Search results

Language is a fundamental and yet extraordinarily powerful medium. Language is more than the primary feature distinguishing humans from other species. As our principle means of communication, language links us to culture, and in so doing, shapes our perceptions and determines the way in which we think (Clark, Eschholz & Rosa, 1981; Thorne, Kramarae & Henley, 1983). Language is inseparable from social life. Through language, individuals learn cultural patterns and political and social values (Mueller, 1973). Language also reflects the prejudices of society, with assumptions about relative status, power or appropriate behavior often built into the words we use to talk about different groups of people. As Frank and Anshen (1983) note, ageism, racism, and most importantly for this discussion, sexism, are all perpetuated by our language, even among those who consciously reject those prejudices.

This study examines the variation in preventable hospitalization rates of Medicaid children in California to extend our understanding of racial and ethnic disparity in primary care quality. The results show that primary care quality varies substantially by race and ethnicity even when financial access is ensured by Medicaid. Moreover, the domain of primary care that minority children experience disadvantage varies by race and ethnicity. Compared to white children, African-American children lack continuity and comprehensiveness of care that is necessary for the management of chronic conditions. Hispanic children, on the contrary, have inadequate first contact care. Asian children experience a better quality of care overall than white children. Independent of race, a primary language other than English has a protective effect on preventable hospitalization rates, indicating that language need not be a barrier to quality primary care for racial and ethnic minority groups. The possible reasons underlying the observed differences in health outcome by race/ethnicity and primary language are discussed.

The ability to effectively engage in cross-cultural interactions is imperative for leaders in our increasingly globalized world. Those who possess certain key psychological resources are more likely to engage in cross-cultural interactions successfully. Psychological resources include cross-cultural hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism, which together comprise cross-cultural psychological capital (CC PsyCap). Previous research has indicated that CC PsyCap predicts cultural competence, yet the pathways underlying this relationship remain unexplored. We examined the relationships among CC PsyCap, engagement in cross-cultural interactions, stress during cross-cultural interactions, and cultural competence. The hypothesized relationships were tested using a sample of 135 undergraduate students (76% female) participating in study abroad programs. Participants completed measures of cultural competence, CC PsyCap, engagement, and stress approximately one month into their study abroad. Structural equation modeling analyses indicate that CC PsyCap and stress influence cultural competence directly and indirectly through engagement level during cross-cultural interactions. Furthermore, the results suggest that CC PsyCap indirectly influences engagement through stress during cross-cultural interactions. We discuss the implications of these results for people preparing to enter cross-cultural environments.

To examine whether indigenous critiques of globalization and critical theories of modernity are compatible, and how they can complement each other so as to engender more realistic theories of modern society as inherently constructive and destructive, along with practical strategies to strengthen modernity as a culturally transformative project, as opposed to the formal modernization processes that rely on and reinforce modern societies as structures of social inequality.

Comparison and assessment of the foundations, orientations, and implications of indigenous critiques of globalization and the Frankfurt School’s critical theory of modern society, for furthering our understanding of challenges facing human civilization in the twenty-first century, and for opportunities to promote social justice.

Modern societies maintain order by compelling individuals to subscribe to propositions about their own and their society’s purportedly “superior” nature, especially when compared to indigenous cultures, to override observations about the de facto logic of modern societies that are in conflict with their purported logic.

Social theorists need to make consistent efforts to critically reflect on how their own society, in terms of socio-historical circumstances as well as various types of implied biases, translates into research agendas and propositions that are highly problematic when applied to those who belong to or come from different socio-historical contexts.

An effort to engender a process of reciprocal engagement between one of the early traditions of critiquing modern societies and a more recent development originating in populations and parts of the world that historically have been the subject of both constructive and destructive modernization processes.

The research on Black underachievement is well documented. But the explanations posited as causes for this failure are problematic. They are reductive and fail to explain adequately the reasons for Black children’s underperformance. The wealth of research into Black underachievement is not matched by research into Black achievement, and explanations for this are equally flawed, as are policies designed to curtail underperformance. I argue in this paper that underachievement is the product of social and cultural forces, and success is dependent on all concerned in the educational development of the child, including the child, overcoming those forces and accommodating each other in order to provide the knowledge and skills necessary for success.

This chapter investigates the difference between ultimatum games over gains and over losses. Although previous research in decision making has found that individuals treat losses and gains differently, losses have not previously been investigated in strategic situations. In the field, however, the problem of negotiating over losses is as unavoidable and problematic as the problem of negotiating over gains. In addition, data on how we bargain over losses can shed some theoretical light on fairness preferences. Two experiments use within-subject designs, the first in the U.S. and the second in the U.S., China and Japan. We find that offers and demands are higher in losses than in gains, and that these results hold across the three countries. We adapt Bolton's (1991) model of fairness to explain the results. Specifically, we extend prospect theory's loss aversion to unfairness, suggesting that unfairness in losses looms larger than unfairness in gains.

We suggest that globalization, a process that fosters greater interdependence and mutual awareness among actors around the world in their economic, political, social, and cultural interactions, will also decrease the social distance among them and thus increase individuals' propensities to cooperate with distal others. We demonstrate in a multi-country public goods experiment that among the four domains of individual participation in globalization, economic participation in globalization has the least effect in prompting cooperation. Conversely, the other three domains of globalization have strong effects on individual cooperation, and this is robust to different specifications of the econometric model.