Cross-Cultural Psychology E-Book

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 1589

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2019

Beschreibung

Explains and explores the important areas of psychology through a cultural perspective

This book addresses key areas of psychology, placing them in cultural perspective via a comprehensive overview of current work integrating culture across the major subfields of psychological science. Chapters explore the relation of culture to psychological phenomena, starting with introductory and research foundations, and moving to clinical and social principles and applications. It covers the subfields that are of most importance to undergraduates and beginning graduates, such as consciousness, development, cognition, intelligence, personality, research methods, statistics, gender, personality, health, and well-being.

Cross-Cultural Psychology: Contemporary Themes and Perspectives, 2nd Edition is richly documented with research findings and examples from many cultures, illuminating the strengths and limitations of North American psychology, while also highlighting the diversity and vitality of this fascinating field. The book offers many new chapters, in addition to fully updated ones from the previous edition. Starting with basic concepts in the subject, the book offers chapters covering ethnocentrism, diversity, evolutionary psychology, and development across cultures. It also examines education, dreams, language and communication issues, sex roles, happiness, attractiveness, and more.

• Provides a comprehensive overview of current work integrating culture across major subfields of psychological science
• Offers introductory chapters on topics such as cultural psychology and ethnocentrism, which provide a foundation for more specialized chapters in development, education, cognition, and beyond
• Features new chapters in areas such as cultural competence, culture and dreams, education across cultures, abnormality across cultures, and evolutionary psychology
• Presents chapters by some of the leading contributors to the fields of cultural and cross- cultural psychology

Cross-Cultural Psychology: Contemporary Themes and Perspectives, 2nd Edition is an ideal book for undergraduate and graduate courses in cultural or cross-cultural psychology.

Leseprobe

Cross‐Cultural Psychology

Contemporary Themes and Perspectives

SECOND EDITION

Edited by

Kenneth D. Keith

This edition first published 2019© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Edition HistoryWiley‐Blackwell (1e, 2011)

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, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

The right of Kenneth D. Keith to be identified as the author of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with law.

Registered Office(s)John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USAJohn Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

Editorial Office111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA

For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print‐on‐demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of WarrantyWhile the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data

Names: Keith, Kenneth D. (Kenneth Dwight), 1946– editor.Title: Cross‐cultural psychology : contemporary themes and perspectives / edited by Kenneth D. Keith.Description: Second Edition. | Hoboken, New Jersey : Wiley‐Blackwell, 2019. | Previous edition: 2011. | Includes index. |Identifiers: LCCN 2018055955 (print) | LCCN 2018056367 (ebook) | ISBN 9781119438458 (Adobe PDF) | ISBN 9781119438441 (ePub) | ISBN 9781119438403 (paperback)Subjects: LCSH: Ethnopsychology–Cross‐cultural studies.Classification: LCC GN502 (ebook) | LCC GN502 .C75 2019 (print) | DDC 155.82–dc23LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018055955

Cover image: © tunart / Getty ImagesCover design by Wiley

ForConnie Keith,my traveling companion and moral compass for more than a half centuryandWalt Lonner,mentor, friend, and pioneer

List of Contributors

Stephanie L. AndersonAshford University

Bernard C. BeinsIthaca College

Chi‐yue ChiuThe Chinese University of Hong Kong

Leeva C. ChungUniversity of San Diego

Michael ColeUniversity of California

Tyler ColletteUniversity of Texas at San Antonio

Robert A. CumminsDeakin University

Kristy K. DeanGrand Valley State University

Afshin GharibDominican University of California

Judith L. GibbonsSt. Louis University

Peter J. GiordanoBelmont University

James T. GireVirginia Military Institute

Regan A. R. GurungOregon State University

Hui‐Chin HsuUniversity of Georgia

Michael R. HulsizerWebster University

Hyi Sung C. HwangSan Francisco State University

Terence JacksonMiddlesex University

Ji‐Yeon O. JoUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Kenneth D. KeithUniversity of San Diego

Mary E. KiteBall State University

Anne M. KoenigUniversity of San Diego

David S. KreinerUniversity of Central Missouri

Jungmin KwonColumbia University

Katie M. LawsonBall State University

Hilary M. LipsRadford University

Roger Ivar LohmannTrent University

David MatsumotoSan Francisco State University

Richard L. MillerTexas A&M University‐Kingsville

Adriana MolitorUniversity of San Diego

Susan A. NolanSeton Hall University

Irina A. NovikovaPeoples’ Friendship University of Russia

Martin PackerUniversity of San Buenaventura

William L. PhillipsDominican University of California

Katelyn E. PoelkerHope College

Robert L. SchalockHastings College

Tollie J. SchultzBall State University

Yuanyuan ShiThe Chinese University of Hong Kong

Andrew F. SimonSeton Hall University

Josephine C. H. TanLakehead University

Junko Tanaka‐MatsumiKwansei Gakuin University

LaCount J. TogansBall State University

Christin‐Melanie VauclairInstituto Universitário de Lisboa

Miguel Á. VerdugoUniversidad de Salamanca

Alexandra A. VorobyevaPeoples’ Friendship University of Russia

Linda M. WoolfWebster University

Jennifer ZwolinskiUniversity of San Diego

Foreword

Sometimes a little thing, like laughing about the same matter, makes us realize that despite apparent cultural differences, there is something we have in common that unites us in this very moment. It is important to be reminded of these two sides of the cultural coin, in an era in which societies become increasingly diverse and we become more interconnected around the globe—in a time in which recent socio‐political developments suggest that cultural differences divide us. This is when identifying a common ground becomes more important than ever in the pursuit of rapprochement.

So, how different are we really? And what exactly do we have in common? Cross‐cultural psychology aims to respond to these questions. Even though it is a relatively new branch of psychology, it has already demonstrated the important insights that can be gained from a more contextualized understanding of the human mind and behavior. There is still a long way to go for psychology to become truly culturally inclusive and it is crucial to be aware of the Western bias in our research. This is why the question that I welcome most from my students is when they ask What about other cultures?

The second edition of Cross‐Cultural Psychology: Contemporary Themes and Perspectives addresses this very question by offering a collection of readings across a wide array of contemporary psychological subjects, such as development, gender and sexual orientation, cognition and emotion, personality, and social psychology. It also includes chapters on basic concepts in cross‐cultural psychology, the question of how to conduct research across cultures, and such areas of applied cross‐cultural psychology as cultural health beliefs and practices or intercultural communication. The second edition mirrors the dynamic developments in the field with many new chapters, such as Evolutionary Psychology and Education Across Cultures. There is even an entire new section titled “Consciousness,” including a chapter on culture and dreams—a topic hard to find in any other reference book on cross‐cultural psychology. The book conveys how culture plays a role in every aspect of our lives. It does so by finding the right balance between informing about cultural differences and pointing to similarities. For example, the chapter “Language and Culture” discusses universal aspects of language as well as cultural differences and to what extent these reflect the way we think about the world. All chapters are written by scholars with renowned expertise in the respective areas, which will doubtless attract many readers.

Given the comprehensive collection of topics, this book will be interesting for any student who is curious to know more about culture. It will be of great value for teachers as well. I have assigned chapters from the first edition as readings in my general psychology classes to provide a cross‐cultural perspective on a specific subject matter. The book has also played an important role in my teaching on cross‐cultural psychology, complementing other readings and textbooks. Researchers can consult specific chapters to obtain an overview of the main theories or state‐of‐the‐art on a topic they would like to start investigating. Practitioners and professionals who interact with cultural minorities will also find it very informative and insightful. Given that the book is written in a very accessible way, anyone from the general public interested in cross‐cultural psychology will also benefit from reading it.

Culture is omnipresent; and cultural competence is a crucial ingredient to accomplish socially inclusive, peaceful, and productive societies in our interconnected world. It is in this context that it becomes paramount to develop an understanding of different cultures, which is why a cross‐cultural perspective should be an integral part of the teaching of psychology. The editor, Ken Keith, is a true advocate of this position. He has contributed to the literature with numerous seminal works on teaching and culture and cross‐cultural psychology, as evidenced by the books, Culture Across the Curriculum and the Encyclopedia of Cross‐cultural Psychology. I share his vision and, as a psychology teacher and the coordinator of an international master program in Social & Cultural Psychology, I aim to train our students to see the two sides of the cultural coin. I want them to develop intercultural awareness, knowledge, and skills as well as an inclusive posture toward social and cultural differences. I hope that these students one day will become the socially responsible citizens, social entrepreneurs, and scientists of tomorrow who address contemporary social and societal challenges in an innovative, reflective, culturally sensitive, and therefore sustainable way. This book is an indispensable companion on this journey and I expect that it will find a home in many academic libraries around the world.

Christin‐Melanie VauclairLisbon, Portugal

Preface

Interest in the relation between psychology and culture has blossomed over the past half‐century. It has been an era marked by new scientific journals, many books exploring various aspects of the psychology‐culture connection, and many university courses that deal with the role of culture in our understanding of psychology. Despite this increased focus on culture, much of the research literature in psychology continues to be dominated by North American and European scientists and journals.

The dominance of Western thought has prompted the development of psychological approaches unique to their particular cultural backdrop in various parts of the world, and it causes us to wonder to what extent our understanding reflects a psychology of all people. Can our knowledge be generalized to people of other backgrounds—cultural, national, ethnic, or racial? Do people in different contexts experience basic psychological processes (e.g., development, disorders, emotion, gender and sex roles, learning, social interaction, well‐being) in the same ways? Are there psychological principles or truths that are universal, that transcend culture? And are some principles and processes tied closely only to the cultures in which they arise? These are important questions, and the aim of this book is to provide some guidance as you ask them.

The authors whose work appears in this book are not only researchers, but also accomplished teachers. They share the conviction that investment in the students of today is crucial to the future of the world's cultures. Today's students are tomorrow's leaders, and the world will need strong leaders as we face such global challenges as poverty, illness, climate change, economic disparity, and world conflict. These problems demand broad understanding of human behavior, and psychological scientists have the knowledge and skills to contribute to solutions.

You may well be reading this book in a course in cultural or cross‐cultural psychology. We might hope that one day culture will not be a separate offering in the psychology curriculum, but that culture will become an integral, natural part of the mainstream across the curriculum. We can think of culture and psychology not just as another area of content, but as an approach, a mindset that should pervade our study of human behavior.

The authors represented in this book write from a variety of perspectives and specialties—but all are committed to a comprehensive understanding of behavior that includes the important role of culture. I hope, as you study their work, that you will be thoughtful and deliberate as you construct your own perspective, that you will find a way to contribute to a psychology of all people, and that you are successful not only in your career, but as a responsible citizen of planet Earth.

Kenneth D. KeithOmaha, NE

Acknowledgments

No work of this scope is accomplished by one person. I am grateful to the many contributors to this volume, not only for their work on these chapters, but also for their collegiality and their broader commitment to a psychology of all people. Our discipline is better for their efforts.

Darren Reed encouraged development of this new edition, and Darren Lalonde at Wiley‐Blackwell supported it along the way. I owe them both my thanks. And, finally, I recognize that the project would never have succeeded without the editorial and production work of Susan Dunsmore, Elisha Benjamin, and Monica Rogers. Their diligence and skill kept me on task and on schedule, and made the book better than it could otherwise have been. They all have my gratitude.

Part IBasic Concepts

The study of psychology and culture necessarily begins with some fundamental questions: What is culture? Why is culture important to an understanding of psychological science? How have researchers chosen to investigate the relation between psychology and culture? Thus, Part I deals with the construct of culture—what it is and some of the key characteristics that define it. As we will see, cross‐cultural interest in psychological phenomena is by no means new, but the nature of that interest has evolved in fascinating ways, from the ancient Greeks to the early twentieth century, and now to the twenty‐first century.

As psychologists around the world have undertaken the systematic study of culture, the field of cross‐cultural psychology has emerged, but not without some disagreements about how psychological scientists should understand and use cultural constructs. Among the perspectives arising from these differing viewpoints are cultural psychology, indigenous psychology, and cross‐cultural psychology. Psychologists with a focus on culture are interested in how culture influences behavior, and in how researchers integrate key cultural variables into their work. These variables include a number of critical dimensions of culture. Best known among these is the individualism–collectivism (IC) dimension, but as we will see, other dimensions may well be more important than past research has suggested.

Individuals of course become enculturated in the environments into which they are born and in which they develop. This process results, perhaps inevitably, in a predictable tendency to view other cultures from the perspective of our own. Such ethnocentric tendencies often result in psychological barriers between cultures; we are likely to view cultures different from our own as less desirable and perhaps even threatening. Researchers have undertaken a number of approaches, not only to understanding ethnocentrism, but also to attempt to reduce it; we will review some of these efforts in this section of the book. Psychologists have also examined ways to improve intercultural understanding via the social and communication skills and knowledge that constitute cultural competence.

Early work in cross‐cultural psychology emphasized identifying and measuring differences between cultures. This was perhaps understandable in the early days of the science. In fact, we could make the argument that every science began with description before moving to efforts to explain its subject matter. It seems clear now that the time for obsession with difference is behind us. The study of psychology and culture is moving toward not only a more sophisticated understanding of our differences, but also recognition that, despite cultural differences, human beings across cultures share many more commonalities than differences. Furthermore, researchers are increasingly sensitive to the value of a broad understanding of the relation between culture and behavior, and the importance of the particular psychological perspectives arising from unique cultural contexts. Part I will prepare us for the many approaches that follow as the authors of the remaining chapters explore the methods and findings of a myriad of psychologists who have examined the relation between psychology and culture.

1Psychology and Culture: An Introduction

Kenneth D. Keith

In this book we attempt to provide the reader with a wide‐ranging introduction to the relation between culture and a number of core subjects in the field of psychology. This aim requires that we begin by defining culture and the intersection between culture and psychology—the discipline we know today as cross‐cultural psychology. Although all psychological research takes place in a cultural context, psychological scientists have not always taken account of the influence of culture on psychological processes, or the generalizability of those processes across cultures. This chapter provides a brief overview of these ideas as an introduction to the varied topics that follow in the remainder of the book.

Culture

Many writers, including anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists, have written about culture, providing a variety of definitions and descriptions. Heine (2012) described a two‐part definition of culture: (a) information (e.g., beliefs, habits, ideas), learned from others, that is, capable of influencing behavior; and (b) a group of people who share context and experience. Matsumoto and Juang (2013) offered a comprehensive definition, calling culture

a unique meaning and information system, shared by a group and transmitted across generations, that allows the group to meet basic needs of survival, by coordinating social behavior to achieve a viable existence, to transmit successful social behaviors, to pursue happiness and well‐being, and to derive meaning from life.

(p. 5)

Matsumoto and Juang's (2013) definition shares key characteristics with that of Triandis, Kurowski, Tecktiel, and Chan (1993), who defined culture in terms of objective and subjective characteristics that increase the odds of survival, provide satisfaction for people sharing an environmental context, and are shared via language. Objective elements of culture, as identified by Triandis et al., are the tangible objects of culture (architecture, food, manufactured products), whereas subjective culture comprises such human elements as social, economic, political, and religious practices. It is of course the subjective human elements that are of most interest to psychological scientists. Cohen (2009) advocated extension of the notion of culture to a variety of constellations of human groups, including religion, socioeconomic status, and region (within a country). Finally, Berry, Poortinga, Segall, and Dasen (2002) perhaps put it most succinctly, when they called culture simply “the shared way of life of a group of people” (p. 2). Common features of virtually all definitions of culture include the notion of a group with shared behaviors, values, and beliefs that are passed from generation to generation. Cultures may vary in their complexity (Triandis, 1980), and some embody significant diversity (i.e., are multicultural), with many subcultures (Miller, 2008), while other cultures are much more homogeneous or “tight” (Triandis, 1977). And Cheung (2012) suggested that a culture might be any group (not just national or ethnic) whose members share beliefs, values, norms, and heritage.

It is also important to note what culture is not. Perhaps most importantly, culture is not synonymous with nationality or race. We need look only at such diverse nations as the United States or the United Kingdom to see that a nation may include many cultural and subcultural groups—thus making virtually pointless a discussion of, for example, “the” American culture. And genetic research has suggested that the biological differences among races are relatively superficial, leading to the conclusion that race is largely psychosocially constructed (Mio, Barker‐Hackett, & Tumambing, 2006; Smedley & Smedley, 2005) and, in the words of Segall, Dasen, Berry, and Poortinga (1999) an “illusion” (p. 20). This does not mean, of course, that biology has no role to play. Behavior is a product of the complex interplay among heredity, environment, and individual skills and knowledge; and the field of evolutionary psychology has sought to explain how evolution has led to development of the human brain and the capacity to learn, giving rise to the knowledge and values that constitute culture (Pinker, 1994, 2018). Culture evolved because it contributed to human survival and reproduction (Baumeister, 2005).

Finally, culture can be construed as a characteristic residing within the person, and thus related to all the psychological processes associated with the person; or culture can be viewed as outside the person, making it more like a research variable or manipulation (e.g., Morling, 2016; Triandis, 2000). In the following sections we will discuss the implications of these perspectives for research in the field.

Why Cross‐Cultural Psychology?

Arnett (2008) asserted that the conclusions of research conducted by American psychologists “are based not on a broad cross‐section of humanity but on a small corner of the human population—mainly, persons living in the United States” (p. 602). In his analysis of six prestigious journals of the American Psychological Association, Arnett found that the large majority of authors were from American universities, and that a similar majority of the research participants were Americans—most of them European Americans. Further, in those cases in which the authors reported by Arnett were not affiliated with American institutions, they were predominantly from Western and English‐speaking universities—making them a subset of the populations that Henrich, Heine, and Norenzayan (2010) called WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic). In a follow‐up to Arnett's study, Webster, Nichols, and Schember (2009) analyzed a different (but overlapping) group of journals; although they reported an encouraging trend over a 30‐year period, they too found a majority of American researchers in the journals they studied. Similarly, Quinones‐Vidal, Lopez‐Garcia, Penaranda‐Ortega, and Tortosa‐Gil (2004) found more than 90% of the studies appearing in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology were North American. More recently, in a study of the research participants represented in four leading teaching of psychology journals, Richmond, Broussard, Sterns, Sanders, and Shardy (2015) reported that Caucasians were significantly overrepresented, and other ethnic groups significantly underrepresented. It is not difficult to fathom why Guthrie (1998) titled his book about the role of African American psychologists, Even the Rat was White.

Arnett (2008) attributed the lack of cross‐cultural research in American psychology at least in part to a philosophy of science dedicated to identifying universal principles. This approach, Sue (1999) contended, has included a focus on internal validity (demonstration of causal connections) at the expense of external validity (generalizability). However, LoSchiavo and Shatz (2009) saw the problem in a different light, acknowledging the lack of cultural diversity in psychological research, but arguing that many American psychologists simply do not have convenient, affordable access to international samples. Nevertheless, North American psychology has been limited in its scope, and American psychologists have tended to treat their findings as if they were universal truths, even when researchers did not test findings in diverse cultures. Psychologists interested in culture, however, have sought to move from assumptions about universal principles to empirical testing across cultures (Heine & Norenzayan, 2006). Whatever the reasons, these concerns about the need to understand the role of culture in psychology are significant, and they extend to the challenges of teaching in psychology as well (e.g., Bronstein & Quina, 1988; Goldstein, 1995; Hill, 2002; Keith, 2018).

Teaching about Culture: How Have Our Textbooks Changed?

My first experience as a teacher came more than five decades ago when, as a beginning graduate student, I taught introductory psychology. I can still remember the excitement I felt when the department chair offered me the job, and the passion with which I undertook to prepare and present the class. I chose one of the mainstream textbooks of that time (Morgan & King, 1966) and went to work. When I compare that textbook to those of today, there are many superficial differences. The book was printed on a kind of off‐white paper, and all but three of more than 800 pages were printed in black, white, or shades of gray; the only exceptions were illustrations of the color spectrum, the function of cones, and negative afterimages. Strangely, a color wheel illustrating the complementarity of colors actually appeared in black, white, and gray, with pure red portrayed as black!

Today's introductory psychology textbooks are, of course, filled with four‐color illustrations, color photographs, and a variety of colorful computer‐generated images. But these are only differences of style. The important question we should ask is this: To what extent has the content of the psychology we teach changed over the years? And, more specifically, are we teaching a more inclusive psychology than that of a few decades ago, or a century or more ago? In the context of these questions, we will review some developments in the field as we have attempted to encompass the role of culture in our understanding of psychological concepts and phenomena.

My 1960s textbook (Morgan & King, 1966) had a very brief (three‐paragraph) section on cultural influences on personality, and little more than a page on intelligence differences associated with culture—in this case rural vs. urban and “Negroes” vs. Whites. Today, of course, we know that race cannot be equated with culture, and to their credit, Morgan and King concluded that “We are not required to make decisions about groups; instead, the problem is to make decisions about individuals” (p. 441). Nevertheless, in the realm of personality and intelligence, culture received little attention. Elsewhere, in a chapter on social influences, Morgan and King devoted about four pages to a discussion of culture; they defined culture, similarly to today's researchers, in terms of groups sharing behaviors, attitudes, and values. Anthropology rose to the fore in their treatment of culture, with the observation that most such work had been done with cultures deemed “primitive” or “backward” (p. 567). Except for brief references to American culture, the focus was on work in cultural anthropology, including that of Margaret Mead (1935).

Despite mention of cultural differences and the potential for international conflict and communication failure as a result of differential cultural experience, Morgan and King cited few examples in accounting for such differences. The emphasis was on differences involving Native Americans, Samoans, and “primitive” cultures of New Guinea. Within the U.S., Morgan and King noted a couple of rather isolated religious sects but did not discuss the notion of cultural diversity. Although not using the word “ethnocentrism” (see Chapter 2 in this volume), Morgan and King did acknowledge the tendency for people to take for granted the stereotypes and attitudes that characterize their own culture. Nevertheless, the book's index contained only seven entries for “culture” or “cultural,” all referring to the personality, intelligence, or social sections of the book. The Morgan and King treatment of culture was typical for the era, and perhaps more comprehensive than some other textbooks of the time. It was certainly more comprehensive than earlier general psychology books. Ladd (1894), for example, made no reference to the concept of culture, and William James (1892/1961) did not mention culture in his widely used Psychology: The briefer course.

We might logically ask whether introductory or general psychology books of the twenty‐first century are more likely to acknowledge the role of culture than these earlier authors. Happily, the answer is yes. For example, typical introductory books of today (e.g., Bernstein, Penner, Clarke‐Stewart, & Roy, 2008; Myers & DeWall, 2015; Weiten, 2017) may include 30–50 index entries dealing with culture, and the books integrate the concept of culture in such mainstream sections as abnormality, achievement motivation, alcohol, altered states, attachment, attitudes, attractiveness, attribution, cognitive development, communication, gender roles, parenting, perception, personality, prejudice, self‐esteem, sleep, temperament, testing, and more. Today's introductory texts sometimes provide brief definitions of such concepts as cultural psychology (e.g., Gray & Bjorklund, 2014). Clearly, coverage of culture in the teaching of psychology has come a long way, not only since the 1960s, but also since the 1980s, when Cole (1984) acknowledged the presence of international psychology in the American curriculum, but nevertheless lamented that “cross‐cultural work is ghettoized” (p. 1000), leaving students with little knowledge of the psychological characteristics of other cultures. Lonner and Murdock (2012), in a study of 40 introductory textbooks over a 20‐year period, found a significant increase in the coverage of culture.

Today, many student readers may know that people around the world recognize basic emotional expressions, and that cultural display rules regulate these expressions; that there is a complex interplay among genetics, culture, and intelligence; that North American methods of IQ assessment are culturally limited; or that cultural experience with two‐dimensional depictions of three‐dimensional objects influences recognition and interpretation of photographs or drawings. Students may also know that one person's schizophrenia may be another's vision, or that cultural sensitivity is essential to successful therapy. We are beginning to see recognition of the integral role that culture plays in the ways that psychological principles play out across cultures, and the importance of broadening the cultural scope of our teaching (Gross, Abrams, & Enns, 2016; Keith, 2018; Rich, Gielen, & Takooshian, 2017). But, as always in the evolution of our knowledge and our science, there is plenty of room for improvement, and the field remains haunted by the findings and views of such writers as Arnett (2008) and Sue (1999) about its cultural limitations.

Cross‐Cultural Psychology: What It Is and Where It Has Come From

The field of cross‐cultural psychology finds itself today in somewhat the same position as the discipline of psychology soon after the turn of the twentieth century, when Hermann Ebbinghaus (1908/1973) observed that “psychology has a long past, yet its real history is short” (p. 3). Just as there was widespread interest in the subjects we now call psychology long before the field was given a name, so it was that many writers were interested in culture and cultural relationships long before the modern concern with the connection between culture and psychology.

Some reports are ancient; thus, as early as five centuries BCE, Hecataeus of Miletus proposed the division of the world into Asia and Europe and observed that “the traditions of the Greeks seem to me many and ridiculous” (Durant, 1939, p. 140). Herodotus, at about the same time, looked down upon those who did not speak Greek or live in Greek city‐states (Klineberg, 1980). Other reports, often taken as the beginning point for cross‐cultural psychology, date from the early twentieth century. W. H. R. Rivers (1905), for example, conducted research comparing visual perception across cultures, and W. G. Sumner (1906), in his study of various cultures, coined the term ethnocentrism to denote the tendency of people to elevate their own cultures and to denigrate the cultures of others. At about the same time, Wilhelm Wundt (1916) was engaged in developing his multi‐volume folk or cultural psychology (Völkerpsychologie). Subsequently, although a variety of anecdotal reports appeared, several decades passed before an explosion of cross‐cultural work appeared early in the second half of the twentieth century (Lonner, 1974, 2013). And cross‐cultural psychologists have had major influence in recent decades (Matsumoto & Juang, 2013) as cross‐cultural research has proliferated. For example, a recent PsychINFO© search using “cross‐cultural psychology” as the subject returned 6,363 titles published from 1915 to 2018; a similar search for “cultural psychology” produced 11,495 titles. These numbers represent increases of 250–500% over those produced by similar searches for the earlier edition of this book in 2011. The development of the field has not, however, always progressed smoothly and without the emergence of divergent points of view. Chief among these have been the perspectives known as cross‐cultural psychology, cultural psychology, and indigenous psychology.

Cross‐Cultural Psychology

Kağitçibaşi and Berry (1989) defined cross‐cultural psychology as the “study of similarities and differences in individual psychological and social functioning in various cultures and ethnic groups” (p. 494). Cross‐cultural psychologists originally set out to seek universal principles that would apply across cultures (Sinha, 2002). Thus, cross‐cultural psychology traditionally involved testing Western theories in other cultures (Laungani, 2002; Yang, 2000), with the notion that culture was independent of the individual and separable from psychological activities and principles (Greenfield, 2000). Cross‐cultural psychologists often collect data across multiple cultures, comparing and contrasting effects in an attempt to produce knowledge about phenomena that are universal and those that are culture‐specific (Triandis, 2000), and attempting to determine how different cultures influence behavior (Brislin, 2000).

Cross‐cultural psychologists have conducted much of their research using the research designs and methods of mainstream Western psychology. Although this may allow for the possibility of identification of psychological universals, the cross‐cultural approach has received criticism on several fronts. For example, the use of culture as an independent variable, and the associated failure to identify specific aspects of culture that may influence dependent measures, has long been a problem (Lonner, 1974), resulting in flawed conclusions about the causal role of cultural attributes (Ratner & Hui, 2003). In fact, some writers have argued that cross‐cultural psychology, rather than being a subfield of psychology, should actually be seen as a special method of inquiry (Lonner, 2018).

Further, studies have sometimes employed research materials (e.g., tests, apparatus, stimulus arrays) that are unfamiliar or ecologically invalid for people in some cultures (Ratner & Hui, 2003), with the result that conclusions or comparisons may be meaningless. For instance, if we make assumptions about the individualistic or collectivistic (IC) nature of cultures, and then attribute other observed differences between the cultures to our assumptions about the IC dimension, we may go wrong in at least two possible ways: First, the assumptions of individualism and collectivism (if not measured in individual research participants) may be erroneous; and, second, reliance on differences in this single cultural dimension as an explanation for differences in outcome measures may mask other, more precise explanatory possibilities. Malpass (1977) summarized the fundamental problem of cultural comparisons in this way:

No matter what attribute of culture the investigator prefers to focus upon or to interpret as the causative variable, any other variable correlated with the alleged causative variable could potentially serve in an alternative explanation of a mean difference between two or more local populations.

(p. 1071)

Clearly, exploring underlying psychological mechanisms in cross‐cultural research will be essential to understanding the role of multiple variables (Matsumoto & Yoo, 2006).

Despite the methodological concerns associated with cross‐cultural research, cross‐cultural psychological scientists have learned a great deal about psychological phenomena around the world, including many aspects of behavior that are universal (or not). One of the most significant considerations for researchers conducting cross‐cultural studies is recognition of the importance of knowledge of the relevant cultures (Heine, 2012; Niblo & Jackson, 2004).

Cultural Psychology

Researchers identified as cultural psychologists are less likely than cross‐cultural psychologists to be interested in traditional experimental or quasi‐experimental approaches, and more likely to see culture as internal to the person (Triandis, 2000). Cultural psychology uses methods and studies problems arising from the everyday activities of particular cultures, with less emphasis on cross‐cultural comparison (Greenfield, 2000), recognizing that psychological functions (cognition, emotion, behavior) are regulated by socially constructed meanings (Valsiner, 2013). Therefore, the methods of cultural psychologists are often ethnographic in nature—meaning they involve extensive observation and rich description of a culture (Heine, 2012). The focus is on finding relations between a culture and the psychological characteristics of people living in the culture, with the corresponding view that psychological processes derive from the interplay between the person and his or her culture (Shiraev & Levy, 2010).

Cultural psychologists tend to study cultures quite different from their own, are interested in natural (non‐contrived) settings and situations, and focus on context (i.e., they are less likely to be interested in psychological principles independent of the context in which they arise) (Triandis, 2000). According to Ratner (2006), in a discussion of cultural psychology, aspects of culture provide the foundations and predictors of psychological processes more effectively than do personal factors. Thus, some writers (e.g., Yang, 2000) have characterized cultural psychology as a hybrid of psychology and anthropology that prefers to define psychology in terms of context‐bound concepts. Cultural psychology sees culture as essential to understanding all psychological processes, and is interested in principles derived from culture, rather than imposed upon it (Segall, Lonner, & Berry, 1998).

Indigenous Psychologies

Arising as a reaction to so‐called mainstream psychology, indigenous psychology represents the efforts of researchers in many (mainly non‐Western) cultures to develop a “science that more closely reflects their own social and cultural premises” (Allwood & Berry, 2006, p. 244). Indigenous psychologies are ways of thinking psychologically that grow out of individual cultures, developing scientific perspectives consistent with the cultural realities of the particular settings (Berry et al., 2002). One consequence of the development of indigenous psychologies has been a movement from investigation of psychological universals to study of culture as a psychological system (Sinha, 2002), with a bottom‐up approach that builds theoretical views based on local phenomena (Hwang, 2013).

The focus of indigenous psychologies, unlike the comparative focus of cross‐cultural psychology and the anthropological tendencies of cultural psychology, revolves around psychological understandings built upon their own unique cultural resources (Allwood & Berry, 2006). As a result, numerous indigenous psychologies have evolved in individual countries (Allwood, 2018). Further, indigenous psychologists are interested in studying the particular problems and challenges (e.g., economy, poverty, religion) of their particular cultures. This emphasis on the primary role of culture leads to a specificity that results in a focus on cultural differences and unique aspects of societies, rather than cross‐cultural similarities or universal principles (Poortinga, 2005). However, the question remains whether indigenous psychologies will contribute to a broader understanding of global psychology.

Is There a Common Ground?

Although the perspective known as cross‐cultural psychology has received criticism for placing more emphasis on scientific methodology than on understanding of culture (Laungani, 2002), cross‐cultural psychologists have, in recent years, become more sensitive to the need to examine both universal and culture‐specific phenomena (e.g., Triandis, 1999). And all of the approaches noted above—cross‐cultural, cultural, and indigenous psychologies—have made significant contributions to the so‐called cultural revolution in psychology (Ng & Liu, 2000; Yang, 2000).

Despite the limitations various writers have noted in so‐called mainstream scientific psychology, it seems unlikely that cultural approaches will unseat the powerful scientific findings of traditional psychology (Ng & Liu, 2000). However, it is also true that the past several decades have seen a dramatic increase in the development of psychological research and theory placing culture in a central position (Lonner, 2013; Segall et al., 1998). Researchers investigating the relation between culture and psychology have shown the role of culture as a significant influence in many traditional fields of psychological study (e.g., perception, cognition, social behavior, development, education), leading to the conclusion that “Nothing transpires in a cultural vacuum” (Lehman, Chiu, & Schaller, 2004, p. 704).

In an effort to articulate the importance of cross‐cultural research, Kim (2007) proposed four perspectives that might be found among researchers:

the “pre‐encounter research” culture: “I'm not interested”

the “initial encounter” research culture: “Culture is a nuisance”

the “Captain Cook” research culture: “Let's explore and compare”

the “paradigm shift” research culture: “Beyond ethnocentric paradigms” (p. 280).

Kim's point is that researchers must recognize their own worldviews and the influence of worldview on their work—and that reaching the highest level in his hierarchy requires intercultural sensitivity and a willingness to reconsider one's worldview. Such a true paradigm shift would seem to suggest the integration of traditional scientific psychology with a broadened understanding of and sensitivity to, the importance of cultural context.

In a somewhat similar, but more specific, vein, Matsumoto and Yoo (2006) posited the need for an ongoing evolution in cross‐cultural research. The field has moved, they suggested, through cross‐cultural comparisons, identification of meaningful cultural dimensions, and cultural studies exploring the role of psychological constructs and variables in differing cultural contexts. Now, Matsumoto and Yoo argued, the field must evolve to develop research empirically investigating specific psychological variables or characteristics and their role in producing cultural differences. This approach would move the field from the tendency to assume global‐level cultural characteristics (often stereotypically) to measurement of specific influences at the level of individual research participants. One example would be the design of “unpackaging” studies—the identification and incorporation of context variables (e.g., opinions, norms, values, attitudes) to replace broader cultural notions in explanation of cultural phenomena and differences (Matsumoto & Yoo, 2006). Such approaches will also require continuing enhancement of understanding of the role of such measurement issues as a variety of kinds of bias in cross‐cultural research (Vauclair, Boer, & Hanke, 2018).

It seems clear that in the future, cross‐cultural studies will continue to move toward a better understanding of psychological processes involved in cultural differences and of the basis of psychological processes (e.g., behavior) in culture (Lehman et al., 2004). In the chapters that follow, we will review a wide variety of theory and research, representing cross‐cultural, cultural, and indigenous approaches. Our effort will be not to make distinctions among these perspectives, but to achieve a broad current understanding of key aspects of the field, with the view that multiple approaches are useful in the effort to explain the “unsettled marriage” that characterizes the relation between academic psychology and culture as a shared human phenomenon (Lonner, Keith, & Matsumoto, 2019). We will thus use the term cross‐cultural psychology inclusively, to denote the full range of interest in the relation between culture and psychology.

Some Basic Principles