Enculturation-Acculturation Screening Tools for Empirical Aesthetics Research: a Proof of Principle Study
Abstract Grouping research participants by culture or language proficiency may no longer suffice to investigate cognitive universals and differences cross-culturally, due to the interconnectedness of our multicultural world. Based on immigration psychology research, we provide a ‘proof of principle’ for three culture screening tools. Across five online experiments (total N = 440), we developed (1) The Cultural Traditions Questionnaire ( CTQ ), (2) the Arts Engagement in Childhood Questionnaire ( AECQ ), and (3) the Enculturation and Acculturation Quiz ( EAQ ). While these screening tools are tailored to Iranian and English cultures, the procedures provided here are expandable to other cultures. The screening scores predicted emotional attachment to a culture better than traditional variables used in cross-cultural research (self-ascribed culture group, country of residence during formative years, mother tongue). Continuous measures of enculturation and acculturation are potentially better predictors for downstream variables of interest, due to their finer granularity and capability to capture multifaceted cultural identities.
Authors
- Julia F. Christensen (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0381-5101)
- Bilquis Castaño Manias (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5823-1480)
- Shahrzad Khorsandi (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3358-6445)
- Meghedi Vartanian (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8927-4934)
- Klaus Frieler (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6055-377X)
- Raha Golestani (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9895-0552)
Institutions
- Goethe University Frankfurt (DE)
- Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics (DE)
- Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences (DE)
- Leipzig University (DE)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Journal of Cognition and Culture
- Published
- 2024-08-20
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1163/15685373-12340192
- Citations
- 1
- Primary Topic
- Art Education and Development
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 6.49
Funders
- British Academy
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
- Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung
- Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
- Friedrich Naumann Stiftung