (2003) concludes: “The
research shows that there are indeed dramatic differences in the nature of
Asian and European thought processes” (p. xviii).
However, Berry et al. (2011) have criticized this claim. They questioned
whether these differences in performance were really qualitative differ-
ences or only quantitative variations in performance that were all based on
a common underlying cognitive process.
In summarizing their work, Nisbett (2003, p. 191) claimed that “Most
of the time, in fact, Easterners and Westerners were found to behave in
ways that were qualitatively distinct” (emphasis added). This conclusion,
that there are qualitative differences in basic processes, does not appear
to be supported by Nisbett’s own review of the evidence. In our view, the
summary provided by Nisbett (2003, pp. 191–193) of the differences in
cognition between East and West all refer to quantitative rather than to
qualitative differences in the cognitive performances of participants who
represent the “East” and the “West,” rather than to differences in processes.
Two issues are important here. First, we see no evidence of qualitative dif-
ferences in performance: apparently all participants could perform these
tasks but to different degrees; hence there can be no claim of a cognitive
process being present in one group but absent in the other. Second, even
if there were qualitative differences in performance, this would not permit
an easy claim of there being differences in underlying basic cognitive pro-
cesses. The inferences required to go back from performance to process is
a complex one, which these researchers seem not to examine.
We draw two conclusions from examining the work in this East–West
program of research on culture and cognition. First, we consider that the

performance differences presented by them are largely a matter of stylistic
differences, rather than reflecting qualitative differences in the cognitive
life of populations in the East and West. Second, we observe important links
between this body of work and the longstanding ecocultural approach to
understanding the basis for human cognitive diversity but now using rather
novel quasi-experimental cognitive tasks. Taken together, these comments
can be argued to support a view that individuals in cultures develop ways
of perceiving and cognizing that allow them to best adapt to the demands
that they confront in their daily lives. They develop different competen-
cies, and exhibit different performances, but do not show any evidence of
different underlying processes.
Culture: Independent or Organismic?

Because the concepts of culture and behavior have been used as distinct
concepts in this chapter, one theoretical issue that has been implied is that
culture and behavior each have an independent existence. The question
whether this is true may be formulated: Is culture to be conceptualized
as an “independent” variable (“out there”) or as an “organismic” variable
(“in here”)? Does culture have a separate existence as a quality of groups,
or does it reside in the psychological makeup of individuals? In the eco-
cultural framework, my answer (Berry, 2000) is that it is both. To justify
this view, it is helpful to recall the argument (Kroeber, 1917) that culture is
“superorganic,” “super” meaning above and beyond and “organic” refer-
ring to its individual biological and psychological bases. Two arguments
were presented by Kroeber for the independent existence of culture at its
own level. First, particular individuals come and go, but cultures remain
more or less stable over generations. This is a remarkable phenomenon;
despite a large turnover in membership with each new generation, cultures
and their institutions remain relatively unchanged. For example, the sys-
tem of governance or the language generally spoken in a society is rec-
ognizably the same over generations, even over centuries. Thus a culture
does not depend on particular individuals for its existence but has a life of
its own at the collective level of the group. The second argument is that
no single individual “possesses” all of the “culture” of the group to which
he or she belongs; the culture as a whole is carried by the collectivity and
indeed is likely to be beyond the biological or psychological capacity (to
know or to do) of any single person in the group. For example, no single
person knows all the laws, political institutions, and economic structures
that constitute even this limited sector of one’s culture.

For both these reasons, Kroeber (1917) considered that cultural phe-
nomena are collective phenomena, above the individual person, and
hence his use of the term “superorganic.” This superorganic perspective
holds that cultures exist prior to any particular individual; we can con-
sider culture as “lying in wait” to pounce on newcomers (be they infants
or immigrants) and to draw them into its fold by the processes of cul-
tural transmission (socialization and acculturation; see later discussion).
Hence we can claim that culture is, in important ways, an independent
variable (or, more accurately, a complex set of interrelated independent
variables).
However, these same two transmission processes lead to the incor-
poration of culture into the individual, and hence culture also becomes
an organismic variable. It is simultaneously outside and inside the indi-
vidual. Being both “out there” and “in here” (Berry, 2000) the interac-
tive, mutually influencing character of culture–behavior relationships
becomes manifest. This position is an important one for cross-cultural
psychology since it permits us to employ the group–individual distinc-
tion in attempting to link the information gained by working at these
two levels. All attempts to show correlation require independence of
conceptualization and operationalization. Having this group–individual
distinction permits the use of correlational methods. And, by using the
comparative method, we can design studies that seek variation in cul-
tural contexts and measure variations in behaviors. In this way, we may
possibly trace the systematic links across culture between cultural fac-
tors and individual psychological development and behavior. When var-
iations in the cultural context are observed to covary with variations in
behavior, then such correlations may allow us to claim some influence
from culture to behavior and sometimes from behavior to culture. Of
course, such correlations do not establish causation; however, system-
atic patterns of such covariation are difficult to dismiss as mere coinci-
dence. An example of such an approach is in my own work on cognitive
style (Berry, 1976; Berry et.al., 1986; Mishra & Berry, 2016; Mishra,
Sinha & Berry, 1996). In these studies, different ecological setting was
selected (varying from gathering to hunting to agriculture to industrial
economic activities) for fieldwork, in which tasks of cognitive style
were administered to samples of individuals. As a result of this inde-
pendence, it was possible to search for systematic score differences
between samples and correlations between an ecocultural index and
individual scores.

Methodology
There are two methodological issues important here. First, Campbell
(1957, 1959) claimed that differences in data obtained from just two cul-
tural groups are inherently uninterpretable. In the studies within the eco-
cultural framework mentioned earlier (and to be reviewed later), my own
work has always sampled from three or more cultures and made com-
parisons across them. In Berry (1966) there were three cultures; in Berry
(1976) there were nine cultures; in Berry et al. (1986) there were three
cultures; in Mishra, Sinha, and Berry (1996) there were five cultures; in
Georgas, Berry, van de Vijver, Kağitçibaşi, and Poortinga (2006) there
were 30 cultures; and in Mishra and Berry (2016), there were four cultures.
This is important because it is not possible to rule out alternative explana-
tions of any psychological difference found between any two cultures. The
frequent comparisons between only two samples (such as “Western” and
“Eastern”; e.g., Nisbett, 2003) illustrates this problem.
A second methodological issues is also relevant to the ecocultural
approach. When taking any two cultures to look for psychological dif-
ferences, the researcher is bound to find some differences. In this case,
only post hoc interpretations may be offered. However, when selecting
cultural groups based on some ecocultural difference in the group that is
theoretically related to (possibly predictive of) some psychological dif-
ference, there is a stronger foundation on which to base interpretations of
any differences found. In a sense, this design constitutes a “quasi-experi-
ment” that relies on extant “natural” differences in ecocultural conditions
to make predictions about differences in behavior.
To illustrate these two methodological issues together, our research
in Central Africa (with Biaka hunter-gatherers, Bagandu forest farmers,
and Gbanu savanna farmers) sampled these three groups because they all
lived in the same ecosystem but exploited it differently. And our research
in Bihar, India (Mishra et al., 1996; Mishra & Berry, 2016) with Adivasi
groups (hunter-gatherer, dry farmer, irrigation farmer, and urban samples)
drew samples within the same district from groups that had differential
economic exploitative strategies.
This kind of research design eliminated one of the confounds that was
noted by Üskül, Kitayama, and Nisbett (2008) and that they addressed
in their study of farming and fishing peoples living on the coast of the
Black Sea. More recently, Talheim et al. (2014) examined the role of rice
versus wheat agriculture in regions of China. They examined differences

in interdependence and dependence between northern wheat farmers and
southern rice farmers using a variety of tasks. In one task, they found dif-
ferences in the degree of analytic versus holistic thinking, with wheat farm-
ers showing relatively more analytic thinking and rice farmers showing
more holistic thinking. These differences remained after controlling for
some other factors (such as gender, per capita GDP). In addition to using
the two-group contrast between wheat and rice farmers, they employed a
gradient of percentage rice farming in more than 25 samples (ranging from
0% to over 80% rice farming). In this way, they were able to deal with the
problems noted earlier that plague the two-group approach.
However, they seem to be unaware that this multigroup design has
been common in cross-cultural psychology for many years, claiming that
“Cross-cultural psychologists have mostly contrasted East Asia with the
West” (Talhelm et al., 2014, p. 603). More specifically, they are seemingly
unaware that cross-cultural psychologists have worked in many societies
for many decades (especially in cognition; see the ecocultural research
mentioned earlier in Africa and India, and see Berry & Dasen, 1974;
Witkin & Berry, 1975).
The Ecocultural Framework
With these issues as background, I now turn to my own work in more detail.
For many years, I have advocated an ecocultural approach to cross-cultural
psychology, starting with field work in the Arctic, Sierra Leone and north-
ern Scotland (Berry, 1966). It has evolved through a series of research
studies devoted to understanding similarities and differences in cognition
and social behavior in relation to ecological and cultural contexts (Berry,
1966, 1967,1976, 1979; Berry et al., 1986; Mishra et al., 1996; Georgas
et al., 2006; Mishra & Berry, 2016). The ecocultural approach has also
been used as an organizing framework in a series of books that seek to
integrate the vast field of cross-cultural psychology (Berry et al., 1992;
2002; Berry et al., 2011; Segall, Dasen, Berry & Poortinga, 1990,1999).
Following is an outline of my current thinking about how people adapt
culturally (as a group) to their longstanding ecological settings and to the
contact with external cultural influences. I continue with a proposal about
how people develop psychologically and perform (as individuals) in adap-
tation to their ecocultural situation.
The ecocultural framework (see Figure 1.1) proposes to account for
human psychological diversity (both group and individual similarities and

Ecological
Context Ecological
Influences
Observable
Behaviors
Genetic
Biological Cultural Transmission
and
Adaptation Adaptation
Cultural
Inferred
Transmission
Characteristics
Socio-
Political Acculturation
Context
Background Psychological
Variables Process Variables Variables
Population Level Individual Level

Figure 1.1 An ecocultural framework linking ecology, cultural adaptation, and
individual behavior.
differences) by taking into account two fundamental sources of influence

(ecological and sociopolitical) and two features of human populations that
are adapted to them: cultural and biological characteristics. These pop-
ulation variables are transmitted to individuals by various “transmission
variables” such as enculturation, socialization, genetics, and acculturation.
Both cultural and genetic transmission have been strongly advanced by
work on culture learning (e.g., Keller, 2002). The essence of both the cul-
tural and biological domains is the fundamental similarity of all members
of the human species, combined with variation in the expression of these
shared underlying attributes. Work on the impact on cultures and individu-
als from contact with outside cultures (i.e., through the process of accultur-
ation) has also been advancing in recent years (see Chun, Balls-Organista,
& Marin, 2003; Sam & Berry, 2016) due to the dramatic increases in inter-
cultural contact and culture change.
As noted already, the ecocultural framework considers human diversity
(both cultural and psychological) to be a set of collective and individual
adaptations to context. Within this general perspective, it views cultures as
evolving adaptations to ecological and sociopolitical influences and views
individual psychological characteristics in a population as adaptive to their
cultural context, as well as to the broader ecological and sociopolitical

influences. And, as noted, it also views (group) culture and (individual)
behavior as distinct phenomena that need to be examined independently.
This ecocultural framework provides a broad structure within which to
examine similarities and differences in human psychological functioning
(both at individual and group levels) by taking into account two funda-
mental sources of influence (ecological and sociopolitical on the left) and
a set of variables that link these influences to psychological characteristics.
These include cultural and biological adaptations at the population level
(also on the left) and four transmission variables in the middle (encul-
turation, socialization, genetics, and acculturation). These transmission
variables are the routes by which the population variables are inculcated
into individuals’ behavioral repertoire (on the right). In sum, the frame-
work considers human diversity (both cultural and psychological) to be a
set of collective and individual adaptations to context. Within this general
perspective, it views cultures as evolving adaptations to ecological and
sociopolitical influences and psychological characteristics in a population
as adaptive to their cultural context as well as to the broader ecological and
sociopolitical influences.
In order to conceptualize a number of possible human adaptations to
varying habitats, an ecocultural dimension was developed and operation-
alized (Berry, 1966, 1976) over the range of subsistence economic activ-
ities from gatherers to hunters to agriculturalists to urban industrial. This
dimension was based on the well-known views of Marx and Kardiner
that the basic economic practices and structures of a group fundamentally
influence the cultural and behavioral features of a society and its individual
members. This ecological dimension distinguished between forms of sub-
sistence economic activity ranging from hunting and gathering to various
forms of agriculture to industrial practices. Linked to this economic range
were various demographic and social features of the group. Population
size increases linearly from one end (hunting) to the other (industrial), as
does a change from nomadic to sedentary settlement style. Political and
social structures also vary across this range, with little permanent or struc-
tured authority at one end and more intense and hierarchical structures at
the other end. Pressures toward social conformity also varied along with
such hierarchy. These features of a society were considered to serve as
a foundation for both cultural transmission and behavioral development.
With respect to cultural transmission, socialization practices vary
in a curvilinear way, from an emphasis on assertion in hunting urban
societies to an emphasis on compliance in agricultural societies (Barry
et al., 1959) and again to assertion in urban industrial societies. These

socialization practices serve to inculcate the cultural features of the society
into the behavioral repertoire of individuals growing up in these varying
ecological and cultural settings. With respect to the behavioral conse-
quences of the cultural and transmission feature of a society, a number
of behavioral domains have been examined across cultures. These are
reviewed in the next section.
Working at about the same time, Lomax and Berkowitz (1972) found
evidence for two independent factors of ecological and cultural variation
over the subsistence economic range, from gatherers through hunters to
agriculturalists to urban dwellers: they called these factors “differentia-
tion” and “integration.” The first refers to the number and kinds of role dis-
tinctions made in the society, while the second refers to the “groupiness”
or degree of cohesion among members of a society, to their solidarity, and
to the social coordination of their day-to-day activities. While there are
two independent dimensions, over the middle range of subsistence strat-
egies the two dimensions are positively correlated. Both increase from
hunting to agricultural societies but diverge in societies that are urban/
industrial: in the latter societies, differentiation continues to increase, but
integration drops in industrial (and postindustrial) societies.
In our current research (Mishra & Berry, 2016), we examine these two
cultural dimensions, calling them societal size and social conformity.
These are presented in Figure 1.2, as a function of subsistence strategies.
0
Hunter-Gatherer Dry Agriculture Irrigation Agriculture Wage Earner
Societal Size Social Conformity
Figure 1.2 Cultural dimensions of societal size and social conformity in relations to
subsistence strategies (from Mishra & Berry, 2016).

Societal size appears as a linear function of subsistence strategy (increas-
ing from hunter-gatherer through agricultural to urban/wage-earner popu-
lations). Social conformity presents a curvilinear relationship (relatively
low in gathering, hunting, and industrial societies but higher in rudimen-
tary and irrigation agricultural societies). From these two dimensions, we
can predict variations in cognitive and social behaviors for different sub-
sistence strategies of cultural groups.
At the second level of the ecocultural framework, the sociopolitical
context brings about contact among cultures, so that individuals must now
adapt to more than one context. When many cultural contexts are involved
(as in situations of multiple culture contacts over years), psychological
phenomena can be viewed as attempts to deal simultaneously and succes-
sively with two or more (sometimes inconsistent, sometimes conflicting)
cultural contexts.
Research on these various sociopolitical influences on culture and
behavior has come to dominate much of the field of cross-cultural and
intercultural psychology in recent years (Sam & Berry, 2016). This has
also taken place with respect to research specifically within the ecocul-
tural framework (Ward & Geeraet, 2016). In many cases there are possible
interactions between these ecological and sociopolitical input variables
(Berry, 1976). For example, many hunting-based societies have been read-
ily displaced, with loss of habitat and serious disruption of their social and
political structures. Being less structured (lower societal size and social
hierarchy), they did not have the customs and institutions to confront or
deal with the outside intrusions. In contrast, many agricultural societies
had the social and political features (such as larger populations and hierar-
chical leadership) that permitted some resistance to outside cultural influ-
ences. The impact of the experiences stemming from the sociopolitical
line of the framework has thus come to the fore. This differential impact
of contact with outside cultures was shown by Berry (1976) where the
acculturative stress levels (a form of maladaptation) of samples with lower
hierarchy was higher than among those with higher social stratification.
These differential levels of maladaptation have been found more generally
across indigenous and refugee populations, especially in comparison with
immigrant and settled populations (Berry, 2006).
Finally, it is important to note that the ecocultural approach offers a
“value neutral” framework for describing and interpreting similarities and
differences in human behavior across cultures (Berry, 1994). As adapt-
ive to context, psychological phenomena can be understood “in their own
terms” (as Malinowski insisted), and external evaluations can usually be

avoided. This is a critical point, since it allows for the conceptualization,
assessment, and interpretation of culture and behavior in nonethnocentric
ways. It explicitly rejects the idea that some cultures or behaviors are more
advanced or more developed than others (Berry, Dasen, & Witkin, 1983;
Dasen, Berry, & Witkin, 1979). Any argument about cultural or behavioral
differences being ordered hierarchically requires the adoption of some
absolute (usually external) standard. But who is so bold, or so wise, to
assert and verify such a standard?
Empirical Examples of Research with the Ecocultural

Framework
Following are some examples of research using the ecocultural frame-

work, distinguishing cognitive and social domains of behavior.
Studies of Cognitive Behaviors

Initially (Berry, 1966) the link between ecology, culture, and behavior was
elaborated into a framework in order to predict differential development
of visual disembedding and analytic and spatial abilities between hunting-
based and agriculture-based peoples. The first step was to propose that the
“ecological demands” for survival that were placed on hunting peoples
were for a high level of these perceptual-cognitive abilities, in contrast
to people employing other (particularly agricultural) subsistence strate-
gies. Second, it was proposed that “cultural aids” (such as socialization
practices, linguistic differentiation of spatial information, and the use of
arts and crafts) would promote the development of these abilities. As pre-
dicted, empirical studies of Inuit (then called Eskimo) in the Canadian
Arctic and Temne (in Sierra Leone) revealed marked differences in these
abilities. Equivalent research with Scots in Northern Scotland showed that
the Inuit were similar in these abilities to this urban sample.
Further studies were carried out, and during the course of this program
of empirical work, the ideas became further elaborated into the ecocultural
framework. In each case, a consideration of ecological and cultural features
of the group were taken as a basis for predicting differential psychological
outcomes in a variety of domains. For example (Berry, 1967, 1979), dif-
ferential degrees of reliance on hunting and of social stratification (ranging
from “loose” to “tight”; Pelto, 1968) and variations in child socialization
practices (ranging from emphases on “assertion” to “compliance”; Barry,
Child, & Bacon, 1959) were used to predict variations in the development

of these functional abilities. Higher levels of social conformity were found
among individuals living in agricultural societies than in hunting societies.
This finding is an early precursor of later research on independence and
interdependence (e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1994).
Central to much of this early work has been the concept of psychologi-
cal differentiation, particularly to the concept of cognitive style. The con-
cept of cognitive style is rooted in the cognitive processes that underlie any
cognitive activity. The most influential conceptualization of cognitive style
has been that of Witkin, Dyk, Paterson, Goodenough, and Karp (1962)
who developed the dimension of the Field-Dependent/Field-Independent
(FDI) cognitive style. Their starting point was a concern with percep-
tual and orientation abilities (spatial competencies) in air pilot trainees,
but they soon noticed that a number of other abilities (including some
social competencies) were related to each other in a way that evidenced
an underlying pattern. This pattern revealed itself in the tendency to rely
primarily on internal (as opposed to external) frames of reference when
orienting oneself in space, suggesting an underlying process. At one end
of the FDI dimension are those (the relatively Field Independent [FI])
who rely on bodily cues within themselves and are generally less oriented
toward social engagement with others; at the other end are those (the
relatively Field Dependent [FD]) who rely more on external visual cues
and are more socially oriented and competent. As for any psychological
dimension, few individuals fall at the extreme ends; most fall in the broad
middle range of the dimension. Examples of measures of FDI (the original
Embedded Figures Test, and the African version, and the Portable Rod and
Frame test) are available on the Internet (see Berry et al., 2011).
The FDI cognitive style is referred to by Witkin, Goodenough, and
Oltman (1979, p. 1138) as “extent of autonomous functioning.” The FDI
construct refers to the extent to which an individual typically relies upon
or accepts the physical or social environment as given, in contrast to work-
ing on it, for example by analyzing or restructuring it. As the name sug-
gests, those who tend to accept or rely upon the external environment are
relatively more field-dependent, while those who tend to work on it are
relatively more field-independent. The construct is a dimension, the poles
of which are defined by the two terms; individuals have a characteristic
“place” on this dimension, reflecting their usual degree of independence
from the external environment. However, individuals are not “fixed” into
their usual place.
According to Witkin et al. (1962), the origins of the FDI cognitive style
lie in early socialization experiences: those raised to be independent and

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
»Kas vaan sinua, kuinka olet kasvanut», sanoi eno katsellen pojan
hienoja kasvoja. »Eipä häneen juuri ole äidistään jäänyt muuta kuin
ehkä silmien ilmettä…»
Hän katsahti Karoliinaan. Tämä hymähti.
Aivan ihme on, kuinka häneltä on tullut isänsä näköinen», sanoi

hän hiljaa Karoliinalle.
Karoliina nyykäytti päätään.
He läksivät nousemaan »Nuorten mäelle» päin. Heidän edellään

kulki joukko ihmisiä, ja toisia tuli perässä, muita niin kaukana,
etteivät voineet heidän keskusteluaan kuulla.
»No vieläkö hän ruotsalaistuttaa poikaa?» kysyi veli.
»Nyt vasta onkin oikein hulluksi tullut… Hänen hupsutuksiaan on

mahdoton kertoa…»
Veli ei nähtävästi ollut kuullut Saviojan Vanten ja Aapelin

yhteenotosta mitään. Karoliina vältti siitä puhua, samoin kuin hän
Oskariin nähden piti kaikki omina tietoinaan.
»Kaikkihan nyt kuitenkin menisi hyvin, jos se ei alkaisi epäillä… jos

edelleenkin uskoisi poikaa omakseen… Välistä olen pelännyt sinun
puolestasi… kun tiedän, minkälainen villi miehesi on…»
»Poikaan hän ensiksi kohdistaisi vihansa… ja minuun sitten…»
Mutta Karoliinan äänessä oli sitä sanoessa kova kaiku ja silmissä

tuima ilme.
— Ei hän ainakaan näytä itse pelkäävän, ajatteli veli.

Kun olivat aivan lähellä taloa, sanoi Karoliina:
»Tässä omia asioitani ajattelen enkä muista sinua onnitella…

Juhani on nyt ylioppilas…»
»No, niin pitkällä hän nyt on», sanoi Väylänpää, ja hänen vakaville
kasvoilleen ilmestyi iloa. »Ehkäpä hänestä mies tulee…»
»Joko hän on tänne saapunut? Hauskaa on nähdä häntä…»
»Täällä on puuhannut monta päivää… Saapa kuulla, mistä hän

puhuu, mutta luulen, että ruotsalaiset saavat osansa… Tänne
näyttää tulleen paljon ruotsinpuolelaisia…»
»Monta veneenlastia», tiesi Karoliina.
*****
Ohjelmassa oli ensiksi puhe. Väkeä kerääntyi kerääntymistään.

Nyt nähtiin joukossa vanhempaakin väkeä, joka ennen oli
ylenkatseellisesti kohdellut nuorten hommia. Karoliina tapasi
veljensä pojan pikimmältään siksi, että ehti tervehtiä ja jonkun sanan
vaihtaa. Nuoren ylioppilaan kasvot loistivat, ja hänen tuuhea
tukkansa kiemurteli somina kiharoina valkoisen lakin alta. Hänen
kasvonsa ilmaisivat sisäistä voimaa, ja kauniissa, ruskeissa silmissä
loisti into ja voiton varmuus. Hän oli koko puuhan keskipisteenä. Hän
muisti kaikkia, järjesti kaikkea, ja hänellä oli ystävällinen sana
jokaiselle. Erityisesti hän näytti riemuitsevan siitä, että Ruotsin
puolen nuorisoa oli niin paljon kokoontunut…
»Terve tuloa Suomeen!» sanoi hän niillekin nuorukaisille, joita ei

tuntenut tai joiden nimeä ei muistanut.
Puheen piti heti alkaa. Väylänpää itse alkoi jo hätäillä poikansa
puolesta, että kuinka käykään, kun Juhani hommailee vain muuta
eikä ensinkään näy muistavan, että hänen pian on astuttava
puhujalavalle. Muutenkin hän pelkäsi pojan hämmentyvän niin
suuren väkijoukon edessä.
Mutta isän pelko oli turha. Juhani astui varmana puhujalavalle,

pyyhkäisi kerran vasemman käden sormet läpi tuuhean tukkansa,
toivotti kaikki läsnäolevat tervetulleiksi ja aloitti puheensa.
Karoliina oli Oskarin kanssa mennyt hyvin likelle puhujalavaa, niin

ettei häneltä jäisi sanaakaan kuulematta…
Juhani puhui alussa kuin leikillä. Mutta kuta pitemmältä puhetta

jatkui, sitä mukaa vakaantui äänikin ja hän innostui omista
sanoistaan.
»Laulu on kaikkina aikoina ollut Suomen kansan pyhempi kieli,

jolla se tuo ilmi surunsa ja ilonsa, toivonsa ja kaipauksensa» — jatkoi
hän, ja hänen kirkas äänensä kierteli suuren salin joka soppeen. —
»Suomen kansan runous kumpuaa suoraan kahdesta kirkkaasta
lähteestä, yksinäisyydestä ja surusta. Soitto on suruista tehty,
murehista muovaeltu. Meidän kansamme on laulua ja soittoa
rakastava kansa, ja samalla se on rauhaa rakastava kansa,
itsenäinen, omien, tyynten mietteillensä kansa. Ja vaikka voitettuna
ja valloitettuna, on se vieraan vallan alaisena aina pitänyt oman
ajatus- ja elintapansa. Sillä isänmaa on sille aina ollut rakkain —
rakkain, jonka hyväksi on kaikki alttiiksi pantava.
Sellainen on ollut meidän kansamme. Onko se vieläkin sama

kansa?
Pohjolan nuoriso! Oletteko ajatelleet oman kansanne kohtaloita?
Oletteko milloinkaan muistaneet menneitä sukupolvia, jotka
kärsimisillään tämän karun, mutta ihanan maan meille
jälkeentuleville omaksi isänmaaksi pelastivat? Oletteko ajatelleet,
että se Mooses, joka johdatti esi-isämme tänne ja tämän
tuhatkukkulaisen, tuhatjärvisen maan isänmaaksemme valitsi, että
hän luotti kansansa sitkeyteen? Hän uskoi, tuo historiantakainen
Mooseksemme, että hänen kansansa oli luotu tuota karua maata
hedelmälliseksi tekemään ja tämän maan märät korvet ihaniksi
viljavainioiksi viljelemään…
Jos sitä olette ajatelleet, niin tiedätte, että sitkeä on ollut se kansa,
joka vieraan vallan jaloissa ja tallattavana on yhtenä kokonaisena
kansana pysynyt. Ja tiedätte myös, että raskas on se kärsimysten
sarja, joiden läpi esi-isämme maatansa puolustivat. Tätä maata, joka
heille oli rakas, tätä maata, jonka humisevissa hongikoissa ja
sinervien järvien rannoilla he palavat ajatuksensa lauleloiksi ja
soitannoksi sovittivat, tätä maata, joka opetti rakastamaan ja velvoitti
työhön, tätä maata, joka oli rikas köyhyydessään ja hymykasvoin
uljaista pojistaan ylpeili…»
Puhujan silmät säteilivät, ja hän loi kuulijoihinsa kysyvän katseen.

Hänen äänensä kirkas sointu kuului kauas pihalle, ja yleisö oli ihan
kuin paikalleen naulattu. Väylänpää seisoi ovenpielessä, väliin
lentäen tulipunaiseksi… Hän ei ollut koskaan ennen kuullut poikansa
puhuvan, mutta nyt hän vasta tunsi, että ei ollut pojan koulunkäynti
hukkaan mennyt.
»Rakastammeko me tätä maatamme, jossa lahovat menneiden

sankari-isiemme luut? Täytämmekö me velvollisuutemme suurta,
rakasta yhteistä kotiamme kohtaan?
Kaikin tiedämme me, kuinka ahdistettuna maamme tällä hetkellä
on. Tiedämme, että Idän kotka on levittänyt siipensä poloisen
maamme yli, — tiedämme, että lännessä, rajallamme, harjoitetaan
suomenkielen sortoa…»
Puhujan katse liiteli ympäri väkijoukkoa, ikäänkuin hän olisi

tähystänyt jokaista silmiin. Ja yleisö näytti ymmärtävän mitä puhuja
tarkoitti. Mutta hänen kasvoilleen leimahti puna ja hän jatkoi katseen
tuimetessa ja äänen kovetessa:
»Niin, lännessä — tässä rajallamme. Veljemme ja sisaremme,

jotka kova kohtalo meistä erotti — he eivät saa alkuopetustakaan
omalla äidinkielellään. Vieras, kankea ja tyly on ruotsinkieli
meikäläisen lausua, ja vieras, köyhä on se meidän ilojemme ja
huoliemme ilmaisijaksi. Ruotsalainen sivistys on tuominnut vääräksi
sen, minkä Idän halla meille teki, ja kuitenkin se omassa nimessään
harjoittaa samaa sortoa. Se kai uskoo Ruotsinmaan onnen ja
menestyksen riippuvan siitä, että se tuon rajaseudun saa
ruotsalaistumaan…»
Puhuja vaikeni hetkeksi ja jatkoi sitten:
»Minua, meitä kaikkia, ilahduttaa suuresti, että kaikesta

lapsellisuuksiin asti menevästä harrastuksesta ja todennäköisesti
suurista ponnistuksista huolimatta ruotsalaistuminen käy sangen
vitkaan. Sitä todistaa nyt sekin, että näemme täällä joukossamme
lukuisan parven rajantakaisia veljiämme ja siskojamme…»
Yleisön joukossa kävi kohina. Karoliina oli aivan haltioissaan,

puristi poikansa kättä ja kuiskasi korvaan: »Kuuletko sinä!»
Oskarin tarkkaava katse todisti, että hän kuunteli ja jaksoi
ymmärtääkin.
»Mikä kutsuu heitä tänne joukkoomme? Mikä yhdistää siskot

siskoihin, veljet veljiin? Eivät estäneet tänne seuraamme tulemasta
ruotsalaisen piispan rukoukset eivätkä kansanopistonjohtajan
juhlapuheet. He tulivat ja olivat tervetulleita.
Sillä se on sittenkin se samainen halveksittu Suomemme kieli,

joka soi suloisimmin — ja se heidät tänne toi. Täältä läikähtää
vastaan kotoisen lieden lämmin, ja se laulu, jonka laulamme, painuu
heidän sydämiinsä kuin keväinen kosteus maahan. Sanalla sanoen:
se on kansallistunto, yhteinen suuri innostuksen ahjo, jonka
ympärille hekin tahtovat kokoontua. Se on sitä suomalaista sitkeyttä,
katajaisuutta, joka meidät nytkin yhdistää…
Olkaa tervetulleet juhlaamme ja viekää vanhemmalle väelle

terveisemme, — terveiset siitä maasta, joka on heidänkin
isänmaansa…»
Taas piti puhuja hetken lomaa. Karoliinan posket paloivat kuumina,

ja hän koetti tarkastella, minkä vaikutuksen puhe oli tehnyt
ruotsinpuolelaisiin. Kaikkien kasvot näyttivät kuin kirkastuneilta.
Väylänpää seisoi punaisena ovenpielessä.
Karoliina muisti samassa Aapelia, mutta puhuja jatkoi: »Perä-

Pohjolan kansalaiset! Meidän pitkä talvemme on tiessään. Poissa on
pimeys, ja valo on herrana Pohjolassamme. Ihana, kirkkaan
kuulakka, keväinen valo. Tuo selittämätön valo, tuo takataivaitten
ihmeellinen sädesoihtu, joka tänäkin iltana ympäristömme
kirkkaudellaan valaisee ja yömme päiväksi muuttaa, — eikö sen
loistossa mielemmekin vaikene, eikö sen loistossa nouse rakkaus
Pohjolaamme kohtaan! Kaikkien tulisi meidän olla valon lapsia, valon
ystäviä, ja kaikkien nyt riemurinnoin valon aikaa viettää.
Köyhä ja kylmä on Pohjolamme, — niin sanovat ne, jotka eivät

tiedä, mitä meillä kuitenkin on. Köyhä ei ole Pohjolamme, kun sen
nuoriso valveutuu, kun sen nuoriso käsittää, että sen tulee olla valon
lapsi, päivän poika. Eikä ole kaukainen kolkkamme kylmäkään, kun
rintojamme lämmittää isänmaanrakkaus ja eheän elämän etsintä.
Sillä jos oikein ajattelemme, ei meillä ole pimeyttä luonnossa

ensinkään. Miksi valaisevat talviöitämme valkohanget ja hopeinen
kuu? Miksi liekehtivät taivaalla leimuavat revontulet, jotka sähisten
valaisevat öiden pimeyttä ja sammuvat vasta keväisten valojen
voittaessa? Eivätkö juuri sen vuoksi, että pimeä lyhyt olisi, yö kuni
uni hauska…»
Oli jo aamupuoli yötä, kun ruotsinpuolelaiset palasivat juhlasta.
Aurinko kohosi suurten vaarain takaa, virran veteen kimallellen.
Karoliina palasi poikineen samassa veneessä, jossa oli tullutkin.
Hänestä ei koskaan ennen ollut tuntunut niin vaikealta palata

Portaankorvaan kuin nyt. Nuoret puhelivat kaikesta siitä, mitä olivat
nähneet ja kuulleet, olivat innostuneita ja aikoivat mennä toistekin.
Karoliina kuuli heidän puhuvan, mutta hänen mielensä oli raskas.

Salaisuus, jota hän niin kauan oli mielessään miettinyt, ei antanut
yhtään rauhaa. Eikä hän kuitenkaan voinut kenellekään aikeestaan
puhua. Hän pelkäsi, että velikin, ainoa, joka varmasti tiesi hänen
entisyytensä, kieltäisi häntä semmoiseen ryhtymästä, pitäisi
hulluutena… Mutta veli ei aavistanut, että Aapeli voisi minä päivänä
hyvänsä saada asian tosipuolen selville… ja se olisi pojan loppu…
Ja se sama päätös, joka jo aikaa oli sydämen pohjalle kuin kiinni

kasvanut, sama päätös nytkin varmana vielä häntä elähdytti. Omaa
elämäänsä hän ei ajatellut, ei hetkeäkään etemmäksi kuin siihen
asti, kun tiesi pojan olevan turvassa. Eikä hän liioin miettinyt
aikomansa teon seurauksia — ei osannut eikä halunnutkaan…
He lähtivät, äiti ja poika, yhdessä rantapolkua kotiin päin

kävelemään.
X
Oskari oli hilpeällä tuulella, ja merkillistä oli, äidin mielestä, että poika
niin hyvin oli puheen sisällön ymmärtänyt.
»Mitähän isä olisi sanonut?» arveli hän.
»Isälle älä virka mitään siitä, mitä Juhani puhui.»
Oskari ymmärsi. Hän oli, varsinkin viime aikoina, oppinut pitämään

äidin sanomia salassa. Hän tiesi, että jos isä tietäisi, olisi hän paha
äidille.
Karoliinan tapasi, kun he jo olivat lähellä saunaa, semmoinen halu,

että nyt hän sanoo pojalle, nyt!… nyt!…
— Ei vielä!… Ei vielä! kuiskasi samassa ääni hänen

sydämessään, ja aiottu sana nousi vain huokauksena.
— Kaikki ensin valmiiksi… sitten vasta!
Hän oli toivonut, että kun he palaavat kotia, koko muu talon väki
isännästä alkaen on nukkumassa. Pihalla ei näkynyt ketään
liikkeellä, ja luhti, jossa palvelijat kesäisin nukkuivat, oli suljetuin
ovin. Rantapadon päälle oli kulkenut irtaimia tukkeja, josta emäntä
päätti, ettei isäntä ollut niillä tunneilla padolle käynyt.
Mutta kun tulivat pihaan, näkivät he, että porstuan ovet olivat auki,
ja samassa kuulivatkin pirtistä puhelua.
Karoliina seisahtui hetkeksi pirtin oven taakse kuuntelemaan.

Aapelin äänen hän tunsi, mutta toista ääntä, joka tuntui olevan
miehen ääni, hän ei tuntenut. Aapelin äänestä hän päätti, että se oli
hyvällä tuulella, vaikka häntä muuten ihmetyttikin, että isäntä vielä oli
valveilla. Jotakin merkillistä oli nyt tapahtunut.
Oskari seisoi äitinsä vieressä, ja hänen kasvoillaan värähteli

ikäänkuin pelko.
»Älä pelkää!» sanoi Karoliina, ja he menivät sisälle.
Peräikkunan luona istui Aapeli paitahihasillaan ja häntä

vastapäätä kylässä asuva rajavartija Vaanperi. He olivat vilkkaassa
keskustelussa. Vaanperilla oli kädessään kirje, josta näytti lukeneen.
»Jopa tulitte!» sanoi Aapeli nousten seisomaan. »Kauan jo olen

odottanutkin. Nyt kuuluu kummia, Karoliina!»
Hän siristeli silmiään ja oli aivan erinomaisen iloinen.
Karoliina ei osannut arvata, mitä ihmeellistä oli tapahtunut, eikä

sitä, mitä Vaanperilla oli talossa tekemistä.
Isännän hyvä mieli ei kuitenkaan näyttänyt tarttuvan Karoliinaan,

päinvastoin inhotti häntä aina, kun Aapeli hyvillään lörpötteli.
»Jo kuuluu kummia», hykerteli Aapeli eikä muistanut
vesihernettäkään nenän päästä pyyhkäistä. »Piispalta on minulle
tullut preivi… sitä on Vaanperi minulle suomentanut…»
Karoliinan kasvot vähän kalpenivat.
»Ja kirjoittaa kuin vanhalle tuttavalle… Vaanperi tässä juuri pääsi

suomentamasta… Kohtasin tiellä Vaanperin, niin pyysin, että lähtee
suomentamaan… Mitä sanot, Karoliina?»
»Mitäpä minä siihen sanon», lausui Karoliina välinpitämättömällä

äänellä.
»Etkä tiedä mitä kirje sisältääkään», pirahti isäntä ja pyyhkäisi

nenäänsä.
»Mistäpä minä sen tietäisin», arveli Karoliina ja alkoi riisua

päällystakkiaan.
Aapeli pyörähti keskelle lattiaa, remahti nauruun ja puoleksi huusi:
»Kun käskee nyt jo syksyllä toimittaa Oskarin isoon kouluun

Luulajaan asti…»
Hän uskoi uutisen vaikuttavan yhtä repäisevästi Karoliinaan kuin

häneenkin, mutta nähtyään, ettei vaimonsa ollut millänsäkään
kuulemastaan, virkkoi hän Vaanperiin päin kääntyen:
»Se ei usko… ei usko. Lue, Vaanperi, vielä kerran se piispan

preivi, että kuulee… lue sanasta sanaan… Lue, että kuulee…»
»Kuulen minä sen… ja uskon», sanoi Karoliina. »Ei sitä minun

vuokseni tarvitse lukea…»
»Vaan suomennahan, että Karoliina kuulee, mitä Oskaristakin
mainitsee… Se on piispa kerrassaan ihastunut Oskariin…»
»Mitäpä minun siitä tarvitsee tietää», esteli Karoliina, mutta

Vaanperi oli jo ruvennut piispan kirjettä suomentamaan.
Oskari oli tullut äitinsä viereen ja seisoi siinä kalpeana.
Kirjeessään piispa kehoitti Aapelia kouluttamaan poikansa

ylioppilaaksi ja sitten papiksi. Nyt syksyllä olisi poika jo lähetettävä
Luulajaan, jossa ei saisi ensiksi kuulla yhtään suomen sanaa, jotta
perinpohjin oppisi ruotsinkielen. Sitten hänellä, tulevaisuudessa, olisi
erinomainen tilaisuus vaikuttaa rajaseudulla sekä sielunpaimenena
että opettajana.
Karoliina oli kuuntelevinaan, mitä Vaanperi kirjeestä selitti, oli

sitten olevinaan hyvilläänkin… Hänen täytyi, hänen täytyi
teeskennellä pojan vuoksi — pojan elämänonnen vuoksi.
»Jopahan uskoo… jopahan uskoo nyt Karoliinakin», pakisi Aapeli

nähtyään ja uskottuaan, että emäntäkin naureskeli siitä ilosta.
»Syksyllä Oskari kouluun!» sanoi hän sitten ja kehaisi Vaanperille:
»Eikä tässä taida tarvita naapuriin lähteä rahaa lainaamaan,

vaikka
Luulajaankin lähtö tulee…»
*****
Oskari oli kesän aikana nukkunut äitinsä kanssa rakennuksen

toisessa päässä olevassa huoneessa, joka oli uunitta ja viileä. Aapeli
nukkui yksin pirtissä. Hänen täytyi usein öisinkin olla liikkeellä patoa
kokemassa ja muutenkin, kun outoja tukkilaisia kulki usein läpi
pihan, milloin kosken alle, milloin päälle.
Tultuaan huoneeseensa Oskari ratkesi itkemään, kysyen, pitikö

hänen lähteä Luulajaan kouluun. Äidin vakuutuksista hän kuitenkin
pian tyyntyi ja kävi vuoteeseensa.
Mutta kauas kaikkosi uni Karoliinan silmistä. Tätä hän ei ollut

osannut ajatella eikä ollut sen varalta varustautunut. Mutta hänen
täytyi nyt olla myöntävinään, tehdä niinkuin Aapeli käski… olla
varovainen, ettei tämä saisi minkäänlaista vihiä siitä, mitä hän mietti.
Nähtävästi oli mies unhottanut kohtauksen Saviojan Vanten kanssa,
koska ei mitään muutosta hänen käytöksessään ollut tapahtunut. Nyt
oli hänellä piispan kirjeen saatuaan uutta miettimistä eikä hän siis
joutanut tarkkaamaan, mitä emäntä toimitteli. Aikaa oli vielä
toimittaa. Syyskuussa vasta alkoi Luulajan koulu, mutta sitä ennen
tuli Oskarin jo olla kaukana, kaukana täältä.
Oli sittenkin onni, ettei hän ollut ketään ottanut uskotukseen, ettei
kenellekään ollut aikeestaan puhunut. Ei kukaan osannut
aavistaakaan, mitä hän mietti poikansa onnen ja elämän vuoksi.
Yksin vain hän sen tiesi, eivätkä sitä muut koskaan saisi tietääkään.
Oskari oli jo nukkunut. Karoliina kuuli hänen keveän

hengityksensä. Hän oli pitänyt huoneen ikkunassa verhoa, ettei
aamuaurinko pääsisi huonetta kuumentamaan. Mutta nyt tuntui
hänestä ikävältä, ja hän siirsi verhon ikkunasta. Kirkasta
aamuauringon paistetta tulvasi huone täyteen, ja hänestä tuntui nyt
hauskemmalta…
»Hän on hyvä mies ja suuressa virassa», oli maisteri sanonut.

Miksei hän kuitenkin ollut kysellyt enempää, yksityiskohtia? Ei ollut
uskaltanut eikä tahtonutkaan!
Mahtoiko muistaa kaikki, mistä he puhelivat kesäyönä siellä

Väylänpään vieraskamarissa? Ehkä muisti… Hän, Karoliina, ne kyllä
muisti, muisti joka sanan.
»Kerran minä sinut vielä kohtaan… kerran tulen tänne takaisin.»
Hän oli niin rakas, niin rakas! Hän oli niin hyvä ja lempeä!
»Et unhota minua?»
»En, en koskaan.»
Aina lupaat rakastaa?»
»Aina, koko elinaikani.»
Sitten hän lähti. Kerran kirjoitti. Ei silloin tiennyt, milloin tulisi. Hän
kirjoitti vastaan, kertoi kuinka laitansa oli. Siihen ei vastausta tullut.
Silloin hän teki epätoivoisen tekonsa. Mitä hän silloin taisi? Oma ja
koko suvun häpeä vartoi. Ja hän päätti kärsiä ja ottaa miehekseen
Portaankorvan Aapelin…
Vasta sitten kun Oskari syntyi, alkoivat suurimmat tuskat ja

katumuksen pitkät yöt. Ei ollut pelastusta missään, ja hänen
elämänsä muuttui valheeksi, alusta asti valheeksi. Pojan elämä oli
hänenkin elämänsä, ja yksi ainoa toivo oli, joka oli henkeä pitänyt, —
pojan tulevaisuus. Hämäränä se oli kangastanut hänen mielessään
näinä neljänätoista vuotena, jotka hän oli tätä valhe-elämää elänyt.
Hämäränä se oli ollut, mutta se oli selvinnyt. Oli ollut tuskan ja
epätoivon hetkiä semmoisia, että kun niitä nyt muisteli, tuntui
kummalta, että ne sittenkin oli voinut kestää, elää niinkuin ei mitään
myrskyä rinnassa riehuisikaan. Niinä semmoisina hetkinä alkoi korva
kuunnella kosken kohinaa, ja se kohina ja pauhu kuin tyynnyttivät,
kosken äänessä soi kuin lohtua, toivoa… Sitä kuunteli ja sillä
sydämen kovat kiljumiset asetti… Toisinaan, varsinkin alkuvuosina,
kun talven pimeinä iltoina seisahtui kuuntelemaan, oli kuin koski olisi
huutanut: Hyppää tänne valkoiseen helmaani! Mutta silloin hän aina
säpsähti ja muisti pojan, joka oli rakkaampi kuin oma elämä.
Pojan vuoksi hän eli, pojan vuoksi kärsi…
Ainainen pelko oli lisäksi vaivannut, että Aapeli joskus saa kuulla
— ellei itse viimein ymmärrä — ettei poika olekaan hänen, ainainen
pelko, että silloin se pojan ruhjoo… Ja vaikka hän sydämensä
syvyydessä tunsi, että kerran se saapi tietää, kerran hän katkaisee
kärsimystensä kahleet, ja silloin on kaikki sileää… Mutta poika piti
ensin saada turvaan, varmaan turvaan…
Ja nyt se oli hänelle selvinnyt. Vielä nyt kun jaksaisi jonkun viikon
viettää tätä valhe-elämää! Kun vielä kaikki onnistuisi eikä Aapelin
epäluulo enenisi! Kohta, kohta tulee otollinen hetki!
Hän makasi avoimin silmin ja mietiskeli… Aapeli kuului vielä

liikkuvan eteisessä, koska ovia aukaistiin ja askeleita kuului.
— Oikeastaan onkin hyvä, että piispan kirje juuri nyt sattui

tulemaan, ajatteli hän. — Nyt on hänellä miettimistä ja kehumista
siitä. Se vain auttaa minun asiaani.
Ei ollut Aapeli muistanut mitään Suomen puolen juhlanvietosta

kysyä, niin oli piispan kirje häntä innostuttanut. Hyvä oli sekin!
Karoliinan ajatukset kulkivat juhlaan, ja hänen mieleensä oli
painunut veljenpojan puhe. Hän muisti melkein joka sanan. Niin
hänkin oli ajatellut kuin Väylänpään Juhani puhui, vaikkei hän
koskaan ollut saattanut sitä sanoa — eikä ensinkään niin kuin Juhani
sen sanoi.
Hän muisti Juhanin ilosta säteilevät silmät, valkoisen lakin ja siinä

kimaltelevan kultatähden. Ja melkein kuin tietämättä tuli hänen
mieleensä, oli aivan kuin olisi nähnyt, että se olikin hänen Oskarinsa,
joka siellä seisoi, vaalea, kihara tukka lakin alta näkyen… Oskarin
silmissä oli kaihoa ja katseessa etsivän kaipausta…
Mutta sitten kun alkoi puhua, muuttuikin Kaarloksi, semmoiseksi

kuin hänet muisti… Kaarlo Laukkahan se olikin… Hänen vartalonsa
oli pitkä ja komea, silmät kirkkaat ja kauniit, otsa korkea… Hänen
katseensa etsi jotakin väkijoukosta, etsi tuttuja silmiä ja tuttuja
kasvoja… Hän, Karoliina, vetäysi toisien taakse… ei taitaisi enää
tuntea entiseksi, jos katseet kohtaisivatkin… Mutta ehkä muistaisi…
Nyt alkaa puhua… Mitä sanookaan? »Minulla oli kerran tässä
kylässä rakas ystävä, rakkain kaikista koko elämässäni… En näe
häntä teidän joukossanne… En näe hänen silmiensä loistoa…
Minulla on myöskin poika, vaaleatukkainen ja sinisilmäinen… Olen
tullut heitä etsimään…»
Karoliina heräsi siihen, että Oskari unissaan alkoi itkeä, mutta

tyyntyi pian…
Ja vaikka hän nyt tiesi olevansa hereillä, tuntui hänestä äskeinen

uni todelta. Se oli niin suloinen, niin ihana! Hän tunsi sydämensä
sykkivän ja onnen elämän pulppuavan. Hän koetti varoa, ettei mitään
himmenisi eikä unohtuisi kirkkaasta unesta, jota hän mieleensä
palautti ja muisteli. Hän makasi hiljaa, silmät puoliummessa,
haaveksien ja uneksien…
Näin ihanaa hetkeä hän ei ollut sitten elänyt kuin siellä

Väylänpäässä, ei koskaan unissaan nähnyt Kaarlo Laukkaa
sellaisena…» »Olen tullut heitä etsimään.»
— Niin! Niin!
Hän sai siitä vahvistusta, uusia voimia siihen, jonka oli päättänyt
tehdä.
— Hän muistaa minua ja poikaa! Rakas! Rakas!
Ja toivoa täynnä ja virkkuna hän nousi vuoteestaan, varmana siitä,

että kaikki käy hyvin.
XI
Oli hämärtyvä elokuun ilta.
Portaankorvasta oli kaikki väki mennyt ulkoniitylle Pukkisaareen,

johon oli talosta oikoinen penikulma matkaa. Emäntä ja Oskari vain
olivat kahden kotona.
Koko viikon oli emäntä saanut rauhassa toimitella.
Tätä aikaa hän oli koko kesän odottanut — tätä viikkoa, jolloin tiesi
muun väen ja isännänkin menevän viikon kestävälle niittymatkalle.
Nyt se oli tullut, ja emäntä oli sitä aikaa hyväksensä käyttänyt.
Oskari oli saanut tietää koko elämänsä salaisuuden, äiti oli itkenyt
ja poika oli itkenyt, mutta äidin päätös aiottiin toteuttaa.
Karoliina ei ollut nukkunut yhtenäkään yönä. Hän oli kenenkään

tietämättä soutanut useita kertoja Suomen puolelle, toimittanut siellä
tarvittavat seikat reilaan, hankkinut rahaa lainaksi ja kerännyt kaikki
omat säästönsä. Kylän kaikista taloista oltiin ulkoniityillä, niin ettei
muutamissa taloissa ollut kuin joku vanha vaari tai mummo
kotosalla. Talossa ei ollut koko viikkona ketään käynyt, sillä
poutaisena heinäaikana oli kaikilla kiire. Poikansa kanssa oli emäntä
saanut olla kahden.
*****
On jo hyvin myöhäinen, ja elokuun hämy on siksi tuntuva, ettei

kukaan tuntisi, jos näkisikin, kun Portaankorvan emäntä soutaa joen
poikki Suomen puolelle. Oskari istuu kalpeana veneen keskituhdolla,
emännän soutaessa etuteljolla. Kaikki on äiti pojalleen sanonut mitä
tietää, kaikki opastanut…
Ja nyt vielä puhuu:
»Se sormus anna, se on hänen, ja sano: äiti lähetti, ja se kirje

sitten. Kyllä tuntee sinut, omakseen ottaa, poikanaan pitää, rauhassa
olla saat, koulua kulkea. Ei ole henkeäsi vaanimassa räkänokka
mies, tyly ja sydämetön… Ja vielä sano: aina rakastan, aina
muistan! Aina on mielessä ollut, ei hetkeksikään unhottunut!»
Ei tule Karoliinan silmiin kyyneleitä, sillä hän on liian kiihdyksissä.

Hän vetää tuimasti airoja, ja joka veneenpituus vie lähemmäksi
vapautta. Mutta joka hetki kuitenkin tuntuu kuin jostakin vaara
uhkaisi… joku este vielä väliin joutuisi… Mutta ei kuulu, ei näy
mitään… Ruotsin puolen ranta jo jääpi hämyn sekaan, rantatörmä
lakkaa erottumasta, ja metsä kasvaa kiinni illan hämärään… Hän
kiskoo airoja, pitkään hengittäen ja silmien tähystellessä ympärille…
Jo erottaa suomenpuolisen rantatörmän, veneen keula kolahtaa
kiveen… kohta… kohta!
Vielä ehtii hän pojalle sanoa:
»Muistatko äitiä ja rakastatko?»

»Muistan ja rakastan…»
Vene saapuu rantaan. Siinä on vastassa vanha mies, joka ottaa

veneen keulasta kiinni ja vetää maalle. Se on Vankan Aapo,
Karoliinan ainoa uskottu ja apumies.
»Kaikki on valmiina, ja joka talossa nukutaan», sanoo hiljaisella

äänellä Aapo.
Karoliina suutelee vielä kerran poikaansa, vielä muistuttaa

tärkeimmistä asioista.
Ja Oskari lähtee Vankan Aapon kanssa nousemaan tielle, jossa

hevonen vartoo.
Ei liikahda Karoliina veneen luota, mutta korva on terävänä kuin

nuoli. Joka askeleen kuulee poistuvien kävelystä… kuulee kuinka
tulevat tielle… Nyt nousee Oskari kärryihin… nyt kiipeää Aapo
perässä… Hiljainen, tuskin rantaan kantava rattaiden kolina
ilmaisee, että nyt ovat liikkeellä… nyt sivuuttavat jo ensimmäiset
talot… Kuuluu jo kovempi kärryjen päry… pian ovat kylän päässä…
siitä alkaa taival, metsäinen, asumaton…
Karoliina kuulee rattaitten rytinän, kuulee oman sydämensä

jyskeen ja seisoo yhä, liikahtamatta, melkein kuin ei tietäisi tai
käsittäisi, että hän siinä seisoo ja Oskari poistuu…
Mutta kärryjen ääni lakkaa kuulumasta. Karoliina herää, ja ääretön

riemun tunne täyttää hänen sydämensä.
Poika on pelastettu… tulkoon… käyköön nyt kuinka tahansa!

Socio Economic Environment and Human Psychology Social Ecological and Cultural Perspectives Ayse K Uskul Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Socio Economic Environment and Human Psychology Social Ecological and Cultural Perspectives Ayse K Uskul Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Socio-Economic Environment and

Human Psychology: Social, Ecological,

Human Behavior in the Social Environment: Perspectives

Sustainable Businesses in Developing Economies: Socio-

Urban Form and Accessibility: Social, Economic, and

Bioeconomy And Global Inequalities: Socio-Ecological

The Political Economy of Human Behaviour and Economic

Human Behavior in the Social Environment: Perspectives

Social Psychology and Human Nature, Brief 4th Edition

Social Psychology and Human Nature, Brief 4th Edition,

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

© Oxford University Press 2018

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

You must not circulate this work in any other form

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

To my undergraduate advisor, the late Professor Tamotsu Fujinaga,

SECTION 1 | Ecology and Economic Activity

SECTION 2 | Socio-Economic Status and Inequality

SECTION 3 | Economic Conditions

SECTION 4 | Ecological and Economic Threat

Author Biographies 353

H. Clark Barrett Dov Cohen

S ocioecological psychology is a relatively new subfield of psychology

Overview of the Volume

We start this edited volume with contributions from leading researchers

Through this volume, we aim to introduce the socioecological approach

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset. New York: Random House.

Introduction: The Ecocultural Approach

The ecocultural approach combines the ecological and the cultural

The Ecological Perspective

The ecological approach to understanding any phenomenon is to examine

4 | Socio-Economic Environment and Human Psychology

Ecocultural Perspective on Human Behavior | 5

6 | Socio-Economic Environment and Human Psychology

Our ability to successfully adapt to such a diverse range of habitats is often

In this view, cultural evolution is very much linked to human cognition,

Ecology and Human Behavior

Ecocultural Perspective on Human Behavior | 7

8 | Socio-Economic Environment and Human Psychology

Ecocultural Perspective on Human Behavior | 9

By long continued practice in attending to minute details in surroundings

10 | Socio-Economic Environment and Human Psychology

Process, Competence, and Performance

Ecocultural Perspective on Human Behavior | 11

12 | Socio-Economic Environment and Human Psychology

Culture: Independent or Organismic?

Ecocultural Perspective on Human Behavior | 13

14 | Socio-Economic Environment and Human Psychology

Ecocultural Perspective on Human Behavior | 15

The Ecocultural Framework

16 | Socio-Economic Environment and Human Psychology

Population Level Individual Level

differences) by taking into account two fundamental sources of influence

Ecocultural Perspective on Human Behavior | 17

18 | Socio-Economic Environment and Human Psychology

Societal Size Social Conformity

Ecocultural Perspective on Human Behavior | 19

20 | Socio-Economic Environment and Human Psychology

Empirical Examples of Research with the Ecocultural

Following are some examples of research using the ecocultural frame-

Studies of Cognitive Behaviors

Ecocultural Perspective on Human Behavior | 21

22 | Socio-Economic Environment and Human Psychology