Basic Psychology: Cross-cultural psychology

 Contents

Cross-cultural psychology is the scientific study of human behaviour and mental processes under different cultural conditions, including their variability and invariance. It seeks to extend and develop psychology by expanding research methodologies to recognise cultural variation in behaviour, language, and meaning. Because psychology as an academic discipline was largely developed in North America and Europe, some psychologists became concerned that universal constructs were not as invariant as previously assumed, especially since many attempts to replicate notable experiments in other cultures met with varying degrees of success. Because there are concerns that theories dealing with central themes such as affect, cognition, self-concept, and issues such as psychopathology, anxiety, and depression may lack external validity when "exported" to other cultural contexts, cross-cultural psychology re-examines them using methodologies designed to account for cultural variance. Some critics have pointed out methodological flaws in cross-cultural psychological research, claiming that serious flaws in the theoretical and methodological foundations used impede, rather than help, the scientific search for universal principles in psychology. Cross-cultural psychologists are shifting their focus away from searching for universals in the manner of physics or chemistry and toward the study of how differences (variance) occur.

Prior to WWII, cross-cultural psychology was a minor subfield of psychology, but it began to gain prominence in the 1960s. The International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology (IACCP) was founded in 1972, and the interdisciplinary Society for Cross-Cultural Research (SCCR) was founded in 1971. Since then, this branch of psychology has grown in popularity as the incorporation of culture and diversity into studies of various psychological phenomena has grown in popularity.

Cross-cultural psychology differs from cultural psychology, which holds that cultural differences strongly influence human behaviour, implying that psychological phenomena can only be compared to each other across cultures to a limited extent. Cross-cultural psychology, on the other hand, includes the search for possible universals in behaviour and mental processes. "Rather than an entirely separate field within psychology, cross-cultural psychology can be thought of as a type [of] research methodology." Furthermore, cross-cultural psychology differs from international psychology, which focuses on the global expansion of psychology, particularly in recent decades. Nonetheless, cross-cultural psychology, cultural psychology, and international psychology are all concerned with developing psychology into a universal discipline capable of understanding psychological phenomena across cultures and in a global context.

Definitions and early work

The field is defined by two definitions: "the scientific study of human behaviour and its transmission, taking into account the ways in which behaviours are shaped and influenced by social and cultural forces," and "the empirical study of members of various cultural groups who have had different experiences that lead to predictable and significant differences in behaviour." Culture as a whole can also be defined as "a group of people's shared way of life." Unlike sociologists, most cross-cultural psychologists do not distinguish between social structure and cultural belief systems.

Lazarus and Steinthal's journal Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft [Journal of Folk Psychology and Language Science], which began publication in 1860, suggested early work in cross-cultural psychology. Williams H. R. Rivers (1864–1922) conducted more empirical research, attempting to measure the intelligence and sensory acuity of indigenous people living in the Torres Strait area, which is located between Australia and New Guinea. Wilhelm Wundt, the father of modern psychology, published ten volumes on Völkerpsychologie (a type of historically oriented cultural psychology), but these volumes had little influence in the English-speaking world. Wundt's student and Columbia University anthropologist Franz Boas challenged several of his students, including Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead, to study psychological phenomena in nonwestern cultures such as Japan, Samoa, and New Guinea. They emphasised the enormous cultural variability of many psychological phenomena, putting psychologists on the spot to demonstrate the cross-cultural validity of their favourite theories.

Etic v. emic perspectives

Other fields of psychology concentrate on how personal relationships influence human behaviour; however, they fail to consider the significant influence that culture may have on human behaviour. The Malinowskian dictum emphasises the need to understand a society's culture in its own terms rather than the common search for universal laws that apply to all human behaviour. For a long time, cross-cultural psychologists have used the emic/etic distinction. The etic approach studies behaviour from outside the culture system and is based on many cultures, whereas the emic approach studies behaviour from within the culture and is mostly based on one culture. Many psychologists who conduct cross-cultural research are said to use what is known as a pseudoetic approach. This pseudoetic approach is actually an emic-based approach developed in a Western culture that is intended to function as an etic approach. Irvine and Carroll introduced an intelligence test to a different culture without first ensuring that the test was measuring what it was supposed to measure. Because different cultures have different ideas about intelligence, this could be considered pseudoetic work.

Research and applications

Self-concept on bi-culture

Some psychologists used cultural priming to learn how people from different cultures interpret events. Hung and his colleagues, for example, show participants a different set of culture-related images, such as the United States White House and a Chinese temple, and then show a clip of an individual fish swimming ahead of a group of fishes. When participants in Hong Kong are exposed to the latter, they are more likely to reason collectively. Their counterparts who view western images, on the other hand, are more likely to have the opposite reaction and focus more on that specific fish. When people from bi-cultural societies are exposed to different cultural icons, they are more likely to make culturally activated attributions. Another cultural priming task is pronoun circling, which involves participants consciously circling pronouns such as "We," "us," "I," and "me" while reading a paragraph.

Geert Hofstede and the dimensions of culture

In the 1970s, the Dutch psychologist Geert Hofstede revolutionised the field by conducting global value research for IBM. Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory not only serves as the foundation for one of the most active research traditions in cross-cultural psychology, but it is also frequently cited in management literature. His initial research discovered four dimensions in which cultures differ: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity-femininity, and individualism-collectivism. Later, after expanding his research with indigenous Chinese materials, he added a fifth dimension - longterm orientation (originally called Confucian dynamism) - that can be found in cultures other than China. Later, using data from the World Values Survey and working with Michael Minkov, he added a sixth dimension - indulgence versus restraint.

Despite its popularity, McSweeney (2002) has seriously questioned Hofstede's work . Furthermore, Berry et al. question some of Hofstede's work, proposing alternative measures to evaluate individualism and collectivism. Indeed, the individualism-collectivism debate has proven to be difficult, with Sinha and Tripathi (1994) arguing that strong individualistic and collectivist orientations can coexist in the same culture (they discuss India in this connection). This has proven to be a problem with many of the different linear dimensions that are dichotomous by nature. Cultures are far more complex and contextually based than these rigid dimensional representations allow for.

Counseling and clinical psychology

Cross-cultural clinical psychologists (for example, Jefferson Fish) and counselling psychologists (for example, Lawrence H. Gerstein, Roy Moodley, and Paul Pedersen) have used cross-cultural psychology principles in psychotherapy and counselling. Furthermore, the book "Principles of Multicultural Counseling and Therapy" by Uwe P. Gielen, Juris G. Draguns, and Jefferson M. Fish contains numerous chapters on the application of culture in counselling. Joan D. Koss-Chioino, Louise Baca, and Luis A. Varrga are all listed in this book (in the chapter titled "Group Therapy with Mexican American and Mexican Adolescents: Focus on Culture") as working with Latinos in their culturally sensitive way of therapy. In their therapy, for example, they create a "fourth life space" that allows children/adolescents to reflect on difficulties they may be experiencing. Furthermore, various countries are now beginning to incorporate multicultural interventions into their counselling practises, according to the book. Malaysia, Kuwait, China, Israel, Australia, and Serbia were among the countries mentioned. Finally, Hardin L. K. Coleman and Jennifer J. Lindwall propose a method to incorporate cultural components into school counselling programmes in the chapter titled "Multiculturalism and School Counseling: Creating Relevant Comprehensive Guidance and Counseling Programs." They emphasise the importance of multicultural competence and the ability to apply this knowledge when working with people of different ethnic backgrounds. Moreover, several recent books have reviewed the state of counselling psychology and psychotherapy around the world, as well as discussed cross-cultural similarities and differences in counselling practises.

Five-factor model of personality

Can the characteristics defined by American psychologists be generalised to people from other countries? Cross-cultural psychologists have frequently questioned how to compare traits across cultures in response to these questions. Lexical studies measuring personality factors using trait adjectives from various languages have been conducted to investigate this question. These studies have concluded that while Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness almost always appear, Neuroticism and Openness to Experience do not. As a result, determining whether these traits are nonexistent in certain cultures or whether different sets of adjectives must be used to measure them is difficult. Many researchers, however, believe that the FFM is a universal structure that can be used in cross-cultural research as well as research studies in general. Other cultures, on the other hand, may include even more significant traits that go beyond those included in the FFM.

Emotion judgments

Researchers have frequently wondered whether people from different cultures interpret emotions in the same way. Paul Ekman has conducted research in the field of cross-cultural psychology that examines facial expression judgments across cultures. Participants from ten different cultures were asked to indicate emotions and the intensity of each emotion based on images of people expressing various emotions in one of his studies. The study's findings revealed that there was cross-cultural agreement on which emotions were the most and second most intense. These findings lend credence to the notion that there are at least some universal emotional facial expressions. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that there were differences in how participants across cultures rated emotion intensity in the study.

While there are said to be universally recognised facial expressions, Yueqin Huang and his colleagues investigated how a culture may assign different labels to certain emotional expressions. Huang et al. compared Chinese and American perceptions of facial emotion expressions. They discovered that the Chinese participants were less adept than the American participants at perceiving universal emotional expressions of people from cultures other than their own. These findings lend credence to the notion that cross-cultural differences in emotional judgement exist. According to Huang et al., Asians may interpret emotional expressions using different cues on the face. Furthermore, because each culture has its own set of values and norms, it is critical to examine those differences in order to gain a better understanding of why certain emotions are interpreted differently or not at all. As Huang et al. point out, it is common in many Asian cultures for 'negative emotions' to be frowned upon. This vital information could be crucial in recognising the cross-cultural differences in Asian and American perceptions of universal emotional expressions.

Differences in subjective well-being

The term "subjective well-being" is used frequently in psychology research and is composed of three major components:
1) life satisfaction (a cognitive evaluation of one's overall life),
2) the presence of positive emotional experiences, and
3) the absence of negative emotional experiences.

People from different cultures may have different ideas about what constitutes a "ideal" level of subjective well-being. Brazilians, for example, have been shown in studies to find positive emotions very desirable, whereas the Chinese did not rate as highly on the desire for positive emotions. As a result, when comparing subjective well-being across cultures, it appears important to consider how individuals in one culture may rate one aspect differently than individuals in another culture. It is difficult to find a universal indicator of how much subjective well-being people in different societies experience over time. One critical issue is whether people in individualistic or collectivistic countries are happier and have higher subjective well-being ratings. Individualist cultural members are found to be happier than collectivist cultural members, according to Diener, Diener, and Diener, 1995. It is also worth noting that happier nations are not always wealthier nations. While there are strong correlations between cultural average income and subjective well-being, the "richer=happier" argument remains a source of contention. One factor that may contribute to this debate is that economically stable nations may also have various non-materialistic characteristics such as a more stable democratic government, better enforcement of human rights, and so on, all of which may contribute to a higher subjective well-being. As a result, it remains unclear whether a higher level of subjective well-being is linked to material affluence or whether it is shaped by other characteristics that wealthy societies frequently possess and that may serve as intermediate links between affluence and well-being.

How different cultures resolve conflict

Grossmann et al. use evidence to demonstrate how cultures differ in their approaches to social conflict and how culture remains an important factor in human development even in old age. The paper specifically investigates aging-related differences in wise reasoning between the American and Japanese cultures. Participants' responses revealed that wisdom (e.g., recognition of multiple perspectives, one's own limits of personal knowledge, and the importance of compromise) increased with age among Americans, but not with older age among Japanese participants. Furthermore, younger and middle-aged Japanese participants outperformed Americans in terms of resolving group conflicts. Grossmann et al. discovered that Americans emphasise individuality and solve conflict directly, whereas the Japanese emphasise social cohesion and resolve conflict more indirectly. The Japanese are motivated to maintain interpersonal harmony and avoid conflict, to resolve conflict more effectively, and to become wiser earlier in life. Americans encounter conflict gradually, resulting in ongoing learning about conflict resolution and increased wisdom in their later years. The current study backed up the idea that different cultures use different methods to resolve conflict.

The inclusion of a third party can also reveal differences in conflict resolution across cultures. These distinctions can be discovered when a third party intervenes and offers a solution to the conflict. Asian and American cultural practises influence how members of the two cultures deal with conflict. A Korean-American technique may reflect Confucian values, whereas an American technique will be consistent with their individualistic and capitalistic views. Americans' processes will be more structured, providing standards for similar situations in the future. In contrast to American customs, Korean-Americans will have less structure in resolving conflicts and more flexibility in problem-solving. For Korean-Americans, the correct path is not always clear, but it can usually be narrowed down to a few options.

Gender-role and gender-identity differences and similarities

Williams and Best examined gender stereotypes, gender-related self-perceptions, and gender roles in various societies. The authors discovered both universal similarities and differences between and within more than 30 countries. The Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology also includes an excellent overview of sex, gender, and culture. One of the most important findings was that, when it came to sex and gender, pan-cultural similarities were found to be greater than cultural differences. Furthermore, the way men and women interact with one another in social groups has been shown to be fairly consistent across cultures. Further calls have been made to investigate gender development theories as well as how culture influences both male and female behaviour.

Cross-cultural human development

This topic is a subfield of cross-cultural psychology that studies cultural similarities and differences in developmental processes and their outcomes as manifested by behaviour and mental processes in individuals and groups. According to Bornstein (2010), Gielen and Roopnarine (2016), and Gardiner and Kosmitzki (2010), researchers in this field have investigated various topics and domains of psychology (e.g., theories and methodology, socialisation, families, gender roles and gender differences, the effects of immigration on identity), human development across the human life cycle in various parts of the world, children in difficult circumstances such as street children and war-traumatized adolescents. Because the United States is home to only 3.4 percent of the world's children, such research is urgently needed to correct the ethnocentric presentations found in many American textbooks (Gielen, 2016).

Berry et al. cite evidence that a number of different dimensions of childrearing practises have been found in cross-cultural comparisons, including differences in the dimensions of obedience training, responsibility training, nurturance training (the degree to which a sibling will care for other siblings or for older people), achievement training, self-reliance, and autonomy. Furthermore, the Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology Volume 2 contains an extensive chapter on cross-cultural influences on child development (The Cultural Structuring of Child Development by Charles M. Super and Sara Harkness). They stated that three recurring topics were consistently raised during their review: "how best to conceptualise variability within and across cultural settings, characterise activities of the child's mind, and improve methodological research in culture and development."

Future developments

The rise of cross-cultural psychology reflects a broader process of globalisation in the social sciences that seeks to purge specific areas of research with western biases. As a result, cross-cultural psychology (along with international psychology) aspires to make psychology less ethnocentric than it has been in the past. Cross-cultural psychology is now taught at a number of universities around the world, both as a specific content area and as a methodological approach to broadening the field of psychology.